Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance

1
Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance

• R. v Gent
• J. Hoekstra
• R. Ruigrok

2
Free Flight goals

• User preferred routing
• Horizontally
• direct to destination
• optimum speed
• Vertically
• optimum level
• cruise climb
• More capacity

3
Present day ATC control
4
User Preferred Routing
5
Airborne Perspective
6
Starting Points / Constraints

• No ATC
• Probe the limits
• All aircraft fully equipped
• e.g. ADS-B
• EFIS-CDTI
• Cruise flight only
• Direct routing
• Optimal cruise altitude

7
Methodology

• Traffic Manager Runs
• Find a suitable base-line concept
• Create background scenario for Man-in-the-Loop
  Simulation Experiment
• TOPAZ (Traffic Organization and Perturbation
  AnalyZer)
• Safety Analysis
• Predict critical non-nominal situations
• Man-in-the-Loop Simulation Experiment
• Human Factors Issues
• Validation of concept with Man-in-the-Loop

8
Traffic Manager Runs

• Several concepts tested
• Cross product of speed vectors
• Extended VFR rules
• Variations of TCAS maneuvers
• Voltage potential
• Modified Voltage potential validated
• (Ref. M. Eby, Lincoln Laboratory)

9
Traffic Manager Runs
10
Modified Voltage Potential
11
TOPAZ safety analysis

• Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance is
  feasible in comparison to current ATC

12
Man-in-the-Loop Simulation Experiment

• TEM

• Airsim

• RFS

• C

• D

• U

• E

• F

• I

• S

13
Man Machine Interface

• Modifications to Navigation Display
• Traffic symbology
• Conflict detection
• Resolution Advisories
• Vertical Navigation Display
• Extra EFIS Control Panel functionality
• Modifications to Autopilot
• Execute combined
• Execute separate

14
Navigation Display
15
Navigation Display
16
Navigation Display
17
Navigation Display
18
Mode Control Panel
19
Experimental Setup

• 8 crews for 2 days each flying 18 runs.

20
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Hypotheses

• Less than acceptable
• Less safe
• More workload

21
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Intrusions in
protected zone

• session min. sep. dist. (nm) min.
  sep. alt. (ft.) intr. dur. (s)
• Crew A 3,42 914 8
• Crew B 4,77 9,7 76
• Crew B 4,83 618 20

22
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Average conflict
time
23
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Preferred
manoeurvres

• Manual Exec. sep. Exec. comb.
• Heading 57,9 83 72
• Speed 15,4 57,9 47,5
• Altitude 41,4 28,8 75,9

24
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Fixations on PFD
25
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Fixations on NAV
26
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective
Acceptability
27
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective
Acceptability
28
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective
Acceptability
29
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective
Acceptability
30
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective Safety
31
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective Safety
32
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective Safety
33
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results Subjective Safety
34
Man-in-the-Loop exp.Results RSME
35
Conclusion

• None of the three substudies (off-line
  simulations, TOPAZ safety analysis,
  Man-in-the-Loop experiment) could refute the
  feasibility of an Airborne Separation Assurance
  concept for a future Free Flight environment.

36
Issues

• Some form of obtaining intent information should
  be made available.
• Aircraft, which are in trouble, should be able to
  broadcast a signal upon which they would receive
  priority with conflicts.
• An extra rule forbidding large horizontal and/or
  vertical maneuvers resulting in conflicts less
  then 5 minutes away should be added.