Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance

1

• Free Flight with Airborne Separationwill result
  in an uncontrolled, dangerous junglewithout a
  firm central controlling elementsuch as ATC.

• Pilots havent got the time, the training nor
  the mental resources available tofunction as ATC
  on top offlying the aircraft.

2
Conceptual Design of Free Flight with Airborne
Separation Assurance

• Jacco Hoekstra
• Ronald van Gent
• Rob Ruigrok

3
Free Flight goals

• User preferred routing
• Horizontally
• direct to destination
• optimum speed
• Vertically
• optimum level
• cruise climb
• More capacity

4
Present day ATC control
5
User Preferred Routing
6
Airborne Perspective
7
Starting Points / Constraints

• No ATC
• Probe the limits
• All aircraft fully equipped
• e.g. ADS-B
• EFIS-CDTI
• Cruise flight only
• Direct routing
• Optimal cruise altitude

8
Three sub-studies

• Traffic Manager Off-line simulations
• Find a suitable base-line concept
• Create background scenario for Man-in-the-Loop
  Simulation Experiment
• TOPAZ (Traffic Organization and Perturbation
  AnalyZer)
• Safety Analysis
• Predict critical non-nominal situations
• Man-in-the-Loop Simulation Experiment
• Human Factors Issues
• Validation of concept with Man-in-the-Loop

9
Traffic Manager Runs

• Several concepts tested
• Altitude step
• Cross product of speed vectors
• Extended VFR rules
• Variations of TCAS manoeuvres
• Voltage potential
• Modified Voltage potential validated
• (Ref. M. Eby, Lincoln Laboratory)

10
Modified Voltage Potential
11
Traffic Experiment Manager
12
Traffic Manager Results

• Fail Safe aspects
• Both aircraft detect resolute conflicts
• Backup TCAS, R/T
• Scenarios for man-in-the-loop experiment
• Single, double triple WE density
• Events

13
Topaz Safety Analysis (1)
Airway
Route spacing
Airway

• Two airways in opposite direction
• Independent variables route spacing,
  non-nominals
• Dependent Collision risk
• ASAS equipped, airborne separation, good weather,
  no global ADS-B failure, independent transmitter
  receiver

14
TOPAZ safety analysis (2)
15
TOPAZ safety analysis (3)
16
TOPAZ safety analysis(4)

• Free Flight with Airborne Separation Assurance is
  feasible in comparison to current ATC
• Biggest safety benefit will be achieved by
  dealing with the Non-Nominal/Nominal contribution

17
Man-in-the-loop simulation
18
Man-in-the-loop Simulation Configuration
RFS
AIRSIM
TEM
19
Experimental Design

• 18 runs per crew
• air line pilots
• 2 days incl. half a dayof training

• Place of non-nominals in matrix changed between
  subject crews

20
Man Machine Interface

• Modifications to Navigation Display
• Traffic symbology
• Conflict detection
• Resolution Advisories
• Vertical Navigation Display
• Extra EFIS Control Panel functionality
• Modifications to Autopilot
• Execute combined
• Execute separate
• Aural alerts
• Dedicated blue light under glareshield

21
Navigation Display
22
Man-in-the-Loop experimentHypotheses

• Less than acceptable
• Less safe
• More workload

23
Man-in-the-Loop experimentResults
24
Man-in-the-Loop experimentResults
25
Man-in-the-Loop experimentResults
26
Man-in-the-Loop experimentResults
27
Conclusions

• Free Flight concept as implemented is acceptable
  in cruise phase
• Workload in a future Free Flight scenario in
  cruise phase is not higher than in present day
  ATC scenario
• Free Flight concept is at least as safe as
  present day ATC
• None of the three sub-studies (off-line
  simulations, TOPAZ safety analysis,
  Man-in-the-Loop experiment) could refute the
  feasibility of an Airborne Separation Assurance
  concept for a future Free Flight environment.

28
Issues

• Some form of obtaining intent information should
  be made available.
• Aircraft, which are in trouble, should be able to
  broadcast a signal upon which they would receive
  priority with conflicts.
• Passenger comfort
• Fine tuning of conflict detection resolution
  based on remarks of pilots

29
Demonstration PC version Traffic Manager

• Resolution method
• Ground air perspective
• Navigation display symbology