Effects of traffic display size and location on visual separation during visual approaches: Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) Enhanced Flight Rules (CEFR)

Abstract

At many busy airports maximum efficiency and minimum delay occur when visual approaches are being conducted by pilots using visual separation from traffic for a portion of the approach. Pilot willingness to accept responsibility for visual separation also affords controllers maximum flexibility in traffic management under conditions of high traffic load. It may be possible to extend that efficiency to lower weather conditions if pilots are able to perform the same separation tasks by reference to a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) in lieu of visual contact outthe-window (OTW). This concept is termed CDTI Enhanced Flight Rules (CEFR). Use of CEFR procedures may be applicable during visual or instrument approaches (with visual approaches being the likely initial implementation).This study is the second in a series that examined the instrument approach application with particular attention to the effect of CDTI location and size on spacing performance. This paper will cover the results based on CDTI location and size responses. The entire set of results, including those on the CEFR concept, can be found in Bone, Helleberg, Domino, and Johnson, 2003a. approaches, as the pilot flying, in a flight deck simulator, while maintaining a self-determined visual separation from traffic-to-follow (TTF) by mixed reference to a visual scene and a CDTI. Speed management was used to adjust spacing to a pilot-determined value. The results indicate that pilots are willing and able to perform the CEFR procedure via any of the CDTI sizes or locations tested in the simulation.Eight commercial airline pilots flew coupled

Air ground collaboration through delegated separation: Application for departures and arrivals

“…These results are comparable to the results reported in [7][8][9][10][11] where the operations concept required visual acquisition before the display could be used for spacing judgments. Pilots indicated that they were comfortable using the display to enable the delegated task, but did note in debriefing that they were assuming the displayed positions were accurate and that an appropriate level of certification for the equipment was in place.…”

“…The concepts were referred to initially as CDTI Enhanced Flight Rules (CEFR) and then the more descriptive CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS). MITRE performed a series of human in the loop simulations [8][9][10][11][12] of a limited, delegated separation concept which started in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), with transitions through a cloud layer or other visibility restriction resulting in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) of limited duration, until the aircraft broke out underneath the cloud layer. The CEFR/CAVS concept required the crew to first identify the reference traffic using direct visual contact, and then correlate the target with its representation on the CDTI.…”