PowerPoint Presentation

Computational Evaluation of the Allocation of Authority and Responsibility in NextGen Concepts of OperationThesis Proposal for MS in Aerospace EngineeringBy Raunak P. Bhattacharyya

Georgia Institute of Technology09/10/15Hello, my name is Raunak Bhattacharyya. I am a research assistant in the Cognitive Engineering Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and this is my thesis proposal presentation for master of sciences in aerospace engineering. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Amy Pritchett, the members of my committee, Dr. Magnus Egerstedt and Dr. JP Clarke, additional faculty at the Cognitive Engineering Center, Dr. Karen Feigh, and all who have come to see this presentation today, as well as all who have helped me in my studies here at Georgia Tech. The subject of this thesis is V&V of NextGen Merging and Spacing concepts under communication constraints.1Can We Define NextGen as Technologies?2

By itself, better technology will not result in transformative developments. Need novel concepts of operation11Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General Audit Report, 2014Concept of OperationSpecification of how an operation is to be carried outUsing available resourcesActors who will execute actions

Air traffic concept of operationActions to be carried out to reach desired outcomeBy whomConditions where each action needs to be carried outCriteria for successful completion of each action

3OPD advantages: Reduced noise, reduced fuel consumption Disadvantages: Need higher planning, navigation and guidance because aircraft cannot be vectored by ATC

Talk about FIM and GIM3Allocation of Actions to AgentsAutonomy: Actions that an agent is capable of performing independently

Authority: Which actions an agent is asked to perform

Responsibility: Which outcomes an agent will be held accountable for

41Pritchett, Kim and Feigh, JCEDM, 2014Authority-Responsibility mismatch creates monitoring reqmts1Allocation is the process of defining which agent has authority for actions and which agent has responsibility for the outcomeGive an example of free flight here that says responsibility for maintaining smooth traffic flow lies with ATC but aircraft have the authority to do self spacing4LatencyDelay in communicationStale information Cascade effect throughout the system

Impact of latency depends on allocation Information exchange between agents

5

Latency = 10 secLatency = 10 secModeling Concepts of OperationIn modelPhysics of flight (6 DOF)Actions ResourcesAgents During runtimeAllocationLatencyTasks done by agentsInformation transferred between agentsGlobal properties of system of aircraft6EmergenceAllocation and latency are a part of a mid-level model of concept of operations

Effect of interactions at one level transcend/percolate to higher/lower levels1

Two levelsEmergence upEmergence down7Mid-Level Model of Concept of Operations(Physics, Actions, Allocation)Spacing achievedTaskloadInformation Transfer RequirementsEmergence UpEmergence Down1Leveson, Safeware, 1995Designing Concepts of OperationCurrent DayLack systematic, early-in-design method to analyze allocations and communication constraints

Rely on subject matter experts

Testing methods rely on HITL

Proposed1,2Model concept of operation early-in-designAnalyze impact of allocation and communication constraints through computational simulationIdentify key issues through capturing emergent behaviorsUse results to guide procedures and technology design

81IJtsma, Bhattacharyya & Pritchett, ISAP 2015; 2IJstma,Bhattacharyya & Pritchett, ATM 2015ObjectivesInvestigate the impact of allocation of authority and responsibility on agent taskload and information transfer requirements with no latency;Emergence down

Investigate the impact of latency on system performance regardless of allocation of authority and responsibility between agents; andEmergence up

Investigate the combined impact of allocation and latency on both high-level system performance and on agent level measures of taskload and information transfer requirements.99Case Study: Merging and Spacing

10

Modeling Concept: Actions and Functions11Functional blocksActionsAction descriptionVertical profile controlCalculate distance to runwayCalculate the remaining distance to the runway. Start descentWhen clearance is given, start the 2 degree descentIntercept GSIntercept glideslope signal and initiate 3 degree glideslope descentLand aircraftLand the aircraft (remove aircraft from simulation)Vertical profile managementClear for descentGive clearance to start the descent at TOD.Clear for final approachGive clearance to start final approach and intercept ILS signal.Lateral controlDirect to waypointSet the heading based on the target waypoint.Calculate distance to waypointCalculate the distance to the next waypoint. Lateral profile managementManage waypointSet the target waypoint.Execute path stretchExecute the maneuver by entering it into the autoflight system.Research Plan12AllocationTaskloadInformation requirementsEmergence Dn Stage 1 LatencySpacingEmergence UpStage 2 Stage 31 Sim EngineStage 1: Scenario DescriptionAircraft need to maintain 60 sec time spacing

PD controller which controls commanded airspeedSimple controller to isolate problems with conceptMore detailed controller can be used later in design

Authority and Responsibility are allocated to Air and Ground agents

Agents are perfect

Actions are instantaneous and perfectly executed13This work was done in collaboration with Martijn Ijtsma, TU DefltJustify why a PD controller13FunctionsAuthority allocations (AA)Responsibility allocations (RA)1234512345Vertical controlGAAAAGAAAAA/C config mgmtGAAAAGAAAALateral controlGAAAAGAAAASpeed controlGGAAAGGAAALateral profileGGGAAGGGAAVertical profileGGGGAGGGGASpeed mgmtGGGGAGGGGANon-nominal situation mgmtGGGGAGGGGAAllocation Matrix14Add incoherent: How much percent ground does for incoherent

Blank out with boxes the aa and ra and incoherent

Point out 5 aa with 1 ra and 1 aa and 5 ra to explain14Incoherent Allocation15Functional blocksActionsAuthorityResponsibilityVertical profile controlCalculate distance to runwayGAStart descentAGIntercept GSAGLand aircraftAGAircraft configuration managementSet flaps and speedbrakesAGDeploy gearAGLateral controlDirect to waypointGACalculate distance to waypointAGSpeed controlSet airspeedGALateral profile managementManage waypointAGExecute path stretchAGVertical profile managementClear for descentAGClear for final approachGATime Trace of Actions: AA2 RA416

Total 26 action traces: 25 authority and responsibility allocations, 1 incoherent allocationTaskload

17

Authority-responsibility mismatch creates additional workExplain that the solid bars are what was explicitly described in conops, but the empty bars are monitoring tasks that weren't explicit in the conops, they are extra tasks17Information Transfer Requirements

18

Incoherence increases information transfer reqmts drastically Talk about how you determine the vertical axes measuring information transfer requirements18Key FindingsCoherence can be used as a guiding principle in the design of concept of operationsHigher incoherence demands higher information transfer requirements

Authority-Responsibility mismatches need to be reduced and where inevitable, need to be identified early in designMismatches create additional taskload in terms of monitoring that are not explicit in the required work to be done in the concept19CheckpointInvestigate the impact of allocation of authority and responsibility on agent taskload and information transfer requirements with no latencyModeled spacing and merging operations for 3 aircraft STAR Analyzed 26 allocation scenarios including an incoherent allocation schemeEmergent down metrics taskload and information transfer requirements were analyzed

Investigate the impact of latency on system performance regardless of allocation of authority and responsibility between agents

Investigate the combined impact of allocation and latency on both high-level system performance and on agent level measures of taskload and information transfer

2020Stage 2: Latency Test to FailureDelay in communicating commanded airspeed to maintain spacingAnalytical latency margin Computational latency experiment: test to failure21

Block diagram of spacing controllerStage 3: Scenarios and Test ConditionsAllocation No latencyBelow instabilityAt instabilityAuthority1 - Responsibility1Authority5 Responsibility5Incoherent22Stream of 10 aircraft

TimelineResearch TaskTime RequiredEstimated Completion DateLatency: Time delay margin analysis 1 weekSep 22Latency: Sensitivity analysis, test to failure2 weeksOct 6Analysis and write up of results3 weeksOct 27Latency and allocation simultaneously3 weeksNov 17Analysis and write up of results4 weeksDec 15Assemble thesis2 weeksDec 2923Anticipated ContributionsConcept can be tested early in design without needing technology prototypes

Analyze impact of authority responsibility mismatches

Pinpoint when latency causes instability

Predict emergent behaviors both at local and at global level, and also relate them to linear modeling

Analyze relative costs and benefits of proposed allocations

24AcknowledgementsDr. Amy Pritchett

Dr. JP Clarke and Dr. Magnus Egerstedt

Martijn IJtsma, TU Delft

Cognitive Engineering Center

NASA Aviation Safety Program with Guillame Brat of NASA Ames Research Center as technical monitor25