Enhancing Pilot Ability to Perform CDA withDescriptive Waypoints1Systems Engineering Research LaboratoryCalifornia State U...
• Previous Research• Objective• Method and Experimental Design• Results• Conclusion2Overview
Conventional Approach Vs. ContinuousDescent Approach (CDA)310,000 Feet4,000 feetILS Glide SlopeRunwayContinuousDescent App...
Previous Research• Structure▫ Reynolds et. al. (2005) ATC have difficulty predicting future trajectories of decelerating ...
• Vertical Navigation (VNAV) Uncertainty▫ Clarke, Ho, et. al. (2004) The altitude constraint has priority over the speed ...
• To determine the feasibility of using gates for CDA initiated near topof descent, and number of gates and locations• For...
723,000 feetStarting Speed IAS 305AirportIAS 160Alt 20005nm71.6nmNM to RunwayIAS 305Alt 23000(SDF)0nm5nm to SDFRunway1 Des...
823,000 feetStarting Speed IAS 305AirportIAS 160Alt 20005nm38nm71.6nmNM to RunwayIAS 305Alt 13000IAS 305Alt 23000Cheri(SDF...
923,000 feetStarting Speed IAS 305AirportIAS 160Alt 200010nm 5nm22.1nm38nm56nm71.6nmNM to RunwayIAS 160Alt 5000IAS 305Alt ...
Method and Experimental Design• A 3 x3 within-subject factorial design was used▫ Number of Descriptive Waypoints: One, Thr...
Participants• Twelve IFR rated pilots with glass cockpit experience with 590 to23,000 (Mean 7,660) hours flight time• Elev...
Facilities• Study was run in Systems Engineering Research Laboratory (SERL),California State University Northridge• Pilot ...
Mode ControlPanel (MCP)Primary FlightDisplay(PFD)13Navigation DisplayFlapsLanding GearSpeed BrakesMACSFlight Simulator Dis...
14CSDVertical Situation Display
Results15
0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.001 DW 3 DW 5 DW16Power usageStd 2.31 Std 2.39AveragePowerPercentageStd 3.45
17Average Altitude DeviationAltitudeDeviationinFeet0200400600800100012001400160018nm to Cheri:DW Target 1Cheri:DW Target 2...
0123451 DW 3 DW 5 DW18Std .67Std .75Std .72WorkloadAverageWorkload
Pilot Feedback• Pilots would feel comfortable (4.42 out of 6 on a scale) having theDW put into a flight chart• Pilots woul...
Pilot Feedback cont.• DWs helped them manage their vertical speed by giving themcheckpoints• DW 3 target at 10,000 feet al...
• The five DW condition gave structure for the pilots, and the aircraftconsistently flew similar flight paths and were clo...
• Full sim with all tools available to pilots• Have a co pilot or a researcher act as one• Include a Jeppesen chart with t...
References• Lowther, M. B., Clarke, J-P., & Ren, L., (2007). En Route Speed Change Optimization for Spacing ContinuousDesc...
References• Clark, J-P., Bennett, D., Elmer, K., Firth, J., Hilb, R., Ho, N., Johnson, S., Lau, S., Ren, L., Senechal, D.,...
25References• Johnson, W., Ho, N., Martin, P., Vu, K-P., Ligda, S., Battiste, V., Lachter, J., Dao, A. (2010), “Management...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Enhancing Pilot Ability to Perform Continuous Descent Approach with Descriptive Waypoints

490 views

Published on

Thesis

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
490
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
81
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Enhancing Pilot Ability to Perform Continuous Descent Approach with Descriptive Waypoints

  1. 1. Enhancing Pilot Ability to Perform CDA withDescriptive Waypoints1Systems Engineering Research LaboratoryCalifornia State University Northridge (CSUN)10/19/2011Authors:Michael LaMarr & Dr. Nhut Ho System Engineering Research LaboratoryDr. Walter Johnson & Vernol Battiste, NASA AMESJoe Biviano Lockheed Martin
  2. 2. • Previous Research• Objective• Method and Experimental Design• Results• Conclusion2Overview
  3. 3. Conventional Approach Vs. ContinuousDescent Approach (CDA)310,000 Feet4,000 feetILS Glide SlopeRunwayContinuousDescent ApproachConventionalApproachCurrent Problem with Conventional Approach• Cost of fuel = 27% operation cost to airlines• People complain about loud aircraft noise nearairports• Can’t expand runways• Limited aircraft throughput at nightImplementation challenges for CDA:•Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) unable to maintain separation between decelerating aircraft•Pilots have difficulty maintaining a tight vertical flight profileProposed Solution Continuous DescentApproach• Idle engine at Higher altitude• Less noise is produced• Less fuel is consumed ~220lbs• Fewer emissions produced21 NM
  4. 4. Previous Research• Structure▫ Reynolds et. al. (2005) ATC have difficulty predicting future trajectories of decelerating aircraft Standardizing CDA deceleration profiles would allow ATC to use structuredbased abstractions and maintain aircraft separation▫ Ho et. al. (2006) Pilots had highest speedaccuracy with three gates Having too few or too manytargets could increase workload4
  5. 5. • Vertical Navigation (VNAV) Uncertainty▫ Clarke, Ho, et. al. (2004) The altitude constraint has priority over the speed constraint VNAV performance was dependent on pilot behavior: initiating CDA too lateand delays in flaps deployment negatively affected the desired performance• 4D Guidance (x, y, z, and Time)▫ Williams (2008) Provides an energy cue on a 2D vertical Nav display NAV display helps pilots manage throttle and speed brake usage during CDA Helps increase spacing and minimizes Required Time of Arrival deviation5Previous Research
  6. 6. • To determine the feasibility of using gates for CDA initiated near topof descent, and number of gates and locations• Formalize gates as Descriptive Waypoints (DW): A DescriptiveWaypoint is a target along the flight path that gives the pilot a targetaltitude and Indicated Airspeed (IAS)6Objective
  7. 7. 723,000 feetStarting Speed IAS 305AirportIAS 160Alt 20005nm71.6nmNM to RunwayIAS 305Alt 23000(SDF)0nm5nm to SDFRunway1 Descriptive Waypoint PilotHandout
  8. 8. 823,000 feetStarting Speed IAS 305AirportIAS 160Alt 20005nm38nm71.6nmNM to RunwayIAS 305Alt 13000IAS 305Alt 23000Cheri(SDF)Alt<10IAS 240Alt 100000nm5nm to SDF21.1nmRunway3 Descriptive Waypoints PilotHandout
  9. 9. 923,000 feetStarting Speed IAS 305AirportIAS 160Alt 200010nm 5nm22.1nm38nm56nm71.6nmNM to RunwayIAS 160Alt 5000IAS 305Alt 13000IAS 305Alt 18000IAS 305Alt 23000Cheri(SDF)Alt<1018nm to cheri1Onm to SDFIAS 240Alt 100000nm5nm to SDFRunway5 Descriptive Waypoints PilotHandout
  10. 10. Method and Experimental Design• A 3 x3 within-subject factorial design was used▫ Number of Descriptive Waypoints: One, Three, and Five▫ Tail Wind Speed Conditions: Slow, Normal, and High• Dependent Variables▫ Deviation from Descriptive Waypoint altitude and Indicated Airspeed▫ Average power use of aircraft▫ Workload (Part-task), Pilot acceptance, & Pilot Feedback10
  11. 11. Participants• Twelve IFR rated pilots with glass cockpit experience with 590 to23,000 (Mean 7,660) hours flight time• Eleven males, one female• Age: 24 to 67, average = 38• Pilots range from flying 757, CRJ, beachcraft, private jets and a learjet• Two pilots had real world CDA experience, one in a simulator11
  12. 12. Facilities• Study was run in Systems Engineering Research Laboratory (SERL),California State University Northridge• Pilot was in a room with a one-way mirror• Flight chart was on desk for pilot to use12
  13. 13. Mode ControlPanel (MCP)Primary FlightDisplay(PFD)13Navigation DisplayFlapsLanding GearSpeed BrakesMACSFlight Simulator Display
  14. 14. 14CSDVertical Situation Display
  15. 15. Results15
  16. 16. 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.001 DW 3 DW 5 DW16Power usageStd 2.31 Std 2.39AveragePowerPercentageStd 3.45
  17. 17. 17Average Altitude DeviationAltitudeDeviationinFeet0200400600800100012001400160018nm to Cheri:DW Target 1Cheri:DW Target 2Alt<10:DW Target 310nm to SDF:DW Target 45nm to SDF:DW Target 51 DWCondition3 DWCondition5 DWCondition
  18. 18. 0123451 DW 3 DW 5 DW18Std .67Std .75Std .72WorkloadAverageWorkload
  19. 19. Pilot Feedback• Pilots would feel comfortable (4.42 out of 6 on a scale) having theDW put into a flight chart• Pilots would prefer 10-30nm spacing for DW• Pilots said they would fly more accurate if they had their standardtools• Changes recommended from the pilots▫ DW flight chart should implement distance to each DW and angle of descent▫ Implementation of DW into vertical NAV display19
  20. 20. Pilot Feedback cont.• DWs helped them manage their vertical speed by giving themcheckpoints• DW 3 target at 10,000 feet altitude was seen as the most importantDW by the pilots• Pilots said they used speed brakes as little as possible• Responsibilities and tasks for Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot Monitoring(PM)▫ PF should fly vertical speed and IAS, and determine whether the targets at DWsare met▫ PF should vocalize plan and callouts to PM▫ PM should monitor targets, air speed, IAS, and DWs, do all calculations for PF,setting altitudes, MCP, work the gear and flaps, crosschecking altitude inputs, andtalking to ATC20
  21. 21. • The five DW condition gave structure for the pilots, and the aircraftconsistently flew similar flight paths and were closer to their DWtarget altitudes• The five DW condition used slightly more power (one percent) thanthe one and three DW conditions.▫ With automated assistance such as altitude prediction, pilots believed that theywould intercept DW without resorting to level flight• The results of increasing performance in the three and five DWconditions support the use and implementation of DW into CDAprocedures21Summary and Conclusion
  22. 22. • Full sim with all tools available to pilots• Have a co pilot or a researcher act as one• Include a Jeppesen chart with the DW chart• Update DW flight chart based off pilot feedback• Integrate DW into CSD or vertical NAV display• Use DW with CSD and 3D guidancefor traffic avoidance• Use DW with CSD and 3D guidancefor terrain avoidance22Future Research
  23. 23. References• Lowther, M. B., Clarke, J-P., & Ren, L., (2007). En Route Speed Change Optimization for Spacing ContinuousDescent Arrivals• Reynolds, H., Reynolds, T. & R. Hansman, J. (2005). Human Factors Implications of Continuous DescentApproach Procedures for Noise Abatement in Air Traffic Control. 6th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&DSeminar, Baltimore, USA, June 27-30.• Ho, N. T., Clarke, J-P., Riedel, R., & Omen, C. (2006). Development and Evaluation of a Pilot Cueing System forNear-Term Implementation of Aircraft Noise Abatement Approach Procedures. Journal of American Institute ofAeronautics and Astronautics.• Clarke, J-P., B., Ho, N. T., Ren, L., Brown, J. A., Elmer, K. R., Tong, K-O & Wat, J. K. (2004). Continuous DescentApproach: Design and Flight Test for Louisville International Airport. Journal of Aircraft, 41(5), 1054-1066.• Reynolds, H. (2006). Modeling the Air Traffic Controller’s Cognitive Projection Process. MIT InternationalCenter for Air Transportation Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MA, 2006• Stell, L. (2010). Predictability of Top of Descent Location for operational Idle-thrust Descents. American Instituteof Aeronautics and Astronautics.• Kupfer, M., Callantine, T., Martin, L., Mercer, J. & Palmer, E., 2011, Controller Support Tools for Schedule-BasedTerminal-Area Operations, Ninth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar(ATM2011)• Alam, S, Nguyen, M.H., Abbass, H.A., Lokan, C., Ellejmi, M., & Kirby, S., 2010, A Dynamic Continuous DescentApproach Methodology for Low Noise and Emission, 29th IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference,October 3-7, 2010• Ren, L. & Clark, J-P., 2007, Flight Demonstration of the Separation Analysis Methodology for Continuous DescentArrival, Draft paper for 7th USA/Europe ATM 2007 R&D Seminar, Barcelona, Spain, 2-5 July 2007.23
  24. 24. References• Clark, J-P., Bennett, D., Elmer, K., Firth, J., Hilb, R., Ho, N., Johnson, S., Lau, S., Ren, L., Senechal, D., Sizov, N.,Slattery, R., Tong, K., Walton, J., Willgruber, A., Williams, D. (2006). Development, Design, and Flight TestEvaluation of a Continuous Descent Approach Procedure for Nighttime Operation at Louisville InternationalAirport• Koeslag, M. F., (1999) Advanced Continuous Descent Approaches –An algorithm design for the FlightManagement System-.• Moore, S. (2009). Benefits of Highly Predictable Flight Trajectories in Performing Routine Optimized ProfileDescents: Current and Recommended Research. Environmental Working Group Operations Standing Committee2009 Annual Workshop, NASA Ames.• Williams, D. (2008). Flight Deck Merging and Spacing and Advanced FMS Operations. EWG OperationsStanding Committee Meeting.• Coppenbarger, R., Mead, R., Sweet, D., (2009). Field Evaluation of the Tailored Arrivals Concept for Datalink-Enabled Continuous Descent Approach. Journal of Aircraft, 46(4), July–August 2009• Global Aviation Navigation, Inc., (2009). Retrieved May 2009, from http://www.globalair.com/d-TPP_pdf/00239IL17R.PDF• Thomas, L. & Wickens, C. (2006). Individual Effects of Battlefield Display Frames of Reference on NavigationTasks, Spatial Judgments, and Change Detection. Ergonomics, 49, 154-1173.• Cowen, M., John, M., Oonk, H., & Smallman, H. (2001). The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understandingversus Relative-Position Tasks. Human Factors, 43(1), 79-98.• Symmes, D., & Pella, J. (2005). Three-Dimensional Image. Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [CD]. Redmond, WA:Microsoft Corporation, 2005.• Prevot, T., (1998). A Display for Managing the Vertical Flight Path - an Appropriate Task with InappropriateFeedback-. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics Montreal, Canada, 199824
  25. 25. 25References• Johnson, W., Ho, N., Martin, P., Vu, K-P., Ligda, S., Battiste, V., Lachter, J., Dao, A. (2010), “Management OfContinuous Descent Approaches During Interval Management Operations,” 29th Digital Avionics SystemsConference, Salt Lake City, Utah.• Prevot, T., Callatine, T., Kopardekar, P., Smith, N., Palmer, E., Battiste, V., (2004). Trajectory-OrientedOperations with Limited Delegation: An Evolutionary Path to NAS Modernization. AIAA 4th Aviation Technology,Integration and Operations (ATIO) Forum, Chicago, IL, September 2004.

×