MFF is a EC Co-funded Programme  MEDITERRANEAN FREE FLIGHT Flight Trials Report ASAS TN2 1st Workshop | September 2005, Malmö Gennaro GRAZIANO 1/32

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 2/32  Objectives  To present the organisation structure and the technical infrastructure used during flight trials  To provide first results of the MFF flight trials based on pilots and ATCOs feedback

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 3/32  Outline  The MFF Project and its applications  The role of Flight Trials in MFF Validation  FT Rules and Organisation  FT Validation Platform  CDTI and Airborne architecture  FT execution phases  Initial results

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 4/32  The MFF Project MFF main objectives are:  To provide operational requirements and procedures based on the use of new CNS/ATM technologies enabling the introduction of ASAS and Free Flight operations in Mediterranean area;  To address fight transition issues between FFAS and any other airspace (MAS in fixed routes or free routes, UMAS);  To provide users community with results to address standardisation and further maturation of relevant CNS/ATM technologies and applications both in ground systems and avionics  MFF Consortium is composed of: ENAV, AENA, DSNA, EUROCONTROL, HCAA, LFV, MATS, NLR, UK NATS.

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 5/32  MFF Applications A1 – Free Route A2 – Air Traffic Situation Awareness A3 – ASAS Spacing  Remain Behind, Heading then Remain Behind  Merge Behind, Heading then Merge Behind A4 – ASAS Separation  Lateral separation (Pass behind, Pass abeam)  Vertical separation (Pass above, Pass below)  Longitudinal separation (Remain behind, Merge behind) A5 – Airborne Self Separation

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 6/32  MFF Applications – Delegation levels A3 – ASAS Spacing  Execution of a separation value required by ATC. The flight crew is responsible for applying the spacing clearance issued by ATC with respect to another aircraft, while maintaining and monitoring the separation value required by ATC. A4 – ASAS Separation  Provision and monitoring of airborne separation from one aircraft specified by ATC. The flight crew is responsible for providing aircraft separation in accordance with separation minima required for safe operations, and deciding on the means by which to provide it under possible ATC restrictions (related to the surrounding traffic or airspace). A5 – Airborne Self Separation  Airborne self-separation of an aircraft with respect to the surrounding traffic (without ATC support).

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 7/32  The Role of FT in MFF Concept Development (WA2) Fast Time Simulations (WA3) Real Time Simulations (WA4) Flight Trial (WA5)  Acceptance of concepts and procedures workload issues Pilot situation awareness Suitability of tools and HMI in a real environment

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 8/32  FT Area  Designed as a dedicated area to avoid interference with GAT/OAT activities  Designed in cooperation with ITAF, Rome ACC and several APPs  Reserved on permanent base to MFF during week ends (AIP Suppl.)  Coordinated on tactical base with ITAF

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 9/32  Flight Trials Rules  Flights performed in a FTDA  Separation minima:  1000ft minimum vertical separation (also in S&M)  8 Nm minimum (ASAS Spacing, Separation)  5 Nm minimum separation, but 1000ft vertical separation for FF Application  VMC day light operation  Surveillance  Radar monitoring  ADS-B/TIS-B  MFF dedicated Teams at Roma ACC and Experimental Centre

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 10/32  FT Organisation Ciampino Aircraft Base ENAV SEC Roma ACC Experiment Leader MFF ACC Supervisor CAB Coordinator MFF ESEC Supervisor MFF ACC ATCOs MFF ESEC ATCOs Flight Crews Technical Team HF Observers

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 11/32  FT Validation Platform

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 12/32  The Aircraft AENA Beechcraft King Air A-100 ENAV Cessna Citation S-II NLR Metroliner II

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 13/32  The Aircraft ENAV Falcon 20 NLR Cessna Citation II

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 14/32  CDTI/ND Aircraft were equipped with:  VDL M4 transponder  CDTI  Based on ETG2500 and further developed according to MFF requirements  integrated ASSAP to support the ASAS and FF manoeuvre execution  CDTI non integrated with avionics systems 

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 15/32  Airborne Architecture

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 16/32  CDTI 1 2 Main display area Key label bar Target data area Application data area

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 17/32  CDTI

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 18/32  CDTI

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 19/32  NLR Aircraft – Navigation Display

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 20/32  FT Execution Phases: 1.Missions design  FT master list  Exercise design (test cards) 2.Training  Theory (class lectures)  Practices (CDTI and cockpit simulators) 3.Missions rehearsal  aimed to examine the dynamics of missions to establish their practicability, usefulness and effectiveness  consolidation of training  evaluation of the “flight test data cards”

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 21/32  FT Execution Phases: 4.Execution  1 real a/c vs 1 cockpit simulator  1 real a/c vs 1 real aircraft  1 real a/c vs 2 real a/c Total number of flight hours: 255 FIRST TIME IN EUROPE

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 22/32  FT execution LIRA Tipycal Mission:  LIRA-LIRA  Y & Z FPLs  FL  Duration: 3 h 30 m  Each mission is composed of a set of exercises aimed to evaluate a specific validation objective IFR VFR

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 23/32  Initial Results – ASAS Spacing  Pilots and ATCOs stated the allocation of responsibility and tasks between ATC and aircrew are acceptable.  ASAS Spacing operations increase pilots’ workload, but within acceptable limits; required attention for the CDTI/ASSAP was considered high. Further improvements on the CDTI/ASSAP (e.g. aural warnings) and its integration with avionic systems will reduce pilot workload.  Pilots and ATCOs found the phraseology long and complicated and inducing an increase of the perceived workload. The communication overhead should be reduced.  During FT the situational awareness was judged adequate by the pilots, even if they want to be informed/aware when they are target of a delegation.  The concept of tolerance should be included for the delegation parameters.

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 24/32  Initial Results – ASAS Spacing  The ASAS Spacing algorithm should take into account aircraft performance and passengers’ comfort.  Both Pilots and ATCOs should be provided with tools to a priori assess the feasibility of the delegation instructions.

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 25/32  Initial Results – ASAS Separation  Pilots stated the allocation of responsibility and tasks between ATC and aircrew are acceptable.  ASAS Separation acceptability for ATCOs should be further investigated, especially with reference to contingencies and critical situations, where ATCO has no time to prevent a loss of separation. To reduce ATCO workload, monitoring of ASAS traffic should not be requested, however it is still an open issue to be better investigated and clarified.  ASAS Separation operations increase pilots’ workload, but within acceptable limits; required attention for the CDTI/ASSAP was considered high. Further improvements on the CDTI/ASSAP (e.g. aural warnings) and its integration with avionic systems will reduce pilot workload.  During FT the situational awareness was judged adequate by pilots, even if they want to be informed/aware when they are target of a delegation.

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 26/32  Initial Results – ASAS Separation  Pilots and ATCOs found the phraseology long and complicated and inducing an increase of the perceived workload. The communication overhead should be reduced  The ASAS Spacing algorithm should take into account aircraft performance and passengers’ comfort.  ATCOs expressed the need to have ADS-B Intent information;  The concept of tolerance should be included for the delegation parameters.  Both Pilots and ATCOs should be provided with tools to a priori assess the feasibility of the delegation instructions.

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 27/32  Initial Results – Airborne Self Separation  During FT pilots positively accepted A5 because of several positive effects (no R/T, more flight efficiency, low workload)  Pilot workload remains well within tolerable limits, even if workload should be assessed in a more realistic environment with more traffics and more complex geometries.  During FT no workload peaks were experienced  During FT the situational awareness was judged adequate. Aural warnings in case of conflict are strictly necessary.  Airborne Self Separation would benefit from having a fully integrated system coupled to the aircraft’s FMS and autopilot.  The concept of tolerance should be included for the application parameters.

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 28/32  Conclusions: the MFF WORKSHOP MFF Final Workshop “Moving closer to Free Flight in the Mediterranean” Rome – 1,2 December 2005 The key objective of the workshop is to present the results of the innovative concepts, procedures and supporting technologies which have been assessed and simulated in five years. The focus will be on operational validation activities.. Further information may be obtained on or writing to

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 29/32

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 30/32

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 31/32

MFF | FLIGHT TRIALS REPORT 32/32 Thank you for your attention