Use of a Prototype Airborne Separation Assurance System for Resolving Near-Term Conflicts During Autonomous Aircraft Operations

NASA is currently investigating a new concept of operations for the National Airspace System, designed to improve capacity while maintaining or improving current levels of safety. This concept, known as Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAGTM), allows appropriately equipped autonomous aircraft to maneuver freely for flight optimization while resolving conflicts with other traffic and staying out of special use airspace and hazardous weather. In order to perform these tasks, pilots use prototype conflict detection, prevention, and resolution tools, collectively known as an Airborne Separation Assurance System (ASAS). While ASAS would normally allow pilots to resolve conflicts before they become hazardous, evaluation of system performance in sudden, near-term conflicts is needed in order to determine concept feasibility. An experiment was conducted in NASA Langley's Air Traffic Operations Lab to evaluate the prototype ASAS for enabling pilots to resolve near-term conflicts and examine possible operational effects associated with the use of lower separation minimums. Sixteen commercial airline pilots flew a total of 32 traffic scenarios that required them to use prototype ASAS tools to resolve close range pop-up conflicts. Required separation standards were set at either 3 or 5 NM lateral spacing, with 1000 ft vertical separation being used for both cases. Reducing the lateral separation from 5 to 3 NM did not appear to increase operational risk, as indicated by the proximity to the intruder aircraft. Pilots performed better when they followed tactical guidance cues provided by ASAS than when they didn't follow the guidance. In an effort to improve compliance rate, ASAS design changes are currently under consideration. Further studies will of evaluate these design changes and consider integration issues between ASAS and existing Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS).

[1]  D. Harrison,et al.  European Studies to Investigate the Feasibility of using 1000 ft Vertical Separation Minima above FL 290. Part II. Precision Radar Data Analysis and Collision Risk Assessment , 1992, Journal of Navigation.

[2]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Airborne Conflict Management within Confined Airspace in a Piloted Simulation of DAG-TM Autonomous Aircraft Operations , 2003 .

[3]  Robert A. Vivona,et al.  A Flight Deck Decision Support Tool for Autonomous Airborne Operations , 2002 .

[4]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Pilot Interactions in an Over-constrained Conflict Scenario as Studied in a Piloted Simulation of Autonomous Aircraft Operations , 2003 .

[5]  M. S. Eby,et al.  A self-organizational approach for resolving air traffic conflicts , 1995 .

[6]  Jacco M. Hoekstra,et al.  Overview of NLR Free Flight Project 1997 -1999 , 2000 .

[7]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Perceived Threat and Avoidance Maneuvers in Response to Cockpit Traffic Displays , 1984 .

[8]  Amy R. Pritchett,et al.  Pilot Situation Awareness and Alerting System Commands , 1998 .

[9]  James K. Kuchar,et al.  Describing, Predicting, and Mitigating Dissonance Between Alerting Systems , 2001 .

[10]  Sheryl L. Chappell Avoiding a maneuvering aircraft with TCAS. [Traffic Alert and Collison Avoidance System , 1989 .

[11]  Tom G. Reynolds,et al.  ANALYSIS OF SEPARATION MINIMA USING A SURVEILLANCE STATE VECTOR APPROACH , 2000 .

[12]  Patricia Cashion,et al.  The Effects of Different Levels of Intent Information on Pilot Self-Separation Performance , 2000 .

[13]  Kimberly T. Joyce Developing Monitoring Requirements for Reduced Separation Airspace , 1990 .

[14]  Jonathan Hammer,et al.  Managing Criticality of ASAS Applications , 2000 .

[15]  W. Love,et al.  TCAS III - Bringing operational compatibility to airborne collision avoidance , 1988 .

[16]  Andrew D. Zeitlin Safety Assessments of ADS-B and ASAS , 2001 .

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