NASA Controller Managed Spacing (CMS)-Air Traffic Technology Demonstration-1 (ATD-1) Study 5 Phase III (CA-5.3)

Transcription

1 NASA Controller Managed Spacing (CMS)-Air Traffic Technology Demonstration-1 (ATD-1) Study 5 Phase III (CA-5.3) Task Completion Report Revision 1 GS-10F-0389P Danny Vincent Megan Nealley

2 ii

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ATD-1 CMS Tools Schedule Timelines Speed Advisories Early/Late Indicators Slot Markers Other Sequence Numbers ATD-1 FIM FIM Indicator FIM Information in Meter List Existing Operational Tools Spacing Cones (or bats ) Distance Reference Indicators (J-Rings) Meter List Trend vectors Delay Countdown Timer Simulation Overview and Objectives Data Collection Simulation Participants Roles and Responsibilities of Participants ARTCC Controllers TRACON Controllers TRACON and ARTCC TMCs Flight Crews Scenarios Winds Traffic Data Collection Schedule Simulation Airspace Simulation Environment and Equipment Simulation and Participant Guidelines Data Collection Training Roles and Responsibilities of Trainers and Observers Observations FIM FIM operation in General iii

4 Overtakes in En Route FIM and Slot Markers Metering Delay Countdown Timers Delays in En Route Slot Markers Speed Advisories Compression on Final Routes Crossovers Not realistic operations Pilot Error Pop-Up Departures Saturated Schedule Memorizing the Schedule TMCs Equipment Resequencing Participant Skill Level Simulation artifacts or issues Recommendations for Future Simulations Scenario Recommendations Airspace Adaptations Lab Layout Challenges to be Resolved FIM Status Indicators and Clearances CHI Automation TMA-TM Flexible STA CHI Summary References Acronyms and Abbreviations Figures Figure 1. ATD-1 CMS Tools and Runway Sequence Number... 7 Figure 2. ERAM FIM Indicators... 9 Figure 3. STARS FIM Indicators... 9 Figure 4. ERAM Meter List with FIM Information iv

5 Figure 5. Simulation Center Airspace Overview Figure 6. East Flow Airspace Overview Figure 7. West Flow Airspace Overview Figure 8. Ames AOL Configuration Tables Table 1. CA-5.3 Simulation Schedule v

6 1 Introduction This report describes the design, preliminary results, and recommendations from the Controller Managed Spacing (CMS) - Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration-1 (ATD-1) Study 5, Phase III (CA-5.3) human in-the-loop simulation (HITL). ATD-1 combines advanced arrival scheduling, controller decision support tools, and aircraft avionics to enable efficient arrival operations in high-density terminal airspace. The three technologies composing ATD-1 are: Traffic Management Advisor with Terminal Metering (TMA-TM), CMS, and Flight Deck Interval Management (FIM). The objective of the greater CA-5 study is to compare performance with ATD-1 tools to current-day Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) operations. The objectives of the CA-5.3 simulation were to test updated ATD-1 operations with FIM for realistic traffic in PHX airspace. Note that for this study, some of the scenarios were Terminal Sequencing and Spacing (TSS)-only runs. TSS is the overarching suite of capabilities that enables CMS tools to be displayed to the Terminal controllers. CMS tools are described in section 2. The preliminary results, challenges, and recommendations provided are derived from simulation run observations, as well as comments and feedback from participants, collected during the simulation. 2 ATD-1 CMS Tools ATD-1 CMS decision support tools assist Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) air traffic controllers in delivering aircraft as close as possible to the merge points or runway threshold at the TMA-TM assigned scheduled time of arrival (STA) to achieve maximum throughput on capacity-constrained runways. The CMS tools (shown in Figure 1) consist of schedule timelines, speed advisories, early/late indicators, and slot markers. 6

7 2.1 Schedule Timelines Figure 1. ATD-1 CMS Tools and Runway Sequence Number The schedule timelines provide graphical depictions of an aircraft s schedule conformance by displaying the relationship between the estimated time of arrival (ETA) and the TMA-TM calculated STA for each aircraft to either a merge point or the runway threshold. If the ETA is ahead of the STA, the aircraft requires delay. If the STA is ahead of the ETA, the aircraft needs to be advanced. 2.2 Speed Advisories Speed advisories are displayed when an aircraft s ETA exceeds five seconds from its STA and only if the predicted airspeed will resolve the difference between the ETA and STA by the next merge point on the arrival, otherwise, the early/late indicator is displayed. The speed advisories are displayed as a share in the third line of the Flight Data Block (FDB). 2.3 Early/Late Indicators The early/late indicators represent the numerical difference between the ETA and STA to the next merge point or to the runway threshold as displayed on the schedule timeline. They are generated when a single speed advisory cannot be calculated to resolve schedule conformance with a 10-knot discrimination and the difference between the ETA and STA is greater than or equal to five seconds. The early/late indicators are displayed as a share in the third line of the FDB as seconds. A (+) in front of the number(s) is a positive delay and indicates the aircraft is early, a ( ) is a negative 7

8 delay and indicates the aircraft is late. Differences between the ETA and STA less than 99 seconds are displayed as +/- with two digits (i.e. -86). If the difference between the ETA and STA is greater than 99 seconds, it is displayed in whole minutes (i.e. +3M). 2.4 Slot Markers Slot markers are spatial circular representations of temporal schedule information. The slot markers indicate where an aircraft should be at the current time if it were to fly the adapted route through the forecasted wind field, meet all published speed and altitude restrictions, and arrive at its STA to the merge point or the runway threshold. The slot marker s current indicated airspeed (IAS) is displayed next to the slot marker. Dwelling on an aircraft s FDB or callsign in the schedule timeline will highlight the corresponding slot marker. The slot markers were fixed at 15 seconds of flying time for the CA-5.3 simulation. 3 Other 3.1 Sequence Numbers The FAA has requested the ability to display runway sequence numbers. Runway sequence numbers are capable of being displayed through TSS and represent the number the aircraft is in sequence to the scheduled runway. For this simulation, they were displayed as a share in the third line of the FDB and counted up to 30 before starting again at 1. 4 ATD-1 FIM FIM is airborne spacing enabled by advanced aircraft avionics and flight crew procedures. It enables the flight crew to assist in maximizing throughput while maintaining a fuel-efficient profile, and enables Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) controllers to issue a single clearance to the flight crew of a FIM capable aircraft to achieve spacing behind a Target aircraft. The necessary airspeed that the FIM aircraft needs to fly to meet the controller issued FIM clearance by the Achieve-By Point (ABP) is calculated using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out data from the Target aircraft received via ADS-B In to the FIM aircraft. For ATD-1, the ABP was always the Final Approach Fix (FAF). 4.1 FIM Indicator In the ARTCC on the emulated En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) display, aircraft that are FIM capable display a sign at the top of the FDB. The controller changes to magenta once they issue the FIM clearance (FI <space> CID) and to a magenta S (FS <space> CID) once the aircraft reports Paired Behind, these indicators can be seen in Figure 2. The status of the FIM aircraft as entered by the ARTCC controller will update on the corresponding aircraft on the TRACON controller s display. 8

9 Figure 2. ERAM FIM Indicators In the TRACON on the emulated Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) display, there is no symbol indicating FIM capable aircraft and FIM clearance information (spacing interval, target aircraft and its route and runway) are not displayed. Aircraft that have been issued a FIM clearance display FIM in the third line of the FDB, and aircraft that are interval spacing display a magenta SPC in the third line of the FDB. These symbols can be seen in Figure 3. If an aircraft s FIM clearance is suspended, the status can be updated in the Multi-Aircraft Control System (MACS) display using FS <PIC> to toggle between FIM and SPC, and if it is cancelled, the status can be removed by using FI <PIC>. SPC 4.2 FIM Information in Meter List Figure 3. STARS FIM Indicators The FIM clearance is displayed in the ERAM Meter List in the ARTCC and consists of the spacing interval in seconds, the Target aircraft, and the Target aircraft s route. This is displayed in addition to the metering information (aircraft callsign, meter fix (MF) STA, and MF delay). Dwelling on an aircraft on the display will highlight it yellow in the Meter List. This feature was predominately used by ARTCC controllers when issuing FIM clearances. The enhanced meter list with an aircraft highlighted can be seen in Figure 4. Note: TMA-TM assigned runway was also displayed, but was not used in the FIM clearance or for metering. 9

10 5 Existing Operational Tools Figure 4. ERAM Meter List with FIM Information Existing operational tools were also available to controllers for use during the simulation. These tools are spacing cones, distance reference indicators (J-rings), trend vectors, meter list, and delay countdown timer (DCT). 5.1 Spacing Cones (or bats ) Spacing Cones (also known as bats) are available in the TRACON and provide a visual indication of the required radar separation between aircraft. Their size for each aircraft is selectable by the controller and can be larger than the required minimum separation needed. They are displayed as a cone extending forward from the aircraft target. 5.2 Distance Reference Indicators (J-Rings) Distance Reference Indicators (or J-Rings) are available to ARTCC controllers and provide a visual indication of horizontal spacing between aircraft. They are displayed as a circle around the aircraft target and the radius of the J-Ring is determined by the air traffic facility s adaptation. For CA-5.3, the J-Ring was adapted to display 5 nm. 5.3 Meter List The Meter List is an existing ARTCC tool; however, for this simulation it was enhanced to include FIM as described in section Trend vectors Trend vectors are represented by a straight line extending from the aircraft symbol to indicate the distance the aircraft is predicted to travel in a specified length of time if the heading, speed, and altitude remain constant. 5.5 Delay Countdown Timer The DCT is an ARTCC feature that shows the difference between an aircraft s ETA and STA. For CA-5.3 TBFM adaptation was set to show the DCT in Tens-of-Second format (+/-MM:SS). 10

11 A + indicates the aircraft needs to be delayed and a - indicates an aircraft needs to be advanced. For example, if a DCT displayed +00:50, the aircraft was 50 seconds ahead of schedule. Tensof-second times are rounded so a +00:50 DCT is displayed for times between +00:45 and +00:54. 6 Simulation Overview and Objectives This simulation was conducted to test updated ATD-1 operations with FIM for realistic traffic in PHX airspace Simulation Specifics: East- and west-flow scenarios, both with FIM and without (baseline runs) High- and low-altitude en route sectors Arrivals, departures and crossing traffic Satellite flights to PHX and FFZ RNAV-equipped PHX arrivals descend via RNAV STARS with specified runway transition Other arrivals issued vectors/altitudes along non-rnav STARS with expected runway Jets, turbo-prop and piston aircraft All aircraft fly ILS Required separation is visual (2.5/4/5/6 nm, no stagger required) The following sections describe the simulation in more detail. 7 Data Collection Simulation Participants Fourteen retired FAA controllers participated in the CA-5.3 simulation. All but three of the controllers had previous experience as participants in NASA simulations or shakedowns with ATD-1 technology. There were eight Center, four TRACON, and two TMC positions for this simulation. Twenty pilots participated including both retired and currently flying pilots with various ratings. 7.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Participants ARTCC Controllers The ARTCC controllers tasks were to clear all aircraft for the Optimized Profile Descents (OPD) arrival, descend-via, and the runway transition. For non-fim capable aircraft, the ARTCC controllers were instructed to meter aircraft to meet their STAs at the MF within +/- 30 seconds and to clear aircraft to resume normal speeds prior to handing them off to the TRACON unless otherwise coordinated. 11

12 For FIM capable aircraft, the ARTCC controllers were instructed to absorb an aircraft s delay in excess of 1 minute and issue the descend-via before they issued the aircraft its FIM clearance. The controllers were then to issue the when able FIM clearance and update the FIM status of the aircraft in the automation to reflect that the FIM clearance had been given. Once the controllers were advised Paired Behind by the flight crew, they were to update the FIM status indicator again. If interval spacing was cancelled, suspended, or reported unable by the flight crew, the aircraft was to be treated as non-fim equipped and controllers were to issue control instructions as necessary. Additionally, controllers were instructed to meter FIM aircraft to within +/- 30 seconds of the MF STA if they were not paired TRACON Controllers Feeder The Feeder controllers tasks were to use CMS tools to meet aircraft STAs, assign the expected runway, and maintain required separation and appropriate spacing to the Final controller. They were instructed that speed adjustment was the preferred technique and to use the speed advisories as a guide when assigning speeds, they were to clear aircraft to resume normal speed unless otherwise coordinated. For aircraft actively interval spacing, the Feeder controllers were to allow the aircraft to fly the FIM commanded speeds to the extent possible, only intervening to maintain separation. They were also to update the aircraft s FIM status as appropriate Final The Final controller s tasks were to merge aircraft using scheduling information, use CMS tools to issue speeds as appropriate, clear aircraft for approach, use normal approach procedures, and ensure proper spacing on the final approach. For interval spacing aircraft, Final controllers were instructed to cancel FIM on the downwind after BRENDA and HINEY or CACTY and NIMBY, depending on the direction of landing, and provide altitude and vectors to intercept the ILS. If the interval spacing aircraft was on an RNAV arrival procedure that terminated on a fix located on the final approach course or connected route, controllers were instructed to allow the aircraft to fly the procedure, only intervening to maintain separation TRACON and ARTCC TMCs TMCs were not given specific training as to their roles and responsibilities other than they were the point of contact for any request from controllers for the swapping of aircraft in the sequence. They were instructed to conduct TMC duties as they would in a normal operational environment but were given guidance as to how CMS tools and FIM operations could be impacted by schedule manipulations Flight Crews The flight crews tasks were to comply with Air Traffic Control (ATC) instructions and advise the controller if they were unable to comply with any clearance. They were to fly EAGUL5, 12

13 KOOLY4, GEELA6 and MAIER5 RNAV arrivals and heading (HDG) select after HINEY and BRNDA or CACTY and NIMBY and expect vectors to final. Additionally, flight crews of FIM capable aircraft were asked to: Input the FIM information (Target aircraft, spacing goal, and Target s route of flight) into the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) when they received a FIM clearance Advise Paired Behind to the controller once FIM operation was engaged and report their initial commanded speed Implement FIM guidance speeds to achieve and/or maintain the ATC assigned spacing goal with Target aircraft Advise the controller if they were unable to continue FIM operations 8 Scenarios The scenarios lasted approximately 60 minutes and the average peak arrival rate was 90 to 96 aircraft per hour. Metering delays in the En Route airspace averaged from 3-6 minutes, with larger ones being observed mainly associated with internal departures. Interval management spacing for aircraft needing 2.5 nm separation ranged from 71 to 77 seconds. The generation of the aircraft tracks when a scenario was launched normally caused scheduling errors based on initial tracked speeds and the order in which the aircraft entered the scenario. Therefore, approximately three minutes after the beginning of each scenario, the TMA operator would reschedule all aircraft and controllers were given a verbal notification that it had been completed and the STA times were correct. 8.1 Winds Three wind conditions were used. Each was used in both flows for 2 FIM condition runs and 1 TSS only run. 8.2 Traffic Two traffic scenarios were used. The east flow traffic scenario was from and had 69 arrivals. The west flow traffic scenario was from and had 65 arrivals. Departures and overflights in the traffic files that did not impact the sectors that were simulated were not included. 8.3 Data Collection Schedule There were five East Flow with FIM and five West Flow with FIM, as well as three East Flow TSS only and three West Flow TSS only. The TSS only runs were for a baseline. Additionally, one spare was run on the last day to replace a poor run done earlier in the week. The data collection schedule is displayed in Table 1. 13

14 Table 1. CA-5.3 Simulation Schedule 8:30 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 14-Apr 15-Apr 16-Apr 17-Apr Briefing / Comm Check 8:30 Briefing / Comm Check AOL 8:30 Briefing / Comm Check AOL 8:30 Briefing / Comm Check AOL 8:40 Run 1 AOL 8:40 Run 6 AOL 8:40 Run 11 AOL 8:40 Run 16 AOL East-FIM West FIM East FIM West FIM 9:40 Break 9:40 Break 9:40 Break 9:40 Break 10:00 Run 2 AOL 10:00 Run 7 AOL 10:00 Run 12 AOL 10:00 Run 17 AOL West TSS East FIM West TSS East TSS 11:00 Break 11:00 Break 11:00 Break 11:00 Break 11:20 Run 3 AOL 11:20 Run 8 AOL 11:20 Run 13 AOL 11:20 Run 18 AOL East FIM West TSS East FIM West FIM 12:20 Lunch 12:20 Lunch 12:20 Lunch 12:20 Lunch Break Break Break Break 13:10 Run 4 AOL 13:10 Run 9 AOL 13:10 Run 14 AOL 13:10 Spare (Run 7) AOL West FIM East TSS West FIM East FIM 14:10 Break 14:10 Break 14:10 Break 14:10 Questionnaires 13:10 Run 5 AOL 13:10 Run 10 AOL 13:10 Run 15 AOL 13:10 Debrief 100 East TSS West FIM East FIM 15:30 Wrap-up Discussion 15:30 Wrap-up Discussion 15:30 Wrap-up Discussion 16:00 End of day 16:00 End of day 16:00 End of day 8.4 Simulation Airspace 15:45 End of day The airspace used for this simulation consisted of multiple sectors from Albuquerque (ZAB) and Los Angles (ZLA) ARTCCs and Phoenix TRACON (P50). It included eight ARTCC positions made up of multiple sectors (four low-altitude and four high-altitude), North and South Feeder positions, and North and South Final positions. Additionally, there was a TMC for both the Center and the TRACON. See Figures 5, 6 and 7 for airspace overview maps. 14

15 Figure 5. Simulation Center Airspace Overview Figure 6. East Flow Airspace Overview 15

16 Figure 7. West Flow Airspace Overview 9 Simulation Environment and Equipment This simulation was conducted at NASA Ames Research Center in their Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) lab. A map is provided in Figure 8. Center and TRACON stations used MACS to simulate ERAM and STARS, respectively. The TMCs used an operational TMA- TM/TSS enhanced system to simulate TMA. Eight Aircraft Simulation for Traffic Operations Research (ASTOR) stations and twelve MACS pseudo-pilot stations were used. For this simulation, MACS and STARS air traffic displays were adapted to simulate ZAB, ZLA, and P50 airspace. Research Traffic Management Advisor (rtma) which is built off of the FAA s TMA version 3.12, and ASTAR12 algorithms were used. 16

17 Ghosts Figure 8. Ames AOL Configuration 10 Simulation and Participant Guidelines The participants were advised of the following simulation and participant guidelines: The ASTAR algorithm makes minor adjustments to the FIM aircraft s airspeed after pairing with the Target aircraft to achieve the assigned spacing interval at the ABP, which for the CA-5.3 simulation was the FAF FIM aircraft speed is in response to the Target behavior If the Target aircraft position and/or altitude is off the profile and exceeds the tolerance, this causes FIM to disengage o The tolerance is for the Target to be within 2.5 nm laterally and a 90º heading deviation from the profile o If the Target aircraft is issued a shortcut route but stays within the tolerance (so FIM remains engaged), then FIM aircraft would react by increasing its speed When the flight crew reported Paired Behind, it deleted any previous speed assignment issued by the controller or published on the RNAV arrival and the flight crew was to advise ATC of their initial FIM commanded speed If a controller gave a flight crew a speed restriction or vector after the flight crew reported Paired Behind, this suspended the FIM clearance If interval spacing was cancelled or suspended by ATC, or reported unable by the flight crew, the controllers were instructed to treat the aircraft as non-fim equipped and issue control instructions as necessary The preferred method was to suspend/resume, not cancel FIM operations (unless canceled on downwind by the procedure) 17

18 Controllers were still responsible for maintaining separation o Manage traffic as if working live traffic The minimum wake vortex separation within 10 nm of the landing runway was 2.5 nm The TMA-TM schedule used wake vortex separation to the runway threshold o An additional 0.3 nm buffer was added to the minimum wake vortex separation requirements Speed control was the preferred method for an aircraft to achieve its STA o ATD-1 speed advisories given within TRACON airspace should be used unless unrealistic Side-by-side turns to final at the same altitude were considered separated as long as the aircraft was either established on an RNAV approach or the vector did not cross the runway localizer Participants were encouraged to bring attention to events that were not typical of normal operations: o Controllers inquire with pilot regarding abnormal aircraft behavior i.e., above/below profile altitude, speeds, off-path o Pilots inquire with ATC regarding any unexpected clearances i.e., if pilot asked to fly a speed that is not within what the aircraft can fly or normal for that segment of flight Time permitting, controllers were encouraged to point out loss of separation events to the observers and briefly explain the reason If aircraft were out of sequence, the controller could make a request to the TMC to resequence or swap aircraft If an aircraft overshot the final approach segment, controllers were asked to correct within the amount of operational time they would allow to fix the issue, otherwise the aircraft would be deleted from the scenario Controller-controller coordination should be accomplished by communication equipment to allow audio capture of those communications 11 Data Collection Non-CMS keyboard inputs into the system, schedule information, and aircraft information were recorded for each control position. Responses to the post-run and post-simulation questionnaires were collected via LimeSurvey at the MACS Center and TRACON workstations. Voice-tovoice communication between pilots and controllers was also recorded. During the runs, trainers and observers captured controller remarks, issues, and/or resolutions. A debrief was held at the end of the day on April 17. Throughout the simulation, the participants provided feedback on the tools including any issues with them, and the FIM operations. The researchers, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), and other observers were on hand to address the participant questions. 12 Training A training briefing package was reviewed with the controllers on the morning of first day of training (April 8). A second condensed training briefing on FIM operations and phraseology was presented to the ARTCC controllers later in the week. Hands on training by SMEs from HSI and 18

19 other contractors was provided during training scenarios the week prior to data collection. Debriefs were also conducted on a daily basis during the training week. As most of the participants had participated in CA-5.1 and CA-5.2 simulations, intense training on the use of the CMS tools was not necessary. However, CA-5.3 was the first simulation for the participants that used FIM; therefore, the briefing was expanded to include background information, indicators, and commands for FIM. Additionally, although metering was used in CA-5.2, the controllers did not have extensive experience with it so a comprehensive overview was added to the training. Simulation guidelines and roles and responsibilities of participants were also reviewed. Additionally, the controllers were given a FIM and OPD phraseology cheat sheet and a quick reference card (QRC) that described their assigned airspace and included the routes, fixes, altitudes, and speeds specific to that airspace. A similar QRC with phraseology was provided to the pilots. The QRCs were provided in both paper form and electronically on the Information Display System (IDS) at each position. It was observed that the paper copies were used more frequently than the electronic versions. 13 Roles and Responsibilities of Trainers and Observers Trainers instructed the controllers on CMS tools, FIM operations, TMA-TM usage and crossover operations and answered any questions posed by the controllers. The trainers and observers recorded observations during the runs and documented controller feedback. Trainers and observers were asked to be as unobtrusive as possible during data collection runs. 14 Observations This section includes observations regarding the FIM operations, TSS tools, TMA scheduling, and aircraft behavior made during the runs as well as any controller comments or remarks. Specific examples illustrating certain situations are included, but it is not an exhaustive list of all instances. For a complete list, please see the notes from the simulation that were made available to NASA FIM FIM operation in General An ARTCC center controller said that he would not run a FIM clearance with aircraft only 6 nm apart, but if he had lots of space, it worked pretty well. When asked to elaborate, he said if aircraft are interval spacing off another corner post and 6 nm apart, he cannot trust them and doesn t have room for error. He said he could not have someone slow to 250K when other aircraft are going 270K. Asked in the final debrief what would be a number he d be comfortable with, he said it would depend, but probably 8 nm. The QUARTZ Feeder controller felt FIM aircraft were very easy to work, and he indicated he did not have to pay much attention to them. He said in one instance he had five of six arrivals paired, and only had ensure that the aircraft who was not paired was it its slot marker. The 19

20 APACHE controller said that it seemed to work every time if aircraft pairs were on the same arrival, but did not work as well for aircraft on different arrivals. The Final controllers had a different opinion regarding FIM. The FREEWAY controller said that with FIM pairs that he let space all the way down to the runway were only separated by 2.2 or 2.3 nm at the runway. For ones that he was cancelling on the downwind he said he had some issues with pilots wanting slower speeds than he was ready to give them. He said he felt the technology doesn't work long-side short-side perpendicular. He felt the current state of the FIM procedure on final is not good and said he usually cancelled the FIM. In Run 4, AME191 was flying 140K 50 nm from the airport, and the FREEWAY controller said this was not typical of airline operations; however, he continued to let it FIM until the downwind cancellation point. There was one occasion where a controller said he did not have enough time to issue a FIM clearance to an aircraft before it was handed off to the TRACON. In Run 3, a controller got too busy with another FIM pair to issue AWE144 his FIM clearance. FIM being a new operation for these controllers could have contributed to this. Other factors that may have led to not issuing FIM clearances include clearance length and frequency congestion, further investigation in to possibly being able to drop the transition from the FIM clearance seems warranted. Controllers were asked if they wanted to know the difference between the current and commanded speed when a FIM aircraft paired. The general sentiment was that if the aircraft was on an arrival they knew what the aircraft was doing so it was not necessary Overtakes in En Route Overtakes were observed in the en route environment that resulted in suspended FIM clearances that were not resumed. In Run 7 (which was then rerun as the spare) (East Flow FIM) in ZAB42 s airspace AWE189 was paired with the preceding aircraft and followed by AWE277 who was assigned 250K. The separation between AWE189 and AWE277 was slowly closing. With AWE277 already assigned 250K the controller suspended AWE189 when separation reached approximately 6.5 nm with less than a 20K overtake. The controller did not ask AWE189 what their current speed was prior to suspending. After the run, the controller said he did not have time to get into a speed conversation. The pilot logs indicated that the aircraft was at 260K when the controller suspended and reduced to 250K. Camtasia file showed that AWE189 did slow to 240K briefly before increasing to 250K then 260K prior to being suspended. This run was later selected to be the one re-run in the spare slot on the last day and an almost identical situation occurred. AWE189 in ZAB42 was paired behind a B757 with a 118s spacing interval and followed by AWE277 who was assigned 250K. The separation between AWE189 and AWE277 was slowly closing. With AWE277 already assigned 250K the controller suspended AWE189 when separation reached approximately 6.5 miles with an approximate 25K overtake. AWE189's commanded speed was 240K when suspended. Both aircraft were within 10 seconds of their MF crossing time when the FIM operation was suspended. The controller had originally spaced the aircraft approximately 8 nm apart and well with the metering goal. The ATC SME felt the slower commanded speed of AWE189 appeared to be a result of the 118-second interval spacing because of the Target aircraft being a B757. A similar situation occurred in run 13 (East Flow FIM). AWE189 was paired behind AWE116, a B757. The aircraft were spaced about 7.5 nm apart but AWE189's ground speed was slower than 20

21 the aircraft following who was assigned 250K for metering. When the spacing between the trailing aircraft and AWE189 got down to approximately 6.5 nm the controller asked for the speed of AWE189, then suspended the FIM clearance and assigned 250K to AWE189. It was later found out that the pilot was being commanded 230K. In Run 11 (East Flow FIM) interval spacing aircraft AWE183 flying the GEELA arrival was following AWE125, another FIM aircraft. The controller assigned AWE K initially because spacing was about 6 nm with AWE125. Two-three minutes later AWE183 was approaching 5nm from AWE125 and the controller asked the pilot to verify 230K. The pilots indicated they were slowing to 230K, based on this, the controller turned the aircraft and stopped his descent to ensure separation was kept, later he vectored the aircraft back to the SE to contain the aircraft in ZAB42 airspace. AWE183 was given direct GEELA and the pilot replied we are past GEELA. The controller informed the pilot the GEELA intersection was 30 nm ahead and the aircraft appeared to navigate to it. The controller tried to give the FIM clearance by saying AWE 183, clearance available, advise when ready to copy, but the pilot did not respond. Due to the repeated problems by the pilot, the controller decided not to try to a second time to issue the FIM clearance FIM and Slot Markers Feeder controllers were asked during the debrief if they took a handoff for a FIM aircraft who was not in its Slot Marker did they tend to suspend right away or wait and see. The QUARTZ Feeder never cancelled a FIM pair, he said he could see why it was off, and trusted it after training last week. The APACHE Feeder said that he did once on the last day, and that the FIM aircraft was crossing over aircraft from one fix and was well behind its slot marker and flying slow and was never going to get into it. The PI said that was an issue in the simulation having to do with a runway mismatch. APACHE said he also cancelled one who was 3 nm ahead of its slot marker at the boundary and flying fast Metering A short introduction to metering was included in the training as the controllers participating in this simulation had little experience with it. A controller SME observing the participants in the Center noted that more speeds were issued than necessary, which he attributed to the lack of experience with metering and TMA-TM. In almost all cases where an aircraft was on time or just a few seconds early the ZAB93 controller would speed aircraft up. The controller attributed this to the low altitude controller requesting aircraft be delivered seconds early. In most cases, the ZAB39 controller would then have to assign speeds below the published speeds in order to meet the MF STAs. General observations from the SMEs did indicate that en route controllers did do a good job of meeting the required +/-30 second metering goal Delay Countdown Timers The ZAB93 controller made a general comment that the DCTs did not seem to be counting down as expected. SWA247 had a delay of over 3 minutes, after issuing multiple vectors the controller eventually handed off SWA247 to ZAB39 on a heading of 180 because the aircraft still had 1:10 of delay. Once handed off to ZAB39, the DCT appeared to work fine, going to 00:40 on the 180 vector before turning back on course. There were multiple capture fixes along the routes in 21

22 ZAB93 that may have contributed to some of the DCT behavior. The HSI SME provided different delay techniques to provide improved DCT behavior for ZAB93. ZAB43 controller commented about DCTs not counting down. It appeared the aircraft were entering ZAB43 already assigned 250K and it may be a training issue where the controllers are expecting the delay to continue to count down Delays in En Route In Run 2, ZAB42 had trouble absorbing the 3-minute delays for aircraft on the MOHAWK route, as one vector was not enough to absorb it. This is likely attributable to ZAB42 having to absorb all the delay as the aircraft entering his sector had not been worked or preconditioned by any previous controller Slot Markers The FREEWAY Final controller said for him that once aircraft got in final airspace if they were not in their slot markers, there was no way to get the aircraft into them, and that the slot markers were not important to him as he was basing spacing on the other traffic, and that he d have liked the slot markers to go away. He said he liked the IAS and at first felt like there was too much in the FDB, but then once he started to use the tools he found them to seem beneficial. The VERDE controller agreed. It is suggested that the CMS declutter option that exists in Raytheon STARS displays made integrated into MACS and made available for final controllers in future simulations. In several runs, the TRACON TMC would make manual adjustments to the aircraft s STAs to try to help the controllers. He said he was trying to help with the slot markers because they have no awareness of the schedule, but did not want to impact FIM. In Run 18, AWE522 was way ahead of his slot marker because the TMC had manually moved this aircraft back to deal with the three turbo-prop aircraft that were coming that in previous runs they had got behind on. This is also an example of taking action based on learning the scenario. For VERDE, there was a route where the slot markers would start to turn, but the controller was waiting to turn the aircraft because of traffic from the North that the aircraft would have come into conflict with if he followed the slot marker. He was avoiding this because the sequence was not taking the traffic from the North into account. The VERDE controller also said he did not feel the slot markers were efficient on the OPD after he turned ASQ4711 in Run 9 before the slot marker turned, the aircraft flew east of it on base and was 2 nm ahead of it on final, he also did it for another aircraft. When asked, he indicated that if no other traffic was on final, he turned them early. The TMC said the slot markers followed the schedule perfectly, but VERDE said it was not efficient. In was observed in Run 11 by a researcher that SWA308 was vectored on final to meet what may have been an un-delayed slot marker. No one was in front so the slot marker did not really mean anything; the researcher said there is an issue with the slot makers making it look like aircraft need to be in a certain spot, when really it could be in or in front of it, or behind it. 22

23 14.6 Speed Advisories The controllers did not appear to use the speed advisories very much, at least not outwardly. In Run 11, aircraft were coming over in their slot markers, but a speed advisory came up telling APACHE to slow AWE9132 even though he was right in the middle of his slot marker and APACHE said he wouldn t expect that and that the aircraft was 20s early. It appeared that when APACHE was working aircraft with a prevailing southwest wind, as soon as he got aircraft he was being advised to slow them down Compression on Final FREEWAY had three occasions where the FIM spacing did not appear to maintain longitudinal spacing. One was a wake turbulence violation involving a B737 following a B757 and the others were like-type aircraft. There were times that it appeared aircraft lost separation based on looking at targets and bats that controllers had on their scopes. Sometimes the lead aircraft was already on the tower frequency. Unlike in previous simulations, there were no verbal comments from the controllers when a separation violation occurred. Several factors could have contributed to compression and losses of separation on the final approach segment. The analysis of the data will provide a better understanding as to the root cause or contributing factors. The following is a list of items that should be considered as possible contributing factors. 1. The parameters in TMA that have an impact on the scheduled separation for the final segment may have been too aggressive for this Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) configuration. The scheduled effective peak aircraft arrival rate derived from the runway timeline during the scenarios was normally 42 to 48 aircraft per hour for a 10-minute period and 44 for a 15-minute period. Several factors have an impact on how runway arrival rates are calculated but on an average, these values are more in line with current day visual approach runway operations. 2. The speed restriction at CAGOR of 180K was not in the ASTOR files, but was in MACS. 3. Aircraft were not managed beyond the FAF. A ghost Tower controller took the handoff but did not monitor the separation or take action to prevent losses of separation. 4. FIM spacing and commanded speeds discontinue once ownship crosses the ABP (in this simulations, the FAF). 5. Controllers rely more on assigned speeds and altitudes when running aircraft in close proximity rather than speed information derived from RADAR returns. Part of this is due to the lag in actual data and smoothing of RADAR but also the need to assign speeds in order to maintain positive control. Thus, the recognition of compression by FIM using ADS-B data may not be sufficient to prevent losses of separation, especially when multiple aircraft are conducting interval spacing with each other. 23

24 14.8 Routes There were some adapted routes that controllers remarked were not reflective of current operations. For example, the turboprop adapted route for west flow would have required the APACHE controller to hand the aircraft off to other positions due to sector altitudes. The TMC said the route was one that P50 would normally not use. The TMC indicated that the following was needed: improved adapted routes for props, the north side adapted for props, better routes for props that currently zigzag on base leg and crisscrossing routes that go into the other runway s final. There was one time in Run 12, West flow FIM, where ASH2552 who departed from Flagstaff the TMC switched to the North runway and then it did not have a slot marker, runway assignment, or STA to the MF or runway, and no sequence number, he then discovered it was because the North runway didn t have an adapted turbo-prop route. The controller was able to work him fine because he had the room. The issue of traffic from the North coming into conflict with Traffic from the South was again brought up in Run 14 when a crossover aircraft was going 280K right behind AWE Crossovers Crossover aircraft were observed to cause confusion regarding which controller had the aircraft on his frequency and who he should be talking with. It was not clear whether the confusion stemmed from the routes themselves, the hand off procedures, inaccurate frequency changes by the pilots. Training may need to be expanded to define hand-off procedures in more detail depending on the direction of landing and the route and altitude of the crossover Not realistic operations The VERDE final controller was issuing direct to BALTE clearances to aircraft when the aircraft was well outside the 30-degree intercept requirement for intercepting the localizer. In the spare run, VERDE gave an aircraft on the KOOLY arrival direct BALTE and it took the aircraft a while to turn, making him drop back from his slot marker on final. Props flying IFR are also not realistic for PHX. Several aircraft with AMFLIGHT callsigns were observed to be flown east of their slot markers in VERDE s airspace. TMC and VERDE said that these aircraft would be VFRs that would come South, turn East, and then get slammed in and land 1.5 nm behind traffic, but in IFR conditions the controllers must apply separation minima, so the generated traffic tracks that the slot markers fly are based off of real traffic days and then when IFR separation needs to be applied the aircraft don t fly their slot markers. There was an instance in Run 13 where AWE189 was flying 210K, the last published speed because he was 10 nm from threshold fully configured and given a 40-degree HDG which would not be a stable approach. The pilot should have refused the clearance and done a go-around. There is concern that the pilot and others may be trying too hard to make the simulation work. There is actually another adapted speed at the MF CAGOR of 180K in the MACS files, but the ASTOR and MACS files are not harmonized. 24

25 14.11 Pilot Error On more than one occasion, pilots were observed to fly through the localizer, not slow down, or not make a turn. The aircraft simulators may have contributed to these instances, and in the debrief the pilots stated that inputting information into the ASTOR with the mouse and the reaction time of the ASTOR isn t the best Pop-Up Departures Pop-up departures added to the realism but themselves created problems. Most of the time when they showed up on the TMA they had a large delay compared to other aircraft, the TRACON TMC said that was because no one calls for a release, which would happen in the real world but was not modeled in this simulation. In the Center, ZAB93 often had the TMC do swaps with other aircraft to mitigate the delays and reduce the amount of delay required for one aircraft and maintain the natural sequence. Other times the controller vectored the departure. It was hard for the controller to know when to turn him, but said that after so many runs he knew what to do. However, he did mention it involved turning them 40 degrees off their normal route Saturated Schedule When there was an aircraft that had to be dealt with on final, meaning more than simple speed adjustments, it often caused a cascading effect for downstream aircraft. For example, during the spare run/redo of run 7, AWE189 was going too fast even after VERDE slowed him. Near CAGOR, the VERDE controller vectored AWE189 out and back into the final to preserve separation. This caused the following South traffic to start to fall behind their schedule. SWA224 was the first aircraft to be back on time, which appeared to be attainable because there was a short break in traffic between he and the aircraft in front of him in the schedule. One controller remarked during the debrief that the traffic levels reminded him of 1998 traffic flows at PHX, but said they don t run that amount of traffic anymore Memorizing the Schedule During data analysis, better performance regarding hitting the STAs for aircraft may in part be because the controllers have memorized the traffic scenario and taken actions. For example, in Run 16, it was said here comes Brasilia and the TMC indicated that they had it memorized. An increase in performance measured by actual time of arrivals getting closer to STAs over the course of the experiment could be realistic however, as the same traffic arrival and departure banks are usually seen at an airport, and it is not implausible to think controllers at facilities do not get better working the same traffic flow over time TMCs The TRACON TMC was asked if having FIM info on the TMA timelines would be helpful, he said that he does not think FIM will affect how he schedules aircraft, and that he feels it should be the other way around. 25

26 The Center TMC felt that once FIM is introduced that something will be needed on the Timeline Graphical User Interface (TGUI) or Planview Graphical User Interface (PGUI), to recognize both FIM and Target aircraft. He also mentioned that seeing all targets on the PGUI display is not desirable and he wants to only want to see inbounds and not all the other targets. Further, it was observed that the Center TMC was also supporting duties of a runway coordinator. Normally the runway coordinator would be able to help with ground-to-ground coordination and any request from TMU. By having the positions combined, the TMC is not able to assist with the landline coordination and can actually be a distraction working the duties of the TMC. The TMC would resequence or adjust aircraft using the manual assign function on the TGUI. The TMCs would drag the aircraft s STA and use the red and green indicator to determine if and where a slot was available at either the MF or the runway threshold. The green indication only meant that minimum separation was available for the reference point of the timeline and other considerations or constraints such as the 0.3 nm buffer and merge points may have been violated. Additional requirements or CHI enhancements to TMA-TM may be needed to support manual assigns with the integration of TSS Equipment This simulation had a fully functional GUI at both the Center and TRACON TMC stations. In the field, there would only be one that has complete control, and others that have partial control. Which position has a full control GUI and which other positions have partial-control GUIs needs to be determined, and roles and responsibilities need to be clarified. We recommend this be determined and incorporated into the next simulation to get closer to the type of operation that will be seen in a field demonstration Resequencing In the TRACON, controller s requests to the TMC for resequencing of aircraft were always accommodated unless the TMC couldn t find a slot. In four West flow runs, EGF3763 (in two runs) and EGF3446 (in the other two) was moved from runway 26 to the number 1 slot for runway 25L. The TMC said that it would save the plane gallons of fuel and that its position on the schedule did not make sense. Whenever a scenario started with the aircraft, the first thing the TMC did was move him in TMA. In at least one of the runs, the observer noted that the resequencing would result in the sequence number for the next few aircraft to be incorrect as displayed in their data block. Roles and responsibilities for the TMCs was not included in the initial training, they were told to do what they normally would as TMCs. The ATC SME did provide training throughout the data collection week to the ARTCC TMC on differences with TMA-TM operations with FIM and CMS tools in use. On one occasion, the Center TMC made a SWAP that impacted the target airplane for a FIM pair. Changes were made other times without prior coordination. For future simulations, roles and responsibilities of the TMCs may need to be further defined. Also, it is important that any impact to controller meter times or CMS tools be coordinated properly. 26