slide 1 july 2004 – falbala/wp5/for5/d – cena, dfs, eec, nats, sofréavia & uog work package...
TRANSCRIPT
Slide 1July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Work Package 3Chris Shaw & Karim Zeghal
(EUROCONTROL)
CARE/ASAS Action
FALBALA ProjectDissemination Forum – 8th July 2004
Slide 2July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Work package 3Assessment of possible operational benefits
Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck
Three Package 1 applications
Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations ATSA-AIRB
Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach ATSA-VSA
Enhanced Sequencing and Merging ASPA-S&M
Slide 3July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Work package 3 Assessment approach
Application description
(Package 1)
Past studies (NUP II, US Ohio
Valley flight trials, CoSpace)
Potential ATC and airborne
benefits
Limitations & applicability
WP 1 & 2 Current situation
analysis – airspace &
aircraft perspective
WP 4 Operational
indicators, interviews &
workshop
Slide 4July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Work package 3Assessment of possible operational benefits
Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck
Three Package 1 applications
Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations ATSA-AIRB
Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach ATSA-VSA
Enhanced Sequencing and Merging ASPA-S&M
Slide 5July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-AIRB US Ohio valley CDTI/ADS-B flight trials
Cargo Airline Association (CAA), FAA
Safe Flight 21 program, MITRE, NASA,
DoD
OpEval1 – Wilmington, Ohio, July 1999
25 aircraft, dedicated experiment, focus
on enhanced visual acquisition and
enhanced visual approach
OpEval2 – Louisville, Kentucky,
October 2000
Continued investigation, focus on
approach spacing for visual
approaches during night and day.
Airborne Express
Slide 6July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-AIRB OpEval 1 – traffic pattern
Alt 30 -50
210 kts
Alt 30 - 50
210 kts
10 - 15 Mile Final
Wilmington airport, Ohio
Slide 7July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-AIRBPotential benefits
Potential ATC benefits [OpEval 1] Controllers indicated that CDTI had a:
• slight positive effect on providing control information
- allowed controller to call traffic earlier than normal
• moderately positive effect on communicating
Potential airborne benefits [OpEval 1]
Liked: Flight ID tags, altitude information, and additional selected information
Increased flight crew confidence in their ability to maintain awareness of the exact position of traffic even when traffic transitioned in and out of obscurations.
Aided in planning and workload management, and intra-cockpit communication
Slide 8July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-AIRBLimitations and applicability
Limitations [OpEval1&2, WP2&4] Partial awareness due to partial equipage
Display clutter is an issue in high density areas
Pilot hesitation over controller instruction
Applicability [WP2&4] 38 out of 57 core Europe scenarios with
over 15 traffic targets displayed with an altitude filter of -2700 feet to +2700 feet.
Application dependent
Filter could use intentWP2 – CENA CDTI
prototype showing 36
traffic aircraft
Slide 9July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Work package 3Assessment of possible operational benefits
Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck
Three Package 1 applications
Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations ATSA-AIRB
Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach ATSA-VSA
Enhanced Sequencing and Merging ASPA-S&M
Slide 10July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-VSAPotential benefits
Baseline and CDTI for enhanced visual acquisition
OpEval 1
Slide 11July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-VSAPotential benefits
Three methods used for visual acquisition and
the order of use in OpEval 2
DAY NIGHT
Slide 12July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-VSAPotential benefits
OpEval 1
Slide 13July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-VSAPotential benefits
Majority of flight crews said that CDTI helped during
visual approach [OpEval 1] – questionnaire comments: Allowed us to tighten up our approach
Very useful for acquiring and re-acquisition of traffic
Display of ground speed and distance information reduced the workload of following traffic
Increased situational awareness in busy traffic pattern
Supported re-checking the position of traffic without consulting ATC
Improved our awareness of ATC traffic pattern objectives
Using the system to support flight deck objectives improved with experience – for example, our confidence in maintaining a desired interval during the approach
Slide 14July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-VSALimitations
Clutter and head down time an issue [OpEval, WP4]
Frequency of use depends on percentage of aircraft
equipped [WP4]
Only for use in Visual Meteorological Conditions
[OpEval2]
Identification using call sign a potential issue [OpEval 2]
Slide 15July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ATSA-VSAApplicability
Visual separation currently used in Frankfurt TMA and US results
imply a CDTI could help in visual acquisition, maintaining visual
contact, gauging distance and closure rates [WP4, OpEval 2]
Frankfurt analysis example: own aircraft 1.0 NM behind leading
aircraft whilst flying visually separated to the parallel runways. Wake
vortices? [WP4]
Successive visual approaches not often flown in major capacity-
limited European airports because of risk of go-around [WP 4]. Why
is risk not same in US?
Slide 16July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Work package 3Assessment of possible operational benefits
Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck
Three Package 1 applications
Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations ATSA-AIRB
Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach ATSA-VSA
Enhanced Sequencing and Merging ASPA-S&M
Slide 17July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M
What does it mean? A typical example
CoSpace, in collaboration with NUP (COOPATS tiger team) covering TMA and E-TMA
Analysing applicability? Some indications CoSpace assumptions and findings,
feedback from ANSP participating, WP1 and WP4
Extrapolating benefits? Issues… CoSpace results, expected benefits
from WP4 and radar data from WP1
Slide 18July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&MA typical example
Four new instructions to Maintain spacing (remain, merge)
Create then maintain spacing (heading then remain/merge)
Two constraints Required anticipation to setup S&M
(target selection)
Restriction to manoeuvre aircraft under S&M (e.g. heading not compatible with merge)
Same instructions for E-TMA and TMA
In TMA, aircraft arrives under S&M
XYZ456070 - 24
90s
XYZ123060 - 24
“Behind target, merge WPT 90s behind”
Slide 19July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Air & ground interface
INKAK
Slide 20July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&MTypical uses in TMA
Maintaining spacing with S&M, but handling final integration as today
For aircraft under S&M on long downwind leg
Limited benefits
No constraint (except same trajectory)
Maintaining spacing and handling final integration with S&M
Maximum benefits, specifically under very high traffic conditions
However, need to delay aircraft of one flow while keeping them under S&M
Constraints typically in terms of airspace design
Slide 21July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Constraints
Airspace design Unique merging point (by definition of merge)
Enough space (anticipation)
Standard trajectories (by definition of remain, merge)
TMA: Holding legs (to delay for final integration)
TMA: Geometry of legs (to easily visualise situation)
ATC organisation Grouping of positions (e.g. feeder & pickup for TMA)
Executive and planning controllers
Traffic High or very high
Slide 22July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
London Heathrow small high no normal no
London Gatwick small medium yes occasional possibly
Paris CDG medium medium yes occasional possibly
Paris Orly medium medium yes occasional possibly
Frankfurt large high yes occasional possibly
Generic medium simple yes no yes
ASPA-S&MApplicability characteristics
airs
pace
siz
eco
mpl
exity
pre-
sequ
enci
ngus
e of
sta
ck
“hol
ding
legs
”
Slide 23July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Applicability assessment from WP4
With existing airspace structure, Paris (CDG and Orly)
highly feasible to the use of S&M, and feasible at London
Gatwick
Applicability to London Heathrow hardly feasible in today’s
operations (limited airspace and use of stacks) same for
Frankfurt (large but complex airspace)
Slide 24July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&MIdentifying metrics
Three dimensions of analysis for CoSpace air & ground
real-time experiments
Four key metrics Number and geographical
distribution of instructions (controller)
Number of instructions per aircraft (pilot)
Actual spacing compared to required spacing
Length and dispersion of trajectories
Safety
Humanactivity
Humanshapingfactors
Effectiveness
Slide 25July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Expected benefits
From WP1 Analysis of spacing between successive aircraft with radar data
From WP4 Reduction of voice communications
Less time-critical instructions, capability to establish the sequence further out, and generally reduction in controller workload
Improvement of ATC efficiency through more consistent spacing
… but
Possibility to increase capacity?
Percentage of equipped aircraft?
Pilot workload & level of cockpit automation
Slide 26July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Extrapolating benefits?
metric i
Potential benefit?Yes
GenericConventional ATC
GenericWith S&M
+-
SpecificConventional ATC
No
metric i
Slide 27July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Illustration: spacing on final
0
20
40
60
80
(s)
RW26L RW26R RW27L RW27R
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
(s)
RW27L RW27R
0
20
40
60
80
(s)
RW07L RW07R
Generic No
Time
Paris CDG
London Heathrow
Frankfurt
Note: reference points are different
Slide 28July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Limitations of comparisons
Actual spacing should be related to
desired spacing Is large spacing due to
• required spacing (e.g. for wake vortex, departure, runway inspection)
• low traffic • inefficient sequencing?
Is small spacing due to• visual separation• tight (but controlled) sequencing
due to a high traffic load• missed sequencing?
Generic
%
Conventional ATC With ASAS spacing
Small Below Required Above
Slide 29July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
ASPA-S&M Issues related to extrapolation
GenericConventional ATC
GenericWith S&M
SpecificConventional ATC
SpecificWith S&M
Results of experiments
KnownUnknown
Impact of the limitation of use of
S&M resulting from constraints of
specific environment?
Impact of the differences
between the generic and
specific environment?
Slide 30July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
WP3 – S&M conclusion
Initial understanding of applicability of S&M to TMA and E-TMA Paris (CDG and Orly) highly feasible and London Gatwick feasible
London Heathrow hardly feasible (limited airspace and use of stacks)
Frankfurt, divergent assessment (large but complex airspace)
Assessment of benefits related to spacing at reference points hardly feasible in the scope of FALBALA
Determine minimum applicable spacing (e.g. considering wake vortex, runway type of operations, runway occupancy time) and traffic demand
Investigate other benefits in terms of ATC effectiveness (e.g. flight efficiency)
and human activity (e.g. increased availability, more anticipation)
Experiments on generic environment should be continued to develop trends already identified
Experiments on specific environment necessary to assess benefits