Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Procedures for Off-Nominal Cases: Three Closely Spaced Parallel Runway Operations
Savita Verma, Sandra Lozito, NASA Ames Research CenterDeborah Ballinger
Thomas Kozon, Perot Systems / NASA Ames
Herbert Resnick, Raytheon Corporation
Gordon Hardy, Ramesh Panda, SAIC/ NASA AmesDarrell Wooten & Diane Carpenter,
ATM 2009 Conference June 29- July 2 2009
2
Agenda
• Background• Approach• Focus of the study• Results• Conclusions• Future Research
3
Motivation
• Potential capacity gains from third runway 750 ft apart especially because it could be added within the existing foot print of the airport
• No previous research on procedures for three parallel runways 750 ft and their impact on workload and situation awareness
Background
4
Previous ResearchConcept No. of
runwaysRunway
SeparationResearcher / Research area
Triple at Hartsfield, Atlanta
3 1000ft/4000ft
Variations on simultaneous approachesGladstone (2000) Mitre
3
SOIA/ MPAP 2/3 >=750 ft Non-Transgression Zone (for breakout maneuvers)
Multiple Parallel Approach Program-(MPAP)
4000 ft and 5300 ft
Breakout maneuvers on three runwaysMagyarits & Ozmore, 2002FAA
Background
5
Focus of Study
• Investigate procedures, roles and responsibilities for off-nominal situations that require a breakout maneuver for simultaneous approaches to three parallel runways 750 ft apart.
– Feasibility of the procedures– Impact of procedures on workload and/or situation
awareness levels
Focus
6
Independent Variables• Nominal vs. breakout
• Cause of breakout: – Aircraft deviation (blunder)– Crosswind blowing wake towards the trailing aircraft
• Location of breakout:– Above 500 ft– Between 200 ft and 500 ft
• Relative position of the simulator– Center– Trailing
Approach
7
Experimental Procedure• Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator:
digital, audio, and video data collection– Six degree motion – Performance similar to Boeing 757– Side stick control
• 8 days of data collection - 8 participants • Total runs = 24 per participant.• Each run was 10-15 min long followed with
questionnaires and debriefs.• All runs had visibility of 2 nm at 400 ft.
Approach
8
Our ApproachRunways 750 ft
apart Dynamic S-trajectories
adaptive and displayed in real
time
DGPS*, ADS-B**, winds on a/c
assumed
*Differential Global Positioning System**Automatic Dependent Surveillance System
S trajectory parallels 1.5 nmi for center a/c and at 3 nmi for the
trailing aircraft
Approach
9
Procedure / ScenarioApproach
Coupling Point
Ownship
Navigational Display
10
Displays for Breakout Procedure
Primary Flight Display Navigation Display
Approach
Normal conditions
wakewake
LSILSI
Predictor Dots
Breakout trajectory
11
Breakout Procedures and DisplaysApproach
Wake drifting towards follower
Leader’s wake drifted by one wing span
Follower’s center of gravity in leader’s wake
12
Breakout Procedures & DisplaysApproachApproach
Leader deviates 120 ft towards follower
Leader deviates 60 ft towards follower
Aircraft Blunder
13
Breakout Maneuvers
Altitude Bank Angle
> 500 ft 30 deg
200- 500 ft 10 deg
Relative Position
Heading change
Center 20 deg
Trailing 40 deg
Approach
14
Dependent Variables
• Aircraft separation during breakout• Accuracy of breakout maneuver• Subjective data:
– Workload– Situation awareness– Acceptability of procedures
Approach
15
Aircraft Separation During Breakout• Three-way repeated measures analysis of variance
• Dependent variables: - Slant range between
1. leader / center aircraft2. center / trailing aircraft
• Independent variables:- Cause of breakout- Location of breakout (low / high altitude)- Relative position of the simulator (center / trailing)
Results
16
Aircraft Separation During Breakout
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Breakout Breakout+15s Breakout+30s
Results
leader/center
Slant range separation (ft)
• No single instance of slant range separation less than 2400 ft• Breakout aircraft separation always well above the threshold
value specified in an FAA study (Magyaritis & Ozmore, 2002)
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Breakout Breakout+15s Breakout+30s
center/trailing
17
Aircraft Separation During Breakout• Leader / Center Separation 15s past breakout
• Pilot participants indicated that the uncertainty of wake characteristics prompted faster responses
• Higher altitude breakout reflect different post breakout geometries between aircraft
Results
2500260027002800290030003100320033003400
Aircraftblunder
Wake Higheraltitude
Loweraltitude
Mean aircraft separation (ft)
Breakout locationF=20.45 df=1,7 p<0.01
Breakout causeF=89.87 df=1,7 p<0.0001
18
Aircraft Separation During Breakout• Center / Trailing Separation 15s past breakout
Pilots indicated that the center aircraft needs to maintainseparation with two other aircraft
Results
2500260027002800290030003100320033003400
Higheraltitude
Loweraltitude
Center Trailing
Mean aircraft separation (ft)
Breakout LocationF=44.73 df=1,7 p<0.001
Simulator PositionF=40.39 df=1,7 p<0.001
19
Pilot Workload: NASA Task Load Index
• Higher overall workload in breakout runs
• Off-nominal conditions require the safe maneuvering of the aircraft following breakout, rather than implementing normal approach procedures
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
men
tal
phys
ical
* te
mpo
ral
* pe
rfor
man
ce
* ef
fort
* fr
ustr
atio
n*
com
posi
te
Workload 1=low7=high
nominal breakout
* p<=0.05
20
Pilot Situation Awareness
• Dependent variables from Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART)- Ten subscales combined Into 3 broader categories
Demands of the situation- instability, variability, complexity
Personal resources- alertness, spare mental capacity,concentration,division of attention
Situation provision- information quantity, information quality, familiarity
Results
21
Pilot Situation Awareness (SART)
• Higher overall situation demands in breakout runs (F=25.46, df=2,6, p<=0.01)
• Situation instability, variability, complexity: consistent with workload results
• Non-significant results for situation provision indicate that information and procedures provided was adequate for both nominal and off-nominal cases
Results
1
6
11
16
21
26
* situation demands(range= 3 to21)
personal resources(range = 4 to 28)
situation provision(range = 3 to 21)
level of situation
awareness
nominal breakout
22
Pilot Discussion / FeedbackFeedback on Procedures
• Some maneuvers were aggressive• Trust in automation could be an issue• Automate breakout maneuvers
User Interface Feedback• Pilots wanted the system to automatically set the
field of view of the navigation displays so that all three aircraft were always visible
• Information provided via the displays was considered simple, clear and unambiguous
Results
23
Conclusions
Feasibility of breakout procedures was tested using three very closely spaced parallel runways
• Aircraft separation was maintained well above 2400 ft during breakout across all conditions
• Similar levels of situation awareness between nominal and breakout runs indicate adequacy of information and procedures
• While workload was higher in breakout flights, it still remained manageable across all conditions
Summary
24
Future Work• Auto pilot versus manual breakout procedures
• Evaluation of the role of air traffic control
• Evaluation of post-breakout maneuvers back into the arrival flow
• Evaluation of the integration of our concept with terminal and surface operations
Summary
