Engineering topics

Kraut, Josh

Publications and source records attributed to Kraut, Josh.

3 records

NASA NTRS2012

An Evaluation of Controller and Pilot Performance, Workload and Acceptability under a NextGen Concept for Dynamic Weather Adapted Arrival Routing

In todays terminal operations, controller workload increases and throughput decreases when fixed standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) are impacted by storms. To circumvent this operational constraint, Prete, Krozel, Mitchell, Kim and Zou (2008) proposed to use automation to dynamically adapt arrival and departure routing based on weather predictions. The present study examined this proposal in the context of a NextGen trajectory-based operation concept, focusing on the acceptability and its effect on the controllers ability to manage traffic flows. Six controllers and twelve transport pilots participated in a human-in-the-loop simulation of arrival operations into Louisville International Airport with interval management requirements. Three types of routing structures were used: Static STARs (similar to current routing, which require the trajectories of individual aircraft to be modified to avoid the weather), Dynamic routing (automated adaptive routing around weather), and Dynamic Adjusted routing (automated adaptive routing around weather with aircraft entry time adjusted to account for differences in route length). Spacing Responsibility, whether responsibility for interval management resided with the controllers (as today), or resided with the pilot (who used a flight deck based automated spacing algorithm), was also manipulated. Dynamic routing as a whole was rated superior to static routing, especially by pilots, both in terms of workload reduction and flight path safety. A downside of using dynamic routing was that the paths flown in the dynamic conditions tended to be somewhat longer than the paths flown in the static condition.

Johnson, Walter W.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Comparison of Controller and Flight Deck Algorithm Performance During Interval Management with Dynamic Arrival Trees (STARS)

Managing the interval between arrival aircraft is a major part of the en route and TRACON controller s job. In an effort to reduce controller workload and low altitude vectoring, algorithms have been developed to allow pilots to take responsibility for, achieve and maintain proper spacing. Additionally, algorithms have been developed to create dynamic weather-free arrival routes in the presence of convective weather. In a recent study we examined an algorithm to handle dynamic re-routing in the presence of convective weather and two distinct spacing algorithms. The spacing algorithms originated from different core algorithms; both were enhanced with trajectory intent data for the study. These two algorithms were used simultaneously in a human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation where pilots performed weather-impacted arrival operations into Louisville International Airport while also performing interval management (IM) on some trials. The controllers retained responsibility for separation and for managing the en route airspace and some trials managing IM. The goal was a stress test of dynamic arrival algorithms with ground and airborne spacing concepts. The flight deck spacing algorithms or controller managed spacing not only had to be robust to the dynamic nature of aircraft re-routing around weather but also had to be compatible with two alternative algorithms for achieving the spacing goal. Flight deck interval management spacing in this simulation provided a clear reduction in controller workload relative to when controllers were responsible for spacing the aircraft. At the same time, spacing was much less variable with the flight deck automated spacing. Even though the approaches taken by the two spacing algorithms to achieve the interval management goals were slightly different they seem to be simpatico in achieving the interval management goal of 130 sec by the TRACON boundary.

Battiste, Vernol↗

NASA NTRS2010

Conflict Resolution Automation and Pilot Situation Awareness

This study compared pilot situation awareness across three traffic management concepts. The Concepts varied in terms of the allocation of traffic avoidance responsibility between the pilot on the flight deck, the air traffic controllers, and a conflict resolution automation system. In Concept 1, the flight deck was equipped with conflict resolution tools that enable them to fully handle the responsibility of weather avoidance and maintaining separation between ownship and surrounding traffic. In Concept 2, pilots were not responsible for traffic separation, but were provided tools for weather and traffic avoidance. In Concept 3, flight deck tools allowed pilots to deviate for weather, but conflict detection tools were disabled. In this concept pilots were dependent on ground based automation for conflict detection and resolution. Situation awareness of the pilots was measured using online probes. Results showed that individual situation awareness was highest in Concept 1, where the pilots were most engaged, and lowest in Concept 3, where automation was heavily used. These findings suggest that for conflict resolution tasks, situation awareness is improved when pilots remain in the decision-making loop.

Dao, Arik-Quang V.↗