Aircraft Deconfliction Responsibility Across En Route Sectors in NextGen Separation Assurance

The subject of the current research is a Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) concept that involves automated separation assurance developed to enable controllers to provide both safe and efficient air traffic services at much higher traffic densities than possible today. The study investigated the issue of how responsibility should be handled between controllers for the resolution of a conflict that is predicted to occur in a sector other than where it was detected. Two possibilities, a De-Conflicting AirPlanes procedure (DCAP) versus a De-Conflicting AirSpace procedure (DCAS), were examined under human-in-the-loop simulations with scripted aircraft conflicts. Results showed that the DCAS procedure was preferred and that participants experienced less verbal coordination and took less time to resolve conflicts. The results, however, did not reveal significant differences among other plane performance metrics between DCAP and DCAS. These results indicate that the demands of NextGen separation assurance might still be met with ownership and coordination procedures (e.g., DCAP) similar to today. Reducing verbal coordination requirements, however, and allowing separation assurance responsibilities to extend more seamlessly across sector boundaries (e.g., DCAS) would evidently be more acceptable to controllers

Allocation of Functions in a Far-Term Air Traffic Control Environment

A human-in-the-loop exploration of a ground-based automated separation assurance concept was conducted that involved the allocation of certain functions between humans and automation. This exploration included operations that were sustained for prolonged periods of time with high levels of traffic in the presence of convective weather and scheduling constraints. An investigation into the acceptability of the defined roles and performance of tasks was conducted where it was found that the participants rated the concept and allocation of functions with a high level of acceptability. However, issues were encountered with the automation related to the detection of and response to tactical conflicts. Lower ratings were given on account of these concerns, and it was found that a key contributor to the underlying problems was transitioning aircraft and the uncertainty of their trajectories. Stemming from those results, participants responded that they would rather have direct control over aircraft transitions as well as more control over the tactical conflict resolution automation. In contrast, participants responded that they would rather have the automation place aircraft back on trajectory, and perform weather avoidance and scheduling tasks

Air Traffic Controllers' Control Strategies in the Terminal Area Under Off-Nominal Conditions

A human-in-the-loop simulation investigated the robustness of a schedule-based terminal-area air traffic management concept, and its supporting controller tools, to off-nominal events - events that led to situations in which runway arrival schedules required adjustments and controllers could no longer use speed control alone to impose the necessary delays. The main research question was exploratory: to assess whether controllers could safely resolve and control the traffic during off-nominal events. A focus was the role of the supervisor - how he managed the schedules, how he assisted the controllers, what strategies he used, and which combinations of tools he used. Observations and questionnaire responses revealed supervisor strategies for resolving events followed a similar pattern: a standard approach specific to each type of event often resolved to a smooth conclusion. However, due to the range of factors influencing the event (e.g., environmental conditions, aircraft density on the schedule, etc.), sometimes the plan required revision and actions had a wide-ranging effect

Functional Allocation for Ground-Based Automated Separation Assurance in NextGen

As part of an ongoing research effort into functional allocation in a NextGen environment, a controller-in-the-loop study on ground-based automated separation assurance was conducted at NASA Ames' Airspace Operations Laboratory in February 2010. Participants included six FAA front line managers, who are currently certified professional controllers and four recently retired controllers. Traffic scenarios were 15 and 30 minutes long where controllers interacted with advanced technologies for ground-based separation assurance, weather avoidance, and arrival metering. The automation managed the separation by resolving conflicts automatically and involved controllers only by exception, e.g., when the automated resolution would have been outside preset limits. Results from data analyses show that workload was low despite high levels of traffic, Operational Errors did occur but were closely tied to local complexity, and safety acceptability ratings varied with traffic levels. Positive feedback was elicited for the overall concept with discussion on the proper allocation of functions and trust in automation

Initial Investigations of Controller Tools and Procedures for Schedule-Based Arrival Operations with Mixed Flight-Deck Interval Management Equipage

NASA's Air Traffic Management Demonstration-1 (ATD-1) is a multi-year effort to demonstrate high-throughput, fuel-efficient arrivals at a major U.S. airport using NASA-developed scheduling automation, controller decision-support tools, and ADS-B-enabled Flight-Deck Interval Management (FIM) avionics. First-year accomplishments include the development of a concept of operations for managing scheduled arrivals flying Optimized Profile Descents with equipped aircraft conducting FIM operations, and the integration of laboratory prototypes of the core ATD-1 technologies. Following each integration phase, a human-in-the-loop simulation was conducted to evaluate and refine controller tools, procedures, and clearance phraseology. From a ground-side perspective, the results indicate the concept is viable and the operations are safe and acceptable. Additional training is required for smooth operations that yield notable benefits, particularly in the areas of FIM operations and clearance phraseology

Analysis of Interactive Conflict Resolution Tool Usage in a Mixed Equipage Environment

A human-in-the-loop simulation was conducted that examined separation assurance concepts in varying levels of traffic density with mixtures of aircraft equipage and automation. This paper's analysis focuses on one of the experimental conditions in which traffic levels were approximately fifty percent higher than today, and approximately fifty percent of the traffic within the test area were equipped with data communications (data comm) capabilities. The other fifty percent of the aircraft required control by voice much like today. Within this environment, the air traffic controller participants were provided access to tools and automation designed to support the primary task of separation assurance that are currently unavailable. Two tools were selected for analysis in this paper: 1) a pre-probed altitude fly-out menu that provided instant feedback of conflict probe results for a range of altitudes, and 2) an interactive auto resolver that provided on-demand access to an automation-generated conflict resolution trajectory. Although encouraged, use of the support tools was not required; the participants were free to use the tools as they saw fit, and they were also free to accept, reject, or modify the resolutions offered by the automation. This mode of interaction provided a unique opportunity to examine exactly when and how these tools were used, as well as how acceptable the resolutions were. Results showed that the participants used the pre-probed altitude fly-out menu in 14% of conflict cases and preferred to use it in a strategic timeframe on data comm equipped and level flight aircraft. The interactive auto resolver was also used in a primarily strategic timeframe on 22% of conflicts and that their preference was to use it on conflicts involving data comm equipped aircraft as well. Of the 258 resolutions displayed, 46% were implemented and 54% were not. The auto resolver was rated highly by participants in terms of confidence and preference. Factors such as aircraft equipage, ownership, and location of predicted separation loss appeared to play a role in the decision of controllers to accept or reject the auto resolver's resolutions

How to keep drivers engaged while supervising driving automation? A literature survey and categorization of six solution areas

This work aimed to organise recommendations for keeping people engaged during human supervision of driving automation, encouraging a safe and acceptable introduction of automated driving systems. First, heuristic knowledge of human factors, ergonomics, and psychological theory was used to propose solution areas to human supervisory control problems of sustained attention. Driving and non-driving research examples were drawn to substantiate the solution areas. Automotive manufacturers might (1) avoid this supervisory role altogether, (2) reduce it in objective ways or (3) alter its subjective experiences, (4) utilize conditioning learning principles such as with gamification and/or selection/training techniques, (5) support internal driver cognitive processes and mental models and/or (6) leverage externally situated information regarding relations between the driver, the driving task, and the driving environment. Second, a cross-domain literature survey of influential human-automation interaction research was conducted for how to keep engagement/attention in supervisory control. The solution areas (via numeric theme codes) were found to be reliably applied from independent rater categorisations of research recommendations. Areas (5) and (6) were addressed by around 70% or more of the studies, areas (2) and (4) in around 50% of the studies, and areas (3) and (1) in less than around 20% and 5%, respectively. The present contribution offers a guiding organisational framework towards improving human attention while supervising driving automation.submittedVersio

Evaluation of High Density Air Traffic Operations with Automation for Separation Assurance, Weather Avoidance and Schedule Conformance

In this paper we discuss the development and evaluation of our prototype technologies and procedures for far-term air traffic control operations with automation for separation assurance, weather avoidance and schedule conformance. Controller-in-the-loop simulations in the Airspace Operations Laboratory at the NASA Ames Research Center in 2010 have shown very promising results. We found the operations to provide high airspace throughput, excellent efficiency and schedule conformance. The simulation also highlighted areas for improvements: Short-term conflict situations sometimes resulted in separation violations, particularly for transitioning aircraft in complex traffic flows. The combination of heavy metering and growing weather resulted in an increased number of aircraft penetrating convective weather cells. To address these shortcomings technologies and procedures have been improved and the operations are being re-evaluated with the same scenarios. In this paper we will first describe the concept and technologies for automating separation assurance, weather avoidance, and schedule conformance. Second, the results from the 2010 simulation will be reviewed. We report human-systems integration aspects, safety and efficiency results as well as airspace throughput, workload, and operational acceptability. Next, improvements will be discussed that were made to address identified shortcomings. We conclude that, with further refinements, air traffic control operations with ground-based automated separation assurance can routinely provide currently unachievable levels of traffic throughput in the en route airspace

Pilot and Controller Evaluations of Separation Function Allocation in Air Traffic Management

Two human-in-the-loop simulation experiments were conducted in coordinated fashion to investigate the allocation of separation assurance functions between ground and air and between humans and automation. The experiments modeled a mixed-operations concept in which aircraft receiving ground-based separation services shared the airspace with aircraft providing their own separation service (i.e., self-separation). Ground-based separation was provided by air traffic controllers without automation tools, with tools, or by ground-based automation with controllers in a managing role. Airborne self-separation was provided by airline pilots using self-separation automation enabled by airborne surveillance technology. The two experiments, one pilot-focused and the other controller-focused, addressed selected key issues of mixed operations, assuming the starting point of current-day operations and modeling an emergence of NextGen technologies and procedures. In the controller-focused experiment, the impact of mixed operations on controller performance was assessed at four stages of NextGen implementation. In the pilot-focused experiment, the limits to which pilots with automation tools could take full responsibility for separation from ground-controlled aircraft were tested. Results indicate that the presence of self-separating aircraft had little impact on the controllers' ability to provide separation services for ground-controlled aircraft. Overall performance was best in the most automated environment in which all aircraft were data communications equipped, ground-based separation was highly automated, and self-separating aircraft had access to trajectory intent information for all aircraft. In this environment, safe, efficient, and highly acceptable operations could be achieved for twice today's peak airspace throughput. In less automated environments, reduced trajectory intent exchange and manual air traffic control limited the safely achievable airspace throughput and negatively impacted the maneuver efficiency of self-separating aircraft through high-density airspace. In a test of scripted conflicts with ground-managed aircraft, flight crews of self-separating aircraft prevented separation loss in all conflicts with detection time greater than one minute. In debrief, pilots indicated a preference for at least five minute's alerting notice and trajectory intent information on all aircraft. When intent information on ground-managed aircraft was available, self-separating aircraft benefited from fewer conflict alerts and fewer required deviations from trajectory-based operations

Comparison of Airborne and Ground-Based Function Allocation Concepts for NextGen Using Human-In-The-Loop Simulations

This paper presents an air/ground functional allocation experiment conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) using two human-in-the-Loop simulations to compare airborne and ground-based approaches to NextGen separation assurance. The approaches under investigation are two trajectory-based four-dimensional (4D) concepts; one referred to as "airborne trajectory management with self-separation" (airborne) the other as "ground-based automated separation assurance" (ground-based). In coordinated simulations at NASA's Ames and Langley Research Centers, the primary operational participants -controllers for the ground-based concept and pilots for the airborne concept - manage the same traffic scenario using the two different 4D concepts. The common scenarios are anchored in traffic problems that require a significant increase in airspace capacity - on average, double, and in some local areas, close to 250% over current day levels - in order to enable aircraft to safely and efficiently traverse the test airspace. The simulations vary common independent variables such as traffic density, sequencing and scheduling constraints, and timing of trajectory change events. A set of common metrics is collected to enable a direct comparison of relevant results. The simulations will be conducted in spring 2010. If accepted, this paper will be the first publication of the experimental approach and early results. An initial comparison of safety and efficiency as well as operator acceptability under the two concepts is expected