Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Crane, Barry

Publications and source records attributed to Crane, Barry.

An Operational Concept for Flying FMS Trajectories in Center and TRACON Airspace

Current Flight Management Systems (FMS) do a good job of constructing and flying an optimal trajectory for a single aircraft. Unfortunately, flight crews are often unable to fly these FMS routes during arrivals at busy airports. The Center TRACON Automation System (CTAS) has been designed to aid Center and TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control) controllers in assigning runways, sequencing and vectoring all classes of aircraft. CTAS bases its advisories on trajectory predictions for arriving aircraft using algorithms very similar to those in airborne FMS systems. This paper presents near and far term operational concepts for how a ground ATM (air traffic management) automation system like CTAS could work more effectively with the airborne automation in FMS equipped aircraft. The concepts for a more compatible air-ground system include: 1) a common route databases for both CTAS and FMS; 2) datalink to downlink information on aircraft weight, final approach speed and trajectory intent and to uplink wind information; 3) new FMS functions to allow flight crews to easily update their FMS trajectory to match the trajectory suggested by the ground automation with voice clearances, and 4) in the far term, datalink to downlink user preferred trajectories and to uplink trajectory clearances in the terminal area. The paper analyses some of the human factors issues that may result in allowing aircraft to fly FMS routes during enroute descent and in the terminal area. A series of linked human in the loop flight deck and air traffic control simulations and a field test with the NASA 757 are being conducted at NASA's Ames and Langley Research Centers to address these issues and to evaluate the operational feasibility of these approaches to more efficient flight and increased airport throughput.

Palmer, Everett↗

Simulator Evaluation of a New Cockpit Descent Procedure

An experiment was conducted to evaluate flight crew performance of the "Precision Descent," a new cockpit procedure designed to support the Descent Advisor (DA), one of the components in a new air traffic control advisory system called the "Center-TRACON Automation System" (CTAS). The DA predicts when aircraft will reach a specific waypoint on the arrival route, and presents controllers with clearance advisories designed to improve the sequencing of arriving aircraft. The effectiveness of the DA depends on the aircraft's descent trajectory: where it begins descent, what speed it maintains, how fast and at what altitude it crosses the bottom-of-descent waypoint. The Precision Descent allows controllers to assign these descent parameters to the flight crew. A Field Evaluation of the DA was conducted in Denver in 1995. Three separate clearances using standard ATC phraseology were used to support the cockpit descent procedure during this evaluation. The number and length of these clearances caused problems for both controllers and flight crews, causing readback errors, repeat requests and procedure misunderstandings. These observations led to a focus group meeting in which controller and pilot participants in the 1995 FE assisted in the redesign of the procedure. The Precision Descent eliminates one clearance used in the earlier study, and greatly reduces the length of the remaining clearances. This was accomplished by using non-standard clearance phraseology that relies on a published procedure chart for correct interpretation. Eight type-rated flight crews flew eight Precision Descents in a Boeing 747-400 simulator. No training was provided: crews received either a procedure chart or a procedure chart with a flight manual bulletin describing procedure techniques. Video and digital data were recorded for each descent. Preliminary results indicate that moving information from the verbal clearance to the chart was successful: the shorter clearances and the procedure's default crossing restriction were understood, and procedure compliance of 81% was observed across all descents on six independent compliance measures. Some readback errors and procedure misunderstandings were still observed, however; particularly when descent clearances deviated from the normative procedure.

Crane, Barry↗