Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance

1
(No Transcript)
2

• Overview
• of
• NLR ASAS work
• Jacco Hoekstra
• Rob Ruigrok

3
Outline
ASAS Self-Separation in this presentation

• Projects Overview
• General Findings
• ASAS Prototype Guidelines
• The Next Steps

4
Projects Overview

• Free Flight (NASA, FAA, RLD, NLR)
• INTENT (ONERA, QinetiQ, TU-Delft, Rockwell
  Collins, Smiths, Airbus, Eurocontrol,
  NLR, VNV, BA, SAS, KLM)
• MFF (ENAV, AENA, Eurocontrol, DNA, SCAA, HCAA,
  MATS, NATS, NLR)

5
Project Free Flight

• Analysis Distributed systems, capacity, safety
• Offline normal scenarios, complex geometries
• SIM I Basic FF cruise, high densitiesSIM II
  Mixed equipage in cruise, PASAS?MHITL Web
  experiment classroomSIM III How low can you
  go?
• NLR ASAS prototype based on state info PASAS

6
Project Free FlightConflict Detection
Resolution
ownship
not shown 3. vertical speed cange
intruder
gtnormally vertical most optimal ASAS offers 3
separate manoeuvres
7
Project Free FlightASAS CDRP

• ASAS 5nm, 5 min, 1000 ft
• Conflict symbology- red circle track- yellow
  circle own zone- traffic symbol always- label
  time to l.o.s.
• Resolution symbology- horizontal- vertical
• Predictive ASAS
• If conflict gt check vertical !

8
Human-in-the-loop experiment I
114 costing lots and lots of effort 88
costing much effort 40 costing some effort
27 costing little effort 3 costing no
effort

• Conflict rate tripled so 3x, 6x, 9x !
• Low workload in high density en-route traffic

9
Human-in-the-loop experiment II

• Mixed-Equipage concept 25 75
  equippedAirborne side prefers Full mix Ground
  side not able to cope with Full mix
• Traffic density lowered for ATCo relative to HITL
  I
• Predictive ASAS lowers conflict alert rate
  significantly and makes alert time predictable

10
Human-in-the-loop experiment III
114 costing lots and lots of effort 88
costing much effort 40 costing some effort
27 costing little effort 3 costing no
effort

• Descent not different from cruise
• Arrival
• FF higher workload
• CDTI in managed airspace gt extremely low workload

11
Multiple human-in-the-loop experiments

• Webexperiment
• Classroomexperiment

12
Multiple human-in-the-loop experiment
Superconflict n8

• Humans smarter, meaner, more strategic,
  emotional, variable, etc.
• Will superconflict solving deteriorate or improve?

13
Who are the bots and who are the humans?
14
Project INTENT(not an acronym)

• Aircraft intent is a potential enabler of
  Airborne Separation Assurance / Free Flight

• But
• how much INTENT is required ?
• where to use INTENT ?
• when to use INTENT ?

• The objective of the INTENT project is to answer
  these questions, giving a technology roadmap for
  airborne and ground based equipment to increase
  airspace capacity.

15
INTENT based CDR

• RFS intent-based ASAS
• Conflict detection and resolution based on
  aircraft 3D position and FMS flight plan
  (aircraft intent)
• Priority rules, one aircraft in conflict
  manoeuvres
• Resolution advisories in more directions and
  always presented as an FMS modified route
• Only when FMS is engaged (LNAV and VNAV)
• Three alert levels
• 20 - 5 minutes green
• 5 - 3 minutes amber
• 3 - 0 minutes red
• Experimental Design
• 4 intent levels state-based with 5 min
  look-ahead time, intent-based with 5, 10 and 20
  min look-ahead time.
• 3 traffic loads 1x, 2 x and 3 x today's traffic

16
INTENT Conclusions (1/2)

• Including aircraft intent in the separation
  assurance process is preferred by controllers and
  pilots
• Aircraft intent information does not have a
  significant effect on controller or pilot
  workload, compared to the references without
  aircraft intent, both for the airborne and ground
  concepts
• Aircraft intent information has a positive effect
  on flight efficiency compared to state based
  references

17
INTENT Conclusions (2/2)

• The comparison between the airspace capacity
  results of the airborne and ground concepts is
  interesting
• ground concepts can handle aboutmaximum of1.5
  times todays traffic load
• airborne concepts can handle 3 times this load.

18
Project MFF ASAS trials

• ASAS in climb,cruise descent
• Transition FFAS ? MAS

FL285
19
Project MFF, results

• Vertical transitions have highest workload

20
Project MFF, results

• Workload higher with ASAS but acceptable

21
General Findings

• ASAS yields tremendous capacity increase
• ASAS offers safety benefits
• ASAS allows direct routing and optimal vertical
  profile, hence efficiency benefits
• State-based CDRP sufficient for introduction and
  benefits, intent-based system preferred for future

22
ASAS Prototype Guidelines

• Separate or duplicate ADS-B transmitter/receiver
• State-based lookahead time 5-7 minutes in cruise,
  descent climb is sufficient if fitted with
  predictive ASAS
• Target altitude as intent info would enhance
  system
• Intent based CDR can expand lookahead time,
  optimum found to be 10 minutes
• Use of priority (to 3 min to l.o.s. at the
  latest)
• to allow state-based, state-based target state
  and intent-based CDRR to operate in the same
  airspace
• reduction of workload only 1 aircraft to
  manoeuvre
• Co-operative resolution offers fail-safety and
  offers bottleneck solution by wave/domino effect

23
Next Steps

• Test bandwidth
• Standardise on principle of co-operative
  resolution
• Develop standards for intent-based system for
  future that is compatible with first generation
  ASAS
• And then
• It is time for a leap forward
• gt Retrofit state-based system during field
  trials in non-radar airspace North Atlantic?

24

• Questions?

25
(No Transcript)
26
Project Free FlightConcept state-based,
co-operative

• Lookahead time is 5 minutes
• Two alert levels 5-3 minutes amber
  3-0 minutes red
• Normally
• amber vertical resolution each solves 50 of
  intrusion in amber conflicts
• red always each 100 (fail-safe) vertical
• Exception horizontal resolution both solve 100
  of intrusion vert/vert 5050 v 0 h solved
  vertically hor/vert 500 v 100 h solved
  horizontally hor/hor 80 80 h 0 v solved
  horizontally

27
Project Free FlightPrimary flight display

• Conflict reso- vertical spd- altitude-
  heading- speed(green bugs)
• Predasas on- vertical spd- speed-
  heading(amber red bands)

28
Capacity
Distributed system vs. central system

• Effect on workload, safety and technological
  requirements

29
Capacity - Workload

• Conflict rate triple, six times, nine times !

30
Capacity
Task comparison Controlled vs. Free Flight
31
Safety
32
Safety
33
Safety
34
Safety
35
Safety
36
Safety
37
Workload
114 costing lots and lots of effort 88
costing much effort 40 costing some effort
27 costing little effort 3 costing no
effort

• Descent no different from cruise
• Arrival
• FF higher workload
• CDTI and managed extremely low workload

38
ASAS prototype

• Retrofit State-based with conflict prevention
  minimal required, target state (altitude)
  recommended
• Lookahead time 5-10 minutes
• En-route climb, cruise, descent
• Approach extra tools needed (spacing)
• Effects on safety, capacity, efficiency all
  expected to be beneficial. Workload acceptable.
• Air Traffic Control becomes Air Traffic
  Management