1. CARE ASAS Validation Framework

2. Partners CARE ASAS Board - Francis Casaux EURCONTROL - Mick van Gool, Ulrich Borkenhagen Consortium Partners Aena, Isdefe, NATS, NLR, QinetiQ Currently 6 months into 12 month programme

3. Validation of ASAS Validation Does proposed operational concept provide anticipated performance? Operational concept Performance Framework

4. High Level Validation Process

5. ASAS Framework Requirements Operational Concept - Airborne Separation Assurance Systems Performance Framework Reference Scenario High level objectives Metrics Links to Previous work Support to Users

6. Operational Concept ASAS application categories, from PO-ASAS Airborne Traffic Situation Awareness Current ATC rules apply Airborne Spacing Aircrew given more tasks Airborne Separation Temporary delegation of separation to aircrew Airborne Self-separation Full delegation of separation

7. Performance Framework ATM 2000+ Strategy Objectives Safety Capacity etc Framework Scenario Operationally realistic Scenario data repository Metrics System Performance Metrics Human Performance Metrics

8. Validation Exercises

9. Links to Previous Work CARE Integra MAEVA EMERALD RTD Plan Other EUROCONTROL work

10. Support to User Guidelines - assistance to validation teams and managers Case Studies (Worked examples) Scenario database Documentation Dissemination Forum

11. Work Packages

12. Scenario Framework

13. STANDARDIZE the validation scenarios for ASAS Applications Scenario Framework based on Template Facilitate the TRACEABILITY of the scenarios SUPPORT DESIGNERS in the creation of validation scenarios for ASAS applications ENSURE THOROUGH AND CONSISTENT validation of ASAS applications Why is a scenario template needed ?

14. MAIN GOAL: Supporting the designer in the creation of a validation scenario Objectives of Template Structure based on PO-ASAS categories and applications with EMERALD One template for each PO-ASAS category: Airborne Traffic Situational Awareness, Airborne Spacing, Airborne Separation, Airborne Self-Separation Items for scenario definition clustered in seven groups: Objectives, Airspace, Traffic, ATS Involved, Rules, Tasks, Actors (Performer & Supervisor), Technology USER SELECTS the ITEMS that will form the scenario but SOME of them are MANDATORY Based on the chosen items, designer develops the scenario

15. OBJECTIVES: to be grouped by types (Safety, Capacity…) AIRSPACE: Restrictions, Types, Areas, Elements, Geographical Scope TRAFFIC: Volume, Complexity, Flight Schedule, Timeframe, Aircraft Type, Equipment Type, Aircraft Performance ATS INVOLVED: ATC, FIS, TIS-B, APP, Alert Service, GNSS, ATFM, Performance Management, New Services RULES: Flight Rules, Longitudinal Separation, Lateral Separation, Phraseology, RVSM, Aircraft Sequencing, Conflict Resolution Strategy, Co- ordination and Transfer Procedures, Trained Flight Crews TASKS AND ACTORS - Perform Separation Assurance: Performer & Supervisor TECHNOLOGY: –GROUND: Communications, Surveillance, ATM –AIRBORNE: Redundancy, Communications, Surveillance, Navigation, Display Scenario Definition Groups

16. Example: Technology Group GROUND Communications: Voice Data link Inter-sector information transfer Surveillance: Radar coverage No radar coverage TIS-B ADS-B CWP HMI with aircraft equipment, ID and delegation status Controller assistance tool Sequencing tool Separation monitoring tool ATM Planning Automation AIRBORNE Redundancy Communications: Voice Data link Surveillance: Mode-S TCAS II/ETCAS Audio/visual alerts Traffic information processing Surveillance data processing Spacing function processing Navigation: GNSS with augmentation FMS Automatic management of the separation (connection with FGCS) Display: CDTI/EFIS/MCDU HUD

17. Enhanced Visual Adquisition, EMERALD Longitudinal Station Keeping, EMERALD and NATS Closely Space Parallel Approaches, EMERALD Station Keeping Approach, EMERTA Autonomous Aircraft, EMERALD Baseline En-route Free Flight, NLR TMA ASAS Autonomous Aircraft, NLR FREER-EACAC, EEC Multi agent optimal ASAS operations (COAST), Glasgow University Optimal FFA/MAS Transition Methodology, Glasgow University ASAS Crossing Procendure, CENA Sector capacity assessment for ASAS, CENA Applied on Historic Data

18. Scenario Database Gathered data from sources in CARE ASAS and the VF consortium Uses EUROCONTROL Validation Data Repository Agreed data structure for scenarios based on template Obtained agreement for sharing of data Access via EUROCONTROL

19. System Performance Metrics

20. Aim was not to develop new metrics Accessible advice to validators High level objectives Hierarchy mapping objectives to metrics Many to many Taxonomy Perspectives

21. Objectives Objectives covered, based on ATM 2000+ Strategy are: Safety Capacity Efficiency Environment Security & Defence Security & Defence extended to include terrorist threat Uniformity and Quality not considered further

22. Hierarchy OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE AREAS ( ASPECTS) METRICS

23. Hierarchy PERFORMANCE AREAS broken down into ASPECTS where appropriate Example: ACCESS (PERFORMANCE AREA) Airports Sectors(ASPECTS) Routes Assists use with scenarios that look at specific airspace

24. Taxonomy METRICS INDICATORS CARE-ASAS PRC Validation C/AFT Framework TORCH

25. Database tool For easy manipulation of data and linkages

26. Database tool Enabling instant switch from top-down...

27. Database tool … to bottom-up view

28. Perspectives Different views (perspectives) can be applied to the information stored: Airline perspective as in C/AFT ATM perspective as in PRC Scenario

29. Perspectives Further perspectives under consideration are: Study type (FTS, RTS, Analytic or Survey) ASAS categories (Situational awareness…Self Separation) Links Human Performance metrics

30. Links to Previous and Parallel Work

31. Potential Links CARE Integra MAEVA EMERALD Ongoing EUROCONTROL work

32. CARE Integra EUROCONTROL funded study Metrics Capacity Safety Environment Economics QinetiQ involvement in Integra and VF Use of Integra metrics

33. MAEVA A Master ATM European Validation Plan Supporting EC in management of ATM projects Validation Guideline Handbook - exercise level Validation Master Plan - project validation plans Monitoring of projects Final Consolidation of Results from Projects NATS and Isdefe involvement in MAEVA & VF Alignment of VF with MAEVA VGH

34. MAEVA Five-Step Validation Methodology Step 1: Aims Step 5: Conclusions Step 2: Preparation Step 4: Analysis Step 3: Execution

35. Others EMERALD RTD Plan Plan for RTD for future technology for ATM systems NATS and QinetiQ involvement in EMERALD & VF Production of updated EMERALD RTD Plan On-going EUROCONTROL work Validation Guideline VALSUP Alignment of VF with VALSUP

36. Support to the User

37. Documentation Final report incorporating work package reports Guidance Material for application of framework Case studies of two applications In-descent spacing Fully autonomous aircraft Detailed RTD Plan developed from EMERALD Plan

38. Data and Tools Scenario data repository Produced in WP1 Metrics database Produced in WP2 Not a deliverable under contract

39. Dissemination Forum Dissemination Forum 10th October at Bretigny

40. Summary Validation Framework still under development Exploiting existing work for ASAS validation exercises Scenario template developed Scenario data collated for VDR Mapping of system performance metrics & human performance metrics to objectives - in progress Support user - about to start