Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work Package 3...

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


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


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






flight deck






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


ATSA-AIRB OpEval 1 – traffic pattern

Alt 30 -50

210 kts

Alt 30 - 50

210 kts

10 - 15 Mile Final

Wilmington airport, Ohio


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


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






flight deck






ATSA-VSAPotential benefits

Baseline and CDTI for enhanced visual acquisition

OpEval 1



Three methods used for visual acquisition and

the order of use in OpEval 2

DAY NIGHT



OpEval 1



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


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]


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?






flight deck






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


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”


ASPA-S&M Air & ground interface

INKAK


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


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


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

”


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)


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


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


ASPA-S&M Extrapolating benefits?

metric i

Potential benefit?Yes

GenericConventional ATC

GenericWith S&M

+-

SpecificConventional ATC

No

metric i


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


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


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?


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

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chase-elliott
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work Package 3...

Documents