A technology and concept demonstration was conducted to evaluate three NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies Office, Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) Concept Elements – En Route Free Maneuvering, En Route Trajectory Negotiation, and Terminal Arrival Self-Spacing – in a virtual operating environment that included controllers, pilots, and simulation support personnel. The test made use of three facilities – the Airspace Operations Laboratory, Flight Deck Display Research Laboratory, and Crew Vehicle Systems Research Facility’s Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS) – along with an array of existing and conceptspecific decision support tools (DSTs) and procedures. Participant controllers monitored and then transitioned free flight aircraft into controlled airspace, data-linked route and clearance information, and sequenced aircraft for approach and landing using NASA DSTs. Pilot participants flew the ACFS, solved route conflicts in free flight airspace, data-linked route changes to air traffic controllers for approval, and spaced on a lead aircraft during the approach phase using an enhanced Cockpit Display of Traffic Information. Traffic density varied from light to heavy across four scenario types. The demonstration indicated that the DAG-TM concepts should be explored for their potential to increase NAS flexibility and capacity. The test environment was proven to be a robust and useful infrastructure for more advanced research in the future. The participant feedback provided valuable insight into the continued development of DSTs and procedures that will help guide the direction and refinement of future research. Background NASA’s Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) research represents a paradigm shift that may bring change to the roles and responsibilities of air traffic service providers (ATSPs), traffic flow management (TFM) specialists, flight crews (FCs), and Airline Operations Center (AOC) dispatchers. The DAG-TM vision comprises 15 Concept Elements (CEs) covering all phases of flight. The CEs were designed to address specific inefficiencies in the National Airspace System. DAG-TM research is being carried out at the NASA Ames, Glenn and Langley research centers. The current research priorities include: CE 5, En Route Free Maneuvering; CE 6, En Route Trajectory Negotiation; and CE 11, Terminal Arrival SelfSpacing. 1 (The work reported on here represents only a part of the NASA DAG-TM research activities being undertaken, and the specific procedures described are subject to change and refinement as the work matures.) In CE 5, En Route Free Maneuvering, appropriately equipped aircraft in en route airspace accept the responsibility to maintain separation from other aircraft, while exercising the authority to freely maneuver to fly a user-preferred trajectory that conforms to active local traffic flow management (TFM) constraints. Free maneuvering aircraft have the authority to make trajectory changes with the restriction that no new conflicts are created within a defined period of future flight time. Free maneuvering aircraft have flight deck decision support tools (DSTs) that enhance situation awareness, allow FCs to maintain separation from other aircraft without ATSP assistance, and provide route replanning capabilities. 2 CE 6, En Route Trajectory Negotiation, supports interaction among the DAG-TM stakeholders (pilots, ATSP, and AOC) when a trajectory change is initiated in response to local TFM constraints. During trajectory negotiation, the role of the ATSP is to define the operating constraints and to retain full responsibility for separation assurance. The pilot’s role is make informed requests that avoid conflicts with other aircraft or airborne hazards (e.g., special use airspace or weather), precisely follow the negotiated FMS flight path, and meet the ATSP’s imposed traffic constraints. In CE 6, the AOC defines airline constraints and preferences (related to fuel efficiency, scheduling, or passenger comfort) that may be considered in the trajectory negotiation. The communication and negotiation inherent in CE 6 helps ensure that all stakeholder requirements are considered. Trajectory changes may be initiated by any of the stakeholders, but ultimate responsibility for separation remains with the ATSP. 3 AIAA's Aircraft Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) 2002 Technical 1-3 October 2002, Los Angeles, California AIAA 2002-5825 Copyright © 2002 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. No copyright is asserted in the United States under Title 17, U.S. Code. The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2 In CE 11, Terminal Arrival: Self-Spacing for Merging and In-Trail Separation, equipped aircraft self-merge into an arrival stream and maintain an ATSP-specified, in-trail separation from a designated lead aircraft. FCs receive traffic intent data via a cockpit situation display, and airborne DSTs aid them in performing merging and spacing operations. Use of this concept is expected to increase terminal area throughput by providing pilots and controllers with a reliable method for closing the gap between arriving flights. The time-based, rather than distance-based, algorithm employed allows for spacing compression as aircraft speeds decrease. 4 Demonstration Objectives The goals of the September 2001 NASA Ames DAGTM demonstration were to provide for initial instantiation of the necessary simulation technology, and to conduct a preliminary assessment of the feasibility and benefits of CE 5, CE 6, and CE 11. The specific objectives were to: 1. Identify procedural, automation, and human factors considerations related to free maneuvering. 2. Identify procedural, automation, and human factors considerations related to transitioning between free maneuvering and controlled airspace. 3. Identify conflict management issues related to free maneuvering and trajectory negotiation. 4. Identify procedural, automation, and human factors considerations related to self-spacing. 5. Examine the role of the ATSP within CE 5, CE 6, and CE 11. 6. Examine the role of the FC within CE 5, CE 6, and CE 11. 7. Examine the communication needs between the FC and ATSP within CE 5, CE 6, and CE 11.