As part of the DIVERTER effort, a Functional Analysis was made of the activities a pilot must execute when performing in-flight replanning as a reaction to a diversion event. Appendix A of the NASA Contractor Report 182070 (“DIVERTER” Decision Aiding
preliminary framework (Figure 14) for considering the decisions to be made in the in-flight replanning process. Unfortunately, the analysis doesn’t clearly document who’s performing the tasks (it is implied that all the tasks are being performed by the flight crew). As part of the activity reported in this study, we propose to explicitly identify the sources of information and which party (flight crew, dispatcher, air traffic controller, or some combination) is performing each replanning sub-task.
Pilot’s Associate
The Pilot’s Associate program was intended to be the first large scale introduction of artificial intelligence technology into the fighter cockpit. The intended applications were mission and route planning, situation assessment, systems status assessment, and an intelligent pilot-vehicle interface that would recognize pilot intentions, reduce pilot workload, and detect pilot errors. Two teams worked on parallel programs: the McDonnell Aircraft Company team worked on a system for air-to-ground missions, and the Lockheed team worked on one for air-to-air missions. The program was successful in developing useful new technologies, such as pilot goals recognition and dynamic workload analysis and management. However, none of the technology objectives have been transferred into operational systems. Further developments are being pursued under the Rotorcraft Pilot’s Association program.
3.4 Strategic Flight Replanning (our approach)
Our interviews indicated the largest planning/replanning inefficiencies are associated with the flight planning/replanning processes and information transfer. There are associated inefficiencies related to relatively inflexible air traffic routes and procedures. Our approach focuses on three aspects of replanning:
1.
Re-allocating replanning tasks and in general making the replanning process more collaborative;
2.
Providing better information to stakeholders (especially the flight deck) to support CDM; and
3.
Increasing airborne replanning functionality to enable a more sophisticated dynamic
replanning capability. We do not address current ATM route and procedure inflexibility directly, but other tasks under AATT do, and the work here should support a more flexible ATM system. We believe that a meaningful airborne concept to support Free Flight does not necessarily result in a more autonomous aircraft. There are several parties, or stakeholders, with an interest in the flight path of a given aircraft. Inefficiencies can arise when a stakeholder with a more one set of interests makes route decisions that usurp another set of interests for a different stakeholder. The most efficient solution is the one that includes all stakeholders in decision making; perhaps giving primary decision making responsibility to the stakeholder with the broadest set of interests, but accommodating the more limited interests of other stakeholders. We have attempted to allocate responsibilities to stakeholders based on the scope of their interests rather than making a priori assumptions about function allocation, with the objective of arriving at the most efficient overall solution. Figure 15 illustrates the general “involve all stakeholders” approach to planning that emerges from the interview data (and is supported by the more formal analysis of those data presented in a later section).
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Airborne-Based Conflict Probe(41)
