Conflict Alerts for Aircraft Conducting Visual Approaches

It is common for aircraft to conduct visual and instrument final approaches to a single runway or multiple parallel runways. Useful, nonexcessive safety alerts on aircraft conducting visual approaches are helpful to air traffic controllers, though pilots are responsible for separation with the preceding aircraft. A variety of visual approaches to various runway configurations are studied, and a set of safety alert thresholds is proposed. Fast-time simulations with recorded real-world air traffic data of mostly visual approach flights are performed on a prototype tactical separation assurance system for terminal airspace. Alerts are generated -- with both the standard separation thresholds and the proposed safety alert thresholds -- and compared with those from the Conflict Alert (CA) functionality in the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS). The results show that the number of Mode-C Intruder alerts generated was reduced 76% as compared to STARS CA. The nuisance alerts generated by assuming visual to be instrument approaches was reduced by 92% when the proposed safety alert thresholds were used and visual approaches were assumed.A set of safety alert thresholds, which allow safety alerts to be provided to the controllers for aircraft conductingvisual approaches to a single runway or multiple parallel runways, has been proposed based on input from SubjectMatter Experts as well as visual approach procedures and common practices. The goal is to maximize the thresholdswithin the guidance of the procedures and common practices and to minimize the number of nuisance alerts and totalnumber of alerts with the support of flight intent information. Tests have been performed using a recently developedprototype tactical separation assurance system for terminal airspace, called Terminal Tactical Separation-AssuredFlight Environment (T-TSAFE). The input was a full day of air traffic data from Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) TRACONwith most arriving flights conducting visual approaches. The results compare favorably with those of the ConflictAlert (CA) functionality of the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS).When fast-time simulation experiment was performed using T-TSAFE with all arriving flights assumed to conductinstrument approaches, the expected large number of separation alerts were observed. When compared with STARSCA, the conflict pairs common to both T-TSAFE and STARS CA was only 21% of the total STARS CA alerts. As aresult, the nuisance-alert rate for STARS CA was estimated to be about 70%, which is comparable to a similar previously estimation of 80% nuisance-alert rate for CARTS (Common Automated Radar Terminal System) CA. The Mode-CIntruder (MCI) alerts were also reduced by 76% as compared to STARS CA.Examination of the common conflict pairs between T-TSAFE and STARS CA shows that they are valid separationconflicts with good alert lead times for T-TSAFE. However, many of them would still be considered nuisance alertsif the aircraft were conducting visual approaches. This was confirmed by another visual approach fast-time simulationT-TSAFE experiment, in which all DFW arriving flights were assumed to be on visual approaches and our proposedsafety alert thresholds were used and tested. The result of the experiment showed that the number of non-MCI alertswas less by 92% as compared to the number when all DFW arrivals were assumed to be conducting instrumentapproaches. The common conflict pairs involving aircraft conducting visual approaches to parallel runways werereduced by 93% as well. Thus, the flight intent information and the safety alert thresholds are effective in reducingnuisance alerts.T-TSAFE can thus provide separation and safety conflict alerts seamlessly in the real-world environment of mixedterminal operations with arriving flights of both visual and instrument approaches. Compared with STARS CA, TTSAFEhas fewer false alerts, larger alert lead time, and larger alert thresholds. While the nuisance alerts are reducedsignificantly with the safety alert thresholds, further work is needed to study if the alert lead time for safety alerts issufficient