Evaluation of an Airborne Spacing Concept, On-board Spacing Tool, and Pilot Interface

Abstract

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.

The effects of limited intent information availability on self-separation in mixed operations

“…An aircraft may depart under a conventional IFR clearance, transition to an AFR clearance for climb, cruise, and initial descent, and regain an IFR clearance upon entrance to the terminal area. In future work, it is envisioned that AFR will be integrated with flight deck interval management and spacing concepts for arrivals [5].…”

Human–Systems Integration Design Process of the Air Traffic Control Tower Flight Data Manager

“…Whereas the RAPT prototype was deployed and iterated in the field (in which actual operational benefits can be assessed), authors of other studies have analyzed advances in automation through measuring operational performance metrics in a human-in-the-loop experimental environment (Nagle et al, 2011;Prevot et al, 2011;Swieringa, Murdoch, Baxley, & Hubbs, 2011).…”

Comparison of aircraft models and integration schemes for interval management in the tracon

“…As clearly defined in [4], the IM concept involves an air traffic controller issuing an IM clearance to a candidate aircraft. The onboard software of the IM cleared aircraft then provides a precise speed for the aircraft to maintain.…”

“…Interval Management in its various forms has been investigated by several organizations, such as MITRE [6][7][8], EuroControl [9][10][11][12], NASA [4,[13][14] and the FAA [15,16]. Evaluations performed by MITRE address both human-in-the-loop simulations as well as theoretical modeling approaches.…”

“…A similar study was performed at NASA Langley [4], this time in reference to arrival operations, which considered the Interval Management concept with respect to spacing on parallel dependent runways. The scenario concerned the Dallas Fort-Worth Terminal Area (KDFW), where pilots attempted closely spaced parallel approaches under the Interval Management operational concept.…”