A Cockpit Display Designed to Enable Limited Flight Deck Separation Responsibility

1
A Cockpit Display Designed to Enable Limited
Flight Deck Separation Responsibility

• Walter W. Johnson Vernol Battiste
• NASA Ames Research Center
• Sheila Holland Bochow
• San Jose State University

Presented By Vernol Battiste
2
Outline

• Goal of the display design
• Display and Functions
• Full mission simulation display evaluation
• Crew perspective and comments
• Conclusions

3
Goal

• A goal of the cockpit situation display (CSD)
  design is to present a combined cockpit display
  of traffic, conflict alerting, and flight path
  re-planning system which facilitates cockpit
  flight path re-planning and coordinating with
  ATC.

4
CSD/NAV Display B-747-400

• Display Features
• Position and intent of ownship and traffic
• Predictive Information
• Clutter management
• Color
• Selected route and ID

5
CSD Depicting Three Alert Levels (SA)

• Situational awareness levels
• SA1 - Open yellow chevron
• SA2 - Filled yellow chevron
• SA3 - Filled yellow chevron with lines and
  circles indicating the point where separation
  will be lost. Flight ID is displayed for all SA
  levels.

6
Static and Pulse Predictors
Pulse
Static
7
Advanced Route Assessment Tools

• Modification of current route profile at any
  waypoint
• Heading
• Speed
• Altitude
• Display synchronization to support intra-cockpit
  comm.
• Route modifications sent to ATC for approval via
  FMS/FANS protocol

8
Predictor Tool

• Present future aircrafts position in minutes
  ahead
• Static
• Pulse
• Relative and absolute altitude tags
• Aircraft Identification (full data blocks)
• Smart Tags
• Routes off

9
Example of altitude change resolution

• Waypoint Names
• Flight Plan
• ARAT

10
Example of Lateral resolution maneuver
11
Simulation Study Objectives

• To assess the value of 4/D intent information
  (flight plans) for flight crews performing
  strategic self separation during en route free
  flight operations.
• To obtain display usage measures for the various
  display tools.
• To obtain flight crew feedback on utility
  (effectiveness and workload) of specific display
  features and overall display design.
• To obtain measures of flight crew / ATC
  coordination
• To obtain measures of effectiveness of
  procedures emphasizing low and high ATC
  responsibility

12
Approach

• 10 Boeing 747 flight crew flew 8 en route
  scenarios incorporating climbing, descending, and
  level encounter geometries. The encounters
  reflected both true and apparent conflicts.
• The flights were conducted in an ATC super sector
  (FL350 and above covering two regular Oakland
  sectors) manned by an FPL controller from the
  areas of interest.
• The flight crews task was to maintain vertical
  (1000ft) and lateral separation, by re-planning
  their flight trajectory and submitting changes to
  ATC for approval.

13
Procedures

• All flight plan changes/maneuvers required
  coordination and concurrence with ATC via
  datalink and voice
• Flight crews attempted to optimize flight
  profiles based on their understanding of AOC and
  flight deck priorities
• ATC operated the sector based on current rules
  and practices

14
Experimental Design
ATC Role
Strategic Tactical
Tactical
Flight Plans
Flight Deck Intent Information
No Flight Plans
15
Dependent Measures

• Separation violations
• CPA
• Number of changes initiated by crew, and number
  accepted by controller
• Number of changes initiated by controller
• Crew intervention time
• Controller intervention time

• Controller and crew assessment questionnaires
• Subjective workload (crews and controllers)
• ATCs assessment of crew separation strategies
  (modify request)
• Crew and controller acceptance

16
Results

• Post simulation, crews responded to a Likert
  scale format (1-7 scale) - generally 1 negative,
  and 7 positive, or preferences with either choice
  anchoring the scale (e.g.,1- static and 7 - pulse
  predictors)
• A neutral position of 4 was used as an anchor to
  evaluate ratings that were significantly (plt0.05)
  above or below the anchor, on a two tailed t-test.

17
Results Display Clutter with and Without ARAT

• Neutral response with ARAT -M4.13, without ARAT
  -M4.5
• Flight crews reported that of aircraft were the
  main cause of display clutter
• They suggested that the ability to remove
  aircraft that were flying away at a different
  altitude (assumed no longer a threat) could help
  solve this problem

18
Results Text Size and Readability

• Positive response
• Tail tags, M5.69
• Aircraft ID blocks, M6.0
• Flight plan waypoint names, M5.78
• Neutral response
• ARAT waypoint names, M4.44

19
Results Aircraft Symbols

• Ownship and traffic (size, shape, altitude
  format, 1 minute predictor, brightness),
  positive M5.97
• Color coding of relative altitudes (blue -above,
  green - below, and white -same altitude),
  Positive M6.37
• Comment
• The color coding allowed an instant recognition
  of the traffic situation.
• Brightness levels were not as effective.

20
Results Flight Plans

• Positive response to flight plans (symbol size,
  shape, waypoints, altitude segment), M5.75
• Positive response to the use of color in the
  flight plan, M5.84
• Comment Broken (dotted ) line was very effective

21
Results Input Controls

• Predictor panel mounted controls
• Ease of use, positive, M5.61
• Desirability, positive, M5.47
• ARAT panel mounted controls
• Ease of use, neutral, M4.94
• Desirability, neutral, M5.33
• Touch Pad predictor and ARAT
• Ease of use, neutral, M4.69, M4.5
• Desirability, neutral, M4.47, M4.18

22
Results Aircraft ID Blocks

• 15 of 16 flight crew members reported that
  information in the flight ID block was necessary
• Comment One addition to the current information
  set was suggested - final altitude for climbing
  and descending aircraft

23
Results Predictors

• Static, neutral M4.44
• Pulse, very positive M6.66
• Preference (1-static or 7-pulse), Positive M6.03
• Input devices - controlling predictors
• Control panel, positive M5.56
• Touch Pad, neutral M4.22
• Preference (1 - control panel to 7 - touch pad),
  M3.28

24
Result Alerts

• Alert Symbology
• Overall (shape, sound and function), positive
  M5.63
• Effectiveness when ARAT engaged, positive M5.82
• ARAT symbology (size, shape, waypoints, altitude
  segment, and waypoint table), positive M5.50
• Alert Resolution
• Preference for vertical or lateral maneuver,
  Neutral M4.47
• Location of initial maneuver (1 - near or 7 -
  away from ownship), neutral M4.38
• Value of flight plan, positive M5.47
• Alert timing
• Minimum time for alert level 3, M5.63
• Placement of Null point, M2.43 minutes ahead
  of ownship (current design is 1.50)

25
Conclusions

• A goal of the CSD design and evaluation was to
  assess crew responses to 3-D and 4-D traffic
  information, display clutter, and flight
  re-planning tools.
• Positive response to 3-D flight plans
• Positive response to pulse predictor
• Positive response to altitude color coding (both
  flight plan traffic)
• Neutral response to clutter management tools
• Ratings showed that crews had difficulty with the
  ARAT controls.
• Neutral ratings for panel and touch pad suggest
  that these input devices need work.
• Initial analysis of the performance data suggest
  that crews were successful at their primary task,
  of maintaining en route separation