NASA/TM—2013–216506 

Evaluating NextGen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations Concepts with Validated Human 

Performance Models: Flight Deck Guidelines

Becky L. Hooey 

Brian F. Gore 

Eric Mahlstedt 

San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 

David C. Foyle

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

April 2013 
NASA STI Program...in Profile 

Since it’s founding, NASA has been dedicated 

to the advancement of aeronautics and space 

science. The NASA scientific and technical 

information (STI) program plays a key part in 

helping NASA maintain this important role. 

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information 

Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for 

archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. 

The NASA STI program provides access to 

the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database 

and its public interface, the NASA Technical 

Report Server, thus providing one of the 

largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are 

published in both non-NASA channels and by 

NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, 

which includes the following report types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports 

of completed research or a major 

significant phase of research that present 

the results of NASA Programs and include 

extensive data or theoretical analysis. 

Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of 

peer-reviewed formal professional papers 

but has less stringent limitations on 

manuscript length and extent of graphic 

presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., 

quick release reports, working papers, and 

bibliographies that contain minimal 

annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.

Collected papers from scientific and

technical conferences, symposia, seminars,

or other meetings sponsored or co-sponsored

by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

technical, or historical information from

NASA programs, projects, and missions,

often concerned with subjects having

substantial public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific

and technical material pertinent to

NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services also include creating

custom thesauri, building customized

databases, and organizing and publishing

research results. 

For more information about the NASA STI

program, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI program home page

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help

Desk at (301) 621-0134 

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

(301) 621-0390 

• Write to: 

NASA STI Help Desk 

NASA Center for AeroSpace 

Information 

7121 Standard Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 

 
NASA/TM—2013–216506 

Evaluating NextGen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations Concepts with Validated Human 

Performance Models: Flight Deck Guidelines 

Becky L. Hooey 

Brian F. Gore 

Eric Mahlstedt 

San Jose State University, San Jose, CA

David C. Foyle 

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, California 

April 2013 


Acknowledgements 

This research was supported by the Federal Aviation Administration, (DTFAWA-10-X-80005 

Annex 1.5). Dr. Tom McCloy is the FAA point of contact, and Dr. David Foyle is the NASA point 

of contact for this work. The authors would like to thank Dr. Barbara Burian of NASA Ames 

Research Center for her efforts coordinating the work under the agreement, and all reviewers for 

their insightful comments. The authors would also like to thank the team from Alion Science and 

Technology, Mark Gacy, Connie Socash, Mark Brehon, Chris Wickens, and Mala Gosakan for their 

model development work throughout this project. 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in the report is for accurate reporting and does not 

constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information This report is also available in electronic 

7121 Standard Drive form at: http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 or http://ntrs.nasa.gov 

(301) 621-0390 


Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 	
	


 	




	

	

 

 	
	

2.1.1 Aircraft separation responsibility (ATC vs Flight Deck)

 
   	
 

2.2.1 Wake and blunder avionics requirements

2.2.2 Wake display format (predicted vs. real-time wake information)

2.2.3 Wake display location

2.2.4 Blunder alert styles (one-stage vs. two-stage alerts)

 	 

2.3.1 Spacing management automation	

2.3.2 Spacing management display location


 		


 

  	 	
!

 





 


 


Executive Summary 

The objectives of the current research were to: Develop valid human performance models (HPMs) of 

approach and landing operations; use these models to evaluate the impact of NextGen Closely 

Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO) on pilot performance; and, draw conclusions regarding flight 

deck displays and pilot roles and responsibilities for NextGen CSPO concepts. These were 

accomplished in two phases. In Phase 1, CSPO scenarios were developed and validated. In Phase 2 

(reported here) flight deck guidelines were developed. 

Phase 1 (Model Development and Validation). Using NASA’s Man-machine Integration Design 

and Analysis System v5 (MIDAS v5), a high-fidelity human performance model (HPM) of a twopilot commercial crew flying current-day area navigation (RNAV) approach and landing operations 

was developed. The model contained over 970 individual pilot tasks, which were based on cognitive 

task analyses and cognitive walkthroughs conducted with commercial pilots and air traffic 

controllers. The model was validated by statistically comparing model results to existing Human-inthe-Loop (HITL) data. Workload output correlated with a comparable HITL study with r2

 values 

ranging from .55 to .94 depending on the specific type of workload. Visual percent dwell time 

correlated with three HITL studies (r2

 = .99). These validation results provide confidence that the 

model validly represented pilot performance. Next, the validated baseline RNAV model was 

extended to represent NextGen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations including the projection of new 

pilots tasks, flight deck automation, and displays for the depiction of blunder and wake threats in 

both nominal and off-nominal conditions. A comprehensive summary of the model development and 

validation effort can be found in: 

Gore, B. F., Hooey, B. L., Socash, C. M., Haan, N., Mahlstedt, E., Bakowski, D. L., Gacy, A. M., 

Wickens, C. D., Gosakan, M., and Foyle, D. C. (2011). Evaluating NextGen closely spaced 

parallel operations concepts with validated human performance models. HCSL Technical 

Report (HCSL-11-01). Human Centered Systems Laboratory (HCSL), Moffett Field, CA: 

NASA Ames Research Center. 

Phase 2 (CSPO Evaluations). The MIDAS CSPO model scenarios were then used to evaluate 

proposed changes to flight deck technologies, pilot procedures, operations, and roles and 

responsibilities to support the development of the NextGen CSPO technologies and concepts. 

Analyses of pilot performance measures, including time required to complete tasks, workload, scan 

patterns and responses to off-nominal events were used to draw conclusions regarding the flight 

deck requirements necessary to support NextGen CSPO concepts. This report summarizes the main 

findings, operational implications, and future research requirements for the following issues: 

I. Operational Concept 

 a. Aircraft separation responsibility (ATC vs. Flight Deck) 

II. Wake and Blunder Detection Displays 

a. Wake and blunder avionics requirements 

b. Wake display format (predicted vs. real-time) 

c. Wake display location (Primary Flight Display [PFD], Nav Display, or Both) 

 d. Blunder alert styles (One-stage vs. two-stage alerts) 

III. Spacing Management Automation 

a. Spacing management automation (Current vs. NextGen) 

b. Spacing management display locations (PFD, Nav Display, or Both) 

Full details including model assumptions, scenarios, and results can be found in the companion 

report: 


Gore, B.F., Hooey, B.L., Mahlstedt, E., & Foyle, D.C. (2013). Evaluating NextGen closely 

spaced parallel operations concepts with validated human performance models: Scenario 

development and results. HCSL Technical Report (HCSL-12-02); NASA TM-2013-216503, 

Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. 

1. Introduction 

Closely Spaced Parallel Operations (CSPO) are expected to enable paired approaches to minimum 

runway spacing in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) while maintaining the required level 

of safety (Cox, 2010). To support these more precise and closely coordinated operations, it is 

anticipated that there may be substantially more data available to pilots on the flight deck (e.g., 

weather, wake, traffic trajectory projections, and data pertaining to paired aircraft broadcast via 

ADS-B). CSPO concepts are relatively early in the concept development phases. Examples include 

the Simplified Aircraft-based Paired Approach (SAPA; Swider, 2010; Johnson et al., 2010; 

Guerreiro, et al., 2010), MITRE’s paired approach concept (Bone, 2000), and the Very Closely 

Spaced Parallel Approach (VCSPA) concept (Verma et al., 2008) using Terminal Area Capacity 

Enhancement Technology (TACEC; Trott et al., 2007). These build off of earlier concepts including 

Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS; Abbott & Elliott, 2001), and Simultaneous Offset 

Instrument Approaches (SOIA), in use at several airports today. These NextGen technologies, 

procedures and operations, must be designed with consideration of the pilots’ information 

requirements, capabilities and limitations. Failure to do so will leave the pilots, and thus the entire 

aviation system, vulnerable to error. 

Human Performance Models (HPMs) can be used to evaluate new technologies and operational 

procedures, and determine the appropriate allocation of roles and responsibilities between the human 

operators and the automation (Gore, 2008; Foyle & Hooey, 2008). HPMs are software simulations 

of the flight deck environment, flight deck displays and related information and communication 

requirements between the flight crew and air traffic controllers (ATC) coupled with a simulation of 

pilots’ workflow and cognitive processing. They allow for an analysis of existing and proposed pilot 

and ATC procedures, operations, and technology in evolving systems such as NextGen. HPMs have 

been shown to play a role in all phases of the technology design and development process (Gore, 

2008; Foyle & Hooey, 2008). HPMs hold the most promise when they are used early in the system 

design process and when used iteratively with human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation data (Elkind, 

Card, Hochberg, & Huey, 1989; Foyle & Hooey, 2008). 

The objective of this two-phased research project was to develop guidelines and determine 

implications for NextGen closely spaced parallel operations (CSPO). In Phase 1, a baseline human 

performance model (HPM) of current-day RNAV approaches was developed and validated (see 

Gore et al., 2011) using the Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS v5; 

described next). The model was extended to represent two CSPO operational concepts; and ‘what-if’ 

scenarios were exercised to evaluate human performance under four different off-nominal scenarios. 

This paper summarizes the results of Phase 2 of this research project, in which the validated model 

was extended to evaluate pilot human performance while varying the underlying assumptions 

associated with a range of automation and technologies for monitoring blunder and wake threats and 

managing spacing. Twenty-two scenarios were developed and analyzed to define CSPO guidelines 

for information presentation. The models are described in greater detail in Gore, Hooey, Mahlstedt, 

and Foyle (2013) while the operational findings and implications are reported here. 

 


1.1 Background 

The Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) is an established HPM that 

predicts human-system performance under nominal and off-nominal conditions (Gore, 2008). 

MIDAS symbolically represents many mechanisms that underlie and cause human behavior. It can 

be used to predict pilot workload, situation awareness, pilot scan metrics, and event detection times 

as a function of flight deck operations, procedures, and technologies. 

The MIDAS model of RNAV approach and landing procedures developed in Phase 1 of this 

research project (Gore et al., 2011) included a high-fidelity representation of two-crew commercial 

transport operations. The model scenario initiated when the aircraft was on descent at 10,000 ft 

Above Ground Level (AGL) and continued to touchdown. The aircraft broke through the cloud 

ceiling at 800 ft AGL, with a decision height (DH) of 650 ft AGL (see Figure 1). The tasks of the 

pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM) were modeled in high fidelity, while the tasks of air 

traffic control (ATC) were modeled in lower fidelity, but with sufficient detail to represent pilotATC interactions.

Figure 1. RNAV scenario. 

Notes: DH = Decision Height; FAF = Final Approach Fix; IF = Initial Fix; IFR = Instrument Flight 

Rules; IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions; RNAV = Area Navigation; TD = touchdown; 

VMC = Visual Meteorological Conditions. 

The RNAV model contained over 970 individual pilot tasks, which were based on cognitive task 

analyses and cognitive walkthroughs conducted during interviews with commercial pilots and air 

traffic controllers. The tasks, and the task sequences, were then validated using semi-structured, 

scenario-based, focus groups comprised of a total of eight commercial airline pilots. The scenario 

input parameters for workload and pilot scan patterns were validated using quantitative rating data 

collected from the eight focus group pilots (see Gore et al., 2011). Model outputs, including 

workload and pilot scan patterns, were statistically compared to existing HITL data. The workload 

model output correlated with a comparable HITL study with r2

 of .54 for overall workload. The 

individual workload dimensions also correlated positively with the HITL study with r2 ranging 

from .55 to .94. Visual percent dwell time correlated with three HITL studies (r2 = .99). These 

validation results provide confidence that the model validly represents pilot performance. Interested 

readers are directed to Gore et al. (2011), for further information on the validation process and 

results. 

Next, the validated baseline RNAV model was extended to represent the Closely Spaced Parallel 

Operations (CSPO) concept being developed and evaluated at NASA Ames Research Center 

(VCSPA; Verma et al., 2008). Two operational implementations of the CSPO concept were 

evaluated (see Figure 2): 1) CSPO 800 ft, with an 800 ft ceiling and manual flight after a DH of 650 

ft AGL, and 2) CSPO 200 ft with a 200 ft ceiling and autoland capability. The CSPO 200 

implementation with a lower (200 ft) ceiling and autoland automation is most representative of 

NextGen CSPO goals. The model represented the pilots of the trailing aircraft of a CSPO pairing in 
"

high fidelity, while the task and procedures of the lead aircraft and ATC were modeled at a lower 

level of fidelity. 

Figure 2. CSPO scenarios; CSPO 800 (Top panel) and CSPO 200 (Bottom panel). 

Notes: IF = Initial Fix, FAF = Final Approach Fix, DH = Decision Height, IMC = Instrument 

Meteorological Conditions, VMC = Visual Meteorological Conditions, TD = Touchdown 

The CSPO scenario inputs (task sequence and input parameters) were validated using the same 

scenario-based focus groups as for the RNAV model discussed above. The CSPO scenario outputs 

were compared to the RNAV scenario output to predict changes to pilot performance associated with 

CSPO procedures and compared to RNAV operations. ‘What-if’ scenarios were conducted to 

explore the impact of the NextGen CSPO concept on pilot performance during four off-nominal 

conditions: 1) High wind/turbulence; 2) Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA) Error; 3) Required 

Navigation Performance (RNP) alert; and, 4) Rogue aircraft present on the runway. These results 

are available in Gore et al., 2011. 

In this second phase of the research project, the MIDAS scenarios of CSPO approach and landing 

were extended to assess the impact of various NextGen Flight Deck technologies for monitoring 

blunder and wake threats and managing spacing. This expanded model culminated in more than 

1100 operator tasks. An overview of the important findings for each issue is provided below. 

Complete scenario details and additional data are available in the accompanying report (Gore, 

Hooey, Mahlstedt, & Foyle, 2013). 

2. CSPO FLIGHT DECK REQUIREMENTS: FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 

The MIDAS CSPO scenarios were used to evaluate proposed changes to flight deck technologies, 

pilot procedures, operations, and roles and responsibilities to support the development of the 

NextGen CSPO technologies and concepts. The output for each scenario was generated from 10 

Monte Carlo simulation runs. Analyses of pilot performance measures, including time required to 

complete tasks, pilot workload, pilot scan patterns, and response times to off-nominal events were 

used to draw conclusions regarding the information requirements necessary to support NextGen 

CSPO concepts. Specifically, the validated CSPO models were augmented to evaluate the following 

issues: 

I. Operational Concept 

 a. Aircraft separation responsibility (ATC vs. Flight deck) 

II. Wake and Blunder Detection Avionics 

a. Wake and blunder avionics requirements 


b. Wake display format (predicted vs. real-time) 

c. Wake display location (PFD, Nav Display, or Both) 

d. Blunder alert styles (One-stage vs. two-stage alerts) 

III. Spacing Management Automation 

a. Spacing management automation (Current vs. NextGen) 

b. Spacing management display locations (PFD, Nav Display, or Both) 

2.1 OPERATIONAL CONCEPT 

2.1.1 Aircraft separation responsibility (ATC vs Flight Deck) 

In contrast to the current-day operational concept in which ATC is responsible for separation, 

NextGen concepts like NASA Ames’ VCSPA concept (Verma et al., 2008) have considered shifting 

the responsibility for wake and blunder threat detection to the pilots. Such an operational concept 

would require advanced avionics capable of depicting conformance zones, wake, and enhanced 

traffic information on the flight deck. While providing a richer picture of the traffic environment, 

adding additional data on the flight deck must be balanced against the potential of increased 

workload and monitoring requirements that could then negatively impact overall pilot performance 

during this critical phase of flight. The following analysis assesses the tradeoffs between equipping 

the flight deck with blunder and alert warnings needed for pilot self-separation operations compared 

to maintaining the current-day ATC-separation responsibility. 

Method 

The CSPO scenario was modified to evaluate pilot performance in two conditions: 1) Pilotresponsible separation, with the flight deck equipped with enhanced wake and traffic displays; and, 

2) ATC-responsible separation, with the flight deck equipped with current-day displays (without 

enhanced wake and traffic depictions). 

In the scenario, as the aircraft was on final approach, a wake threat occurred in which the wake of 

the lead aircraft extended into the trailing aircraft’s trajectory. This threat required a missed 

approach. In the pilot-responsible scenario, pilots of the trailing aircraft were equipped with wake 

avionics that issued an auditory and visual alert when an emergency escape maneuver was required. 

The dynamic breakout maneuver was shown on the Nav Display as in Verma et al.’s (2008) VCSPA 

concept. In the ATC-responsible scenario, ATC automation alerted the controller, who then issued a 

verbal Go-Around command to the aircraft, with a unique (non-procedural) missed approach path 

that accounted for metroplex traffic, terrain, and wind conditions. 

Results 

The impact of shifting separation responsibility from ATC to the flight deck on the pilots’ time to 

initiate a Take-Off and Go-Around maneuver (TOGA), workload, and visual scan during the wake 

threat period was assessed. The data presented below are for the Pilot Flying (PF), as it is expected 

that the PF would be the most overloaded in this scenario, given PF responsibilities for monitoring 

aircraft performance and deciding if a missed approach is necessary in the event of a wake threat. 

Time to Initiate TOGA Escape Maneuver. The model predicted that the time to initiate an emergency 

escape maneuver (by pressing the TOGA button) would be .3 sec faster in the NextGen pilotseparation scenario (2.9 s) than the ATC-separation scenario (3.2 s; Figure 3). This is expected 

because the pilot-separation concept eliminates the time required for ATC to detect the event and 

communicate to the fight deck. However, predicted time savings were actually quite small because, 


in the pilot-separation scenario, the model also accounted for the additional time required to 

understand the wake threat and determine the appropriate maneuver required. 

Figure 3. Predicted time to TOGA for the pilotresponsible and ATC-responsible scenarios (+/- 1 SE) 

Workload. The small benefit of faster TOGA times (above) associated with the pilot-responsible 

scenario came at a cost of higher predicted visual, cognitive-spatial and cognitive-verbal workload 

(see Figure 4). This is because the model accounts for the demands of visually monitoring additional 

information, and continual decision-making processes required to assess the wake threat. 

Pilot Scan. The model predicted that the PF in the pilot-responsible scenario would spend longer 

monitoring the Nav Display than in the ATC-responsible scenario at a cost of having less time to 

monitor the PFD and out the window (OTW). As can be seen in Figure 5, the ATC-responsible 

scenario yielded a more balanced scan pattern across the three main areas of interest (PFD, NAV, 

and OTW) during the alert phase.

 

Figure 4. Predicted workload for PF for 

the pilot-responsible and ATC-responsible 

scenarios (+/- 1 SE) 

Figure 5. Predicted pilot (PF) scan pattern 

for the pilot-responsible and ATCresponsible scenarios (+/- 1 SE) 


Findings and Implications 

Model output revealed that transitioning responsibility for wake and blunder 

detection to the pilots (with enhanced flight deck displays) may result in: 

 - Reduced time to initiate an emergency escape maneuver (negligible) 

Depending on flight deck display design, this operational concept may also: 

 - Increase pilot workload 

 - Increase pilot scans toward the Nav Display at the expense of monitoring the 

PFD and OTW 

Research Requirements 

Wake displays must be designed to prevent excessive monitoring 

requirements. 

Consider status-at-a-glance displays and auditory notifications 

Providing access to wake threat information on PFD may help pilots monitor 

wake threats and flight status simultaneously 

- New task allocation and division of responsibilities within the cockpit may 

 be required such that one pilot is dedicated to monitoring traffic and wake 

threats while on parallel approach, allowing the other pilot to prioritize 

primary flight performance 

- Further evaluations of pilots’ time to initiate emergency escape maneuver in 

high-fidelity simulation is required for more accurate (absolute) estimates 

2.2 WAKE AND BLUNDER DETECTION DISPLAYS 

2.2.1 Wake and blunder avionics requirements 

One potential concept that can be envisioned for CSPO is to enable closely spaced operations 

with a lower Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), while maintaining ATC responsibility for 

directing breakouts as needed (either due to blunder or wake threat). Under these operations, it is 

expected that ATC would be equipped with enhanced technology to support wake threat 

monitoring, but it is unknown whether pilots will require enhanced avionics and displays to 

enable monitoring of the traffic and wake situation as well; and if so, how such displays may 

impact pilot flight deck performance. 

Method 

The CSPO scenario illustrated in Figure 2 was modified to evaluate pilot performance in two 

conditions: 1) ATC-responsible for separation, flight decks not equipped with avionics to 

display wake; and, 2) ATC-responsible for separation, flight decks are equipped with 

avionics to graphically depict real-time wake information on the Navigation Display. In the latter 

case, wake was depicted as a secondary display for situation awareness, but without on-board 
#

alerts, and ATC maintained responsibility for detecting blunder/wake threats and issuing goaround commands. 

In the scenario, as the aircraft pair were on final approach, a wake threat occurred in which the 

wake of the lead aircraft extended into the trailing aircraft’s trajectory requiring ATC to instruct 

the trailing aircraft to execute an emergency escape maneuver. 

Results 

The predicted impact of the flight deck displays on the time to initiate the emergency escape 

maneuver (by pressing the TOGA button), and the pilot-monitoring’s (PM) workload and scan 

pattern during the wake threat period was assessed. The data presented in Figures 7 and 8 are for 

the PM, as the PM is the pilot most likely to be monitoring the wake and traffic information 

during the approach. 

Time to TOGA. The model predicted that the time to initiate the emergency escape maneuver (i.e., 

press the TOGA button) was slower when the flight deck was equipped with enhanced traffic 

and wake displays (9.8 sec) than without (5.7 sec; Figure 6). This is because pilots had more 

information to crosscheck (traffic, wake, weather) prior to complying with the ATC go-around

command. 

Figure 6. Predicted time to TOGA with and without advanced wake depictions on the 

Navigation Display (+/- 1 SE) 

Workload. Figure 7 presents the predicted visual and cognitive workload of the PM. As can be 

seen, the model predicted that the flight deck wake displays would increase the PM’s cognitive 

workload (both spatial and verbal). This is a function of the increased task demands associated 

with assessing the nature of the traffic/wake threat. 

Pilot Scan. When provided with wake/blunder avionics, the model predicted that the PM will

spend more time monitoring the Nav Display at a cost of monitoring both the Primary Flight 

Display (PFD) and out the window (OTW), see Figure 8. The preference to view the Nav 

Display over OTW might be expected given the enhanced situation awareness offered by the 

wake display relative to the OTW view, particularly in low-visibility. The implications of the

reduction in time spent monitoring the PFD, though small, merits further investigation in future 

research efforts. 
$

Figure 7. Predicted PM visual and cognitive 

workload with and without advanced wake 

depictions on the Navigation Display (+/- 1 

SE)

Figure 8. Predicted PM percent dwell time 

with and without advanced wake depictions 

on the Navigation Display (+/- 1 SE)

Findings and Implications 

Model output revealed that, when ATC is responsible for aircraft separation in a

CSPO environment, equipping the flight deck with wake depictions may result in: 

- Slower initiation of the emergency escape maneuver 

- Reduced pilot monitoring of PFD and OTW 

- Higher workload for the PM 

Research Requirement 

- Identify minimal information requirements to enable cross-checking ATC 

commands that will not increase pilot workload or delay pilot response to 

blunder or wake threats 

- Identify wake display formats, such as highlighting and cueing, which offer 

status-at-a-glance information without detracting attention from the PFD 

2.2.2 Wake display format (predicted vs. real-time wake information) 

The National Research Council (NRC) study on Wake Turbulence (2008) highlighted the need 

for a combination of modeling and measurement of wake vortices that would allow aircraft to 

continually adjust their spacing under visual flight rules (VFR) for optimization depending on 

the mix of aircraft approaching, the speed and direction of wind, and the rate of dissipation of 

vortices on approach to a given runway. The NRC report suggested that under instrument flight 

rules (IFR), the system would provide a safety backup assist to ensure avoidance of hazardous 

wake encounters. Further, the NRC noted that dynamic spacing of aircraft based on wake vortex

motion will require prediction of wind behavior and that it is necessary for the pilot and/or 

controller to have information on the wake position in real time as a safety net to verify the 

predicted separation provided. The following analysis evaluates the effect of two different 
!

formats for the visualization of wake information: static depictions of predicted wake and

dynamic visualizations of real-time wake. 

Method 

Two nominal approach scenarios were evaluated: 1) A static wake display showing a safe zone 

based on predicted data given lead aircraft and forecast wind conditions. The size, shape, and 

relative location of the safe zone did not change throughout the approach and land scenario; and 

2) A real-time wake display that visualized the wake updating dynamically in real time based on 

factors including lead aircraft performance, instantaneous wind data, and wake dissipation rates.

For this analysis, the same wake information was presented on both the PFD and Nav Display

(as in the VCSPA concept, Verma et al., 2008). In both scenarios, the pilots’ time to detect offnominal events was assessed as a measure of pilots’ situation awareness of important aircraft 

parameters. The off-nominal events included: 1) An alert indicating a loss in Required 

Navigation Performance (RNP) located on the Engine Indication and Crew Alert System 

(EICAS) tested when the ownship was at 400 ft altitude); and, 2) an aircraft on the runway (when 

the ownship was at 150 ft altitude). 

Results 

Pilot Scan. The model predicted that the pilot will spend more time looking at the wake display 

elements with the real-time wake format (29.6% of time) than the static wake format (13.6% of 

time; Figure 9). Increased scans to the wake information on the PFD and Nav Display are likely 

to be a reasonable monitoring strategy, given the richness and clarity of the data available on the 

display relative to that obtained out-the-window (OTW) during a low-visibility approach. 

Figure 9. Predicted percent time (PF) spent monitoring wake 

display with static and real-time wake displays (+/- 1 SE) 

Off-nominal Event Response Time. A consequence of the increased time spent monitoring the 

PFD and Nav Display, described previously, was that there was a corresponding predicted delay 

in the time for pilots to detect and respond to both the RNP alerts on the EICAS (Figure 10) and 

an aircraft on the runway (Figure 11). 


 

Figure 10. Predicted PF response times to RNPloss alerts with static versus real-time wake 

displays (+/- 1 SE) 

Figure 11. Predicted PF response times to 

detect an aircraft on runway with static versus 

real-time wake displays (+/- 1 SE) 

Findings and Implications

Model output on the pilot performance revealed that, compared to static wake 

depictions, dynamic real-time wake displays may result in: 

- Increased time spent monitoring wake display elements 

- Slower detection of flight performance status

- Slower detection of external objects such as aircraft on the runway 

Research Requirement 

- Real-time wake displays may require filters to limit the data update rate on the

flight deck 

- Real-time wake prediction tools may require alternative display formats, not 

 direct visualization of wake, consider simple red/green light status indicator as 

 suggested in NRC (2008) 

- Determine if pilots require the precision afforded by real-time wake displays for 

CSPO 

2.2.3 Wake display location 

Lozito (2011) reported that “there appears to be no consensus regarding where on the flight deck 

[spacing and wake] data should be presented to the flight crew” and called for “further research 

to determine where the data necessary for [Closely Spaced Parallel Approach] operations should 

reside on the flight deck”. The analysis presented here assesses the impact on pilot performance 

when wake data is presented on the PFD, Nav Display, or in both locations at the same time. 


Method 

The nominal CSPO scenario was modified to manipulate the location of the wake information. It

was presented either on the PFD, Nav Display, or in both locations. Both the predicted and realtime display formats (described previously) were evaluated in each of the three display locations, 

however, as the pattern of results did not differ between the display formats, only data for the 

real-time display are presented here (see Gore, Hooey, Mahlstedt, & Foyle, 2013) for additional 

data). All other aspects of content and format of the wake display were held constant for these 

evaluations in order to isolate the effect of the display location. Pilots’ response time to three 

kinds of alerts were tested: 1) RNP failure alert located on the EICAS when the ownship was at 

900 ft altitude; 2) Automation decoupling alert on the PFD when the ownship was at 700 ft

altitude; and, 3) Aircraft on the runway when the ownship was at 150 ft altitude. 

Results 

Pilot Scan. When wake information was presented on both the Nav Display and PFD, the model 

predicted that the pilots will look at the wake display elements the most (29.6% of the time), 

compared to when presented on the PFD only (17.3%), or the Nav Display only (16.9%; See 

Figure 12). 

Figure 12. Predicted Percent Dwell Time (PF) on wake display elements 

during approach as a function of wake display location (+/- 1 SE) 

Off-nominal Event Response Time. When the wake information was presented on both the PFD 

and Nav Display, the model predicted that pilots would take longer to detect cockpit alerts and 

events in the environment compared to when the wake information was located on either just the 

PFD or just the Nav Display alone (See Figure 13). This was the case for each of the three 

different alerts: RNP-loss, automation decoupling, and an aircraft on the runway. 


Figure 13. Predicted PF detection time for three off-nominal events as a function 

of the location of the real-time wake display (+/- 1 SE) 

Findings and Implications 

- Model output suggests that presenting wake information on both PFD and Nav 

may result in: 

- Increased scans to wake-related display elements 

- Slower response times to all off-nominal events 

- Unless the PFD and Nav Display afford inherently different presentations of the 

wake 

 data (not tested here), there appears to be little or no support for presenting 

wake on 

BOTH displays. 

Research Requirement 

- Determine precise wake information requirements and identify formats and 

display best suited for presentation.

- Wake displays may require new crew task allocations and division of 

responsibility 

2.2.4 Blunder alert styles (one-stage vs. two-stage alerts)

It is assumed in most CSPO concepts (e.g., VCSPA; Verma et al., 2008) that flight deck alerts 

would be issued in the event of a wake threat or blundering aircraft. What is less clear, however, 

is the format that the alert would take. For example, it is unclear whether the alert would be a 
"

one-stage or two-stage alert. A one-stage alert format is defined by the system being in either a 

nominal no-alert state, or being in the alert state that would require an action by the pilot (i.e., to 

initiate a missed approach). A two-stage alert, as proposed by the Ames VCSPA concept (Verma 

et al., 2008), is similar to a TCAS alert. A traffic (or wake) advisory would be issued if either 

wake or paired traffic was approaching the ownship’s safe zone, thus directing the pilots’ 

attention to a possible future conflict. This would provide pilots with critical time to gather 

situation awareness and prepare for the missed approach. A resolution advisory would be 

triggered when the wake or lead aircraft actually does encroach on the trailing aircraft’s safety 

zone. In this case, the pilots would be provided aural and visual commands to resolve the conflict. 

Pilots are expected to make no inputs until they receive the second-stage resolution advisory. 

The following evaluation will compare the effects of one-stage and two-stage alerts in CSPO. 

Method 

A scenario was created to represent NextGen CSPO conditions in which the pilots were 

responsible for self-separation and for detecting and initiating emergency escape maneuvers. 

Two conditions were tested. In the one-stage alert condition, pilots experienced simultaneous 

auditory and visual alerts when an emergency escape maneuver was required due to a wake 

threat (wake blown into the trailing aircraft’s trajectory). In the second condition, pilots were 

provided with a two-stage alert. Initially, the source of the threat (blunder or wake) was 

highlighted in yellow to indicate a potential threat, but no action was required. When an 

emergency escape maneuver was required, the source of the threat turned red, and was 

accompanied by an aural alert. 

Results 

Predicted time to TOGA and workload of the PF were compared as a function of the alert style: 

One-stage or two-stage. 

Time to TOGA. The model predicted substantially faster times to initiate the emergency escape 

maneuver for the two-stage alert format (2.9 sec) than the one-stage alert format (9.8 sec; Figure 

14). This shows the intended benefit of the two-stage alert -- it allows the pilots to develop 

awareness of the traffic situation and prepare to act before the alert requiring the response is 

issued. 

Workload. The two-stage alert format predicted only negligible increases in cognitive workload 

as compared to the one-stage format (See Figure 15). The small increase may be because the 

pilot is engaged in tasks aimed at assessing the threat level and planning the escape maneuver 

during the traffic/wake advisory phase. 


Figure 14. Predicted time to TOGA with one-stage and two-stage wake threat alerts (+/- 1 SE) 

Figure 15. Predicted PF workload with one-stage and two-stage wake threat alerts (+/- 1 SE) 

Findings and Implications 

Model output revealed that, compared to one-stage alerts, two-stage alerts for 

wake and blunder threats yielded: 

Faster initiation of emergency escape maneuvers 

A small increase in PF workload 

- Two-stage alerts for wake and blunder threats should be considered for 

NextGen CSPO concepts. 

Research Requirements 

Issues associated with pilot distraction and false alarm rates should also be 

considered. 


2.3 SPACING MANAGEMENT 

2.3.1 Spacing management automation 

Johnson et al. (2010) considered four methods for speed management in the Simplified Aircraftbased Paired Approach (SAPA) concept and concluded that a technique termed ‘Station Keeping’ 

had the greatest merit. According to their definition, in the station-keeping technique, “the fast 

aircraft, once properly positioned, would then remain in a fixed, relative position by matching 

the ground speed of its leading aircraft. Once it reached a speed equal to its planned final 

approach speed (PFAS), which would naturally occur due to its leader decelerating, it would then 

maintain that speed until landing.” They reported that this technique allows the spacing aircraft 

to make minor spacing adjustments to compensate for wind prediction or other similar errors 

until it reaches its planned final approach speed while still achieving a smooth deceleration to 

that speed. 

Verma et al. (2011) reported a HITL study that compared pilot performance in a CSPO 

environment with an auto-speed control flight deck automation tool versus current-day flight 

deck speed automation (using FMS input or MCP input). The NextGen auto-speed control tool 

was developed to assist the crew in the task of maintaining the required spacing behind the lead 

aircraft and was a modification of the Airborne Spacing for Terminal Arrival Routes (ASTAR) 

algorithm developed at NASA Langley Research Center for merging and spacing operations 

(Murdoch, Barmore, Baxley, Abbott, & Capron, 2009). Their study found that workload was low 

for both the current-day automation and the advanced automation styles and there were no 

significant differences in workload between the two automation styles. Also, no differences in 

pilot situation awareness were observed, though current-day automation was rated as more 

demanding than NextGen auto-spacing. 

This analysis extends these HITL studies by assessing the impact of two speed-management 

modes (current-day automation or NextGen automation) on pilot scan patterns and off-nominal 

event detection. 

Method 

The scenario consisted of a nominal approach, with no wake or blunder event. The scenario was 

repeated with two spacing automation styles: 1) Current-day -- in which pilots managed spacing 

by controlling speed using the MCP; and, 2) NextGen -- in which advanced automation 

controlled speed to maintain spacing. In both cases, spacing information was located on both the 

PFD and Nav Display (as in Verma et al., 2011). All other model parameters were held constant. 

The scenario included two off-nominal events: 1) RNP-failure alert located on the EICAS when 

the ownship was at 3,000 ft altitude; and, 2) Automation mode error located on the PFD at 1,000 

ft. 

Results 

Pilot Scan. During the descent phase of flight (10,000 ft to 4,000 ft), when spacing management 

is most critical, the model predicted that pilots will have a higher percent dwell time (i.e., 

percentage of time that the pilot is looking at the display) for spacing-related display elements 


with current-day automation (37.6%) than with NextGen automation (22.4%), see Figure 16.

This reflects both a locus of control effect (in the current-day automation scenario, the pilot was

responsible for spacing, whereas in the NextGen automation scenario, the avionics system was 

managing spacing) and the need to make and verify more frequent speed adjustments with 

current-day automation. 

Off-nominal event detection. A consequence of increased monitoring of the speed-related display 

components is a predicted delay in the time to detect events elsewhere in the cockpit. At 3,000 ft 

altitude, a visual alert on the EICAS indicated an RNP failure. In the model, pilots were slower 

to detect this alert with current-day speed automation than with NextGen speed automation (see 

Figure 17). On the other hand, the increased visual scanning demands of the current-day spacing 

condition, caused pilots in the model to view the PFD more frequently. As a result, the pilots 

were faster to detect an automation failure alert on the PFD (See Figure 18). This suggests a 

possible complacency effect when NextGen automation is responsible for managing aircraft 

speed.

Figure 16. Predicted PF percent dwell time on spacing-related 

display elements during approach as a function of automation style (+/- 1 SE) 

Figure 17. Predicted response time (PF) to 

RNP-loss alert (+/- 1 SE) 

Figure 18. Predicted response time (PF) to 

an automation failure (+/- 1 SE) 
#

Findings and Implications 

Model output suggests that current-day speed-management automation may: 

 - Increase time required to monitor spacing-related displays 

 - Enable pilots to detect RNP-loss faster 

NextGen speed-management automation may: 

 - Result in slower time for pilots to detect an automation failure (due to a 

 complacency effect) 

Research Requirement 

- Initiatives to minimize pilot complacency with advanced automation

2.3.2 Spacing management display location 

As with wake information, analyses are required to determine the appropriate location within the 

cockpit for the CSPO spacing information. Verma et al.’s (2011) paper included components on 

both the PFD and Nav Display. Specifically, they included “conformance bars that indicated the 

spacing window behind the leader on the Nav Display and markers for the spacing on the PFD to 

help the crews manage conformance.” Verma et al. concluded that “scan patterns and headsdown time were concerns expressed by the pilots. They suggested key information should be 

redundantly presented on their focal displays (PFD, Nav) and should be filtered to indicate when 

they need to act.” The analysis presented here builds on Verma et al.’s findings by assessing the 

impact on pilots’ scan patterns and off-nominal event detection when spacing data is placed on 

the PFD, the Nav Display, or both of these displays. 

Method 

The scenario consisted of a nominal approach, with no wake or blunder event. Pilots flew the 

CSPO approach with current-day automation, in which they managed spacing by controlling 

speed using the Mode Control Panel (MCP). Spacing information was located on the PFD, Nav 

Display, or both displays. All other model parameters were held constant. Two off-nominal 

events were included in the scenario: 1) RNP-failure alert located on the EICAS (when ownship 

was at 3,000 ft altitude); and, 2) Automation decoupling event when the ownship was at 1,000 ft 

altitude. 

Results 

Pilot Scan. With advanced NextGen automation for spacing management, the amount of time 

that pilots spent monitoring spacing-related display elements was not predicted to differ as a 

function of display location (22% in each of the three display locations). Using current-day 

automation to manage spacing, the modeled pilot monitored spacing-related information more 

when it was presented on BOTH displays (37.6% of the time), than on the PFD (32.4%) or Nav 

(28.9%) alone (see Figure 19). 
$

Figure 19. Predicted percent dwell time (PF) on spacing display elements using 

current-day spacing automation during descent as a function of display location (+/- 1 SE) 

Off-nominal event detection. The detection of RNP-loss alert, located on the EICAS, was not 

predicted to be affected by location of spacing information (see Figure 20, left). Pilots were 

equally likely to make a scan to the EICAS from either the PFD or Nav Display. 

However, when spacing-management information was presented on the Nav Display, the model 

predicted that the time to detect an automation-decoupling event on the PFD would be delayed

(See Figure 20). This is because the pilots spent more time monitoring wake on the NAV 

Display and consequently less time monitoring the PFD where the automation-decoupling event 

was indicated. This raises a concern about the pilots’ ability to monitor important aircraft status 

parameters simultaneously with wake status. 

Figure 20. Predicted PF response time to detect RNP-loss alert and 

automation decoupling as a function of spacing information location (+/- 1 SE) 
!

Findings and Implications 

Model output revealed that with current-day spacing management automation: 

 - Presenting spacing information on both PFD and Nav Display may result in 

more time monitoring the spacing task 

 - Presenting spacing information only on the Nav Display may result in slower 

 Detection of an automation failure indicated on the PFD 

 

3. CONCLUSION 

The current research efforts have resulted in a stable validated human performance model of 

Closely Spaced Parallel Operations. This model has proven useful for addressing the following 

research issues: 

• Avionics (displays and alerts) design and integration 

• Procedures, tasks definition, and training requirements 

• Roles and responsibilities and function allocation 

• ConOps development 

The present research assessed the implications of several CSPO flight deck technology 

implementations regarding pilot monitoring and management of blunders, wake, and spacing 

using analyses based on the output of a validated CSPO human performance model using 

MIDAS v5. 

3.1 PROPOSED FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 

These MIDAS v5 CSPO scenarios can be extended further to address the following CSPO 

research gaps identified by Lozito (2011; Closely Spaced Parallel Approach Flight Deck Human 

Factors Summary). In future work, specific research gaps to be addressed would be developed 

and refined in collaboration with FAA sponsors. 

Proposed future research candidates include determining implications and guidelines regarding: 

• Transition of separation responsibility from pilot to ATC during or after emergency 

escape maneuvers 

• Effect of routine interruptions and distractions on flight crew’s ability to monitor CSPO 

approaches 

• Effect on the trailing aircraft crew of the lead aircraft’s blunder as a function of slowing 

down (i.e., because it is harder to detect and determine the maneuver) 

• Effect of customized, non-procedure, escape maneuvers 

• Level of conformance and alert data monitoring that can be performed continually 

• Amount of data entry that is acceptable for flight crews on approach 

• Flight crew threshold levels for Alerts and Warnings (for CSPO and ADS-B, in general) 

• Tradeoffs between information availability and display clutter 

• Formats and flight deck locations of spacing/interval non-conformance displays 

• Wake ‘protected zones’ 

• Escape-maneuvers on the flight deck 


• Crew procedures 

• Development of new pilot task allocation and division of responsibilities 

The current research addressed the effect of various CSPO technologies on pilot performance. 

The MIDAS v5 CSPO scenarios are easily modified to evaluate different technologies within 

any phase of flight (i.e., en-route, departures, or taxi). The current focus has been on modeling 

pilot performance, but high-fidelity models of ATC operations can also be generated with the 

same research approach. MIDAS v5 is well suited to address research questions related to the 

many facets of current-day and NextGen environments: ConOps development; flight deck and 

ATC tasks and procedures; pilot and ATC roles and responsibilities; information requirements; 

and technology integration. 

3.2 SUMMARY 

This research effort yielded the following products: 

1. A validated model of current-day RNAV and Next-Gen CSPO approach and land 

procedures, including detailed task analyses of pilot and ATC tasks 

2. Implications and guidelines to support CSPO technology development and certification 

relating to the following topics: 

I. Operational Concept 

 a. Aircraft Separation Responsibility (ATC vs. Flight Deck) 

II. Wake and Blunder Detection Displays 

a. Wake and blunder avionics requirements 

b. Wake display format (predicted vs. real-time) 

c. Wake display location 

 d. Blunder alert styles (One-stage vs. two-stage alerts) 

III. Spacing Management 

a. Spacing management automation 

b. Spacing management display locations (PFD, Nav Display, or Both) 

3. Identification of remaining research gaps critical for successful fielding of NextGen 

CSPO technologies and concepts 


4. REFERENCES 

Abbott, T. S. & Elliott, D. M. (2001). Simulator Evaluation of Airborne Information for Lateral 

Spacing (AILS) Concept. NASA/TP-2001-210665, March 2001. 

Bone, R., Olmos, O., Mundra, A. (2000). Paired Approach: A Closely Spaced Parallel Runway 

Approach Concept. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC. 

Cox, G. (2010). Closely Spaced Parallel Runway Operations (CSPO). Presented at the CSPO 

Working Group Meeting, June 3, 2010. Available at: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs440/c

spo/meetings/media/cspo_working_group.pdf 

Elkind, J. L., Card, S. K., Hochberg, J., & Huey, B. M. (eds.) (1989). Human performance 

models for computer-aided engineering. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. 

Foyle, D. C. & Hooey, B. L. (2008). Human Performance Modeling in Aviation. Boca Raton, 

FL: CRC Press. 

Gore, B. F. (2008). Chapter 32: Human performance: Evaluating the cognitive aspects. In V. 

Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of digital human modeling (pp. 32:31-32:18). Boca Raton, Fla: 

CRC Press Inc. 

Gore, B. F., Hooey, B. L., Socash, C. M., Haan, N., Mahlstedt, E., Bakowski, D. L., Gacy, A. M., 

Wickens, C. D., Gosakan, M., and Foyle, D. C. (2011). Evaluating NextGen closely 

spaced parallel operations concepts with validated human performance models. HCSL 

Technical Report (HCSL-11-01). Human Centered Systems Laboratory (HCSL), Moffett 

Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. 

Gore, B. F., Hooey, B. L., Mahlstedt, E., & Foyle, D. C. (2013). Evaluating NextGen closely 

spaced parallel operations concepts with validated human performance models: Flight 

Deck Guidelines (Part 2 of 2). HCSL Technical Report (HCSL-13-02). Human Centered 

Systems Laboratory (HCSL); NASA TM#2013-216503, Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames 

Research Center. 

Guerreiro, N. M., Neitzke, K. W., Johnson, S. C., Stough III, H. P., McKissick, B. T., & Syed, T. 

H. (2010). Characterizing a Wake-free Safe Zone for the Simplified Aircraft-based Paired 

Approach Concept. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Proceedings, Fort 

Worth, Texas. 

Lozito, S. (2011). CSPA Flight Deck Human Factors Summary: Research Issues. Technical 

Report. NASA Ames Research Center: Moffett Field, CA. 

Johnson, S., et al (2010) Simplified Aircraft-based Paired Approach: Concept Definition and 

Initial Analysis. Interagency Agreement IA1-973 Technical Direction 2. NASA Langley 

Research Center, Virginia. 

Murdoch, J. L. Barmore, B. E., Baxley, B. T., Abbott, T. S., and Capron, W. R. (2009) 

Evaluation of an airborne spacing concept to support continuous descent arrivals. Eighth 

USA/Europe Air Traffic management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2009). 

Napa, CA. 

National Research Council (2008). Wake Turbulence – An obstacle to increased air traffic 

capacity. National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 

Swider, C., (2010). Advanced SAPA Concept. Quarterly Progress Report. Presented at the CSPO 

Working Group Meeting, June 3, 2010. 


Trott, G., Ballinger, D., Hardy, G., Lozito, S, Panda, R., & Verma, S. (2007). Real-Time 

Simulation of Very Closely Spaced Parallel Runway Approaches. Raytheon Presentation. 

Marlborough, Massachusetts. 

Verma, S., Lozito, S., Kozon, T., Ballinger, D., & Resnick, H. (2008). Procedures for offnominal cases: Very closely spaced parallel runways approaches, Digital Avionics 

System Conference, St. Paul, MN. 

Verma, S., Lozito, S., Kaneshige, J., Ballinger, D., Sharma, S., Martin, L, Kozon, T., Cheng, V., 

& Subramanian, S. (2011). Integrated pilot and controller procedures: Aircraft pairing for 

simultaneous approaches to closely spaced parallel runways. In Ninth USA/Europe Air 

Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM 2011). 
Report Documentation Page Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of 

information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YY) 

30-04-2013

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

3. DATES COVERED (From – To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Evaluating NextGen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

Concepts with Validated Human Performance Models: Flight 

Deck Guidelines

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Becky L. Hooey, Brian F. Gore, Eric Mahlstedt, and 

David C. Foyle 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

DTFAWA-10-X-80005

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES(ES) 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

TH-097

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

 __________ 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

REPORT NUMBER 

NASA/TM–2013-216506 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Unclassified—Unlimited 

Subject Category: 1 Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390 Distribution: Nonstandard 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Point of Contact: David Foyle, NASA Ames Research Center, 262-2, Moffett Field, CA; 

(650) 604-3053 

14. ABSTRACT 

The objectives of the current research were to develop valid human performance models (HPMs) of approach 

and land operations; use these models to evaluate the impact of NextGen Closely Spaced Parallel Operations 

(CSPO) on pilot performance; and draw conclusions regarding flight deck display design and pilot-ATC roles 

and responsibilities for NextGen CSPO concepts. This document presents guidelines and implications for 

flight deck display designs and candidate roles and responsibilities. A companion document (Gore, Hooey, 

Mahlstedt, & Foyle, 2013) provides complete scenario descriptions and results including predictions of pilot 

workload, visual attention and time to detect off–nominal events. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

human performance models, closely spaced parallel operations (CSPO), NextGen, Man-machine 

Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) v5

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF 

ABSTRACT 

UU 

18. NUMBER 

OF 

PAGES 

32

$%&%'()*+(,-)&,./(-(+,)&

	

		


a. REPORT 

U 

b. ABSTRACT 

U 

c. THIS PAGE 

U 

19B. TELEPHONE NUMBER (INCLUDE AREA CODE) 

	

 !

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z-39-18