Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T10:02:17.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Future air traffic management: strategy and control philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

P. Brooker*
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

Abstract

The aim is to explore the philosophy of air traffic management with different strategic visions of the future: to answer the key question: ‘Who is to prevent mid-air collisions and how are they to accomplish this?’ The best strategic vision may just be the one that has the best match with the consensus on the desired strategic direction. Nevertheless, it must satisfy the main safety, financial, human performance etc. constraints. To explore the question, a blend of concepts from a range of disciplines has been used. These include risk analysis, financial decision-making, ‘cognitive engineering’ research and simple cybernetics. ‘full delegation’ – with pilots being responsible for all the tasks related to separation assurance – appears to meet most of the constraints. Some important issues for safety analyses of full delegation are sketched. Research into the nature and rate of future conflicts in a full delegation environment, using models of error processes, is crucial.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Billings, C. Foreword to Sarter, N.B. and Amalberti, R. (Eds), Cognitive Engineering in the Aviation Domain, 2000, Lawrence: Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
2. Leroux, M. Cognitive Aspects and Automation, in Sarter, N. B. and Amalberti, R. (Eds), Cognitive Engineering in the Aviation Domain, 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, USA, pp 99130.Google Scholar
3. Brooker, P. Future air traffic management: quantitative en route safety assessment Part 2 – New Approaches, 2002, J Navigation, 55, (3), pp 363379.Google Scholar
4. Brooker, P. Future air traffic management – passing the key tests, Aeronaut J, 2002, 106, (1058), pp 211215.Google Scholar
5. Grant, R.M. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1995.Google Scholar
6. Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B. and Goshal, S. The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall International (UK), London, UK, 1995.Google Scholar
7. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. Strategy Safari, 1998, Prentice Hall, London.Google Scholar
8. Quinn, J.B. Strategies for Change, pp 512 of MINTZBERG et al (1995) op cit.Google Scholar
9. Simon, H.A. Models of Bounded Rationality, 1982, 1-2, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
10. Nevens, M. The Real Source of the Productivity Boom (Interview), Harvard Business Review March, 2002, pp 2324.Google Scholar
11. National Audit Office. Pipes and Wires, HC 723, The Stationery Office, London, 2002.Google Scholar
12. Kirwan, B. The role of the controller in the accelerating industry of air traffic management, Safety Science, 2001, 37, (2-3), pp 151185.Google Scholar
13. Erzberger, H. The Automated Airspace Concept, 4th International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2001.Google Scholar
15. Aviation Week & Space Technology. Free Flight Benefits Anticipated as FAA deploys Controller Aids, 5 November 2000, pp 5051.Google Scholar
16. Aviation Week & Space Technology. FAA Tweaks ATC Plan, Expects traffic Rebound, 7 January 2002, pp 2223.Google Scholar
17. RTCA. Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3: Free Flight Implementation, Washington, DC, RTCA, 1995.Google Scholar
18. The Boeing Company. Air Traffic Management – Revolutionary concepts that enable air traffic growth while cutting delays, Ref 291063, 2001.Google Scholar
19. Beers, C. and Huisman, H. Transitions between free flight and managed airspace: a controller’s perspective, 4th International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2001.Google Scholar
20. Wickens, C.D. Automation in air traffic control: The human performance issues, in Scerbo, M.W. and Mouloua, M. (Eds.), Automation Technology and Human Performance: Current Research and Trends, 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, USA, pp 210.Google Scholar
21. Bainbridge, L. Ironies of Automation, Automatica, 1983, 19, pp 775779.Google Scholar
22. Hollnagel, E. Human Reliability Analysis, Context and Control, Academic Press, London, 1993.Google Scholar
23. Hollnagel, E. Modeling the orderliness of human action, in Sarter, N.B., and Amalberti, R. (Eds), Cognitive Engineering in the Aviation Domain, Lawrence: Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
24. Hoffman, E., Zeghal, Z., Cloerec, A., Grimaaud, I. and Nicolaon, J-P. Is limited delegation of separation assurance promising? 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2000.Google Scholar
25. Dimeo, K., Kopardekar, P., Ashford, R., Lozito, S. and Mackintosh, M-A. Shared-separation: empirical results and theoretical implications, 4th International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2001.Google Scholar
26. Corker, K., Gore, B., Fleming, K. and Lane, J. Free flight and the context of control: Experiments and modeling to determine the impact of distributed air-ground air traffic management on safety and procedure, 3rd International Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar – ATM2000, 2000.Google Scholar
27. Jorna, P.G.A.M. Automation and free(er) flight: exploring the unexpected, in Scerbo, M.W. and Mouloua, M. (Eds), Automation Technology and Human Performance: Current Research and Trends, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, USA, pp 107111, 1999.Google Scholar
28. Hoekstra, J.M., van Gent, R.N.H.W. and Ruigrok, R.C.J. Designing for safety: the ‘free flight’ air traffic management concept, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2002, 75, pp 215232.Google Scholar
29. Andrews, J.W. and Welch, J.D. Workload implication of free flight concepts, 1st International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 1997.Google Scholar
30. Wilson, I.A.B. ATM Support Tools in PHARE – The Importance of matching the Concepts of Management or Control, 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2000.Google Scholar
31. Pavet, D. Lessons learnt from CENA-PHARE experiment and requirements for future evaluation of novel concepts in ATC, 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2000.Google Scholar
32. Endsley, M. Situation awareness, automation and free flight, 1st International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 1997.Google Scholar
33. Eriksen, P. and Bonnier, M. Eight-states free route airspace project large scale real time simulation south scenario, Eurocontrol Experimental Centre EEC Report No 365, Eurocontrol, 2001.Google Scholar
34. Heylighen, F. and Joslyn, C. Cybernetics and second-order cybernetics, in Meyers, R.A. (Ed), Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology, Academic Press, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
35. Hitchins, D.K. Putting Systems to Work, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 1992.Google Scholar
36. Ashby, W.R. Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956, John Wiley, London,Google Scholar
37. Turchin, V., Heylighen, F., Joslyn, C. and Bollen, J. Control, Principia Cybernetica Web, vub.ac.be/CONTROL.html, 1996.Google Scholar
38. Conant, R.C. and Ashby, W.R. Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system, Int J Systems Science, 1970, 1, (2), pp 8997.Google Scholar
39. Brooker, P. Future air traffic management systems and financial decision-making constraints, Cranfield University Research Report PB/3/1/02, ISBN 1 861940 85 8, 2002.Google Scholar
40. Blom, H.A.P., Bakker, G.J., Blanker, P.J.G., Daams, J., Everdij, M.H.C. and Klomstra, M.B. Accident risk assessment for advanced ATM, 2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 1998.Google Scholar
41. Blom, H.A.P., Daams, J. and Nijhuis, H.B. Human cognition modelling in ATM Safety assessment, 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2000.Google Scholar
42. UK Airprox Board, Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace, Report Number 5, 2001.Google Scholar
43. Simpson, R.W. Structuring criteria for automated separation assurance, 1st International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 1998.Google Scholar
44. Krozal, J., Peters, M., Bilimoria, K.D., Lee, Changkil and Mitchell, J.S.B. System performance characteristics of centralised and decentralised air traffic separation strategies, 4th International USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, New Mexico, USA, 2001.Google Scholar