Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work Package 3 Chris Shaw & Karim Zeghal (EUROCONTROL) CARE/ASAS Action.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work Package 3 Chris Shaw & Karim Zeghal (EUROCONTROL) CARE/ASAS Action."— Presentation transcript:

1 Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work Package 3 Chris Shaw & Karim Zeghal (EUROCONTROL) CARE/ASAS Action FALBALA Project Dissemination Forum – 8 th July 2004

2 Slide 2 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work package 3 Assessment 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

3 Slide 3 July 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

4 Slide 4 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work package 3 Assessment 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

5 Slide 5 July 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 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

6 Slide 6 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-AIRB OpEval 1 – traffic pattern Wilmington airport, Ohio

7 Slide 7 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-AIRB Potential 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

8 Slide 8 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-AIRB Limitations 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 feet to feet. Application dependent Filter could use intent WP2 – CENA CDTI prototype showing 36 traffic aircraft

9 Slide 9 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work package 3 Assessment 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

10 Slide 10 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-VSA Potential benefits Baseline and CDTI for enhanced visual acquisition OpEval 1

11 Slide 11 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-VSA Potential benefits Three methods used for visual acquisition and the order of use in OpEval 2 DAY NIGHT

12 Slide 12 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-VSA Potential benefits OpEval 1

13 Slide 13 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-VSA Potential 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

14 Slide 14 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-VSA Limitations 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]

15 Slide 15 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ATSA-VSA Applicability 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?

16 Slide 16 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work package 3 Assessment 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

17 Slide 17 July 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

18 Slide 18 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M A 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 XYZ s XYZ Behind target, merge WPT 90s behind

19 Slide 19 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M Air & ground interface INKAK

20 Slide 20 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M Typical 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

21 Slide 21 July 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

22 Slide 22 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG London Heathrowsmallhighnonormalno London Gatwicksmallmediumyesoccasionalpossibly Paris CDGmediummediumyesoccasionalpossibly Paris Orlymedium medium yesoccasionalpossibly Frankfurtlargehighyesoccasionalpossibly Genericmedium simpleyesnoyes ASPA-S&M Applicability characteristics airspace size complexity pre-sequencing use of stack holding legs

23 Slide 23 July 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 todays operations (limited airspace and use of stacks) same for Frankfurt (large but complex airspace)

24 Slide 24 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M Identifying 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 Human activity Human shaping factors Effectiveness

25 Slide 25 July 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

26 Slide 26 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M Extrapolating benefits? metric i Potential benefit? Yes Generic Conventional ATC Generic With S&M + - Specific Conventional ATC No metric i

27 Slide 27 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M Illustration: spacing on final Generic No Time Paris CDG London Heathrow Frankfurt Note: reference points are different

28 Slide 28 July 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 ATCWith ASAS spacing SmallBelowRequiredAbove

29 Slide 29 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG ASPA-S&M Issues related to extrapolation Generic Conventional ATC Generic With S&M Specific Conventional ATC Specific With S&M Results of experiments Known Unknown 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?

30 Slide 30 July 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


Download ppt "Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Work Package 3 Chris Shaw & Karim Zeghal (EUROCONTROL) CARE/ASAS Action."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google