|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Human Systems Integration Division of NASA Ames Research Center hosted the Airline Operations Workshop (AOW) from August 2nd to August 4th, 2016.
Summary
Industry software providers, airline representatives, and academic and government researchers were invited to present descriptions of their current and planned automation systems and tools. The emphasis was on innovative solutions to support safe and efficient airline operations. With the assistance and input of industry members, ideas were gathered to guide future NASA work in airline systems automation.
Outcomes
Breakout sessions were held on the third day of the workshop, divided into the airport operations, flight deck, and dispatch categories. The outcomes of the discussions in each category are described below.
AOC
- There is a "simulation gap" with regard to airline operations center (AOC) simulation. We have had high-fidelity air traffic control (ATC) and flight deck simulators for decades. However, there are no instances of mature AOC simulators in the United States at present. Improved AOC simulation would support the study of dispatcher tasks and allow testing of new capabilities. It would also be a resource for dispatcher training.
- Although there have been studies of air traffic controller and pilot tasks for many years, there is little information available on dispatcher workload, situation awareness, efficiency, user interface design, etc. Research on dispatcher tasks would provide the data needed to improve workstation layout, task assignment and structure, and other important factors that affect productivity and safety.
- As with many highly computerized systems, the typical dispatcher's workstation has a proliferation of separate, non-integrated tools and displays. In addition, many Internet bookmarks are saved and recalled that allow access to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other data. There is a need to consolidate and integrate the systems used by the dispatcher.
- Although airlines have sophisticated tools for planning fuel and time efficient routes, these routes are often not available or overruled by ATC. There are no effective ways for negotiating preferred route that would benefit the airlines and flying public by saving time and fuel.
- NASA's role in direct support of the airlines has often been to create a standalone decision support tool such as the Flight Awareness Collaboration Tool, Direct To, and Dynamic Weather Routes. In future, it may be more useful to develop algorithms that form the basis of specific capabilities and allow industry to embed these in existing AOC or flight deck systems. This will reduce development costs and make new tools available sooner and in a more cooperative manner with industry.
- A massive amount of data is available to the AOC (e.g., aircraft information, Minimum Equipment Lists, manuals, passenger and luggage information, cargo, weather, fuel, ATC directives and initiatives, crew availability and qualifications, and security bulletins). There is also the newly available FAA System Wide Information Management (SWIM) data (Traffic Flow Management System aircraft track position reports, advisories, reroutes, SWIM Terminal Data Distribution System surface aircraft positions, departure/arrival runways, Digital Notices to Airmen, Temporary Flight Restrictions, Special Use Airspace, Time Based Flow Management metering information, and Integrated Terminal Weather System weather data). The data are both huge and hidden within multiple simultaneously running applications. NASA could support access to these data with technologies that permit situation awareness through displays and alerting and turning these data into actionable information.
- From a safety standpoint, it would be useful to perform a risk analysis of AOC operations. Uncertain and imperfect information can be a driver for risky decision-making. There may be an important role for the AOC in NAS-wide real-time risk management.
Flight Deck
- Wake physics are much better understood thanks to Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data, modeling, etc. and yet separation standards are still based on distance. Can time-based separation technologies for arrivals be used to create more consistent throughput in Instrument Meteorological Conditions vs. Visual Meteorological Conditions, even to the point of transitioning away from visual separation approaches? There is a strong consensus on the need for normalizing throughput regardless of visibility and that we need to leap to time-based separation criteria.
- Although surveillance technology has improved, separation standards have not. How could separation standards in all operations be improved to safely allow more traffic? Why do we still use miles-in-trail? Circular separation standards do not always protect against in-trail turbulence injuries. Where can time-based separation not be used? How can we transition to time-based separation?
- The concept of pair-wise trajectory management for domestic operations, i.e., assigning pairs of aircraft the responsibility to maintain separation in two-aircraft situations, is an opportunity for NASA to conduct evidence-based safety research. How does this affect the paradigm that "Pilots Navigate, Communicate & Aviate; Controllers Separate"?
- Airline schedules are significantly disrupted by safety clearance go-arounds due to the requirement for single occupancy runways. What technologies can be developed to enable an aircraft to determine that safe landing is possible on a runway temporarily occupied at the far end?
- With the advent of high-bandwidth data connections to the flight deck, there is the possibility of increasing the sharing of data and improving rerouting coordination between dispatchers and flight crews. For example, this would improve recovery of efficient routes in weather-disrupted operations. Dispatchers and pilots could view the same weather information and virtually discuss alternate routes. How can these capabilities be exploited to enhance real-time trajectory management in the coming age of Connected Aviation?
- The introduction of space-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast offers the prospect of world-wide, radar-like separation, but the key to reducing separation is in how communications are handled. The safety case will be a function of managing contingencies and off-nominal conditions, with mitigations to make it acceptable.
- Other needs identified in discussion: data integrity, security, V&V, evidence-based safety analyses for revising rules, fanned-out approaches in metroplex airports, taking predictability to the next level without constrained airspace structure.
Airport Ops
- Expand the scope of flight operations to include door-to-door, rather than just gate-to-gate. Consider how the passenger, as the key element in the air transportation system can be afforded help to expedite their journey from door-to-door.
- Airport weather forecasts are unreliable/inaccurate. There is a need to increase accuracy.
- Create ways to improve off-nominal event recovery (i.e., VIP movement, hurricane, shooting, etc.).
- Runway is a chokepoint for operations, especially at smaller airports. Minimize not-in-use time for runways.
- NASA should analyze airport problems and recommend interventions.
Presentations
Below you will find the AOW presentations, in PDF format, from the workshop (Download Adobe Acrobat Reader). Please note that some presentations below include information provided by non-NASA researchers.
| Title |
Speaker, Organization |
4DT and the Connected Aircraft
|
Diane McClatchy, Rockwell Collins |
Aircraft Ground De-icing: The Development and Future of an Under Appreciated Science
|
Gail Zlotky, MTSU |
| Airline Operations Center from a National Air Traffic Management Operations Supervisor's Perspective |
Brian T. Holguin, FAA |
| Are You Ready for Flight Planning 2020? |
Ralph Mohlenbrock, Manager Lido/Flight Training & Consulting |
| Automation and the Aircraft Dispatcher |
Jim Jansen, FAA |
| Cockpit Activity as Heirarchical Planning and Execution |
J. Benton, NASA |
| Cognitive Support for Airline Operations in Complex Environments |
Robert Mauro, Univ. of Oregon; Lance Sherry, George Mason University |
Connected Airline Operations
|
Steve Hansen, Sabre Airline Solutions |
Cyber Safety for Pilot Assistance
|
Kevin Driscoll, Honeywell |
| Emerging Technologies for Airplane State Awareness and Prediction |
Stefan Schuet, NASA |
| Enhancing Capacity Profiles with Detailed Surface Operations Modeling Tools |
Louai Adhami, CSSI |
Flight Awareness Collaboration Tool (FACT)
|
Richard Mogford, NASA |
| Flightsayer and TOMO |
Bala Chandran, Resilient Ops |
| Mosaic Situation Viewer, Collaborative Trajectory Operations Program, and Analytics Suite |
Bill Hall, Mosaic ATM |
| MTSU NASA Flight Operations Control - Unified Simulation (FOCUS) Lab |
Andrea Georgiou, MTSU |
| NASA's Airspace Technologies Demonstration Project |
Leighton Quon, NASA |
| Predicting Human Factors Influence on Effectiveness in Operational Decision-making in OCCs |
Nico Zimmer, Jeppeson |
| Real Time Runway Friction Condition Measurements Using Data From Airplanes During Landing Rollout |
Joe Vickers, Aviation Safety Technology |
| SAAB Sensis' Advanced Surface and Network Management Solutions |
Robert Brown, SAAB Sensis |
| Statistical Methods for Departure Prediction |
Alex Cosmas, Booze Allen Hamilton |
| The Challenge of Collaborative Trajectory Management for the Flight Operator |
Don Wolford, Don Wolford Consulting |
The Geobrowser in Commercial Aviation (TechPort Data Sheet)
|
Mark Spence, WxOps |
| The Other Side of the Operations |
Mike Wiggins, ERAU |
Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR)
|
David Wing, NASA |
| Using IBM's Watson in the Airline Operations Center |
Richard Mogford, NASA; Chris Codella, IBM |
|
|
|
