ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 1 NASA ASAS Activities: Decision Support for Airborne Trajectory Management & Self-Separation National Aeronautics and Space Administration Next Generation Air Transportation System Airspace Project Robert A. Vivona AOP Lead Engineer L-3 Communications Billerica, MA
24
Embed
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 1 NASA ASAS Activities: Decision Support for Airborne Trajectory Management & Self-Separation National.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 1
NASA ASAS Activities: Decision Support for
Airborne Trajectory Management & Self-Separation
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Next Generation Air Transportation System Airspace Project
Robert A. VivonaAOP Lead EngineerL-3 Communications
Billerica, MA
Presentation Overview
• Background– Airborne trajectory management
• Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP)– Provided ASAS functions– System interface– Capabilities
• AOP Experimental Performance
• Concluding Remarks
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 3
Background: Airborne Trajectory Management
Concept• Trajectory-oriented operations
– En route & transition to terminal• Aircraft self-optimization• Mixed environment
– Self-separating & ground managed aircraft
Self-separating aircraft:• Flight-deck decision support
equipped– Autonomous Operations Planner
• “Autonomous Flight Rules”– Self-separate (traffic & area hazards)– Conform to flow constraints– Don’t generate conflicts within 5 mins
• Broadcast state & intent data• FMS & air/ground data link equipped
Ground managed aircraft• Similar to today’s operations• Broadcast state (and intent) data
En Route Airspace
Ground managed
Self-separating
ATSP Responsibilities• Manage airspace resources
– Generate flow constraints– Datalink to autonomous aircraft
• Control ground managed aircraft
Terminal Airspace (Merging & Spacing)
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 4
Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP)
Purpose: enable trajectory management• Conformance to constraints
– Separation from traffic aircraft– Avoidance of special use airspace– Minimum penetration of weather hazards– Conformance to time-based flow
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 8
Conflict Management
• Approach:– Probe all relevant maneuvers (trajectories) requiring evaluation by flight crew
• Display all conflicts to provide complete situation awareness– Provide resolution capabilities for each maneuver
• AOP can simultaneously predict/evaluate multiple ownship maneuvers– Maintaining current guidance (Commanded Prediction)
– Evaluate impact of current guidance settings– “What happens if I don’t change the guidance settings?”
– Reconnecting to strategic route (Planning Prediction)– Advise & evaluate maneuver to re-establish FMS active route– “How do I get back to my long-range plan?”
– Stop maneuvering (State-vector projection)– Evaluate impact of maintaining current state– “What happens if I stop or don’t start/continue maneuvering?” (e.g., blunder)
• Not all maneuvers always relevant
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 9
Conflict Management
MCP altitude limit
State vector projection
Commanded prediction
Planning prediction
Active RouteAltitude Constraint
Commanded Prediction• Predicts impact of current guidance mode settings
• Initiates VNAV PATH descent• Predicts guidance switch to VNAV ALT at MCP altitude
• Primary CR impacts active guidance
FMS PredictedTop-of-Descent
Planning Prediction• Predicts impact of most strategic path
• Supports– Blunder protection– Override for short term conflicts
• Approach– Two options
• NLR (Modified Voltage Potential)• Langley (KB3D)
– Resolution advisories• Independent MCP settings
– track/heading, vertical rate, altitude• Automatically displayed when needed
– Similar characteristics• Resolves most immediate conflict
– Cooperative/Non-cooperative (configurable)• Maneuver to increase to minimum separation standard• Implicitly coordinated with other traffic maneuvers• CD
– Look-ahead at 5 minutes (configurable)– No area hazard detection– Does not consider uncertainty
Modified Voltage PotentialModified Voltage Potential
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 18
Non-activeChange in MCPTrack Setting(e.g., in LNAV)
FMSProvisional
Conflict
Manual MODRoute in FMS
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 19
AOP Experimental Performance
NASA Air Traffic Operations LabAll aircraft co-altitude, circle diameter 160 NMSustained Mean Density1 17.18
Sustained Mean
Density1
Sim. Hours
Simulated flights
Traffic conflicts
LOS2
1 Aircraft per 10,000 NM2
2 Loss of separation (5 NM)3 Ref. sector ZOA31 – median density, 19 Feb 2004
Consiglio, Hoadley, Wing, Baxley:Safety Performance of Airborne Separation -
Preliminary Baseline Testing. AIAA-2007-7739.
Experiment 1: Lateral Only, Random Routes, All Autonomous
3.45 36 881 195 0
6.11 36 1527 550 0
8.61 36 2195 1018 0
11.64 36 3000 1788 0
15.24 12 1302 963 0
17.18 12 1560 1256 0
Totals 168 10,465 5770 0
10X playback speed
Lateral Strategic CR Only
2x 3
10x
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 20
AOP Experimental Performance
(*)Relative to mean and peak 1X densities of 1.8 and 3 aircraft, normalized to 10000 nmi2, at the most populated flight level of the median-density sector on 19 Feb 2004.
(**) All 3 LOS events were from high-complexity multi-aircraft conflicts. The 2 LOS events at the 21.4 density involved a 4-aircraft conflict in which one aircraft lost separation with two of the intruders. Consiglio, Hoadley, Wing, Baxley, Allen:
Impact of Pilot Delay and Non-Responsiveness on theSafety Performance of Airborne Separation. ATIO 2008.
Average
Density(*)
Average Pilot
Delays (Seconds)
Flight Hours
Total Conflicts
Total LOS(**)
11.2
5X/3X3.5 240.73 583 0
16.3
8X/5X3.5 90.71 316 1
21.4
12X/7X3.5 572.76 2307 2
Totals: 904.20 3206 3
Lateral Strategic CR Only(CPA < 0.02 nmi)
Experiment 2: Lateral Only, Random Routes, All Autonomous, Pilot Delay
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 21
AOP Performance: Batch Experiment 2
As traffic density increases, so does the number of multi-aircraft conflicts, which reflects increased traffic complexity0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Count
Number of Conflicting Pairs
11.2 140 28 3 1 0 0
16.3 210 79 11 1 0 0
21.4 350 136 46 10 2 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of intruder aircraft per conflict resolutions.
Experiment 2: Lateral Only, Random Routes, All Autonomous, Pilot Delay
• PI: Danette Allen• Studying use of trajectory prediction uncertainty bounds to mitigate
prediction error– Mixed operations
• PI: David Wing• Studying impact of mixed AFR and IFR traffic• Investigating approaches to mitigating traffic complexity using AOP
• ADS-B Performance– PI: Will Johnson– Studying impacts of ADS-B range, interference and limited intent
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 23
Concluding Remarks: AOP References
• System Concept– Ballin, M.G., Sharma, V., Vivona, R.A., Johnson, E.J., and Ramiscal, E.: “A Flight Deck Decision
Support Tool for Autonomous Airborne Operations,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, AIAA-2002-4554, August 2002.
• CD&R– Vivona, R., Karr, D., and Roscoe, D., “Pattern-Based Genetic Algorithm for Airborne Conflict
Resolution”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, AIAA-2006-6060, August 2006. – Karr, D., and Vivona, R., “Conflict Detection Using Variable Four-Dimensional Uncertainty Bounds
to Control Missed Alerts,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, AIAA-2006-6057, August 2006.
– Mondoloni, S., Ballin, M., and Palmer, M.: “Airborne Conflict Resolution for Flow-Restricted Transition Airspace,” 3rd AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Conference, AIAA-2003-6725, November 2003.
• Experiments– Consiglio, M., Hoadley, S., Wing, D., and Baxley, B., “Safety Performance of Airborne Separation:
Preliminary Baseline Testing,” 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Conference, AIAA-2007-7739, September 2007.
– Consiglio, M., Hoadley, S., Wing, D., Baxley, B., and Allen, D., “Impact of Pilot Delay and Non-Responsiveness on the Safety Performance of Airborne Separation,” 8th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Conference, AIAA-2008-8882, September 2008.
ASAS TN2.5 Workshop, Rome, Italy, November 13, 2008 24