Comparison of Deconfliction Responsibility Procedures for Adjacent En-Route Sectors in NextGen Separation Assurance

Abstract

The subject of the current research is a Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) concept that involves automation-assisted separation assurance within the high altitude (at or above 29,000 feet) en route environment. The concept is designed to enable controllers to provide both safe and efficient air traffic services at much higher traffic densities than today. The presented research addressed the question of how responsibility should be handled for the resolution of a conflict that is predicted to occur in a sector other than where it was detected. Two possibilities, namely a De-Conflicting AirPlanes procedure (DCAP) versus a De-Conflicting AirSpace procedure (DCAS) were examined with recently retired controllers under human-in-the-loop simulations with scripted aircraft conflicts. Results showed that controllers preferred DCAS, in which they took less time to resolve conflicts and experienced less coordination with one another. However, the results did not yield significant differences among other plane performance metrics between DCAP and DCAS. The present analyses indicated that controllers are capable of meeting demands of NextGen with ownership/coordination procedures (e.g. DCAP.) similar to today. However, allowing separation assurance responsibilities to extend more seamlessly across sector boundaries (e.g. DCAS) could evidently be more agreeable for them.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Airspace Operations Laboratory (2008). The Multi Aircraft Control System (MACS). Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/AOL/technologies/macs.html.

Cabrall

, (in press). Analysis of deconfliction responsibility procedures for automation assisted separation assurance. Master's thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Erzberger

(2006). Automated conflict resolution for air traffic control. In Proceedings of the 25^th International congress of the aeronautical sciences (ICAS), Hamburg, Germany, September 3-8, 2006.

Homola

(2008). Analysis of human and automated separation assurance at varying traffic levels. Master's thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Joint Planning & Development Office (2009). Concept of operations for the next generation air transportation system v. 3.0. Retrieved June 23, 2010 from http://www.jpdo.gov/library/NextGen_ConOps_v3%200.pdf.

Leiden

Green

(2000). Trajectory Orientation: A technology-enabled concept requiring a shift in controller roles and responsibilities. 3^rd USA/Europe ATM R&D seminar, Napoli, Italy, June.

McFarland

Alvin L.

(Aug 1997). A Conflict Probe to Provide Early Benefits for Airspace Users and Controllers. Retrieved June 23, 2010 from http://www.caasd.org/library/papers/uret/index.html.

National Research Council (1998). In Wickens

D. D.

Mavor

A. S.

Parasuraman

McGee

J. P.

, Eds, The Future of Air Traffic Control, Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Prevot

Homola

Mercer

(2008). Human-in the-Loop evaluation of ground-based automated separation assurance for NextGen. The 26^th Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. 2008, September 14-19, Anchorage, Alaska.

10.

Prevot

Homola

Mercer

Mainini

Cabrall

(2009). Initial evaluation of NextGen air/ground operations with ground-based automated separation assurance. Eighth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar.