Acceptability of Flight Deck-Based Interval Management Crew Procedures

The Interval Management for Near-term Operations Validation of Acceptability (IM-NOVA) experiment was conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) in support of the NASA Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Airspace Systems Program's Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration - 1 (ATD-1). ATD-1 is intended to showcase an integrated set of technologies that provide an efficient arrival solution for managing aircraft using NextGen surveillance, navigation, procedures, and automation for both airborne and ground-based systems. The goal of the IM-NOVA experiment was to assess if procedures outlined by the ATD-1 Concept of Operations, when used with a minimum set of Flight deck-based Interval Management (FIM) equipment and a prototype crew interface, were acceptable to and feasible for use by flight crews in a voice communications environment. To investigate an integrated arrival solution using ground-based air traffic control tools and aircraft automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) tools, the LaRC FIM system and the Traffic Management Advisor with Terminal Metering and Controller Managed Spacing tools developed at the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) were integrated in LaRC's Air Traffic Operations Laboratory. Data were collected from 10 crews of current, qualified 757/767 pilots asked to fly a high-fidelity, fixed based simulator during scenarios conducted within an airspace environment modeled on the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Terminal Radar Approach Control area. The aircraft simulator was equipped with the Airborne Spacing for Terminal Area Routes algorithm and a FIM crew interface consisting of electronic flight bags and ADS-B guidance displays. Researchers used "pseudo-pilot" stations to control 24 simulated aircraft that provided multiple air traffic flows into DFW, and recently retired DFW air traffic controllers served as confederate Center, Feeder, Final, and Tower controllers. Pilot participant feedback indicated that the procedures used by flight crews to receive and execute interval management (IM) clearances in a voice communications environment were logical, easy to follow, did not contain any missing or extraneous steps, and required the use of an acceptable level of workload. The majority of the pilot participants found the IM concept, in addition to the proposed FIM crew procedures, to be acceptable and indicated that the ATD-1 procedures can be successfully executed in a near-term NextGen environment.

[1]  Brian T. Baxley,et al.  Evaluation of an Airborne Spacing Concept, On-Board Spacing Tool, and Pilot Interface , 2011 .

[2]  Thomas Prevot,et al.  The Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) at NASA Ames Research Center , 2006 .

[3]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Design and evaluation , 1995 .

[4]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Acceptability and Effects of Tools to Assist with Controller Managed Spacing in the Terminal Area , 2011, HCI.

[5]  Eric Hoffman,et al.  Introducing a New Spacing Instruction. Impact of Spacing Tolerance on Flight Crew Activity , 2003 .

[6]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Effects of scheduling and spacing tools on controllers' performance and perceptions of their workload , 2011, 2011 IEEE/AIAA 30th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[7]  Harry N. Swenson,et al.  Design and Operational Evaluation of the Traffic Management Advisor at the Ft. Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center , 1997 .

[8]  W.J. Penhallegon,et al.  Flight Deck-Based Merging and Spacing impact on flight crew operations during Continuous Descent Arrivals and approaches , 2008, 2008 IEEE/AIAA 27th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[9]  Mark G. Ballin,et al.  A Multi-Operator Simulation for Investigation of Distributed Air Traffic Management Concepts , 2002 .

[10]  Steven J. Landry.  Controller-managed spacing within mixed-equipage arrival operations involving flight-deck interval management , 2012 .

[11]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Operational Concept for Flight Crews to Participate in Merging and Spacing of Aircraft , 2006 .

[12]  Paul Lin,et al.  Efficiency Benefits Using the Terminal Area Precision Scheduling and Spacing System , 2011 .

[13]  Douglas A. Wolfe,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Methods , 1973 .

[14]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Evaluation of the Controller-Managed Spacing Tools, Flight-Deck Interval Management and Terminal Area Metering Capabilities for the ATM Technology Demonstration #1 , 2013 .

[15]  Kurt A. Swieringa,et al.  Evaluation of Flight Deck-Based Interval Management Crew Procedure Feasibility , 2013 .

[16]  W.J. Penhallegon,et al.  En-route flight deck-based merging and spacing impact on flight crew operations , 2007, 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[17]  Liang Chen,et al.  Evaluation of the Terminal Area Precision Scheduling and Spacing system for Performance-Based Navigation arrivals , 2013, 2013 IEEE/AIAA 32nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).

[18]  Thomas Prevot,et al.  Initial Investigations of Controller Tools and Procedures for Schedule-Based Arrival Operations with Mixed Flight-Deck Interval Management Equipage , 2012 .

[19]  Terence S. Abbott.  An Overview of a Trajectory-Based Solution for En Route and Terminal Area Self-Spacing: Seventh Revision , 2015 .

[20]  Eric Hoffman,et al.  Assessing the impact of a new air traffic control instruction on flight crew activity , 2004 .

[21]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Evaluation of the Terminal Precision Scheduling and Spacing System for Near-Term NAS Application , 2012 .

[22]  Brian T. Baxley,et al.  Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration-1 Concept of Operations (ATD-1 ConOps) , 2012 .

[23]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Design and Evaluation of the Terminal Area Precision Scheduling and Spacing System , 2011 .

[24]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Controller Support Tools for Schedule-Based Terminal-Area Operations , 2011 .

[25]  C. Borror.  Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 2nd, Ed. , 2001 .

[26]  John E. Robinson,et al.  NASA's ATM Technology Demonstration-1: Transitioning Fuel Efficient High Throughput Arrival Operations from Simulation to Reality , 2012 .

[27]  B. T. Baxley,et al.  NASA's ATM technology demonstration-1: Integrated Concept of arrival operations , 2012, 2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).

[28]  Karim Zeghal,et al.  Airborne Spacing: Flight Deck View of Compatibility with Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) , 2007 .

[29]  Bryan E. Barmore,et al.  Evaluation of an Airborne Spacing Concept to Support Continuous Descent Arrival Operations , 2009 .