1 September 28th, 2005 NASA ASAS R&D A IRSPACE S YSTEMS P ROGRAM Michael H. Durham Kenneth M. Jones Thomas J. Graff

2 Outline  Video - “Capacity Takes Flight”  A long-term vision for a Distributed Approach to ATM  NASA ASAS R&D Concepts  Enroute - Autonomous Flight Management  Terminal - Airborne Precision Spacing (Phased Approach) Trajectory Oriented Operations with Limited Delegation  Oceanic - In-Trail Procedures (Phased Approach)

3 Airborne Separation Assistance Systems  Future NAS will be required to handle two to three times more traffic than today’s system  Proposed solutions include greater delegation of appropriate air traffic management responsibilities to the flight deck of appropriately equipped aircraft  Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS) are an essential component in a “Transformed NAS”  ASAS will be implemented only after:  Technical and operational challenges are addressed  ASAS is proven to be safe  Operational experience with ASAS is gained

4 NASA ASAS R&D Elements Enhanced Oceanic Operations Airborne Precision Spacing Trajectory Oriented Operations With Limited Delegation Autonomous Flight Management FL360 FL340 FL350 Current Separation Requirement Meter fix

5 Affordable Cost is shouldered primarily by the aircraft operators that benefit from the investment. Safely supplements ATC The traffic burden exceeding ATC’s capacity is distributed among the watchful systems and flight crews of those aircraft, resulting in more ‘eyes’ focused on safety. Human-centered Trajectory decisions are made and monitored by pilots, informed by technology. Self-elected aircraft operators Not a mandate. AFM is an investment decision made per aircraft at each operator’s discretion. AFM serves those who need it, where they need it, without disrupting those who don’t. Automatically, safely, and cost-effectively adapt to significant changes in air traffic demand. Autonomous Flight Management (AFM)

6 Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP): Airborne research tool set supports flight crew decision- making for AFR operations  Airborne conflict management  Conflict-free maneuvering  Flow constraint conformance  Airspace restriction avoidance AFR: A New Class of En Route Operation Controller workload for increased demand is off-loaded to pilots / systems of new “AFR” aircraft Autonomous Flight Rules (AFR) VFR IFR AFR

7  Concept: Integrate “absolute” 4-D trajectory oriented operations with “relative” spacing operations  Use time-based metering to regulate traffic flow,  Use trajectory-based operations to create efficient, nominally conflict-free trajectories that conform to traffic management constraints and,  Maintain local spacing between aircraft with airborne separation assistance systems (ASAS).  Approach :  Develop near-term concept for procedural integration of near-term technologies  Develop medium-term concept with data link-supported technology integration of advanced air/ground automation  Develop site-specific implementations that address local opportunities and challenges  Use human in the loop simulation to develop, test and refine operational concepts Trajectory Oriented Operations With Limited Delegation (TOOWiLD)

8 Basic TOOWiLD Scenario Controller may issue merging and spacing instructions to flight crews of equipped aircraft when within ADS-B range of leader. Controller may assign limited delegation clearance to pass behind traffic. 1.Time-based traffic management regulates inbound flow. 2.4-D trajectory-based operations used to plan and execute conflict free flight paths. 3.Together, these operations put flight crews in a position to utilize Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS) to deal with local spacing issues, if instructed or permitted by the controller to do so. AOC, flight crew or controller can develop efficient, conflict-free trajectory to satisfy meter fix arrival time constraint. Time-based metering provides meter fix arrival schedule and time constraint for inbound aircraft. Meter fix

9 Airborne Precision Spacing (APS)  Controller clears participating flight crews to space on aircraft ahead in stream  Controller defines the optimal sequence and spacing requirements for each aircraft and communicates these to the flight crew; controller provides either a time or a distance spacing, to be achieved at threshold crossing  New airborne guidance and procedures allow the pilots to meet their assigned spacing and sequence requirements with high precision B777 navigation display view of merging and spacing operation 9 Goals Increase throughput for arrivals in capacity-constrained terminal airspace Enable growth in arrival traffic without equivalent growth in ATC infrastructure (Reliever airports, uncontrolled airports)

10 Airborne Precision Spacing Improve Capacity-Constrained Terminal Arrival Operations  Phased Approach  Phase 1 – Final Approach Spacing Tool (completed flight demo under AATT)  Phase 2 – Include approach spacing and merging  Phase 3 – Include maneuver corridors Metering boundary Terminal airspace Unequipped Aircraft Fly with precision for optimal spacing Phase 1 – Completed flight demo under AATT Adhere to metering assignment for initial spacing and sequence Merge with converging traffic streams Adhere to runway assignment and sequence for load balancing, throughput Phase 2

11 Metering boundary Fly with precision for optimal spacing Adhere to metering assignment for initial spacing and sequence Terminal airspace ATSP-defined maneuvering corridor Maneuver within prescribed corridors for optimal spacing Merge with converging traffic streams Adhere to runway assignment and sequence for load balancing, throughput Unequipped Aircraft Airborne Precision Spacing Improve Capacity-Constrained Terminal Arrival Operations Maneuver corridors (phase 3)

12 Integration of Airborne Spacing with Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs)  Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs)  RNAV procedure for idle power descent from cruise to final approach  Result in lower noise around airports, fuel savings, fewer emissions, and less time in the air Aircraft at near flight-idle during descent Aircraft stay high longer, have steeper / faster descent  However, uncertainty in trajectories requires large spacing buffers between aircraft, thereby preventing high throughput  Goal: Integrate APS and CDA low-noise guidance to achieve optimal balance  High throughput  Low noise and emissions

13 Enhanced Oceanic Operations Oceanic Technical Characteristics and Challenges  Extended periods out of radar coverage  Large longitudinal and lateral separation minima required for safe procedural separation  Most airlines want the same tracks and altitudes  results in altitude “congestion”  Safe operations but often not fuel efficient operations  Aircraft “stuck” at a non-optimal altitude due to traffic “congestion”  For efficient operations, aircraft need to climb as they burn fuel  Due to traffic congestion at higher altitudes, aircraft often restricted from climbing  Use airborne surveillance and onboard tools to facilitate altitude changes for greater fuel efficiency Solution Compromise Optimal WATRS EUR-CAR EUR-NAM NATOTS CEP SOPAC PACOTS NOPAC CENPAC

14  Phase 1 – Altitude Change Request Advisory Tool  Tool that advises pilot of available altitudes for altitude changes  Advisory information only (low certification requirements)  Phase 2 –ASAS In-Trail Procedures  Altitude changes allowed based on cockpit derived data  No delegation of separation authority  Phase 3 – Enhanced ASAS In-Trail Procedures  Active monitoring of other traffic during altitude change  Limited delegation of separation authority to cockpit  Reduced separation criteria  Phase 4 – Airborne self-separation on a track  Aircraft allowed to maneuver on specially approved tracks  Closer to optimal fuel burn profiles Enhanced Oceanic Operations Phased Approach

15 Summary  NASA is conducting R&D across all levels of ASAS  Started with a vision of a mature ASAS implementation  Studied ASAS implementations in Enroute, Terminal, and Oceanic operations  Developed frameworks for phased implementations in each domain  ASAS will be implemented only after:  Technical and operational challenges are addressed  ASAS is proven to be safe  Operational experience with ASAS is gained  R&D must be driven by requirements of mature ASAS concepts capable of 2-3 times capacity  Implementations must be phased in small increments to gain operational experience