Feasibility and Benefits of a Cockpit Traffic Display-Based Separation Procedure for Single Runway Arrivals and Departures

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Feasibility and Benefits of a Cockpit Traffic Display-Based Separation Procedure for Single Runway Arrivals and Departures"

Madeline Cain
6 years ago
Views:

Feasibility and Benefits of a Cockpit Traffic Display-Based Separation Procedure for Single Runway Arrivals and Departures Implications of a Pilot

1 Feasibility and Benefits of a Cockpit Traffic Display-Based Separation Procedure for Single Runway Arrivals and Departures Implications of a Pilot Survey and Laboratory Simulations Dr. Anand M. Mundra David A. Domino, John R. Helleberg, Arthur P. Smith ATM2009 Conference, Napa, CA June 30, 2009

2 This is the copyright work of The MITRE Corporation and was produced for the U.S. Government under Contract Number DTFA01-01-C and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System Clause , Rights in Data-General, Alt. III and Alt. IV (Oct. 1996). No other use other than that granted to the U.S. Government, or to those acting on behalf of the U.S. Government, under that Clause is authorized without the express written permission of The MITRE Corporation. For further information, please contact The MITRE Corporation, Contract Office, 7515 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102, (703) This work was conducted under MITRE/CAASD s Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation (MOIE) program. The contents of this material reflect the views of the author and/or the Director of the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Department of Transportation (DOT). Neither the FAA nor the DOT makes any warranty or guarantee, or promise, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of the views expressed herein The MITRE Corporation. The Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this document, or to allow others to do so, for Government Purposes Only. For Release to All FAA. This document has been approved for public release. Distribution is. unlimited. Case Number:

3 Average Daily Delay Hours In U.S. NAS ( ) 1 of % 3 0% 8 1% 90 11% 11 1% 30 4% EQUIP OTHER OTHER WEATHER RUNWAY/TAXI Delays Charged To Arrival Airport VOLUME BELOW VISUAL Total = 844 hrs/day % Delays Not Charged To Arrival Airport Source: OPSNET Notes: Other delays not charged to arrival airport include delays assigned to ARTCCs and TRACONs as well as departure delays. 3

4 Average Daily Delay Hours In U.S. NAS ( ) 2 of 2 43% of all delays in the NAS are attributable to weather conditions when visual separation cannot be used BELOW (GOOD) VISUAL 4

5 Spacing Over the Threshold behind Large Aircraft at LAX VMC Vs. IMC 5

6 Spacing behind Heavies VMC Vs. IMC 6

7 A Note on Terminology The term IMC-CAVS will likely not survive Terms such as CDTI derived Separation CDS probably more accurate We are using the term CAVS in this briefing to indicate CDTI based visual-like separation 7

8 CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) Assisted Visual-like Separation (CAVS) 1 of 4 Visual judgment of range and closure rate Visual How fast? How far? Am I gaining? 8

9 CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) Assisted Visual-like Separation (CAVS) 2 of 4 Visual judgment of range and closure rate GS CDTI info is more accurate: ADS-B Visual I m getting closer.. but only at 9 kts How fast? How far? CR +09 Am I gaining? GS nm ABC 123 LRG How fast? 135 kt, exactly How far? 2.5 nm, exactly 9

m getting closer.. but only at 9 kts How fast? How far? CR +09 Am I gaining?

10 CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) Assisted Visual-like Separation (CAVS) 3 of 4 Visual judgment of range and closure rate GS CDTI info is more accurate: ADS-B Visual I m getting closer.. but only at 9 kts How fast? How far? CR +09 Am I gaining? Even when the other aircraft can t be seen GS nm ABC 123 LRG How fast? 135 kt, exactly How far? 2.5 nm, exactly 10

11 CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) Assisted Visual-like Separation (CAVS) 4 of 4 Visual judgment of range and closure rate GS CDTI info is more accurate: ADS-B Visual I m getting closer.. but only at 9 kts How fast? How far? CR +09 Am I gaining? Even when the other aircraft can t be seen GS nm ABC 123 LRG How fast? 135 kt, exactly How far? 2.5 nm, exactly CAVS builds on current visual procedures 11

12 Current CAVS (1 of 3) Set-Up Controller provides traffic advisory Pilot acquires traffic out-the-window and correlates with CDTI Pilot reports aircraft in sight and selects target on the CDTI Controller issues clearance for visual separation and/or visual approach 270 DAL CAL DEF GS GS R R UPS927 LRG CR 33 DEF112 R 5.2 GS183 GS 188 R LRG 4.9 UPS927 LRG Not to scale 12

13 Current CAVS (2 of 3) CDTI for Separation Once lead aircraft is lost out-the-window, CDTI alone can be used for separation 270 DAL CAL DEF GS 175 R 4.0 UPS927 LRG CR 23 DEF112 GS 175 R 5.2 R 4.0 GS183 UPS927 LRG LRG Not to scale 13

14 Current CAVS (3 of 3) Landing Continue to normal landing using both visual and / or CDTI Own-ship must remain in VMC for the entire approach DAL CAL34 DEF GS 140 R 3.0 UPS927 LRG CR 6 DEF112 GS 140 R R GS183 UPS927 LRG Reacquisition Not to scale 14

15 CAVS: Evaluation Results and Application Status Pilots indicated that CAVS was acceptable in a two crew environment and that they would routinely perform CAVS with appropriate training More confident in the use of the CDTI as compared to out-the-window visual cues for establishing appropriate spacing indicated that CDTI enhanced safety of visual approach ops UPS received operational approval Strong interest in extension into IMC ( IMC-CAVS ) Currently own-ship needs to remain in VMC 15

16 Issues in extending Single Runway Arrival CAVS into IMC Terrain Addressed by staying on instrument procedure Wake What are the concerns? How are they addressed today? What tools could help in IMC? 16

17 Conditions Causing Wake Concern on Approaches to Single Runways 415 commercial pilots 98% concerned re wake during visuals Concerns: Winds Lead distance lead above glide path Lead size 17

18 Techniques Employed in Avoiding Wakes on Approach to Single Runways Fly high Increase spacing Fly upwind Speed-up (for stability) 18

19 CDTI Tools for Wake Avoidance Lead Altitude History (1 of 2) 19

20 CDTI Tools for Wake Avoidance Lead Altitude History (2 of 2) Selected target and altitude history in magenta Here, ownship current trajectory slightly above TTF altitude history 20

21 CDTI Tools for Wake Avoidance Lead Altitude History on PFD (1 of 2) 21

CDTI Tools for Wake Avoidance Lead Altitude History on PFD (2 of 2) Own altitude in relation to TTF altitude (cyan) when TTF was at current own position

22 CDTI Tools for Wake Avoidance Lead Altitude History on PFD (2 of 2) Own altitude in relation to TTF altitude (cyan) when TTF was at current own position Abbott T. Simulation of a cockpit-display concept for executing a wake-vortex avoidance procedure, NASA TP-2300, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA,

23 Basic Single Runway CAVS: Vector to Follow on ILS (1 of 4) ILS 25L Two aircraft inbound to LAX GS DEF CR 10 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 23

24 Basic Single Runway CAVS: Vector to Follow on ILS (2 of 4) ILS 25L Two aircraft inbound to LAX GS ATC points out traffic DEF CR 10 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 24

25 Basic Single Runway CAVS: Vector to Follow on ILS (3 of 4) ILS 25L Two aircraft inbound to LAX GS ATC points out traffic DEF Pilot identifies traffic; reports traffic identified +00 CR 10 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 25

26 Basic Single Runway CAVS: Vector to Follow on ILS (4 of 4) ILS 25L Two aircraft inbound to LAX GS ATC points out traffic DEF Pilot identifies traffic; reports traffic identified +00 CR 10 ATC advises expect CAVS clearance GS nm ABC 123 LRG 26

27 Single Runway Arrival CAVS ILS 25L GS Ownship monitors traffic ATC turns TTF to intercept localizer, issues approach clearance -05 GS nm ABC 123 LRG

28 Single Runway Arrival CAVS ILS 25L ATC issues clearance for ILS intercept to own ship and advises maintain CAVS separation GS TTF joins localizer; is approaching final approach fix, slowing to approach speed GS nm ABC 123 LRG 28

29 Single Runway Arrival CAVS (1 of 4) ILS 25L GS On final approach Ownship monitors deceleration of Lead; observes closure rate & range -13 CR 6 GS nm ABC 123 HVY 5 29

30 Single Runway Arrival CAVS (2 of 4) ILS 25L GS On final approach Ownship monitors deceleration of Lead; observes closure rate & range. -13 Wake situation awareness Index shows Lead glideslope position at Ownship current position. CR 6 GS nm ABC 123 HVY 5 30

31 Single Runway Arrival CAVS (3 of 4) ILS 25L GS On final approach Ownship monitors deceleration of Lead; observes closure rate & range. -13 Wake situation awareness Index shows Lead glideslope position at Ownship current position. CR 6 GS nm ABC 123 HVY Vertical situation: position with respect to Lead aircraft vertical path 5 31

32 Single Runway Arrival CAVS (4 of 4) ILS 25L Minimum separation on final driven by runway occupancy and pilot judgment, supported by precise closure rate and range information GS On final approach Ownship monitors deceleration of Lead; observes closure rate & range -13 Wake situation awareness Index shows Lead glideslope position at Ownship current position. CR 6 GS nm ABC 123 HVY Vertical situation: position with respect to Lead aircraft vertical path 32 5

33 Mean Bedford Workload Score by Trial Number Workload 1 = workload insignificant 10 = task abandoned Trial Number 3 or lower = acceptable without task redesign 33

34 Mean Response to Selected Postscenario Questions 34

35 Spacing Performance VMC Baseline Vs. IMC-CAVS 35

36 CDTI display feature relative rankings Lower value means higher ranking 36

37 Departure Patterns for LAX Traffic May 19,

38 LAX Tower Estimates for Departures (1 of 4) ADR clear over flight path; visual departures 68 IFR over flight path; IFR departures ATL 38

39 LAX Tower Estimates for Departures (2 of 4) Regain visual rates with departure CAVS ADR clear over flight path; visual departures ATL 39

40 LAX Tower Estimates for Departures (3 of 4) Regain visual rates with departure CAVS ADR clear over flight path; visual departures 68 Airport departure rates at most airports decrease when visual separation cannot be applied Weather minima differ for airports Controllers provide extra spacing to ensure separation Noticeable at many busy airports ATL 40

41 CAVS on Departures (1 of 3) GS ATC advises trailing departure to expect CAVS +03 CR -135 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 41

42 CAVS on Departures (2 of 3) GS ATC advises trailing departure to expect CAVS +03 Pilot identifies traffic; reports traffic identified CR -135 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 42

43 CAVS on Departures (3 of 3) GS ATC advises trailing departure to expect CAVS +03 Pilot identifies traffic; reports traffic identified CR -135 ATC advises lead direction of flight, states maintain CAVS separation ; issues takeoff clearance GS nm ABC 123 LRG 43

44 (1 of 3) GS CR -15 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 44

45 (2 of 3) GS Lead is accelerating; initial spacing is increasing until ownship matches speed Pilots maintain appropriate spacing just as they do when using direct visual separation CR -15 GS nm ABC 123 LRG 45

46 (3 of 3) GS Lead is accelerating; initial spacing is increasing until ownship matches speed Pilots maintain appropriate spacing just as they do when using direct visual separation CR -15 Pilots maintain safe separation from leading aircraft during the departure operations even as lead traffic climbs into the marine layer GS nm ABC 123 LRG 46

47 (1 of 2) GS GS nm ABC 123 LRG 47

(2 of 2) GS 247 12 250 +11 CAVS ends when other separation exists;

48 (2 of 2) GS CAVS ends when other separation exists; altitude, lateral, or divergent headings GS nm ABC 123 LRG 48

49 Conclusions CDTI based operations indicate promise of significant improvement over current instrument operations Comparable to visual operations in the U.S. Studies for single runway arrivals and departures indicate Pilot acceptance in IMC Improvement in spacing performance over IMC There are many other CDTI based possibilities for such improvements Equivalent visual operations in the U.S. 49

50 Further Research Display requirements Features Location Certification and flight authorization requirements Min spacing requirements? Ceiling & visibility minima Start with low VMC, work to lower minima ATC interface and integration Generalized use of CDTI for separation In the U.S., for Equivalent Visual Operations 50

51 Back up Slides 51

52 Pilot and Equipment Categories 52

53 Potential Single Runway Arrival Capacity Gain with CAVS 53

54 Simulation Overview 8 pilots: all with air carriers, 2 RJ (E145), 3 large (A320 and B737), 3 heavy (B777 and A300), 5 Captains, 3 First Officers Mean flight hours (range 2200 to 21000) 2 training scenarios, 2 baseline visual approaches in clear weather, 14 ILS approaches in 2 blocks, weather ceiling, 5 miles visibility 4 trials with no spacing instruction 4 trials with no less than 2 nm instruction 6 trials with Wake SA tools available, 3 behind large, 3 behind heavy Ownship on final about 22 nm from threshold at start of each trial TTF either on final or intercepting from base leg 54

55 CDTI Cockpit Installation for CAVS Simulation EFB CDTI EFB CDTI For the CAVS simulation the CDTI was implemented on an EFB mounted outboard of the primary flight instruments 55

56 Selected Research Questions and Preliminary Subjective Results Did pilots indicate that they would be willing to accept the responsibility for separation from traffic while performing an instrument approach in IMC? Yes 1 Using the CDTI to maintain my own separation during ILS approach was acceptable as experienced in this simulation Pilot NA SD D N A SA I would be willing to accept responsibility for separation from the traffic I am following using a CDTI with the features I used in this simulation Pilot NA SD D N A SA Note that initial visual acquisition was not required in this simulation, a main difference from the CEFR simulations of

57 Selected Research Questions and Preliminary Subjective Results Did adding the CAVS separation task to the normal tasks of performing an ILS adversely affected normal procedures or safety? No 5 I was confident that I could safely use the CDTI to manage my separation from TTF. 4.5 Pilot NA SD D N A SA Performing the CAVS procedure interfered with checklist completion during final approach operations Pilot NA SD D N A SA Performing the CAVS procedure interfered with other crew duties during final approach operations Pilot NA SD D N A SA

58 Selected Research Questions and Preliminary Subjective Results Did pilots find the wake situation awareness displays useful? Yes for PFD, mixed for profile view, but both ranked lowest 29 The wake situation awareness cue (lead altitude history display) on the PFD provided useful information when following a heavy jet Pilot NA SD D N A SA The vertical situation display with breadcrumbs provided useful information when following a heavy jet 3.25 Pilot NA SD D N A SA Post flight debriefing indicated that the vertical scale of the profile view was too large to indicate useful altitude information compared to PFD cue Some pilot also thought size of vertical view was too small During approaches only a few pilots actually made adjustments 58

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS)

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS) Randall Bone 6 th USA / Europe ATM 2005 R&D Seminar Baltimore, Maryland June 2005 Overview Background Automatic Dependent