Impact of Pilot Delay and Non-Responsiveness on the Safety Performance of Airborne Separation

Assessing the safety effects of prediction errors and uncertainty on automation supported functions in the Next Generation Air Transportation System concept of operations is of foremost importance, particularly safety critical functions such as separation that involve human decision-making. Both ground-based and airborne, the automation of separation functions must be designed to account for, and mitigate the impact of, information uncertainty and varying human response. This paper describes an experiment that addresses the potential impact of operator delay when interacting with separation support systems. In this study, we evaluated an airborne separation capability operated by a simulated pilot. The experimental runs are part of the Safety Performance of Airborne Separation (SPAS) experiment suite that examines the safety implications of prediction errors and system uncertainties on airborne separation assistance systems. Pilot actions required by the airborne separation automation to resolve traffic conflicts were delayed within a wide range, varying from five to 240 seconds while a percentage of randomly selected pilots were programmed to completely miss the conflict alerts and therefore take no action. Results indicate that the strategic Airborne Separation Assistance System (ASAS) functions exercised in the experiment can sustain pilot response delays of up to 90 seconds and more, depending on the traffic density. However, when pilots or operators fail to respond to conflict alerts the safety effects are substantial, particularly at higher traffic densities

[1]  Laudeman,et al.  DYNAMIC DENSITY: AN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT METRIC , 1998 .

[2]  Banavar Sridhar,et al.  Airspace Complexity and its Application in Air Traffic Management , 1998 .

[3]  Kapil Sheth,et al.  Performance evaluation of airborne separation assurance for free flight , 2000 .

[4]  Alison Laura Udal Roberts,et al.  Air Traffic Control , 1986 .

[5]  Robert A. Vivona,et al.  Conflict Detection Using Variable Four-Dimensional Uncertainty Bounds to Control Missed Alerts , 2006 .

[6]  Heinz Erzberger,et al.  Safety Analysis for Advanced Separation Concepts , 2006 .

[7]  David J. Wing A Potentially Useful Role for Airborne Separation in 4D-Trajectory ATM Operations , 2005 .

[8]  Henk A. P. Blom,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of rare events in hybrid systems , 2004 .

[9]  Robert A. Vivona,et al.  Pattern-Based Genetic Algorithm for Airborne Conflict Resolution , 2006 .

[10]  Robert A. Vivona,et al.  An Integrated Flight-Deck Decision-Support Tool in an Autonomous Flight Simulation , 2004 .

[11]  Doug Mielke,et al.  Airspace and Traffic Operations Simulation for Distributed ATM R esearch and Development , 2005 .

[12]  William W Chung,et al.  A 1090 Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) Reception Model for Air- Traffic-Management Simulations , 2006 .

[13]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Use of Traffic Intent Information by Autonomous Aircraft in Constrained Operations , 2002 .

[14]  Brian T. Baxley,et al.  Safety Performance of Airborne Separation: Preliminary Baseline Testing , 2007 .

[15]  Amy R. Pritchett,et al.  Testing and implementing cockpit alerting systems , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[16]  Joseph S. B. Mitchell,et al.  SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRALIZED AND DECENTRALIZED AIR TRAFFIC SEPARATION STRATEGIES , 2001 .