Embodiments of the subject matter described herein relate generally to avionics display systems. More particularly, embodiments of the subject matter described herein relate to a system and method for displaying symbology on an In-Trail Procedure (ITP) display representative of intruder aircraft having navigational accuracy below current standards for display.
While there is little or no radar in oceanic regions, there occur a vast number of flights over such regions. For example, on a typical day, hundreds of flights cross the North Atlantic, most of which operate on standard routes. In addition to a large number of aircraft operating in an oceanic environment, the majority of flights occur during a relatively small time window primarily due to airline requests to accommodate destination airport curfew restrictions and customer convenience. Thus, many flights operate on similar routes around the same time resulting in local congestion.
Since most flights are made by similar aircraft, there is a large demand for similar crossing altitudes. The result is that some aircraft must fly at other than optimal altitudes, possibly resulting in fuel inefficiency. While there are aircraft that would occasionally climb or descend to more optimum altitudes during an oceanic crossing, such transitions are made difficult by (1) large separation requirements, and (2) limited local surveillance for identifying spaces at more desirable altitudes into which an aircraft could climb or descend.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) is a surveillance technique based on the capability of aircraft to automatically and periodically transmit data such as position, altitude, velocity, and aircraft identification. The information can be received by ground stations and other aircraft. It is precise because it relies on a GPS source and has a high refresh rate thus providing improved traffic awareness in the cockpit.
Through the use of ADS-B and ITP procedures, altitude changes are enabled that were previously blocked due to current aircraft separation minima standards; the standard separation is required between all aircraft at the current desired altitudes. The result is reduced fuel burn and CO2 emissions because ITP enables aircraft to achieve flight level changes more frequently because ITP permits climbs and descents using new reduced longitudinal separation standards.
Aircraft traffic is displayed on a cockpit plan mode display and on a vertical profile display referred to as an ITP display. A pilot may plan an ITP clearance procedure (climb or descend) by viewing traffic intruders (blocking aircraft and candidate reference aircraft) on the ITP display. A blocking aircraft is one that is between the initial and desired flight levels that blocks a standard procedural level change. Reference aircraft may be one or two aircraft transmitting valid ADS-B data that meets ITP criteria and is identified to Air Traffic Control (ATC) by the aircraft considering a flight level change as part of the ITP clearance request. However, the ITP display shows only similar track traffic intruders equipped with ADS-B OUT and transmitting ADS-B OUT data within prescribed navigational accuracy limits. If the ADS-B OUT data of the traffic intruder has dropped off for some reason or has navigational accuracy (e.g. position, vertical velocity) parameters that fall below prescribed limits, the intruder will not be represented on the ITP vertical profile display and are considered as degraded traffic. In addition, pure TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) intruders that are either blocking (an aircraft that is between the initial and desired flight levels and blocks a standard procedural level change) or non-blocking will not be represented on the ITP display.
Considering the foregoing, it would be desirable to provide an aircraft display system and method for displaying intruder aircraft exhibiting navigational accuracy parameters below prescribed limits (i.e. navigational uncertainty) in the ITP display. It is also desirable to provide an aircraft system and method for displaying ADS-B equipped intruder aircraft whose ADS-B data has dropped off. It is further desirable to provide an aircraft display system and method for displaying intruder aircraft not equipped with ADS-B but equipped with TCAS alone. Furthermore, other desirable features and characteristics will become apparent from the following detailed description and the appended claims taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and this background of the invention.
A method for displaying degraded traffic data from an intruder aircraft on ITP display is provided. The method involves determining if the traffic data exhibits navigational accuracy insufficient for display on the ITP display and is considered as degraded. The method continues by analyzing the degraded traffic data to determine the ITP parameters for similar track traffic and to determine if the navigational accuracy of the degraded traffic data is within predefined bounds if the navigational accuracy of the degraded traffic is not sufficient for display on the ITP display.
Also provided is a method for displaying degraded traffic data from an intruder aircraft (1) that is not ADS-B equipped, (2) ADS-B out equipped intruder whose ADS-B data has dropped off, or (3) that is transmitting degraded ADS-B data. The method involves determining the accuracy and integrity of the TCAS data if the intruder aircraft is not ADS-B equipped, correlating TCAS data with previously received ADS-B data if the ADS-B data has dropped off, correlating TCAS data with degraded ADS-B data, and determining if the traffic data exhibits navigational accuracy insufficient for display on the ITP display. The method continues by analyzing the degraded traffic data to determine the ITP parameters for similar track traffic and to determine if the navigational accuracy of the degraded traffic data is within predefined bounds if the navigational accuracy of the degraded traffic is not sufficient for display on the ITP display.
An aircraft display system configured to display degraded traffic data on an ITP display is also provided. The system comprises a monitor, and a processor coupled to the monitor and configured to determine if the traffic data exhibits navigational accuracy sufficient for display on the ITP display, and, if the navigational accuracy of the traffic data is not sufficient for display on the ITP display, analyze the degraded traffic data to determine the ITP parameters for similar track traffic and to determine if the navigational accuracy of the degraded traffic data is within predefined bounds if the navigational accuracy of the degraded traffic is not sufficient for display on the ITP display.
A more complete understanding of the subject matter may be derived from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein, like reference numerals denote like elements, and:
The following detailed description is merely illustrative in nature and is not intended to limit the embodiments of the subject matter or the application and uses of such embodiments. As used herein, the word “exemplary” means “serving as an example, instance, or illustration.” Any implementation described herein as exemplary is not necessarily to be construed as preferred or advantageous over other implementations. Furthermore, there is no intention to be bound by any expressed or implied theory presented in the preceding technical field, background, brief summary or the following detailed description.
Techniques and technologies may be described herein in terms of functional and/or logical block components and with reference to symbolic representations of operations, processing tasks, and functions that may be performed by various computing components or devices. Such operations, tasks, and functions are sometimes referred to as being computer-executed, computerized, software-implemented, or computer-implemented. It should be appreciated that the various block components shown in the figures may be realized by any number of hardware, software, and/or firmware components configured to perform the specified functions. For example, an embodiment of a system or a component may employ various integrated circuit components, e.g., memory elements, digital signal processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables, or the like, which may carry out a variety of functions under the control of one or more microprocessors or other control devices.
As stated previously, ITP is designed for oceanic and remote airspaces not covered by radar. It enables aircraft to achieve flight level changes on a more frequent basis because ITP climbs and descents are made using new reduced separation standards. This results in lower fuel consumption, fewer CO2 emissions, and increased safety.
Traffic is shown on a plan mode display (e.g. a traffic situational awareness display) and on the vertical profile ITP display. By viewing the location of traffic intruders (i.e. blocking and candidate reference aircraft), a pilot may plan for an ITP procedure. However, as previously stated, only similar track intruders equipped with ADS-B OUT and transmitting ADS-B OUT data within prescribed navigational accuracy limits will be displayed on the ITP display. If an intruder aircraft's ADS-B OUT data has dropped off or its navigational accuracy (position, vertical velocity, etc.) parameters have fallen below prescribed limits, or if the intruder aircraft data is a pure TCAS intruder, these blocking or non-blocking aircraft are not represented on the ITP vertical display. For example, in
Embodiments disclosed herein relate to systems and methods for displaying on an ITP display (1) ADS-B equipped intruder aircraft whose ADS-B out has failed to transmit its data; (2) intruder aircraft exhibiting navigational uncertainty below standard prescribed limits; and/or (3) intruder aircraft equipped with TCAS but not ADS-B.
Processor 32 may comprise, or be associated with, any suitable number of individual microprocessors, flight control computers, navigational equipment, memories, power supplies, storage devices, interface cards, and other standard components known in the art. In this respect, the processor 32 may include or cooperate with any number of software programs (e.g., avionics display programs) or instructions designed to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations, and control/display functions described below.
Image-generating devices suitable for use as monitor 34 include various analog (e.g., cathode ray tube) and digital (e.g., liquid crystal, active matrix, plasma, etc.) display devices. Monitor 34 may be disposed at various locations throughout the cockpit, but preferably reside at a central location within the pilot's primary field-of-view. Alternately, monitor 34 may be mounted at a location for convenient observation by the aircraft crew.
Processor 32 includes one or more inputs operatively coupled to one or more air traffic data sources. During operation of display system 30, the air traffic data sources continually provide processor 32 with navigational data pertaining to neighboring aircraft. In the exemplary embodiment illustrated in
With continued reference to
Referring again to
In each of these scenarios, if the accuracy of the navigational parameters is less than prescribed by current standards, the traffic is considered degraded traffic. That is, if the navigational accuracy category for position (NACp) is less than five, or the navigation integrity category (NIC) is less than five, or the navigation accuracy category for velocity (NACv) is less than one, the intruder is considered degraded traffic and is not displayed on the ITP display. However, the representation of degraded traffic intruders is considered useful if they are on a similar track with respect to the ownship, their longitudinal separation is less than the default standard longitudinal separation limit, and their uncertainty is within predefined bounds. Information relating to the maximum and minimum uncertainty in ITP distance may be shown using vertical lines dropping onto the ITP distance scale.
Referring specifically to
Next, in STEP 66, a determination is made as to whether or not the data meets certain navigational requirements for example, is (1) the navigation accuracy category for position (NACp) equal to or greater than five, (2) the navigation integration category equal to or greater than five, and (3) the navigation accuracy category for velocity (NACv) equal to or greater than one. If these conditions are met, the intruder is displayed as valid traffic on the ITP display (STEP 68) or otherwise the intruder is considered as degraded traffic. If these conditions are not met, the degraded traffic is further analyzed (STEP 70) using the process described in connection with the flowchart shown in
Referring to
In STEP 74, a determination is made as to whether or not the degradation of the data is within predefined bounds. That is, is the navigation accuracy for position (NACp) is equal to or greater than the lowest acceptable value of NACp that will be considered for display on the ITP display. This is determined using a containment mapping table derived from Standards (DO-312) and stored in processor 32 that describes the radius of containment (NIC) for any value of NACP. The ITP distance of the traffic calculated above (STEP 72) can vary within the radius of containment. If the degradation is within bounds, the uncertainty geometry described above in connection with
Referring to
A third scenario arises when an intruder is equipped with an older ADS-B system (e.g. DO-260, DO-260A) having navigational accuracy less than that required under current standards for qualifying to be displayed on the ITP vertical display. Referring to the flowchart shown in
Thus, there has been provided an aircraft display system and method for displaying intruder aircraft exhibiting navigational accuracy parameters below prescribed limits (i.e. navigational uncertainty) in the ITP display providing a pilot with greater situational awareness.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3875379 | Vietor | Apr 1975 | A |
5077673 | Brodegard et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5574647 | Liden | Nov 1996 | A |
5957412 | Saint Upery et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6085145 | Taka et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6127944 | Daly et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6148259 | Hagelauer | Nov 2000 | A |
6433729 | Staggs | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6469660 | Horvath et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6690298 | Barber et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6696980 | Langner et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6711479 | Staggs | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6720891 | Chen et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6799114 | Etnyre | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6816780 | Naimer et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6828921 | Brown et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6839018 | Szeto et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6876906 | Zellers et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6946976 | Langner et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6963291 | Holforty et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7103455 | Subelet | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7366591 | Hartmann et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7367526 | Baudry | May 2008 | B2 |
7375678 | Feyereisen et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7386373 | Chen et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7403843 | Gremmert | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7453375 | Chamas et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7471995 | Robinson | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7570178 | Whalen et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7650232 | Paielli | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7746343 | Charaniya et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7747382 | Small et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7877197 | Lewis et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7961135 | Smith et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7965223 | McCusker | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8271152 | Singer et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
20020075171 | Kuntman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020089432 | Staggs et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020133294 | Farmakis et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20060290562 | Ehresman | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20080065312 | Coulmeau et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080266054 | Crank | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080288164 | Lewis et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080309518 | Aung | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090024311 | Hess | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090088972 | Bushnell | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090231163 | He | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090267800 | Hammack et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100023187 | Gannon et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100070180 | Ridenour | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100131121 | Gerlock | May 2010 | A1 |
20100152932 | Das | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100286900 | Depape et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100292871 | Schultz et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100305783 | Tucker et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100332054 | Brandao et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110006918 | Shafaat et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110066360 | Haissig | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110066362 | He | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110118981 | Chamlou | May 2011 | A1 |
20110187588 | Khatwa et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110224847 | Singer et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110231096 | Ridenour, II | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110270472 | Shafaat et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110270473 | Reynolds et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110276198 | Khatwa et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110282568 | Khatwa et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110316857 | Pepitone et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120095623 | Barral et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120203448 | Pepitone et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130006511 | Ramaiah et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1752739 | Feb 2007 | EP |
1752739 | Jan 2008 | EP |
1947624 | Jul 2008 | EP |
2071542 | Jun 2009 | EP |
2345872 | Jul 2011 | EP |
2898675 | Mar 2006 | FR |
2910124 | Dec 2006 | FR |
Entry |
---|
Haissig et al, C.M. Using TCAS Surveillance to Enable Legacy ADS-B Transponder Use for In-Trail Procedures, 2012, IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2012, pp. 1-12. |
RTCA, Inc.; Safety, Performance and Interoperability Requirements Document for the In-Trail Procedure in Oceanic Airspace (ATSA-ITP) Application; RTCA/DO-312, Jun. 19, 2008. |
EP Search Report, EP 10 166 821.8, dated Apr. 21, 2011. |
EP Communication for EP 10 166 821.8 dated Mar. 23, 2011. |
USPTO Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/721,146; Notification Date Jan. 9, 2012. |
EP Search Report, EP11 154 857.4, dated Apr. 11, 2012. |
USPTO Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/774,513; notification date Dec. 11, 2012. |
USPTO Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/563,691; notification date Dec. 9, 2011. |
USPTO Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/563,691; notification date Mar. 30, 2012. |
USPTO Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/407,475; notification date Feb. 6, 2013. |
Chartrand, R. C. et al.; Operational Improvements From Using the In-Trail Procedure in the North Atlantic Organized Track System, Oct. 2009. |
Murdoch, J. L. et al.; Enhanced Oceanic Operations Human-In-The-Loop In-Trail Procedure Validation Simulation Study, NASA/TP-2008-215313, Jun. 2008. |
Jones, K.M.; ADS-B In-Trail Procedures, Overview of Research Results; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Presented to the ASAS TN2 Workshop, Sep. 2007. |
Alam, S, et al.; An Assessment of BADA Fuel Flow Methodologies for In-Trail Procedure Evaluation; Defence & Security Applications Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia. |
Munoz, C.A. et al.; In-Trail Procedure (ITP) Algorithm Design; National Institute of Aerospace; Hampton, VA. |
Richards, W.R. et al.; New Air Traffic Surveillance Technology; www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine. |
Chartrand et al.; Operational Improvements form the In-Trail Procedure in the North Atlantic Organized Track System; American Institure of Aeronautics and Astronautics. |
Federal Aviation Administration; NextGen Operator and Airport Enablers; Supplement to NextGen Investment for Operators and Airports, FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan, Mar. 2011. |
USPTO Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/774,513; Notification date May 2, 2012. |
USPTO Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/721,146; notification date Jun. 7, 2012. |
USPTO Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/774,513; notification date Aug. 30, 2012. |
USPTO Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/407,475; notification date Nov. 21, 2012. |
EP Examination Report for EP 11 154 857.4, dated May 22, 2012. |
Koeners, J.; deVries, M.; Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Conflict Resolution Support for Air Traffic Control Based on Solution Spaces: Design and Implementation; 2008 IEEE. |
EP Search Report dated May 6, 2013 for application No. EP 11 154 900.2. |