{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03355704697986577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00738255033557047, 'mean_word_length': 5.454545454545454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Final-Approach Spacing Aids (FASA) evaluation for terminal-area, time-based air traffic control

A jointly funded (NASA/FAA) real-time simulation study was conducted at NASA Langley Research Center to gather comparative performance data among three candidate final-approach spacing aid (FASA) display formats. Several objective measures of controller performance and their display eye-scan behavior as well as subjective workload and rating questionnaires were used. For each of two representative pattern-speed procedures (a 170-knot procedure and a 210-knot procedure with speed control aiding), data were gathered, via twelve FAA controllers, using four final-controller display format conditions (manual/ARTS 3, graphic marker, DICE countdown, and centerline slot marker). Measured runway separations were more precise with both the graphic marker and DICE countdown formats than with the centerline slot marker and both (graphic and DICE) improved precision relative to the manual/ARTS 3 format. For three separate rating criteria, the subject controllers ranked the FASA formats in the same order: graphic marker, DICE countdown, and centerline slot marker. The increased precision measured with the 210-knot pattern-speed procedure may indicate the potential for the application of speed-control aiding where higher pattern speeds are practical after the base-to-final turn. Also presented are key FASA issues, a rationale for the formats selected for testing, and their description.