nationaal lucht- en ruimtevaartlaboratorium national aerospace laboratory nlr dxxx-1a the transition...
TRANSCRIPT
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-1A
The Transition Towards Free Flight: A Human Factors Evaluation of Mixed Equipage, Integrated Air-Ground, Free Flight ATM Scenarios
World Aviation Congress 1999, 99WAC-111
San Francisco, 19 October 1999
R.C.J. Ruigrok, R.N.H.W. van Gent, J.M. Hoekstra
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-2A
Explanation of title The Transition Towards Free Flight:
– in time and in space
A Human Factors Evaluation– objective and subjective measurements
of Mixed Equipage– aircraft with and without ADS-B, CDTI and CD&R
Integrated Air-Ground– air and ground players have a defined role
Free Flight ATM Scenarios– newly defined
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-3A
Overview
NLR studies on Free Flight
1997 human-in-the-loop experiment– in summary
1998 human-in-the-loop experiment– in detail
Conclusions and recommendations
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-4A
NLR studies on Free FlightOverview
Studies on Airborne Separation Assurance, the flight deck perspective:– Conceptual design and off-line validation– Safety analysis– 1997 human-in-the-loop experiment– Cost/benefit analysis– Avionics requirements study– Critical conflict geometry study– 1998 human-in-the-loop experiment
In collaboration with NASA, FAA and RLD
In summary
In detail
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-5A
1997 human-in-the-loop experimentMethod
Probe the limits– No Air Traffic Control– Air crew responsible for traffic separation
All aircraft in scenario fully equipped– Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B)– Conflict Detection & Resolution (CD&R)– Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI)
Cruise flight only– Direct routing– Optimal cruise altitude
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-6A
1997 human-in-the-loop experimentScenarios Traffic Densities:
– Single– Double– Triple
Level of Automation:– Manual– Execute Combined– Execute Separate
Non-Nominal:– Other aircraft failures/events– Own aircraft failures/events– Delay time increased
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-7A
1997 human-in-the-loop experimentResults
Acceptability: – 91.5% (single), 83.0% (double), 78.7% (triple)
Safety: – 88.3% (single), 75.5% (double), 71.3% (triple)
Workload:– ratings less than 40, indicating “costing some effort”
Across all densities, across all sessions, across all subject pilots, including non-nominal events
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-8A
Conclusion:
The feasibility of Free Flight with
Airborne Separation Assurance
could not be refuted
1997 human-in-the-loop experiment Conclusion and Issues raised
Issues raised:– Prevent short term intrusions of protected zones due to
sudden maneuvers of proximate aircraft– Transition to Free Flight (Airspace) – Mixed equipped traffic scenarios
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-9A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentResearch questions to answer
How to accommodate mixed equipage in a transitional free flight era ?
What will a future ATM system containing Free Flight elements look like ?
Will there be a clear distinction between Managed Airspace (MAS) and Free Flight Airspace (FFAS) or can it be mixed ?
What is the role and responsibility of the ground controller and pilot ?
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-10A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentMethod
Improved ASAS equipment:– to prevent sudden maneuvers of nearby aircraft
Three newly developed ATM operational scenarios: – to study the transition to Free Flight Airspace (in space)
Two levels of equipage and traffic density:– to study the transition towards Free Flight in time
The experiment contained an air (flightdeck) and ground side (ATC) which shared traffic scenarios
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-11A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentASAS equipment
The Airborne Separation Assurance System (ASAS):
– Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B), Traffic Information Service - Broadcast (TIS-B)
– Conflict Detection and Resolution (CD&R)
– Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI)
– Predictive ASAS (PASAS)
– Alerting logic
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-12A
ASAS equipmentConflict Detection & Resolution
ownship
intruder
minimum distance
protected zone intruder
avoidance vector
advised vector
1. heading change
2. speed change
not shown: 3. vertical speed change
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-13A
ASAS equipmentCockpit Display of Traffic Information
Navigation Display– Traffic Symbology– Conflict Detection– Resolution Advisories– Vertical Navigation Display– Extra EFIS Control Panel
functionality
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-14A
ASAS equipmentPredictive ASAS
“no-go” bands for– track/heading– vertical speed– speed
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-15A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentATM Scenarios
Starting points:– equipping aircraft should be immediately beneficial to the
airlines– equipping should be economy driven instead of mandatory– benefit the equipped aircraft, without excluding the
unequipped aircraft
Three ATM operational scenarios with Free Flight elements defined, implemented and tested:– Flight Level– Protected Airways– Full Mix
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-16A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentATM Scenarios: Flight Level
Airspace above a certain altitude (the “Lower Free Flight level”, FL260) is reserved for equipped aircraft only
Transition layer used as a buffer zone for aircraft transitioning to and from Free Flight
Flying high is beneficial
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-17A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentATM Scenarios: Protected Airways
The airspace structure remains intact
Unequipped aircraft are ground controlled and have to stay on airways
Equipped aircraft have the right to leave the airways for direct shortcuts
Direct routing is beneficial
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-18A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentATM Scenarios: Full Mix All aircraft fly direct, free routing
Unequipped aircraft are ground controlled (ATC)
ATC performs conflict resolution for unequipped aircraft using a longer look-ahead time for conflict probing
Unequipped aircraft will always avoid equipped aircraft, beneficial for the equipped aircraft
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-19A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentExperimental design
Experiment matrix:– Traffic Density - low density versus high density– Equipage - 25% versus 75% ASAS equipped– ATM operational concept - Flight Level, Protected Airways
and Full Mix
The high traffic density, Flight Level ATM condition was excluded
8 pilot subjects
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-20A
1998 human-in-the-loop experimentResults: Acceptability
Scale:– Perfect in every
way = 5– Favourable = 4 – Acceptable = 3– Unacceptable = 2– Completely
unacceptable = 1
Subjective Acceptability
0
1
2
3
4
5
Low Dens25%
High Dens25%
Low Dens75%
High Dens75%
airways
mixed
flight level
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-21A
1998 human-in-the-loop experiment Results: Safety
Subjective Safety
0
1
2
3
4
5
Low Dens25%
High Dens25%
Low Dens75%
High Dens75%
airways
mixed
flight level
Scale:– FF much safer = 5– FF safer = 4– same as ATC = 3 – ATC safer = 2 – ATC much safer = 1
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-22A
1998 human-in-the-loop experiment Results: Workload
Subjective by means of questionnaires with Rating Scale of mental Effort (RSME)
Objective by means of Eye-Point-Of-Gaze measurements
Scan randomness (entropy) used as objective metric for Workload
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-23A
1998 human-in-the-loop experiment Results: Workload
Subjective: Objective:
Pilot objective workloadTwo-way interaction of ATC condition and
equipage (p<0.044)
-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2
00.20.40.60.8
1
ProtectedAirways
Full Mix Flight Level
ATC condition
Sca
n r
and
om
nes
s (Z
sco
re)
Equipage 25% Equipage 75%
Pilot subjective workloadTwo-way interaction of ATC condition
and equipage (p<0.16)
-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2
00.20.40.60.8
1
ProtectedAirways
Full Mix Flight Level
ATC condition
RS
ME
(Z
sco
re)
Equipage 25% Equipage 75%
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-24A
1998 human-in-the-loop experiment Conclusions
The future ATM design has to be chosen very carefully:– Full Mixed ATM condition is best from the pilot’s perspective– Protected Airways ATM condition is sensitive to equipage
level (transition in time)– Flight Level ATC condition is most optimal from Air Traffic
Controller’s perspective (Hilburn, Pekela)
The flightdeck crew was able to handle higher traffic densities than the ground controller
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-25A
1998 human-in-the-loop experiment Future plans
Verify all assumptions:– “multi-pilot and multi-controller in the loop” experiment is
planned using Internet gaming facilities– ADS-B characteristics– Flight testing using “real” data
Study the integration of traffic, weather and terrain information in the cockpit
Nationaal Lucht- en RuimtevaartlaboratoriumNational Aerospace Laboratory NLR
DXXX-26A
Contact / More information
http://www.nlr.nl/public/hosted-sites/[email protected]