Role of avionics in trajectory based operations

Air Traffic Management automation systems are being developed and fielded to assist controllers in handling more aircraft and larger airspace per controller. Many of these systems are time-based and built upon predicting the aircraft trajectories as accurately as possible. Trajectories of multiple aircraft are strategically de-conflicted by modifying appropriate trajectories and issuing corresponding clearances to the aircraft. However, disturbances and modeling errors will cause aircraft to deviate from their predicted trajectories and the controllers will need to take action to keep the trajectories free from conflict. The associated increase in workload will reduce the usefulness of these automation systems. Onboard avionics can help improve the accuracy of the trajectory prediction system in three ways: sharing aircraft state information to improve the performance of the ground trajectory prediction system, sharing airborne prediction results and allowable minimum and maximum arrival times at key route waypoints, and finally by applying feedback control onboard the aircraft to autonomously correct for disturbances encountered in flight. This paper presents an analysis of trajectory dispersion with and without airborne time of arrival control, presents an operational concept for air/ground trajectory negotiation, discusses integration with airborne merging and spacing algorithms, and raises concerns about challenges in implementing this integrated solution.

[1]  Michael R. C. Jackson,et al.  Airborne Technology for Distributed Air Traffic Management , 2005, CDC 2005.

[2]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Aircraft in the future ATM system - exploiting the 4D aircraft trajectory , 2004, The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37576).

[3]  T. Abbott,et al.  Technology-enabled airborne spacing and merging , 2004, The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37576).

[4]  Dan Ivanescu,et al.  Effect of aircraft self-merging in sequence on an airborne collision avoidance system , 2004 .

[5]  Paul Lee,et al.  Joint NASA Ames/Langley Experimental Evaluation of Integrated Air/Ground Operations for En Route Free Maneuvering , 2005 .

[6]  Eric Hoffman,et al.  Absolute versus Relative Navigation: Theoretical Considerations from an ATM Perspective , 2002 .

[7]  M.E. Berge,et al.  Performance analysis of arrival management with 3D paths and speed control , 2007, 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[8]  S. Mondoloni,et al.  Assessing trajectory prediction performance - metrics definition , 2005, 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

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

[10]  Moffett Field,et al.  Real-Time Data Link of Aircraft Parameters to the Center-TRACON Automation System ( CTAS ) , 2001 .

[11]  C. Tamvaclis,et al.  Use of aircraft derived data for more efficient ATM operations , 2004, The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37576).

[12]  J. Kubalcik,et al.  Analysis of FMS-generated trajectory prediction accuracy and sensitivity , 2007, 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[13]  Steven M. Green,et al.  Profile negotiation: An air/ground automation integration concept for managing arrival traffic , 1993 .

[14]  Paul U. Lee,et al.  Air and Ground Simulation of Terminal-Area FMS Arrivals with Airborne Spacing and Merging , 2005 .

[15]  Julien Scharl,et al.  Application of Required Navigation Performance in High-Traffic Conditions for Houston Airspace , 2006 .

[16]  Keith D. Wichman,et al.  Four-Dimensional Trajectory Based Air Traffic Management , 2004 .

[17]  Richard Coppenbarger,et al.  Field Evaluation of the Tailored Arrivals Concept for Datalink-Enabled Continuous Descent Approach , 2009 .

[18]  Rosa M. Oseguera-Lohr,et al.  FLIGHT EVALUATION OF A TIME-BASED AIRBORNE INTER- ARRIVAL SPACING TOOL , 2003 .

[19]  Robert A. Vivona,et al.  A Distributed Trajectory-Oriented Approach to Managing Traffic Complexity , 2007 .

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

[21]  O.F. Bleeker,et al.  Flight validation of downlinked flight management system 4D trajectory , 2007, 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[22]  Mark G. Ballin,et al.  NASA Langley and NLR Research of Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management , 2002 .

[23]  Mark G. Ballin,et al.  Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management for En Route Flight Operations , 2001 .

[24]  Lesley A. Weitz,et al.  Increasing Runway Capacity for Continuous Descent Approaches Through Airborne Precision Spacing , 2005 .

[25]  D. Gianazza,et al.  Separating air traffic flows by allocating 3D-trajectories , 2004, The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37576).

[26]  William C. Arthur.  Flight Time Errors in a Highly Automated Air Traffic Control System , 2005 .

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

[28]  J Wing David,et al.  Airborne Use of Traffic Intent Information in a Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management Concept: Experiment Design and Preliminary Results , 2001 .

[29]  Yiyuan Zhao,et al.  Sensitivity of Trajectory Prediction in Air Traffic Management , 1999 .

[30]  Keith D. Wichman,et al.  EUROPE ’ S EMERGING TRAJECTORY-BASED ATM ENVIRONMENT , 2003 .

[31]  Rob Mead.  Industry initiative promises fuel savings, environmental benefits and greater safety / Rob Mead (Boeing Company) , 2006 .

[32]  Michael R. C. Jackson.  Airborne Required Time of Arrival (RTA) Control and Integration with ATM , 2007 .