ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Session 1 Use of the System by pilots and controllers Tony Henley

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Controller feedback from the CoSpace / NUP II TMA experiment Simulated trials of ASAS S&M at Paris Traffic derived from real traffic sample ASAS equipped A320 cockpit simulator Role of the executive controller: – to integrate 2 flows of aircraft onto final approach

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Results/benefits Controller can plan ahead –Anticipate sequence and issue spacing instructions later when appropriate –Fewer ‘late’ instructions for heading/speed adjustments? Enable better management of traffic More capacity Comments –‘Stayed totally in control’ –‘talking and listening out of the way’ –‘able to keep the metal picture’

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Issues Applicability to other airspace Detection and handling of unexpected events Too much expectation Risk of de-skilling Change in working methods –Resistance to change

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse CoSpace / EVP series of flight deck experiments Stream of experiments, focussed on S&M (spacing) from a cockpit perspective Stepwise validation –Operational (going down from IAF to FAF) –Tuning of pilot’s guidance –Increasing realism of simulation environment

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Findings Benefits –Positive feedback on concept (active part, being “in the loop”, understanding of the situation, more anticipation) –Spacing feasible (e.g. ±5s) until final approach, with limited assistance, at acceptable workload (under nominal conditions) Issues –Is spacing still feasible under degraded situations (aircraft, meteo, …)? –New task with potential risk of workload increase (appropriate level of assistance)

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Lessons learned from pilot involvement in ASAS experiments Review of 3 experiments Significant pilot involvement Responsibility for separation assurance needs to be clear. ASAS applications need to be unambiguous. ASAS needs to be simple. Test non nominal scenarios. Pilot input required from very start. Do not rely on opinion of one pilot. Design for all pilots.

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse In-Trail Climb experience TCAS in-trail climb successfully implemented (in 1994) in the Pacific –But, ADS-B is the way to do it! Solves positive ID task by displaying Flight ID on CDTI Much improved range performance, much fewer dropped targets Future ADS-B applications in oceanic airspace can include ITC/ITD and co-altitude in-trail following also ADS-B in the terminal area can improve arrival rates to capacity constrained runways –CEFR –Wake vortex avoidance applications

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse NASA DAG-TM (1/3) En-route component: Long term focus Autonomous Flight Rules Mixed equipage Not only conflict avoidance (traffic, airspace) but also flow management (RTA) Use of “command trajectory”/ intent

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse NASA DAG-TM (2/3) Terminal Area: Airborne Merging and Spacing tool for Terminal Arrivals (AMSTAR) designed to reduce delay time by improving threshold crossing accuracy and precision: –Accuracy: time intervals closer to optimum spacing. –Precision: successive intervals have better consistency. –Provides speed commands needed to achieve desired threshold crossing time behind preceding aircraft. –Includes wake vortex minima requirements. –Compensates for wind changes encountered during approach. –Emphasizes low pilot workload and system stability. Speed changes given in 5 knot increments. Speed commands kept within 10% of nominal speed profile. –Provides smooth transition to desired final approach speed.

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse NASA DAG-TM (3/3) High fidelity simulator study: –Pilots achieved desired spacing interval (mean values): Within 5 sec when following speed guidance with MCP or manual throttles. Within 1 sec when coupled to autothrottle. Standard deviation within 2 sec. Flight test at Chicago O’Hare with Langley B-757 research aircraft: –Widely varying winds (35+ knot tailwind to headwind changes on final). –Mean spacing performance within 1 sec of desired interval. –Standard deviation ~ 8 sec.

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Discussion Common goals, terminology Clear definition of separation vs spacing and legal issues shall be provided Caution with immature/unclear experiments Importance of realistic environment: fatigued pilots, abnormal conditions Impact of equipage rate on benefits –Potential of Hub –Use of “conventional” control remains anyway

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Discussion Time spacing vs distance separation Fallback definition for abnormal conditions (spacing) Where can S&M go down to? 4NM as today! Integration with other tools/AMAN: work in progress Stability & efficiency rather than raw capacity from S&M Sequencing: Procedural separation of ARR and DEP (Airspace Management) pre-requisite assumed (it is already common practice)

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Discussion Various cockpit display options for S&M Pilot workload: a change but not necessarily an increase, possible assistance Shift of tasks for the controller, different challenge, overall more planning, more control, tools to aid monitoring Minimum level of automation/guidance still TBD Applicability of S&M in departure S&M has value only in airspace with sequencing constraint

ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Discussion Global applicability of ITC CPDLC for ITC: useful but not essential ADS-B IN is key for unlocking benefits ACAS/ASAS: not an issue for S&M. C&P more challenging.