30 th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC)

Transcription

1 1 30 th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC)

2 Next Generation Air Transportation System 2

3 Equivalent Visual Systems Enhanced Vision Visual Synthetic Vision 3

4 Flight Deck Interval Management Four Broad Categories: Traffic situation/situational awareness Increased pilot awareness of surrounding traffic, including surface Airborne Spacing Flight crews achieve and maintain a given spacing with designated aircraft. Separation provision is still the controller s responsibility and applicable separation minima are unchanged. Airborne separation Controller can delegate separation relative to designated aircraft to the flight crew through a new clearance Airborne self-separation Controller can delegate separation relative to all known aircraft in accordance with applicable airborne separation minima 4

5 Flight Deck Interval Management Count Spacing Credeur, 1977 Flight Deck Interval Management Benefits 5

6 Experimental Objectives Little research on delegated separation and methods Although pilot acceptance of the operational concept has been documented (e.g., Mundra et al., 2009) Research to date focused on flight deck interval management (FIM) spacing or enhanced visual approaches e.g., Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI)-assisted visual separation Potential concern: ADS-B-IN is FIM-enabling technology AND ADS-B relied upon for separation assurance for delegated separation applications Experiment: Evaluated flight deck aspects of integrating on-board flight deck interval management system with Synthetic and Enhanced Vision to support NextGen equivalent visual operations 6

7 Experimental Method Twelve commercial flight crews with both HUD and Enhanced Vision experience Independent variable: FIM-Spacing (FIM-S) Vs. FIM-Delegated Separation (FIM-DS) Chicago O Hare (FAA airport identifier: KORD) airport Fixed-based full mission simulator Visibility was 700 ft. runway visual range (RVR) NASA Langley Large Transport Aircraft Simulator 7

8 Experimental Method (cont.) ADS-B: Followed DO-289: NACp = 9; NACv = 2; latency = 0.6 sec Head-Up Display (HUD): 26 o H by 21 o V Field-of-View Advanced flight deck displays and electronic flight bags used (described later) 100 ft Above Ground Level Physics-based Infrared EV Model Twelve nominal trials per flight crew Last trial was unexpected, off-nominal trial 100 ft Above Ground Level 8

9 Flight Deck Displays Captain s PF Primary Flight Display Left Display F/O Primary Flight Display PNF Left Display Captain s Display PFNavigation Right Display Head-Up Display F/O Navigation PNF RightDisplay Display Repeater Display 9

10 Flight Deck Displays (cont.) Primary Flight Display Surface Airport Map Moving Display Map Head-Up Display Surface Operations Displays 10

11 Flight Deck Interval Management System Nominal spacing time = calculated Time-To-Go (TTG) + assigned spacing + any offsets (to account for different landing speeds) Gains to the spacing error and a spacing error notch filter are applied differentially dependent upon distance from runway Computed speeds are limited to be within 10% of the published speed and are also limited by other operational limitations Real-time forecast (e.g., winds) updating was also available using inertial and air reference data obtained via ADS-B and a weighted value is used to modify the vertical wind profile at each trajectory point Ends at final approach fix Goal is system wide stability 11

12 Nominal Trials (FIM-S) 150-sec spacing interval with NCT 5.0 nmi Spacing from top-of-descent from arrival (STAR) Spacing only for paired aircraft ATC responsible for separation Spacing ends at final approach fix Flight crews use EFVS to conduct approach from FAF to landing based on enhanced (l,m) 12

13 Nominal Trials (FIM-DS) 90 sec spacing interval with NCT 3.0 nmi Spacing from top-of-descent from arrival (STAR) Target aircraft paired for spacing only until equivalent visual contact When a/c visible in FLIR and confirmed on CDTI, pilots report equivalent visual contact Responsible for both spacing and separation with paired aircraft 13

14 Nominal Trial Results Quantitative Results No significant differences in landing performance No significant differences in inter-arrival statistics FIM- FIM- 85% arrived within 1 SD and 100% within 3 SD of mean Past research: 2.5 sec. and 95% within 7.5 sec. Qualitative Results Pilots reported less mental workload for FIM-DS Higher ratings of situation awareness for FIM-DS No other significant differences were found 14

15 Off-Nominal Trial Last trial (#13) for each flight crew Resembled nominal trials Loss of spacing with lead aircraft Both interval management conditions tested EICAS advisories, cautions, and alerts FMS CDU (ASTAR) indications TCAS alerting

16 Off-Nominal Trial Results Quantitative Results No significant differences for conflict detection FIM-S = 3.85 nmi FIM-DS = 3.10 nmi 33% of FIM-S flight crews went inside the NCT restriction of 4.0 nmi No case was separation loss a significant concern and TCAS alerts were not issued Qualitative Results FIM-S: 1.05 nmi closer FIM-DS: 0.2 nmi closer Pilots reported better mental workload for FIM-DS Pilots reported higher situation awareness for FIM-DS Pilots reported higher awareness of other traffic for FIM-DS No significant differences found for safety or pilot acceptability 16

17 Conclusions Results confirmed past research for FIM-S Delegated separation (FIM-DS) does not increase workload and may increase situation awareness Equivalent visual operation demonstrated Integration of interval management and equivalent visual systems Demonstration of equivalent visual contact and delegated separation Toward better-than-visual concept of operation Quantitative and qualitative ratings for FIM-DS concept ranged from good to excellent More research needed 17

18 Future Directions Research limitations and generalizability Need for further research Mixed-equipage traffic Failed/inoperative equipment Enhanced vision systems ATC/ground impacts Other types of operations Alternative displays Arthur, J.J., Prinzel, L.J., et al. (2011). Enhanced/Synthetic Vision and Head-Worn Display Technologies for Terminal Maneuvering Area NextGen Operations. Proceedings of the International Society of Optics and Photonics. 18

19 Thank You! Any Questions? 19

20 Back-Up Slides 20

21 Equivalent Visual Systems Synthetic Vision Enhanced Vision FUSION 21

22 Equivalent Visual Systems 22

23 Flight Deck Interval Management - Spacing 23

24 Flight Deck Interval Management Delegated Separation 24

25 Performance-Based Navigation Decision Support and Rehearsal Precision Navigation 25

26 Surface Flight Deck Displays Approach Displays Head-Up Displays Surface Map Displays Head-Worn Displays 26

27 Conflict Detection and Alerting 27

28 Data Communications Controller Pilot Data-Link (KBOS) Digital Aeronautical Information System Wide Information Management Controller Pilot Data-Link (KORD) 28

29 Better-Than-Visual Concept Three synergistic components: Equivalent Visual Operations Capability Flight deck technologies to enable an equivalent visual operations capability whereby Visual Flight Rules like procedures may be used in any visibility condition Enhanced Visual Capability Applying technologies that can provide an additional level of safety, above and beyond that of present-day VFR operations NextGen Operations Capability Technologies and capabilities are identified to support new and emerging NextGen operating concepts, such as trajectory-based operations and delegated separation 29