No abstract

A 19-day flight test of an Interval Management (IM) avionics prototype was conducted in Washington State using three aircraft to precisely achieve and maintain a spacing interval behind the preceding aircraft. NASA contracted with Boeing, Honeywell, and United Airlines to build this prototype, and then worked closely with them, the FAA, and other industry partners to test this prototype in flight. Four different IM operation types were investigated during this test in the en route, arrival, and final approach phases of flight. Many of the IM operations met or exceeded the design goals established prior to the test. However, there were issues discovered throughout the flight test, including the rate and magnitude of IM commanded speed changes and the difference between expected and actual aircraft deceleration rates.

The number of commercial aircraft operations is predicted to increase in the next ten years, creating a need for improved operational efficiency. Two areas believed to offer significant increases in efficiency are optimized profile descents and dependent parallel runway operations. It is envisioned that during both of these types of operations, flight crews will precisely space their aircraft behind preceding aircraft at air traffic control assigned intervals to increase runway throughput and maximize the use of existing infrastructure. This paper describes a human-in-the-loop experiment designed to study the performance of an onboard spacing algorithm and pilots' ratings of the usability and acceptability of an airborne spacing concept that supports dependent parallel arrivals. Pilot participants flew arrivals into the Dallas Fort-Worth terminal environment using one of three different simulators located at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Langley Research Center. Scenarios were flown using Interval Management with Spacing (IM-S) and Required Time of Arrival (RTA) control methods during conditions of no error, error in the forecast wind, and offset (disturbance) to the arrival flow. Results indicate that pilots' delivered their aircraft to the runway threshold within +/-3.5 seconds of their assigned arrival time and reported that both the IM-S and RTA procedures were associated with low workload levels. In general, pilots found the IM-S concept, procedures, speeds, and interface acceptable; with 92% of pilots rating the procedures as complete and logical, 218 out of 240 responses agreeing that the IM-S speeds were acceptable, and 63% of pilots reporting that the displays were easy to understand and displayed in appropriate locations. The 22 (out of 240) responses, indicating that the commanded speeds were not acceptable and appropriate occurred during scenarios containing wind error and offset error. Concerns cited included the occurrence of multiple speed changes within a short time period, speed changes required within twenty miles of the runway, and an increase in airspeed followed shortly by a decrease in airspeed. Within this paper, appropriate design recommendations are provided, and the need for continued, iterative human-centered design is discussed.

Investigation of function allocation for the Next Generation Air Transportation System is being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).To provide insight on comparability of different function allocations for separation assurance, two human-in-the-loop simulation experiments were conducted on homogeneous airborne and ground-based approaches to four-dimensional trajectory-based operations, one referred to as 'ground-based automated separation assurance' (groundbased) and the other as 'airborne trajectory management with self-separation' (airborne). In the coordinated simulations at NASA's Ames and Langley Research Centers, controllers for the ground-based concept at Ames and pilots for the airborne concept at Langley managed the same traffic scenarios using the two different concepts. The common scenarios represented a significant increase in airspace demand over current operations. Using common independent variables, the simulations varied traffic density, scheduling constraints, and the timing of trajectory change events. Common metrics were collected to enable a comparison of relevant results. Where comparisons were possible, no substantial differences in performance or operator acceptability were observed. Mean schedule conformance and flight path deviation were considered adequate for both approaches. Conflict detection warning times and resolution times were mostly adequate, but certain conflict situations were detected too late to be resolved in a timely manner. This led to some situations in which safety was compromised and/or workload was rated as being unacceptable in both experiments. Operators acknowledged these issues in their responses and ratings but gave generally positive assessments of the respective concept and operations they experienced. Future studies will evaluate technical improvements and procedural enhancements to achieve the required level of safety and acceptability and will investigate the integration of airborne and ground-based capabilities within the same airspace to leverage the benefits of each concept. AIAA 2010-9293This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

No abstract