1. 1 Controller feedback from the CoSpace / NUP II TMA experiment ASAS-TN, 19-21 April 2004, Toulouse Liz Jordan, NATS, U.K. Gatwick approach controller

2. 2 Context ü Six approach controllers: executive & planner functions 2 Orly 2 Roma 2 Gatwick ü Two sectors based on Orly and CDG Single runway operation, south-east arrivals only ü Runs with & without time based spacing ü Traffic derived from real traffic sample High level: 34 aircraft/hour – one sample: 38 aircraft/hour ü Simulation lasted over 4 weeks (10 days of training) ü ASAS equipped A320 cockpit simulator for early assessment of airborne functions ü Role of the executive controller: to integrate 2 flows of aircraft onto final approach

3. 3 Principles ü Motivation: to increase controller availability ü No transfer of separation responsibility Neither to transfer problems Nor to give more freedom to flight crew ü Controller remains in charge of analysing situations and defining solutions ü Preserves controller authority and understanding of situations Keep mental picture ü Controller issues appropriate instructions to guarantee spacing and separation flight crew executes it

4. 4 Applicability ü Use of time based spacing 90 seconds 120 seconds when lead aircraft is heavy ü Spacing at start of sequence must be achievable Speed compatible Spacing at converging point not lower than desired ü Training and understanding of technique important ü Standard trajectories defined and adhered to Final integration of sequence to a point

5. 5 Technique Controller ü XYZ, select target 1234 ü XYZ, merge WPT 90s behind target Pilot ü Selecting target 1234, XYZ ü XYZ, target 1234 identified, 2 o’clock, 30 miles ü Merging WPT 90s behind target, XYZ The controller can then issue the spacing instruction Target identification Start of airborne spacing The flight crew tasked to acquire and then maintain the designated spacing to the preceding aircraft

6. 6 DLH456 310 - 43 3452 AZA123 310 - 45 1234 8 DLH456 310 - 43 3452 AZA123 310 - 45 1234 8 Selecting target Activating spacing

7. 7 Issues ü Applicability to other airspace ü Detection of unexpected events Change in controller’s monitoring pattern ü Handling of abnormal situations Fallback procedures, i.e. stack ü Too much expectation ü Risk of de-skilling ü Risk of disengagement

8. 8 Limits ü Detrimental if not properly used Leads to increased workload ü Change in working methods Resistance to change ü Flexibility to fine tune spacing is limited Vortex table must be redefined in time, i.e. 2½ miles Wind and weather constraints to be accommodated ü Spacing monitoring tool required, to alert controller to a degrading situation

9. 9 Benefits ü Controller can plan ahead Anticipate sequence and issue spacing instructions later when appropriate Fewer ‘late’ instructions for heading/speed adjustments? ü Expected that increased controller availability could lead to improved safety? ü Enable better management of traffic? ü More capacity? ü Flight crew gain in awareness and anticipation of their situation? ü Reduction in controller training?

10. 10 Aircraft trajectories NoTime