1. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 G2G project G2G project : ASPA S&M experiments and main validation results Marinella Leone Marinella.leone@dblue.it

2. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Outline G2G Interest Extent of Validation Results Recommendations Conclusion

3. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 G2G Objective Objective to focus on possible R&D solutions for ATM improvement from gate to gate ASPA S&M identified as one of the tools able to improve arrival management Interest: ASPA S&M in different operational environments: –Evaluate different technical implementations supported by different tools (e.g. AMAN, D/L, SYSCO) –Compare different developments of working methods and applicability conditions in different scenarios

4. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Extent of Validation FTS3 Paris FTS2 Rome RTS3A Rome RTS3B Naples RTS2 Paris RTS4 Rome Validation Strategy & Plan (2001-06) DSNA ENAV EEC

5. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Extent of Validation FTS3 Paris FTS2 Rome RTS3A Rome RTS3B Naples RTS2 Paris RTS4 Rome Validation Strategy & Plan (2001-06) DSNA ENAV EEC

6. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Extent of Validation KPA –Acceptability –Operability –Applicability –Capacity/Efficiency –Safety

7. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results Operational concept Procedures and human factors Systems, HMI & technology Benefits & constraints Safety assessment Transition issues

8. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results – Operational Concept Considering that ASAS application not mandatory and applied when helpful Globally, significant use of ASAS chains both in TMA and E-TMA High usage in dense traffic ASPA S&M is more easily applied where AMAN and D/L are implemented Building and sticking to the AMAN sequence was facilitated by the use of ASAS

9. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results – Procedures and human factors Acceptability differs depending on scenarios and application development from a procedural and technical point of view –Procedures were accepted even if “digested” differently in the different environments –Phraseology still a little bit long Confidence improves with practice, thus reducing complexity perception

10. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results – Procedures and human factors Increased ATCO availability as ASPA S&M reduces: –EXC instructional workload (especially in the approach phase) –EXC monitoring workload (in large spacing conditions) EXC and PLC workload is more evenly distributed applying ASAS Improved strategic control and teamwork Job satisfaction and motivation is not compromised

11. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results - Systems, HMI & technology HMIs were considered usable despite further feedbacks for improvement collected in different degrees according to the maturity of the adopted HMIs Positively accepted: minimum technical interoperability between AMAN and ASPA S&M

12. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results – Benefits and constraints More regular, predictable and efficient spacing is possible when ASPA S&M is used AMAN/ASPA S&M increase punctuality over the IAF - optimising the available airspace capacity Anyway ASPA S&M should not increase runway capacity, benefits more in terms of smoothing and safety

13. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results – Safety Assessment Delegation and automation of sequencing tasks increased safety perception Lowering instructional workload leaves more time to concentrate on monitoring Monitoring also facilitated as ASAS links enable a quick and clear understanding of a/c flows flying in sequence towards the same runways Possible reduction of monitoring due to confidence Situational Awareness is affected by: –ASPA S&M ‘heading and merge’ or ‘heading then remain behind’ applications –Possible ‘Unable delegation’ in heavy traffic

14. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Results - Transition In general controllers managed mixed traffic (50- 75%) in an easy way Non-equipped a/c easy to detect

15. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Recommendations ASPA S&M requests well-defined procedures and supporting functions to work properly –Phraseology should be optimised –Roles and working methods should be better defined and combined with supporting applications (e.g. AMAN, D/L) –Adequate recovery procedures in case of failure mode or non-nominal situations are required –Further focus on HMI design and development of supporting functions is required Suitable re-designed ATS geography (merging points and holding legs) can increase ASAS benefits

16. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Conclusion Operable and useful to set up approach sequences Applicable in the evaluated environments despite of some changes Accepted by controllers especially if used in conjunction with AMAN (planned sequence facilitates ASAS implementation) and D/L (to reduce R/T communication) Benefits should be measured quantitatively, with focus on capacity and environmental impact Target time for implementation: beyond 2015 time horizon

17. 4 th Workshop, Amsterdam, 23 - 25 April 2007 Thank You For Your Attention Marinella.leone@dblue.it