NLR

Back to General
Search National Aerospace Laboratory NLR
Top TOC Help
The Netherlands

VIEW Free Flight in a Crowded Airspace?

3FMS NEAN Subject This paper will try to demonstrate via analysis and simulation results, why it is Author(s) J.M. Hoekstra, R.C.J. Ruigrok, R.N.H.W. van Gent
precisely high density situations that require the power of a distributed system. It
ADS NEAP describes the concept as designed in the NLR study as an example of the
Keywords Traffic Analysis, Distributed Systems
implementation of the Free Flight concept. Filename nlr_atm_00.pdf
AFMS NLR Architecture & Design Date 1 June, 2000

AIRSAW PETAL Flight Trials VIEW Overview of NLR Free Flight project 1997-1999

ARINC RHEA Mathematical Model Subject NLR has investigated the feasibility of Free Flight concepts with airborne separation Author(s) J.M. Hoekstra, R.C.J. Ruigrok, R.N.H.W. van Gent, J.
during several years of research in collaboration with NASA, the FAA and the RLD Visser, B. Gijsbers, M.S.V. Valenti Clari, W.W.M.
(Dutch Civil Aviation Authorities). Issues that have been addressed are: conflict Heesbeen, B.G. Hilburn, J. Groeneweg, F.J.L. Bussink
DAG-TM RTCA Operational Concepts detection & resolution methods, complex conflict geometries, pilot workload, pilot Keywords CR&R, Human-in-the-loop, CDTI, Safety, Transition
acceptability, display symbology, safety (both objective & subjective), mixed
issues
EMERALD SafeFlight21 Program, Planning, Progress equippage procedures, transition issues. These issues have been investigated using
Filename tp-2000-227.pdf
different techniques, tools and simulations.
Date 9 May, 2000
EUROCAE SUPRA Simulation results
FARAWAY TELSACS Standards and Requirements VIEW Self-Separation from the Air and Ground Perspective

Subject This paper describes the research of both NASA Ames and NLR as it pertains to the Author(s) Margaret-Anne Mackintosh, Melisa Dunbar, Sandra
FREER TORCH task of self-separation. Air-Ground integration issues are presented from the NASA Lozito, Patricia Cashion, Alison McGann, Victoria
Ames study, and results from an NLR human-in-the-loop study examining the flight Dulchinos (NASA) Rob Ruigrok, Jacco Hoekstra, Ronald
Glasgow Uni TUB deck perspective of self-separation are provided. The variables that were studied Van Gent (NLR)
within these two investigations were traffic density, convergence angles, maneuvering Keywords
automation, and nonnominal cases.
MAICA Filename nlr_atm_98.pdf
Date 1 December, 1998

Back to Main TOC Back to NLR TOC

Air Traffic Controller Strategies in Resolving Free Flight Traffic Conflicts:
The Effect of Enhanced Controller Displays for Situation Awareness

W. D. Pekela, B. Hilburn
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR

Copyright © 1997 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT (Van Gent, Hoekstra & Ruigrok, 1997; Smith, Knecht,

Free Flight (FF) would permit aircraft to fly preferred
routes, and self-separate, with minimal ATC
intervention. The controller would be expected to
intervene tactically only as necessary to ensure
separation. Based on the results of earlier
experiments at the NLR, an enhanced ATC display
was developed that incorporated airborne-derived
conflict detection and resolution information. Trials
with controllers demonstrated benefits in terms of
monitoring time and performance, as well as in
general acceptance. Two important issues were
identified for future work: (1) FF training needs and (2)
controller responses to abnormal system modes.
INTRODUCTION
Although “Free Flight” (FF) is a recent and still loosely-
defined concept (RTCA, 1995), research into aspects
of the FF concept (e.g., direct routing, self separation)
is proceeding quickly. According to a vision of mature
FF, aircraft outside of terminal areas would generally
be free to fly user-preferred routes, and modify their
trajectories en route, with minimal intervention by air
traffic control. They would likely do so using some
sort of airborne conflict detection and resolution tools.
Under likely near-term FF scenarios, the controller
would continue to play an important (albeit altered)
role. One responsibility of the future air traffic
controller would be tactical intervention in the event
that FF had to be cancelled. Such cancellation might
occur if aircraft failed to self separate. In order to
properly intervene, however, the controller would have
to have an accurate understanding of both the present
traffic pattern, and the intended actions of each
aircraft. Without such an understanding, the controller
might be faced with the choice of doing (a) nothing at
all, for fear of disturbing the situation further, or (b)
assuming restrictive control of all aircraft, thereby
reducing system efficiency (Dekker, 1996).
Previous research into the airborne aspects of free
flight has revealed some general principles about how
pilots and airborne systems might be expected to
behave under a system of airborne self separation
Scallen & Hancock, 1997). This research has also
identified certain closure geometries (e.g, in-trail
overtaking) that can produce problematic or
inconsistent AC maneuvers. Other previous research
has identified those traffic geometries that controllers
tend to find most difficult (Day, 1994). Previous
research has also examined the effect of FF on
controllers’ workload, monitoring, and control
strategies (Hilburn, Bakker & Pekela, 1997). This
study revealed that controller acceptance of free flight
traffic scenarios was highly dependent on the
controller’s being kept informed of airborne intent.
Such intent information would allow the controller to
verify that aircraft were co-ordinating evasive
manoeuvres, and would be necessary if the controller
were ever required to arbitrate or resolve a
problematic traffic situation. Controllers felt that short-
term intent information (e.g., that provided by Mode
Control Panel selections) would provide adequate
look-ahead time, and that longer-term (e.g., flight plan)
information was not necessary.
An ATC simulation was carried out at the NLR into
how controllers resolve FF traffic scenarios. At issue
was whether the ground display of airborne
manoeuvring intentions would benefit controllers’
performance with free flight traffic samples.
Specifically, would an enhanced display show benefits
in terms of: workload, monitoring for separation
assurance; tactical intervention patterns, or subjective
acceptance of the free flight concept? The simulation
for this experiment was built around an enhanced
controller display that presented a view of traffic
information and conflict detection and resolution
(CD&R) information derived from a prototype airborne
traffic display. This display was developed as part of
NLR’s airborne free flight research (Van Gent,
Hoekstra & Ruigrok, 1997).
METHODS
PARTICIPANTS - Test participants were seven United
Kingdom RAF military air traffic controllers. All were
currently-active controllers in either the Glasgow or
London military air traffic control centre. Age ranged
from roughly 28 to 38.
ATC SIMULATION - The experiment was performed RA to initiation of evasive maneuver. Notice that,
on the NLR ATC Research Simulator (NARSIM). Two without such a delay in our studies, controllers would
adjacent displays were used for the experiment: a have generally been unable to monitor resolutions—
conventional Plan View Display (PVD), and a Cockpit required evasive maneuvers tend to be very small in
Display Traffic Information (CDTI) display. The CDTI en route airspace, especially with longer look-ahead
was based on a prototype CDTI designed for recent times. As a result, making a heading change of, say,
NLR airborne free flight trials (Van Gent, Hoekstra & five degrees is accomplished within one radar
Ruigrok, 1997), which simulated aircraft self sweep—that is, too fast for the controller to monitor.
separation using CDTI display of detected conflicts In the current study, conflicts (and their associated
and commanded Resolution Advisories (RAs). The RAs) were presented for 30 seconds before aircraft
CDTI display made available to the controller an echo took evasive action.
of the same cockpit view, for the active (i.e.,
controller-selected) aircraft. This experiment assumed If a loss-of-separation conflict was detected by the
a mature free flight scenario, in which (1) all aircraft ASAS module, aircraft symbols in the CDTI lateral
were equipped with ADS-B and can broadcast view turned red, and a countdown timer appeared
altitude, speed, rate of climb / descent, and ground above the callsigns to indicate time to loss-of-
track, and (2) both air and ground have identical separation. When the controller activated an aircraft
conflict detection and resolution algorithms. (by mouse click selecting it), both the lateral and
vertical views of the CDTI were displayed, regardless
For the experiment, the PVD and CDTI were of whether the aircraft was currently in conflict. If the
positioned directly adjacent to each other, with the controller selected a conflict aircraft, both windows of
PVD to the left of the CDTI. The PVD was displayed the CDTI displayed conflict and resolution advisory
on a standard 20 inch CRT display. The PVD was not information (i.e., current and advised resolution
equipped with any sort of conflict detection or trajectory).
presentation (e.g. STCA). All information regarding
conflicts and resolutions was displayed on the 17 inch
CDTI screen. The CDTI presented two separate
views: a “lateral” plan view, and an “altitude” elevation
view. The lateral traffic view had a fixed orientation
(as on the PVD) . When an aircraft was selected on
the PVD, that aircraft image on the CDTI lateral view
turned yellow. A “protected zone” (corresponding to
RVSM standards of 5 nm laterally and 1000 ft
vertically) and a trajectory prediction vector were also
simultaneously displayed. The vertical view was a
range display that presented distance from the other
traffic to the “ownship” selected on the PVD. The
vertical view was ownship-referenced, with ownship on
the left side and surrounded by a yellow box
(representing the protected zone) and a predicted
trajectory vector. Figure 1 shows the CDTI.

For this experiment, the NARSIM was equipped with

an Airborne Separation Assurance System (ASAS)
that checked for conflicts every 2 seconds. This was Figure 1. CDTI screen showing lateral view (top)
a “level zero intent” ASAS, which made no use of and vertical view (bottom) windows.
intent information. Thus its logic was based on
In order to create challenging traffic geometries, traffic
extrapolation of the current aircraft state vector. The
samples were based on interviews of operational
conflict detection algorithm was based on that
controllers, as well as a review of conflict geometry
described by Krozel and Peters (1997) which
interactions (Day, 1994). The resulting traffic
extrapolates current aircraft state (speed, rate of
scenarios were a combination of the following basic
climb/descent, and ground track) and checks whether
geometries: (1) Oblique (near head-on) convergence
the minimum distance between two aircraft is smaller
with one descending and one ascending aircraft; (2)
than the dimensions of the protected zones, within the
in-trail, with one descending and one ascending
look-ahead time. Conflict resolution used a “quickest
aircraft; and (3) Oblique convergence with aircraft at
way out” principle (Van Gent, Hoekstra & Ruigrok,
same level. Traffic samples were also varied in terms
1997), without preference for one dimension.
of traffic density: 2, 4 or 10 aircraft under
simultaneous sector control.
Based on results of the airborne free flight study (van
Gent, Hoekstra & Ruigrok, 1997), it was decided to
PROCEDURE
incorporate a 30 second delay into the RA behavior.
In that study, it was discovered that pilots tended to
After completing a pre-test questionnaire concerning
have a response time of roughly 25-30 seconds, from
attitudes toward FF, controllers each received three
hours of familiarisation and training. During this time,
each was introduced to both FF traffic patterns, and
the interface for the experiment. Afterward, each
controller was presented a series of four 45-minute
test sessions. Each session consisted of a series of
short (3-7 minute) scenarios. Although standard
current-day air routes were displayed, aircraft
transited the airspace along direct “great circle”
routes. Aircraft flight labels were similar to current-day
standard, except that simplified call signs were used to
ease memory load. Scenarios were carefully-scripted
vignettes that systematically varied traffic load, traffic
closure geometry, and ASAS “Look-ahead” time (i.e.,
how much advance warning the system gave of
impending losses of separation). For two of the four
sessions, controllers had available only their standard
PVD (the PVD-only display configuration), whereas in
the other two sessions controllers had both displays
(the CDTI display configuration). Nearly-identical
session scripts were used for matched PVD-only and
CDTI display sessions, and session presentation order
was varied across subjects.
During each session, controllers monitored a series of
short scenarios. Since there was no closed-loop (e.g.,
pseudo-pilot) control of scripted aircraft, controllers
were unable to actually influence the traffic pattern.
However, as a means of indicating preferred
interventions, controllers verbally reported any actions
they would have taken on aircraft, had aircraft been
under ATC control. To provide an indication of
controllers’ ability to detect conflicts (and subsequent
ASAS resolutions), controllers were instructed to
follow a verbal call-out procedure, whereby they
provided an ongoing report of any noteworthy aircraft
pairs, according to the following criticality scale:
1. Don’t know / no comment
2. No problems
3. Possible conflict(s), but still time for self-
separation
4. Likely conflict, but still time for self-separation
5. Likely conflict, I would now cancel free flight.
Callsigns were reported whenever an aircraft pair
either increased, or decreased in criticality. In addition
to giving spontaneous reports, controllers were also
prompted once every 60 seconds to provide a report.
For any situations identified as criticality level 3 or
higher, controllers were instructed to report both
callsigns (for each aircraft pair) and preferred
resolution.
RESULTS
Data analysis for this experiment is ongoing. Thus far,
analysis has centred on controllers’ monitoring
performance, reported workload, and visual scanning
behavior.
Conflict self-reports were used to assess controllers’
monitoring performance. Controllers were instructed
to verbally report whenever a potential loss-of-
separation conflict started (“reported conflict”) or
ended (“reported resolution”). For purposes of data
analysis, reported conflicts were defined as situation
ratings at or above the “Level 3” threshold; Reported
resolutions were defined as subsequent “return to
Level 2” ratings for the same aircraft pair. Rating
times were compared against two respective criterion
times: time-of-first-intrusion (for reported conflicts) and
subsequent onset of non-positive closure (for reported
resolutions). These self-reported conflicts permitted
us to determine when controllers first detected a
conflict situation, and when they first noticed that the
situation had been resolved. It had been
hypothesized that the presence of the CDTI would
enhance controllers’ detection ability. Three separate
conflict detection measures were computed:
• Time—the elapsed time between the conflict onset
(or resolution) time and the controller’s report of
same (notice that conflict reports generally
preceded system conflict alerts, and resolution
reports generally followed system resolutions;
• Hit rate—the percentage of all conflicts (or
resolutions) that were detected;
• False alarms—the absolute number of erroneous
conflict (or resolution) reports.
CONFLICT DETECTION PERFORMANCE - In terms
of conflict detection time, there was no clear
advantage of either the standard PVD configuration,
or the dual screen CDTI configuration. There was
only a one second difference between the average
latencies associated with each: 303 seconds
(sd=107) for the PVD configuration, and 304 seconds
(sd=93) for the CDTI configuration. The CDTI
configuration showed a slightly higher hit rate (88%
versus 82%). There was no difference in number of
false alarms (47) between the two configurations.
RESOLUTION DETECTION PERFORMANCE - In
terms of resolution detection time, the CDTI
configuration showed a 21 second decrease over the
single-screen PVD-only mode. The CDTI configuration
also showed a slightly higher hit rate (75% versus
67.8%) and fewer false alarms (26 versus 30) than the
PVD-only configuration.
SURVEY RESPONSES - All controllers agreed (or
strongly agreed) that “the CDTI was a useful tool.”
General comments showed that controllers tended to
rely more on the vertical view than the plan view
portion of the CDTI, as a tool for monitoring self-
separation. Under high traffic, controllers reported
reverting to the PVD alone.
SUBJECTIVE WORKLOAD - Controllers were asked
at the end of each scenario to rate their workload over
the course of that scenario. Comparisons were then
made, within each controller, of relative workload of sessions. This suggests that training and
the PVD and CDTI conditions. What this showed is familiarisation time should have been lengthened.
that, on average: the PVD condition was rated higher
workload in 31% of all ratings; the CDTI was rated
higher workload in 40% of ratings; and the two display
60
conditions were rated the same workload in 28.9% of 
H
ratings. W
X
Q
L
50
P
CONTROLLER SCAN PATTERNS - Visual scan 
V
traces can reveal much about how controllers tend to Q
R
40
L
use an interface. For instance, it might have been that W
D
[ PVD
controllers tended to ignore the CDTI except under L
I
 30 CDTI

certain circumstances (e.g., conflict conditions). In H
W
D
U
fact, in the dual-screen configuration, controllers 
Q
R 20
tended to fixate both screens with equal frequency, L
W
D
but only as long as traffic was low. As traffic [
L
I
O
increased, controllers tended to look at the PVD much D
10
X
more often. This effect (F(2,18)=33.7, p<.0001) is V
L
9
shown in figure 2. 0
No Conflict Conflict
&RQIOLFWV WDWXV

80

H 70
Figure 3. Visual fixation rate in dual-screen
W
X
Q
configuration, by display screen and conflict
L
P
 60 status.

V
Q
R
L 50
W
D
DISCUSSION
[
L
PVD
I

 40 CDTI
H
W This experiment was an attempt to integrate an
D
U
30 airborne-derived traffic display into the controller’s
Q
R
L
W
workstation, to provide the controller a means of better
D
[
L 20 monitoring aircraft maneuvers in a self-separation
I
O
D
environment. Although controller comments were
X
LV
10 primarily positive with respect to the auxiliary CDTI
9
display, behavioral data showed that they tended to
0 revert back to the PVD under extremely high traffic.
Low Medium High This is not surprising given the limited time available
7UDIILF for familiarisation and training on the new display.

Figure 2. Visual fixation rate in dual-screen
configuration, by display screen and traffic.
There was also an tendency for controllers to rely
more on the CDTI as conflicts appeared. Under
conflict-free conditions, controllers tended to use the
PVD much more often then in conflict conditions.
When a conflict did occur, controllers tended to shift
their attention to the CDTI—fixating the PVD less
frequently, and fixating the CDTI more frequently. This
effect (F(1,9)=4.77, p=.057) is shown in figure 3.
REPORTED STRATEGIES - Post-test surveys tended
to support the preceding visual scanning data: All but
one of the controllers reported that they used the
CDTI more under conflict conditions. This fit with our
expectation that, once accustomed to the display,
controllers would come to rely on the CDTI (especially
the vertical view of the CDTI) during conflict
conditions. Several controllers reported that they
increasingly relied on the CDTI over the course of the
The difficulty in training controllers for FF displays is
compounded by the fact that FF traffic can move in
ways that are fundamentally foreign to how controllers
currently control traffic. For instance, because both a
loss of vertical and horizontal separation are
necessary for a true loss of separation, controllers are
accustomed to varying only one dimension at a time.
Take, for example, the case of two aircraft that are
converging both laterally and vertically. To achieve
safe passage, a controller will typically either turn
aircraft parallel until vertical separation is achieved, or
will maintain altitude separation until lateral
displacement is achieved. In free flight conditions,
however, aircraft will likely choose more optimal
avoidance vectors— for instance a climbing turn—that
just avoid the “protected zone” of the other aircraft.
This implies that controllers under free flight might
need not only redesigned displays, but also
fundamentally new approaches to conceptualising air
traffic movements. This point was underscored by
controllers’ visual scanning behavior in high traffic
conditions. Although they tended to use the CDTI
under conflict conditions, under high traffic they
reverted back to the familiar— that is, their normal van Gent, Hoekstra & Ruigrok (1997) who found five
PVD. minutes to be the optimal look-ahead for airborne
CD&R logic. This suggests that controllers might be
The ASAS module provided actual look-ahead times, able to comfortably monitor airborne self separation.
from alert to first loss of separation, of 157 seconds to Whether they can do so reliably and safely, however,
428 seconds (mean = 251 seconds). The large range is another question.
was due to differences in both nominal look-ahead
time (experimentally manipulated as 3,5, or 7 minutes) REFERENCES
and closure geometry. Notice that controllers
generally reported conflicts 53 seconds earlier than 1. Day, P.O.. (1994). Air Traffic Systems Strategies
did ASAS system alerts, at 304 versus 251 seconds Studies (ATSRATS) Interaction Index, Roke Manor
Research Ltd.
prior to loss-of-separation, respectively. These data 2. Dekker, S.A. (1996). Cognitive complexity in
explain why no effect of display condition was found management by exception: deriving early human factors
on controllers’ conflict detection time: controllers, in requirements for an envisioned air traffic management
effect, used a longer conflict detection look-ahead world. In D. Harris [Ed.] Engineering psychology and
time than did the ASAS algorithm. cognitive ergonomics. volume one: transportation
systems.
3. Gent, R. van, Hoekstra, J.M. & Ruigrok, R.C.J. (1997).
Further, these data suggest that a free flight conflict Free flight with airborne separation assurance. In
probe for air traffic controllers should have a look- Proceedings of the Confederation of European
ahead capability of well over five minutes. Aerospace Societies (CEAS) 10th European Aerospace
Conference, 20-21 October 1997, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
The data did, however, match our expectations about 4. Hilburn, B., Bakker, M.W.P. & Pekela, W.D.(1997). The
how controllers would tend to use the CDTI once a Effect of Free Flight on Air Traffic Controller Mental
conflict was predicted. Overall, the CDTI (and, in Workload, Monitoring and System Performance.
particular, the vertical view) seemed very useful in Technical Paper TP98237. Amsterdam, The
helping controllers monitor near-conflict situations. Netherlands: NLR.
5. Krozel, J. & Peters, M. (1997). Conflict detection and
Once familiar with the display, controllers tended to resolution for free flight. Air Traffic Control Quarterly,
use the CDTI vertical view as a quick means of 5(3).
assuring separation in both the vertical and lateral 6. RTCA, Inc. (1995). Final report of the RTCA task force
dimension. As long as an intruder remained outside of 3: free flight implementation. Washington, DC: Radio
the active aircraft’s protected zone, no loss-of- Technical Commission for Aeronautics
7. Smith, K., Knecht, W.R., Scallen, S.F. & Hancock, P.A.
separation was indicated. A few controllers also (1997). An index of dynamic density for free flight. In
commented on the usefulness of the vertical view as a Proceedings of the Confederation of European
means of quickly assessing rate of closure. Aerospace Societies (CEAS) 10th European Aerospace
Conference, 20-21 October 1997, Amsterdam, The
Analysis of the current experiment is ongoing. Future Netherlands.
analysis will focus on two main questions: First, how
did the introduction of non-nominal (malfunction)
scenarios influence controller behavior (e.g., ABBREVIATIONS
intervention pattern, conflict prediction performance);
Second, did controllers’ preferred resolution strategies ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
fit with those of the ASAS? It is quite likely that if a Broadcast
CD&R algorithm tends to “choose” solutions that ASAS Airborne Separation Assurance
match those of controllers (e.g., vertical versus lateral System
versus speed resolutions) then controllers will be even ATC Air Traffic Control
more accepting of the system. CD&R Conflict Detection and Resolution
CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information
The CD&R algorithms for the current study used CRT Cathode Ray Tube
simple extrapolation of aircraft state, rather than any FF Free Flight
level of actual aircraft-derived intent. Intent (and NARSIM NLR ATC Research Simulator
hence CD&R accuracy) could be enhanced through NLR National Aerospace Laboratory of the
the use of, say, Mode Control Panel selections, or Netherlands
flightplan data. For the current study, the distinction PVD Plan View Display
was not important, since aircraft flew straight routes CD&R Conflict Display and Resolution
unless conflicts forced a deviation. Thus state vector RA Resolution Advisory
was always an accurate indicator of intent. From the RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima
controller’s perspective, CD&R look-ahead time STCA Short term Conflict Alert
involves a compromise between information certainty
and timeliness. In the current study, ASAS nominal
look-ahead time was set to 3, 5 and 7 minutes. The
current study demonstrated that unaided controllers
tend to use a look-ahead of just over 5 minutes in
detecting conflicts. This number fits well with that of