Recursos productivos y actores que intervienen en el deshidratado de frutas

Test sites reported they sent four types of messages and received five types of messages as part of their negotiations, with non-emergency re-planning messages being the most frequent topic of negotiation (5 sent and 15 received). The message negotiation process varied by site, two sites had a choice of methods for sending negotiation messages while the other two sites had a fixed method to send negotiation messages. Having a pre-determined message was by far the most prevalent method but sometimes this message was sent manually and sometimes it was sent automatically.

As DAT 5 testing was concerned with USS to USS negotiation, survey questions asked about types of messages sent and users’ thoughts about negotiation (information exchange and operator), while debrief discussions covered all topics of interest but focused on automation, how information is used in UTM and the impact of negotiation on the operator (Table 11).

Table 11. DAT 5: Discussion Topics and their Notional Categorization into Information Themes

Information Category Site 2 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Information property 8

Information meets user 1 3 4 2

Operator status 7 7 6

Methods 2 1

Automation 1 14 4 2

Concept 1 1 1

4.8.1 Information Exchange

Participants were asked three survey questions about the value of USS to USS negotiations to their operations and whether they had any concerns. As shown in Figure 11, participants reported that the information they received during USS negotiations “moderately helped their understanding” of the situation (𝑥 = 3.6), they rated the negotiation as “somewhat efficient” (𝑥 = 4.1) and were “not concerned” about safety (𝑥 = 2). Participants from Test Site 2 were the most positive about

negotiations increasing both the efficiency and their understanding of their operations, although they were also the most concerned about safety.

Figure 11. Opinions of aspects of the USS-to-USS negotiation process (n = 2–24). Note: Rating scale was 1–7; y-axis is longer to show SD.

4.8.2 Information meets UTM

Trust: Debrief teams raised a key issue that USS-to-USS negotiation requires crews to trust each

other because each team has to share enough information to allow other teams to see the issue that requires the negotiation. Crews noted that if all teams are reasonable, negotiation works well, but that currently one crew can easily cut others out. Crews suggested that another variable to share with others could be the flexibility of your operation—e.g., if you can fly later or at a different altitude— knowing that may help negotiations go more smoothly.

4.8.3 Operator Experiences

Participants were asked four survey questions about their workload and SA during USS-to-USS negotiations. As shown in Figure 12, participants rated their workload, on average, as “quite low” (𝑥 = 2.8) and their awareness of both their operation and the surrounding airspace as “reasonably good” (𝑥 = 5.1 5.4). They also felt they had a “good amount of time” (𝑥 = 4.9) to take action after they had received negotiation information. Participants from Test Site 5 rated their average SA higher and their workload lower than other sites and were positive about receiving negotiation information with enough time to act. Crews also reported they had enough time to make decisions after the USS indicated there was a need to negotiate.

4.8.4 Method

The methods for USS-to-USS negotiation need polishing. Crews suggested one area in particular is to set a limit so that negotiation is not occurring at the time of launch. Participants said firstly, that it is awkward and distracting to be negotiating during the take-off sequence and procedures should be set to avoid this. Secondly, if you have planned and set up a flight for weeks or months, it will be disruptive, frustrating and disappointing to have your plan negotiated away. They suggest there should be a clear window before you launch where someone else cannot request your planned volume. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

USS information on other

operations Efficiency of operations Safety during negotiation

Me an n eg ot ia tio n prope rt ie s

Properties of the negotiation

Site 2 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Very high

Very low

Figure 12. User experiences during the USS-to-USS negotiation process (n = 19–26). Note: Rating scale was 1–7; y-axis is longer to show SD.

4.8.5 Automation

The amount of automation employed for the DAT 5 tests differed among the test sites. One on-site NASA representative noted that human intervention was not required for the operations at one test site because of the high level of automation. At another test-site, the NASA representative observed that verbal communication was necessary for coordinating DAT 5 tests, and asked, “What if pilots or GCSs weren’t close enough to each other to verbally chat. Would that change a response to a request for clearance to fly in the same airspace?” (Appendix 8).

4.8.6 Concept

In their survey comments, many agreed that USS-to-USS negotiation was an interesting and useful exercise, although more complex than they had anticipated. The issue of other USS “policing” or “blocking” space was raised a number of times. Participants noted instances where they were unable to complete their testing as they wanted because they had been blocked by others, e.g., an interesting case with one USS policing other operations in the local USS network (LUN). The crew with this USS viewed that as a capability but others who were shut out did not: “We were conducting coordinated flights. With the not-involved USS sending a rejection, we had to cancel.” All commenters recommended that this should not be possible within UTM.