240 likes | 334 Views
Self-Separation from the Air and Ground Perspective. Margaret-Anne Mackintosh, Melisa Dunbar, Sandra Lozito, Patricia Cashion, Alison McGann, Victoria Dulchinos NASA Ames Research Center mmackintosh@mail.arc.nasa.gov
E N D
Self-Separation from the Air and Ground Perspective Margaret-Anne Mackintosh, Melisa Dunbar, Sandra Lozito, Patricia Cashion, Alison McGann, Victoria Dulchinos NASA Ames Research Center mmackintosh@mail.arc.nasa.gov Rob Ruigrok, Jacco Hoekstra, Ronald Van Gent National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR ruigrok@nlr.nl
Introduction • NLR: Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance • Air perspective • NASA Ames: Air-Ground Integration Study • Air and Ground perspective
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Introduction • NLR: Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance • Free Flight Concept Development: • Traffic & Experiment Manager off-line simulations • Find a suitable base-line concept • Free Flight Safety Analysis: • Traffic Organization and Perturbation AnalyZer (TOPAZ) • Predict critical non-nominal situations • Free Flight Human-in-the-Loop Simulation Experiment • NLR’s Research Flight Simulator • Human Factors Issues • Validation of concept with Human-in-the-Loop
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Methods • 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 • Conflict Resolution • Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) • Cruise flight only • Direct routing • Optimal cruise altitude
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Scenarios • 8 crews, 18 runs per crew, 20 minutes per run • current airline pilots • 2 days including half a day of training • 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
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Concept • Modified Voltage Potential • Characteristics: • Fail safe • Co-operative • More options • Clear to pilot • Communication not required Similar in vertical plane
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Flight Crew Interface • Navigation Display • Traffic Symbology • Conflict Detection • Resolution Advisories • Vertical Navigation Display • Extra EFIS Control Panel functionality • Modifications to Autopilot • Execute Combined • Execute Separate • Aural alerts
NLR Human-In-The-Loop StudySubjective Results: Acceptability • Distribution of responses as a function of the three densities, across all sessions, across all subject pilots • Acceptability: 91.5% (single), 83.0% (double), 78.7% (triple)
NLR Human-In-The-Loop StudySubjective Results: Safety • Distribution of responses as a function of the three densities, across all sessions, across all subject pilots • Safety: 88.3% (single), 75.5% (double), 71.3% (triple)
NLR Human-In-The-Loop StudySubjective Results: Workload • Rating Scale of Mental Effort (RSME) • Rating less than 40 (“costing some effort”) over all densities • Results similar to cruise phase results in current ATC scenarios
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Objective Results: EPOG • Eye-Point-Of-Gaze measurements • Pilot Flying and Pilot-Not-Flying • Percentages of the total fixation duration, averaged over the Pilot Flying and Pilot-Non-Flying, across all sessions: • Primary Flight Display: 8.1 % • Lateral Navigation Display: 48.9 % • Vertical Navigation Display: 7.6 %
NLR Human-In-The-Loop Study Objective Results: Maneuvers • Distribution of maneuvers as a function of the three different modes, across all sessions, across all subject pilots • Maneuvers: Heading: 71.0 % Speed: 40.3 % Altitude: 48.7 %
NASA Air-Ground Integration Study Methods • Boeing 747-400 simulator and Airspace Operations Lab • Flight deck and controller perspectives • 8 DIA enroute scenarios (20 minutes in duration) • 10 flight crews/10 controllers • New display features on flight deck • Airborne alert logic (no ground conflict probe) • Controller tools similar to those at DIA • Controller “monitoring” more than “controlling” • Run in March/April 1998
Background/Research Goal • Background • RTCA Free Flight document recommends aircraft self-separation in particular situations (e.g., enroute environment) • Requires new conceptual airspace that includes human performance parameters • Aircraft self-separation will require a shift in roles and responsibilities between the users on the ground and in the air • Research Goal • To conduct early simulations examining flight deck human performance parameters
NASA Air-Ground Integration Study Scenarios • Traffic on flight deck (ADS-B range 120 nms) • Traffic on controller’s radar display (DIA Sector 9) • Representation of high v. low density/clutter • High = 16-17 aircraft, low = 6-8 aircraft • “Blocker” aircraft preventing most common resolution • Conflict event types: high and low density • Obtuse angle • Acute angle • Right angle • Almost intruder
NASA Air-Ground Integration StudyDisplays • Flight deck display • No early alert indication (prior to alert zone transgression) • Alert zone transgression display features • Temporal predictors and call signs selectable • Controller Display • Similar features as those currently in DIA (e.g., vector lines, J rings) • Some features from CTAS, but no enhanced functions
NASA Air-Ground Integration Study Flight Crew Results • Density and detection time • Flight crews took longer to detect conflicts in high density compared to low density scenarios • Conflict Angles and detection time • No differences in detection times between the conflict angles • Ratings of conflict detection and time pressure • Significant increase in reported workload and time pressure as a function of traffic density • No differences for almost intruder for detection times
NASA Air-Ground Integration StudyController Results • Effects of traffic density and conflict angle on detection times • Interaction between density and angle • Longer detection time in obtuse angle high density v. obtuse angle low density • Shorter detection time in acute angle high density v. right angle and obtuse angle high density • Ratings of workload and task complexity • Significant increase in ratings of workload and complexity as a function of density • No differences for almost intruder detection times
General Summary • Consistent Findings across Studies • Impact for increasing density • density may be exacerbated by other factors • existence of abnormal situations (e.g. weather) may limit self-separation • Losses of minimum separation • flight crews try to minimize separation between aircraft while maintaining legal separation • controllers wanted larger separation than the flight crews maintained (NASA study)
General Summary • Unique Findings • Pilots fixate on CDTI 60% of the time and PFD 10% of the time (NLR study) • Pilots reported spending too much time on the CDTI (NASA study) • Performance parameter usage • Heading was most common parameter used (NLR study) • similar to previous NASA studies • Altitude was most common parameter used (NASA study) • inclusion of the “blocker” aircraft in most common lateral escape path
General Summary • Unique Findings (NASA) • Conflict angles affect controllers and flight crews • controller conflict detect times • flight crew timing and type of maneuver • Density and conflict angle may interact • Frequent air-to-air communication
Future Research Issues • Addition of abnormal situations for workload realism (e.g., weather, winds, SUA, passenger problems) • Assessment of data link for communications to help frequency congestion • Simulation including representation of additional carriers and dispatch • Information requirements assessment for shared situation awareness