AD-A069 996 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTER ATL- E1C F/69 17/7NEW TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL IN TOWER CAB (TRACAB) CONCE--ETC(U)AUG 80 D BOTTOMLEY, E 6 EZEKIEL

UNCLASSI F T F'D FAIECDT80-40 FAA-RD-80-79 N7DU, III

i* ,_. 32__ 5

IlfIll IIII1__III1_

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NA PO NA[ IJAPP I APP SPAN[PAA[P' Pp. A

11111" FA-s-.7 i42i

NEW TEMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROLIN TOWER CAB ITRACABI CONCEPT FOR

LOVE FIELD, DALLAS, TEXAS

DONALD BOTTOMLEYi o EDWARD 6. EZEKIEL

o THOMAS E. ZURINSKAS

0 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTERAtlantic City, N. . 08405

T S

! E'TIC" FE' CTEN __FINAL REPORT

AUGUST 190 A

Document is available to the U.S. public throughthe National Technical Information Service.

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Prepared forLU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"J FEDERAL AVIATION ADNINISTRATION

Systems Researck & ovelopeet SeniteWaskiigtmu, 3. C. 215N

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department of Transportation in the interest ofinformation exchange. The United States Governmentassumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

The United States Government does not endorse productsor manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appearherein solely because they are considered essential tothe object of this report.

-Ao

'1r .

Technicel RelWt Documentetion Page... 1. Report 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog Me.

( ,FAA-RD, 0-79 / ~c1c,94

j1EW TERM]NA ,Oc NTROL IN TPWERCEW EMNAL ]ADAR APPROACH C N~O N 0R ] 'AuS w

. P -o n .Performing O, ni action Report .. llo, Dnald Otto ley,/Edward C./Azekiel'" Thomas E./Lurinskas "

Federal Aviation AdministrationTechnical Center 11. Contract or Grant Me.Atlantic City, New Jersey 08405 144-170-810

13. Type of I,.q nd Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Neme end AddressU.S. Department of Transportation Final -

Federal Aviation Administration \1Marchll, - May 080o.Systems Research and Development Service _Washington, D.C. 20590

5 r Supplementery Notes

16. Abstrect- This study was accomplished by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Technical

Center, 'n response to a request from Air Traffic Service (AAT-100), for develop-ment oia mockup to evaluate a centrally positioned terminal radar approach controlin a tower cab (TRACAB) console. Presently, the Local Control position at LoveField, Dallas, Texas, generally faces both southeast runways, with all theattendant instrumentation in front of the controller. However, when conditionsdictate a northwest operation, the Local Controller must turn away to see andsequence his traffic. The work effort addressed the relocation of operationalpositions from their usual peripheral sites in the tower cab to a unique four-winged central console with each wing having its own instrumentation. This consolehoused two Local Control and two Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) positions onone side of the console and a Ground Control position on the opposite side withidentical instrumentation. These five positions were endowed with a "flip/flop"capability as traffic dictated. The other two positions, Clearance Delivery/Flight Data and Watch Supervisor, remained constant at each end of the console,regardless of traffic flow. While the four-winged central console solved theLocal Controller's instrumentation availability, it reflected two problems.Limited room on the console caused overcrowding and the resultant overheating ofthe operational equipment. Local Control perambulation was restricted due to thetwo ASR controllers and tower peripheral boundaries. Since few airports requirethe "flip/flop" design necessary by a tower located between dual runways, it wasconcluded that no further evaluati9n of this consola conespt -.s.d ha -mA

17. Ke Words 10. Dlefehuwtle StememtTRAEAB Document is available to the U.S. publicFour-Winged Central Console through the National Technical InformationFlip-Flop Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Closeif. (.9 At.r$ fw SsW Ie9.f. (1.f Ot. paa) 21. me. all eoil 22. pre

Unclassified I Unclassified S

P.'.M DOT P 1700.7 (8-72) gtqwebm o sOe ~ ama

1. STz i II

11M Hi fi J11118

.3 0

01~ ~ m*..,. II' 11111 1.-1m. 111111 11111111 Hil 1

I aL

U - -I* ~. lS1

do I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose 1Background

DISCUSSION 2

Island Layout and Operation 2Method of Evaluation 2

Proposed Engineering Evaluation 2

RESULTS 3

CONCLUSION 3

O

iii

, i ... I I 1 I 1 i ' - l l ....

Figure LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pg

I Console Pictorial of the Nodular Island Construction 4(2 Sheets)

2 Overview of TRACAB from East Side 6

3 Overview of TRACAB from North Side 7

4 Overview of TRACAS from West Side 8

5 Overview of TRACAB from South Side9

iv

I1TRODUCTION It should be noted that the location ofthe tower at Dallas Love Field is

unique. Whereas most towers are locatedPURPOSE. to one side of an airport runway

complex, the Dallas Love Field tower isThe purpose of this study was to located between dual northwest/

evaluate, through mockup techniques, the southeast (NW/SE) runways. Thisadequacy of the proposed "island" requires a unique adaptability for ATCconsole concept as a viable air traffic tower cab design.control (ATC) tower cab designalternative for terminal radar approach Though this island console proposal iscontrol in tower cabs (TRACAB's) with a not scheduled for incorporation atclass and complexity similar to that of Dallas Love Field, various aspects of itLove Field, Dallas, Texas. merit further consideration. Some

of these are as follows:

BACKGROUND.1. The possibility of construction

Interest in the island console concept cost savings due to descreased wiring.for ATC tower cabs has been stimulatedas a result of a beneficial suggestion 2. The ease of a "flip/flop"from a former controller at the Love operation in duplicating positions onField TRACAB in Dallas, Texas. The either side of the island console.recommended design is a completedeparture from the standard TRACAB 3. The advantage of mobile modulesdesign which incorporates consoles, for rollaway repairs and maintenance.equipment, work areas, and controllerpositions around the perimeter of 4. The apparent ease of 360'the cab. As the Dallas controller noted visual circumspection.in his suggestion, this has certaindisadvantages for certain positions. 5. The possibility of mass"At Dallas TRACAB, the console is production cost savings, since thelocated primarily on one side, facing island console need not be cut to fitthe runway 13 operation. The Local any particular tower cab perimeterControl position on the console places design.the controller's back toward runway31, requiring him to turn around However, all the proposed gains would bein order to see arriving/departing air- negated if either the equipment orcraft when 31 is in use. The Local controllers cannot adapt to the concept.Controller's duties require him torecord inbound/outbound aircraft To determine the island console concept

numbers, issue altimeter settings and utility, Air Traffic Service (AAT-120),wind instrument readings, coordinate issued a request for a "complete mockup(holding down interphone buttons) to of this center console design...so thatobtain releases from Dallas/Fort Worth an operational and equipment layout

(DFW) Departure Control in the DFW evaluation can be made." In response to

[Terminal Radar Approach Control this request, the Technical CenterFacility) TRACON and to observe the project team studied all proposedBright Radar Indicator Tower Equipment equipment operating characteristics for(BRITE) displays. Again, his back is incorporation in that design layout.turned away from traffic. When the Based on the results of these studies,Local Controller does not face traffic modeling techniques were used in

activity, an unsafe condition is a conjunction with the "final" island

potential."

mockup (fomcore/plywood) to determine side of the console to the other to

the effectiveness of proposed equipment accommodate operations in eitherinstallation/cooling arrangements. direction. To accommodate this, the

Following this evaluation, actual island console was bilaterallyequipment was to be installed and sysmetrical about it's length., and bothoperated in a "final product" island Radar Control and Local Control

console for demonstration purposes. positions were duplicated on either sidefor flip/flop operation should the

There were three phases to this direction of traffic change.evaluation: (1) plywood/foamcore mockupconstruction, (2) role-playing (oper- METHOD OF EVALUATION.ational testing), and (3) engineeringconsiderations. The evaluation methodology consisted of

subjective determination of conceptutility by Air Traffic Service, System

DISCUSSION Research and Development Service, and

Technical Center personnel. Hands-onrole-playing at the positions in the

ISLAND LAYOUT AND OPERATION. full size mockup allowed a firsthandexperience of system functions.

Figure I is a schematic diagram of the Suggested rearrangements of displays andTRACAB modular island console design. equipment were acted out, until finalAll wire dispersal emanates from the positioning reached concensus.

center of the cab. The four "wings" Photographs were taken which documentedwere detachable for ease of maintenance, the resulting island console configu-

Maintenance could be accomplished ration, and engineering drawings werefrom any side of this equipment, which made of the finished version.could not be done if the consoles

were located along the perimeter. PROPOSED ENGINEERING EVALUATION.

Figure 2 shows the plywood and foamcore An engineering evaluation had been

mockup of the design constructed by the proposed to determine maintenance

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) accessibility and the operating

Technical Center team. All equipment environment ramifications of equipment

and controls necessary for operation installed in the island console.were simulated in either faceplate or Temperature airflow studies would ensure

replica form. Evaluation of the mockup that proper conditions were maintainedentailed movement of these equipment within the interior portions of thereplicas about the consoles until console. BRITE I operating environment

optimumly placed. Engineering expertise specifications of +10* to -*40* Celsius

was available to determine the depth and (C) and humidity limits of 10 to 80wire run requirements of equipment below percent would be the operational range.the surface of the console to ascertain Tests would be conducted with operatingif suggested placements were feasible. equipment installed in a wood mockup to

Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the various determine cooling grill effectivenesspositions of operation and indicate the and location. The necessity for

proposed equipment configuration. auxiliary cooling fans would then bedetermined. Based upon subjective

An original prime requisite in the opinion of a group of technicians,

design of the island console concept maintenance accessibility would also be

was the determination of the feasibiliy determined.

of a flip/flop operation from one

2

vI

RESULTS upon the unique requirement for flip/flop operations. It was found by theevaluating team that there was not a

Through judicious placement of sufficient number of towers which

equipment on the console, especially required this application. In a

in the turret area where equipment was letter dated March 27, 1980, to theplaced back to back, it was found that Director of Air Traffic Service (AAT-l)all equipment could be made to fit. from the Director of Systems ResearchHowever, this resulted in placement and Development Service (ARD-l), it wasof some items in less than optimum stated: "Upon initial mockup of thisareas." This was determined to be design, it was jointly determined by

of no major consequence. AAT, ACT [Technical Center], and ARDthat the application of this console is

Since the placement of the equipment limited to a specific site and does notwas judged feasible, an operational have national application. Due to thisrole playing, hands-on assessment was limited application, further evaluationmade. Difficulty of mobility in the of heat dissipation and operational andtower cab was encountered due to the engineering evaluation of this console"wing" feature of the island console. will not be made; therefore, we areThe proximity of the "wings" to the considering this request completed."perimeter of the cab was judged The proposed engineering evaluation wasconstricting. In addition, there was cancelled.a lack of space behind the AirportSurveillance Radar (ASR) positions forthe Local Controllers to move about. CONCLUSION

The final analysis as to the utilityof the island design rested in it's It was concluded that the "island"probability of adoption as a standard. console TRACAB design as fabricated and

Standarization would allow produc- evaluated at the Technical Center wastion in numbers in order to achieve feasible; however, since the design didcertain economies. But, as was pointed not have national application, noout, utilization of this design depends further evaluation need be made.

I

t3

................ ~.

'3'

2-

~1

a C

7 -~-- -

~2

a \ \ a

'5

\ilTh(5 FPOA'T 6~ LfFT~/VD~tEi/4TI&A/

7

I

EWO 'AT/Of.'

FIGURE 1. CONSOLE PICTORIAL OF TUE NODUlAR4

a'* V - ~

5

.il 'rf DISPt A y2-s7Ri1 SAY.3-red-CO 5REAKeV

- 369/ 7TSLCO9se 5kFPA AAS-rLCO DIAL

U-PIG~rT4 A//N1o ,df)//.-r/ofV-AL rAfE7-Eq (A-0Z4 £S11,i4V)

1'5- LTA C /(06 - 41SAD. S r?/~ A' GL 4-,

// c -

/ '0 3

FEDERAL AVIAIW ADiINITHMTON_!AIONAL AVIA7tU PACIITIES 11Ppt0iuwaL ORWTI ATLAUle el, 11.s

OPF 8//E e/i 0 14 /PP YaR70A1_Zq5 TeX,4S

NvI7 7J3'A..E 5CTCEPEP1'4FN/VTL CWZ-.-r7VA'OA.

80-40-1A A.CT- 63C to- lose

OF THE MODULAR ISIID CONSTRUCTION (SHEET I OF 2)

100

4

16

RS,4 e, RIGh /?'-AtD F4,

FIGURE 1. CONSOLE PICTORIAL OF I

3 £'

'2

a-S rIP, BAY3--,E LCO SPEA IER4 -301 TEL CO 5EL E4CT7O PqVEL5- rEL Co 014L6 -WIO A'ADDrECON /A/O1C~rOR7 - a / /D sPEED-, /AfD/CqTraw-

/0-01rCITAL AVITNOTF-I-,4 LI1f-EAS ~ iZNA

/5- JACKl

'5 /6-LISED STRIPNAOLPDE/,;'- T YPeWRITE'--R

18I- ATORDI

203-RVRM5S0q&

2f-1A/ROLAf5 LO

JI~

FMMEAL AVMAI AOUIWITIP.,.i v Atmu sgTI IMPeaWIMtL 4w9ba A%&" V". "

1-0S'le FIe.LD IIPORTDOAI../?5 rexAS

N/or rO SCAL C _47-4; 1A T~ 7- XPER

WPD &IvqrO~

80-4 0 1 B ol' c 7_63C I - - eOa@

9PICTORIAL. OF THE MODULAR ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (SHEET 2 OF 2)

5

:41111

4:-

0 >

114

1412o

0 0

0 :0

9 044

.40

0 a: >

Ix (-4IY' 4

U Z

It

" 14

C4~a W.OU, Z

0 u

Z 04

< a4

D U4

*16

LAM