Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20140010142

Transitioning Resolution Responsibility between the Controller and Automation Team in Simulated NextGen Separation Assurance

Cabrall, C.·Gomez, A.·Homola, J.·Hunt, S..·Martin, L.·Merccer, J.·Prevott, T.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As part of an ongoing research effort on separation assurance and functional allocation in NextGen, a controller- in-the-loop study with ground-based automation was conducted at NASA Ames' Airspace Operations Laboratory in August 2012 to investigate the potential impact of introducing self-separating aircraft in progressively advanced NextGen timeframes. From this larger study, the current exploratory analysis of controller-automation interaction styles focuses on the last and most far-term time frame. Measurements were recorded that firstly verified the continued operational validity of this iteration of the ground-based functional allocation automation concept in forecast traffic densities up to 2x that of current day high altitude en-route sectors. Additionally, with greater levels of fully automated conflict detection and resolution as well as the introduction of intervention functionality, objective and subjective analyses showed a range of passive to active controller- automation interaction styles between the participants. Not only did the controllers work with the automation to meet their safety and capacity goals in the simulated future NextGen timeframe, they did so in different ways and with different attitudes of trust/use of the automation. Taken as a whole, the results showed that the prototyped controller-automation functional allocation framework was very flexible and successful overall.

Explore related subjects

NextGenautomationfunctional allocation

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cabrall, C., Gomez, A., Homola, J., Hunt, S.., Martin, L., Merccer, J., Prevott, T.. 2013-02-19. Transitioning Resolution Responsibility between the Controller and Automation Team in Simulated NextGen Separation Assurance. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140010142

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Multiple Flow Constrained Area Capacity Setting Methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program

The purpose of this study was to compare flow constrained area (FCA) capacity setting methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) as they pertain to the Integrated Demand Management (IDM) concept. IDM uses flow balancing to manage air traffic across multiple FCAs with a common downstream constraint, as well as constraints at the respective FCA locations. FCA capacity rates can be set manually, but generating capacities for multiple, interdependent FCAs could potentially over-burden a user. A new enhancement to CTOP called the FCA Balance Algorithm (FBA) was developed at NASA Ames Research Center to improve the process of allocating capacity across multiple flow constrained segments in the airspace. The FBA evaluates the predicted demand and capacity across multiple FCAs and dynamically generates capacity settings for the FCAs that best meet capacity limits for all identified constraints. In a human-in-the-loop simulation study, both manual and automated capacity setting methods were evaluated in terms of their overall feasibility using measures of system performance, human performance, and qualitative feedback. Subject matter experts were asked to use three different methods to allocate capacity to three FCAs, either (1) by manually setting capacity for every 60-minute time window, (2) by manually setting capacity for every 15-minute time window, or (3) by using the FBA capability to automatically generate capacity settings. Results showed no significant differences in terms of overall system performance, indicated by similar ground delay and airport throughput numbers between methods. However, differences in individual strategies afforded by the manual methods allowed some participants to achieve system-wide delay that was much lower than the average. The FBA was the fastest method of capacity setting, and it received the lowest subjective rating scores on physical task load, mental task load, task difficulty and task complexity out of the three methods. Finally, participants explained through qualitative feedback that there were many benefits to using the FBA, such as ease of use, accuracy, and low risk of human input error. Participants did not experience the same limitations with the FBA that they did with the manual methods, such as reduced accuracy in the 60-minute manual condition, or high complexity in the 15-minute/manual condition. These results suggest that the FBA automation enhancement to CTOP maintains system performance while improving human performance. Therefore, the FBA could be introduced as a way to mitigate operator workload while planning a CTOP.

NextGen↗
NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Multiple Flow Constrained Area Capacity Setting Methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program

The purpose of this study was to compare flow constrained area (FCA) capacity setting methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) as they pertain to the Integrated Demand Management (IDM) concept. IDM uses flow balancing to manage air traffic across multiple FCAs with a common downstream constraint, as well as constraints at the respective FCA locations. FCA capacity rates can be set manually, but generating capacities for multiple, interdependent FCAs could potentially over-burden a user. A new enhancement to CTOP called the FCA Balance Algorithm (FBA) was developed at NASA Ames Research Center to improve the process of allocating capacity across multiple flow constrained segments in the airspace. The FBA evaluates the predicted demand and capacity across multiple FCAs and dynamically generates capacity settings for the FCAs that best meet capacity limits for all identified constraints. In a human-in-the-loop simulation study, both manual and automated capacity setting methods were evaluated in terms of their overall feasibility using measures of system performance, human performance, and qualitative feedback. Subject matter experts were asked to use three different methods to allocate capacity to three FCAs, either (1) by manually setting capacity for every 60-minute time window, (2) by manually setting capacity for every 15-minute time window, or (3) by using the FBA capability to automatically generate capacity settings. Results showed no significant differences in terms of overall system performance, indicated by similar ground delay and airport throughput numbers between methods. However, differences in individual strategies afforded by the manual methods allowed some participants to achieve system-wide delay that was much lower than the average. The FBA was the fastest method of capacity setting, and it received the lowest subjective rating scores on physical task load, mental task load, task difficulty and task complexity out of the three methods. Finally, participants explained through qualitative feedback that there were many benefits to using the FBA, such as ease of use, accuracy, and low risk of human input error. Participants did not experience the same limitations with the FBA that they did with the manual methods, such as reduced accuracy in the 60-minute manual condition, or high complexity in the 15-minute/manual condition. These results suggest that the FBA automation enhancement to CTOP maintains system performance while improving human performance. Therefore, the FBA could be introduced as a way to mitigate operator workload while planning a CTOP.

NextGen↗