THE WORLD ATM Congress 2013

HOW SESAR CONTRIBUTES TO SES PERFORMANCE

WORKSHOP

Moderated by Patrick Mana, SJU Programme Manager

13 February 2013, Madrid

THE WORLD ATM CONGRESS 2013

HOW SESAR CONTRIBUTES TO SES PERFORMANCE WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

2

10:00 Welcome & introductionPatrick Mana, SESAR Joint Undertaking

10:05 SESAR Performance frameworkPeter Simonsson, NATSPatricia Lopez de Frutos, AENA

10:20 Extended AMAN Horizon: Fuel-Efficiency & PredictabilityValentina Pesacane, ENAV

10:35 Conflicting ATC Clearances : SafetyHeribert Lafferton, DFS ; Christelle Pianetti (DSNA)Bruno Rabiller, EUROCONTROL

AGENDA

Agenda

3

10:50 Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace: Airspace Capacity & Fuel-Efficiency Edgar Reuber, EUROCONTROL

11:05 Time-Based Separation: Airport CapacityCharles Morris, NATSPeter Choroba, EUROCONTROL

11:20 Remote Tower: Human PerformancePierre Ankartun, NORACONCatherine Chalon, EUROCONTROL

11:35 - end -

Peter Simonsson (NATS)Patricia Lopez De Frutos (AENA)

SESAR PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

The SES Performance Context (What we are aiming for)

Enabling EU skiesto handle 3 times

more traffic

Improving safety by a factor of 10

Reducing the environmental

impact per flight by 10%

Cutting ATM cost per flight

by 50%

SESAR Solutions are expected to contribute significantly to the achievement of these goals

SESAR Performance Management

Traffic synchronisation

covers all aspects related to improving arrival/departure management and sequence building in en route and TMA environments. It aims to achieve an optimum traffic sequence

Validation of operational improvements

SESAR Validation targets

SES High-Level Goals

Validation resultsPerf. expectation

Deployment scenarios

Gap analysis

Step 1

SESAR Validation Targets

Step 1 + 2

Progressive targeting across Concept phases

Example – Fuel Efficiency

Concept Targeted: Priority Business Needs

Step 1 Validation Target Allocation

SESAR Performance Assessment

Traffic synchronisation

covers all aspects related to improving arrival/departure management and sequence building in en route and TMA environments. It aims to achieve an optimum traffic sequence

Validation of operational improvements

SESARValidation targets

SES High-Level Goals

Validation resultsPerf. Assessment

Deployment scenarios

Gap analysis

Progressive Performance Assessment refinement & recommendations

Performance Assessment

per StepRelease #1


per StepRelease #2


per StepRelease #3

VALIDATION TARGET PER STEP

SJU ProgrammeTime Line

Validation ResultsEstimations

PPPP PP PP PP

PP PP PP PPPP

PP


per StepRelease #3

Recommendations Recommendations

Recommendations

Performance Assessment Approach

Face to Face Technical discussions collecting benefits from the projects themselvesThe Outcome are judgments based on:

•initial estimations•past validation results•Validation exercises

and …•benefit mechanisms•assumptions (e.g.

applicability to types of airports & airspace, equipage rates, hours per day in operation, etc)

Stepwise Benefits at ECAC level Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Specific indicators we are looking for Step 1

Concept Assessed: Priority Business Needs

Preliminary Performance Assessment for Step 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fuel Efficiency

Airport Capacity

Airspace Capacity(TMA)

Airspace Capacity(En-route)

Predictability

Cost-effectiveness

Traffic Sychronisation Moving from Airspace to 4D Trajectory Management

Conflict Management and Automation Network Collaborative Planning and Demand Capacity Balancing

Airport intgration and Throughput

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fuel Efficiency

Airport Capacity



Predictability

Cost-effectiveness




0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fuel Efficiency

Airport Capacity



Predictability

Cost-effectiveness




SES Performance: Efficiency & Predictability

Valentina Pesacane (ENAV)

05.06.04 TACTICAL TMA ANDEN-ROUTE QUEUE MANAGEMENT

05.06.04 Overview

• Tactical management of queues during descent flight phase

• Arrival Management Horizon extended to the En-route operations

• Techniques to tactically manage queues to deliver pre-sequenced traffic to TMAs

• TMA overloading• Sequence building at low altitudes• Inefficient flight profiles

ExistingArrival Management

Horizon

Extended Arrival Management Horizon

into Cruiseflight phase

Adjacent airports comewithin the Arrival

Management Horizon

Adjacent airports comewithin the Arrival

Management Horizon

ACC/ANSP Boundary

New AMAN Influence

CDO

Current AMAN

PRE-SEQUENCING To absorb delay at high altitudes supported by En-route ATCOs in managing queues and achieve early sequence stability

SEQUENCING To deliver pre-sequenced and smoothed traffic to the TMA

SPACINGTo optimize the sequence approaching to the runway

05.06.04 Benefits

Expected performance benefitsImproving the overall efficiency and predictability of

flight trajectoriesReducing the environmental impact

• Medium to High traffic density/complexity

• Different operational environments

• 2 AMAN Horizon extensions

• Different avionic capabilities

• Several KPAs investigated

05.06.04 and Releases

Experimental conditions•AMAN OFF or AMAN ON•Real traffic flight dataMethod/techniques (Simulated environment)•Over the shoulder observation•User feedback collection•Recording system data logs16.6.x Guidelines driven for KPAs assessment•Human Performance•Safety•Environment

Validation approach

Efficiency KPA

The concept allows AUs to optimize the descend profiles supporting the continuous descending operations

+40% of CDA with a consequent stability of the uninterrupted descending AMAN sequence

Efficiency KPA

The concept allows AUs to optimize the descend profiles with a gain of fuel burnt during descent operations

16% of fuel saved with an AMAN ON (descending phase)

AMAN OFFDistance flown (NM) Fuel Burnt (Kg) CO2 (Kg)

6505 30866 97229

Flight Efficiency - Environment KPA

The early management of the arrival flow optimizes the distance flown and saves the fuel burnt and gas emissions.

-7.7% of Distance Flown (Nm) with AMAN ON during TMA ops

-2.7% of Fuel Burnt and CO2 emissions (Kg) with AMAN ON during TMA ops

ops

AMAN ONDistance flown (NM) Fuel Burnt (Kg) CO2 (Kg)

6037 30060 94686

AMAN OFF vs AMAN ONDistance flown (%) Fuel Burnt (%) CO2 (%)

-7.7 -2.7 -2.7


This concept allows to reduce the holdings and path stretching.

Example: Flight from Paris to Rome (A320)

Flight Track: AMAN OFF



Example: Flight from Paris to Rome (A320)

Flight Track: AMAN ON



Example: Flight from Paris to Rome (A320).In TMA, AMAN ON:•- 131 Kg of Fuel burn•- 412 Kg of CO2 emission•- 23 Nm of distance flown

Comparison between AMAN OFF (orange track) and AMAN ON (blue track) in TMA

Predictability KPA

The concept allows an higher accuracy of the anticipated landing times.

CTAs are proposed to aircraft when the En-Route ATCO has sufficient confidence in the stability of the traffic.

CTA flights doubled with AMAN ON

Predictability KPA

The concept allows to achieve an early sequence stability.

The pilot has an earlier and better understanding of ATC intentions through the CTA procedure.

+10% of CTA proposals accepted with AMAN ON

KPA Achievements

Efficiency Descent profile optimized with delay absorbed at higher altitudes, reduction of descent fuel burnt

Environment Reduction of distance flown and CO2 emissions

Predictability Better optimization of the descent phase and also higher accuracy of the anticipated landing times

05.06.04 Results in brief

Thank youThank youValentina Pesacane

For any detail, please visit ENAV Stand (927)

Drive the change!

P06.07.01 EXE 438 at Hamburg Airport

H. Lafferton (DFS)B. Rabiller (EUROCONTROL)

CONFLICTING ATC CLEARANCES

From B4.1 Safety Validation Target to Safety and Performance requirements

Conflicting ATC Clearances Safety Criteria (SAC): The number of Runway Conflict shall be reduced by 5% when ATC is supported by the conflicting ATC

clearance Tool.

Safety Validation Objectives for VAL EXE

Safety & Performance Requirements, Recommendations

and Issues

B4.1 Safety validation Targetfor Airport Safety Net OFA

Safety Assessment process conducted in accordance with SESAR Safety

Reference Material (SRM)

VALIDATION EXERCISE DRIVEN BY SAFETY VALIDATION OBJECTIVES

VAL PLANFor EXE 438

Are all conflicting situations detected?

Is false alert rate acceptable?

Is Conf ATC compatible with other systems?

VALOBJ

VALOBJ

VALOBJ

Is detection considered as a nuisance alert?

Are detected situations timely solved?

VALOBJ

VALOBJ

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

CONDUCTVAL EXE 438

Safety Criteria (SAC): as a proxy…

The SESAR Context and Safety

Operational Thread System Thread

Transversal Thread

P 6.7.1(WA 3)P 6.7.1(WA 3)

P 12.03.02P 12.03.02

P 16.06.01 SESAR Safety

Reference Material

P 16.06.01 SESAR Safety

Reference Material

SESA

R SR

MSE

SAR

SRM

OSED, VAL PLN, SPR

Surface Safety Nets serverSurface Safety Nets Alerting HMI Safety

RequirementsSafety Requirements

V2 VAL REP

P 16.06.01Support

(EUROCONTROL)

P 16.06.01Support

(EUROCONTROL)

Safety Assessment

Safety

Support

Safety

Support

P 16.06.05 Human Performance

P 16.06.05 Human Performance

Safety Requirements for design;Safety Recommendations for design;Safety Issues for design

Safety Requirements for design;Safety Recommendations for design;Safety Issues for design

P 12.05.02P 12.05.02

HF S

uppo

rt

HF S

uppo

rt

New prototype “Surface Safety Nets Server” under test

• On existing DFS product lines PHOENIX (SDP) and SHOWTIME (TFDPS)

Reducing nuisance alerts: Routing function as input for the safety net

Example: Line-up / Land conflict

Reducing nuisance alerts:Routing function as input for the safety net

Example: Line-up / Land conflict solved

Predictive Indication

Predictive Indication

In this case, the next clearance would be a Line-up clearance

The predictive indication shows if the next clearance would generate a conflicting ATC clearance

The Tower in a Conference Room

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

VALRESULT?

Validation exercise 438 Results

Are all conflicting situations detected?

Is false alert rate acceptable?

VALOBJ

VALOBJ

Is detection considered as a nuisance alert?

Are detected situations timely solved?

VALOBJ

VALOBJ

OK!

OK!

OK!

OK!

VAL EXE 438 Results

?

?

?

?Yes Positive feedback by ATCOs and observers

Almost no nuisance alerts

Yes. Positive feedback by ATCOs and observers

No false alerts (e.g. no « TOF vs. TOF » instead of « LND vs. TOF »

Is Conf ATC compatible with other systems?

VALOBJ

VALRESULT?OK!

?RIMS not tested. Conformance Monitor-ing tested but fine tuning necessary

Airspace Capacity & Fuel-Efficiency

Edgar Reuber (EUROCONTROL)

Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace


• AFUA concept• Validation concept

– Variable Profile Area (VPA) design principle– Validation Exercise VP 015, FTS

• Airspace capacity• Fuel Efficiency

– Extra NM flown– Fuel burned– Emissions saved


AFUA concept• Define the types of AFUA flexible airspace

structures and the reservation processes;• Harmonise the design of these flexible

airspace structures;• Define the procedures to use these flexible

airspace structures;• Facilitate military – military and civil –

military co-operation.


Validation concept step 1, here VP 015 only

• Validate the concept of Variable Profile Area (VPA):– create new design principle– integration in the network– network efficiency


VPA design principle

ARES

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12


VP 015• Fast Time Simulation (V2)• 2 fold:

– Spanish Airspace– Belgian Airspace

• Reference Scenario plus Solution Scenarios• Ref: Full activation of ARES• Sol: Potential Modules activated in

combination


VP 015 (2)• Comparison of all solutions to reference• Results calculated to:

– Extra distance flown (NM and time)– Extra fuel burned– Extra emissions emitted– Workload / Capacity

• Spanish Example shown next– Workload / Capacity

• Not focus of this VP• Results are indicating only little positive influence


Diverted flights per scenarioS5 = Reference Scenario

C S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Non diverted 106 40 60 25 0

Diverted 0 66 46 81 106


Extra NM from circumnavigating activated ARES per deviated flight

S5 = Reference Scenario


Fuel burn per deviated flight



CO2 Emission Users outside the ARES per deviated flight



Validation Results• Positive effect on Workload/Capacity

– To be further validated in new VP

• Very positive effect on– Reduction of extra NM flown by 75 %– Reduction of extra fuel burned by 75%– Reduction on emissions by 75%

=>OVERALL BENEFITS usingVPA


Peter CHOROBA, P06.08.01, EUROCONTROLCharles MORRIS, P06.08.01, NATS

Time Based Separations (TBS)

Outline

• TBS Concept• Example benefit mechanism• Release 2 exercises• Results per KPA

– Fuel efficiency (environment)– Airport capacity (runway throughput)– Time efficiency & Predictability

• Conclusions

Normal Landing Rate – Light Headwind

Overcoming the impact of wind onFinal Approach


Reduced Landing Rate – Strong Headwind

Strong headwind reduces groundspeed


Reduced Landing Rate – Strong Headwind

Time Based Spacing in Strong Headwind

Time Based Separation Potential to recover runway service rate

TBS concept

TBS separation indication

WT TBS principlesICAO WT DBS minima

Take advantage of the wake decay and transport in moderate to strong headwind

Maintain TBS constant in all wind, which corresponds to DBS minima

Maintain runway throughput in headwind (HW)

No traffic spacing below current MRS

Separation Separation Separation Separation

TBS benefit mechanism – example

Feature Impact Area Indicators Positive or negative impacts KPA/TA

6.8.1: Flexible and Dynamic Use of Wake Vortex Separation - Time Based Separation

OI Steps:

(1/n)

Time Based Separation for Arrivals

Number of movements

CAP

Average Delay per flight

Airspace User

Fuel Burn in TMA

PRD

Time in Airborne Holding

1bRunway Throughput in headwind

EFF

Arrival Time Variability (planned vs actual) On Time

Operations

ENV

EFF

CO2 emissions

2a

2b

2d

2c

Number of Cancellations

EFF

1c

Delivery Impact

1a

TBS - Release 2 exercises

VP302 Tower simulation • July 2012• 7 days RTS at 360 degree Heathrow tower simulator• Match runs TBS vs DBS• 31 simulation runs• 12 ATCOs

VP303 Approach simulation • February/March 2012• 13 day RTS at NATS CTC simulator• Match runs TBS vs DBS• 51 simulation runs• 11 ATCOs

Airport capacity (RWY throughput)

• Tactical capacity benefits only

• preventing the loss of 1-5 movements per hour in challenging wind conditions – depending on the traffic density and wind speed

• No impact on declared capacity

Fuel efficiency

• 108.55kg average fuel saving per flight at LHR with TBS

• 2.26% fuel saving per flight at LHR (+corresponding CO2 benefit – ENV)

• Frankfurt, Madrid, Rome, Amsterdam… – dense enough traffic &

delays caused by strong headwinds, ref. EUROBEN study

Time efficiency & Predictability

• The mean reduction of holding time was 0.9min with a maximum reduction of 9.4 min

• TBS shows potential predictability benefit in reduction of standard deviation for airborne holding time (variability) from 208 to 168 seconds

Conclusions

• Achievement of SESAR validation targets allocated to TBS OFA– TBS is 3rd largest contributor to Fuel Eff and PRD KPAs

• Maintained landing rate in challenging wind conditions (airport capacity)

• Significant holding delay reduction (time & fuel efficiency, predictability)

RWY resilience improvement

Scale of benefits depends mainly on the traffic density and wind conditions

Pierre Andersson Ankartun (Noracon, LFV)Pierre Andersson Ankartun (Noracon, LFV) Catherine Chalon Morgan (Eurocontrol)Catherine Chalon Morgan (Eurocontrol)SJU P06.09.03 Project ManagerSJU P06.09.03 Project Manager SJU P06.09.03 Human Performance Assesment LeadSJU P06.09.03 Human Performance Assesment Lead

P06.09.03 REMOTE & VIRTUAL TWRHUMAN PERFORMANCE RESULTS FROM TWO EXERCISESHUMAN PERFORMANCE RESULTS FROM TWO EXERCISES

P06.09.03 REMOTE TWR CONCEPT

RVT Concept

Enabling cost effective ATS at one or more airports from a facility that is not in the local Tower.

Targets the typical ‘small’ airport

The Remote CWP also enables the introduction of new tools to support the Air Traffic Controller

EXE #056 EXE #057

TWR TWR

Passive SM Passive SM

Sweden Sweden

Establishing a common SESAR baseline using an initial prototype

Complementing scenarios and objectives

Enhanced platform

Technical enablers

P06.09.03 Single TWRExercises to Date

Completed

Completed

• Cost effectiveness– assessed separately

through cost benefit analysis

– based on the assumption that Remote Provision of ATS is feasible; is safe; and provides sufficient capacity.

Is cost efficiency validated now?

Validation exercises

look at those performance areas rather than cost effectiveness directly. If performance is adequate using the assumptions, then cost efficiency follows as a result.

Note: Exercises performed to date cover Single Remote TWR.

HP objectives & process

The role of the human actors in the system is consistent with human capabilities and characteristics

The contribution of the human in the system supports the expected system performance & behaviour

HP Assessment Process overview

Step 1: Understand the ATM concept

What will change…

Who is impacted…

How…

Step 2: Understand the HP implications

Step 3: Improve & validate the concept

Step 4: Collate findings

What will change…

Who is impacted…

How…

HP Issues (priority & mitigation)

HP Benefits

HP Impacts

HP / validation objectives

(Scenarios, success criteria, tools/methods)

Aim is to ensure Human Performance is not negatively impacted. HP fundamental principles:

Passive shadow mode trials

•Acceptability of the concept

•Utility & usability of enhanced features

•Impact on situation awareness & trust

•Procedure development

Acceptability•Visual reproduction

– Picture quality with improved resolution & increased frame rate (30FPS) overall acceptable but could still be improved

– Depth & distance difficult to judge – reduced visual separation not feasible

– Concerns about ability to judge met conditions – additional met. information required

Utility & usability of enhanced visual features•Pan Tilt and Zoom camera

- Good concept but difficult to use & picture quality poor

•Infra red - Considered beneficial in dark & Low vis- Procedures for IR use need to be developed

•Additional Camera Viewpoints (ACV)- Useful & useable - more needed

•Radar & video tracking labels - Feedback overwhelmingly positive- Recommended additional information to be

presented in label e.g. a/c type & speed

Trial 2 (EXE-06.09.03-VP057) HP results

Trial 2: Assessment of prototype / advanced features

Situation Awareness (Basic V Advanced)•Overall situation awareness (SA) found to be significantly greater for Advanced system compared to Basic.•Significant improvement found for ratings on SASHA dimensions ‘surprised by an event’ and ‘search for information’•Improvement in situation awareness reported to be mainly due to radar and video tracking labels

Trust•Overall levels of trust greater for Advanced compared to Basic system•In basic although ATCOs generally understand the system they felt it was less robust and reliable than the Advanced system•ATCOs reported to be much more confident and comfortable using the system in the advanced set up compared to the Basic

Procedure development•ATCO feedback on procedures developed for normal, abnormal & degraded modes mainly positive •Recommendations for improvements obtained & procedures updated accordingly

Trial 2 (EXE-06.09.03-VP057) HP results

Trial 2: - Basic Vs Advanced (Radar, Additional Camera Views, Radar & Video Tracking Labels)Procedure development using scenario based ‘walkthroughs’

EXE #058

AFIS Heliport

Advanced SM

Norway

Operator-in-the-loop

Weather

Confidence and assurance

Further enhanced platform

More to Come on Single TWR/AFIS

On-going!

Note also 06.09.03 OSED synchronized efforts launched by P06.08.04

THANK YOU !

HOW SESAR CONTRIBUTES TO SES PERFORMANCE WORKSHOP

13 February 2013, Madrid

Date post:	05-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dawson
View:	38 times
Download:	6 times

THE WORLD ATM Congress 2013

Documents