ABSTRACTThisstudy will be on the use of NextGen Air Traffic Control automation by using asample of information on pilot deviation form an unnamed airline. As ADS-B implementation has been fullyimplemented with this airline, I wanted to study how the automation is affecting(increasing or lowering) deviations. Using FOQA data received from aircraft data recorders I was able to geta sample from 50 aircraft flying out of JFK for ground-based operations beforeand after ADS-B implementation. According to the FAA, ADS-B is an environmentally friendly technologythat enhances safety and efficiency, and directly benefits pilots, controllers,airports, airlines, and the public. It forms the foundation for NextGen bymoving from ground radar and navigational aids to precise tracking usingsatellite signals. Results unfortunatelywere not returned by the time of the writing of this paper and I have zeroconclusions to offer. That being statedas someone who has flown both with and without ADS-B, I can state that controllersare much more aware of where aircraft are and are able to stop them muchquicker if something is wrong.1.
0 INTRODUCTIONDuring my first course of my master’s degree Iwrote papers on the implementation of NextGen air traffic control into the AirTraffic Management System. This includedU.S. NextGen software, as well as SESAR in Europe and the myriad of other newsystems that are being adopted and meant to work together across theglobe. These systems are hoped to allowfor greater capacity of air travel in an ever-growing market. I wanted to use my time and research to seeif the new systems are actually increasing safety as they increaseautomation.
I have been working with thecompany that I work for in getting data from flight recorders to help withthis. It has been a process, as most ofthe information is confidential, so it must be handled with care. That being said, no information that is beinggiven out in this paper is confidential but will not contain names of people orthe company. With the completion of ADS-B implementation on all of this airlines aircraft, astudy was started to see if the numbers of runway incursion and pilot deviationwere being lowered. While it is possibleto see the population numbers and get an exact look on the year, we wanted toget a sample size for a small portion of the time it had been working out ofour main airport. With that it wasdecided to analyze flights out of JFK airfield to see what, if any, changes hadoccurred due to the new technology.2.
0 LiteratureReviewEvaluation ofNextGen Air Traffic Control Operation with Automated Separation Assuranceby Thomas Prevot, Joey Mercer, Lynn Martin, Jeffrey Homola, Christopher Cabralland Connie Brasil. They discuss problemswith safely increasing the capacity of airspace while describing approaches toallocating separation with ground-based automation. They used past task studies and an experimentsimulation of the operation in an air traffic environment. The researchers used a one-way ANVOA test onthe mean workload of four serperate sectors to examine the differences as well as Tukeys Honestly SignificantDifferences test. They developedconclusions that “Overall traffic density has a primary impact on workload,safety, and acceptability of the concept. The Concept of ground-based automated separation assurance, safety,workload and acceptability are no longer directly linked to the total aircraftwithin a sector.” This means that basedoff of their research, it is possible to accommodate the higher demand offuture air travel.
(Mercer, et al., 2010)Algorithm andoperational concept for solving short range conflicts by H. Erzberger andK. Heere. A candidate for thenext-generation sys- tem, referred to as the automated airspace concept (AAC),incorporates two levels of protection against conflicts and one againstcollisions.
The first level, referred to as the autoresolver, is designed for resolvingconflicts that are ?2–30min to first loss of separation. The second levelof separation assurance handles conflicts that are not detected until loss ofseparation is <2 min away or, even if successfully detected, could not beresolved successfully by the first level. A system referred to as the tacticalseparation assured flight environment (TSAFE) is hypothesized for detecting andresolving these close-in conflicts. TSAFE would automatically take control ofresolving close-in conflicts when the conflict detection element of TSAFEpredicts that time to loss of separation has breached a critical timethreshold. The design and performance of the detection element of TSAFE havebeen described in several papers 4, 5. This article focuses onthe design of the resolution function of TSAFE, which is referred to as TSAFEResolution by describing an algorithm designed specifically for resolvingclose-in conflicts in the horizontal plane.
The concept has the potential toincrease airspace capacity by allowing controllers to handle more traffic whilecommitting fewer operational errors. (Erzberger & Heere, 2009)Trainingstudent air traffic controllers to trust automation by Adriana Miramontes,Andriana Tesoro, Yuri Trujillo, Edward Barraza, Jillian Keeler, AlexanderBourdreau, Thomas Strybel, and Kim-Puong Vu. This paper investigates if trust in automation could be trained intocontrollers in a NextGen environment.
The looked at whether trust could be changed over time as a function oftraining and if it positively affected their performance in terms of safety andefficiency. The researchers used a 2x2mixed factorial ANOVA was run. They alsoran a multiple regression. Theirresearch found that trust could be trained into controllers and it did not affectperformance measures of safety.
Theywere also able to find that high emotional stability was related to highertrust in the automation. (Miramontes, et al., 2015)Air trafficcontroller trust in Automation in NextGen by Tannaz Mirchi, Kim Phuong Vu,James Miles, Lindsay Sturre, Sam Curtis, Thomas Strybel. The goal of this study was in determiningproper measures of trust in automation, effective training methods for ensuringproper trust in automation, and the effects of trust on ATC performance andSituational Awareness.
A 3×3 within-subject’sanalysis of variance was conducted to evaluate whether there were differencesin sensitivity between trust ratings measured over the course of the testingthey did. They discovered that over a 16-weekinternship the trust ratings increased but the number of aircraft near-misseswas not significantly different. Oneother disturbing find was that many of the participants whose trust inautomation went up had more near misses, which could be blamed on complacencynegatively affecting their situational awareness. (Mirchi, et al., 2015)These articles are all focused on the same conceptsas I am, NextGen software, but were focused on the controller side. I wanted to study the pilot and aircrew sideof the equation. What was shown in thestudies is that while overall the capacity of air travel is able to beincreased by the software, it did not drastically change safety.
Much of this can be blamed on complacency orthe increased traffic that would result from it.METHOD Experimental design was to be used to test randomcrew flight data. This flight data wasused to get information on Runway, taxi, and low altitude air-to-air conflictscenarios. 100 flights were randomly selectedfor use in the test over separate 3 month periods out of JFK. 50 before and 50 afterimplementation of ADS-B implementation. This allows for a sample testing andidea of the how often pilot deviations were occurring before implementation anda sample testing after to see if there had been any differences.
The plan was to use the data to develop an ANOVAtest based on the mean number of instances that happened on the runway, taxiwayand in low altitude air-to air conflicts. However, the data was not secured in time for the paper. The through process was that the study wouldgive me a better understanding of if we were seeing results from thechanges. However, I bit off more than Icould chew and have little to show for it.RESULTSNo results were found due to the lack of receiving thedata on time.
This is my fault. It is my belief that we would not have hadsignificant findings based on the small sample size and the already rare occurrenceof runway incursion/pilot deviations. Theintent is still to do the follow up testing and use the results as a possiblework in capstone course.
However, I can state from doing the work that wehave seen a drastic change in how controllers are able to see what pilots aredoing and intervene before any incidents can happen. If this is changing the actual statisticalnumbers, I cannot say at this time.CONCLUSIONAt this time, no solid conclusions can be made onthe data. What I have seen with my owneyes is that the greater the automation the more controllers and pilots can do.
It is allowing for a larger capacity foraircraft in the system. This stated,automation has a tendency to cause complacency as people just assume “George”the computer will solve everything. Thiscan lead to danger and breakdowns in safety.