1. Examining Operations Coupling Autoflight To ADS-B Targets In High Traffic Density Rachel Haga Amy Pritchett, Ph.D. DASC 2014

2. 2

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 3

4. HITL Experimental Setup

5. Experiment Overview 5 Air Traffic Transcripts Charts & Checklists Audio Communications (Aviation Intercom) Simulation Architecture Eyetracker PartyLine First Officer Captain Experimenter/Instructor B747-400 Simulator (RFS) PFD ND/TSD PFD ND/TSD Touch screen ATC->TSD VGA ATC Air Traffic Simulator (TGF) Participants 12 Pilots 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 6

7. Closely Space Parallel Operations (CSPO) Implementation 7  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 8 IM ATC 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 CSPO ATC 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 9

10. HITL Experiment Results

11. “IM Error” Measure 11 Commanded Seconds in Trail: 60 IM Error = 0 Positive (+) Negative (-)

12. Pilot Response to IM Scenarios 12 DAL2524 “Follow DAL 2542 DAL2542

13. Pilot Response to IM Scenarios 13 DAL2524 “Follow DAL 2524 DAL2542

14. Pilot Rating of IM 14

15. Pilot Response to CSPO Scenarios 15

16. Pilot Rating of CSPO 16

17. Conclusions

18.  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 18

19. Acknowledgments This work is funded by the FAA.

20. Questions?