1 / 24

The Free Flight Deck

The Free Flight Deck. Rob Ruigrok, Jacco Hoekstra, Ronald van Gent. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) S-7, “Flight Deck and Handling Qualities Standards for Transport Aircraft” Amsterdam, 1 May 2000. Presentation Overview. Introduction to Free Flight

vito
Download Presentation

The Free Flight Deck

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Free Flight Deck Rob Ruigrok, Jacco Hoekstra, Ronald van Gent Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) S-7, “Flight Deck and Handling Qualities Standards for Transport Aircraft” Amsterdam, 1 May 2000

  2. Presentation Overview • Introduction to Free Flight • Design of the Free Flight Deck • Starting points • Airborne Separation Assurance System • Using the Free Flight Deck: • NLR studies on Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance • Conclusions and Recommendations • Future Plans • Demonstrations

  3. Introduction to Free FlightRTCA definition: zones • Protected zone: • spatial, according operational separation standards • expected to remain free of other aircraft • Alert zone: • spatial or time based zone around the protected zone • conflict alerts are issued to the pilot

  4. Introduction to Free FlightEurocontrol’s definition

  5. Design of the Free Flight DeckStarting points • Operational Concept (probe the limits) • No Air Traffic Control • Air crew responsible for traffic separation • Focus on Free Flight Airspace • Central Traffic Flow Management active • Managed Airspace near airports (TMA) • Cruise flight only • Direct routing • Optimal cruise altitude • Limited scope • No Special Use Airspace (SUA) • No weather

  6. Airborne Separation Assurance System (ASAS) Design of the Free Flight DeckWhat do we need ? • Aircrew has to: • “see” other traffic • determine conflicts with other aircraft • resolve conflicts with other aircraft • avoid new conflicts with other aircraft • be alerted • Investigate minimum standard: • flight deck design based on, and close to current implementation (EFIS, FMS, TCAS)

  7. Design of the Free Flight DeckASAS equipment • “See” other traffic • Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B), Traffic Information Service - Broadcast (TIS-B) • Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) • Determine and resolve conflicts with other aircraft • Conflict Detection and Resolution (CD&R) • Avoid new conflicts with other aircraft • Predictive ASAS (PASAS) • Be alerted • Alerting logic

  8. Design of the Free Flight DeckConflict definition A conflict is defined as a potential intrusion of the protected zone in the near future

  9. protected zone intruder minimum distance 1. heading change avoidance vector 2. speed change advised vector Design of the Free Flight DeckConflict Detection & Resolution ownship not shown: 3. vertical speed change intruder

  10. Design of the Free Flight DeckCockpit Display ofTraffic Information • Navigation Display • Traffic Symbology • Conflict Detection • Resolution Advisories • Vertical Navigation Display • Extra EFIS Control Panel functionality

  11. Design of the Free Flight Deck Predictive ASAS • “no-go” bands for • track/heading • vertical speed • speed

  12. Using the Free Flight DeckNLR studies on Free Flight • 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 co-operation with NASA, FAA and RLD

  13. Using the Free Flight Deck1997 human-in-the-loop experiment • 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

  14. Using the Free Flight Deck1997 human-in-the-loop experiment • 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

  15. Using the Free Flight Deck1998 human-in-the-loop experiment • Goals • study the transition to Free Flight Airspace (in space) • study the transition towards Free Flight in time • Starting points: • equipping aircraft should be immediately beneficial to the airlines • equipping should be economy driven in stead of mandatory • benefit the equipped aircraft, without excluding the unequipped aircraft

  16. Using the Free Flight Deck1998 human-in-the-loop experiment • Three ATM operational scenarios with Free Flight elements defined, implemented and tested: • Flight Level • Protected Airways • Full Mix • 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

  17. Using the Free Flight Deck1998 human-in-the-loop experiment • > 85% of responses indicate FF acceptable or better

  18. Using the Free Flight Deck1998 human-in-the-loop experiment • > 85% of responses indicate FF as safe or safer than ATC

  19. Using the Free Flight Deck1998 human-in-the-loop experiment • Workload measurement: • 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

  20. Using the Free Flight Deck1998 human-in-the-loop experiment • Workload: sensitive to ATM operational scenario

  21. Free Flight might be a solution for current airspace capacity problems Conclusions and Recommendations • The feasibility of Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance could not be refuted , based on 7 NLR studies on Free Flight • The future ATM design has to be chosen very carefully, since the design itself affects pilot and controller workload considerably • The flightdeck crew was able to handle much higher traffic densities than the ground controller(distributed versus centrally organised nature)

  22. Future Plans • Human Interaction Experiment, using Internet gaming facilities (scheduled June 2000)(we need many volunteering pilots for this, to register please contact ruigrok@nlr.nl or hoekstra@nlr.nl) • Flight testing of ASAS equipment, using “real” data • using NLR and possibly NASA laboratory aircraft • Simulation experiments to study: • the effect of real ADS-B characteristics • the use of Free Flight equipment in Managed Airspace • the integration of traffic, weather and terrain information in the cockpit

  23. Demonstrations • Research Flight Simulator: Free Flight demo • NLR’s ATC Research Simulator NARSIM • NLR’s Research Flight Simulator - Next Generation

  24. Contact / More information • NLR Free Flight web site: http://www.nlr.nl/public/hosted-sites/freeflight • E-mail/phone: Rob Ruigrok: ruigrok@nlr.nl, +31 20 511 3595 Jacco Hoekstra: hoekstra@nlr.nl, +31 20 511 3775 Ronald van Gent: rvgent@nlr.nl, +31 20 511 3760 • Mail: Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium Anthony Fokkerweg 2 1059 CM Amsterdam The Netherlands

More Related