CARE ASAS Validation Framework

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

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

High Level Validation Process

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

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

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

Validation Exercises

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

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

Work Packages

Scenario Framework

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

System Performance Metrics

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

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

Hierarchy OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE AREAS ( ASPECTS) METRICS

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

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

Database tool For easy manipulation of data and linkages

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

Database tool … to bottom-up view

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

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

Links to Previous and Parallel Work

Potential Links CARE Integra MAEVA EMERALD Ongoing EUROCONTROL work

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

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

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

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

Support to the User

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

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

Dissemination Forum Dissemination Forum 10th October at Bretigny

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