Randall S. Bone

En-route flight deck-based merging and spacing impact on flight crew operations

In an effort to achieve consistent, low variance spacing between aircraft pairs during arrival operations and to reduce aircraft maneuvering, noise, fuel burn, and controller workload, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing, and UPS plans to implement, an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) concept termed Merging and Spacing (M&S). M&S has two phases: a strategic set-up by a ground operator followed by tactical Flight Deck-Based Merging and Spacing (FDMS). Both phases, in the initial implementation, involve pilots being requested to fly speeds from sources other than Air Traffic Control (ATC). In FDMS, the speeds are generated and displayed on-board the aircraft via a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) or other display. The flight crew follows those speeds to achieve a desired time interval from a lead aircraft. This paper focuses on FDMS and presents the subjective and objective results of a human-in-the-loop simulation that examined FDMS from the flight crew perspective during a merge in the en-route environment. Termed FDMS 2, the simulation is part of a development and maturation process that is underway for FDMS. The simulation examined the impact of FDMS on: concept and display acceptability; workload and situation awareness; and procedures for non-normal situations. Ten airline-qualified pilots flew a series of scenarios while acting as the pilot flying. Results indicated general acceptability and improvements over current-day operations under normal and non-normal conditions. Pilots, on average, found the number of speed commands acceptable and their traffic awareness to be improved. They reported a small and acceptable increase in workload over current conditions. The majority of pilots reported concerns about the location of the CDTI, but all agreed that having the display in the experimental location was preferable to not having it and not being able to conduct FDMS. It was also found that pilots may have been driven to spend higher amounts of time viewing a display to detect situations that normally would be resolved by ATC. These results will be used to further refine FDMS and to focus future simulations as the application moves toward operational approval.

Flight Deck-Based Merging and Spacing impact on flight crew operations during Continuous Descent Arrivals and approaches

In an effort to achieve consistent, low variance spacing between aircraft pairs during arrival operations and to reduce aircraft maneuvering, noise, fuel burn, and controller workload, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing, and UPS has implemented an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) concept termed Merging and Spacing (M&S). M&S has two phases: a strategic set-up by a ground operator followed by tactical Flight Deck-Based Merging and Spacing (FDMS). In the initial implementation, both phases, involve pilots being requested to fly speeds from sources other than Air Traffic Control (ATC). In FDMS, the speeds are generated and displayed on-board the aircraft via a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) or other displays. The flight crew follows those speeds to achieve and maintain a desired time interval from a lead aircraft. This paper focuses on FDMS and presents the subjective and objective results of a human-in-the-loop simulation that examined the concept from the flight crew perspective during an in-trail operation in the en route and terminal environments, from a Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) through to landing. Termed FDMS 3, the simulation was conducted in February and March of 2007 and is part of a development and maturation process that is underway for FDMS. The simulation examined the impact of FDMS on: concept and display acceptability; workload and situation awareness; and procedures for non-normal situations. Nine airline-qualified pilots flew a series of scenarios while acting as the pilot flying. Results indicated general acceptability and improvements over current-day operations under normal and non normal conditions. Pilots in general reported that FDMS: was acceptable, was compatible with current operations, was similar in terms of workload as compared to operations without FDMS, allowed for a reduction in communications with ATC, and allowed for acceptable situation awareness. Pilots were able to use the displays to implement speed changes to manage normal and non-normal situations such that the desired spacing interval was maintained with minimal variation. Some pilots reported issues with the CDTI retrofit location and reported increased acceptability of FDMS when the CDTI location was moved to the primary field of view. The simulation results related to the concept were used to further refine FDMS and to focus future simulations. They also supported an implementation that was certified and operationally approved.

Interval Management: Development and Implementation of an Airborne Spacing Concept

Interval Management is a suite of ADS-B-enabled applications that allows the air traffic controller to instruct a flight crew to achieve and maintain a desired spacing relative to another aircraft. The flight crew, assisted by automation, manages the speed of their aircraft to deliver more precise inter-aircraft spacing than is otherwise possible, which increases traffic throughput at the same or higher levels of safety. Interval Management has evolved from a long history of research and is now seen as a core NextGen capability. With avionics standards recently published, completion of an Investment Analysis Readiness Decision by the FAA, and multiple flight tests planned, Interval Management will soon be part of everyday use in the National Airspace System. Second generation, Advanced Interval Management capabilities are being planned to provide a wider range of operations and improved performance and benefits. This paper briefly reviews the evolution of Interval Management and describes current development and deployment plans. It also reviews concepts under development as the next generation of applications.

Air traffic controller utilization of voice and Data Link Communications during Interval Management

A Human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation was conducted to investigate the integration of two advanced aviation capabilities across both the air and ground domains: Interval Management (IM) and Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC). The IM concept was examined in a mixed communication environment. Of particular interest was the communication of the IM clearance as it is expected to be a complex communication. The simulation focused on three levels of IM clearance complexity and two different modes of communication (voice only versus voice and CPDLC). In the HITL, pilots and controllers conducted IM and had communication exchanges that were supported by automation. Controller results from the HITL are provided in this paper. The majority of controllers found the integration of the IM and CPDLC capabilities acceptable. Controllers had the most variability in their replies for the Higher Complexity clearances under both voice and CPDLC. They preferred CPDLC over voice communications. The simulation showed more communication issues when using voice as compared to when using CPDLC. The results of the HITL are expected to be used by the Federal Aviation Administration to develop requirements for IM operations and communications.

Pilot use of voice and datalink communications for Interval Management (IM)

A Human-In-The-loop (HITL) simulation was conducted to investigate the integration of two advanced aviation capabilities across both the air and ground domains. Interval Management (IM) and Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) were the two capabilities. The IM concept was examined in different communication environments. Of particular interest was the communication of the IM clearance since it is expected to be a complex communication. The simulation focused on three levels of IM clearance complexity and two different modes of communication (voice only versus voice with CPDLC). Pilot CPDLC communications were further examined by allowing for the CPDLC message to either be manually or directly loaded into the flight deck IM equipment. In the HITL, pilots and controllers conducted IM and had communication exchanges that were supported by automation. Pilot results from the HITL are provided in this paper. The majority of pilots found the integration of the IM and CPDLC capabilities acceptable. Pilots had difficulty with the “Higher” complexity IM clearances, especially over voice communications. They preferred CPDLC over voice communications and the results revealed using CPDLC improved the acceptability of Higher complexity clearances. The results of the HITL are expected to be used by the Federal Aviation Administration to further scope the spectrum of IM operations and communications.