1. Buenas tardes, Damas y Caballeros
Dr. Aliu, thank you for the kind introduction of my person.
This is an important year for us so please bear with while I give you a very brief history of our Federation.
Shortly after World War II, the United Nations Organization came into being and soon gave birth to several specialized agencies, one of which was the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
The fact that ICAO was to make decisions on aviation policy without pilot representation immediately began to interest several pilot Associations.
The airline pilots begun to realize that they were citizens of the world in many respects; their daily work took them across the boundaries of many countries, and they were often subject to different regulations from distant municipalities or States
They became, therefore, vitally concerned with national and international affairs related to aviation. <next slide>

2. Introduction
IFALPA – International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations
Founded in 1948 with 13 Member Associations
Today it represents more than 120,000 pilots in near 100 countries globally.
The Global Voice of Pilots.
This was the reason for the birth of IFALPA in 1948, with a membership initially of 13 Associations. Today IFALPA numbers, near 100 Member Associations and represents in excess of 120,000 pilots. Among its cardinal principles is that there is no distinction on the grounds of race, color, creed or politics.
We speak with ONE “Global Voice” upholding Safety, Security and Efficiency
Let me start with an overview …
<next slide>

3. Challenge: The Human Factor
Overview
Challenge: The Human Factor
Challenge: Flexibility and Dynamic Reaction
Challenge: Buffers and Margins
(Let me start with an overview )…
… of the key issues regarding ATM I would like to address:
3 challenges from our, the users’ perspective -
The Human Factor
Flexibility and Dynamic Reaction
Buffers and Margins
Not ATM, but Conference Management has allocated a 15 minutes time slot; so 3 main topics appear to constitute a proper relationship.
But, <next slide > who represents “Future ATM”?

4. What is: Future ATM? But, who represents “Future ATM”?
SESAR – the EU Single Sky ATM Research?
NGATS – the US FAA CONCEPT?
IFATS – a EU sponsored scientific research?
Also other parties have a vision of future developments …
<next slide >

5. Industry ATM TRANSITION ROADMAP
Near Term
Medium Term
Long Term
FLEXIBLE AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT
ENHANCE TMA MANAGEMENT
INCREASE HORIZONTAL CAPACITY
COLLABORATIVE SPACING
ENHANCE RUNWAY OPERATIONS
DYNAMIC AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT
DYNAMIC TMA MANAGEMENT
INTEGRATED TMA/AIRPORT MANAGEMENT
ENHANCE AIRPORT MAMANGEMENT
ENHANCE ROUTE FLEXIBILITY
INCREASE VERTICAL CAPACITY
ENROUTE
EFFICIENCY
TMA
AIRPORT
EFFICIENCY/
CAPACITY
2005
2008
2006
2010
2012
2015
2014
2025
SWIM 1
FOCUS AREA
IMPROVE INFORMATION EXCHANGE
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
ATM Operational Concept
Baseline
01 Jan 2005
… as an example, IATA’s industry roadmap – don’t refer to details of the picture, it may be outdated but should give an illustration of transition paths.
The sheer number of initiatives constitutes a challenge for us, The user organisations such as IFALPA, as well as for any implementation of innovations.
<next slide >
Note: Blocks left of the baseline indicate implementation has already begun.

6. Global Harmonization Everyone promises it
The reality is different
An example:
CPDLC procedures & message sets
Sure, the need for harmonisation of development and implementation is generally accepted, and everyone gives promises.
However, even current - allegedly “simple” - implementations show a different reality:
For example, CPDLC procedures on the North Atlantic alone differ appreciably between various FIRs – within that single Region! – Is it not that Technology should stream line procedures and make life simpler for all of us?
Harmonised implementation and operation will remain a BIG challenge for the development of NEW future ATM systems!
So where is the global reference that we as users should address and concentrate on?
<next slide >
The only (¿?) truly global reference: ICAO

7. ICAO Future ATM Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems
Doc 9854
Global Air Navigation Plan
for CNS/ATM Systems
Doc 9750
The ICAO Global ATM Operational Concept, endorsed by the 11th Air Navigation Conference and now published as the OCD, Doc 9854,
should currently be accepted by all of us as our main reference for a “future vision” of ATM;
And of course, the ICAO Global Plan.
But let me now address my first specific challenge, titled “the human factor“. …
<next slide >

8. Challenge: Human Factor
IFATS – “Innovative Future Air Transport System Concept”
postulates that an “extremely automated” air transport system - without pilots and controllers - would be more efficient and safer at the same time than the current ATM System.
A colleague of mine had the oportunity to attend a workshop held at the DLR facilities in nrthern Gemrany last December on where he was introduced to: <click>
IFATS – the “Innovative Future Air Transport System Concept”
<click> A search picture - do you find the difference from the current reality?
Correct; the cockpit windows are gone.
<click> IFATS postulates that an “extremely automated” air transport system - without pilots and controllers - would be more efficient - and safer at the same time - than the current ATM System.
When Capt. Dan Maurino was making his presentation yesterday, I’m sure that some of you had the though of Why do we need humans after all. Well let start by asking How long did it take Big Blue to beat a human in Chess? And how will all variable pertaining to the safe operation be catered for? Many airports have a declared number of operations per hour, the number for Mexico city for example has 35, the actual number is close to 60! These are not unsafe operations, simply as Dan put it, human intuition allows for capacity enhancements.
SO Do we sense some prejudice with the IFATS Concept??
<next slide >

9. Challenge: Human Factor
Is automation “per se” a more efficient and safer “modus operandi” than a system architecture which uses the capabilities of the human to its best?
In reality, to achieve generally accepted low probability levels for some RNP approach operations, the only solution is: Mitigation by procedures. Mitigation to an extent that some members of certification authorities feel uneasy about it.
“Extreme automation” will solve everything, “safer”?
This type of presumption cannot be accepted from scientific organisations “per se” it must be proven!
<click>
… the prejudice that automation “per se” is a more efficient and safer “modus operandi” than a system architecture which uses the capabilities of the human to its best.
In reality, the industry currently has problems to achieve generally accepted low probability levels for some RNP approach operations. What is the solution: Mitigation by procedures – to the extent that some members of certification authorities feel uneasy about it.
And in a different context, are we being lead to believe that “extreme automation” will solve everything, is that “safer”?
This type of presupposition cannot be accepted from scientific organizations “per se” it must be proven!
<next slide >

10. Challenge: Human Factor
The Human Roll
Mitigate shortcomings in Technology with Operational Procedures?
Special Purpose Codes in ADS-B (NRA)
ADS-B
Unlawful interference: 7500
Generic Emergency Flag
RCF: 7600
<Click >, <Click >
What will the Human roll be on the future ATM System? Will it be one to mitigate the shortcomings of Technology?
Take ADS-B package one for example, the Cascade program has identified an issue with non DO-260A compliant transponders, the discreet special purpose codes for Unlawful interference, Radio Communication Failure and Emergency are merged into one “Emergency Flag”
Is this acceptable? It depends on the perspective. If the this is to be the final solution, the answer is clearly NOT. The end state system must be at least as Safe as it is today. If this an interim solution that will allow us to move forward with the trails, perhaps the answer would be yes, so long as mitigation procedures are not imposed on the cockpit.
In a NRA today special transponder codes are worthless.
<Click >
In the CASCADE ADS-B trials the fact that ATC will get an EMG flag where it would not get anything before is a huge improvement but trying to add Operational Procedures to bring this closer to a Radar Environment operations could open a whole new can of worms from a Human Factors standpoint that need to be addressed
<next slide >
Emergency: 7700
BAW012
M78
MAVOR
EMG
SPI/IDENT

11. Challenge: Human Factor
Our position – your position?
Future system development should be based on identified operational requirements.
Consequential system functions should then be realized by applying the optimum level of automation.
The pilot community is ready to support the scientific groups in identifying this “optimum level of automation” – but we are not going to accept “extreme automation” without any type of human control as a “white sheet starting point”.
I would hope that our position – 2 simple points - is identical to yours : (bullets - slide text)
Future system development should be based on identified operational requirements.
Consequential system functions should then be realized by applying the optimum level of automation.
<Click >
I would like to emphasise that
The pilot community is ready to support the scientific groups in identifying this “optimum level of automation” – but we are not going to accept “extreme automation” without any type of human control as a “white sheet starting point”.
By the way, the IFATS programme does include some functions that could be used in some more realistic future scenarios, for example some details on 4D trajectories. Before addressing these specifics, I would like to return first … to the ICAO OCD.

12. ICAO OCD 2.5.4
“There will be dynamic 4-D trajectory control and negotiated conflict-free trajectories.”
Is the qualification “dynamic” reflected in currently foreseen implementations of 4-D trajectory negotiation and control?
Paragraph states:
There will be dynamic 4-D trajectory control and negotiated conflict-free trajectories.
When we start to address the details hidden behind such key concepts, we have the feeling that many participants tend to neglect the importance of the word “dynamic”.
<click>
If “4D trajectory” is just an euphemism for an increased use and increased required accuracy of CTOTs, COBs, and what have you, we should not call this a “future” concept. I am concerned about the decreasing flexibility and the increase in workload that some current trials of CDM bring about.
I got carried away with the acronyms: CTOT is “Co-ordinated Take-Off Time”, COB is “Confirmed Off-Block Time”, and CDM is “Collaborative Decision Making”, the “white ointment” against all diseases of the system.
<next slide>

13. Challenge: Flexibility
Any “future system” must be able to react timely and adequately to disturbances like late passengers / security of luggage / unforecast WX changes!
Adequate dynamic negotiation and control requires appropriate communications and planning tools!
We will need to recognise that the air transport system, in the foreseeable future, or may be forever, will be subject to disturbances.
(examples - the late passenger, the missing bag, the more rapid than forecasted development of a front – to name just some.)
<click>
A big challenge for any future air transport system will be to maintain the ability to react adequately to such disturbances; this will require appropriate communications and planning tools. …
<next slide>

14. Challenge: Buffers & Margins
An example: Lateral Navigation
The 50ies & 60ies: ATS Route = Air Corridor
The 70ies & 80ies: VOR Route Structures: Adherence to centre line required - ICAO Annex 2 ( )
The 90ies and on: GPS input to navigation solution
You may wonder: “Buffers and Margins” – is this a “challenge”?
I would like to explain this first by reference to “lateral navigation”
In the early years of modern, post-war aviation, ATS routes were understood to constitute air corridors within which some degree of freedom of operation was allowed.
Later, increased traffic led to the need to establish routes, now based primarily on VOR guidance, as close as possible to each other – a requirement to operate on centreline as good as practicable was the consequence.
The 90ies brought GPS as an input to navigation. Aircraft generally – including those with an automatic DME update “only” – operated with much more accuracy than required for the airspace.
What was a side consequence? …
<next slide>

15. Challenge: Buffers & Margins
Any accidental loss of vertical separation inevitably results in a critical situation, if not a collision, because of the extreme accuracy of GPS based navigation.
(Slide text)
Any accidental loss of vertical separation inevitably results in a critical situation, if not a collision, because of the extreme accuracy if GNSS based navigation.
As pilots, we base this assessment not on theoretical considerations and calculations;
we experience “right on top” conditions every day, in many cases with Radio Altimeter indications!
The situation called for “mitigation” – and we developed our policy: …
<next slide>

16. IFALPA POLICY
IFALPA believes that the availability of accurate airborne navigation systems with the capability to navigate automatically along lateral offset tracks should be used so as to reduce the collision risk in the case of possible loss of vertical separation in suitable ATS environments.
– and we developed our policy: …
OFFSET Tracking!
In the absence of time I will not read the text…
The general policy shown here is detailed in two more specific requirements,
that complement each other depending on the circumstances.
They all are presented on the slides and are part of the Symposium documentation:
<next slide>

17. IFALPA POLICY RNAV LATERAL OFFSET TRACKING
Aircraft with navigation equipment certified and operated to P-RNAV standards [at least RNP-1 accuracy] should be allowed and required to navigate offset one nautical mile right of centerline.
Note: This policy is not in opposition to the current ICAO SLOP Guidance. In fact, based on this earlier policy statement IFALPA had supported the development of the ICAO provisions, and calls now for the extension of its applicability to areas other than “oceanic and remote continental”.
On Precision RNAV routes [in RNP-1 en-route airspace], to allow for safe offset tracking, the offset value should be taken into account when establishing such routes.
I would like to emphasize that IFALPA’s RNAV Lateral Offset Tracking policy is not in opposition to the current ICAO SLOP Guidance.
In fact, - based on this earlier policy statement –
IFALPA had supported the development of the ICAO provisions,
and calls now for the extension of its applicability to areas other than “oceanic and remote continental”.
Keep the second bullet in mind – we’ll come back to it …
<next slide>

18. IFALPA POLICY GNSS EMBEDDED DEFAULT LATERAL OFFSET
Furthermore, because of the high accuracy and increased risk of head-on collision invoked by GNSS, to mitigate this risk IFALPA requires that GNSS referenced airborne navigation systems have an embedded default lateral offset.
This embedded offset, residing in whichever part of the equipment calculates the tracking, should be
large enough to reduce the risk of head-on GNSS-to-GNSS collisions, and
yet be small enough to be insignificant to the pilots, and the ATC system, in en-route and terminal procedures.
The GNSS Embedded Default Lateral Offset is supposed to supplement the (route related) “Strategic” offset in other situations, for example, when operating on “direct to” clearances, and would be integral within the airborne navigation system.
…>>>
(<next slide>

19. The Tragic Truth
There have been mid-air collisions that probably could have been averted if offset tracking had been applied!
We are convinced that
There have been mid-air collisions that probably could have been averted if offset tracking had been applied!

20. 62nd IFALPA Conference Statement
IFALPA calls for urgent implementation of Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures;
All States and ICAO Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) to authorize the ICAO SLOP in all appropriate airspaces at the earliest opportunity, and
ICAO to support States and PIRGs in their efforts to implement SLOP, and
ICAO to continue developing advanced offset tracking procedures (such as the embedded lateral offset concept).
The International Pilot Community feels so strong about this issue that at our recently concluded Annual Conference in Dubrovnik Croatia, the following Conference Statement was proposed and accepted by acclamation;
we urge …
All States and ICAO Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) to authorize the ICAO SLOP in all appropriate airspaces at the earliest opportunity, and
ICAO to support States and PIRGs in their efforts to implement SLOP, and
ICAO to continue developing advanced offset tracking procedures (such as the embedded lateral offset concept).
<next slide>

21. Strategy
Relax Annex 2 ( ), the “on centre line” rule, to allow offset tracking as reasonable in the circumstances
Recognize lateral offset tracking and cater for it in airspace design and air traffic management functions of any future ATM system
(In consequence, we urge …), as a kind of dual strategy:
ICAO to relax Annex 2 ( ), the “on centre line” rule, to allow offset tracking as reasonable in the circumstances, and
The industry in toto, and – in particular – all developers of future ATM systems, to recognize lateral offset tracking and cater for it in airspace design and air traffic management functions
---
You may be surprised, but “buffers and margins” considerations do effect future control systems as well; remember …
<next slide>

22. 4D Trajectories Remember ICAO OCD 2.5.4:
“There will be dynamic 4-D trajectory control and negotiated conflict-free trajectories.”
…getting back to the ICAO OCD
I am afraid, a purely technical implementation of “4D trajectory” control techniques may lead to similarly counter-productive effects like the advent of GPS accuracy did.
<next slide>

23. 4D Trajectories
Can a conflict-free trajectory be calculated over several hours of flight?
“Disturbances” – as mentioned previously in the “flexibility” section - make such an extreme implementation unreasonable from an operational perspective.
For example, it does not make sense to delay the departure of a flight by 30 seconds to resolve a predicted en-route conflict a couple of hours ahead, or to achieve a better arrival sequence.
<click>
Some proponents believe that - in the future - a conflict-free trajectory could be calculated over several hours of flight.
In our opinion, “disturbances” – as mentioned previously in the “flexibility” section - make such an extreme implementation unreasonable from an operational perspective.
In effect, and in simple terms, in our opinion it does not make sense to delay the departure of a flight by 30 seconds to resolve a predicted en-route conflict a couple of hours ahead, or to achieve a better arrival sequence, – even in a sophisticated future system.
Still, we DO support the move from the conventional control procedures to advanced air traffic management …
<next slide> based on “4D trajectories” under the following two conditions:

24. ATS Committee Position (1)
“4D trajectories” based advanced air traffic management is supported under the following two conditions:
1) It must be recognized and accepted that the accuracy of the trajectory prediction will degrade with the extent of look ahead.
Some people call this “granularity”, some others rather relate the control mechanisms to appropriate “time horizons”.
(Still, we DO support the move from the conventional control procedures to advanced air traffic management based on “4D trajectories” under the following two conditions: …)
<click>
(slide text)
It must be recognized and accepted that the accuracy of the trajectory prediction will degrade with the extent of look ahead time.
Some people call this “granularity”, some others rather relate the control mechanisms to appropriate “time horizons”. …

25. ATS Committee Position(2)
2) The 4D clearance it self should always indicate the necessary compliance value, depending on the traffic situation.
This may be called a type of “breathing” 4D definition or spacing requirement (in legacy terms).
Note: It is recognized that to achieve higher capacity in high demand situations, the user-preferred 4D trajectory will be subject to modifications through CDM.
The second requirement addresses the “margins and buffers“ issue from a trajectory control perspective:
The 4D clearance itself should always indicate the necessary compliance value, depending on the traffic situation,
as a kind of “breathing” compliance.
Keep us in the loop, just as Air Traffic Managers have the bigger “Traffic” picture in a given area, we know the specific “disturbances” that are affecting our aircraft. With CDM the requirements of both can be met!
Let me give you an example.
<next slide>

26. Evolution: “Breathing” Compliance
Adherence to speed in general is subject to a 5% margin (ICAO Annex 2, ).
To achieve higher capacity, the application of the “Mach number technique” may be required.
Temporary changes of speed, for example, when turbulence is encountered, require amendments to the clearance.
In a future 4D environment, it should be obvious from the “contract” to what extent a deviation from the nominal target value is possible without creating a conflict with other traffic.
It may even be advantageous to base the overall planning on reasonable buffer margins to reduce the communication and coordination workload when short-term deviations are required.
<click>
Adherence to speed - in general - is subject to a 5% margin.
To achieve higher capacity, the application of the “Mach number technique” is required as a standard in many areas; temporary changes of speed - for example, when turbulence is encountered - require amendments to the clearance.
In a future 4D environment, it should be obvious from the “contract” to what extent a deviation from the nominal target value is possible without creating a conflict with other traffic.
(narrative shortened: It may even be advantageous to base the overall planning on reasonable buffer margins to reduce the communication and coordination workload when short-term deviations are required, for example, because of weather.)
If you think, this was unreasonable, let’s look back to IFATS …
<next slide>

27. IFATS & 4D Trajectories
A kind of “breathing” compliance is part of the IFATS program 4D trajectory management:
let’s look back to IFATS …
which I had critisised sharply at the beginning because of an unjustified, biased preference for a human-less operational concept.
<click>
However, IFATS module of 4D trajectory management does, in fact, include a kind of “breathing” compliance:
“Freedom bubbles” inside of “safety bubble”“ as part of “4D tubes”.
...

28. IFATS & 4D Trajectories
The individual aircraft operates within a “freedom bubble”, allowing reasonable trajectory and speed modifications without negotiating a new contract
This allows maintaining variable, optimum Mach numbers, and reaction to unforeseen events to some degree.
Separation from other traffic is effected by conflict-free outer “safety bubbles”
(Slide text)
The individual aircraft operates within a “freedom bubble”, allowing reasonable trajectory and speed modifications without negotiating a new contract
This allows maintaining variable, optimum Mach numbers, and reaction to unforeseen events to some degree.
Separation from other traffic is effected by conflict-free outer “ safety bubbles”
With this far reaching outlook I would like to conclude.
<click> ...
As a reminder and farewell, again IFALPA’s key issues for Future ATM in conclusion:

29. Conclusion
Global Harmonisation - needs to be achieved on System Planning level as well as during local / Regional implementations
Automation not being a value “per se”
“Flexibility” and ability for “Dynamic Reaction” as properties of ATM
Recognition of the benefits of appropriate “buffers and margins” for both:
Safety, and
Stability of Operation
... As a reminder and farewell, IFALPA‘s key issues for Future ATM in conclusion:
Global Harmonisation
Automation not being a value “per se”
“Flexibility” and ability for “Dynamic Reaction” as properties of ATM
Recognition of the benefits of appropriate “buffers and margins” for both:
Safety, and
Stability of Operation

30. IFALPA ATS Committee Chairman miguel@emarin.org
Gracias
Captain Miguel Marín
IFALPA ATS Committee Chairman
For any after Conference queries, feel free to contact me:
or through the IFALPA offices