September 28th, 2005

1. NASA ASAS R&D AIRSPACE SYSTEMS PROGRAM Michael H. Durham Kenneth M. Jones Thomas J. Graff September 28th, 2005

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

5. Autonomous Flight Management (AFM) Automatically, safely, and cost-effectively adapt to significant changes in air traffic demand. AffordableCost is shouldered primarily by the aircraft operators that benefit from the investment. Safely supplements ATCThe 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-centeredTrajectory decisions are made and monitored by pilots, informed by technology. Self-elected aircraft operatorsNot 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.

6. VFR IFR  AFR 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) 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

7. Trajectory Oriented Operations With Limited Delegation (TOOWiLD) • 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

8. Basic TOOWiLD Scenario Meter fix • Time-based traffic management regulates inbound flow. • 4-D trajectory-based operations used to plan and execute conflict free flight paths. • 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. Time-based metering provides meter fix arrival schedule and time constraint for inbound aircraft. AOC, flight crew or controller can develop efficient, conflict-free trajectory to satisfy meter fix arrival time constraint. Controller may assign limited delegation clearance to pass behind traffic. Controller may issue merging and spacing instructions to flight crews of equipped aircraft when within ADS-B range of leader.

9. Airborne Precision Spacing (APS) • 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) • 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

10. Phase2 Adhere to metering assignment for initial spacing and sequence Merge with converging traffic streams Adhere to runway assignment and sequence for load balancing, throughput Fly with precision for optimal spacing Phase1 – Completed flight demo under AATT Airborne Precision SpacingImprove 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 Meteringboundary Unequipped Aircraft Terminal airspace

11. Airborne Precision SpacingImprove Capacity-Constrained Terminal Arrival Operations Maneuver corridors (phase 3) ATSP-definedmaneuveringcorridor Meteringboundary Maneuver within prescribed corridorsfor optimal spacing Adhere to metering assignment for initial spacing and sequence Merge with converging traffic streams Unequipped Aircraft Adhere to runway assignment and sequence for load balancing, throughput Fly with precision for optimal spacing Terminal airspace

12. Integration of Airborne Spacing withContinuous 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. NATOTS NOPAC EUR-NAM PACOTS CENPAC WATRS EUR-CAR CEP SOPAC Enhanced Oceanic OperationsOceanic 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 Optimal Compromise

14. Enhanced Oceanic Operations Phased Approach • 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

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