Reduced Crew

https://twitter.com/atmeditorhttps://www.linkedin.com/groups/Air-Traffic-Management-Magazine-4305555

REDUCED CREW

www.airtrafficmanagement.net Air Traffic Management Issue 2 2015 19

Automatic Pilot?

“The aviation industry should consider

implementing systems to take con-

trol of aircraft from the ground in

emergencies,” Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, the chief

executive of the German air navigation service

provider DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung told

journalists at the company’s annual press

conference in April.

The Germanwings air disaster on

24 March will surely send aviation

regulators searching for solutions

– if indeed any are to be had in the

immediate term.

In the longer term, Scheurle

believes future flight manage-

ment systems could assist an

aircraft in distress allowing it to

land automatically at an alter-

native airport by transmitting

instructions via datalink from

air traffic control to the aircraft.

“There should be no ban

on thinking about how

to handle a plane in an

emergency when the

people on board

cannot help,” says

Scheurle.

The DFS chief

mentioned a research

project called SOFIA (Safe

Automatic Flight Back and

Landing of Aircraft) which

examined taking control of

aircraft from the ground. The pro-

ject came into being as a result

of the 2001 September 11 terror

attacks and the 2005 crash of a

Helios Airways Boeing 737, where

passengers and crew lost consciousness

due to a fatal depressurisation. Together with

other European companies, DFS embarked on

this research project in 2006 before transfer-

ring it to the European Union on its comple-

tion in 2009.

Scheurle stresses that while it was a pure

research effort, it is worth revisiting: “It is still a

long way off, something for the next decade.

The technology, that would be needed, is rather

complex and it would need certification.”

Does pilotless flight and a high degree of automation in a future air traffic system offer the travelling public the prospect of greater safety, asks Aimée Turner?

OPERATIONS

www.airtrafficmanagement.netIssue 2 2015 Air Traffic Management20

Scheurle reckons that both the pros and the

cons must be thoroughly evaluated.

As both Europe and the United States stead-

ily transition from an air traffic control system

based on radar technology to more precise GPS

navigation requiring both controllers and pilots

to cede ever more control to automation, the

potential for unanticipated events that are im-

possible to predict is concentrating the minds

of those charged with developing tomorrow’s

systems.

Within perhaps 20 years, the controller will

have effectively become a supervisor of a highly

automated system, and one who also fulfils

the role of intelligent agent, one that can make

tactical decisions in off-normal situations.

While the pressure is certainly on to eke out the

biggest capacity bang from the airspace buck, is

the human dimension really being built into this

rapidly evolving automated model for both the

pilot and the air traffic management community?

Modern aircraft have all the elements that are

required for remote control with the only real

issue being the air/ground digital link required

to exchange information and control commands,

according to BluSky Services consultant Steve

Zerkowitz who worked on a similar European

project called SAFEE which addressed security in

the event of a terrorist attack.

“At the time we were working on SAFEE,”

explains Zerkowitz, “the link issue was even

more of a problem. In the meantime, however,

and as a result of recent work on unmanned

aerial systems, new link technologies are on

the horizon that may in fact be transferable to

transport aircraft.”

Rocket ScienceObviously, the cost issue of Controller Pilot Data

Link Communications needs to be resolved as

well as the current technical glitches in Europe at

least – which seem to be certain showstoppers.

While putting one more link on the

aircraft would no doubt make the airlines

wince, Zerokowitz suspects recent air ac-

cidents could have pushed things in the

direction of a possible mandate in the

longer term. Importantly, the control system

of the airframe would need no major rework

avoiding burdensome costs so a mandate

for forward-fit only could pass muster.

“Going for fully autonomous operation (i.e.

with onboard logic flying the aircraft for a safe

landing) would require appropriate computing

power and applications that would not be easy

to certify but even then, it would not be rocket

science,” says Zerkowitz.

As to controlling the aircraft from the

ground, there are already research projects to

develop a single pilot cockpit where the co-

pilot would sit on the ground and be switched

into the control loop.

“Of course, if you look at these projects

closely, it is easy to see that they are in fact

pushing the boundaries in the direction of hav-

ing no pilot on board at all,” says Zerkowitz who

points out that the difference in technology

between single pilot and no pilot at all is not

hugely significant.

The logic of flying the aircraft to a given

place for a safe landing would however require

additional equipment but again, it is not rocket

science, according to Zerkowitz. “In the longer

term we will be moving in this direction, not

because of the security concerns but because of

the compelling economic case. The box shifters

(freight operators) have long said that the day

authorities certify a cargo aircraft for no-pilot

operation they will buy them by the hundreds.”

One frontline community which would need

to be convinced of the merits of reduced crew

operations would be pilots themselves.

The Single European Sky initiative – set to

modernise the region’s airspace – outlines ambi-

tious targets that will create a completely new

operational environment, based on trajectory

management, highly performing technologies

and a much more strategic role for the flight crew.

“These changes are welcome and – at the

same time – raise a number of challenges, such

as the ability to increase both efficiency and

safety,” says European pilots organisation ECA in

a recent publication which outlines what they

view as prerequisites for successfully meeting

the challenges of seamless skies.

Importantly, it judges that as the pilot-in-

command of an aircraft remains responsible

for the operation of the aircraft, any solutions

that consider flying the aircraft from the ground

should be avoided.

“Technical solutions shall be pilot-centric

as far as possible to ensure that the pilot-in-

command remains the final authority as to the

disposition of the aircraft during all phases

of the flight,” they recommend, adding, “in an

increasingly dense and highly complex traffic

environment non-routine situations do arise,

often beyond the scope of the automation,

unanticipated in the automation design, and

hard to effectively handle from the ground. In

such cases, the pilot’s ability to ‘improvise’ and

flexibly manage threats and errors is key to

a safe conduct of the flight and outperforms

automated as well as ground-based solutions.”

New ProblemsMartin Rolfe, managing director, operations,

at the UK air navigation service provider NATS,

has his doubts despite the fact that the SOFIA

research effort to provide air traffic control

with the ability to take over an aircraft and put

it on course for a safe landing seems like an

obvious idea.

Rolfe expresses concern over whether this

is where the industry should be focusing its

efforts over other potential mitigation. “In

fact, I fear this particular proposal may create

problems even greater than the one it seeks

to solve,” he says.

He says taking control of an aircraft from

the ground would effectively turn an airliner

in a huge Remotely Piloted Aircraft System, or

drone and that whilst NATS is committed to

developing rules and access for large dedicat-

ed RPAS operations in controlled airspace, these

plans do not include the concept of taking

control of non-RPAS aircraft remotely.

“Significant work would be required to

establish whether this type of solution would

mitigate the risks highlighted by the terri-

ble Germanwings incident or whether it would

simply add other as yet unknown risks to flight

operations,” he says.

“There would be huge questions around

accountability and under what conditions

such a system would be activated. In truth, I

think these would prove to be extremely

difficult to answer. In the event of an emer-

gency you need to be in possession of all

the facts and the pilots remain the only ones

who do. Equally, would the existence of such a

system provide a target to those that may wish

to access it maliciously?”

Rolfe insists that while the entire industry

wants to ensure that the Germanwings event

can never be repeated,  it is imperative that any

potential mitigations are fully thought through

in the complex area of civil flight operations.

“in an increasingly dense and highly complex traffic environment

non-routine situations do arise, often beyond

the scope of automation, unanticipated in the

automation design and hard to effectively handle

from the ground”

REDUCED CREW

ACROSS THE DIVIDEAlberto Pasquini from the Deep Blue consul-

tancy heads one Europe research effort on

reduced-crew operations in large civil aircraft

which has assessed the implications for the

future ATM system and pilot operations.

He believes that even if technically feasible,

the option of taking control from the ground

without crew co-operation, will remain highly

unpopular.

Enter the ACROSS initiative. ACROSS stands

for ‘Advanced Cockpit for Reduction of Stress

and Workload’ and represents the efforts of a

consortium of 35 aerospace partners headed

by Thales. Established at the start of January

2013, it is due to publish its finding by July

next year.

ACROSS is studying three flight scenarios

including; intentional reduction of crew in

flight; partial flight crew incapacitation; full

crew incapacitation, leading to a safe landing.

Writing in the British Air Line Pilots Associa-

tion publication The Log, Rod Sears and Andy

Brown think it likely that international airlines

will jump at the prospect of single pilot cruise

operations in which an onboard reserve pilot

rests in crew quarters, ready to assume control

at short notice in case of emergency – some-

thing which they estimate could allow a large

airline to shed up to 800 jobs – at minimum

500 jobs which would command savings in

the order of US$149 million – or a $1.49 billion

over a decade.

In scenarios involving pilot incapacitation,

they say extra infrastructure on the ground

would be essential with some sort of ground-

based pilot on hand for emergencies and the

potential for the aircraft to effectively become

a huge remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS).

But pilots question who exactly would fly

the aircraft while the reserve pilot is called

forward to assume control – how long would

that delay take and, somewhat chillingly

– Sears and Brown’s article was published

around the same time as the Germanwings

air disaster – how could a pilot access the

flight deck under the locked flight deck door

security policy?

Worse, what if the aircraft was to suffer a

major system failure at the same time such as

a rapid decompression where the time of use-

ful consciousness would be limited to only 15

seconds at common cruising altitude? Could

the reserve pilot don an oxygen mask and

reach the controls in time?

“The ACROSS proposal is new and ground-

breaking and will need a great deal of thought

and in-flight testing under rigorous safety

conditions,” the BALPA authors write. “Unless

this sort of operation can be carried out in a

way that is safe, or safer than current two pilot

operations, then there can be no place for it,

whatever the cost savings.”

Even so, they point out that with the ad-

vance of RPAS technology pilots flying in ten

years’ time may well have to consider sitting

on their own for a few hours during a long

haul flight.

Indeed, Deep Blue’s Pasquini predicts a

future in which pilots will be required to

embrace the concept. The prospect of taking

control from the ground without crew co-

operation is not on the agenda. “We did not

consider it in ACROSS and I don’t think the

Germanwings event will change the project

decision,” he says.

REDUCED CREW

www.airtrafficmanagement.net Air Traffic Management Issue 2 2015 21

https://twitter.com/atmeditorhttps://www.linkedin.com/groups/Air-Traffic-Management-Magazine-4305555