Human Systems Integration Division @ NASA Ames

In Upper Class E airspace 60,000 feet (or Flight level / FL600), vehicles such as High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) balloons and slow fixed-wing gliders have diverse vehicle characteristics and limited maneuverability. Due to these unique characteristics of high-altitude operations, a new type of strategic negotiation-based conflict resolution method has been proposed to avoid potential conflict between vehicles in Upper Class E airspace, well in advance of the conflict point and with ample time for bilateral negotiation. This paper introduces the first real-time web-based negotiation tool for high-altitude operations. To facilitate negotiation, this tool incorporates a bilateral negotiation model with an algorithm to assess conflict risks and generate new flight trajectories with a given flight path deviation. This tool allows users to make decisions during negotiation manually and automatically while enforcing the needed constraints
for negotiation to be successful. Operators can make decisions at every step while they interact with each other on separate devices. To conduct sensitivity analysis, a mechanism that automates human inputs to the user interface is also developed for this web-based negotiation tool, such that fast-time simulations can be constructed and used to explore various scenarios to gain insights into this web-based negotiation model. Using this tool, a study was conducted to evaluate the impact of different negotiation strategies, vehicle types, vehicle crossing angles, and operator response times during the negotiations on metrics such as total negotiation completion time, number of negotiation rounds, and extra flight distance to avoid the conflict due to negotiation, compared to ones without negotiation. The results suggest that operators benefit from using negotiated flight paths with quick response times, across various crossing angles and vehicle types. Various Negotiation Strategies are investigated to simulate the behaviors associated with different types of negotiations. The findings demonstrate that, in comparison to the conventional method where a single operator assumes full responsibility, negotiation-based strategic deconfliction reduces the total extra flight distance by an average of 24% - 27%. On an individual basis, each operator may be able to save an average of 65% of their extra flight distance.