1. 1 PHARE Operational Scenarios J-P. Nicolaon, Operational Task Force Chairman EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

2. 2 Overview of the work on PHARE scenarios JULY 1990 PHARE Medium Term Scenario (Research Programme) : Initial operational organisation based on : Human in the loop 4D Navigation Automated ATC Tools Data-Link Communication with the aim to increase ATC productivity

3. 3 PHARE medium term scenario 2000-2015 l Envisaged changes in en-route controllers working methods l Extended planning horizon l Multi-Sector Planning Controller l Redistribution of workload from Tactical to Planning Controller l Assisted runway management l Assisted Arrival and Departure sequencing management l Computer-based merging and final approach spacing advisories

4. 4 Scenarios for PD/1, PD/2 and PD/3 PHARE Medium Term Scenario PD/1: En- route PD/2: Arrivals PD/3: Gate to gate 1990199419951997

5. 5

6. 6 Scenario for PD/1 Planning up to 20/25 minutes ahead of time Conflict-free sector transit plan (4D and 3D) Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4D aircraft Information and directives to his TC Co-ordination of entry/exit conditions Update ground system PC Role

7. 7 Scenario for PD/1 R/T Conflict-free passage Monitoring 4D aircraft Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4D aircraft if current contract was to be modified R/T transmissions to 3D aircraft of instructions as proposed by the ground system Handling of exceptions TC Role

8. 8 HIPS

9. 9 Scenario for PD/1 l PD/1 highlighted the need to look at task sharing between Planning Controller and Tactical Controller l Results were taken into account when designing scenarios for PD/2 and PD/3

10. 10 PD/2 Frankfurt TMA

11. 11 PD/2 ground tracks With PHARE toolsWithout PHARE tools Identical traffic samples in both cases

12. 12 Scenario for PD/2 The main PD/2 objectives became: to experiment / demonstrate the performance of the Arrival Management software and the feasibility of real flight according to automatic trajectory uplink to assess the controllers behaviour and acceptability versus automation to evaluate landing rate improvement

13. 13 Scenario for PD/2 Controllers roles changed as follows: ObserverPC Monitoring of 4D aircraft R/T transmission of Arrival Manager advisories to 3D aircraft Deconflicting remaining conflicts (if existing) TC

14. 14 Lessons learned from PD/2 l Automated Arrival Manager interactivity required l The definition of STARs, Holds and Stacks needs to be reconsidered l Results were taken into account when designing scenarios for PD/3

15. 15 Scenario for PD/3 Main concept elements : Timely work sharing Complementary tasks remaining consistent and relevant with time Layered Planning Multi-Sector Planner30' Planning Controller10' Tactical ControllerAssume Control

16. 16 4D TRAJECTORY MANAGEMENT Sector n-1Sector nSector n+1Sector n+2 aircraft position assume control by sector n TC trajectory modification via: formalize clearance trajectory negotiation or R/T communication Objectives : to differentiate clearance from planning to pilot to update ground system (planning and negotiation authority) PC modification via trajectory negotiation sector contract approval = clearance MSP modification via uplink MF previous sector contract approval

17. 17 Multi-Sector Planner (30' =>10') (En-route) l To equilibrate traffic between sectors l To reduce local complexity l to optimize trajectory

18. 18 Tactical Load Smoother

19. 19

20. 20 En-route Planning Controller :(10' =>Assume Control) l To manage Problem Situations l to resolve 4D conflicts l to prepare and transfer solutions for 3D aircraft to the Tactical Controller l To transfer problems to the Tactical Controller if he was in a better position to resolve them l To negotiate trajectory with 4D aircraft l To assist the Tactical Controller after assume control

21. 21 En-route Tactical Controller (Assume Control => Sector Exit) l To resolve conflicts unresolved by the Planning Controller and new conflicts l To monitor aircraft trajectories l To negotiate short-term trajectory modification l To uplink formalized clearances l To manage R/T

22. 22 Arrival TMA Controllers l Arrival Sequence Planning Controller (ARR- SP ) l Interaction with the Arrival Manager (AM) l Conflict-free passage l Trajectory Negotiation l Co-ordination l Tactical Controller l R/T l Final responsibility for real-time separation and final runway spacing

23. 23 Departure TMA Controllers l Departure Planning Controller (DEP-PC) l Interaction with the Departure Manager (DM) l Initial conflict-free SIDs (before departure) l Trajectory Negotiation / Co-ordination l Departure Tactical Controller (DEP-TC) l R/T l Ultimate responsibility for real-time separation and final runway sequencing

24. 24 Conclusions drawn from the scenario work. The co-operation between the PHARE partners: l highlighted: l divergence in approaching concept design l necessity of compromises (Done !) l Demonstrated enrichment of ideas l Made possible common understanding

25. 25 Conclusions drawn from the scenario work. l It addressed: l all phases of flight l transition for 2000-2015 period l long-term applications l was partly technology driven l showed difficulties to balance functional requirements for advanced tools with controller roles l showed need for further research into progressive and pragmatic adaptation of scenarios for short and medium- term implementation

26. 26 PHARE Operational Scenarios J-P. Nicolaon, Operational Task Force Chairman EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre next