Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS


SOURDINE I I Report Summary

Project ID: 11011
Funded under: FP5-GROWTH
Country: Netherlands

Prototypes of pilot tools and air-traffic controller tools

1.Pilot and controller tools

1.1. Flight Deck displays
In support of the Sourdine procedures, the following items are added on the flight deck:
- Vertical navigation display
- Flap deployment cues
See [D6-2] for more details on the navigation displays.

Further modifications are assumed not to be required. The relevant procedure is assumed to be available in the navigation database. Which is for the experiment the case.

Pilot feedback on Flap/gear deployment cues
- The use of cues for the selection of Flaps 1 and Flaps 2 is helpful; the cues for gear down, Flaps 3 and Flaps full cause too much clutter on the display. These three points are located too close together and below 2000 ft, they are not very useful. Common practice to lower gear at 2000 ft is used.
- The speed is sometimes too high to select the flaps at the indicated position (which may result in disregard of these points). In case of overspeed, the flaps/gear selection advisory should be adjusted so that the advise does not result in overstressing the aircraft.
- The flap and gear deployment cues have to be optimised according to the prevailing wind conditions, otherwise, the predictions are incorrect. Furthermore, finetuning is needed for the exact location of the cues on the profile (e.g. putting the points somewhat later could optimise noise and fuel burn).
- The cues for Flaps 3, Flaps full and gear down result in too much clutter.
- The influence of wind conditions should be taken into consideration. A more dynamic tool (that is maybe adaptive) is desired, for example, the possibility of pilot input to customise the approach.
- It is suggested to keep the deployment cues in view after the aircraft has passed them. In the present setup, the indications disappear as soon as the aircraft has passed them. The clues are then removed, but they may still be needed in case the selections have not yet been made.

1.2. Ground tools
Controllers will be provided with two tools when working with the Sourdine procedures. These are Ghosting and monitoring aids.

A ghosting tool projects the position of an aircraft onto another plane. For the Sourdine II prototyping sessions, the inbound aircraft from the SUGOL IAF are projected onto the RIVER arrival route. This provides the controller with information about the relative positions of the aircraft on the two inbound routes, prior to merging into a single stream.

The current version of the tool uses a basic ghosting algorithm that determines the distance to go (along track) to a projection-point on the route. This distance is then backtracked across a given path in order to determine the location of the ghost plot. This path can either be a straight line or a predefined route (e.g., RIVER arrival route). For the projection point the NARSI position was configured, as all arrivals will have to be merged at this location, even those aircraft that were cleared to proceed direct from SUGOL to NARSI, skipping the MICOL merging point.

Monitoring aids
Monitoring aids compare the current flight data with the system trajectory and detects any deviations from the cleared flight level or the cleared lat/lon route. In case, a deviation of the flight from the system trajectory is detected, a non-conformance warning (NCW) is issued. These NCWs are displayed in line 0 of the label and have the following meaning:
- FL DEV means that a deviation from the cleared flight level has been detected,
- FL Bust means that the cleared flight level has been busted,
- LAT DEV means that the deviation from the cleared route has been detected.

Controller feedback on Ghosting tool
- Ghosting was experienced as very helpful.
- It facilitates the merging of inbound streams from RIVER and SUGOL, which is done by the FDR/DCO.
- Participants considered whether it would be advantageous to display the ghost plot on the basis of time rather than distance (as it is currently done).
- If ghosting was based on time, the information could also be provided to ACC.

Controller feedback on Monitoring Aids
- Participants appreciated the general idea of providing monitoring aids to the controller. Nevertheless, they were not fully satisfied with the chosen implementation.
- First, it was noted that FL deviations were only detected in case the aircraft descended without being cleared for the CDA (i.e., the CDA was not entered in the label). In contrast, there was no FL deviation, if the aircraft was cleared for a CDA, but did not initiate it in time.
- Secondly, it was maintained that if the ARR and FDR/DCO s tasks primarily consist in monitoring, then there be a broader set of monitoring alerts. For instance, controllers could be warned in case of insufficient separation between a heavy and the subsequent aircraft.

Reported by

National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR)
Anthony Fokkerweg 2
See on map
Follow us on: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Managed by the EU Publications Office Top