Cockpit Display Based Visual
Separation During an Instrument Approach: Effect of Traffic Display Size
and Location
December 2003
Randall S. Bone, The MITRE Corporation
John Helleberg, The MITRE Corporation
David A. Domino, The MITRE Corporation
Nancy Johnson, San Jose State University
ABSTRACT
At many busy airports maximum efficiency and minimum delay occur when
visual approaches are being conducted by pilots using visual separation
from traffic for a portion of the approach. Pilot willingness to accept
responsibility for visual separation also affords controllers maximum
flexibility in traffic management under conditions of high traffic load.
It may be possible to extend that efficiency to lower weather conditions
if pilots are able to perform similar tasks by reference to a Cockpit
Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) in lieu of visual contact out-the-window.
This concept is termed CDTI Enhanced Flight Rules (CEFR). CEFR procedures
may be applicable during visual or instrument approaches, this study
examined the instrument approach application with particular attention
to the pilot acceptability of different CDTI locations and sizes. This
study is the second in a series of studies designed to examine whether
a CDTI can be used by pilots to monitor their separation in relation
to traffic in a manner analogous to visual contact. The previous study
indicated pilot acceptance of the CDTI feature set and the CEFR procedure
(see Bone, Domino, Helleberg, and Oswald, 2003). The current study increased
the realism of the simulation environment by introducing aircraft categories
other than large (i.e., Boeing 757 and heavies) as well as introducing
real time communication with air traffic controllers. Eight commercial
airline pilots flew coupled approaches, as the pilot flying, in a flight
deck simulator, while maintaining a self-determined visual separation
from Traffic To Follow (TTF) by mixed reference to a visual scene and
a CDTI. Speed management was used to adjust spacing to a pilot-determined
value. Independent variables included two CDTI locations and two CDTI
sizes, one of which represented a CDTI that may be the initial implementation
in actual operations. The results indicate that pilots are willing and
able to perform the CEFR procedure via any of the CDTI sizes or locations
tested in the simulation while following various aircraft types.
Additional Search Keywords
Airborne Separation application, Airborne Separation Assurance Systems
(ASAS), Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), ATM lab,
Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI), CDTI Enhanced Flight
Rules (CEFR), flight simulation, MITRE CAASD, Safe Flight 21 (SF-21),
spacing, terminal area, visual separation
|
