Transcript Capstone Status: MOA

Surveillance and
Broadcast Services
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Presented to the ASAS TN 2.5
Workshop
November 2008
Kenneth M. Jones
FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services
Program Office
Federal Aviation
Administration
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
• The Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
– ARC encouraged SBS Program to examine how operational benefits
of ADS-B could be optimized before compliance with a nationwide
ADS-B mandate
• Objective
– Develop a globally accepted, airborne ADS-B application that
provides operational benefits prior to required compliance with the
ADS-B mandate
• Approach
– Conduct an operational evaluation of ADS-B ITP that delivers more
efficient oceanic operations
• Anticipated Outcomes
–
–
–
–
Insight into the operational aspects of airborne ADS-B
Catalyst for change to regulatory process
Validate economic benefits of ADS-B ITP
Provide a growth path to future applications
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
2
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Following Climb Example
• ADS-B In-Trail Procedures are airborne ADS-B enabled climbs
and descents through otherwise blocked flight levels
FL360
FL350
FL340
Standard Separation
blue = ADS-B transceiver and onboard decision support system
red = ADS-B out minimum required
• ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
– ADS-B ITP separation standard relies on airborne ADS-B data
evaluated by the flight crew which permits climb request
– Controller retains separation responsibility and approves clearance
based on knowledge of complete traffic situation
• No airborne monitoring during climb required
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
3
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Standard Climb vs ITP Climb
In Trail Procedure
(ITP)
Current
Separation
Desired Altitude
ALLOWED
BLOCKED
FL360
FL350
FL340
Standard Separation
Sequence of Events
blue = ADS-B transceiver and onboard decision support system
red = ADS-B out minimum required
white = no ADS-B requirements
Status
Pilot ITP Speed/Distance Criteria
Pilot requests following climb
ATC verifies std climb criteria
Unable
Pilot verifies ITP climb criteria
Valid
Pilot requests ITP climb from ATC
ATC verifies ITP climb criteria
Valid
ATC grants ITP following climb
Approved
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
or
Ground Speed ∆
< 20 kt
< 30kt
Range ∆
> 15 nm
> 20 nm
ATC ITP criteria
• Closing Mach ≤ 0.04
• Available target altitude
Federal Aviation
Administration
4
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Development Activities
• Concept and Standards Development
– RTCA/EUROCAE Requirements Focus Group (RFG)
• Airborne Traffic Situation Awareness ITP (ATSA-ITP) Safety, Performance and
Interoperability Requirements (SPR) Document
– Interoperability requirements, Operational and Service Environment Description (OSED),
Operational Safety Assessment (OSA), Operational Performance Assessment (OPA)
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
5
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Concept and Standards Development
• ICAO Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP)
– Adopted ADS-B ITP as part of their work package in November 2006
– Developed ADS-B ITP collision risk analysis (approved by SASP October
2008)
– Longitudinal Separation subgroup has proposed an amendment to ICAO Doc.
4444 (PANS ATM) for ITP
• Still requires broader ICAO approval
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
6
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Retrofit Display Option
• ADS-B applications require an
appropriate crew interface
• Options for interface include
primary field of view (e.g. PFD),
forward field of view (e.g. EICAS) or
other secondary fields of view (e.g.
EFB)
• EFB chosen as a potentially lower
cost retrofit option
• Display Development
– Initial display designs conceptualized
– Survey distributed to 1500 oceanic line
pilots; design revised based on the 250
survey responses received
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
7
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Concept Validation Study – Flight Crew Perspective
• Research Objectives
– Assess the Validity of the ITP
– Assess Pilot Acceptability of the ITP
• Part-Task Human-In-The-Loop Experiment
– Conducted in ATOL September 2006
– 26 pilots over a 4 week period, 16 experiment scenarios flown
– Participants were 777 and/or 747-400 pilots with current oceanic experience
• Results
– Procedure was rated as both valid
and acceptable
– Workload similar to standard level
changes (no significant increase)
– Pilots found the increased situation
awareness provided by display very
useful
– Results available as NASA TP 2008215313
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
8
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Concept Validation Study – Controller Perspective
• Research Objectives
– Assess whether ITP is valid from the perspective of an air traffic controller
– Assess whether ITP is acceptable to air traffic controllers
• Experiment conducted in Airservices Australia’s TAAATS simulation facility
– 12 controllers from two different procedural sectors
– Each controller dealt with multiple ITP scenarios in three 50 minute sessions
• Preliminary results
–
–
–
–
–
Workload is no higher than current day operations
Most controllers thought they would use it more than once per shift
Recommendations for ITP phraseology were suggested
Would prefer preformatted CPDLC messages to free text
ITP could be acceptably applied using VHF voice
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
9
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Operational Evaluation/Trial
• Goal of Operational Evaluation of ITP
– Conduct ITP operations in an oceanic environment on revenue flights
• Objectives of Operational Evaluation of ITP
– Validate operational performance of ADS-B ITP
– Assess economic benefits of ADS-B ITP
– Establish framework for global ADS-B ITP implementation and follow-on
airborne ADS-B applications
• Initial operations in the SOPAC
– Favorable business case
– DO-260 signal issues appear manageable
• Migrate to the PACOTS
– Appears to be a significant, compelling benefit mechanism
• Significant traffic interactions
• Substantial fuel savings potential
• Variety of aircraft types
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
10
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
SOPAC Business Case
• About 10% of flights remain within 60nmi
and 4,000 ft from other traffic for longer
than 1 hr
• Traffic interactions are infrequent and
very hard to predict
Jan. 12, 2004 • Consequently, variations in fuel burn can
KLAX to
be significant
YSSY
• Flights board contingency fuel to avoid
YSSY to
unplanned fuel stops
KLAX
Benefit mechanism assumptions
January 2004
•
– Flights operate MTOGW; reduction in contingency fuel replaced with additional cargo
revenue
– Airline policy decision to carry less contingency fuel
– Statistical analysis has shown that in the SOPAC, an airline could choose to keep the
same risk of unplanned fuel stops and board 300 lb less fuel with ITP
•
•
300 lb contingency fuel reduction results in a benefit per equipped aircraft
of approximately 202K/year; potentially more
Return on Investment for a carrier – one year!
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
11
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Operational Evaluation/Trial – Technical Issues
• Certification and verification of DO-260 signal
– Current business case assumes a certified DO-260
signal
– Need to verify the signal is coming from an
approved system or to verify the integrity of the
signal received
• Electronic Flight Bag (EFB)
– Assumed an EFB installation for
retrofit aircraft
– Guidance indicates Class III EFB is
the best solution
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
12
Enhanced Oceanic Operations
Phased Approach
• Phase 1 –ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
– Flight level changes allowed based on cockpit derived data
• No delegation of separation authority to the flight deck
– Increased situation awareness
• Phase 2 – Limited, Delegated Oceanic Separation Procedures
– Enhanced ITP (ASEP-ITP)
• Limited delegation of separation authority to the cockpit during the
maneuver
• Simplified procedure, reduced separation distance
– In-Trail Follow Procedures (ASEP-ITF)
• Reduce co-altitude separation distances
• Pair-wise separation using spacing techniques
• Potential for big payoff in the North Atlantic
Increased
Delegation of
Separation to
the Flight
Deck
• Phase 3 – Airborne Self-Separation Corridors (SSEP-ITP)
– Aircraft allowed to self-separate on approved corridors
• Potential for Significant Fuel Savings in Phases 2 and 3!
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
13
ADS-B In-Trail Procedures
Summary and Next Steps
• Summary
– ITP is cost beneficial to airlines in the Pacific
– ITP using certified DO-260 signal produces an early payback in the
SOPAC
– An 747-400 with a certified ADS-B ITP system will receive immediate
benefit in the SOPAC and be ready for use in other areas when
authorized
• Next Steps
– ANSP and private sector partnership development
Surveillance and Broadcast Services
For Official Use Only
Federal Aviation
Administration
14