Airborne Separation and SelfSeparation within the Distributed AirGround

Airborne Separation and Self-Separation within the Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management Concept Mark G. Ballin NASA Langley Research Center · ASAS Thematic Network - Workshop 2 · Malmö, Sweden · October 6 -8, 2003 1/18

Presentation Overview · Introduction to DAG-TM Airborne Component · Potential for Benefits · En Route Free Maneuvering Operations · Capacity-Constrained Terminal Arrival Operations · Closing Remarks Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 2/18

Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (“DAG-TM”) Flight Crew • Information • Responsibility Air T Se raff Pr rvic ic ov e ide r • Decision making l ca uti l na na ro tio Ae ra rol e Op ont C Concept Premise: Large improvements in system capacity, airspace user flexibility, and user efficiency will be enabled through – Sharing information related to flight intent, traffic, and the airspace environment – Collaborative decision making among all involved system participants – Distributing decision authority to the most appropriate decision maker Distributing decision authority may be a key enabler in multiplying system capacity by minimizing workload bottlenecks Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 3/18

DAG-TM Airborne Component in Context · · Mature-state focus – Complements near-term ASAS applications research – Characterization of mature-state feasibility, benefits potential, and system requirements is important, even for evolutionary modernization Why must we consider such a challenging solution? No other proposed paradigm has potential to – accommodate expected growth in airspace operations – we must consider system that accommodates a threefold capacity increase · Projected increases in air carriers and air cargo · New class of small aircraft designed for point-to-point operations – adapt to demand in a cost-effective way · Increased traffic within region increased CNS infrastructure – provide robustness to system failures · Increased number of human decision makers greater redundancy · Redundant CNS infrastructure Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 4/18

DAG-TM Airborne Component Benefits Potential · · Growth scalability for airspace capacity – More aircraft can be accommodated in a sector if a portion of them are self-managing – Each new autonomous aircraft in the system adds to the surveillance and separation provision infrastructures – Constraints due to controller workload are reduced through change in controller’s job from centralized control to traffic flow management User flexibility to optimize VFR flexibility with IFR protection leads to reduced direct operating costs – Removal of “flow control” ground-hold restrictions based on en route and destination weather forecasts or ATC “saturation” – Reduction or removal of delays involved in waiting for flight plan approval – Time and fuel use during flight Safety and reliability – Increased redundancy of traffic control Economic scalability – Distribution of system modernization costs – For NAS users, more direct relationship between capital/recurring investments and benefits Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 5/18

En Route Free Maneuvering Operations Overview Concept Integrates: Cost management, Passenger comfort IFR trajectory management User-determined optimal trajectory mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov Managed (IFR) Aircraft Maneuver restrictions Priority rules Terminal area Mark G. Ballin Crossing restrictions Special Use Airspace avoidance Airborne separation Hazard avoidance Fleet management IFR priority Aeronautical Operational Control Autonomous (AFR) Aircraft Mixed operations Operational constraints User flexibility $+J IFR and AFR traffic flow management Air Traffic Service Provider 6/18

En Route Free Maneuvering Roles & Procedures for Air/Ground Interaction Autonomous Flight Rules (AFR) Aircraft · Maintains separation from all aircraft » Extra separation margin given to IFR aircraft to minimize impact on ATS Provider » Ensures no near-term conflicts are created by maneuvering or changing intent · Selects and flies user-preferred trajectory » No clearance required in AFR operations (like VFR) » Trajectories selected to meet flight safety, fuel efficiency, performance limitations, and company preferences » Includes avoiding convective weather and maximizing passenger comfort » Unrestricted route & altitude except SUA’s established by ATS Provider · Conforms to TFM constraints » Adjusts path and speed to meet Required Time of Arrival (RTA) received from ATS Provider » Notifies ATS Provider if unable to meet RTA or crossing restrictions; request new assignment » Conformance required to gain terminal area access Air Traffic Service (ATS) Provider · Separates IFR aircraft only and monitors IFR conformance to flow/airspace constraints » Uses advanced tools and data link for enhancing IFR operations efficiency and tightening TFM tolerances · Establishes flow & airspace constraints for system-wide & local TFM » Meters AFR and IFR arrivals by assigning RTA’s (AFR) and speeds/vectors or data link trajectories (IFR) » Provides AFR aircraft an IFR clearance to enter terminal area (at which time AFR becomes IFR) · Not responsible for monitoring AFR ops » Exception: Avoids creating near-term conflicts between AFR/IFR aircraft when maneuvering IFR aircraft » AFR aircraft treated much like VFR aircraft; relies on AFR aircraft to separate from IFR aircraft » Not responsible for ensuring AFR aircraft meet RTA Airline Operational Control (AOC) · Manages strategic fleet operations Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 7/18

En Route Operations – Crew Perspective (1/3) Research Prototype Navigation Display (MD-11) Resolution => Mark G. Ballin Conflict region Airspace constraint Ownship Intent and State Intent Only Strategic Time to Loss of Separation mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov Conflicting aircraft Strategic & Tactical 0 min Detection => Conflict resolution trajectory 2 min Pilot decision is strategic; resolution provides complete solution. Tactical information is also provided – Aircraft state- and intent-based conflicts – Traffic and area hazards – Intent-based CR algorithm · Iterates with FMS trajectory generation function to achieve “flyable” conflict-free trajectory · Not limited by imposed constraints (e. g. , required time of arrival) · Determines optimal trajectory based on user-specified objectives Conflict prevention band 5 min · AOP: Planning system for autonomous operations – Long-term conflict detection (nominal 20+ min. ) – Resolution through modified FMS route – Conflict(s) resolved without creating new conflicts with traffic or airspace 10 min · 8/18

En Route Operations – Crew Perspective (2/3) • Several aircraft trajectories possible, depending on ownship pilot actions. All are probed for conflicts: – Planning (typically the FMS flight plan) – Commanded (current autoflight config - “no button push”) – State vector – Path reconnect (LNAV/VNAV not engaged) Research Prototype Navigation Display (B 777) • Conflict prevention alternatives – Provisional (trial planning) FMS – Provisional MCP – Maneuver restriction bands (intent-based “no-go”) – Collision avoidance bands (state-based “no-go” for RTCA “CAZ”) • Conflict resolution alternatives – Fully automatic (full LNAV/VNAV solution) – Semi-automatic (pilot specifies resolution DOFs) – MCP targets – State Automatic Resolution (LNAV/VNAV engaged)

Example of Multi-Trajectory Conflict Probing Movie clip speed: 3 x

Capacity-Constrained Terminal Arrival Operations Metering boundary ATSP-defined maneuvering corridor Maneuver within prescribed corridors for optimal spacing Adhere to metering assignment for initial Unequipped Aircraft spacing and sequence Adhere to runway assignment and sequence for load balancing, throughput Fly with precision for optimal spacing Merge with converging traffic streams Phase 1 Terminal airspace Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 11/18

Phase 1 Crew Decision Support Capability Advanced Terminal Area Approach Spacing (“ATAAS”) Algorithm • Provides speed commands to obtain a desired runway threshold crossing time (relative to another aircraft) • Compensates for dissimilar final approach speeds between aircraft pairs • Speeds based on a nominal speed profile • Includes wake vortex minima requirements • Provides operationally reasonable speed profiles • Provides guidance for stable final approach speed • Provide for any necessary alerting Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 12/18

Phase 1 Terminal Arrival Operations – Crew Perspective (1/3) Procedures based on an extension of existing charted procedures Speed profile added to existing procedure Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 13/18

Phase 1 Terminal Arrival Operations – Crew Perspective (2/3) Electronic Attitude Director-Indicator (EADI) B 757 Numeric display of ATAAS speed guidance ATAAS speed coupled to F/S indication Mode annunciation Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 14/18

Phase 1 Terminal Arrival Operations – Crew Perspective (3/3) Navigation Display B 757 ATAAS data block (commanded speed, mode annunciation and assigned time interval, lead traffic ID and range) { Lead traffic highlighted Lead traffic history trail Spacing position indicator Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 15/18

Phase 1 Terminal Arrival Operations – Crew Perspective (4/4) FMC CDU Pages APPR SPACING <PROF SPEED 1/1 SELECT LEAD AAL 846> AAL 941> COA 281> Select lead aircraft UAL 225> UAL 903> APPR DATA> APPR SPACING <NEW LEAD 1/1 LEAD AIRCRAFT UAL 903 SPACING INTERVAL Enter assigned spacing interval CURRENT SPACING --- 128 SEC CURRENT DISTANCE 7. 8 LEAD GROUNDSPEED 271 KTS APPR DATA> APPR DATA APPROACH SPEEDS NASA 557 135 KTS UAL 903 Enter final approach speeds, minimum separation, airport winds Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 130 KTS MIN DISTANCE 4 NM 180 /19 APPROACH WINDS <APPR SPACING 16/18

Closing Remarks (1/2) · The DAG-TM Airborne Component is part of a future mature-state airspace system consisting of coexisting non-segregated distributed and centralized networks. These networks provide system-level optimization, individual user flexibility to optimize, and a gradual modernization transition path. – Autonomous Flight Rules (AFR) is introduced as a new option for aircraft flight operations, and produces the distributed network in which aircraft exercise autonomous flight management capabilities to meet TFM constraints, maintain separation from all other aircraft, and to achieve user optimization objectives. – IFR operations are centrally managed by ground systems and controllers, and mature independently from AFR operations through evolutionary enhancements to ground automation. – AFR and IFR operations coexist in the same en-route and terminaltransition airspace, and AFR flights give way to IFR operations. AFR and IFR traffic are merged for terminal arrival using ground-based local TFM. Terminal operations at capacity-limited airports are fully IFR. Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 17/18

Closing Remarks (2/2) · Terminal area throughput is maximized through integrated enhancements in ground airborne capabilities – Airborne capability to execute strategic spacing clearances accounting for dynamic wake vortex conditions to help maximize throughput. – Ground automation to enable full integration of spacing and nonspacing aircraft. · AFR operations permit growth scalability of the airspace system by accommodating significant traffic growth without exponential growth in ground infrastructure. Enhanced IFR operations provide access to all users with minimal impact from AFR operations. · Users have incentive to equip for AFR through relief from flow management and planning acceptance restrictions Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 18/18

Backup Slides 19/18

En Route Operations – Crew Perspective (3/3) FMC CDU Pages 1. Conflict advisory information displayed 3. Crew opts for alternative resolution. List displayed 2. Crew opts to resolve all conflicts. Recommended resolution presented on ND 4. Crew uploads resolution to FMS mod route Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 20/18

Air Traffic Control Technologies Overview · En route tools and display support for trajectory-based traffic management – Meet time cruise and descent speed advisories – Multi-aircraft trial planning for transition airspace – Multi-aircraft trajectory preview display – Datalink for information exchange and trajectory clearances – Toolbar for clearance input, datalink, and display control · TRACON tools and display support for self-spacing operations – Spacing interval advisory – History circles for conformance monitoring · Human-in-the-loop simulation with pilots and controllers – Dallas-Fort Worth airspace - ~ 8 North West en route & TRACON sectors – Arrival rush problem - ~ 90 aircraft – Multi-fidelity aircraft simulators with advanced avionics Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 21/18

Air Traffic Control Automation for DAG-TM CPDLC capability “shortcut” window Color coded arrivals & overflights CTAS conflict list Trial plan conflict list “dwelled” aircraft highlighting Route trial planning Speed advisories FMS route display TMA timeline Need some labels for the items Data on this entry slide. Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov & display toolbar 22/18

Strategic and Tactical Airborne Conflict Management FY 2002 Piloted Simulation of Autonomous Aircraft Operations, NASA Air Traffic Operations Laboratory Constrained En-Route Scenario (b) Varied proximity of “Special Use Airspace” (a) Varied standard for lateral separation Traffic density: 15 -18 a/c per 10 K nm 2 Waypoint with required time of arrival 0 100 nm Red bars: number and percentage of pilots that experienced at least one 2 nd generation conflict Research objective: Investigate strategic and tactical conflict management tools in close proximity to traffic, airspace hazards, and traffic flow management constraints • Safe achievement of flight operational objectives was not affected by (a) reducing lateral aircraft separation requirements or (b) significantly constraining the available airspace for maneuvering • Use of strategic conflict management techniques strongly reduced the propagation of traffic conflicts by accounting for all regional constraints and hazards in the conflict solution Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 23/18

Airborne Spacing Flight Evaluation Flight activity recently completed at Chicago O’Hare – Validation of full-mission simulator study results, which showed large benefits achievable and very low impacts on flight crew workload – Vectoring scenarios (reflection of current day operations) · Aircraft followed ground track of leading aircraft, which was vectored by controller Initial Analysis – Results very comparable to simulation, even in presence of widely varying winds (35+ knot tailwind to headwind changes on final) – Spacing Performance · Most runs accurate to ± 3 seconds at threshold crossing; many within 1 second (~200 ft) Mark G. Ballin mark. g. ballin@nasa. gov 24/18