episode 3 - eurocontrol · episode 3 d4.2.1-01 - wp4 contribution validation strategy version :...

Episode 3

D4.2.1-01 - WP4 Contribution Validation Strategy Version : 2.02

of 36

Issued by the Episode 3 consortium for the Episode 3 project co-funded by the European Commission and Episode 3 consortium.

EPISODE 3 Single European Sky Implementation support through Validation

Document information

Programme Sixth framework programme Priority 1.4 Aeronautics and Space

Project title Episode 3

Project N° 037106

Project Coordinator EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

Deliverable Name WP4 Contribution Validation Strategy

Deliverable ID D4.2.1-01

Version 2.02

Owner

Adrian Clark NATS

Contributing partners

DFS, DSNA, EUROCONTROL, Isdefe

Episode 3


of 36


- This page is intentionally blank -

Episode 3


of 36


DOCUMENT CONTROL

Approval

Role Organisation Name

Document owner NATS Adrian Clark

Technical approver DFS Ralph Leemüeller

Quality approver EUROCONTROL Ludovic Legros

Project coordinator EUROCONTROL Philippe Leplae

Version history

Version Date Status Author(s) Justification - Could be a

reference to a review form or a comment sheet

2.0 30/10/2008 Approved Adrian Clark Approved by the Episode 3 consortium

2.01 10/11/2008 Approved Catherine Palazo Minor format changes before submission under acceptance to EC

2.02 26/02/2009 Approved Bill Booth, Adrian Clark Responses to EC review comments

Episode 3


of 36


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................6

2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................7 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT........................................................................................7 2.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE ....................................................................................................7 2.3 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ...............................................................................................7 2.4 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................7 2.5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS...................................................................................................7

3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS..........................................................................................10

4 WP4 CONTRIBUTION TO EP3 VALIDATION STRATEGY ...........................................10 4.1 STEP 0.1 UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM ........................................................................10 4.2 STEP 0.2 UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS....................................................11

4.2.1 Rigid, Non-Optimum Route Structure ..............................................................11 4.2.2 Increased Aircraft Capability ............................................................................12 4.2.3 Flexible Airspace Structures ............................................................................13 4.2.4 Integrated Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management....................................13

4.3 STEP 1.1 IDENTIFY THE STAKEHOLDERS, THEIR NEEDS AND INVOLVEMENT ...................13 4.4 STEP 1.2 IDENTIFY THE EXISTING INFORMATION ...........................................................15 4.5 STEP 1.3 DESCRIBE VALIDATION EXPECTATIONS AND OUTLINE CASES .........................18 4.6 STEP 1.4 IDENTIFY CONCEPT PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN KPA...............................19

4.6.1 Safety ...............................................................................................................19 4.6.2 Capacity ...........................................................................................................20 4.6.3 Efficiency ..........................................................................................................21 4.6.4 Predictability .....................................................................................................22 4.6.5 Operability ........................................................................................................23

4.7 STEP 1.5 ESTABLISH INITIAL VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS ............................................24 4.8 STEP 1.6 SELECT VALIDATION TOOL OR TECHNIQUES ..................................................25 4.9 STEP 1.7 DEFINE VALIDATION STRATEGY ....................................................................26

4.9.1 Expert Groups ..................................................................................................26 4.9.2 Concept Validation Activities............................................................................29

Episode 3


of 36


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 Grouping of KPAs .......................................................................................19

Figure 4-2 Sequence of Validation Activities in WP4....................................................26

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 4-1 Potential Cost Savings through Efficiency Improvements ...........................11

Table 4-2 Stakeholder Needs and Involvement ..........................................................15

Table 4-3 Existing En route related Projects ...............................................................17

Table 4-4 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Safety.......................................20

Table 4-5 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Capacity ...................................21

Table 4-6 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Efficiency..................................22

Table 4-7 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Predictability.............................23

Table 4-8 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Operability................................23

Table 4-9 EP3 WP4 Validation Map............................................................................25

Table 4-10 WP 4.3.1 Objectives, Rationale, Results and OIs .......................................29




Episode 3


of 36


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document describes the Episode 3 WP4 En Route validation strategy. It provides the necessary link between the SESAR Concept of Operations [6] and the validation activities in this project. The methodology is based on E-OCVM Steps 0 and 1. It should be used by the EP3 WP4 exercise leaders for elaboration of their detailed exercise plans. This en route validation strategy describes an approach illustrating how the ATM Target Concept could be assessed and validated in terms of concept refinement and some selected performance areas.

The problem statement and the proposed solutions are derived from SESAR deliverables D1 and D2 and detailed in the relevant Detailed Operational Descriptions [11]. They are expressed in terms of Lines of Change and Operational Improvement steps. A first mapping and scoping of the envisaged validation exercises towards the Lines of Change and the Operational Improvement steps has been done.

As SESAR follows a performance-oriented strategy, the targets are set in terms of Key Performance Areas. A more detailed breakdown defines the Focus Areas and the associated Key Performance Indicators. The contribution of this validation strategy towards the focus areas is provided. Finally, the validation tools and techniques for each exercise are defined.

An expert group will provide clarification on SESAR concepts to support exercise leaders or to resolve aspects of the SESAR ConOps [6] where there is a lack of common understanding. A model-based simulation will examine complexity management and determine the effects on the overall network of measures applied to individual flights. Gaming exercises will seek to clarify a range of SESAR complexity and separation management measures by working through the SESAR ConOps [6] in accordance with gaming practise. Finally, a series of prototyping exercises will provide a further level of detail by using prototype controller tools with operational ATCOs to determine the effectiveness of possible “decomplexification” solutions.

Episode 3


of 36


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

The purpose of this document is to guide the EP3 WP4 partners and contribute to the overall Episode 3 Validation Strategy using E-OCVM Steps 0.1 to 1.7 [1]. It aims to show the connection between WP4 validation activity, SESAR and Key Performance Areas, as well as set out the overall context in line with the E-OCVM process. It does this by determining the problem statement and proposed solutions derived from SESAR deliverables D1 [2] and D2 [3], then identifying the key stakeholders and their needs. It describes the SESAR Key Performance Areas and the extent to which EP3 WP4 addresses them. It also identifies the OIs that each WP4 activity seeks to assess.

2.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE

All EP3 WP4 partners and the author of EP3 WP2 Consolidated Programme Validation Strategy [10] who is responsible for the EP3 validation strategy intend this document for use. Moreover, it forms the basis for further elaboration of the detailed WP4 validation and exercise planning (E-OCVM Step 2).

2.3 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The document has two further sections: the references in Section 3 and the inputs to the EP3 Consolidated Validation Strategy in Section 4.

2.4 BACKGROUND

This document, the EP3 WP4 Validation Strategy, D42-01, forms one of the deliverables for WP 4.2.1.

2.5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Term Definition

ACC Area Control Centre

ADAS Advanced Data link and ASAS

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

AOCC Airline Operation Control Centre

ASAS Airborne Separation Assurance System

ASM Airspace Management

ATCC Air Traffic Control Centre

ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer

ATFCM Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management

ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Traffic Service

CAATS-2 Cooperative Approach to Air Traffic Services 2

CATS Contract-based Air Transportation System Complete Air Traffic System

Episode 3


of 36


Term Definition

C-CDR Complex Conflict Detection and Resolution for ATM

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

DCB Demand Capacity Balancing

DOW Description Of Work

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

EG Expert Group

E-OCVM European Operational Concept Validation Methodology

EP3 Episode 3 (Single European Sky Implementation Support through Validation, European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme Project)

ERASMUS En Route Air Traffic Soft Management Ultimate System

FAB Functional Airspace Block

FASTI First ATC Support Tools Implementation

FDPS Flight Data Processing System

FMS Flight Management System

GAT General Air Traffic

GE Gaming Exercise

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

iTEC-FDP Flight Data Processing platform for several European ANSPs

ITP In-trail procedure

KPA Key Performance Area

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MTOW Minimum Take off Weight

MTV Medium Term Validation

MUAC Maastricht Upper Airspace Control Centre

NOP Network Operations Plan

OAT Operational Air Traffic

OI Operational Improvement

OSED Operational Service and Environment Definition

PCO Project Coordinator

PID Performance Influence Diagram

PMO Project Management Office

P-RNAV Precision Area Navigation

Progress Reporting WP4 internal process for sub-WP progress monitoring

PT Predicted Trajectory

PTC Precision Trajectory Clearance

RBT Reference Business Trajectory

Episode 3


of 36


Term Definition

RTA Requested Time of Arrival

RTS Real Time Simulation

SBT Shared Business Trajectory

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

STCA Short Term Conflict Alert

SWIM System Wide Information Management

TCT Tactical Controller Tools

TMA Terminal Area

TMR Trajectory Management Requirements

ToC Top of Climb

ToD Top of Descent

TWR Tower

UDPP User Driven Prioritisation Process

UPT User Preferred Trajectory

VA Validation Area

VFR Visual Flight Rules

Episode 3


of 36


3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

[1] EUROCONTROL European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM) Identification number 2, 17/03/2007

[2] SESAR The Current Situation D1 31/07/2006

[3] SESAR The performance target D2 22/12/2006

[4] SESAR The ATM Target Concept D3 04/09/2007

[5] SESAR Identification of limits/blocking points for airspace environment DLT-0507-321-00-96_T321_D1 30/05/2006

[6] SESAR Concept of Operations 1.0, 17/07/2007

[7] SESAR WP 3.1 Current ATM Programmes and Initiatives, Assessment Steps Final results, 27/07/2007

[8] SESAR Performance Objectives and Targets RPT-0708-001-00-02, 02/11/2007

[9] SESAR Definition Phase – Benefits Planning DLT-0710-344-00-07-D5, 2007

[10] Episode 3 EP3 Consolidated Validation Strategy E3-WP2-D2.0-01-REP Document in progress, 2008.

[11] Episode 3 Detailed Operational Descriptions E4 and E6 2008

4 WP4 CONTRIBUTION TO EP3 VALIDATION STRATEGY

4.1 STEP 0.1 UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM

The main limitations of the ATM system, with respect to the airspace environment, are identified in SESAR ATM Target Concept [4]. The two main factors are:

• European airspace is, in the main, organised around the use of fixed volumes and rigid route structures that are organised and managed in a fragmented manner. This results in aircraft being unable to fly their most efficient trajectory and creates unnecessary additional task load for air traffic control.

• Most aircraft have the capability to fly with much greater precision in terms of position and time than is accommodated in the design of, and supported by, many of the systems in operational service to manage and control air traffic. This capability is currently not exploited.

According to Sections 4 and 5 of SESAR Task 3.2.1, ‘’Identification of Limits/Blocking Points for Airspace Environment’’ [5] the most relevant blocking points from an en route perspective, are as follows:

• Longer routes or non-optimum operations (non-economic speed, flight level) result in extra fuel burn.

• In many cases, ATC sectors and associated procedures continue to be based upon State boundaries. An increased use of delegation of ATS across borders can enhance efficiency and capacity. A common goal must be the achievement of airspace structures appropriate to intended use with sufficient flexibility to provide

Episode 3


of 36


capacity for all users at the required time. A pan European view of network design is essential to the effective management and use of our limited airspace asset.

• European airspace design and management is too fragmented.

• Air traffic flow and capacity management is insufficiently integrated.

o There is a constant need for the optimisation of the network capacity through the capacity enhancement plans at local and regional level to which all actors must be fully committed.

o The consolidated plans at network level should result in a Medium/Short Term Network Operations Plan updated constantly, that reflect changes made before the execution phase of flight and including the results of demand/capacity balancing. The Network Operations Plan should be shared by all ATM actors.

To give an idea of the scale of the problem, the potential cost savings by efficiency improvements are substantial, as shown in the table below.

Table 4-1 Potential Cost Savings through Efficiency Improvements

4.2 STEP 0.2 UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

This section describes the main characteristics of the SESAR proposed solutions for those en route blockers or problems that EP3 WP4 will address ([4], [5], [6] and EP3 Requirements Cell output). The chosen subset of operational concept validation exercises is based on the expected benefits. EP3 WP4 will not necessarily attempt to validate all aspects of each topic but will address at least a subset of each topic described below.

4.2.1 Rigid, Non-Optimum Route Structure

• New Routing Techniques

Aircraft will proceed along agreed 4D trajectories. These trajectories will be as close as possible to the user’s preferred trajectory. These trajectories are derived from the development of Business Trajectories, a fundamental pillar of the SESAR concept. These are the airspace user preferences and evolve from the planning long-term through the near-term planning phases through to the execution phase.

Episode 3


of 36


A business trajectory can exist in several states:

• Business Development Trajectory (BDT): Used for airspace user business planning and not shared outside the user organisation.

• Shared Business Trajectory (SBT): Published business trajectory that is available for collaborative ATM planning purposes. The refinement of the SBT will be an iterative process.

• Reference Business Trajectory (RBT): The business trajectory which the airspace user agrees to fly and the ANSP and Airports agree to facilitate (subject to separation provision).

Controllers will issue sequential clearances to proceed – this will require new techniques described by SESAR (Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC)). As well as facilitating flight along an agreed trajectory, PTC has another important role, which is to ensure that flight is conducted along a closed-loop trajectory. Open-loop clearances such as headings destroy the integrity of the trajectory depriving downstream actors of precise predictions and are therefore to be avoided whenever possible. In the en route environment, aircraft will normally be proceeding along direct routes close to their optimum. In the event that the controller has to deviate an aircraft for separation purposes he will use PTC to transfer and authorise a modified closed loop trajectory.

• User Preferred Routing Environment

One aspect to be studied as part of the WP4 Validation Exercises (Gaming, Expert Group and Prototyping Sessions) is the aspects of the PTC that is cleared and owned by the responsible executive ATCO and that part that is at another status, e.g. authorised.

In managed airspace, particularly in the cruising level regime, user preferred routing will apply without the need to adhere to a fixed route structure. Route structures will however be available for operations that require such support (e.g. high complexity airspaces). In either case, the user will share a trajectory, the execution of which is subject to an appropriate clearance. It is recognised however that in especially congested airspace, the trade-off between flight efficiency and capacity will require that a fixed route structure will be used to enable the required capacity. Fixed route procedures will be suspended when traffic density no longer requires their use. Where major hubs are close, the entire area below a certain level will be operated as an extended terminal area, with route structures eventually extending also into en route airspace to manage the climbing and descending flows from and into the airports concerned. User preferred routings will also have to take into account the airspace volumes established for the operation of diverse (mainly military) aerial activities.

4.2.2 Increased Aircraft Capability

• New Separation Modes

A range of separation modes is available in SESAR to address various operational circumstances. These modes take advantage of trajectory sharing between air and ground and enhanced vertical and longitudinal navigational capabilities and fall into three broad categories:

• Conventional modes. In this context, they refer to modes that are essentially unchanged by SESAR.

• New ANSP modes, which are applied by ATC, are Precision Trajectory Clearances, and trajectory control by ground based speed adjustment.

• New airborne modes involve the aircraft and in which the pilot is the separator either by delegation or, in unmanaged airspace, as standard. This may be cooperative separation (ASAS Separation), or self-separation (ASAS Self-separation).

Episode 3


of 36


4.2.3 Flexible Airspace Structures

• Moving from Airspace to Trajectory Orientation

European airspace will be single continuum with the only distinction being between managed and unmanaged airspace. In managed airspace information on all traffic is shared and the predetermined separator is the separation provision service provider, while in unmanaged airspace traffic may not share information and the predetermined separator is the airspace user. The role of separator in managed airspace may be delegated. The trajectory management concept enables the dynamic adjustment of airspace characteristics to meet predicted demand with distortions to the business/mission trajectory kept to the absolute minimum. The coordination procedures established between the various units to reduce controller task load can often result in structural distortions to the trajectories. In the SESAR concept, many of these procedures can be eliminated by the use of shared trajectories. The trajectory-based approach recognises that sufficient airspace volumes to meet military operational and training requirements will have to be provided and that military coordination and information sharing requirements will need to be accommodated.

4.2.4 Integrated Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management

• Reducing the Need for Tactical Intervention

The SESAR concept will increase capacity by reducing the requirement for tactical intervention. In highly congested areas dominated by climbing and descending traffic flows this will be achieved by deploying route structures that provide a greater degree of strategic deconfliction and procedures that capitalise on the greater accuracy of aircraft navigation. New separation modes supported by controller tools, utilising shared high precision trajectory data, will reduce uncertainty and increase the valid duration of each clearance. Tools will also support task identification, clearance compliance, and monitoring. Further reductions in controller task load per flight can be expected from air/ground data link communications and the delegation of some spacing, separation, and flow optimisation tasks to the pilot.

Complexity will be managed so as to reduce the total number of conflicts that require tactical intervention. This will be achieved by dynamic sector boundaries that permit task load to be shared equitably around sector controllers and reduce overloading any one individual. Planner support tools will enable the planner to identify potentially complex traffic situations and reduce the likelihood of this occurring by identifying suitable resolution options. Such options include rerouting, use of alternative levels/level capping or use of speed adjustments. When such measures are used, the aim is to provide the least disturbance possible to the aircraft’s preferred routing.

4.3 STEP 1.1 IDENTIFY THE STAKEHOLDERS, THEIR NEEDS AND INVOLVEMENT

The most important stakeholders are the airspace users and their requirements as expressed in SESAR D2 [4]. In order to bring together the various characteristics of the airspace users’ needs, the notion of a so-called “ business trajectory” [6] has emerged as being central to the way in which they envisage the future ATM System performing.

However, airspace users are not directly involved in EP3. Their needs will be taken into account through use of the relevant SESAR documentation.

Involved stakeholders are the European Commission, SESAR Joint Undertaking and the project partners, divided in the ANSP and research community group.

From an internal stakeholder point of view, active controllers from each ANSP will be involved in the preparation and execution of all validation activities. This secures an operationally relevant feedback and evaluation of the results. The stakeholders expect the following evidence in order to have sufficient confidence in the validation results.

Episode 3


of 36


ANSP • Clear statement of the assumptions.

• Use specific operational environment (not generic airspace).

• Involve operational experts who are familiar with the airspace, procedures etc. Even though sometimes ATC needs new operational procedures that the controllers are not familiar with. Sometimes early in the development of new technology and/or procedures one needs to make the airspace familiar and realistic but also less complicated than it is in the real life. Otherwise the validation objectives are difficult to measure.

• Tools must represent the operational system and procedures in a realistic way.

Research Institutes • Clear definition of the scenarios (e.g. airspace, assumptions).

• Detailed description of the concept elements to be validated (actors, roles, procedures, functionalities of technological enablers) in order to reflect the corresponding concept element in a realistic way.

• Visibility that the European programme will provide benefit to operations at a national level.

• Active involvement in validation activities of ANSPs and airspace users, and, if possible also outside the consortium.

• Concise reporting, including published papers and conference presentations.

• Evidence to support decision making of whether the SESAR concept will be able to achieve the assigned objectives.

European Commission • Episode 3 addresses the fourth Call of Proposals on Aeronautics and Space thematic priority: research area 4 “Increasing the operational capacity and safety of the air transport system”, IP13 Improvement of ATM system processes through validation,

• The Project aims to identify substantial and sustainable improvements in ATM performance by addressing many of the current day ATM inefficiencies through an initial validation of the SESAR Operational Concept,

• It complies with the key priorities identified for Research Area 4 whilst contributing directly to the implementation of the Single European Sky through SESAR,

• It builds upon the European Commission’s Gate-to-Gate project and other FP project results and experience gained, which will provide a source of validation and operational information as well as integrated validation platforms to support the assessment of the SESAR concept of operations,

• Episode 3 will, for the first time, allow application of the E-OCVM methodology to the validation of a holistic ATM concept. This is supported by ongoing work by the CAATS-2 project to support ATM R&D projects and to capture application experience from Episode 3 and other projects in future versions of the E-OCVM itself,

• It is expected that the validation data and experience gained will be captured and integrated within the Validation Data Repository.

Episode 3


of 36


SESAR Joint Undertaking

• Key aspects of the project support the SJU in understanding the validation needs, methods and techniques appropriate for the validation of the SESAR Operational Concept, taking into account the complexity of the task and the scope of the concept,

• To gain greater understanding of the concept, Expert Groups in WP3, 4 & 5 will clarify a number of key SESAR concept elements supported by analytical modelling, gaming and prototype development and exercises. These descriptions will be captured in Detailed Operational Documents that will consolidate operational scenarios and use cases used in assessment activity, clearly linked to the SESAR Concept documents,

• The output of these activities will also feed into initial operability and performance assessments of the concept linked to the SESAR performance targets whilst the validation methods and techniques used will be assessed and reported on to provide learning to the SJU work programme,

• Episode 3 has been focused to propose a consistent work programme ending in 2009, to avoid the complexity of managing a SESAR validation programme in parallel with SESAR JU activities.

Table 4-2 Stakeholder Needs and Involvement

4.4 STEP 1.2 IDENTIFY THE EXISTING INFORMATION

Numerous projects and programmes in Europe and in the US are addressing en route concept validation. The SESAR WP3.1 Current ATM Programmes and Initiatives, Assessment Steps [7] provides details of related projects; however, the most recent information is available from the EUROCONTROL ARDEP database. The table below provides a list of some relevant existing projects. This table is not exhaustive and exercise leaders should consult the ARDEP database to determine whether other projects match their specific criteria. Contact details and further information is available via the ARDEP database using the codes below. The EUROCONTROL Validation Data Repository (VDR) may provide further information and should also be consulted.

EU

RO

CO

NT

RO

L

Ref

eren

ce C

od

e

Tit

le

Ob

ject

ives

/Su

mm

ary

OI (

WP

4 E

x R

elev

ancy

?)

EUR445 Collaborative Planning and Traffic Management

Validation of flow and capacity management & future network concepts in support to SESAR.

Fields of application :

• Airspace design, dynamic Airspace Management and Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace (AFUA)

• Long-term Capacity Planning

• Business Trajectory Management

• Demand Capacity Balancing (DCB)

• Queue Management

• User Driven Prioritisation Process (UDPP)

• NOP and System Wide Information Management (SWIM)

Episode 3


of 36


EU

RO

CO

NT

RO

L

Ref

eren

ce C

od

e

Tit

le

Ob

ject

ives

/Su

mm

ary

OI (

WP

4 E

x R

elev

ancy

?)

EUR359 MANTAS (Maastricht New Tools & systems

Development and implementation of a new Operational Concept at Maastricht UAC.

The MANTAS Operational Concept aims to derive maximum safety and capacity benefits, whilst protecting controller workload. This is achieved by a combination of new technologies and methodologies, with an overall focus on:

• Detecting and reducing complexity,

• Reducing the functional volume workload, and

• Moving the decision-making process as far in advance of the event time as is consistent with accuracy.

AOM 0802 (4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4)

Numerous

Gate to Gate Numerous projects within Gate to Gate AOM 0803 (4.3.1, 4.3.3)

ENA035 CAMES - Co-operative ATM Measures for a European Single Sky

This project proposes to develop operational procedures which require dynamic co-ordination across more than one Air Traffic Control Centre (ACC). These procedures will rely on a framework of co-operation of all stakeholders, in order to maximise the efficiency of the system. To enable these procedures, information and decision management tools will be employed which, significantly, would be evolved from existing technologies, and would therefore not require any major technological shift. On the other hand, because of their very nature (that is, one organisation providing co-operative, added value services to other organisations), they will need an institutional and economic framework to be defined.

CM0104 (4.3.2, 4.3.4)

EUR390 FASTI - First ATC Support Tools Implementation Programme

The Programme includes the following controller tools:

• Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD)

• Monitoring Aids (MONA)

• System Supported Co-ordination (SYSCO).

The tools require accurate Trajectory Prediction (TP) and a Human Machine Interface (HMI) that makes it easy to interact with the tools and to update flight data. TP and HMI are key enablers for FASTI.

CM0202 (4.3.4)

EUR399 TCT – Tactical Controller Tool Concept Development

A core part of the ATC task undertaken by controllers is the identification and resolution of potential future conflicts. Future ATC systems have the potential to improve this process with the introduction of computer-based assistance tools. The Tactical Controller Tool (TCT) will help the Tactical Controller to monitor traffic in his/her sector of responsibility.

TCT is a separation assurance support tool that will:

• Warn of conflicts based on both planned tracks and current track;

• indicate when a critical planned manoeuvre is about to occur;

• indicate when it is safe for an aircraft to resume own navigation;

• on request provide conflict resolution advice and support.

CM0204 (4.3.4)

Episode 3


of 36


EU

RO

CO

NT

RO

L

Ref

eren

ce C

od

e

Tit

le

Ob

ject

ives

/Su

mm

ary

OI (

WP

4 E

x R

elev

ancy

?)

Numerous

C-ATM (Cooperative ATM)

Several C-ATM projects relate to OI CM0401

The major challenge addressed by C-ATM is to dramatically improve the efficiency of the overall Network, providing a more reliable and predictable service to airspace users - particularly airlines - in order to support cost effective, on-time air transport services. This will be achieved through the implementation of co-operative systems and processes aimed at optimising system resources and task distribution between air and ground, supported by the sharing of common data across the system.

CM0401 (4.3.2, 4.3.4)

EUR409 ERASMUS - En Route Air Traffic Soft Management Ultimate System

The purpose of ERASMUS is to present innovative ways to re-synchronise automation between the air and ground segments seeking to develop high cooperation between the human being and the machine and aiming at better using current potentialities offered by the air segment.

ERASMUS aims at developing high cooperation between the human being and the machine. This cooperation or cohabitation is calling us to think about the nature of the assistance the automation can bring to the operator and not the reverse. ERAMUS proposes to act on a major reduction in the traffic complexity while not disturbing the cognitive processes of the operators.

CM0403 (4.3.2)

DNA263 CWP TMA-ETMA - New TMA and Extended TMA controlling working positions and assistance tools

The TMA-ETMA project aims at developing and integrating new adapted tools to the specificities of the different controlling activity context associated to the TMA and ETMA and designing innovative tools that are shared among different operators in order to increase mutual awareness by notably enhancing the coordination efficiency. Objectives are:

• Definition and evaluation of a TMA DMAN

• Early conflict detection between departures proposal of conflict resolutions study of interoperability with ASMGCS and Ground DMAN

• Definition and evaluation of a ETMA coordination tool and holding pattern management

• Integration of innovative interactions and technologies allowing efficient and intuitive data inputs and ecological manipulations of graphical objects (e.g. electronic strips) for approach and Terminal En-route controllers

• Definition and evaluation of planning assistance tools based on sequencing requirements

• Definition of a tool that would allow anticipation of recurrent clearances

• Introduction of HCI multi-layer design allowing controllers’ progressive adaptation to more sophisticated tools and interactions

• The objective is to seek global solutions by privileging harmonious design and integration of the tools on the different control working positions.

CM0601 (4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4)

Table 4-3 Existing En route related Projects

Episode 3


of 36


4.5 STEP 1.3 DESCRIBE VALIDATION EXPECTATIONS AND OUTLINE CASES

Acknowledging that a large part of the SESAR Concept of Operations [6] is at a relatively early stage in the Concept Validation Lifecycle (late V1, early V2), the emphasis of EP3 is on three main areas:

• Clarification of the concept; recognising that the concept is large and that EPISODE 3 does not have the resources to address all areas and OIs,

• Expanding the repertoire of cost-effective validation techniques (e.g. gaming variants) suited to these early stages of concept validation,

• Consolidating our learning on the application of the E-OCVM to SESAR-scale Concept of Operations.

In this context, as well as targeting improved performance assessment, exercises can support clarification, provide some trials of clarifications, explore alternative validation techniques and gain important validation experience.

EP3 has made a number of simplifying assumptions in order to take a consistent and harmonised approach to cases as described in E-OCVM. The first is that from the point of view of developing the system there is a need for an integrated process which may identify issues associated with the new operational concept from ‘the system perspective’, traversing classical issue boundaries, e.g. between safety, business, or human performance. E-OCVM limits its use of cases to serving two main functions: firstly the identification and management of stakeholder needs and expectations; and secondly the development of arguments as to the delivery of potential benefit.

With respect to stakeholder expectations, EP3 makes a second simplifying assumption that the general needs of ‘typical’ SESAR stakeholders are broadly represented by the performance framework and targets already identified by SESAR D2 and further developed in SESAR D4.

The establishment of ‘local’ instances of stakeholder needs is closely linked to the extension of the performance targets to local applications, and the clarification of the concept through scenarios to support exercises. This is partly achieved through the involvement of project partners and appropriate stakeholder representatives within the expert groups and the exercise scenario development. The results are then captured in the performance framework and scenario updates.

With respect to the benefit arguments, within EP3 the work being undertaken to develop the performance framework explores the value of influence diagrams as a means of developing these arguments. That work is supported, whenever possible by feedback from the development of exercises and their subsequent results.

In consequence, at this early stage of validation, EP3 does not conduct separate cases at the exercise level. Instead, a general, project wide, issue analysis process, reflecting our system perspective will be put in place. Consolidation and analysis in EP3 WP2.3 will feed lessons learnt but will also serve to identify outstanding issues and case priorities for post-EP3 Studies.

EP4 WP4 will establish and maintain an issue log to identify potential issues of all types, such as safety, human factors, environmental, technical enabler or operational, which are identified within the preparation and conduct of exercises. The main sources of issues within EP3 WP4 are expected to come from expert groups, gaming and prototyping exercises.

Episode 3


of 36


4.6 STEP 1.4 IDENTIFY CONCEPT PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN KPA

The ATM Performance Targets for 2020

ATM performance covers a very broad spectrum of aspects, which are represented through eleven Key Performance Areas (KPAs). SESAR Deliverable D2 [3] clusters the KPAs into three major groups, “Societal Outcome”, “Operational Performance”, and “Performance Enablers”, as depicted in the diagram below.

Figure 4-1 Grouping of KPAs

The focus in Episode 3 is on the Societal and Operational Performance KPAs. This Validation Strategy document addresses Steps 0 and 1 of the E-OCVM methodology. Each EP3 exercise will produce an Exercise Plan that conforms to a template produced by EP3 WP2. This template will address Step 2 of the E-OCVM methodology and will demonstrate alignment between the exercise and SESAR. Part of this alignment will be identifying which KPAs each exercise will address.

In addition to the above ATM performance areas, EP3 WP4 should also assess the operability of each of the proposed SESAR steps addressed. It should also be noted that even though some initial performance measurements may be provided by the EP3 WP4 exercises, their focus is largely on operability. Operability combines several of the aspects of the SESAR KPAs, e.g. Safety, Interoperability Flexibility and Predictability in the defined SESAR Operational Performance environment.

EP3 WP4 does not seek to assess the contributions made by the SESAR ConOps [6] to each KPA. Due to its limited resources, EP3 is only assessing a limited subset of the SESAR ConOps [6], and therefore some KPAs will not be assessed. Those KPAs that are assessed are listed below.

4.6.1 Safety

This KPA addresses the risk, the prevention and the occurrence and mitigation of air traffic accidents.

Focus Area:

• ATM-related Safety Outcome. This focus area covers the occurrence and prevention of accidents involving aircraft with a MTOW > 2.25 tonnes, operating

Episode 3


of 36


under IFR, with a direct and/or indirect ATM contribution. This includes, for example, collisions on the ground and in the air or CFIT.

Initial Indicative Strategic Design Target (Key Performance Indicators)

The SESAR initial indicative safety performance objective builds on the ATM2000+ Strategy objective: "To improve safety levels by ensuring that the numbers of ATM induced accidents and serious or risk bearing incidents (includes those with direct and indirect ATM contribution) do not increase and, where possible, decrease".

Considering the anticipated increase in the European annual traffic volume, the implication of the initial safety performance objective is that the overall safety level would gradually have to improve, to reach an improvement factor of 3 in order to meet the safety objective in 2020. This is based on the assumption that safety needs to improve with the square of traffic volume increase, in order to maintain a constant accident rate.

In the longer term, (design life of the concept) safety levels would need to be able to increase by a factor 10 to meet a possible threefold increase in traffic, in accordance with the political vision and goal.

WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Safety

WP4.3.1 Expert Group En-Route Queue, Trajectory, and Separation Management

The expert group will consider safety factors as part of concept clarification; however, it is not planned to explicitly focus on safety.

WP4.3.2 Model-based simulation Strategic De-confliction Using 4D PTC

Evaluate the postulate that this 4D planning will permit significantly reduced task load in ACC sectors while keeping the same level of capacity and safety.

WP4.3.4 Prototyping on Queue, Trajectory, and Separation Management

Investigate the effect of 4D trajectory management on controllers’ actual and perceived task load.

Investigate the effect of 4D trajectory management on controllers’ situational awareness

Assess the effect of 4D trajectory management on perceived safety level and on conflict resolution method

Table 4-4 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Safety

4.6.2 Capacity

This KPA addresses the ability of the ATM System to cope with air traffic demand (in number and distribution through time and space).

Focus Areas:

• Airspace capacity. This covers the capacity of any individual or aggregated airspace volume within the European airspace. It relates to the throughput of that volume per unit of time, for a given safety level

• Network Capacity. This is concerned with overall network throughput, taking into account the network effect of the airspace and airport capacity in function of traffic demand patterns.

Initial Indicative Strategic Design Targets (Key Performance Indicators)

In accordance with the political vision and goal, the ATM target concept should enable a 3-fold increase in capacity which will also reduce delays, both on the ground and in the air (en route and airport network), so as to be able to handle traffic growth well beyond 2020.

The deployment of the ATM target concept should be progressive, so that only the required capacity is deployed at any time.

Episode 3


of 36


The initial indicative design target for Capacity deployment is that the ATM System can accommodate by 2020 a 73% increase in traffic (annual IFR traffic growth in the European network from 2005 baseline) while meeting the targets for quality of service KPAs (Efficiency, Flexibility, Predictability): 5% in the period 2005-2010, 3.5-4% during 2010-2015, 2-3% during 2015-2020, and 2% p.a. beyond 2020. This corresponds to an optimistic demand forecast combined with an optimistic airport capacity growth scenario, which however assumes that there will be very few green field airport development projects in Europe in the next 20 years.

This deployment requirement means that the annual number of flights to be handled by the ATM System will increase from 9.1 to approximately 16 million flights per annum during the period 2005-2020. During the busiest months of the year, the system should be able to handle 50,000 flights per day around the year 2022.

These are the average European design targets (at network level). When transposing this to local targets, regional differences will exist. The ATM target concept should be able to support a tripling or more of traffic where required.

WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Capacity


Consider capacity and efficiency trade-offs reducing complexity to a manageable level.

Freeing ATCO mental resources through the use of Queue & Trajectory Management, Separation Management and Complexity Management. This will address the issue about how the ATCO task load should be treated.

Reducing controller task load per flight using queue & trajectory management, complexity management and separation management.

WP4.3.2 Model-based simulation Strategic De-confliction Using 4D PTC

Evaluate the postulate that this 4D planning will permit significantly reduced task load in ACC sectors while keeping the same level of capacity and safety.

WP4.3.3 Gaming Exercise on en route complexity management

Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict management task load through the reduction of complexity.

Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict management task load through the use of new separation modes.


Investigate the effect of 4D trajectory management on controllers’ task load

Investigate the effect of the conditions on controller perceived task load

Table 4-5 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Capacity

4.6.3 Efficiency

This KPA addresses the actually flown 4D trajectories of aircraft in relationship to their Shared Business Trajectory.

Focus Areas:

• Temporal Efficiency. This covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from planned (on-time) departure time and deviations from Initial Shared Business Trajectory durations (taxi time, airborne time).

• Fuel Efficiency. This covers the magnitude and causes of deviations from optimum fuel consumption.


Episode 3


of 36


The initial indicative Efficiency design target is an improvement in ATM efficiency such that:

On-time departure performance (on-time departure is defined as actual off-block departure less than 3 minutes before or after the departure time of the Initial Shared Business Trajectory; delayed departure is defined as actual departure more than 3 minutes after the departure time of the Shared Business Trajectory):

• Occurrence (Punctuality): at least 98% of flights departing on time.

• Severity (Delays): the average departure delay of delayed flights will not exceed 10 minutes.

• Flight duration efficiency (normal flight duration is defined as actual block-to-block time less than 3 minutes longer than the block-to-block time of the Initial Shared Business Trajectory; extended flight duration is defined as actual block-to-block time more than 3 minutes longer than the block-to-block time of the Shared Business Trajectory):

• Occurrence: more than 95% of flights with normal flight duration.

• Severity: the average flight duration extension of flights will not exceed 10 minutes.

• Gate to gate fuel efficiency (Actual compared to Initial Shared Business Trajectory):

• Occurrence: less than 5% of flights suffering additional fuel consumption of more than 2.5%.

• Severity: for flights suffering additional fuel consumption of more than 2.5%, the average additional fuel consumption will not exceed 5%.

WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Efficiency


Consider capacity and efficiency trade-offs reducing complexity to a manageable level.


Estimation of Efficiency impact estimation of the complexity, trajectory, and separation management measures through the evaluation of the distortion of UPT.


Investigate the controller contribution to the RBT achievement

Assess the impact of 4D trajectory management on route extension and flight profile

Table 4-6 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Efficiency

4.6.4 Predictability

This KPA addresses the ability of the ATM System to ensure a reliable and consistent level of 4D trajectory performance. In other words: across many flights, the ability to control the variability of the deviation between the actually flown 4D trajectories of aircraft in relationship to the Reference Business Trajectory.

Focus Areas:

• On-Time Operation. This covers the variability of the flight operation: departure (off-block) and arrival (on-block) punctuality, and the variability of flight phase durations (turnaround time, taxi time, airborne time);


Episode 3


of 36


The initial indicative Predictability design target is an improvement in ATM predictability focused on on-time operation (on-time means within 3 minutes before or after the time reference), service disruption effect and knock-on effects:

• Arrival punctuality: less than 5% (European-wide annual average) of flights suffering arrival delay of more than 3 minutes;

• Arrival delay: the average delay (European-wide annual average) of delayed flights (with a delay penalty of more than 3 minutes) will be less than 10 minutes;

• Variability of flight duration (off-block to on-block): coefficient of variation is 0.015 (meaning for a 100-minute flight duration more than 95% flights arrives on-time, according to arrival punctuality target);

• Service Disruption reduce cancellation rates by 50% by 2020 compared to 2010 baseline, reduce diversion rates by 50% by 2020 compared to 2010 baseline and reduce total disruption delay by 50% (European-wide annual average) by 2020 compared to 2010 baseline;

• Knock-on effect: reduce reactionary delay by 50% by 2020 compared to 2010 baseline and reduce cancellation rate by 50% (European-wide annual average) by 2020 compared to 2010 baseline.

WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Predictability


Measure the 4D deviation (lateral, vertical and time) of an aircraft compared to planned trajectory, and investigate the causes of such deviation

Table 4-7 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Predictability

4.6.5 Operability

The E-OCVM methodology [1] defines operability as, ‘usable by and suitable for those who operate the system, e.g. controllers and pilots. Satisfaction of usability and suitability issues lead to operational acceptability.’ This is not a SESAR KPA but it is nevertheless important for the success of SESAR.

WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Operability


Assess the feasibility of high-complexity operations and procedures at the applicable times of the day and airspace.

Refine the evaluation of complexity and trajectory management techniques, such as dynamic sector configurations, re-routing or alternative levels/time previously explored by the expert group (EP3 WP4.3.1) explored in a previous iteration.

Validate the related negotiation processes.

Assess the feasibility of new separation modes and associated procedures.

Explore the impact of the different processes related to "Dynamic Airspace Reorganisation" in high-density, high-complexity situations.


Assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact on roles and tasks of 4D trajectory management.

Table 4-8 EP3 WP4 Exercises with a Contribution to Operability

Episode 3


of 36


4.7 STEP 1.5 ESTABLISH INITIAL VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS

The validation map below provides a mapping of SESAR Operational Improvement (OI) steps, Lines of Change, and how these relate to EP3 WP4. Only the relevant OI steps are listed here which are addressed by the exercises. All information is derived from the SESAR ATM Master Plan [9] and from the input of the project partners. In many cases, only parts of the Operational Improvement step will be validated.

Assumptions will be managed through the experimental plans of the individual exercises. This is the main source of the assumptions being made by the exercises. Finally the expert group is responsible for the collection and facilitation if there are contradicting or “unrealistic” assumptions. Moreover, it has to be ensured that the assumptions reflect the notion of the SESAR Operational Concept [6].

OI Code OI Title OI Step

Code OI Step Title WP4 Ex

L02-09 Increasing Flexibility of Airspace Configuration

AOM-0801

Flexible Sectorisation Management 4.3.1

4.3.3


AOM-0802

Modular Sectorisation Adapted to Variations in Traffic Flows

4.3.1

4.3.3

4.3.4


AOM-0803

Dynamically Shaped Sectors Unconstrained By Predetermined Boundaries

4.3.1

4.3.3


CM-0102 Automated Support for Dynamic Sectorisation and Dynamic Constraint Management

4.3.1

4.3.3


SDM-0202

Transfer of area of responsibility for trajectory management

4.3.1

4.3.3

(E6 DOD)

L05-01 Management / Revision of Reference Business Trajectory (RBT)

AUO-0302

Successive Authorisation of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT) Segments using Datalink

4.3.2

4.3.4

(E6 DOD)


AUO-0303

Revision of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT) using Datalink

4.3.2

4.3.4

(E4/E6 DODs)

L05-02 Managing Air Traffic Complexity

CM-0104 Automated Controller Support for Trajectory Management

4.3.2

4.3.4

L05-03 Enlarging ATC Planning Horizon

CM-0302 Ground based Automated Support for Managing Traffic Complexity Across Several Sectors

4.3.4

L05-04 Moving to coordination-free environment

CM-0402 Coordination-free Transfer of Control through use of Shared Trajectory

4.3.4

Episode 3


of 36


OI Code OI Title OI Step

Code OI Step Title WP4 Ex

L06-01 Introducing Ground based Automated Assistance to Controller

CM-0202 Automated Assistance to ATC Planning for Preventing Conflicts in En Route Airspace

4.3.4


CM-0203 Automated Flight Conformance Monitoring 4.3.4

(E6 DOD)


CM-0204 Automated Support for Near Term Conflict Detection & Resolution and Trajectory Conformance Monitoring

4.3.4

L06-02 ATC Automation in the Context of En Route Operations

CM-0401 Use of Shared 4D Trajectory as a Mean to Detect and Reduce Potential Conflicts Number

4.3.2

4.3.4


CM-0403 Conflict Dilution by Upstream Action on Speed

4.3.2

4.3.4


CM-0404 Enhanced Tactical Conflict Detection/Resolution and Conformance & Intent Monitoring

4.3.4

(E6 DOD)

L08-01 4D Contract CM-0501 4D Contract for Equipped Aircraft with Extended Clearance PTC-4D

4.3.2

L08-02 Precision Trajectory Operations

CM-0601 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC)-2D Based On Pre-defined 2D Routes

4.3.1

4.3.3

4.3.4



4.3.1

4.3.3

4.3.4


CM-0603 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC)-2D On User Preferred Trajectories

4.3.1

4.3.3

4.3.4

(E6 DOD)


CM-0604 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC)-3D On User Preferred Trajectories (Dynamically applied 3D routes/profiles)

4.3.1

4.3.3

Table 4-9 EP3 WP4 Validation Map

4.8 STEP 1.6 SELECT VALIDATION TOOL OR TECHNIQUES

The diagram below shows the work stream of WP4. An expert group will address issues associated with all aspects of en route operations, including complexity and separation management. The role of the expert group will be principally to respond to requests from exercise leaders who need clarification on a particular subject. The expert group provides a pool of knowledge throughout the project that exercise leaders may draw upon.

Episode 3


of 36


Figure 4-2 Sequence of Validation Activities in WP4

The model-based simulation will assess the impact of decomplexification techniques on a traffic sample at the strategic level. The gaming exercises have a broader scope and will use SESAR experts and operational experts to provide additional detail on a range of en route concepts that include decomplexification measures, as well as new separation modes. These exercises will use gaming techniques to work through the steps required to make such concepts viable, and to estimate the extent of KPA benefits that might be anticipated. The prototyping sessions will provide a further level of detail by using prototype controller tools with operational ATCOs to determine the effectiveness of possible network-based solutions.

The Expert Group is drawn from a wide spectrum of en-route ATM expertise. Through the distribution of questionnaires, Delphi Methodology and recorded discussions it details the concept, reviews the scope and results of the WP4 Validation Activities and participates in the WP4 Gaming Exercises.

Gaming Exercises are managed games that explore the roles of the relevant actors, the support functions that they require and helps to develop the scenarios for the WP4 exercises.

The model-based simulation employs mathematical modelling techniques to provide metrics on the impact of some of the ATM techniques described in the SESAR Conops.

The en-route Prototyping Sessions employ human-in-the-loop experiments to build the SESAR en-route environment piece by piece and to address detailed issues (e.g. airspace, tools, or roles).

4.9 STEP 1.7 DEFINE VALIDATION STRATEGY

This section describes the EP3 WP4 selected validation activities. The descriptions include the objectives of the exercise or expert group, the rationale (why) and the expected results grouped per SESAR Key Performance Area (KPA). Moreover, the contribution to the addressed Operational Improvements steps is provided together with some information about the chosen geographical area and performance framework level.

4.9.1 Expert Groups

The Expert Group is not a validation activity as such. Instead, it aims to provide concept clarification, requirements development or elaboration activities. The EP3 WP4 expert group aims are stated below.

Episode 3


of 36


Validation Activity ID 4.3.1

Validation Activity Title

Expert Group En-Route Queue, Trajectory, and Separation Management

Leading Organisation Isdefe

Validation Objective

Main objectives of the Expert Group are to define the relevant procedures establishing:

• Procedure objectives and goals.

• Roles and responsibilities of different actors for identifying, measuring, monitoring, predicting and resolving an en-route complex situation.

• Interactions between actors implied.

• Scenarios to be used for the next validation exercises.

• KPAs affected and the OI Steps that should be developed to support the Complexity Management procedure.

Rationale

The rationale for using the expert group as the method of choice is described below.

Queue and Trajectory Management:

Queue and trajectory management entails the detection of zones/volumes of high complexity to enable the following processes to ensure the safe and orderly management of air traffic:

• The timely transition from operations without route structures to periods when-route structures are essential to assure the required capacity with safety.

• To determine the optimum sectorisation organisation to assure the efficiency of the separation provision service, including the use of dynamic sector configurations with multi-sector planning.

• The modification of individual trajectories to reduce complexity if it is considered that the efficiency of separation provision might otherwise be compromised.

Traffic Queue and trajectory management also includes the objective to free controller mental resources by minimising the level of risks perceived by the controllers (SESAR CONOPS F3.2.1).

Complexity has temporal and geographical dimensions. There are times of the day when airspace could feature high-complexity operations and appropriate procedures would apply. The requirement is that the periods during which the different procedures are in force must be clearly defined and controlled: users and ANSP need certainty with regard to the procedures in use (SESAR CONOPS F3.2.2).

The focus of this expert group is to support performance assessment to provide evidence that the SESAR operational concept increases airspace capacity by reducing controller task load per flight. To address the controller tactical task load reduction, SESAR includes the reduction of complexity to simplify the ATM situation so that separation provision can be efficiently applied by human intervention (SESAR CONOPS F3.2.1). The reduction of complexity is carried out with the assistance of appropriate automation that achieves the goal of reducing complexity with minimum distortion of the trajectories concerned (SESAR CONOPS F3.2).

Specifically, this exercise will clarify and refine procedures and associated automated assistance tools for identification, monitoring and resolution of complex situations, providing a range of techniques for the reduction of the number of potential conflicts. The aim will be to use operational experts to reduce the range of scenarios for performance assessment validation exercises and to provide advice on practical issues such as procedures and user interfaces.

Separation Management:

Episode 3


of 36


A range of separation modes is available in SESAR to address various operational circumstances (SESAR CONOPS D8). These modes take advantage of trajectory sharing between air and ground and enhanced vertical and longitudinal navigational capabilities and fall into 3 broad categories:

• Conventional modes: In this context, they refer to modes that are essentially unchanged by SESAR.

• New ANSP modes: these are new modes envisaged for SESAR that are purely applied by ATC:

• Precision Trajectory Clearances

• Trajectory Control by Ground Based Speed Adjustment

• New airborne modes: these are new modes that involve the aircraft and in which the pilot is the separator either by delegation or, in unmanaged airspace, as the standard:

• Cooperative Separation (ASAS-Separation)

• Self-separation (ASAS-Self-Separation)

The preferred mode(s) for use in SESAR of these separation modes and their exact area of application will be determined after appropriate validation (SESAR F6.3.1).

Operational technical and validation expertise is needed to select separation modes offering the best compromise between technological feasibility and operational benefits and define exactly how these separation modes are used and assessed in WP4 validation exercises.

Expected Results

The result of the queue and trajectory management part of the expert group will produce:

• Guidelines for the identification of zones/volumes of high complexity

• Clarification of procedures, possible interactions, objectives and goals, strategies and roles of different actors identifying, measuring, monitoring, predicting and resolving an en-route complex situation (establishing appropriate models and key validation scenarios for model-based simulations and gaming exercises)

• Assessment of the changes to operational practices required

• Consider impact of measures on the NOP (distortion of UPT) and study capacity and efficiency trade-offs resolving a complex situation

• Catalogue of procedures, methodologies and tools for queue and trajectory management according to the situation

The result of the separation management part of the expert group will provide clarifications on:

• Initial technological assumptions to be made in WP4 assessments; these will be passed on to EP3 WP6, the technology WP.

• Perceived benefits, usage and applicability, and interoperability of new separation modes

• Concept scenarios of interest

• Detailed validation questions to be addressed in WP4 assessment tasks

OI Steps Addressed

AOM-0801 Flexible Sectorisation Management AOM-0802 Modular Sectorisation Adapted to Variations in Traffic Flows AOM-0803 Dynamically Shaped Sectors Unconstrained By Predetermined Boundaries

Episode 3


of 36


CM-0102 Automated Support for Dynamic Sectorisation and Dynamic Constraint Management SDM-0202 Transfer of Area of Responsibility for Trajectory Management CM-0601 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC) CM-0602 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC) CM-0603 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC) CM-0604 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC)

DODs/Scenarios Used E6 DOD, Scenarios: Flight in Managed Airspace, Strategic De-confliction Using 4D PTC

Type of Validation Exercise Expert Group

Geographical Area / Performance Framework level

All ECAC areas. Applicable to all en route.

Table 4-10 WP 4.3.1 Objectives, Rationale, Results and OIs

4.9.2 Concept Validation Activities

The concept validation activities in EP3 WP4 comprise a model-based simulation, a gaming exercise, and a prototyping exercise. The details are provided in the tables below.

Validation Activity ID 4.3.2

Validation Activity Title Model-based simulation Strategic De-confliction Using 4D PTC

Leading Organisation DSNA


Objective (Key Concept to be addressed and why):

• Decomplexified traffic is a key element of the SESAR concept on the basis of reducing traffic complexity.

• Two objectives:

• This work package will provide one day of traffic based on the effect of SESAR dynamic Demand Capacity Balancing (d-DCB) measure based on PTC-4D adjustment.

• Evaluate the postulate that this 4D planning will permit significantly reduced task load in ACC sectors while keeping the same level of capacity and safety.

Rationale

• Model-based simulation is suited to the assessment of strategic de-confliction in execution phase.

• Separation management measures can be explored separately at the network and execution phases in order to evaluate its impact.

• Arithmetic simulations using CATS/OPAS will drive the validation process.

Expected Results

With respect to the objectives mentioned above, this study will:

• Help understand the impact of more dynamic de-complexification measures implemented via automation in the en-route execution phase.

• Provide inputs to expert groups.

With the objective to reduce the sector task load or to reduce the number of

Episode 3


of 36


conflicts, this study will:

• Propose and study several types of algorithms to execute ATFM slot allocation, when 4D plans are provided.

• Evaluate the task load reduction that can be obtained according to the time dispersion allowed for take-offs and for TTA.

• Test the robustness of the slot allocation against perturbations of the departure schedule and trajectory enforcement.

OI Steps Addressed


AUO-0302 Successive Authorisation of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT) Segments using Datalink

AUO-0303 Revision of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT) using Datalink


CM-0104 Automated Controller Support for Trajectory Management




L08-01 4D Contract

CM-0501 4D Contract for Equipped Aircraft with Extended Clearance PTC-4D

DODs/Scenarios Used E4, E6 DODs, Scenarios: Flight in Managed Airspace, Strategic De-confliction Using 4D PTC

Type of Validation Exercise Model based simulation

Geographical Area / Performance Framework Level

All ECAC airspace. Applicable to all en route airspace.


Validation Exercise ID 4.3.3

Validation Exercise Title Gaming Exercise on En Route Complexity Management

Leading Organisation Isdefe


• Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict management task load through the reduction of complexity.

• Assess the feasibility of high-complexity operations and procedures at the applicable times of the day and airspace.

• Refine the evaluation of complexity and trajectory management techniques, such as dynamic sector configurations, re-routing or alternative levels/time previously explored by the expert group (WP 4.3.1) explored in a previous iteration.

• Validate the related processes of negotiation.

• Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict

Episode 3


of 36


management task load with new separation modes.

• Assess the feasibility of new separation modes and associated procedures.

• Explore the impact of the different processes related to "Dynamic Airspace Reorganisation" in high-density, high-complexity situations. To perform this research the consortium will use the PROMAS tool as part of the gaming exercises. PROMAS is a tool to represent the operation of any type of organisation or system by means of fast time simulation. The software provides a detailed event log of system operations that facilitates subsequent analysis or replays of an exercise. Hence, it offers a new method of assessing complex systems that is compatible with gaming techniques.

• Explore the usefulness of gaming as an early validation technique.

Rationale

Episode 3 states the need of using or developing the Best-For-Purpose techniques according to the expected results of the experiment, and not to limit the output to the existing tools/ techniques / constraints. The principles governing the gaming sessions will take full advantage of new innovative validation techniques and will be adapted to processes, roles, and interactions resulting from the Expert Group 4.3.1.

The use of simple gaming techniques will avoid the constraints imposed by existing tools (developed for testing current airspace organisation and working methods), but will support the examination of new SESAR concepts. Moreover, the use of these techniques will ensure that the exercise’s objectives and scope are realistic and feasible within the timetable proposed.

The focus of this gaming exercise is to estimate the increase of capacity that the SESAR operational concept provides by reducing controller task load per flight through complexity reduction. To address the controller tactical task load reduction, SESAR includes the reduction of complexity to simplify the ATM situation so that separation provision can be efficiently applied by human intervention (SESAR CONOPS F3.2.1). The reduction of complexity is carried out with the assistance of appropriate automation that achieves the goal with minimum distortion of the trajectories concerned (SESAR CONOPS F3.2).

Specifically, this exercise will experiment on a set of complexity and trajectory management techniques, such as dynamic sector configurations, re-routing or alternative levels/time previously explored by the Expert Group (WP 4.3.1), for the identification, monitoring and resolution of complex situations, providing an estimation on the controller tactical task load per flight reduction, and therefore on the increase of capacity, by the reduction of the number of potential conflicts. The scope will be completed with an iteration including experimenting with separation modes available in SESAR to address various operational circumstances.

With respect to the last objective mentioned above, PROMAS will be used.

Expected Results by KPA

Processes:

• Validation of the processes of negotiation when implementing high-complexity operations.

• Validation of the processes derived from the application of new SESAR separation modes.

• Description of the interactions of different roles in the system in the short term processes by:

• Assessing the feasibility, benefits and shortcomings of the critical and / or non-beneficial interactions.

• Optimising the interactions between the roles/ functions.

Performances:

Estimation of Airspace Capacity impact through the reduction of controller task load by reducing the need for tactical intervention through a set of complexity, trajectory and separation management techniques.

Episode 3


of 36


Estimation of Efficiency impact estimation of the complexity, trajectory and separation management measures through the evaluation of the distortion of UPT.

OIs Steps Addressed

AOM-0801 Flexible Sectorisation Management AOM-0802 Modular Sectorisation Adapted to Variations in Traffic Flows AOM-0803 Dynamically Shaped Sectors Unconstrained By Predetermined Boundaries CM-0102 Automated Support for Dynamic Sectorisation and Dynamic Constraint Management SDM-0202 Transfer of Area of Responsibility for Trajectory Management CM-0601 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC) CM-0602 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC) CM-0603 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC) CM-0604 Precision Trajectory Clearances (PTC)

DODs/Scenarios Used E6 DOD, Scenarios: Flight in Managed Airspace, Strategic De-confliction Using 4D PTC

Type of Validation Exercise

Gaming Exercise - Operational Performance Validation Exercise


All ECAC airspace. Applies to all en route airspace.


Validation Exercise ID 4.3.4

Validation Exercise Title Prototyping on Queue, Trajectory, and Separation Management

Leading Organisation EEC


• Support the SESAR concept refinement and initial assessment of operability and acceptability of its key aspects

• One element of this work package is the provision, via modelling (at EEC), of one day of traffic based the effect of SESAR dynamic Demand Capacity Balancing (d-DCB) measures at the Network Operations Plan (NOP) level.

Episode 3


of 36


Rationale

Tool:

Prototyping (part task and small scale with ACE)

Why:

Prototyping sessions will be utilised, because

• They are an intermediate step of validation between expert groups, gaming exercises, and full-scale fast-time and real-time simulations1. They enable an iterative approach: specific aspects of the concept being assessed separately (possibly in a simplified environment), and then gradually integrated when sufficient maturity is reached.

• In line with the principle of iterative approach and as initial validation steps, the proposed series of prototyping sessions would focus on the intermediate timeframe (Implementation Package 2).

It is anticipated that, beyond Episode 3, a full scale real-time simulation would have to be conducted.

Organisation:

Up to three prototyping sessions will be carried out in the SESAR En-Route Environment. Some scoping and direction for these has already been addressed in the Separation Management Expert Group in the previous project organisation.

In this sub-Work Package the support of Operational staff is essential for the validity and successful delivery of meaningful results. This support is in terms of operational experts and the experimental subjects will be current operational controllers experienced in busy airspace. The same group of operational experts should be involved from the preparation of the experiment onwards.

In addition, there is modelling activity to provide “decomplexified” traffic samples for further use in WP4.

Results

The series of prototyping sessions should allow SESAR Concept issues to be addressed. Moreover, they should sufficiently link to the requirements for further validation activities, eventually towards the target concept (Implementation Package 3 and beyond). Based on outcomes from expert groups, the series of experiments would start by refining possible options (e.g. concept implementation, scenarios), then assess their operability and acceptability. When relevant, initial trends on other KPAs may be obtained. A series of prototyping sessions would involve a core team of operational experts, and may span over several months (typically 4 or 6 months with a session of 3 days every 4 weeks). Each session would consist of part-task (small scale) real-time simulation exercises. Overall duration should be fixed and progress should be closely monitored with decision points to define and trigger the next iteration (e.g. further in-depth analysis, start of integration phase or initial trend analysis). The proposed series of experiments will also build on experiments already performed as internal EEC activities to prepare for Episode 3. The main focus will be on the following aspects in medium/high-density en-route airspace:

• Airspace capacity increases through airspace capacity initiatives and reduced controller task load achieved by a reduced requirement for controller tactical intervention.

• Predictability increase through tentative adherence to the user preferred routing and use of predefined 4D trajectories, and consequently to improve the quality of delivery of aircraft to TMA entry.

In practice, because of the large changes to the en-route environment foreseen in the concept only a limited exploration of these aspects can be addressed.

1 In addition, model-based simulations may also be conducted to support refinement of the concept, typically in terms of dimensioning and trade-offs analysis.

Episode 3


of 36


The experiment will primarily aim at refining roles, procedures and working methods of the controllers, and assessing the impact of aircraft adhering to a RBT. It is expected to obtain initial trends in terms of airspace capacity and predictability increases.

Note: Creation, management, and actual revision of the RBT are out of the scope of the present task.

Operational Environment:

Airspace

• Maastricht Upper Airspace (adapted or simplified) plus additional sector(s) as required to include interface with multiple TMAs (e.g. Schiphol and London)

• Airspace Structure may be revisited (in-line with concept)

• Military areas may be simulated

Traffic

• Better presented traffic delivered by scripted dynamic DCB and Complexity Management at the level of the NOP

Aircraft Equipage

• 4D capable aircraft

Controller tools

• MTCD and data-link

• TCT and TED subject to feasibility assessment

OIs Steps Addressed


CM-0104 Automated Controller Support for Trajectory Management Automated Controller Support for Trajectory Management

L06-01 Introducing Ground based Automated Assistance to Controller.

CM-0202 Automated Assistance to ATC Planning for Preventing Conflicts in En Route Airspace

CM-0203 Automated Flight Conformance Monitoring

CM-0204 Automated Support for Near Term Conflict Detection & Resolution and Trajectory Conformance Monitoring



CM-0404 Enhanced Tactical Conflict Detection/Resolution and Conformance & Intent Monitoring





L05-03 Enlarging ATC Planning Horizon

CM-0302 Ground based Automated Support for Managing Traffic Complexity Across Several Sectors


Episode 3


of 36


AOM-0802 Modular Sectorisation Adapted to Variations in Traffic Flows

L05-04 Moving to coordination-free environment

CM-0402 Coordination-free Transfer of Control through use of Shared Trajectory




AUO-0302 Successive Authorisation of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT) Segments using Datalink

AUO-0303 Revision of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT) using Datalink

DODs/Scenarios Used E4, E6 DODs, Scenario: Flight in Managed Airspace

Type of Validation Exercise Operational process and performance validation


Maastricht Upper Airspace (adapted or simplified) plus additional sector(s) as required to include interface with multiple TMAs (e.g. Schiphol and London)


Episode 3


of 36


END OF DOCUMENT