1. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP TT Reykjavik “NUP -- ITP”

2. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NUP – 1, ITP Objectives »ASAS in Oceanic Procedural Airspace »Non Iceland Specific »No increase in HF communication load »Short duration Situation »1999 »Before P.O. ASAS definition »No ASAS Spacing / Separation definitions »No Package 1 definition

3. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NUP – 1, ITP Definition Team »ATC Controller, Iceland CAA & Nav-Canada »Pilots, SAS & Air Canada Applications »Pilot Delegated – Track Crossing Procedure »Pilot Delegated – In-Trail Climb (ITC) & In-Trail Descent (ITD) »Pilot Delegated Station Keeping In Oceanic Non-Radar Airspace. »Pilot Delegated Movement between OTS Tracks. »Pilot Delegated Lateral Passing Manoeuvres On OTS Tracks.

4. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NUP – 1, Application Selection ITC / ITD (Later renamed ITP) »Most significant benefit expected »Simple to implement »Short ASAS Duration »In principle Level 3 / Separation Application

5. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP The Traffic  Daily Traffic Pattern highly cyclic:  Approx. 12 hour period mostly west bound.  Approx. 12 hour period mostly east bound.

6. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

7. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

8. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP This information is from the “Report of the NICE Task Force, The NAT/IMG Cost Effectiveness Program” from October 1999, in which LIDO GmbH provided the above diagram, in it’s section on “LIDO Flight Planning”

9. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NUP – 2, ITP Objectives »Validation »Pilot / Controller usability of application »Controller workload issues »Cost Benefit Issues »Benefit assessment »Fast time simulation ITP sole solution to Operational Problem? »Ground automation

10. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP PO-ASAS Need to align ITP to PO-ASAS Definitions »ATSAW, benefits »RFG type, ATSAW type considered »Concerns with passing safety case »Changes in separation criteria »Need for Level 2 application »Not to be pushed to Package 2

11. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Air Space Utilization ?

12. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NAT TRACKS EAST BOUND TRAFFIC

13. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NAT TRACKS WEST BOUND TRAFFIC

14. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

15. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP OTS Aircraft Climb Possibility

16. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

17. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP A three day simulation december 2004  Day 1: base line scenario  Day 2: ITP, all aircraft equipped  Day 3: ITP, 80% equipped

18. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Traffic: real traffic from december 2002 3 NAT tracks, A, B and C No crossing traffic Time of entering the airspace: »From 11:30 to 18:00 Number of aircraft per track: »A: 9 »B: 49 »C: 45

19. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Participants: 4 controllers »1 female, 3 males »Age: 28 – 38 »ATC experience: 2 – 8 years 2 pilots »Requesting clearances and accepting messages.

20. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP The process: Pilots asked for FL changes, both standard and ITP requests The controller accepted or rejected the request If clearance was issued the pilot would accept through CPDLC if ITP or via voice if standard clearance. For ITP clearances, regular level reports throuch ADS-C

21. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

22. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

23. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

24. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP

25. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Briefing and training  Performed by an air traffic controller  An easy adjustment to new procedures  The working environment, FDPS and situation display the same as used in the Oceanic Area Control Center

26. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Measurements: ISA, during the simulation NASA-TLX Post run questionnaires Work shop environment at the end of each day Data on when the sectors were splitted

27. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Main results: Responsibility the main issue Workload increases with ITP but not significantly Number of simultaneous ITP contracts for a controller: 1 – 3 Easy adjustment to new procedures Phraseology needs adjustment Performance of ITP applicable within the simulation environment The controllers positive towards ITP

28. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NASA-TLX: ScaleValueWeight Mental Demand57.50.30 Physical Demand8.750 Temporal Demand41.250.28 Performance38.750.10 Effort46.250.17 Frustration42.50.15 Total Workload:49.25

29. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Reykjavik SPACING In Trail Climb Reykjavik ITP »HMI design and mockup evaluation »Early safety considerations Concept : The aircraft is responsible for ensuring spacing with designated traffic => Spacing application

30. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Spacing In Trail Climb HMI

31. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP Spacing In Trail Climb : Conclusions Results : »Automatic altitude changes rejected »Pilot manual action on FCU is preferred (safety aspects) »Phase of flight not heavy »Computation by FMS of point of crossing with Flight Level »Would require significant FMS change »Time opportunity window considered useful »Requires significant FMS change »Alerts needed when spacing infringed Significant changes required not justified by Spacing ITC alone Airbus push for In Trail Procedures based on ATSAW ATSA-ITP developed at RFG

32. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NUP – 2, ITP Conclusions ITP »Simulation shows acceptable by controllers Spacing Application »Historical reasons for selecting »Stepping stone into level 3 application »No specific separation change required »Spacing role not realistic »80% equipage - > acceptable nuisance

33. Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP NUP – 2, ITP Conclusions RFG Level 0,5 & 1,5 Application »Logical simplification of the NUP ITP »Passing safety case ITP not sole means of solving problem »30 / 30 affects (RVSM results) »CPDLC usage already enabling an increase in actual climbs