Approved for Public Release: 12-3347. Distribution Unlimited.

INTEGRATING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT INTO NEXTGEN AUTOMATION

SYSTEMS
Nathan M. Paczan, Jeremy Cooper, Eric Zakrzewski
The MITRE Corporation, Mclean, VA

warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied,

Abstract concerning the content or accuracy of these views.
The routine integration of unmanned aircraft
into non-segregated civil airspace is important to
Introduction
enable a number of current and proposed applications Over the past decade, UAS have become an
ranging from military and homeland security to a integral part of U.S. military and government
wide variety of research and eventually commercial operations [1] spanning the Departments of Defense
purposes. The Federal Aviation Administration (DoD), Homeland Security (DHS), Interior (DoI),
(FAA) is currently undertaking a comprehensive and other agencies. UAS expenditures are expected
overhaul of the National Airspace System (NAS) to double over the next decade, largely driven by the
known as Next Generation Air Transportation U.S. military [3]. The U.S. Army anticipates that
System (NextGen). NextGen will include increased “with the proliferation of UAS and the eventual troop
automation systems for both terminal and en-route redeployment to home stations within CONUS, the
Air Traffic Control (ATC). Improvements in two- demand for DoD training will quickly exceed the
way data communication links between aircraft and allotted volume for military aviation operations
ATC will facilitate the use of such automation today” [4]. Additionally, UAS are increasingly being
systems. The robust integration of unmanned aircraft employed for non-military applications [4]. The
systems (UAS) into NextGen automation systems is Department of Homeland Security – Customs and
an integral component to meeting the far-term Border Protection (DHS-CBP) operates a small fleet
(2018+) NextGen vision. By determining how UAS of MQ-9 Predator-B UAS that have been deployed
flight operations and protocols may be different than around the country. In 2011, DHS-CBP used these
those of traditional manned aircraft, informed aircraft to help seize more than 7,600 pounds of
decisions can be made concerning the data and illegal narcotics [15]. UAS have also been used to
interfaces required to accommodate routine UAS support scientific studies relating to flooding impacts
operations by NextGen automation systems, on erosion and crop damage, and in support of forest
ultimately leading to safer and more efficient firefighting operations (e.g. the Monument Fire in
integration of UAS into non-segregated civil Arizona) [15]. All these public-use UAS
airspace. This paper describes many of the applications currently operate under Certificates of
challenges associated with such accommodation as Waiver or Authorization (COA). There is also
well as proposed solutions to address these increasing demand for commercial use of UAS for a
challenges based upon construction of prototype variety of applications. Commercial UAS operations
interfaces using established UAS communication currently are not permitted in the NAS.
standards and envisioned ATC automation interfaces. The Next Generation Air Transportation System
Enhanced data formats, communication protocols and is a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. national
algorithms are also researched and discussed. airspace system; the primary goals of NextGen are to
“enhance the safety and reliability of air
Disclaimer transportation, to improve efficiency in the NAS and
The contents of this document reflect the to reduce aviation's impact on the environment.” [2]
views of the author and The MITRE Corporation and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA or the Background
DOT. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration NextGen capabilities that could require special
nor the Department of Transportation makes any attention for integration of routine UAS operations

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

include Data Communications and enhanced complexity [7][8][9]. Controller workload increases
Automation Systems. Existing standards found in almost linearly as the ratio of UAS to manned aircraft
NATO STANAG 4586 may be useful for increases [6]. As a result, it is important for UAS to
consideration in NextGen systems. be integrated into NextGen automation systems to
meet potential capacity demands in the mid to far-
Data Communications term.
The mid and far-term NextGen vision includes
enhancements in two-way data communication links NATO STANAG 4586
between aircraft and ATC systems. Data NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG)
communications “will provide routine and strategic 4586 “defines the architectures, interfaces,
information to flight crew and automate some routine communication protocols, data elements, message
tasks for both pilots and controllers” [2]. Such formats and identifies related STANAGs that
enhancements will impact every phase of flight compliance with is required to operate and manage
including both terminal and en-route procedures. multiple legacy and future UAVs [Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles] in a complex NATO Combined/Joint
Benefits include
Services Operational Environment” [5]. UAV is
 Greater capability for pilots via flight deck another term sometimes used for UAS. In this paper,
displays we will use the term UAS. The standard consists of
numerous messages representing the two-way data
 The use of sophisticated automation tools
exchange between the vehicle and the control
 Improved coordination between pilots and air segment. These messages and their corresponding
traffic controllers data elements cover a broad range of functions
including vehicle and payload C2, route
 Reduced reliance on voice communications configuration (including contingencies), data link
Because UAS pilots are not physically onboard status, emergency states, and others. This research
the aircraft, additional capabilities (such as a ground- uses STANAG 4586 (ed. 3, 2012) as a reference for
based link) may be leveraged to achieve the same the types of data fields likely to be stored in a GCS
data link benefits. It is possible that the aircraft could and/or onboard a UAS that could potentially be
serve as a communications relay point between ATC shared with an external ATC system.
and flight crew; such a link, however, would likely be
susceptible to the same link failures that occur on the Integration Challenges
vehicle Command and Control (C2) link and may not
provide a robust data communications pathway Flight Planning
between the flight crew and controllers in the event Flight planning is an integral component of air
of a failure or other emergency situation. Current traffic operations that enables controllers to
UAS operations are heavily reliant on voice efficiently manage complex airspaces. ATC systems
communication with ATC; voice communication that handle route information (e.g. Traffic Flow
may not scale to the possible demand for UAS in the Management System (TFMS)) require routes to be
NAS nor is it an ideal protocol, due to the complexity specified in either the NAS Flight Plan (FP) or ICAO
and volume of UAS data (e.g. long endurance flight (FPL) format. Certain capabilities require the
plans). submission of the newer FPL route type. For
Automation Systems example, ERAM requires an FPL for the assignment
of RNAV arrival or departure routes. The DOD
NextGen will expand the use of automation tools commonly submits flight plans using 2 forms: DD-
(e.g. En-Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)) 1801 1 (DOD International Flight Plan) or DD-175 2
to streamline routine operations of both controllers (Military Flight Plan). While both of these flight plan
and flight crew. According to a MITRE study,
controller workload is likely to remain the single
greatest functional limitation on the capacity of the 1
DD-1801 is the same as the ICAO FPL form.
ATM system; workload is largely driven by airspace 2
DD-175 is the same as the batch NAS FP form.

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

formats accommodate UAS differently, neither them out. TFMS models routes as if flying the initial
adequately handles all UAS route types. cruising speed and altitude for the entire length of the
route, until the start of descent [11]. STANAG 4586
ICAO FPL 2012
allows a pilot to specify a unique speed/altitude for
The ICAO 2012 standard is a step towards every waypoint.
compatibility with STANAG 4586-like routes, but
falls short in several key areas. With STANAG
4586, routes essentially consist of waypoints, which
may or may not exactly match existing known fixes
(and their constraints), loops, and various loiter
patterns. The ICAO 2012 standard can support (a
possibly limited number of) the STANAG 4586
waypoints, but can only partially support the loops in
the route and specified loiter patterns.
The primary method to transmit routes to the
aircraft with STANAG 4586 is with the “AV Route”
message (13001), and a series of “AV Position
Waypoint” messages (13002) or “AV Loiter
Waypoint” messages (13003). A route may contain
up to 65,535 waypoints; and some of those waypoints
can be part of a loop or be the significant point of a
loiter pattern. The loops can be limited by time, fuel,
or number of laps. A loiter waypoint may exist that
specifies a certain pattern to follow: a circle,
racetrack, figure 8, figure 8 with a bearing, racetrack
with a bearing, etc. Additionally with STANAG
4586, contingency routes may be specified.
Contingency routes are not explicitly part of the
ICAO message set.
The ICAO route specification makes it easy
to specify waypoints. The user creating the flight
plan for ICAO 2012 may specify latitude and
longitude pairs with altitude and airspeed constraints
directly in the route definition. ICAO uses the
Figure 1. Example loiter configurations in STANAG 4586
concept of a “significant point,” defined as “a
specified geographical location used in defining an
ATS route or the flight path of an aircraft and for Using the new ICAO FPL also provides the
other navigation and ATS purposes” [10]. The user some capability to specify a loiter procedure on
significant point may be an arbitrary the route. One of the new additions to the ICAO
latitude/longitude pair, not necessarily a known fix, flight plan format is the ability to specify a delay
and if a change of speed or flight level is planned, it point on a route using the “DLE” (Figure 2) flag.
may be specified at that point in the route definition. Previously, this was done in the Integrated Initial
For instance, a point at 46°2’N 78°5’W changing to Flight Plan Processing System (IFPS) Zone (IFPZ)
500knots and 35000ft, would be represented as with the “STAY” indicator (Figure 3), which allows
“4602N07805W/N0500F350”. This is something the user creating the flight plan to specify a period of
that is currently not possible with current NAS flight special activity with an entry and exit point, and
plans unless using a pre-stored SID/STAR or other duration in the area. STAY may be used a maximum
procedure where those constraints are part of the of nine times in any given route. With DLE, the user
procedure. TFMS accepts the FPL route string with may specify any number of locations on the route
altitude and speed changes in the route text, but strips

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

where a delay will be applied (limited by the number POINT_ROUTE_ITEM’s are possible in the
of points specified on the route). In addition, DLE FIELD_TYPE_15C_ICAO field in the
can handle only a time-based duration; it cannot ICAO_FPL_MESSAGE, so there should
specify some number of loops, or until fuel reaches theoretically be no limit to the size of the route
some point, etc., all of which are possible with depending on the implementation; at least in the IFPZ
STANAG 4586. DLE and STAY also do not allow [12]. One of the additions to the ICAO 4444 format,
the user to specify a pattern to fly or give an airspace shown in Appendix 2 of the amendment 1 document,
boundary to be used, just the point (or 2 points for is the following additional requirement:
STAY). DLE is being added to the official ICAO
Note 2. Air traffic services data systems
2012 spec, while STAY is a custom addition in the
may impose communications or processing
IFPZ area only. The most likely use of DLE, and
constraints on information in filed flight
possibly STAY, is to indicate a standard ATC hold
plans. Possible constraints may, for
(racetrack) pattern, and not to fly any custom loiter
example, be limits with regard to item
routes as specified by STANAG 4586.
length, number of elements in the route
item or total flight plan length. Significant
constraints are documented in the relevant
Aeronautical Information Publication [17].
With that additional requirement, each AIP must
specify those constraints explicitly, and they may
vary by country or location. Depending on how the
flight plan is filed, and what online services are used
(if any), there may be other limitations that may not
be expected. For instance, GA pilots can file online
Figure 2. DLE specification in IFPS message set [12].
using www.homebriefing.com, www.eurofpl.eu, etc.,
which may each have different limitations.

Figure 3. STAY specification in IFPS message set [12].

Another possible issue with ICAO is the

maximum length of the route transmitted. The route
length is often specified by the size of the paper
forms to be filled out (X lines, with Y characters max
per line). The form is shown in Figure 4 below. For
instance, the ICAO 4444 document specifies in the
transmission instructions for the FPL (flight plan)
message a requirement to not include “more than 69
characters in any line of Items 15 or 18”.[10] In the Figure 4. ICAO FPL Paper Form
“IFPS and RPL Dictionary of Messages; ICAO 2012
Special edition”, an unlimited number of

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

 When transiting out of the NAS into and waypoint loops may not be practically applicable
international airspace, the ICAO fields are stored and in ICAO routes. Although with ICAO, you may use
transmitted along with other NAS fields, and there the DLE and/or STAY (STAY only if in the IFPZ) to
are additional limitations currently in place for those specify where a loiter pattern or special activity may
messages. For instance, the NAS will return an error take place (as long as the duration of the activity is
of: “RTE TOO MANY ELEMENTS” if “an FPL known), DLE or STAY specifies only the point to
message contains more than the maximum number of loiter about, but nothing about the loiter radius or
elements (46); or after Field 10 is constructed, Field area/shape of the flight path. This lack of ability to
10 contains more than 48 elements.” It goes on to define specific flight paths is a key limitation that
say that “A future ERAM enhancement will expand must be addressed for more detailed UAS routes.
the route capacity to 1000 characters”.[16] Other
Contingency Routes
rules exist for using ICAO for aircraft that operate at
least partially in the NAS. Contingency routes, one of the key differences
in flight/mission planning between manned and
Looping, or reusing the same point on the unmanned aircraft, are flight plans to be flown in the
route more than once, may also be a possible issue event that an emergency, failure, or other off-nominal
with ICAO (or at least some implementations). In set of conditions are met. Contingency routes are
the IFPS, specifying the same point twice in field 15 typically pre-programmed into an aircraft’s flight
is not allowed, and the point must be renamed or an management computer. Example conditions include
error code will be returned when attempting to file. loss of C2 communication link, loss of critical
There is a rename capability in IFPS to enable the avionics, engine out, and missed approach. A
same point to be used in the route more than once; particular contingency route may be assigned to a
however, the “renid”, or id of the renamed point has a specific waypoint, route, mission or area; a
2 digit limitation, so there can be no more than 100 contingency route may additionally be assigned
instances of any reused points in an ICAO route with based on a specific type of emergency or failure. For
IFPS. If the user attempts to create loops in the route, example, contingency route alpha may be activated if
it is uncertain how different implementations of the and only if there is a loss of critical avionics and the
ICAO flight plan processing systems will handle it, most recent waypoint crossed was 4602N07805W.
and whether other automation systems similar to As a result, a given UAS flight may have dozens or
conflict probe would be capable of processing those hundreds of contingency routes assigned to it.
routes. Contingency routes are defined in STANAG 4586
When not using loops, each unique using the Define Contingency (13007) message. This
STANAG 4586 waypoint may be translated to an raises several challenges for ATC systems, as there
ICAO route that specifies an absolute latitude, are currently no existing or planned mechanisms for
longitude, altitude and speed, however. Any relative storing and/or processing contingency routes.
waypoint locations in STANAG 4586 will need to be For controller situational awareness and to make
converted to absolute lat/lon positions when use of certain automation (e.g. conflict probe), a
translating to the ICAO flight plan format, and any storage mechanism must be in place for (at least a
speed or altitude fields may need to be translated into subset of) a UAS’s contingency routes. Each of these
the format expected by ICAO, as well. Additionally, routes would have the same data requirements as the
certain systems will reject a flight plan with a primary route (FP or FPL). Additionally, each
duration of greater than 24 hours; a rejection message contingency route would have to carry with it all of
“FLYING TIME GR 24 HRS” is returned [13]. This the specific activation conditions and other necessary
would be a significant limiting factor for medium- meta-data. If a contingency were based on an Area,
altitude long endurance (MALE) and high-altitude the ATC system would have to understand that Area
long endurance (HALE) aircraft. definition (see Figure 5).
The ICAO route format has advantages over
the NAS route specification, since it allows
specifying altitude and speed changes in line with the
rest of the route definition. However, loiter patterns

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

 have the information required to determine which
contingency route will become active under certain
conditions. Emergency, failure, or other vehicle
specific conditions for contingency activation would
also have to be stored with each route. Certain
contingency routes may be configured with both a
Delay Time – the time between when contingency
conditions are met, and the contingency procedure is
activated, and a Required Manual Restore Time –
“Time prior to AV executing loss link maneuver
where restoration of the link will not result in
automatic recovery of Core UAV Control System
(CUCS) control” [5].
Figure 5. Area Polygon Definition in STANAG 4586
Data Comm Integration
Due to the volume, length and complexity of
Area polygons are defined in STANAG 4586 using UAS flight plans and contingency routes, the desire
the Area Transmission Command (2011) and Area for dynamic operations (e.g. en-route flight
Polygon Loop Segment (2012) messages. A polygon amendment; adverse weather conditions) and to
Area is defined as a set of vertices, accompanied by facilitate coordination between controllers and UAS
min/max altitudes and temporal information pilots, a two-way data communications link between
(start/end time). Each Area may contain up to 255 ATC and UAS control stations will be necessary in
“segments”; each segment may contain between 3 the far-term (2018+). Such a link could be ground
and 50 vertices. Each vertex requires an 8-byte based leading to increase resiliency and robustness.
latitude/longitude pair.
In the event of a failure, emergency, or set of
Area ID Unsigned 1 1≤x other off-nominal conditions, the flight crew would
communicate via data-communications information
Polygon ID Unsigned 1 1<x relating to the incident. ATC automation would then
update the controller scope with the necessary
Polygon Start Time Unsigned 5 information. Via the same communication channel,
ATC would be updated with the most up-to-date
Polygon End Time Unsigned 5
contingency procedures. ATC would need to be
updated with the time of failure, type of failure
Number of Segments Unsigned 1 1<x
in this polygon (Loop) (failure conditions met) and any applicable
contingency route changes. For dynamic operations,
Loop segment number Unsigned 1 1<x data such as a pilot request for an en-route flight
amendment, or updated meteorological data would be
Number of Vertices in Unsigned 1 3 < x ≤ 50 exchanged via data comm. This will enable the
this Segment (n) transmission of long and/or complex UAS route
information and the use of ATC automation (e.g.
Latitude #<n> Integer 4 -π/2 ≤ x ≤ π/2 conflict probe). Figure 7 shows an example
controller display being updated after receiving a
Longitude #<n> Integer 4 No Restrictions
pilot request via data comm for an amended flight
plan. The proposed route information is displayed in
Figure 6. Area Polygon Data Requirements
an “Alert List”, which is not currently part of the
Similarly if a waypoint, route, or mission specifies standard ATC scope.
the contingency route, relevant ATC automation must

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

 Figure 7. Pilot Request for Flight Plan Amendment on Controller Scope

Once received, the proposed route data would be

processed by relevant automation. This will enable
controllers to accept, reject, or further amend the
proposed route update directly from their scope
using data comm. Figure 9 and 10 show a notional
controller scope displaying a propose UAS route
amendment received via data comm. In Figure 9,
the route has passed through conflict probe
automation and is displayed in green, indicating that
no conflicts were detected. In Figure 10,
automation detected a conflict, causing the
proposed route to appear in red. Figure 11 shows
the controller scope providing the option to send
data via data comm to a UAS in the controller’s
sector. Figure 10. Proposed Route Amendment Rejected by Conflict
Probe Automation

Figure 8. LOST Indicator on Controller Scope After Receiving

Lost Link Activation via Data Comm from GCS
Figure 11. Controller Using DATACOM Option to Accept,
Reject or Amend Pilot Request

For initial flight planning and submission of

primary and contingency routes, it is impractical for
a flight crew to submit individual FP/FPL forms for
every contingency route. In addition, the FP/FPL
form in its current state is not sufficient to capture
the length and necessary meta-data associated with
each route. A preferred mechanism would be to
Figure 9. Proposed Route Amendment Approved by Conflict leverage data communications to transmit all route
Probe Automation and necessary related information. This would

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

allow for the submission of an arbitrary number of [4] Barclay, J. (2010), US Army UAS Roadmap
routes, each of arbitrary length and complexity. 2010-2035, US Army Aviation Center of
Excellence, Fort Rucker, AL.
As both military and non-military UAS flights
in the NAS become routine, data comm will be able [5] Chairman (2012), STANDARDIZATION
to provide UAS flight crew with much of the same AGREEMENT (STANAG) 4586: Standard
information that is provided to manned flight crews. Interfaces of UAV Control System (UCS) for
Available data includes (but is not limited to): the NATO UAV Interoperability, vol. May, N. S. A.
position of other aircraft and surface vehicles at an (NSA), Ed., 3 NATO.
airport; climb and merge instructions; bad weather;
[6] Helleberg, J., Maroney, D. (2010), UAS
homeland security interventions; route and runway
Operations in the National Airspace System:
assignments; assigned taxi path, parking space and
Human-in-the-Loop Simulation and
gate; departure clearances; and the position of other
Experimentation, The MITRE Corporation, Mclean,
aircraft in en-route airspace [2].
VA.
[7] Lishuai, L., Hansman, R.J. (2009), Experimental
Studies of Cognitively Based Air Traffic Control
Summary Complexity Metrics For Future Operational
Lack of sufficient data comm and automation Concepts, MIT International Center for Air
system integration for UAS has the potential to Transportation, Cambridge, MA.
create artificial capacity limits and inhibit their use
[8] Hilburn, B. (2004), Cognitive Complexity in Air
in certain airspaces or for certain mission types.
Traffic Control: A Literature Review, Eurocontrol
The same motivations for the development of these
Experimental Centre, Brussels, Belgium.
capabilities for manned aviation similarly apply to
UAS. Current infrastructure and procedures may [9] Majumdar, A., Polak, J. (2001), Estimating
not scale to the potential demand for UAS, nor, due Capacity of Europe's Airspace Using a Simulation
to the volume and complexity of UAS data, are they Model of Air Traffic Controller Workload,
ideal for communication and the exchange of Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
information. In order to achieve many of the stated Transportation Research Board, 1744:30-43.
far-term (2018+) NextGen objectives, a robust [10] Council (1996), Rules of the Air and Air
integration plan must be developed for UAS into Traffic Services (4444), International Civil Aviation
these automation systems. Additionally, existing
Organization.
and planned systems must be augmented to support
the unique elements of UAS data not present in [11] FAA (2011), Collaborative Trajectory Options
current architectures. Program (CTOP) Interface Control Document for
the Traffic Flow Management System, v. 2.3,
Washington, District of Columbia, p. 10.

References [12] Lindsay, C. (2011), IFPS and RPL Dictionary

of Messages; ICAO 2012 Special edition,
[1] Lynn, W. (2011), DoD UAS Airspace
Integration Plan, Washington, District of Columbia, [13] FAA (2007), National Airspace System En
v 2.0. Route Configuration Management Document –
Computer Program Functional Specifications
[2] Babbit, J. (2011), NextGen Implementation
Message Entry and Checking (NAS-MD-311),
Plan, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration,
Atlantic City, NJ, p. C-22.
Washington, District of Columbia.
[14] Murphy, R. (2005), Small, Unmanned Aircraft
[3] Zaloga, S., Rockwell, D., Finnegan, P. (2011),
Search for Survivors in Katrina Wreckage, National
World Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Market
Science Foundation (NSF),
Profile and Forecast 2011, The Teal Group, Fairfax,
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=
VA.
104453

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

[15] Press Release (2012), Predators, National
Unmanned Systems Program Office, U.S.
Geological Survey,
http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/UAS/predators.shtml
[16] FAA (2009), Rejection Error Messages,
Causes and their Resolution, Washington, District
of Columbia.
[17] ICAO (2007), Doc 4444/ATM501, Procedures
for Air Navigation Services.

Email Address
Nathan M. Paczan: [email protected]
(c) 2012 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference

October 16-20, 2012

©2012 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.