Challenges for Achieving the Full Potential of PNT in...
48
Image credit: Luis Aparicio Fernandes (2017) Challenges for Achieving the Full Potential of PNT in Civil Aviation Prof. John Hansman T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Technology ([email protected]) With the help of faculty and students from ICAT www.icat.mit.edu
Transcript of Challenges for Achieving the Full Potential of PNT in...
Imagecredit:LuisAparicioFernandes
(2017)
Challenges for Achieving the Full Potential of PNT in Civil Aviation
Prof. John Hansman T. Wilson Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology ([email protected])
With the help of faculty and students from ICAT
www.icat.mit.edu
MITICAT Components of Air Transportation Infrastructure
• Airports– Runways– Terminals– Ground transport interface– Servicing– Maintenance
• Air Traffic Management– Communications– Navigation– Surveillance– Control
• Weather– Observation– Forecasting– Dissemination
• Skilled personnel• Cost recovery mechanism
Surveillance
Communication
Navigation
Air Traffic Control
MITICAT
• Increasing Demand
• Capacity & Access
• Safety
• Efficiency & Environment
System Evolution Drivers
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Rev
enue
-Pas
seng
er-K
ilom
eter
s (b
illio
ns)
North America Europe Asia-Pacific Middle East Latin America & Caribbean Africa
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Tota
l Len
gth
of D
elay
s (m
illio
ns o
f min
utes
) Total Length of Delays12 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Length of Delays)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
20122013
20142015
20162017
20182019
2020
Jet F
uel (
in C
ents
per
Gal
lon)
Crud
e Oi
l (W
TI) i
n Do
llars
per
Bar
rel
Crude Oil (WTI) in Dollars per BarrelJet Fuel (in Cents per Gallon)
MITICAT Model of Evolution of Air Transportation System
Solution Refinement Loop
DriversSystem Capability
CollectiveDecisionMaking
System Behavior
SelectedActions
Stakeholder Awareness
ObjectiveFormation
StakeholderValues, Context
Capability Opportunities
Negotiation Loop
AwarenessBuildingProcess
Change Process
Catalytic Event
Public Awareness
SafetyandEnvironmentalApprovalProcesses
Implementation Process
Stakeholder Preferences
MITICAT
• Maintaining High Level of Safety • Complexity • Achieving Operational Benefits
– Airborne Elements – Infrastructure Elements – Procedures
• Multi-Stakeholder Considerations – Mixed Equipage
• Environmental Considerations – Noise – Emissions
System Evolution Challenges
MITICAT
System Complexity FAA “Simplified” NAS Architecture
MITICAT
Stakeholder Benefits Dependent Upon Approved Applications and Operational Capabilities
AircraftOperationalCapability
OperationalProcedures
ATCOperationalCapability
Application1Application2….Applicationx
Significant
Some/Indirect
None/ Insignificant
Level of Benefit/Cost
Applications Stakeholder Benefits
b1(t)
b2(t)
b3(t)
stk1 stk2 stk3
c1(t)
c2(t)
c3(t)
stk1 stk2 stk3
benefits
costs
Capabilities
Disaggregate benefit/cost approach adapted from Marias and Weigel
MITICAT
Modernization Cannot Compromise Exceptionally High Level of Aviation Safety
Source:2017BoeingStatisticalSummary
MITICAT Safety Management Systems
ICAOAnnex19 FAAOrder8000.369B
MITICAT
• Equivalent Level of Safety – If technical performance can be shown to be equivalent or
superior to existing system then system is assumed to maintain or improve safety
– Useful for Technology Substitution – Tends to replicate existing system – Performance gains are often marginal
• Target Level of Safety – Proposed system or procedure must meet target safety levels
defined by risk analysis – Requires assumptions and modeling which must be accepted
by regulators – Limited number of successful examples
• UAS Part 107, RVSM North Atlantic
Two Approaches to Safety Analysis
MITICAT
• Hypothesis: High safety performance of current system (with SMS) makes it difficult to implement real operational improvements. – Technical Transition Easier than Operational Procedure Transition
ATM Modernization Efforts
MITICAT
NextGen-SESAR-ICAO Common Technical Elements
CommunicationsCPDLC
VDLMode2
SurveillanceADS-B
NavigationPBN
RNAV/RNP
MITICAT
NextGen-SESAR-ICAO Common Technical Elements
CommunicationsCPDLC
VDLMode2
SurveillanceADS-B
NavigationPBN
RNAV/RNP
MITICAT
Performance Based Navigation RNAV and RNP
>95% air carrier fleet >30% air carrier fleet
Source:BruceDecleneFAA
MITICAT Benefit - RNAV Enabled Direct Routing
China
China US
Not Quite - Free Flight
MITICAT Benefit - RNP Based Improved Access
Non-precision path
RNP RNAV path
Runway
• Source: Brian Kelly, Boeing
• Pioneered by Alaska Airlines
MITICAT
• Highest Benefits for New Procedures in Locations Without Existing ILS
• Difficult to supersede existing ILS
– ILS Air and Ground infrastructure widespread
• Operator Benefits Limited
Challenge - Existing Infrastructure and Limited Benefit Limit GBAS Procedures GLS (GPS/GNSS)
MITICAT
W002W.18
Safety Benefit – Improved Situation Awareness Honeywell EGPWS (TAWS)
MITICAT
Prototype MIT Terrain Alerting Displays
Jim Kuchar Thesis 1995
CollaborationwithDonBatemanHoneywell
MITICAT Catalytic Event Implementation Example
Solution Refinement Loop
DriversSystem Capability
CollectiveDecisionMaking
System Behavior
SelectedActions
Stakeholder Awareness
ObjectiveFormation
StakeholderValues, Context
Capability Opportunities
Negotiation Loop
AwarenessBuildingProcess
Change Process
Catalytic Event
Public Awareness
SafetyandEnvironmentalApprovalProcesses
Implementation Process
Stakeholder Preferences
MITICAT Catalytic Event – American Airlines Flight 965
• Cali, Colombia December 20, 1995
• US Mandate Proposal April 1998
• Implemented March 2000
MITICAT ATC Benefit – RNAV Procedures
• Departures are vectored – Headings, altitudes and
speeds issued by controllers
– Large number of voice transmissions required
• Significant dispersion – Tracks are inconsistent and
inefficient • Limited exit points
Source: Bruce DeCleene, FAA
ATL Departure Procedures Before RNAV
MITICAT
Source: Bruce DeCleene, FAA
ATC Benefit – RNAV Procedures
ATL Departure Procedures After RNAV
• Departures fly RNAV tracks (not vectored – Headings, altitudes and
speeds are automated (via avionics)
– Voice transmissions reduced (30-50%)
• Dispersion Reduced – Tracks more consistent and
efficient • Additional exit points available
MITICAT Challenge – RNAV Track/Noise Concentration
2015 2010
27
BOS Runway 33L Departures: 2010-2015
MITICAT Challenge – RNAV Track/Noise Concentration
28
2017 2010
BOSNoiseComplaintLocations
MITICAT
NextGen-SESAR-ICAO Common Technical Elements
CommunicationsCPDLC
VDLMode2
SurveillanceADS-B
NavigationPBN
RNAV/RNP
MITICAT
• Update Rate – Terminal – 4.2 sec – Enroute – 12 sec
Current Radar Surveillance Limitations
UA 123 350C B757 310
MITICAT Separation Assurance Considerations
PROCEDURALSAFETYBUFFER
PERSONALSAFETYBUFFER
MINIMUMSEPARATIONSTANDARD
HAZARDZONE
SURVEILLANCEUNCERTAINTY
MITICAT
Improved Surveillance has not led to Reduced Separation Standards
WHENSTANDARDSWEREDEVELOPED(e.g.1950sforenrouteradar)
IMPROVEDSURVEILLANCEENVIRONMENT(e.g.todayforenrouteradar)
• Surveillance has improved, but separation minima have not changed: procedural safety buffer has implicitly increased
MinimumSeparationStandard
MITICAT
ATC-Based Applications • Surveillance • Separation procedures • Trajectory-based operations
ADS-B (1 sec update)
Air Vehicle Component
Cockpit-Based Applications • Self-separation • Equivalent VFR operations • Traffic & runway awareness • Airspace, weather, terrain awareness • Precision Navigation
Ground Component
Coverage Volume
Operating Procedures
Air Traffic Control
Aircraft Cockpit
ADS-B In Information transmitted from ground to the aircraft
Other Aircraft
Cockpit
ATC
Global Navigation Satellite System
Avionics Integration
ATC Integration
ADS-B Out Position & intent broadcast from aircraft to ground or other aircraft
Air to Air
Air to Ground
Radar Tracks
MITICAT Benefit - Cockpit Display of Traffic Information
MITICAT ANSP Benefit – Surveillance of Remote Regions
Source: Greg Dunstone ADS-B Program Manager
ADS-B Track
Radar Track
Australia Example
MITICAT Worldwide ADS-B Coverage
Source:FlightAware
OneWeekofADS-BTracks
MITICAT Extensive US Radar Coverage Limits Benefits
MITICAT
Stakeholder Benefits Dependent Upon Approved Applications and Operational Capabilities
AircraftOperationalCapability
OperationalProcedures
ATCOperationalCapability
Application1Application2….Applicationx
Significant
Some/Indirect
None/ Insignificant
Level of Benefit/Cost
Applications Stakeholder Benefits
b1(t)
b2(t)
b3(t)
stk1 stk2 stk3
c1(t)
c2(t)
c3(t)
stk1 stk2 stk3
benefits
costs
Capabilities
Disaggregate benefit/cost approach adapted from Marias and Weigel
MITICAT
System Processes Required to Achieve Operational Capability
(artifacts to detailed specifications)
(detailed specifications to safety requirements)
System Description
Specification Development
Incorporation of Safety-Derived Requirements
Safety Approval
Avionics Specifications
Link Specifications
Application Specifications
Ground Infrastructure
Hardware & Software
System Performance Requirements
Decomp
Acquisition Policies
ATC Op Policies
Operator Certification
Datacom Standards
Pilot Certification & Training
Aircraft Certification
(airborne)
Avionics HW & SW
Requirements
Pilot Knowledge
Operating Procedures
((ATC/ground)
Operating Procedures
Data Requirements
Ground HW & SW
Requirements
Proposed Change/ Concept of Operations
Flight Crew Roles
Avionics
Procedures
Applications
Surveillance Infrastructure
Controller Roles
ATC Automation
(desired capabilities to artifacts)
Airborne Components
Procedural Components
Infrastructure Components
(operating certificate)
(TSO, TC, STC)
(OpsSpec) Training & Op.
Approval
Development & Certification
Operational Approval
Operational Approval
Qualified Pilot
Certified Avionics
Approved Functionality
Airborne Operational Capability
Approved Procedures
Approved Procedures
Publishing & Deployment
Capable Airspace
Validation & Verification
Integrated ATC Function
Infrastructure Operational Capability
Commissioning & Deployment
Deployed Infrastructure
System Operational Capability
Legend
Specification
System Element
Operational Capability
Required Predecessor Assessment or
Implementation Processes
Policy/ Process Basis
Element Property/ State
(flight stds/ SMS)
(credentialing)
(AMS)
(AMS/ NCP)
Notes ATC = Air Traffic Control HW = Hardware LOA = Letter of Agreement NCP = NAS Change Proposal TC = Type Certificate
TSO = Technical Standard Order SMS = FAA ATO Safety Management System STC = Supplemental Type Certificate SW = Software
(safety-derived requirements to operational capabilities)
Systems-Level
Criteria
Safety Assessment
Flight Crew Roles
Controller Roles
Rulemaking Airspace (Rulemaking/ LOA) Training &
Certification Trained
Controller
System Description & Specification Development
Safety-Derived Requirements
Operational Approval
RolandWeibel(PhDThesis)
MITICAT
Proposed ADS-B Procedures FAA Application Integrated Work Plan v2.0 2010
✔
✔✔✔✔
✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗
✔
MITICAT
• ADS-B “ Out” mandate by 2020• Impacts
– Class A, B, C– Mode C veil (30 nm radius)– Class E above 10,000
• Requires DO-260A Change 2• Nav Source Requirements
– NAC of 9 ~30 meters– NIC of 7 (0.3 nm)
• Final commitment date of 2013 for all ground infrastructure
Limited Operator Benefits and Mixed Equipage Required ADS-B Out Mandate
MITICAT Satellite Based ADS-B
Source: NavCanada
MITICAT
Satellite Based ADS-B Enables Surveillance in Remote and Oceanic Regions
Source:FlightAware
OneWeekofADS-BTracks
MITICAT
Challenge - Operator Benefits Require Changes to Oceanic ATC Procedures and Systems
ReducedLateralSeparation–ADS-BorADS-CReducedTrackSeparation–RNPUserPreferredRouting–PotentialADS-BbutrequiresmajorATMprocedurechanges
NorthAtlanticOceanicTracks
MITICAT
Over 100 companies (of varying credibility) have announced UAM vehicles
Future Challenge – Integration of UAM and UAV will Require Changing Separation Standards
AirbusA^3Vahana OpenerBlackfly
JobyAviationS4
eHang216 Volocopter2x
WorkhorseSurefly
KittyHawkCoraLiliumLiliumJet
KittyHawkFlyer
FlyingFull-ScalePrototypes
MollerSkycar
Terrafugia
Pipistrel
Boeing–AuroraFlightSciences
Rolls-Royce
Karem Bell Airbus
OtherWellFundedDevelopers
MIT estimates over $2 Billion invested in UAM vehicles, infrastructure, and technology
Embraer
ManyAdditionalVehicleConcepts
MITICAT
SFO Southeast Flow Example Grey Area not Accessible for Independent Ops
ParkerVasickThesis
Imagecredit:LuisAparicioFernandes
(2017)
Questions?
www.icat.mit.edu
MITICAT
Satellite Based ADS-B Iridium Orbital Constellation
Source: NavCanada
