1. ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 Airborne Conflict Management within Confined Airspace in a Piloted Simulation of DAG-TM Autonomous Aircraft Operations Dr. Bryan Barmore, Dr. Edward Johnson, David J. Wing, Richard Barhydt NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA USA

2. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 1/17 Distributed Air/Ground-Traffic Management  NASA’s working concept for Free Flight  15 Concept Elements supporting gate-to-gate operations CE-1 CE-0 Preflight planning CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 *CE-5 *CE-6 CE-7 CE-8 CE-10 CE-9 CE-12 *CE-11 CE-13 CE-14 Data Exchange Surface Departure Operations Terminal Departure Operations En Route Separation and Flow Conformance En Route Airspace Constraint Management Arrival Flow Constraint Management Terminal Airspace Constraint Management Terminal Arrival Operations Surface Arrival Operations *Currently Funded AATT R&D Investments

3. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 2/17 En Route Autonomous Operations (CE 5)  Flight crew has ability to select their path and speed in real time  Must conform to constraints for safety and flow management  Mixed operations in the same airspace  Autonomous flights provide their own separation assurance  Managed flights have separation services provided by Air Traffic Service Provider  Both operations utilize the same airspace  Goal is to enable greater efficiency and flexibility while accommodating a substantial increase in traffic by distributing information, responsibilities and decision making

4. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 3/17  Lab for investigating multi-aircraft operations (no ATC positions)  Up to 8 interacting single-pilot stations using networked desktop simulators  ADS-B modeling of message set, range, rate  Aircraft simulation includes research prototype decision support tool for AFR operations Primary Flight Display Navigation / Traffic Display FMS / CDU Display and Glareshield Control Panels Pilot and Researcher Stations in NASA Air Traffic Operations Lab NASA Air Traffic Operations Lab Langley Research Center

5. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 4/17 Background  Unconstrained free maneuvering is feasible with traffic densities much larger than current-day (Hoekstra, et al, 2000)  Use of state data only or combining state and intent data both support free maneuvering (Wing, et al, 2001)  Are autonomous operations in a highly constrained and challenging environment feasible?  proximity of airspace constraints  required lateral separation standards

6. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 5/17 Confined Airspace Experiment  Aircraft has en route flow constraint (RTA) QRestrict maneuverability by adding restricted areas Narrow corridor averages 35 nm Wide corridor averages 65 nm QUse separation standard as another method to control available maneuvering space 5 nm / ±1000 feet (RVSM) 3 nm / ±1000 feet RTA QOther traffic in area 65 35 Each data run is ~200 nm and 25 minutes long QOne scripted conflict occurred in the middle of the corridor

7. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 6/17 Experiment Design and Subject Pilots 59 data runs used for analysis 5 data runs lost to simulation faults wide 5 nm narrow 5 nm narrow 3 nm wide 3 nm 2x2 Experiment Design within subject design See following two talks See following two talks One Branch of Larger Study 9 test scenarios 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 4 line pilots 2 days 16 Pilots/ 2 weeks

8. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 7/17 Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP)  Research Prototype Decision Support Tool for flight crew  Drives advanced cockpit displays  Automated conflict detection and resolution  Multilevel alerting  Provides conflict prevention information  AOP considers the following to assist the pilot with trajectory management  Conflicts with traffic hazards  Conflicts with airspace restrictions (Wx, SUA)  Aircraft performance limitations  Traffic Flow Management constraints  Operator flight goals (efficiency, schedule, etc.)

9. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 8/17 Conflict Detection  Uses both state and intent information  Alerts built upon RTCA SC186 ACM group recommendations  Four alert levels Level 0 – Traffic point out Level 1 – low level alert Pilot action is not required but recommended Level 2 – Conflict Detection Zone Alert Timely action is required Level 3 – Collision Avoidance Zone Alert Last alert before TCAS advisory

10. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 9/17 Conflict Prevention and Resolution  Conflict Prevention  No-fly zones on ND and VSI  Based on techniques from NLR  Prevents near-term conflicts  Strategic Conflict Resolution  Closed-loop resolution  Considers all traffic and other constraints  Route is uploaded to FMS  Tactical Conflict Resolution  Uses NLR state-based resolution  Solves immediate conflict  Does not consider other traffic or constraints

11. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 10/17 Research Questions  Could the pilots navigate the corridor safely?  Separation violations and SUA penetrations  Could the pilots meet their TFM constraints?  Accuracy of RTA arrival (time, altitude, location)  Is the system stable?  Number of second generation conflicts that occurred and why

12. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 11/17 Safety of Operations  This is not a safety analysis. Looking at possible safety issues.  There were no SUA penetrations.  There were three recorded separation violations

13. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 12/17 Separation Violation Case Studies 1.Pilot initiated climb at slow rate to stay under crossing traffic  Autopilot changed modes (simulation error) causing a greater climb rate and separation violation.  Separation lost & regained before pilot could react. 2.Pilot was above crossing traffic  Pilot preselected lower altitude but waited to engage.  Pilot judged the situation safe by only looking at CDTI but did not consult conflict prevention system on VSI.  4.5 nm/600 ft separation. Separation lost & regained before pilot could react.

14. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 13/17 Separation Violation Case Studies 3.Pilot climbed to avoid crossing traffic.  Did not consult conflict prevention system on VSI.  There was faster moving traffic above and in front of ownship.  Lost separation at 3.5 nm/800 ft.  Pilot maintained speed and allowed leading aircraft to pull away.  Case 1 was definitely a simulation error.  Cases 2 and 3 were the results of pilot error. Need better:  Training on use of conflict prevention on VSI  New procedures for altitude changes  Improved conflict prevention symbology

15. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 14/17 Traffic Flow Management Constraints  Waypoint constraints  2.5 nm  500 ft  ±30 secs  Aircraft were initiated 15 KIAS below performance limit  3 of the 59 pilots failed to arrive within the time window  All 59 met altitude and position assignments 72% within 5 secs 95% within 15 secs Pilots were able to notify researchers 5-10 minutes prior to RTA

16. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 15/17 System Stability second generation conflict second generation conflict Planned conflict Resolution method that caused 2 nd generation conflicts All occurred while making tactical maneuvers No Events 59 data runs

17. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 16/17 System Stability 12 were beyond conflict prevention look- ahead time 6 were changes made through FMS where no CP is provided 5 were altitude or vertical speed changes 6 were where pilot had CP guidance and ignored it 12 were within conflict prevention time 24 2 nd generation conflicts / 59 runs 24 2 nd generation conflicts / 59 runs These not considered a problem We are adding provisional route checking More training, better procedures, better design needed

18. 5 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar Budapest June 2003 ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTED AIR/GROUND-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Dr. Bryan Barmore, NASA Langley Research Center 17/17 Overall Assessment  The pilots were able to operate acceptably in a highly constrained environment  There were no serious safety concerns discovered  Better training and/or procedures needed for vertical maneuvering  Could be helped with strategic tools that offers vertical resolutions  The pilots had positive responses to the task and operational acceptability  The pilots were able to meet their traffic flow constraints with little problem  Second generation conflicts of some concern