12 间隔保证天气规避以及实现计划自动化下的高密度空中交通运行评估thomas prevot

1、AIAA 2011-689011th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, including the AIA 20 - 22 September 2011, Virginia Beach, VAEvaluation of High Density Air Traffic Operations with Automation for Separation Assurance, Weather Avoidance and Schedule ConformanceThomas Prevot1

2、NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, Joey S. Mercer2, Lynne H. Martin3, Jeffrey R. Homola4, Christopher D. Cabrall5, Connie L. Brasil6 San Jose State University/NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035In this paper we discuss the development and evaluati

3、on of our prototype technologies and procedures for far-term air traffic control operations with automation for separation assurance, weather avoidance and schedule conformance. Controller-in-the-loop simulations in the Airspace Operations Laboratory at the NASA Ames Research Center in 2010 have sho

4、wn very promising results. We found the operations to provide high airspace throughput, excellent efficiency and schedule conformance. The simulation also highlighted areas for improvements: Short-term conflict situations sometimes resulted in separation violations, particularly for transitioning ai

5、rcraft in complex traffic flows. The combination of heavy metering and growing weather resulted in an increased number of aircraft penetrating convective weather cells. To address these shortcomings technologies and procedures have been improved and the operations are being re-evaluated with the sam

6、e scenarios. In this paper we will first describe the concept and technologies for automating separation assurance, weather avoidance, and schedule conformance. Second, the results from the 2010 simulation will be reviewed. We report human-systems integration aspects, safety and efficiency results a

7、s well as airspace throughput, workload, and operational acceptability. Next, improvements will be discussed that were made to address identified shortcomings. We conclude that, with further refinements, air traffic control operations with ground-based automated separation assurance can routinely pr

8、ovide currently unachievable levels of traffic throughput in the en route airspace.NomenclatureAAC ADS-A/B ANSP AOL ATM CD&R CPDLC CPC CTAS DSR DST ERAM ETA=Advanced Airspace ConceptAutomatic Dependent Surveillance-Addressed/Broadcast Air Navigation Service ProviderAirspace Operations Laboratory at

9、NASA Ames Air Traffic ManagementConflict Detection and Resolution Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Certified Professional Controller Center/TRACON Automation SystemDisplay System Replacement (Center Controller Workstation in the NAS) Decision Support ToolEn Route Automation Modernization Est

10、imated Time of Arrival1 Research General Engineer, Human Systems Integration Division, NASA ARC, MS 262-4, AIAA senior member2 Research Associate, Human Systems Integration Division, SJSU/NASA ARC, MS 262-4, AIAA member 3 Senior Research Psychologist, Human Systems Integration Division, SJSU/NASA AR

11、C, , AIAA member 4 Research Associate, Human Systems Integration Division, SJSU/NASA ARC, MS 262-4, AIAA member 5 Research Associate, Human Systems Integration Division, SJSU/NASA ARC, MS 262-46 Research Associate, Human Systems Integration Division, SJSU/NASA ARC, MS 262-4, AIAA memberThis material

12、 is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.Downloaded by Nanjing University of Aero & Astro on June 20, 2014 | | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6890FAA FMS JPDO LOS MACS NAS NASANextGen TBO TMA SASTA VSCS=Federal Aviation Admini

13、stration Flight Management SystemJoint Planning and Development Office Loss of SeparationMulti Aircraft Control System National Airspace SystemNational Aeronautics and Space Administration Next Generation Air Transportation System Trajectory-Based OperationsTraffic Management Advisor Separation Assu

14、rance Scheduled Time of ArrivalVoice Switching and Communication SystemI. MotivationSeparating aircraft is the most important task for a current day air traffic controller, and it is one of the main components of their workload. In todays very safe system, air traffic controllers take active control

15、 over each aircraft in their airspace and issue clearances to separate each one from other traffic. The main factor limiting en route capacity, therefore, is exactly this controller workload associated with providing safe separation between aircraft as this manual separation process can only be perf

16、ormed for a limited number of aircraft. As a consequence, each airspace sector today has a defined maximum number of aircraft that are allowed to enter. This constraint is a way of ensuring that the demands on the cognitive resources of the air traffic controller(s) working any particular sector are

17、 not exceeded 1.The FAA currently predicts increases in IFR aircraft handled at FAA Air Route Traffic Control Centers of 25% by 2020 and over 50% by 2030 2. However, separating aircraft using current day techniques remains inherently limited by controller workload and will not be able to support thi

18、s expected long term traffic growth. To illustrate the problem, Fig. 1 indicates how an air traffic controller display might look if more than twice as many aircraft were allowed into this airspace without additional modifications. Clearly, keeping track of each individual aircraft in this environme

19、nt exceeds the cognitive resources of human operators.Figure 1. Current day controller display at more than 2x traffic density.One approach to augment human resources is to use automation. The primary purpose of automating separation assurance is to enable air traffic controllers to manage much high

20、er traffic densities than today. Within the ground- based concept discussed in this paper, the controller and the automation work together to enable levels of safety andDownloaded by Nanjing University of Aero & Astro on June 20, 2014 | | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6890efficiency equal t

21、o or greater than today in spite of much higher traffic demands. Fig. 2 illustrates how the ground- based automated separation assurance approach can impact the design of the controller display, as it presents the same high-density traffic problem as depicted in Fig. 1. In the example in Fig.2 the a

22、utomation manages most aircraft and highlights only those that require the human operators attention.Figure 2. Controller display designed for advanced automation with the same traffic as Fig. 1While it is unclear whether the entire NAS airspace will ever need to accommodate two or three times as ma

23、ny aircraft as today, enabling much higher capacity -even locally- can provide substantial benefits. By eliminating airspace capacity constraints resulting from controller workload limitations, automation for separation management can reduce the need for costly traffic management initiatives. Today,

24、 whenever air traffic demand exceeds capacity, traffic management initiatives are put in place to reduce the number of aircraft entering congested sectors. In many cases demand is reduced by holding aircraft at their departure airports. These ground stops avoid burning extra fuel and polluting the e

25、nvironment unnecessarily. However, ground delay programs often have a severe impact on airline schedules and inconvenience many passengers. When delays are taken in flight, the aircraft fly longer routes than necessary, which increases the cost and the environmental impact of each flight. The weathe

26、r impact on airspace throughput often ripples through the National Airspace System (NAS) and results in inefficiencies, long delays, and increased cost.Automation for separation assurance has been developed and studied in laboratory analyses and fast-time and part-task settings 3-9. However, there h

27、as been little research on operational issues that may arise when automated operations are used as a standard operating mode for a larger air traffic control area. A human-in-the-loop simulation in the Airspace Operations Laboratory at the NASA Ames Research Center in 2010 began exploring the feasib

28、ility, issues, potential benefits and shortcomings of controllers interacting with each other and high levels of automation to control much higher traffic densities than today A challenging environment was developed for this exploration that included complex traffic and weather problems and time-bas

29、ed metering situations. The simulation enacted the operational concept of ground-based automated separation assurance and did not include transferring separation responsibility to the flight crew. Alternate allocations of separation assurance functions between the air/ground including airborne self

30、separation are pursued in complimentary research e.g. 10, but this aspect is not discussed in this paper.The paper is organized as follows: In the next section we will review the operational concept, enabling technologies and function allocation between automation, controllers and flight crews. In s

31、ection III we will describe the prototype system that we developed for this research in some detail. Section IV presents the method of the current study, followed by the results in section V. Section VI highlights technical improvements that we implemented to address some of the shortcomings that we

32、re recognized during the study. Section VII presents the conclusions based on the research to date.Downloaded by Nanjing University of Aero & Astro on June 20, 2014 | | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6890II. Operational ConceptA. Ground-based Automated Separation Assurance Premise and Concep

33、tIn the concept of ground-based automated separation assurance, air traffic control automation supports and enables the controller to manage more aircraft within the same airspace than today by having the automation -not the air traffic controller- monitor traffic for potential conflicts. Additional

34、ly, the automation conducts many workload- intensive routine tasks such as transferring ownership and communication frequencies between air traffic control sectors. Relieved of these tasks, controllers can concentrate on managing the non-routine operations that often require human intelligence, inge

35、nuity, and experience. As a result of this functional allocation, more aircraft can be controlled within a given airspace. Airspace saturation occurs at higher traffic levels than today resulting in fewer aircraft reroutes and ground-stops. More aircraft get their most efficient, user-preferred gree

36、n trajectories. Passengers experience less delay on busy travel and/or bad weather days.The original concept of ground-based automated separation was developed by Erzberger and is detailed in 3-5. In this concept, technologies are utilized to shift the workload-intensive tasks of monitoring and sepa

37、rating traffic from the controller to the automation. A critical element of this centralized concept is that the ground-side automation, not the controller, is responsible for conflict detection. The automation is also responsible for monitoring the compliance status of all aircraft relative to thei

38、r reference trajectory. In many cases, the automation, not the controller, is responsible for resolving conflicts as well.The technical system that enables automated conflict resolutions incorporates two independent separationassurance layers, each of which is designed to detect and resolve conflict

39、s over different time ranges. In the firstlayer, an algorithm, referred to as the Autoresolver, can be invoked to handle conflicts with times to loss of separation (LOS) in the range of two to 20 minutes. This algorithm is intended to resolve non-urgent conflicts and is the mainstay of automated sep

40、aration assurance. The Autoresolver aims to compute a complete trajectory that clears all traffic and weather conflicts and returns the aircraft to its original flight path. Since it takes time to communicate these trajectories to the flight deck, have them reviewed, loaded andexecutedbytheflightcre

41、w,theFigure 3.: Components of the Advanced Airspace System 3Autoresolver is inappropriate to solve urgent traffic conflicts. Therefore a second layer is realized through theTactical Separation Assured Flight Environment (TSAFE), which contains the algorithm designed to handle urgent conflicts. Its m

42、ain purpose is to provide a safety net for conflicts that were not detected and/or resolved by the first layer. TSAFE is designed to create an initial conflict avoidance maneuver that can be quickly communicated to and executed by the flight crew. The maneuver is intended to avoid a LOS and keep the

43、 aircraft clear of traffic for a few minutes, so that a trajectory-based solution can be found. Operational implementation of a system for automated separation assurance requires an air-ground data link that allows ground-based systems to uplink resolution trajectories to systems onboard aircraft.Ho

44、wever, it is envisioned that the controller will use a conventional voice link to maintain separation of unequipped aircraft and handle certain off-nominal situations. Thus, under automated separation assurance, the air traffic controllers roles will involve providing service and performing decision

45、-making activities in certain nominal and off-nominal situations while the roles of monitoring, providing the majority of nominal separation functions, and being the safety net in dire situations, will be allocated to the automation.B. Enabling EnvironmentThe concept of automated separation assuranc

46、e is enabled by integrating controller workstations, ground-based automation, data link, Flight Management System (FMS) automation and flight deck interfaces. The ground automation creates, maintains, and communicates trajectories for each flight. Data link is the primary means of communication, and

47、 all aircraft are cleared to proceed, climb, cruise and descend via their nominal or uplinked trajectories. High accuracy surveillance information for position and speed is provided via Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) or a comparable source. A conformance monitoring function detec

48、ts off-trajectory operations and triggers an off-trajectory conflict probe. The trajectory generation function used for conflict resolution and all trajectory planning provides FMS compatible and loadable trajectories. Automated trajectory-Downloaded by Nanjing University of Aero & Astro on June 20,

49、 2014 | | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6890based conflict resolutions are generated for conflicts with more than three minutes to initial loss of separation (LOS). When conflicts are detected with less time before LOS, an automated tactical conflict avoidance function generates heading cha

50、nges and sends them to the flight deck via a separate high-priority data link connection (e.g., Mode-S).C. Function AllocationThe Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) is responsible for maintaining safe separation between aircraft. The ground automation is responsible for detecting strategic mediu

51、m-term conflicts (up to 20 minutes) between all trajectories and for monitoring the compliance status of all aircraft relative to their reference trajectory. The ground automation is also responsible for detecting tactical short-term conflicts (less than 3 minutes) between all aircraft. The automati

52、on sends conflict resolutions automatically via data link to the aircraft whenever predefined tolerances on delay, lateral path, and altitude change are not exceeded. Whenever the ground automation cannot resolve a conflict without controller involvement, it must alert the controller with enough tim

53、e to make an informed decision and keep the aircraft safely separated. Likewise, the ground automation is also responsible for alerting controllers to other problems and exceptional situations.Flight crews are responsible for following their uplinked (or initially preferred) trajectory within define

54、d tolerances and for the safe conduct of their flight (like today). Flight crews can downlink trajectory-change requests at any time. The ground automation probes requested trajectories for conflicts without involving the controller. If the requested trajectory is conflict free, the automation uplin

55、ks an approval message. Otherwise, it alerts the controller that there is a trajectory request to be reviewed.Controllers supervise the automation and are responsible for making decisions on all situations that the automation, flight crews, or other ANSP operators (i.e., other controllers or traffic

56、 managers) present to them. Additionally, they provide service in time-based metering and weather avoidance operations. Issuing control instructions to non data-link-equipped aircraft is also the responsibility of the controller. The controller can use conflict detection and resolution automation to

57、 generate new trajectories for any aircraft. Controllers use data link to communicate with equipped aircraft and voice to communicate with non-data-link-equipped aircraft.Table 1 summarizes the allocation of functions between controllers and automation as it was simulated in the study described in t

58、his paper. Some of these tasks were assigned to the controller during this study simply to learn about the acceptability of certain task assignments and to gather requirements for future automation. We will present the prototype system that was developed for this function allocation and used during the study in the next section.Table 1 . Allocation of functions between automation and controllers in the 2010 studyIII. Prototype SystemA. OverviewA prototype system for ground-based automated separation assurance was implemented in the Multi Aircraft Control Syst