This paper provides a summary of conclusions from the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) Higher Volume Operations (HVO) Flight Experiment which NASA conducted to determine pilot acceptability of the HVO concept for normal conditions. The SATS HVO concept improves efficiency at non-towered, non-radar airports in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) while achieving a level of safety equal to today's system. Reported are results from flight experiment data that indicate that the SATS HVO concept is viable. The success of the SATS HVO concept is based on acceptable pilot workload, performance, and subjective criteria when compared to the procedural control operations in use today at non-towered, non-radar controlled airfields in IMC. The HVO Flight Experiment, flown on NASA's Cirrus SR22, used a subset of the HVO Simulation Experiment scenarios and evaluation pilots in order to validate the simulation experiment results. HVO and Baseline (today's system) scenarios flown included: single aircraft arriving for a GPS non-precision approach; aircraft arriving for the approach with multiple traffic aircraft; and aircraft arriving for the approach with multiple traffic aircraft and then conducting a missed approach. Results reveal that all twelve low-time instrument-rated pilots preferred SATS HVO when compared to current procedural separation operations. These pilots also flew the HVO procedures safely and proficiently without additional workload in comparison to today's system (Baseline). Detailed results of pilot flight technical error, and their subjective assessments of workload and situation awareness are presented in this paper.

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

Air traffic demand is predicted to increase over the next 20 years, creating a need for new technologies and procedures to support this growth in a safe and efficient manner. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration -1 (ATD-1) will operationally demonstrate the feasibility of efficient arrival operations combining ground-based and airborne NASA technologies. The integration of these technologies will increase throughput, reduce delay, conserve fuel, and minimize environmental impacts. The ground-based tools include Traffic Management Advisor with Terminal Metering for precise time-based scheduling and Controller Managed Spacing decision support tools for better managing aircraft delay with speed control. The core airborne technology in ATD-1 is Flight deck-based Interval Management (FIM). FIM tools provide pilots with speed commands calculated using information from Automatic Dependent Surveillance -Broadcast. The precise merging and spacing enabled by FIM avionics and flight crew procedures will reduce excess spacing buffers and result in higher terminal throughput. This paper describes a human-in-the-loop experiment designed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the ATD-1 procedures used in a voice communications environment. This experiment utilized the ATD-1 integrated system of ground-based and airborne technologies. Pilot participants flew a high-fidelity fixed base simulator equipped with an airborne spacing algorithm and a FIM crew interface. Experiment scenarios involved multiple air traffic flows into the Dallas-Fort Worth Terminal Radar Control airspace. Results indicate that the proposed procedures were feasible for use by flight crews in a voice communications environment.The delivery accuracy at the achieve-by point was within +/-five seconds and the delivery precision was less than five seconds. Furthermore, FIM speed commands occurred at a rate of less than one per minute, and pilots found the frequency of the speed commands to be acceptable at all times throughout the experiment scenarios.