Newly Enacted Intent Changes to ADS-B MASPS: Emphasis on Operations, Compatibility, and Integrity

8 Pages·2002·0.65 MB·English

by  Barhydt, Richard

NEWLY ENACTED INTENT CHANGES TO ADS-B MASPS:
EMPHASIS ON OPERATIONS, COMPATIBILITY, AND INTEGRITY
Richard Barhydt Anthony W. Warren
NASA Langley Research Center Boeing Air Traffic Management
Hampton, Virginia Seattle, Washington
Abstract in congested airspace, 9'1° flight plan consistency
checking, ll and conformance monitoring. _2-_6
Significant changes to the intent reporting structure in the
Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards One means by which aircraft can exchange intent
(MASPS) for Automatic Dependent Surveillance information with each other and with ground systems
Broadcast (ADS-B) 1 have recently been approved by is through Automatic Dependent Surveillance
RTCA Special Committee 186. The re-structured intent Broadcast (ADS-B). The original Minimum Aviation
formats incorporate two major changes to the current System Performance Standards (MASPS) for ADS-B
MASPS (DO-242): addition of a Target State (TS) report (DO-242) establishes minimum information
that provides information on the horizontal and vertical requirements and performance specifications for intent
targets for the current flight segment and replacement of broadcast over ADS-B. 1 RTCA Special Committee
the current Trajectory Change Point (TCP) and TCP+I 186 has recently completed a new revision to this
reports with Trajectory Change (TC) reports. TC reports document, to be published as DO-242A. Several
include expanded information about TCPs and their changes to this document compared to the original
connecting flight segments, in addition to making MASPS should increase the operational utility of
provisions for trajectory conformance elements. New aircraft intent information. Intent elements supported
intent elements are designed to accommodate a greater by established avionics standards are introduced in
range of intent information, better reflect operational use DO-242A. Other elements are provisioned for
and capabilities of existing and future aircraft avionics, possible incorporation into future MASPS revisions,
and aid trajectory synthesis and conformance monitoring as avionics systems are able to support them. The
systems. These elements are expected to benefit near- intent changes focus on establishing reporting
term and future Air Traffic Management (ATM) structures that are more compatible with existing
applications, including separation assurance, local traffic aircraft and avionics architectures, increasing
flow management, and conformance monitoring. The confidence that an aircraft will follow its broadcast
current MASPS revision (DO-242A) implements those intent, and expanding the domain of potential ATM
intent elements that are supported by current avionics applications that can benefit from intent information.
standards and data buses. Additional elements are
provisioned for inclusion in future MASPS revisions
(beyond DO-242A) as avionics systems are evolved. ADS-B Architecture Chan_es Related to Intent
Information
Introduction Information exchanged over ADS-B is assembled by
the receiving aircraft or ground station into reports that
Aircraft intent information refers to the intended future are made available to user applications. Two major
trajectory of an aircraft and isexpected to offer significant changes to the ADS-B reports that contain intent
benefits to many evolving Air Traffic Management (ATM) information include:
operations. Proposed air-air applications of intent
information include in-trail spacing 2and conflict detection, 1. Addition of a Target State (TS) report that
prevention, and resolution. 3'4 Intent information has been provides information on the horizontal and vertical
found to be beneficial in several experiments requiring targets for the current flight segment. The primary TS
pilots to maintain adequate separation from other aircraft. 5- report elements include the target altitude and target
7 Intent information is also expected to enable advanced heading or track. Target altitude is the aircraft's
air-ground applications such as sequencing and merging of intended level-off altitude if in a climb or descent, or
terminal area flow streams, s use of precision trajectory the aircraft's current intended altitude if it is being
separation concepts for aircraft arrival and departure flows commanded to hold altitude. Target heading and
target track angle are the aircraft's commanded lateral
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
directioanndareusediftheaircrafitsbeingcontrolletodan
Table 2a. DO-242A Target State Report (Primary
air referenceheadingor groundreferencetrack,
Elements)
respectively.
Target State Report
2. ReplacemeonftthecurrenTtrajectorCyhangPeoint
Target Heading or Target Track Angle
(TCP)andTCP+IreportswithTrajectorCyhang(eTC)
Horizontal Target Source Indicator
reportsA. TCrepordtescribeosneTCPanditspreceding
Horizontal Mode Indicator
flightsegment.For fly-byturns,it alsoprovides
Target Altitude
informatiofonrthefollowinfglightsegmenTt.Creportasre
Target Altitude Capability
designetdo accommodaategreaterrangeof intent
Vertical Target Source Indicator
informationandto betterreflectoperationuasl eand
Vertical Mode Indicator
capabilitieosfexistinagndfutureaircrafatvionics.
Figure1 showstherelationshibpetweeninformation
provideidnTSandTCreportfsoranaircrafftlyingasimple Table 2b. DO-242A Trajectory Change Report
trajectorbyetweeanreanavigatio(RnNAVw) aypointTsh. e (Primary Elements)
targettracktowaypoinAtBCandthetargeatltitudfeorthe
activeflightsegmeanrteprovideidntheTSreport.Three Trajectory Change Report
TCreportgsiveinformatioonnwaypoinAtsBC,DEFa,nd TC Latitude
GHI. Notethatthisfigureonlyrepresenotnsetypeof TC Longitude
trajectory. Horizontal TC Type
Track to TCP
Track from TCP
Turn Radius
_.,o 6*°'''**'''''l°"°l'''" ..... """" ""°'°°"'°'"°°ooo,
Reserved for Horizontal Conformance
...o.'_'_ ABC DEF °°"'.o,.
Horizontal Command/Planned Flag
....." J Jk _IL "%, TC Altitude
Vertical TC Type
Reserved for Altitude Constraint Type
Reserved for Able/Unable Altitude Constraint
aypom s GHI
Reserved for Vertical Conformance
"_ _ TS Report Information Vertical Command/Planned Flag
Time to Go
....... TC Report Information
Figure 1.TS and TC Report Information Intent Availability Due to Control State
A 2000 FAA-Eurocontrol sponsored Technical
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the main differences in intent Interchange Meeting (TIM) on intent information
information content between the original ADS-B MASPS included a recommendation in its outbriefing to,
(DO-242) and the MASPS update (DO-242A). These "Study the relationships between aircraft control
elements are described in later sections. Note that these lists loops and intent parameters. ''18 This recommendation
do not contain all of the TS and TC report elements. A is important, in part, because the amount of intent
more detailed description of all elements, as well as information available for data exchange depends
information related to the broadcast and management of strongly on the transmitting aircraft's current control
intent reports is contained in a separate document.17 state and equipment. These relationships were
evaluated in several Boeing 777 simulator sessions
Table 1.DO-242 Intent Information (Primary Elements) and through a review of Airbus vertical flight
modes. 19The TS and TC reports are designed to take
TCP and TCP+I advantage of intent information available when
TCP Latitude aircraft are operated in either simple or complex
control states.
TCP Longitude
TCP Altitude
TCP Time to Go The three primary control states, referred to here as
manual (no flight director), target state, and trajectory
are shown in Figure 2. With each additional outer
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
loop, it is possible for an aircraft to communicate more Figure 2 shows typical equipment available on
information about future states and flight segments. While transport category aircraft that is capable of providing
operating with target state control, a single set of the associated information. Other flight hardware
commanded states is available. The TS report provides may also be able to generate this information. More
target altitude and target heading or track angle. Future sophisticated equipment is needed to transmit outer
MASPS revisions could incorporate target airspeed and loop information, whereas inner loop information on
target vertical speed, if deemed necessary to support ATM current target states may be difficult to transmit for
applications. In the outermost loop corresponding to older analog aircraft. An MCP or FCU is the primary
trajectory control, the aircraft has knowledge of multiple interface between the pilot and autopilot when not
trajectory change points and connecting flight segments. operating in Flight Management System (FMS)
TC reports provide this information. In the trajectory automated modes. These interfaces allow the pilot to
control state, the TS report provides target state select target states such as altitude, heading, vertical
information corresponding to the current flight segment. speed, and airspeed. Since only the next target state
is allowed in each axis, pilots often use the MCP or
Most commercial aircraft have several flight modes FCU for short-term tactical flying. Conversely, the
corresponding to the target state and trajectory control FMS allows the pilot to select a series of target states
states shown in Figure 2. Flight modes are normally or flight segments through a keypad-based Control
selected through the Mode Control Panel (MCP) or Flight Display Unit (CDU). A pilot may program an entire
Control Unit (FCU). They include choices such as hold route complete with multiple waypoints, speed,
current heading, hold current altitude, and maintain track altitude, and time restrictions, and desired speeds
between RNAV waypoints. The pilot can concurrently along different flight segments. Because the FMS
choose lateral and vertical flight modes that correspond to allows definition of consecutive flight segments, it is
different control states, leading to different intent frequently used for long-term strategic flying.
availability in the horizontal and vertical axes. Horizontal
and vertical guidance commands may be followed Complex paths may be created when an aircraft's
manually using a flight director display mode, rather than trajectory is generated with both MCP/FCU and FMS
through direct autopilot commands. No distinction is made flight modes. Such a situation can occur when the
between flight director and autopilot operation, since this lateral and vertical modes correspond to different
information cannot be differentiated from ADS-B output control states or when an autopilot target value
reports. affects an FMS planned trajectory. The latter case is
most common when the MCP/FCU selected altitude
lies between the aircraft's current altitude and the
Trajectory Pilot programmed FMS altitude. In this case, the aircraft
Control Target State will level out at the selected value, i.e. selected
(TC Reports) Control
altitude acts as a limit value on the planned climb or
(TS Reports) (noFD)
MCoannturoall T descent. 2°
MFloigdhet CCoonnttrrooll PUannitel/ Cor rols Displays Both single state (TS report) and multiple state (TC
report) intent information offer a potential benefit to
airborne conflict management, separation assurance,
surveillance, and conformance monitoring
FlightPlan State Manual applications. Single state intent is available in almost
Commands Commands Control
all flight modes, while 4D TCPs are only available
[ ' when equipped aircraft are using sophisticated FMS
Longer Term Trajectory Information Available
and RNAV systems. The addition of TS reports
enable the broadcast of intent information across a
Flight greater range of flight modes and control states.
Management AAuutotoptihlorot/tFtlDe Ii
System
Effects of Avionics System Evolution on Intent
l Current State
Broadcast
Current Path
One of the challenges in developing and evolving
FD: Flight Director intent information for ADS-B is that most current
aircraft avionics, including many advanced digital
Figure 2. Aircraft Control States FMS based systems, do not output much intent
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
information on avionics buses for downstream use by as the intended end of a vertical transition is allowed
avionics other than that directly used to communicate to as a TCP. RNAV systems that only output 2D TCPs
the pilot or to navigate, guide, or control an airplane. DO- and time to TCP are also allowed. The TC report
242A intent changes address this situation intwo ways: (1) structure can support additional TC types as avionics
allowing aircraft which output some intent information to buses and aircraft systems are evolved and additional
communicate such intent when appropriate through the TS intent information becomes available for broadcast.
and TC report formats, and (2) providing intent
provisioning in the report formats for future evolution and
implementation of more comprehensive intent data. These Improved Path Integrity
changes provide an incremental approach to intent
broadcasting by allowing for partial broadcast of limited In order to use intent information for traffic
intent in DO-242A, while accommodating evolution to separation applications, the receiving aircraft or
more comprehensive intent data as avionics systems are ground station must be able to assess the transmitting
upgraded and intent structures refined in future ADS-B aircraft's ability to conform to its broadcast intent.
MASPS revisions. Intent related changes to the ADS-B MASPS address
this path integrity issue in three ways:
The new TS report makes provisions for broadcast of
target altitude and target heading or track angle data used 1. Clearly distinguishing between intent states that
for current path guidance. Since full implementation of are actual targets for the autoflight system (command
target state data may depend on FMS or autopilot mode trajectory) and those that merely represent a pilot's
information not currently available on any avionics bus, plan or preference (planned trajectory).
DO-242A intent structures support partial implementations
of target states based on information which is available for 2. Providing TC type fields that allow users to
input to an ADS-B transmit system. For example, if only assess uncertainty in reported TCP locations and
autopilot based selected altitude is available for target specify path characteristics for trajectory synthesis
altitude reporting, then an aircraft is allowed to broadcast routines.
such information with appropriate status indicators, even if
the next intended level-off altitude may be an unknown 3. Establishing provisions for each aircraft to
FMS target value. The fact that the aircraft can only transmit its horizontal and vertical path conformance.
broadcast selected altitude is transmitted through the target
altitude capability element, to avoid having the receiving
system interpret selected altitude as the probable next Command and Planned Traiectories
level-off state. Target source indicators in the TS report
distinguish between the aircraft system (FMS, MCP/FCU Each broadcast TC report has elements to indicate
or aircraft current state) driving the autopilot commanded whether the horizontal or vertical TC components are
states. Horizontal and vertical mode indicators determine part of the aircraft's command or planned trajectory,
whether the aircraft is acquiring or capturing/maintaining as defined below.
the corresponding target state.
The command traiectorv refers to the path the aircraft
Horizontal and vertical TC type fields included in the TC will fly if the pilot does not engage anew flight mode
report specify the flight segment and endpoint change type. nor change the targets for the active or upcoming
They are used to aid interpretation of the data elements flight modes. The command trajectory may include
used for synthesis of consecutive path segments. The TC multiple flight mode transitions. Changes to the
report enacted in DO-242A makes provisions for TC types command trajectory normally result from a pilot
that have standard TCP and flight segment parameters and input. However, a non-programmed mode transition
are available as potential outputs on an ARINC data bus, may also occur that causes the aircraft to leave the
such as that defined by the 702A Characteristic. 2° The command trajectory, e.g. reversion to speed priority
horizontal flight segment types include Course-to-Fix on descent if the intended vertical path results in an
(CF), Track-to-Fix (TF), and Direct-to-Fix (DF) leg types, over-speed condition.
and Fly-By and Radius-to-Fix (RF) turn segments. Fly-
over turns to a specified end fix can also be modeled by The planned traiectorv includes intent information
appropriate use of the above turn types in conjunction with that is conditional upon the pilot engaging a new
a DF or TF flight segment. The vertical flight segments flight mode. Without pilot input, the aircraft will
include initial climb to Top-of-Climb, flight at cruise only fly toward the command trajectory targets.
altitude to Top-of-Descent, i.e. start of the descent phase,
and some level-off transitions. In addition, target altitude
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure3illustratethsedifferencbeetweetnhecommandtheFMSdescepnatthandwillleveol utattheendof
andplannetdrajectoriefosrasimpledescesnctenarioIn. descentT.heprogrammFeMd Spathbeyondthe
thiscaset,heaircrafitsflyingalateraalndverticaFlMS selecteadltituderepresenatsplannedtrajectory.
paththatincludeasplanneadltitudleevel-ofafttheEndof Typically,selectedaltitudeindicatesan ATC
Descen(tE/D). TheMCP/FCUselecteadltitudelies clearanaceltitudeI.nthiscaseth, epilotmaychoose
betweentheaircraft'scurrenat ltitudeandtheE/D. toflydirectlytotheendofdescenatssoonasa
Assumintghepilotdoesn'cthangteheaircraft'sflight clearantcoetheplanneadltitudiesreceived.
modeortargetsth,eaircrafwtillflyontheFMSdescent
pathuntilreachinthgeselecteadltitudaendthenleveol ff.
ThispathisthecommantrdajectoryIf.thepilotresettshe
MCPtargeattorbelowtheE/Daltitudperiortoreaching
theselecteadltitudeth,eaircrafwtillcontinuteoflyalong
Constant 090 Track throughout Descent
Top of
FL350 _ Descent (1)
MCP/FCU Selected Altitude (15,000 ft)
MCP/FCU Altitude../_...
Level-off (2) "°°....°.°..°
ft)
Command Trajectory ""°°"_!_ Altitude Constraint (3,000
mmmmmmmmm Planned Trajectory J
End of
Descent,
ABC (3)
Figure 3.FMS Descent Showing Command and Planned Trajectories
These trajectory definitions are also expandable to aircraft TCP Position Uncertainty
sending intent information from non-FMS flight planning
systems. For example, a LORAN or GPS navigation TC type fields allow the receiving system to assess
system on a general aviation airplane can be programmed the flight segment "leg" type and accuracy of
to contain multiple waypoints. This path represents a reported TC latitude, longitude, and altitude values.
planned lateral trajectory. It does not guarantee that the Many change points can occur along an operational
aircraft will fly that path, but represents information trajectory that do not occur at known 3D positions.
relevant to the pilot's long-term plan. For example, an aircraft may be climbing in a
constant vertical speed mode towards atarget altitude
Both the command and planned trajectories may provide (see Figure 4). In this case, the aircraft may not take
useful information for separation assurance and flow actual wind conditions into account when predicting
management applications. The command trajectory, the level-off location. Level-off prediction in a climb
however, is considered to represent the aircraft's current may also depend on changing aircraft performance.
intent and therefore has broadcast priority over planned These uncertainties make it difficult to predict an
TCPs. This strategy was also explicitly expressed at the accurate 3D level-off point.
2000 Intent TIM. 21 The TC report structure enables the
receiving system to clearly distinguish between the Figure 5 illustrates other TC types having uncertain
command and planned trajectories. 3D locations. In this example, the aircraft isflying at
constant heading to intercept a flight plan route,
while climbing to a new altitude. The flight plan
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
interceppot int(TCP#1)isdependeonntwindparametersPath Conformance Information
thatmaynotbeaccurateklnyownforintercepptredictions.
WaypoiAntBC(TCP#2)hasadefine2dDlateraplosition,
In addition to TCPs, points involving an altitude
howevethrecrossinagltitudiesn'tprecisedlyefinedd,ue
constraint (At, At or Above, or At or Below) are
towindandaircrafpterformancTeh.esuencertaintaielsso
provisioned for future MASPS revisions even if they
existforthelevel-ofpfoint(TCP#3). OnlyWaypoint
may not involve a trajectory change. These points
DEF(TCP#4)hasaprecis3eDlocationT. Ctypefields
influence trajectory predictions even if no level-off
mayenabltehereceivinagirorgrounsdystemtoestablish
occurs at the altitude constraint, and provide value for
alowecronformanecxepectatifoonratransmittinagircraft
conformance monitoring applications. They also
thathaslesscertaiTnCPsalongitsflightpath2.2
form the basis for implementing vertical RNP using
altitude "window" constraints in future RNP
ToaccounfotrTCPpositionuncertaintieasn,ewTCP
systems. 1° An altitude constraint "able/unable"
definitionis establishefodrDO-242A":A
Traiectorv element provides the own aircraft's assessment of its
Chan_e Point may be described as a point where an ability to meet the next altitude constraint.
anticipated chan_e in the aircraft's velocity vector will
cause an intended chan_e in traiectorv." This definition Horizontal and vertical mode indicators in the TS
replaces that currently used in DO-242 (p. 39). The older report provide status information on whether the
definition only recognizes TCPs that have a well-defined aircraft is acquirin_ (transitioning toward) the target
3D location. Under DO-242A, aircraft would not be state or is capturin_ or maintainin_ the target. These
required to report predicted TC position and altitude parameters are expected to provide verification of
information if those data are unknown. This allowance predicted trajectory changes and to be useful for
makes provisions for avionics systems that are unable to trajectory conformance monitoring.
provide conditional waypoint predictions, such as path
intercepts and anticipated level-off points. Space in the TC report is reserved for each aircraft to
assess its horizontal and vertical path conformance. It
is anticipated that future ATM applications may use
Level-off horizontal and vertical RNP bounds to specify
Target Altitude (8,000 ft) trajectory conformance.l° The conformance elements
indicate whether the aircraft is within the specified
trajectory bounds. For non-RNP aircraft, other
measures of conformance may be specified.
Velocity_
Support for Near-term and Future ATM
Applications
Figure 4. Climb at Constant Vertical Speed to MCP/FCU
Selected Altitude Many current and evolving ATM applications related
to separation assurance, traffic flow management,
and conformance monitoring could potentially
Path Intercept Point
benefit from the newly enacted intent information.
ABC Level-off The TS and TC report intent structures provide more
detailed path prediction and conformance monitoring
information, while accounting for limitations due to
avionics architecture and aircraft control states.
• ,_,, atFL210
090 Track Altitude clearance verification is a potential near-
030 Heading
term use for the enhanced intent information. Several
European agencies are investigating the use of
selected and target altitude information under the
CWoanydpiotiionntal Constant Heading 4 Downlink of Airborne Parameters (DAP) program. 16
'''''" Segment
The aircraft's selected altitude, dialed into the MCP
WaFyMpoSint _- FMS Flight Plan or FCU, is considered to most closely represent the
ATC clearance altitude. 16 Controllers can compare
the clearance altitude with that selected by the pilot to
Figure 5. Constant Vertical Speed Climb and Constant help ensure that aircraft do not fly through their
Heading to Intercept FMS Flight Plan assigned altitudes, ram16 The selected altitude is
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
currentlyavailableonARINC429avionicsbuse2s°. Conflicptrobesusedbygroundstationcsurrently
Selecteadltitudedoesnotaccounfotrintermedialetevel- havedifficultypredictinvgerticaclonflictsd,ueto
offsthatmayoccuwr hentheaircrafitsbeingcontrollebdy significavnetrticaplathuncertain9tyT.headditioonf
theFMS.TheADS-Bdefinitioonftargeatltitudcelosely TCtypeinformatiopnrovidedin theTCreport
matchethsatusedbyEurocontr1o6l.'2T3argeatltitudeis shouladllowtrajectorgyeneratotorsbetterrecognize
presumetodbeadvantageoinusreducinfgalsealarms andaccounfotrinherenutncertaintiseusc,haswind
generatebdy verticalconflictdetectionalgorithms.andaircrafpterformancthea,texistatsomeTCPs.
Withoutintermediatelevel-offinformation,these NewTCreportparameteersnablingown-aircraft
algorithmmsayassumtheatanaircrafwt illmaintaiints assessmoefnatltitudceonstraicnotmplianacnedpath
presenvterticaplath.TheTSreporctansupporetither conformansctaetusshouladlsohelp.
selecteodrtargeatltitudeh,owevemrosatircrafwtillneed
additionparlocessiningordetrogenerattaergeatltitude.
Airbushasproposetdargeatltitudelogicforadvanced Conclusions
FMSaircraftthatconsiderfslightmodesandvarious
autoflighstystemtarget1s9.Thetargeatltitudceapability
Newly enacted changes to ADS-B intent reporting
elemenptrovideidntheTSreporitndicatewshethethre
enable progressive implementation of aircraft intent
aircrafistbroadcastsineglecteodrtargeatltitude.
broadcast, beginning with those elements supported
by current avionics. The new framework establishes
Comparisoofnclearanacendprogrammtreadjectoriecsan
standards for trajectory reporting and synthesis that
alsobeextendetodlonger-terinmtent.Intenitnformationwill enable effective use of intent information for
sharedbetweetnheaircraftandgroundcontrolleriss
surveillance applications. Support for many of the
anticipatetdo enhancesituationawarenesfsor all
longer-term ATM applications is currently restricted
participan1t1s-.13Howeverr,eliabilityandintegrityof
by information available on avionics buses.
broadcainsttendtataneedtsobedemonstrabteedforesuch
However, new sources of intent information may
informationcan be usedfor traffic management
become available. 24 Near-term applications such as
applicationCso.ntrollewrsillthenhavehighecronfidence
RNP navigation should drive the development of
thataircrewhsavecorrectlpyrogrammaesdsignerodutes these data sources. The intent framework established
andaltitudeasndareabletocomplwyiththoseclearances.
by the new TS and TC reports enables these data to
be incorporated as avionics systems are evolved and
Aircrafitntenitsanenablintgechnologfoyrseveranlew
as needed to meet surveillance application
ATMconceptsN. ASAiscurrentliynvestigatiangfree
requirements.
flightconcepktnownasDistributeAdirGroundTraffic
Manageme(DnAt G-TM3).Inthisenvironmeanitr,crews
wouldwork collaborativewlyith air trafficservice References
providertsoresolveairspacaendtrafficconflictsand
enablueser-preferrreoduting.Effectiveconflicpt robes 1"Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards
willbecriticatloachievinthgesegoals.Enhancepdath
for Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
definitioenlementssu,chastargeatltitudeandTCtype,
(ADS-B)," RTCA, DO-242, Washington, 1998.
provideidntheTSandTCreportsshouldenabltehese
probetsoworkeffectivewlyhenaircrafatreoperatining
2Wang, G. and Hammer, J., "Analysis of an
diverseflightmodes. Theconformancmeonitoring
Approach Spacing Application," 4th USA(cid:0)Europe Air
parameteprrsovisioneindtheTCreporsthouldprovide
Traffic Management R&D Seminar,
adequapteathintegritfyorenablinngewATMconcepts,
http://atm2001.eurocontrol.fr/, Santa Fe, NM, Dec.
whilepreservinogrenhancitnogday'ssafetmyargins. 2001.
TCreporet nhancememnatsyalsobenefigtroundtools 3Ballin, M.G., Wing, D.J., Hughes, M.F., and
suchastheCenteTrRACONAutomatioSnyste(mCTAS).
Conway, S.R., "Airborne Separation Assurance and
CTASusesaircrafttrajectorypredictiontso help
Traffic Management: Research of Concepts and
controllerwsithsequencianngdmergingoperationins
Technology," AIAA Paper 99-3989, 1999.
busyterminaalirspaceI.nthefuture,CTASmayuse
broadcasotfson-boartdrajectoriynformatiotnorefine 4Zhao, Y., Haissig, C., and Hoflman, M., "Analysis
predictionmsadebyground-bastreadjectorgyenerators.of Pilot Intent Parameters inAir Traffic
Anticipateimdprovemeinntspathaccuracdyerivedfrom
Management," Proceedings of the American Control
broadcaisnttentshouldallowmoreefficientairspace
ConJbrence, Vol. 3, AACC, Philadelphia, 1998, pp.
managemaenndtincreastheelikelihootdhatpilotswillbe 1789-1792.
abletoflyuser-prefertrreadjectories)
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
5CashioPn.a,ndLozitoS,.,"TheEffectosfDifferent
_SRose, A., "The Airborne Impact of Mode S
LevelosfIntenItnformatioonnPilotSelf-Separation Enhanced Surveillance and Down-linked Aircraft
Performance,"
Proceedings of the lOthInternational Parameters," Eurocontrol, SUR3.82.ST03.2150, Nov.
Symposium onAviation Psychology, Vol. 1,Ohio State 1999.
Univ., Columbus, OH, 1999, pp. 177-182.
16Barber, S. and Ponnau, M., "Review of Register
6Wing, D.J. et. al., "Airborne Use of Traffic Intent 4,0," Surveillance and Conflict Resolution Systems
Information in a Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Panel (SCRSP) Surveillance Systems WG/B, Rio de
Management Concept: Experiment Design and Preliminary Janeiro, Apr. 2001.
Analysis," NASA, TM-2001-211254, Hampton, VA, Nov.
2001. _7Barhydt, R. and Warren, A.W., "Development of
Intent Information Changes to Revised Minimum
7Barhydt, R., and Hansman, R.J., "Experimental Studies of Aviation System Performance Standards for
Intent Information onCockpit Traffic Displays, "Journal Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 22,No. 4, 1999, (RTCA/DO-242A)," NASA, TM-2002-211669,
pp. 520-527. Hampton, VA, May 2002.
SPalmer, E. et. al., "An Operational Concept for Flying lSRoca, J., "Report of the Focus Area 2:
FIVISTrajectories in Center and TRACON Airspace," Requirements of Decision Support Tool Developers,"
Proceedings of the lOthInternational Symposium on FAA/Eurocontrol Technical Interchange Meeting,
Aviation Psychology, Vol. 1,Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Shared Flight Intent InJbrmation and Aircrafl Intent
OH, 1999, pp. 633-639. Data, on disc, FAA, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000.
9Warren, A.W. and Ebrahimi, Y.S., "Vertical Path 19"Downlink of Airborne Parameters, Study on
Trajectory Prediction for Next Generation ATM," 'Selected Altitude' Parameter," Airbus, NT
Proceedings of the 17th Digital Avionics Systems 555.1172/00, 2000.
ConJerence, Vol. 2,Inst. of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, New York, 1998, pp. F1l-l-F11-8. 2°"Advanced Flight Management Computer System,"
ARINC, 702A-1, Annapolis, MD, Jan. 2000.
1°"Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards:
Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation," 21Casaux, F., "Report of the Focus Area 3,"
RTCA, DO-236A, Washington, 2000. FAA/Eurocontrol Technical Interchange Meeting,
Shared Flight Intent InJbrmation and Aircrafl Intent
HDuBois, N., "Calliope, Flight Plan Consistency," Data, on disc, FAA, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000.
FAA/Eurocontrol Technical Interchange Meeting, Shared
Flight Intent InJbrmation and Aircrafl Intent Data, on disc, 22Reynolds, T.G. and Hansman, R.J., "Analysis of
FAA, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000. Separation Minima Using a Surveillance State Vector
Approach," 3rd USA(cid:0)Europe Air TraJfic Management
_2Whysall, P., "Intent Data Support for Ground-Based R&D Seminar, http://atm-seminar-
Trajectory Prediction," FAA/Eurocontrol Technical 2000.eurocontrol.fr/, Napoli, Italy, June 2000.
Interchange Meeting, Shared Flight Intent InJbrmation and
Aircraft Intent Data, on disc, FAA, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 23"Automatic Dependent Surveillance
2000. Requirements," Eurocontrol,
SUR/ET3/ST06.3220/001 Ed. 0.9, June 2001.
_3Bradford, S., "Flight Intent Concept," FAA/Eurocontrol
Technical Interchange Meeting, Shared Flight Intent 24Rowe, B., "Honeywell Flight Management System
InJbrmation and Aircraft Intent Data, on disc, FAA, (FMS) -Present and Planned," FAA/Eurocontrol
Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000. Technical Interchange Meeting, Shared Flight Intent
InJbrmation and Aircrafl Intent Data, on disc, FAA,
14Verlohren, C., "Value of Intent Data: From the Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000.
Perspective of a Service Provider," FAA/Eurocontrol
Technical Interchange Meeting, Shared Flight Intent
InJbrmation and Aircraft Intent Data, on disc, FAA,
Atlantic City, NJ, Oct. 2000.
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics