1. Guidance and Control Programs at Honeywell Sanjay Parthasarathy Honeywell Aerospace Advanced Technology October 11, 2006 sanjay.parthasarathy@honeywell.com

2. 2HONEYWELL SP_Oct 2006 Update since Fall, 2005 Autonomous Systems programs - Micro Air Vehicle (MAV)  FCS Class 1 vehicle  Increase endurance - Organic Air Vehicle – 2 (OAV-2)  Phase 3a commenced  Obstacle Avoidance Demonstrated Successfully - Heterogeneous Urban RSTA Teams (HURT)  Planning and Control (P&C) software  Coverage Planner, Vehicle Tracker developed  Successful Demonstration using 4 UAVs Air Traffic Management (ATM) Modernization - Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) program  US Industry Input via Boeing, Rockwell-Collins and Honeywell - ERASMUS program kicked-off

3. 3HONEYWELL SP_Oct 2006 ERASMUS Project: 2006-2008 E n R oute A ir Traffic S oft M anagement U ltimate S ystem Funded by European Commission ERASMUS project proposes an air-ground cooperative work aiming at defining and validating innovative automation and concepts of operations for the En-route phase. The goal is to propose an advanced automation while maintaining the controllers in the decision loop. Three majors applications are proposed to be investigated:  Enhanced Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD);  “ATC autopilot”;  subliminal control. Team Lead: EuroControl Industrial Partner: Honeywell Kickoff meeting: May 11-12, 2006

4. 4HONEYWELL SP_Oct 2006 ERASMUS Hypothesis: - Air Traffic Controller (ATC) perceives many situations as potential conflicts - Small changes in speed and/or Rate of climb can convert a conflict into a “non-conflict” - An “auto-pilot” for the ATC can reduce workload and increase safety - ATC need not consciously observe every small change to speed and altitude issued by the computer

5. 5HONEYWELL SP_Oct 2006 En Route Air Traffic Soft Management Ultimate System (ERASMUS) - Air Traffic Controller (ATC) perceives many situations as conflicts  Lacks precise knowledge of aircraft trajectory  Human Factors – visualizes entire sector on limited screens  Lacks computational tools to advise if indeed there is a conflict Staggers traffic resulting in inefficient operations - Small changes in speed and/or Rate of climb can convert a conflict into a “non-conflict”  Need better 4D Trajectory Prediction Ground-based v/s on-board FMS Weather and aircraft parameters are main variables  Need Conflict Detection and Resolution (CD&R) algorithms - ATC need not consciously observe every small change to speed and altitude issued by the computer  Use 4D-trajectory predictions to optimize flights  Uplink minimal speed/altitude change  Human-in-the-loop; “subliminal control”; can be over-ridden Eases workload and increases airspace capacity

6. 6HONEYWELL SP_Oct 2006 ERASMUS Objectives – 3 applications Subliminal control ATC Autopilot Enhanced MTCD Not Applicable Human decision (ultimate control in any cases) Machine decision High Low High Full automation path Low Courtesy of Eurocontrol

7. 7HONEYWELL SP_Oct 2006 Future Research 4D Trajectory prediction and downlink to ATC Optimal flight path generation for aircrafts in sector - CD&R - “Green” ATM 4D Trajectory negotiation - Air-to-ground - Air-to-air Dovetails with Required Time of Arrival (RTA), Required Navigational Performance (RNP) RTA Region of RTA Speed Adjustment Cruise Descent Mach Descent CAS T/D RTA Decel First Constraint or Speed Transition Region of Off-Idle Descent T/D