Management of continuous descent approach during interval management operation

This paper reports on the performance and workload of pilots participating in a human-in-the-loop simulation of interval management operations during a continuous descent approach (CDA) into Louisville International Airport (SDF). The experiment examined variations in pilot roles and responsibilities in an implementation of interval management automation. The roles and responsibility manipulation showed that whether pilots were instructed to follow speed guidance strictly, or to exercise their own judgment, had no effect on workload and only a small effect on interval management performance. However, requiring the pilots to manually enter speeds into the autopilot, rather than having the automation automatically update the autopilot, frequently led to poorer energy management, and higher spacing interval errors at the final approach fix, even in the conditions where pilots were instructed to strictly follow speed guidance. This finding was traced to poorer compliance with the automated speed guidance, lack of awareness of this poor compliance, and insufficient awareness of the energy state of the aircraft. These results suggest that some form of energy guidance may be needed to augment interval management. To do this, recommendations were made for integrating the spacing interval management automation with near-term or far-term energy management systems. Workload measurement showed that, when pilots were required to maneuver to avoid en route weather, the manual conditions resulted in an increase in workload, although the overall level would still be considered low under normal circumstances.

[1]  Thomas Prevot Exploring the Many Perspectives of Distributed Air Traffic Management: The Multi Aircraft Control System MACS , 2002 .

[2]  Thomas Prevot,et al.  Trajectory-Oriented Operations with Limited Delegation: An Evolutionary Path to NAS Modernization , 2004 .

[3]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Evaluation of Airborne Precision Spacing in a Human-in-the-Loop Experiment , 2005 .

[4]  D H Williams,et al.  Design and Testing of a Low Noise Flight Guidance Concept , 2004 .

[5]  Vernol Battiste,et al.  Development and Integration of a Human-Centered Volumetric Cockpit Situation Display for Distributed Air-Ground Operations , 2005 .

[6]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Simulation Results for Airborne Precision Spacing along Continuous Descent Arrivals , 2008 .

[7]  John-Paul Clarke,et al.  Development, Design, and Flight Test Evaluation of a Continuous Descent Approach Procedure for Nighttime Operation at Louisville International Airport , 2006 .

[8]  Paul U. Lee,et al.  AIR/GROUND SIMULATION OF TRAJECTORY-ORIENTED OPERATIONS WITH LIMITED DELEGATION , 2007 .

[9]  Joey Mercer,et al.  CO-OPERATIVE AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: A TECHNOLOGY ENABLED CONCEPT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM , 2005 .

[10]  Joel Lachter,et al.  Pilot response to off-nominal conditions in merging and spacing operation , 2010, 29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[11]  Terence S. Abbott Speed Control Law for Precision Terminal Area In-Trail Self Spacing , 2002 .

[12]  John-Paul Clarke,et al.  Cueing System for Near-Term Implementation of Aircraft Noise Abatement Approach Procedures , 2007 .

[13]  B. Barmore Airborne Precision Spacing: A Trajectory-Based Aprroach to Improve Terminal Area Operations , 2006, 2006 ieee/aiaa 25TH Digital Avionics Systems Conference.