Published Report (DOT/FAA/CT-94-36)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ILS Localizer Cen tex line A Note: Not drawn to scale B FIGURE 2. CURVED ASYMPTOTIC APPROACH (A) AND AIRCRAFT DEVIATIONS (B) 10
As seen in figure 2b, the fan began at the runway threshold and was bisected by the pseudo-route. As aircraft traveled along the pseudoroute, they flew between the fan boundaries. Individual aircraft began a half-standard rate turn (1.5 degrees per second) towards the opposite fan boundary after coming within plus or minus 2 seconds time of the fan boundary. As the aircraft approached the opposite fan boundary, it once again made a slow turn back towards the first boundary. This process was repeated throughout the approach until the aircraft landed or was given a heading change by the controller. The resultant flight paths satisfied the first criteria by producing navigational error distributions that corresponded closely with those found in previous data. In addition, the new flight paths also satisfied the second requirement since they provided realistic visual targets for the controllers. 2.1.6 Radar Error. The representation of aircraft positions on controllers' displays may differ from the actual aircraft position due to inaccuracies in the radar system. Therefore, to accurately represent the operational environment, radar error was included as a parameter in the DIA simulation. The radar error model for this simulation as based upon the performance characteristics of an ASR-9 system enhanced to provide improved tarqet resolution caDabilities. The range error had a mean-equal to zero and a standakd deviation of 185 ft. The DIA simulation assumed a radar system with 2.7 milliradians azimuth accuracy or better, and the capability to resolve two aircraft at 20 nmi separated by 0.9 degrees or more. Thus, the radar requirements were: 1) normal azimuth accuracy of 2.7 milliradians, and 2) resolution (resolving power) of 2 aircraft targets at the same range (20 nmi) separated by 0.9 degrees or more. The second requirement was equivalent to resolution of 2 targets slightly more than 2000 feet apart at 20 mi. 2.2 EQUIPMENT. This section describes the equipment that was used during the simulation. 2.2.1 TGF. The TGF is an advanced simulation system designed to support testing of current and future ATC systems at the <strong>FAA</strong> Technical Center. The functionality of the TGF system is partitioned in three subsystems: Simulation Pilot, Target Generation, and Development and Support. 11
Page 1 and 2: 1 DOT/FAA/CT-94/3 6 FAA Technical C
Page 3: 1. Title and Subtitle Technical Rep
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SU
Page 9: Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 LIST OF ILLUSTRA
Page 12 and 13: An evaluation of NBO's and NTZ entr
Page 14 and 15: One specific effect of high density
Page 16 and 17: Technical Center. Indicated air spe
Page 18 and 19: -: zg cui r - I -----1 s: i I - OM
Page 20 and 21: sometimes instructed to disregard c
Page 24 and 25: The Simulation Pilot Subsystem cons
Page 26 and 27: provided by ARTS displays, FMA's pr
Page 28 and 29: Controllers also submitted a report
Page 30 and 31: a. NTZ transgression frequency: b.
Page 32 and 33: 3.3.1.1 No-Controller Intervention
Page 34 and 35: analyses and the TWG operational as
Page 36 and 37: I [OOOO l'OS66) [OOS6'0SP6) [0006'0
Page 38 and 39: [OOSS' OSPS) [OOOS'OS6P) [OOSP' OSP
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 8. TCV DATA, TWA621/AAL204 Bl
Page 43 and 44: directed not to respond), the 17R c
Page 45 and 46: 4.2.6 Blunder Resolution Performanc
Page 47 and 48: [LSI [ssl [ESI L 35
Page 49 and 50: 4.4.2 Post-Simulation Controller Ou
Page 51 and 52: 4.5.2 Phraseoloav. The second state
Page 53 and 54: number of causes of accidents durin
Page 55 and 56: 1 ACC X 8 WCB's x 102 Itat risk" WC
Page 57 and 58: 5.3.2 Technical Observer Assessment
Page 59 and 60: BIBLIOGRAPHY Bilicki, H. W., TGF an
Page 61 and 62: GLOSSARY Aimort Surveillance Radar
Page 63 and 64: Outer Marker (OM) - A marker beacon
Page 65: APPENDIX A MULTIPLE PARALLEL APPROA
Page 69: APPENDIX B SIMULATION USING THE FDA
Page 72 and 73:
Thus, the controller,s ability to d
Page 75:
TECHNICAL OBSERVERS REPORT DIA SIMU
Page 79 and 80:
FDADS SIMULATION AT DENVER A demons
Page 81:
isk blunders, but only 2 TCV's. The
Page 85 and 86:
ILS 10L DENVER INTERNATlONAL AIRPOR
Page 87:
ILS 17L 1 DENVER TOWER 1205 1 DENVE
Page 91 and 92:
POST-RUN CONTROLLER QUESTIONNAIRE D
Page 93 and 94:
POST-SIMULATION CONTROLLER QUESTION
Page 95 and 96:
CONTROLLER TEST CRITERION VIOLATION
Page 97:
111. STATEMENT: 1. From your knowle
Page 101 and 102:
PILOT BREAK-OUT QUESTIONNAIRE DIA S
Page 103 and 104:
2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS I 2.1 Please p
Page 105:
APPENDIX H CONTROLLER REPORT
Page 109:
APPENDIX I TECHNICAL OBSERVER REPOR
Page 112 and 113:
The Technical Observers believe tha
Page 115 and 116:
.. v) CI t E" E 8 - a c .- 0 CI 5 2
Page 117:
c X > 0 4 L 5-3
Page 121 and 122:
MULTIPLE PARALLEL APPROACH PROGRAM
Page 123:
APPENDIX L RISK ANALYSIS OF BLUNDER
Page 126 and 127:
2.0 BASIC RISK COMPUTATION 2.1 DEFI
Page 128 and 129:
a fatal accident during an approach
Page 130 and 131:
3.4 ESTIMATING COLLISION RISK The f
Page 132 and 133:
4.0 DETERMINATION OF ALIGNMENT WIND
Page 134 and 135:
The roots of the quadratic equation
Page 136 and 137:
e estimated as the ratio of the num
Page 138:
This is a very high rate, which wou
show all

Published Report (DOT/FAA/CT-94-36)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?