Date post: | 17-Jan-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | aim-turner |
View: | 138 times |
Download: | 0 times |
https://twitter.com/atmeditorhttps://www.linkedin.com/groups/Air-Traffic-Management-Magazine-4305555
REDUCED CREW
www.airtrafficmanagement.net Air Traffic Management Issue 2 2015 19
Automatic Pilot?
“The aviation industry should consider
implementing systems to take con-
trol of aircraft from the ground in
emergencies,” Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, the chief
executive of the German air navigation service
provider DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung told
journalists at the company’s annual press
conference in April.
The Germanwings air disaster on
24 March will surely send aviation
regulators searching for solutions
– if indeed any are to be had in the
immediate term.
In the longer term, Scheurle
believes future flight manage-
ment systems could assist an
aircraft in distress allowing it to
land automatically at an alter-
native airport by transmitting
instructions via datalink from
air traffic control to the aircraft.
“There should be no ban
on thinking about how
to handle a plane in an
emergency when the
people on board
cannot help,” says
Scheurle.
The DFS chief
mentioned a research
project called SOFIA (Safe
Automatic Flight Back and
Landing of Aircraft) which
examined taking control of
aircraft from the ground. The pro-
ject came into being as a result
of the 2001 September 11 terror
attacks and the 2005 crash of a
Helios Airways Boeing 737, where
passengers and crew lost consciousness
due to a fatal depressurisation. Together with
other European companies, DFS embarked on
this research project in 2006 before transfer-
ring it to the European Union on its comple-
tion in 2009.
Scheurle stresses that while it was a pure
research effort, it is worth revisiting: “It is still a
long way off, something for the next decade.
The technology, that would be needed, is rather
complex and it would need certification.”
Does pilotless flight and a high degree of automation in a future air traffic system offer the travelling public the prospect of greater safety, asks Aimée Turner?
OPERATIONS
www.airtrafficmanagement.netIssue 2 2015 Air Traffic Management20
Scheurle reckons that both the pros and the
cons must be thoroughly evaluated.
As both Europe and the United States stead-
ily transition from an air traffic control system
based on radar technology to more precise GPS
navigation requiring both controllers and pilots
to cede ever more control to automation, the
potential for unanticipated events that are im-
possible to predict is concentrating the minds
of those charged with developing tomorrow’s
systems.
Within perhaps 20 years, the controller will
have effectively become a supervisor of a highly
automated system, and one who also fulfils
the role of intelligent agent, one that can make
tactical decisions in off-normal situations.
While the pressure is certainly on to eke out the
biggest capacity bang from the airspace buck, is
the human dimension really being built into this
rapidly evolving automated model for both the
pilot and the air traffic management community?
Modern aircraft have all the elements that are
required for remote control with the only real
issue being the air/ground digital link required
to exchange information and control commands,
according to BluSky Services consultant Steve
Zerkowitz who worked on a similar European
project called SAFEE which addressed security in
the event of a terrorist attack.
“At the time we were working on SAFEE,”
explains Zerkowitz, “the link issue was even
more of a problem. In the meantime, however,
and as a result of recent work on unmanned
aerial systems, new link technologies are on
the horizon that may in fact be transferable to
transport aircraft.”
Rocket ScienceObviously, the cost issue of Controller Pilot Data
Link Communications needs to be resolved as
well as the current technical glitches in Europe at
least – which seem to be certain showstoppers.
While putting one more link on the
aircraft would no doubt make the airlines
wince, Zerokowitz suspects recent air ac-
cidents could have pushed things in the
direction of a possible mandate in the
longer term. Importantly, the control system
of the airframe would need no major rework
avoiding burdensome costs so a mandate
for forward-fit only could pass muster.
“Going for fully autonomous operation (i.e.
with onboard logic flying the aircraft for a safe
landing) would require appropriate computing
power and applications that would not be easy
to certify but even then, it would not be rocket
science,” says Zerkowitz.
As to controlling the aircraft from the
ground, there are already research projects to
develop a single pilot cockpit where the co-
pilot would sit on the ground and be switched
into the control loop.
“Of course, if you look at these projects
closely, it is easy to see that they are in fact
pushing the boundaries in the direction of hav-
ing no pilot on board at all,” says Zerkowitz who
points out that the difference in technology
between single pilot and no pilot at all is not
hugely significant.
The logic of flying the aircraft to a given
place for a safe landing would however require
additional equipment but again, it is not rocket
science, according to Zerkowitz. “In the longer
term we will be moving in this direction, not
because of the security concerns but because of
the compelling economic case. The box shifters
(freight operators) have long said that the day
authorities certify a cargo aircraft for no-pilot
operation they will buy them by the hundreds.”
One frontline community which would need
to be convinced of the merits of reduced crew
operations would be pilots themselves.
The Single European Sky initiative – set to
modernise the region’s airspace – outlines ambi-
tious targets that will create a completely new
operational environment, based on trajectory
management, highly performing technologies
and a much more strategic role for the flight crew.
“These changes are welcome and – at the
same time – raise a number of challenges, such
as the ability to increase both efficiency and
safety,” says European pilots organisation ECA in
a recent publication which outlines what they
view as prerequisites for successfully meeting
the challenges of seamless skies.
Importantly, it judges that as the pilot-in-
command of an aircraft remains responsible
for the operation of the aircraft, any solutions
that consider flying the aircraft from the ground
should be avoided.
“Technical solutions shall be pilot-centric
as far as possible to ensure that the pilot-in-
command remains the final authority as to the
disposition of the aircraft during all phases
of the flight,” they recommend, adding, “in an
increasingly dense and highly complex traffic
environment non-routine situations do arise,
often beyond the scope of the automation,
unanticipated in the automation design, and
hard to effectively handle from the ground. In
such cases, the pilot’s ability to ‘improvise’ and
flexibly manage threats and errors is key to
a safe conduct of the flight and outperforms
automated as well as ground-based solutions.”
New ProblemsMartin Rolfe, managing director, operations,
at the UK air navigation service provider NATS,
has his doubts despite the fact that the SOFIA
research effort to provide air traffic control
with the ability to take over an aircraft and put
it on course for a safe landing seems like an
obvious idea.
Rolfe expresses concern over whether this
is where the industry should be focusing its
efforts over other potential mitigation. “In
fact, I fear this particular proposal may create
problems even greater than the one it seeks
to solve,” he says.
He says taking control of an aircraft from
the ground would effectively turn an airliner
in a huge Remotely Piloted Aircraft System, or
drone and that whilst NATS is committed to
developing rules and access for large dedicat-
ed RPAS operations in controlled airspace, these
plans do not include the concept of taking
control of non-RPAS aircraft remotely.
“Significant work would be required to
establish whether this type of solution would
mitigate the risks highlighted by the terri-
ble Germanwings incident or whether it would
simply add other as yet unknown risks to flight
operations,” he says.
“There would be huge questions around
accountability and under what conditions
such a system would be activated. In truth, I
think these would prove to be extremely
difficult to answer. In the event of an emer-
gency you need to be in possession of all
the facts and the pilots remain the only ones
who do. Equally, would the existence of such a
system provide a target to those that may wish
to access it maliciously?”
Rolfe insists that while the entire industry
wants to ensure that the Germanwings event
can never be repeated, it is imperative that any
potential mitigations are fully thought through
in the complex area of civil flight operations.
“in an increasingly dense and highly complex traffic environment
non-routine situations do arise, often beyond
the scope of automation, unanticipated in the
automation design and hard to effectively handle
from the ground”
REDUCED CREW
ACROSS THE DIVIDEAlberto Pasquini from the Deep Blue consul-
tancy heads one Europe research effort on
reduced-crew operations in large civil aircraft
which has assessed the implications for the
future ATM system and pilot operations.
He believes that even if technically feasible,
the option of taking control from the ground
without crew co-operation, will remain highly
unpopular.
Enter the ACROSS initiative. ACROSS stands
for ‘Advanced Cockpit for Reduction of Stress
and Workload’ and represents the efforts of a
consortium of 35 aerospace partners headed
by Thales. Established at the start of January
2013, it is due to publish its finding by July
next year.
ACROSS is studying three flight scenarios
including; intentional reduction of crew in
flight; partial flight crew incapacitation; full
crew incapacitation, leading to a safe landing.
Writing in the British Air Line Pilots Associa-
tion publication The Log, Rod Sears and Andy
Brown think it likely that international airlines
will jump at the prospect of single pilot cruise
operations in which an onboard reserve pilot
rests in crew quarters, ready to assume control
at short notice in case of emergency – some-
thing which they estimate could allow a large
airline to shed up to 800 jobs – at minimum
500 jobs which would command savings in
the order of US$149 million – or a $1.49 billion
over a decade.
In scenarios involving pilot incapacitation,
they say extra infrastructure on the ground
would be essential with some sort of ground-
based pilot on hand for emergencies and the
potential for the aircraft to effectively become
a huge remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS).
But pilots question who exactly would fly
the aircraft while the reserve pilot is called
forward to assume control – how long would
that delay take and, somewhat chillingly
– Sears and Brown’s article was published
around the same time as the Germanwings
air disaster – how could a pilot access the
flight deck under the locked flight deck door
security policy?
Worse, what if the aircraft was to suffer a
major system failure at the same time such as
a rapid decompression where the time of use-
ful consciousness would be limited to only 15
seconds at common cruising altitude? Could
the reserve pilot don an oxygen mask and
reach the controls in time?
“The ACROSS proposal is new and ground-
breaking and will need a great deal of thought
and in-flight testing under rigorous safety
conditions,” the BALPA authors write. “Unless
this sort of operation can be carried out in a
way that is safe, or safer than current two pilot
operations, then there can be no place for it,
whatever the cost savings.”
Even so, they point out that with the ad-
vance of RPAS technology pilots flying in ten
years’ time may well have to consider sitting
on their own for a few hours during a long
haul flight.
Indeed, Deep Blue’s Pasquini predicts a
future in which pilots will be required to
embrace the concept. The prospect of taking
control from the ground without crew co-
operation is not on the agenda. “We did not
consider it in ACROSS and I don’t think the
Germanwings event will change the project
decision,” he says.
REDUCED CREW
www.airtrafficmanagement.net Air Traffic Management Issue 2 2015 21
https://twitter.com/atmeditorhttps://www.linkedin.com/groups/Air-Traffic-Management-Magazine-4305555