analysis of multi-sector planner concepts in u.s. airspace · analysis of multi-sector planner...
TRANSCRIPT
Analysis of Multi-Sector Planner Concepts in U.S. Airspace
Kevin Corker, Paul Lee, Tom Prevot, Eromi Guneratne, Lynne Martin, Nancy Smith, Savvy Verma, Jeffrey Homola, and Joey
Mercer
San Jose State University &NASA Ames Research Center
7th ATM USA Europe ATM R&D SeminarBarcelona, Spain
July 3, 2007
Sponsorship: Richard Jehlen, Diana Liang, Steve Bradford (ATOP)
2
Agenda
� STATEMENT OF RESEARCH INTEREST� PRIOR RESEARCH � CURRENT FOCUS
� EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN � ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OPCON� TOOLS & EQUIPMENT FOR OPCON� AIRSPACE STRUCTURE � EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATIONS
� RESULTS� EFFICIENCY & EFFECTIVENESS � COMMUNICATIONS� WORKLOAD
� DISCUSSION � CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE DIRECTIONS
3
Statement of Research Interest
� Opportunity for re-assessment of En Route organizational and functional configurations based on:� Digital data communication among all operators� Improved positioning accuracy for flight operations, � System-wide information management� Medium-term conflict prediction� Predictive sector complexity assessment
� Opportunity to leverage prior work in Multi-Sector Operations
� Motivation to explore flexible staffing configurations � Motivation to examine co-location and workstation
layout requirements
4
En Route Control Reconfiguration:Multi-Sector Planner Operations:
Prior Research
� Eurocontrol: PHARE Eurocontrol PHARE (1997, 1998)
� FAA Dynamic Resectorization explored: Kopardekar and Magyritas (2002)
� Mitre-CASSD En Route efficiency: Celio, et al. (2005)� European Research One Sky: MANTAS (2005)
CEATS (2005) Gate-to-Gate (2006)� FAA FEWS: WJHTC Willems, et al. (2006)� SJSU: Cognitive Task Analysis Corker et al. (2005)
� Summary: � Two distinct operational roles for the MSP emerge (Multi-D &
Area Flow)� No conclusive or comparative data for which of these two
are better and under what airspace management context
5
Operational Focus of Current Research
�Examine feasibility of MSP operations in US Airspace operations with prior research as a starting point
�Explore the range of MSP functions and efficiencies that can be gained� MSP supporting several Radar controllers by
performing an expanded set of functions as a Data (or radar associate) controller “Multi-D”
� MSP supporting MSP area-wide operations by interacting with adjacent MSP and managing traffic flows. “Area-Flow Controller”
�Explore decision-support tool requirements for each operational requirement
6
Cognitive Systems Engineering Approach
�Analyses of prior MSP and En Route staffing modifications
�Cognitive walkthrough with controllers and supervisors on range of MSP functional options
�Medium fidelity simulation (NASA Ames) to test function allocation and simulation
�High fidelity full mission simulation
7
Coordinate with R sides to ensure effective actions, including handouts and point outs
Prioritize conflicts for medium term or multi-sector evaluation
Coordinate with R sides to ensure effective actions
Resolve medium term or multi-sector conflicts
Ensure routing separations, impact of traffic and complexity levels
Monitor Multi-sector status for conflict detection
Coordinate solutions with adjacent Multi-Ds and TMUs as needed
Modify trajectories for conflicts, weather and congestion
Manage traffic flow
House keeping
Coordinate with adjacent Area Flow to anticipate traffic flow requirements
Plan and develop traffic
flow
Ensure that traffic
management initiatives are carried out by
R-sides
Coordinate with R-sides as needed
Modify trajectories for flow, weather,
and congestion
Monitor multi-sector status and traffic flow
Develop multi-sector traffic and airport
initiatives with TMU’s and R-
sides
Initiate local traffic flow
initiatives and rerouting
Advise R-sides on adhering to current FAA separation requirements
Continuously review traffic management initiatives
Multi -D
Area Flow
MSP Roles and Responsibilities
8
Tools in Support for MSP
� Traffic Display � Conflict Probe� Route and Altitude Trial
Plans � Ground/Ground Data Link
(controller-controller clearance coordination)
� Voice Communication Systems
� Sector Load Graphs and Load Table
� Electronic Flight Strips� “Quick Look” capability to
view any of the r-side traffic displays (DSR)
� “See All” DSR Repeater
� Traffic Display � Route and Altitude Trial
Plans� Ground/Ground Data link
(controller-controller clearance coordination)
� Voice Communication System
� Sector Load Graphs and Load Table
� Electronics Flight Strips� “Quick Look”� “See All” DSR Repeater
Multi-D Area Flow
9
Radar Controller Operations
� Ensure separation� Initiate control instructions� Monitor and operate radios� Accept and initiate
automation supported handoffs
� Ensure computer entries are completed on instructions or clearances you issue or receive
� Monitor & assure that handoff is initiated
� Ensure transfer of communications
� Traffic Display � Conflict Probe� Short-term Conflict Alert� Route and Altitude Trial
Plans � Air/Ground Data
Link(controller-pilot data link communication, or CPDLC)
� Ground/Ground Data Link (controller-controller clearance coordination)
� Automation–Supported Transfer of Communication (TOC)
� Voice Communication Systems
Roles/Responsibilities Tools
10
Airspace Operations Laboratory
12
Trial Planning Tools Medium Term Conflict Probe
R-side Display and Tools
13Area Flow Reduced Data Blocks
Sector Load Table & Graphs
MSP Display and Tools
14
Controller Workstation & Trail Plan Sequence
15
Ghost 93 127.85
Ghost 50 135.45
Kansas City Center (ZKC)
Albuquerque Center (ZAB)
Memphis Center (ZME)
Fort Worth Center (ZFW)
Ardmore (48)
128.1
(94) (90)
Wichita Falls (47) 126.3 Decod (42)
129.0
Ghost 75 133.25 230 ↓↓↓↓
BAMBE
GREGS KARLA
Airspace Traffic Patterns
16
Experimental Design
�Multi-D and Area Flow tested separately� Prevents the possibility that an exposure to
one concept affects the outcome of the other concept
� 2x2 Design per MSP concept� Operational Configuration
• Baseline (advanced tools & current sector roles)• MSP (either Multi-D and Area Flow)
� Two Disturbance Functions • Weather in Sectors• No Weather, Higher Traffic
17
Sector Load Balancing
� Multi-D� Did not affect the overall traffic
that traversed through the test sectors
� Reduced traffic complexity with traffic flow initiatives (e.g. arrivals down to FL290)
� Area Flow� Reduced the peak traffic levels
below assigned MAPs with lateral route modifications
� Reduced traffic complexity with traffic flow initiatives (e.g. arrivals down to FL290)
MD: ACOwned: Sector 48
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Minutes
Air
craf
t C
ou
nt
msp
baseline
AF: ACOwned: Sector 48
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Minutes
Air
craf
t C
ou
nt
msp
baseline
18
Strategic Traffic Management
� Number of weather penetration reduced for both Multi-D and Area Flow� MSP positions rerouted
aircraft strategically around weather
� Aircraft received fewer tactical maneuvers (via verbal vectors/altitude changes) in Area Flow condition
� “Late” conflict resolutions (<5min) reduced in high traffic/no weather scenarios for Multi-D
12 1311
8
14
2
84
0
5
10
15
20
Weather /Mod
Traff ic
NoWx /High
Traffic
Weather /Mod
Traff ic
NoWx /High
Traff ic
Multi-D Area Flow
Num
ber
of L
ate
Con
flict
Res
olut
ions
(<
5min
)
Baseline MSP
62
13
41
4
0
20
40
60
80
Multi-D Area Flow
MSP Concept
To
tal N
um
ber
of
Wea
ther
Pen
etra
tio
ns
Baseline MSP
19
Delay in ETA
Wx, p < 0.07
High Traffic, p < 0.03
20.320.640.9High Traffic
-32.0*100.468.4WeatherMulti-D
MSP – BaselineBaselineMSP
ConditionScenarios
16.7*39.556.3High Traffic
0.197.297.3WeatherArea Flow
MSP - BaselineBaselineMSP
ConditionScenarios
20
Average number of Coordinations
910.5
8.5
15.5
18.5
7.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Base D Ghost MD MD
Controller
Nu
mb
er o
f C
oo
rdin
atio
ns
Wx
NoWx
Average number of coordinations
21.5
14.5 14.514.75
3.5
12.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Base D Ghost AF AF
Controller
Nu
mb
er o
f co
ord
inat
ion
s
Wx
NoWx
Average Number of Coordination
21
Workload Distribution
01
23
45
67
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Minutes
Wor
kloa
d R
atin
gs (
1 -
7)
Multi-D R-sides in Multi-D runs
01234567
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Minutes
Wor
kloa
d R
atin
gs (
1 -
7)
D-sides in Baseline runs R-sides in Baseline runs
0
12
34
56
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Minutes
Wor
kloa
d R
atin
gs (
1 -
7)
Area Flow R-sides in Area Flow runs
01234567
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Minutes
Wor
kloa
d R
atin
gs (
1 -
7)
D-sides in Baseline runs R-sides in Baseline runs
Multi-D Area Flow
Better workload balance between R and MSP (both Multi-D and Area Flow) than between R and D.
22
Comparison of Multi-D and D WAKS ratings with no weather,
scenario 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
prompt number
WAKs workload rating
MSP run (MD)
baseline run
(MD)
WAK Load Estimates: Multi-D-Side
23
Comparison of WAKS ratings for AF and D-side positions,
under scenario 2 with no weather
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
prompt number
WAKS rating
MSP run (AF)
baseline run (D)
WAK Load Estimates: Area Flow D
24
Situation Awareness
�Multi-D rated ability to maintain situation awareness as difficult
�Area Flow rated ability to maintain required situation awareness as difficult in traditional sense- but indicated no requirement to have that level of awareness
25
Discussion
� Strategic Vs. Tactical Control: traffic was managed more strategically in the MSP operations. .� More aircraft successfully avoided weather cells for both AF
and MD operations compared to baseline.� Controllers resorted to fewer tactical maneuvers (defined as
last-minute verbal clearances) in weather scenarios under the AF operations compared to baseline.
� Controllers resolved conflicts earlier in no weather/high traffic situation with the help of a Multi-D operator.
� Under weather scenarios, AF operations resulted in no delays compared to baseline while aircraft in MD operations resulted in ETAs that were earlier than those in baseline operations.
� Voice Communication was reduced in the AF condition � AF concept was determined to be more consistent with a
strategic traffic flow process
26
� Efficiency:� Controllers rated MSP concepts as more efficient than
standard operations� Operational Measures suggest slight efficiency gains
� Workload:� Workload was more evenly distributed in the both MSP
conditions
� Coordination � Coordination was found more effective in the AF condition � Different MSP AF role reduced coordination issues� Coordination with external adjacent MSP areas and Traffic
Management will need to be explored
Discussion
27
�What was achieved� Multiple high altitude sector interactions� Complex traffic and weather scenarios� Credible R/D interactions and credible R/MSP
interactions
�What was not investigated� Credible MSP/MSP interactions� Actual role for TMU� Any MSP/TMC interactions� Concept evaluation at a larger scope – at NAS
level? Command center involvement?
Constraints
28
Future Directions
�Area Flow Operations:� Provide a more consistent path for future
development aligned with Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) and NextGen development.
� Change of roles to a planner, and the strategy of reduction of possible conflicts to reduce reliance on tactical response from the D-side provides for a clearer interaction and authority process for the controllers.
� Area Flow operations allows for a more flexible control station configuration as the Area Flow operations did not require the Area Flow to be physically co-located with the Radar-controllers in the operations.