1. Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP2 Current situation analysis – Aircraft perspective Philippe Louyot (CENA) CARE/ASAS Action FALBALA Project Dissemination Forum – 8 th July 2004

2. Slide 2 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP2 objectives (1/2)  Assessment of the current situation from an aircraft perspective using recorded radar data from: Frankfurt TMA (DFS) London TMA (NATS) Paris TMA (CENA) En-route European Core Area (EUROCONTROL Maastricht)  Main assumption: all aircraft are ADS-B in-and-out equipped

3. Slide 3 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP2 objectives (2/2)  How a pilot would see the traffic on a CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information)  Qualitative assessment: for one selected aircraft of interest, CDTI fed by radar data (replay)  Quantitative assessment: for a set of aircraft of interest, computation and aggregation of indicators (use of big amount of radar data hours)

4. Slide 4 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Aircraft and flight operations of interest  VFR flights  IFR flights during 3 Package I AS applications: enhanced traffic situational awareness during flight operations (ATSA-AIRB) enhanced visual separation on approach (ATSA-VSA) ATSA during enhanced sequencing and merging operations (ATSA during ASPA-S&M)

5. Slide 5 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative assessment

6. Slide 6 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative assessment method  Selection of one aircraft of interest from radar data  Traffic view from this aircraft of interest thanks to a CDTI One aircraft of interest All aircraft

7. Slide 7 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG CDTI features  The goal is not to design a CDTI, but only to illustrate the issues  Airbus-like ND implementation  Ranges: from 10 up to 320 NM  Filtering: only vertical band filtering (TCAS legacy) Normal [-2700ft, +2700ft] Above [-2700ft, +9900ft] Below [-9900ft, +2700ft]  Automatic count of displayed aircraft (main indicator)

8. Slide 8 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG CDTI modes  ND modes: Arc and Rose Mode (Plan mode not retained) Arc modeRose mode Plan mode

9. Slide 9 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative assessment LondonParisFrankfurt VFR ATSA-AIRB VFR flight near Toussus GAT airfield IFR ATSA-AIRB On LAM arrival with holding pattern On initial and final approach at CDG On RNAV approach at Frankfurt IFR ATSA during VSA On final approach at Frankfurt IFR ATSA during S&M Merging in radar vectoring area at CDG

10. Slide 10 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Illustration of ATSA-AIRB in London TMA

11. Slide 11 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Illustration of ATSA-AIRB during VSA at Frankfurt airport

12. Slide 12 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Illustration of ATSA-AIRB during S&M operation in Paris TMA

13. Slide 13 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative results (1/4)  For an acceptable CDTI legibility, the maximum number of displayed aircraft would have to be limited to about fifteen

14. Slide 14 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative results (2/4)  For VFR flights, a CDTI is likely to improve safety from the additional traffic information Example: A VFR flight arriving at Toussus airport will cross another conflicting VFR flight on another radio frequency

15. Slide 15 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative results (3/4)  For IFR flights, it is not obvious to decide which aircraft must be filtered Example: IFR during initial approach at CDG.

16. Slide 16 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Qualitative results (4/4)  A safety-oriented filter would be different from a situational awareness oriented filter Safety: closer aircraft (in time or distance) ATSA: aircraft inbound to the same runway for example These aircraft may not be the same particularly in TMA & E-TMA

17. Slide 17 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Quantitative assessment

18. Slide 18 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Quantitative assessment method  Selection of all the aircraft of interest with their associated period of interest  Computation of the number of displayed aircraft in all display possibilities  Aggregation of this figure over several days

19. Slide 19 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Selection of the aircraft of interest (1/3)  VFR flight: selection thanks to mode A code  IFR flight: selection thanks to flight phases recognition procedure matching for: STAR initial approaches RNAV approaches radio failure approaches for Radar vectoring final approaches altitude based selection for cruise

20. Slide 20 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Selection of the aircraft of interest (2/3)  The flight phases used are not exactly the same as the standard ones Standard flight phases / used flight phases mapping

21. Slide 21 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Selection of the aircraft of interest (3/3) UKFranceGermanyMaastricht VFRXX CRUISEXXX STARXX Initial ApproachesX Radar vectoringX RNAV Approaches X Final ApproachesXXX ATSA during S&M ATSA during VSA ATSA AIRB

22. Slide 22 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Computation of seen aircraft (1/2)  Count of all aircraft in several defined volumes centred on the aircraft of interest  The defined volumes are the combination of: Rose and Arc mode area (disc and heading related sector ) range: 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 NM altitude band filtering: ALL, NORMAL, ABOVE, BELOW +2700ft -2700ft

23. Slide 23 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Computation of seen aircraft (2/2)  Count done for each antenna turn  Radar coverage taken into account

24. Slide 24 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Aggregation and presentation  Aggregation by position of the aircraft of interest Arc length on given procedure Geographic mosaic STAR: ARC 80NM BELOW (average of displayed traffic)

25. Slide 25 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Process overview Procedure XML file Radar data Flight selection (with period of interest) Radar data sorted by turn (all plots) Procedure data for arc length computation

26. Slide 26 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Process outcomes  For each phase of flight and each display selection Average of displayed traffic Maximum of displayed traffic Number of measures (traffic density of aircraft of interest)  Synthesis by flight phases

27. Slide 27 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Quantitative results (1/3)  No direct link between the airspace density and the density of traffic information Cruising aircraft density Maximum number of displayed traffic (Arc Normal 80NM)

28. Slide 28 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Quantitative results (2/3)  There is a lot of difference between average and maximum figures  Average and maximum number of displayed aircraft per phase of flight (Arc mode, Normal)

29. Slide 29 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Quantitative results (3/3)  For VFR flights, a simple vertical filtering seems to be sufficient  For IFR flights, need for a specific filtering possibly depending of the phase of flight The number of displayed aircraft is often too high even with the “Normal” altitude band filtering

30. Slide 30 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Airborne surveillance requirements

31. Slide 31 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Assessment method  Computation of the maximum number of detected aircraft to help setting up airborne surveillance requirements Use of Maastricht radar data Independently from the phase of flight Rose 160NM No vertical filtering

32. Slide 32 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Results for airborne surveillance  Maximum number of 340 within a 160NM surveillance range  Extrapolated max  0.005 * range 2 + 1.2 * range

33. Slide 33 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Conclusions & recommendations

34. Slide 34 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP2 conclusions  Initial assessment of traffic information possibly displayed on a CDTI (for VFR & IFR) Illustrations through typical scenarios Computation of maximum and average number of traffic Evaluation of required airborne surveillance performances  Validation of the approach (radar data => current airborne traffic information assessment)  Identified limitations of the approach Sensitivity of the results to the amount of cumulated data Results near airports depend on radar coverage quality Some bias due to aircraft on the ground

35. Slide 35 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP2 recommendations for future work  A better knowledge of the present ND selections in use would be useful in order to reduce the large amount of computed data  Standard deviation computation to complement the maximum and the average assessment  Specific analysis focused on aircraft on the ground could be performed  Use of mosaic should be preferred to the use of arc length

36. Slide 36 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR3/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Questions & discussion