Overview of NLR ASAS work Jacco Hoekstra Rob Ruigrok

2. Overview of NLR ASAS work Jacco Hoekstra Rob Ruigrok

3. Outline ASAS = Self-Separation in this presentation • Projects Overview • General Findings • ASAS Prototype Guidelines • The Next Steps

4. Projects Overview • Free Flight (NASA, FAA, RLD, NLR) • INTENT (ONERA, QinetiQ, TU-Delft, Rockwell Collins, Smiths, Airbus, Eurocontrol, NLR, VNV, BA, SAS, KLM) • MFF (ENAV, AENA, Eurocontrol, DNA, SCAA, HCAA, MATS, NATS, NLR)

5. Project Free Flight • Analysis: Distributed systems, capacity, safety • Offline: normal scenarios, complex geometries • SIM I: Basic FF cruise, high densitiesSIM II: Mixed equipage in cruise, PASAS?MHITL: Web experiment & classroomSIM III: How low can you go? • NLR ASAS prototype based on state info & PASAS

6. protected zone intruder minimum distance 1. heading change avoidance vector 2. speed change advised vector Protected Zone radius = 5 nm ½h = 1000 ft Project Free FlightConflict Detection & Resolution ownship not shown: 3. vertical speed cange intruder =>normally vertical most optimal ASAS offers 3 separate manoeuvres

7. Project Free FlightASAS CDR&P ASAS: 5nm, 5 min, 1000 ft Conflict symbology- red circle & track- yellow circle own zone- traffic symbol always- label time to l.o.s. Resolution symbology- horizontal- vertical Predictive ASAS If conflict => check vertical !

8. Human-in-the-loop experiment I Conflict rate tripled: so 3x, 6x, 9x ! Low workload in high density en-route traffic 114 = costing lots and lots of effort 88 = costing much effort 40 = costing some effort 27 = costing little effort 3 = costing no effort

9. Human-in-the-loop experiment II Mixed-Equipage concept: 25% & 75% equippedAirborne side prefers Full mix Ground side not able to cope with Full mix Traffic density lowered for ATCo relative to HITL I Predictive ASAS lowers conflict alert rate significantly and makes alert time predictable

10. Human-in-the-loop experiment III 114 = costing lots and lots of effort 88 = costing much effort 40 = costing some effort 27 = costing little effort 3 = costing no effort • Descent: not different from cruise • Arrival: • FF higher workload • CDTI in managed airspace => extremely low workload

11. Multiple human-in-the-loop experiments Webexperiment Classroomexperiment

12. Multiple human-in-the-loop experiment Superconflict n=8 • Humans smarter, meaner, more strategic, emotional, variable, etc. • Will superconflict solving deteriorate or improve?

13. Who are the bots and who are the humans?

14. How ? Where ? When ? Project INTENT(not an acronym) • Aircraft intent is a potential enabler of Airborne Separation Assurance / Free Flight • But: • how much INTENT is required ? • where to use INTENT ? • when to use INTENT ? • The objective of the INTENT project is to answer these questions, giving a technology roadmap for airborne and ground based equipment to increase airspace capacity.

15. INTENT based CD&R • RFS intent-based ASAS • Conflict detection and resolution based on aircraft 3D position and FMS flight plan (aircraft intent) • Priority rules, one aircraft in conflict manoeuvres • Resolution advisories in more directions and always presented as an FMS modified route • Only when FMS is engaged (LNAV and VNAV) • Three alert levels: • 20 - 5 minutes: green • 5 - 3 minutes: amber • 3 - 0 minutes: red • Experimental Design • 4 intent levels: state-based with 5 min look-ahead time, intent-based with 5, 10 and 20 min look-ahead time. • 3 traffic loads: 1x, 2 x and 3 x today's traffic

16. INTENT Conclusions (1/2) • Including aircraft intent in the separation assurance process is preferred by controllers and pilots • Aircraft intent information does not have a significant effect on controller or pilot workload, compared to the references without aircraft intent, both for the airborne and ground concepts • Aircraft intent information has a positive effect on flight efficiency compared to state based references

17. INTENT Conclusions (2/2) • The comparison between the airspace capacity results of the airborne and ground concepts is interesting: • ground concepts can handle aboutmaximum of1.5 times today’s traffic load • airborne concepts can handle 3 times this load.

18. Project MFF ASAS trials • ASAS in climb,cruise & descent • Transition FFAS  MAS FL285

19. Project MFF, results • Vertical transitions have highest workload

20. Project MFF, results • Workload higher with ASAS but acceptable

21. General Findings • ASAS yields tremendous capacity increase • ASAS offers safety benefits • ASAS allows direct routing and optimal vertical profile, hence efficiency benefits • State-based CDR&P sufficient for introduction and benefits, intent-based system preferred for future

22. ASAS Prototype Guidelines • Separate or duplicate ADS-B transmitter/receiver • State-based lookahead time 5-7 minutes in cruise, descent & climb is sufficient if fitted with predictive ASAS • Target altitude as intent info would enhance system • Intent based CD&R can expand lookahead time, optimum found to be 10 minutes • Use of priority (to 3 min to l.o.s. at the latest): • to allow state-based, state-based + target state and intent-based CDR&R to operate in the same airspace • reduction of workload: only 1 aircraft to manoeuvre • Co-operative resolution offers fail-safety and offers bottleneck solution by wave/domino effect

23. Next Steps • Test bandwidth • Standardise on principle of co-operative resolution • Develop standards for intent-based system for future that is compatible with first generation ASAS And then: • It is time for a leap forward => Retrofit state-based system during field trials in non-radar airspace: North Atlantic?

24. Questions?

26. Project Free FlightConcept: state-based, co-operative • Lookahead time is 5 minutes • Two alert levels: 5-3 minutes: amber 3-0 minutes: red • Normally: • amber: vertical resolution each solves 50% of intrusion in amber conflicts • red always each 100 % (fail-safe) vertical • Exception: horizontal resolution both solve 100% of intrusionvert/vert = 50+50 v & 0 h = solved vertically hor/vert = 50+0 v & 100 h = solved horizontally hor/hor = 80 + 80 h & 0 v = solved horizontally

27. Project Free FlightPrimary flight display • Conflict reso:- vertical spd- altitude- heading- speed(green bugs) • Predasas on:- vertical spd- speed- heading(amber & red bands)

28. Capacity Distributed system vs. central system • Effect on workload, safety and technological requirements

29. Capacity - Workload • Conflict rate: triple, six times, nine times !

30. Capacity Task comparison Controlled vs. Free Flight

31. Safety

32. Safety

33. Safety

34. Safety

35. Safety

36. Safety

37. Workload 114 = costing lots and lots of effort 88 = costing much effort 40 = costing some effort 27 = costing little effort 3 = costing no effort • Descent: no different from cruise • Arrival: • FF higher workload • CDTI and managed extremely low workload

38. ASAS prototype • Retrofit: State-based with conflict prevention minimal required, target state (altitude) recommended • Lookahead time 5-10 minutes • En-route: climb, cruise, descent • Approach: extra tools needed (spacing) • Effects on safety, capacity, efficiency all expected to be beneficial. Workload acceptable. • Air Traffic Control becomes Air Traffic Management