From Formal Requirements to Highly Assured Software for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

  • César MuñozEmail author
  • Anthony Narkawicz
  • Aaron Dutle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10951)


Operational requirements of safety-critical systems are often written in restricted specification logics. These restricted logics are amenable to automated analysis techniques such as model-checking, but are not rich enough to express complex requirements of unmanned systems. This short paper advocates for the use of expressive logics, such as higher-order logic, to specify the complex operational requirements and safety properties of unmanned systems. These rich logics are less amenable to automation and, hence, require the use of interactive theorem proving techniques. However, these logics support the formal verification of complex requirements such as those involving the physical environment. Moreover, these logics enable validation techniques that increase confidence in the correctness of numerically intensive software. These features result in highly-assured software that may be easier to certify. The feasibility of this approach is illustrated with examples drawn for NASA’s unmanned aircraft systems.


Unmanned Aircraft Systems Complex Performance Requirements Higher-order Logic Automated Analysis Techniques Alerting Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Consiglio, M., Chamberlain, J., Muñoz, C., Hoffler, K.: Concept of integration for UAS operations in the NAS. In: Proceedings of 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS 2012, Brisbane, Australia (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Consiglio, M., Muñoz, C., Hagen, G., Narkawicz, A., Balachandran, S.: ICAROUS: integrated configurable algorithms for reliable operations of unmanned systems. In: Proceedings of the 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC 2016), Sacramento, California, US, September 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, S.P., Brooks, D., Cole, R., Hackenberg, D., Raska, V.: Defining well clear for unmanned aircraft systems. In: Proceedings of the 2015 AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace Conference, Number AIAA-2015-0481, Kissimmee, Florida, January 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dutle, A.M., Muñoz, C.A., Narkawicz, A.J., Butler, R.W.: Software validation via model animation. In: Blanchette, J.C., Kosmatov, N. (eds.) TAP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9154, pp. 92–108. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  5. 5.
    FAA Sponsored Sense and Avoid Workshop. Sense and avoid (SAA) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), October 2009Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fifarek, A.W., et al.: SpeAR v2.0: formalized past LTL specification and analysis of requirements. In: Barrett, C., Davies, M., Kahsai, T. (eds.) NFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10227, pp. 420–426. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, July 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muñoz, C., Narkawicz, A.: Formal analysis of extended well-clear boundaries for unmanned aircraft. In: Rayadurgam, S., Tkachuk, O. (eds.) NFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9690, pp. 221–226. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muñoz, C., Narkawicz, A., Chamberlain, J.: A TCAS-II resolution advisory detection algorithm. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit 2013, Number AIAA-2013-4622, Boston, Massachusetts, August 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muñoz, C., Narkawicz, A., Chamberlain, J., Consiglio, M., Upchurch, J.: A family of well-clear boundary models for the integration of UAS in the NAS. In: Proceedings of the 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Number AIAA-2014-2412, Georgia, Atlanta, USA, June 2014Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muñoz, C., Narkawicz, A., Hagen, G., Upchurch, J., Dutle, A., Consiglio, M.: DAIDALUS: detect and avoid alerting logic for unmanned systems. In: Proceedings of the 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC 2015), Prague, Czech Republic, September 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narkawicz, A., Hagen, G.: Algorithms for collision detection between a point and a moving polygon, with applications to aircraft weather avoidance. In: 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Number AIAA-2016-3598, Washington, DC, USA, June 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Narkawicz, A., Muñoz, C., Dutle, A.: The MINERVA software development process. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Automated Formal Methods 2017 (AFM 2017), Meno Park, California, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Owre, S., Rushby, J.M., Shankar, N.: PVS: a prototype verification system. In: Kapur, D. (ed.) CADE 1992. LNCS, vol. 607, pp. 748–752. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). Scholar
  15. 15.
    RTCA SC-1228. RTCA-DO-365, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems, May 2017Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    RTCA SC-147. RTCA-DO-185B, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II), July 2009Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siu, K., Moitra, A., Durling, M., Crapo, A., Li, M., Yu, H., Herencia-Zapana, H., Castillo-Effen, M., Sen, S., McMillan, C., Russell, D., Roy, S., Manolios, P.: Flight critical software and systems development using ASSERT. In: 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Number 978-1-5386-0365-9/17, pp. 1–10, September 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© U.S. Government, as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. No copyright is claimed in the United States under Title 17, U.S. Code. All Other Rights Reserved. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NASA Langley Research CenterHamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations