Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ...
Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ... Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ...
• What are the back-up procedures to take into account failure, degradation or inappropriate outputs • What verification procedures are used to ensure required availability of back-up systems/procedures • Are these back-up systems and procedures available, online and well practiced • What is the certainty that any necessary human intervention skills are of the appropriate level of proficiency and availability - does this change with time and population structure - how is this tested and how frequently There needs to be more research in the whole area of decision support tools, and how they are subject to growing dependency and affect the maintenance of appropriate situational awareness. 4.3.2 Intent There are several issues surrounding the content and availability of intent information that have an impact on the effectiveness of decision support systems and have major implications requiring human factors consideration. The main issues are: • Where is the knowledge of the intentions of each aircraft and of the tactical controller Is it in the Flight Management Computer (FMC) or other computer or is it in someone’s head • How accurate and reliable are these intentions • How long are they valid • How can these intentions be made available to the decision support system in order to allow it to function with the best quality data available • How can the system be kept updated or informed when disturbances occur that demand rapid re-planning on the part of both pilots and controller ‘Intent’ is the description of how the future is most likely to unfold, and in it there is an attempt to shape the future. Thus intent involves elements of both prediction and predetermination. Airborne technology has developed to a state that is allowing prediction of the future, from the individual aircraft’s point of view, to be realized with a fairly high degree of certainty. This high level of certainty is the result of the FMC’s working to ensure that predictions come true; the FMC ensures conformance; the future state(s) is/are constraints that should be achieved. Intent is not confined to the aircraft and its plan; it is also an important aspect of the controller’s method of managing a domain of responsibility. The controller’s intent is an extension forward in time of the dynamics of the current situation, identifying where modifications will be necessary to maintain safety and achieve pilots’ requested profiles. The air traffic control system functions principally through the action of the controller combining all the individual pilot intents with his/her own intent into an overall plan, 50
arbitrating wherever intents conflict. The intent information then becomes a constraint to which each pilot and the controller attempt to conform. Controllers that talk of ‘having the picture’ are referring to knowing not only both the current status and intent, but also of having a plan for the future. They are fully aware of the situation. The controller’s intent currently tends to exist only in the head of the controller. Groundbased decision support systems need to have knowledge of the controller’s intent in order to support the execution of the ‘tactical plan’. These issues are made more difficult to resolve within the terminal and tower domains by the nature of the operations in those domains. Terminal and tower are very time-critical and tend to have both a high mechanical task loading as well as a high cognitive loading. This places extreme demands on decision support systems for the terminal environment both in terms of task loading and situational awareness. Thus there are major issues surrounding the requirements for a better understanding of registering intent: • How to get intent into the system • How to ensure its validity • How to update it or declare it invalid There is another set of issues surrounding the possibility of using some decision support system to create its own plan, thus resolving human input problems. The main issue in this approach is how to inform the operator about the system’s plan, (especially if the human is the back-up system). Decision support systems will have limited effect unless they have knowledge of both the pilots’ and controller’s intentions. It is the sharing of intention and then the formulation of a plan that are key elements in achieving greater throughput whilst maintaining or improving safety. 4.3.3 Using Structure To Maximize Throughput The usual response of controllers, when the demand for throughput increases, is to impose some structure as to how traffic flows through their domain of responsibility. This has been raised as a possible strategy for maximizing throughput in Section 3.4.7. The imposition of various restrictions, in a structured form, is an attempt to control the complexity which results from having many pilots each with different requirements. As traffic load increases, the controller tends to move from a mode of processing individual requests to one of restricting individual aircraft so that they fit into a certain structure. A number of options are available: 1. The structure can be predetermined and accessible to the pilots for planning; e.g., Airways, SID’s, STAR’s, or 2. It can be predetermined but not available to the pilots; e.g., letters of agreement between air traffic control facilities on the use of flight levels or routes, or 51
- Page 11 and 12: KIAS LAAS LAHSO LLWAS MAC MCP MDCRS
- Page 13 and 14: 1 Introduction This report presents
- Page 15 and 16: unknown technology, and thus the co
- Page 17 and 18: 2 The NAS ATM System Development Pr
- Page 19 and 20: System Requirements & Objectives Va
- Page 21 and 22: technologies needed for initial tra
- Page 23 and 24: • The goals of various users are
- Page 25 and 26: considerations are key to evaluatin
- Page 27 and 28: Free Flight White Paper on System C
- Page 29 and 30: 4.5 4.3 4 3.7 Current NAS Future NA
- Page 31 and 32: elated component will increase with
- Page 33 and 34: Special Committees. The paper, with
- Page 35 and 36: efficiency-constraints model that i
- Page 37 and 38: • Problem Statement • Alternati
- Page 39 and 40: • The highly peaked nature of air
- Page 41 and 42: • Sector-level flow planning Each
- Page 43 and 44: • Flow managers Figure 3.3 shows
- Page 45 and 46: traffic situation as it currently a
- Page 47 and 48: • It is probable that the process
- Page 49 and 50: 3.3. Event-based trajectory deviati
- Page 51 and 52: egion takes on the order of years t
- Page 53 and 54: The answer to this question is like
- Page 55 and 56: Flight Schedule Flight Planning Fil
- Page 57 and 58: 4 Human Factors This section addres
- Page 59 and 60: 4.2.3 Human Factors Support For Imp
- Page 61: “System designers, regulators, an
- Page 65 and 66: aircraft-to-aircraft separation res
- Page 67 and 68: 5 Available and Emerging Technology
- Page 69 and 70: function of all the ICPs of element
- Page 71 and 72: A key concept in the definition of
- Page 73 and 74: contrast, the older radars have azi
- Page 75 and 76: Broadcast (ADS-B), V6.0). Individua
- Page 77 and 78: is needed to develop cockpit displa
- Page 79 and 80: ATC Voice Procedures Waypoint Repor
- Page 81 and 82: CPC = Controller Pilot Communicatio
- Page 83 and 84: TWDL = Two-Way Data Link CPDLC = Co
- Page 85 and 86: the ATN ADS specification. This wil
- Page 87 and 88: The airlines and the FAA have recen
- Page 89 and 90: menu associated with the airport of
- Page 91 and 92: 8.0 NM 4.0 NM POPP PLMN 14.0 NM 30.
- Page 93 and 94: The near future will probably see a
- Page 95 and 96: ASR/SSR Radar Terminal Automation S
- Page 97 and 98: ASR/SSR Radar Mosaic Based (Host) T
- Page 99 and 100: Another group of users which can be
- Page 101 and 102: and human factor elements in all fo
- Page 103 and 104: ASOS AWOS TDWR NEXRAD Surface Upper
- Page 105 and 106: sets as legitimate atmospheric data
- Page 107 and 108: AWIPS/WFO- Advanced WARP Analysis P
- Page 109 and 110: longer-term domestic and internatio
- Page 111 and 112: example, the ceiling and visibility
arbitrating wherever intents conflict. <strong>The</strong> intent information then becomes a constraint to<br />
which each pilot and the controller attempt to conform. Controllers that talk of ‘having<br />
the picture’ are referring to knowing not only both the current status and intent, but also<br />
of having a plan for the future. <strong>The</strong>y are fully aware of the situation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> controller’s intent currently tends to exist only in the head of the controller. Groundbased<br />
decision support systems need to have knowledge of the controller’s intent in order<br />
to support the execution of the ‘tactical plan’. <strong>The</strong>se issues are made more difficult to<br />
resolve within the terminal and tower domains by the nature of the operations in those<br />
domains. Terminal and tower are very time-critical and tend to have both a high<br />
mechanical task loading as well as a high cognitive loading. This places extreme demands<br />
on decision support systems for the terminal environment both in terms of task loading<br />
and situational awareness.<br />
Thus there are major issues surrounding the requirements for a better understanding of<br />
registering intent:<br />
• How to get intent into the system<br />
• How to ensure its validity<br />
• How to update it or declare it invalid<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is another set of issues surrounding the possibility of using some decision support<br />
system to create its own plan, thus resolving human input problems. <strong>The</strong> main issue in this<br />
approach is how to inform the operator about the system’s plan, (especially if the human is<br />
the back-up system).<br />
Decision support systems will have limited effect unless they have knowledge of both the<br />
pilots’ and controller’s intentions. It is the sharing of intention and then the formulation of<br />
a plan that are key elements in achieving greater throughput whilst maintaining or<br />
improving safety.<br />
4.3.3 Using Structure To Maximize Throughput<br />
<strong>The</strong> usual response of controllers, when the demand for throughput increases, is to impose<br />
some structure as to how traffic flows through their domain of responsibility. This has<br />
been raised as a possible strategy for maximizing throughput in Section 3.4.7. <strong>The</strong><br />
imposition of various restrictions, in a structured form, is an attempt to control the<br />
complexity which results from having many pilots each with different requirements. As<br />
traffic load increases, the controller tends to move from a mode of processing individual<br />
requests to one of restricting individual aircraft so that they fit into a certain structure.<br />
A number of options are available:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> structure can be predetermined and accessible to the pilots for planning; e.g.,<br />
<strong>Air</strong>ways, SID’s, STAR’s, or<br />
2. It can be predetermined but not available to the pilots; e.g., letters of agreement<br />
between air traffic control facilities on the use of flight levels or routes, or<br />
51