Flight deck surface trajectory-based operations (STBO): A four-dimensional trajectory (4DT) simulation

Abstract

In four-dimensional trajectory (4DT) Surface Trajectory-Based Operations (STBO), aircraft are assigned a conflict-free 4DT which defines an expected location (x, y coordinates) at all times, t, along the taxi route (with altitude, being fixed). These 4DTs afford the highest temporal certainty at all points along the taxi route, and at the departure runway. In the present study, a 4DT flight deck display was presented on the Airport Moving Map (AMM) to support pilot conformance to a 4DT clearance while taxiing under manual control. This pilot-in-the-loop simulation compared the effect of 4DT flight deck display formats on distance from the expected 4DT location, conformance to the displayed tolerance band, eyes-out time, and pilot ratings of safety and workload. In the defined-tolerance display format, a graphical representation of the expected 4DT location, with a distance-based allowable-tolerance band, was depicted on the AMM. Two defined-tolerance band sizes were tested +/−164 ft and +/−405 ft. In the undefined-tolerance display format, the expected 4DT location was displayed graphically on the AMM, with no indicated allowable-tolerance bounds. Each taxi trial included 4DT speed changes (two or five, per trial) and a range of 4DT taxi speeds. Results showed that the larger (+/−405 ft) defined-tolerance band yielded higher conformance levels than the smaller (+/−164 ft) band, with pilots staying within the specified and displayed conformance bounds more in the larger (99.71%) than the smaller defined-tolerance band (93.37%). However, in terms of being able to predict the location of the aircraft compared to the expected 4DT location, the smaller defined-tolerance band resulted in pilots keeping their aircraft closer to the 4DT location, for both average distance and for a given confidence interval (e.g., 95%), than either the larger defined-tolerance band or the undefined-tolerance display format. The larger tolerance band yielded more “eyes out-the-window” time than the smaller tolerance band. Pilots also rated taxing with the larger tolerance band as safer than the smaller tolerance band.