Avionics Configuration Assessment for Flightdeck Interval Management: A Comparison of Avionics and Notification Methods

Flightdeck Interval Management is one of the NextGen operational concepts that FAA is sponsoring to realize requisite National Airspace System (NAS) efficiencies. Interval Management will reduce variability in temporal deviations at a position, and thereby reduce buffers typically applied by controllers - resulting in higher arrival rates, and more efficient operations. Ground software generates a strategic schedule of aircraft pairs. Air Traffic Control (ATC) provides an IM clearance with the IM spacing objective (i.e., the TTF, and at which point to achieve the appropriate spacing from this aircraft) to the IM aircraft. Pilots must dial FIM speeds into the speed window on the Mode Control Panel in a timely manner, and attend to deviations between actual speed and the instantaneous FIM profile speed. Here, the crew is assumed to be operating the aircraft with autothrottles on, with autopilot engaged, and the autoflight system in Vertical Navigation (VNAV) and Lateral Navigation (LNAV); and is responsible for safely flying the aircraft while maintaining situation awareness of their ability to follow FIM speed commands and to achieve the FIM spacing goal. The objective of this study is to examine whether three Notification Methods and four Avionics Conditions affect pilots' performance, ratings on constructs associated with performance (workload, situation awareness), or opinions on acceptability. Three Notification Methods (alternate visual and aural alerts that notified pilots to the onset of a speed target, conformance deviation from the required speed profile, and reminded them if they failed to enter the speed within 10 seconds) were examined. These Notification Methods were: VVV (visuals for all three events), VAV (visuals for all three events, plus an aural for speed conformance deviations), and AAA (visual indications and the same aural to indicate all three of these events). Avionics Conditions were defined by the instrumentation (and location) used to present IM information to crews: (1) Integrated (IM information is embedded in extant PFD (Primary Flight Display), ND (Navigation Display), EICAS (Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System) displays); (2) EFB_Aft (IM information is only supplied in an EFB and mounted in location similar to that for MITRE's UPS work); (3) EFB_Fore (IM information is only supplied in an EFB which is mounted more forward, under the side window), and (4) EFB_Aft plus use of an AGD (the same IM information is supplied in an EFB and on an AGD, both mounted in locations similar to that in MITRE's UPS work ). Twelve commercial pilot crews flew descent scenarios (VNAV Speed with the mode control panel (MCP) speed window open until flaps extended, then VNAV Path) in a commercial transport flight simulator with realistic visual scene and communications. The results of this study serve three practical aims: (1) contribute to the down-select of avionics configuration for future assessment of the ASTAR spacing algorithm at NASA; (2) provide information useful to the FAA Human Factors Division (ANG-C1)'s mission to identify issues pertinent to flight certification of, and flight standards; (3) identify methodological considerations in support of future FIM human-in-the-loop (HITL) investigations.