Avisure introduced Dr Isabel C. Metz and her research work in a previous AviNews article. She has continued her research in a recent study (with Dr Sebastian Schier-Morgenthal) published in the ‘CEAS Aeronautical Journal’ in April 2024.
Their study examines the feasibility of providing tower air traffic controllers with wildlife strike risk information to help reduce wildlife strikes at low altitudes outside airport boundaries.
As they highlight in the introduction, such wildlife strikes are a constant threat for conventional passenger jet aircraft taking off, on approach and landing. For general aviation aircraft, helicopters and low-flying advanced/urban air mobility aircraft (UAM), which fly at lower altitudes where wildlife is most prevalent, the threat is present throughout the flight.
Their study involved 10 air traffic controllers in a human-in-the-loop simulation in a 360̊-degree tower simulator, based on conventional fixed-wing operations at Hamburg Airport and including a simulated vertiport on the airport. Three scenarios were used to analyse the influence of wildlife presence and respective ATC information on the safety and efficiency of operations:
- Conventional fixed-wing, and UAM traffic, using conventional ATC tools with no wildlife present.
- Conventional fixed-wing, and UAM traffic, with ATC using conventional tools, and provided with oral information about wildlife activity by the wildlife control unit
- Conventional fixed-wing, and UAM traffic, with ATC using conventional tools, and provided with an enhanced airside situation display. In addition to aircraft movement, this display provided information about critical wildlife movements in the entire control zone, with a visualisation of the system’s output.
- A dot represented the current wildlife position and a cone the possible position in the next 30 seconds, with the cone’s varying width indicating the certainty of prediction and its colour representing the expected severity of impact in the case of a collision.
Controllers’ actions in the three scenarios were assessed for mental workload and situation awareness, as well as their efficiency in terms of runway throughput, taxi times and take-off delays for conventional traffic, and flight times for UAM aircraft.
Controllers generally agreed that being provided with wildlife strike risk information directly was more helpful than information received from the wildlife control unit, as they could assess the risk themselves, better plan their responses and provide pilots with specific information.
The original hypotheses were that scenario 2 would result in a slightly increased workload, reduced situational awareness and a slight decrease in efficiency, while providing the enhanced situation display in scenario 3 was expected to reverse these effects to a state comparable to scenario 1 without wildlife.
The researchers conclude that their ‘observed results may indicate tendencies supporting these hypotheses but will need confirmation with a higher number of participating air traffic controllers.’
While being understandably cautious about the observed results, the researchers did state that ‘despite not being familiar with the working environment at Hamburg Airport, air traffic controllers handled all planned traffic in all conditions without substantial delays. This indicates both that the handling of additional UAM traffic and the provision of wildlife strike information are operationally feasible even at a complex airport with intersecting runways and during peak hour.’
Share
