Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20140010185

DataComm in Flight Deck Surface Trajectory-Based Operations

Bakowski, Deborah L.·Foyle, David C.·Hooey, Becky L.·Meyer, Glenn R.·Wolter, Cynthia A.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The purpose of this pilot-in-the-loop aircraft taxi simulation was to evaluate a NextGen concept for surface trajectory-based operations (STBO) in which air traffic control (ATC) issued taxi clearances with a required time of arrival (RTA) by Data Communications (DataComm). Flight deck avionics, driven by an error-nulling algorithm, displayed the speed needed to meet the RTA. To ensure robustness of the algorithm, the ability of 10 two-pilot crews to meet the RTA was tested in nine experimental trials representing a range of realistic conditions including a taxi route change, an RTA change, a departure clearance change, and a crossing traffic hold scenario. In some trials, these DataComm taxi clearances or clearance modifications were accompanied by 'preview' information, in which the airport map display showed a preview of the proposed route changes, including the necessary speed to meet the RTA. Overall, the results of this study show that with the aid of the RTA speed algorithm, pilots were able to meet their RTAs with very little time error in all of the robustness-testing scenarios. Results indicated that when taxi clearance changes were issued by DataComm only, pilots required longer notification distances than with voice communication. However, when the DataComm was accompanied by graphical preview, the notification distance required by pilots was equivalent to that for voice.

Explore related subjects

NextGenDataCommSTBO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bakowski, Deborah L., Foyle, David C., Hooey, Becky L., Meyer, Glenn R., Wolter, Cynthia A.. 2012-07-21. DataComm in Flight Deck Surface Trajectory-Based Operations. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140010185

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↗