Examining Operations Coupling Autoflight To ADS-B Targets In High

Traffic DensityRachel Haga

Amy Pritchett, Ph.D.DASC 2014

2

http://www.isleofideas.com/2012/12/03/crowded-airspace/

NextGen is the FAA initiative to make air travel more safe and efficient

Future air traffic operation may couple autoflight functions to ADS-B targets

But what if someone makes a mistake?

3

Presentation Outline HITL Experiment Design

Scenarios designed to be potential ‘gotcha’ situations

Used ‘Autoflight Interval Management’ and Closely Spaced Parallel Operations’ as exlempars

Results Conclusions

HITL Experimental Setup

5

Experiment Overview

Air Traffic Transcripts

Charts & Checklists

Audio Communications (Aviation Intercom)

Simulation ArchitectureEyetracker

PartyLine First Officer

Captain

Expe

rimen

ter/

Inst

ruct

or

B747-400 Simulator (RFS)

PFDN

D/

TSDPFD

ND

/TSD

Touchscree

nATC->TSD

VGA

ATC Air Traffic Sim

ulator (TGF)

Participants 12 Pilots

ResearcherResearcher

Researcher

6

Interval Management (IM) Implementation

Based on a basic first-principles implementation Commanded a target speed for

the auto-throttle to maintain a constant time-based interval behind another their target.

IM Target (+ specs) entered on ‘ATC’ page on CDU

IM function was a new mode selectable on the MCP

7

Closely Space Parallel Operations (CSPO) Implementation

Pilots were told CSPO designated aircraft had a specialized collision avoidance function No autoflight behaviors were

changed

CSPO Target entered on ‘ATC’ page on CDU

8

Independent Variables & Scenarios

IMATC Gives Wrong IM Target

(Behind & In Front)

IM Target slows below acceptable approach speed

Confusing call sign for IM Target

IM Target leaves arrival route (with/without ATC callout)

IM Target gets an TA

CSPOATC Gives Wrong CSPO Target

(Behind & In Front)

CSPO Target slows(with/without ATC callout)

Confusing call sign for CSPO Target

9

Dependent Variables

Simulator recorded the pilot’s control actions and aircraft dynamics Specifically designating targets, IM error

Pilot communication with ATC Post Run Questionnaires

Pilot rating of IM and CSPO implementation

HITL Experiment Results

11

“IM Error” Measure

Commanded Seconds in Trail: 60IM Error = 0

Positive (+)Negative (-)

12

Wrong Target Given (In Front)

Wrong Target Given (Behind)

Target Slows Too Far

Target Leaves the Arrival Route, ATC Advises

Target Receives a Traffic Advisory*

Target Leaves the Arrival Route, ATC Does NOT Advise

Confusing Callsigns for the Target*

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Disconnected/Corrected IM Contacted ATC

* The scenario did not degraded such that disconnecting/correcting IM was strictly necessary

Pilot Response to IM Scenarios

DAL2524

“Follow DAL 2542

DAL2542DAL2542

13

Wrong Target Given (In Front)

Wrong Target Given (Behind)

Target Slows Too Far

Target Leaves the Arrival Route, ATC Advises

Target Receives a Traffic Advisory*

Target Leaves the Arrival Route, ATC Does NOT Advise

Confusing Callsigns for the Target*

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Disconnected/Corrected IM Contacted ATC

* The scenario did not degraded such that disconnecting/correcting IM was strictly necessary

Pilot Response to IM Scenarios

DAL2524

“Follow DAL 2524

DAL2542DAL2542

14

Pilot Rating of IM

Configuring and executing IM was straightforward.

I was given sufficient information from ATC to the perform IM.

The selection of the target aircraft on the ND was useful to distinguish between aircraft.

I understand the autoflight system behavior during IM.

I always maintained a safe distance from the target aircraft.

The instructions to deselect the target aircraft were clear.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

15

Pilot Response to CSPO Scenarios

Scenario B: Wrong CSPO Target Given (In Front)

Scenario D: Wrong CSPO Target Given (Behind)

Scenario E: CSPO Target Slows, with Air Traffic Call Out

Scenario F: CSPO Target Slows, without Air Traffic Call Out

Scenario L: Confusing Callsigns for the CSPO Target*

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Disconnected/Corrected CSPO Contacted ATC

* The scenario did not degraded such that disconnecting/correcting CSPO was strictly necessary

16

Pilot Rating of CSPO

Configuring and executing parallel operations was straightforward.

I was given sufficient information from ATC to the perform parallel operations.

I felt the parallel operation was reasonable given the traffic situation.

I had no problems identifying the correct target Aircraft when initially configuring for parallel operations.

I was aware when the target aircraft appeared on the ND.

The selection of the target aircraft on the ND helped me identify when the aircraft when it entered the ND

I always maintain a safety distance from the target aircraft.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Conclusions

18

Conclusions Pilots used our simple “IM” mode well, including

detecting when they should de-designate targets and/or dis-continue interval management operations.

Designating the CSPO targets during arrival, was found to be prone to misidentification of targets by pilots

Pilot interaction with air traffic control generally was sparse Operational procedures may need to be examined for the

clarity of the instructions

AcknowledgmentsThis work is funded by the FAA.

Questions?