mark watson & richard pugh ( nats)

July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG

Mark Watson & Richard Pugh

(NATS)

CARE / ASAS Action

FALBALA ProjectDissemination Forum - 8th July 2004

WP4 - Operational Indicators, Interviews

& Workshop


FALBALA Work Package 4

Investigation of three Package I Airborne Surveillance applications:

Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations (ATSA-AIRB)

Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA)

Enhanced Sequencing and Merging operations (ASPA-S&M)

Assessment based on views of controllers, pilots, flight operations and ATM experts.


Work Package 4Operational Indicators, Interviews &

Workshop

1. Define the “Operational Indicators”

2. Interviews with Controllers, Pilots & ATC Experts

3. Operational Workshop to brainstorm selected issues


1. Operational Indicators

Stage 1 identified a set of metrics, “Operational Indicators”,

which could be used throughout the project

Two perspectives Airspace Perspective (characteristics of the airspace)

Aircraft Perspective (characteristics for an individual flight)

Operational Indicators were used as input for the Quantitative

analysis done by WP1 and WP2 (already discussed)

Operational Indicators were used as an aid for discussions in

WP4


Examples of Operational Indicators

Airspace Perspective, e.g.: Runway Capacity

Use of Radar Vectoring

Use of Holding Patterns

Aircraft Spacing

. . .

Aircraft Perspective, e.g.: No. of surrounding aircraft (and distribution by range)

Relative distance and bearing of traffic on same route

Relative distance and bearing of traffic on other routes

. . .


2. Questionnaires

Questionnaires were developed to discuss the operational

benefits and limitations of the three ASAS applications:

Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight

Operations

Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach

Enhanced Sequencing and Merging


Questionnaire Participants

Pilot Respondents ATC Respondents

Air France (AFR)

2 (management pilot & airline manager)

DFS 2 (current controller & management controller)

Lufthansa (DLH)

3 (Airline manager & pilots) NATS 4 (ATM managers & LTMA controller)

British Airways (BAW)

3 (joint response airline manager and management pilots)

DGAC 4 (ATM managers & Paris controllers)

ATM and Airline Experts Controllers from DFS, DGAC and NATS

Pilots from Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France

Varying previous experience of ASAS Concepts (from

none to extensive)


Questionnaires

Two Questionnaires: 1 for Controllers (and ATC Experts)

1 for Pilots (and Flight Ops Experts)

Questionnaires included: Background to the FALBALA project

A brief overview of each of the three applications

A brief summary of the FALBALA WP1 Results, showing some of the Radar Analysis

Questions were multiple choice style but with scope for written

comments and explanation to be added


Summary of Responses(Enhanced Situational Awareness during Flight Ops)

PilotBenefits:• Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of

benefit

• More accurate position information, can compensate for loss of party-line effect caused by datalink

Workload: Generally NO CHANGE, possibly a

REDUCTION workload will depend on design

Other Issues:• May offer safety benefit in remote

areas, not in radar controlled airspace

• 100% equipage required to be useful?

ControllerBenefits: Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of

safety benefit Improved common situational

awareness between controller and pilot

Workload: Generally A LITTLE impact on ATC possible workload increase if pilots

query ATC instructions

Other Issues:• Main concern covers equipage -

100% equipage is required to be useful

• Likely to be of most benefit outside Controlled Airspace


Summary of Responses(Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach 1)

PilotFeasible:• Generally ACHIEVABLE, EASY at

Frankfurt. Visual following is already in use at Frankfurt.

• DIFFICULT at LHR.

Benefits: Mainly A LOT, one A LITTLE

(depends on the airport!) Clear capacity benefits at FRA,

ATSA-VSA could improve spacing precision further.

At LHR, there is no scope for reducing spacing, ATSA-VSA may even reduce capacity.

ControllerFeasible: All answers from VERY DIFFICULT

to EASY! Depends on the airport.• Already in use at FRA.

• Would be very difficult to implement at LHR, might be feasible at LGW.

Benefits:• Answers range from NO to A LOT

(depends on the airport!)

• At some airports ATSA-VSA is not seen as feasible.

• At others capacity is maximised by existing procedures, no scope to reduce spacing.


Summary of Responses(Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach 2)

Pilot

Workload:• Generally REDUCTION, but not

agreed by all, possible INCREASE at LHR

• Spacing information and Ground speed information provided on CDTI would assist visual spacing.

Controller

Workload:

Possible REDUCTION in workload

though not agreed by all.

If capacity increases as a result then

there may be no net change for

workload.


Summary of Responses(Enhanced Sequencing & Merging 1)

PilotFeasible:• Not asked, as it was felt that this was

specifically a Controller question

Benefits: Generally A LITTLE or A LOT• Reduction of voice communications

• More efficient user preferred trajectories

• Time-based spacing may give benefits

ControllerFeasible: All answers from VERY DIFFICULT

to EASY ! Difficult at LHR and FRA due to

complexity of airspace. May be more achievable at LGW and Paris airports

Benefits:• Considerable differences in opinion,

some NO, some A LOT

• Some anticipate capacity & efficiency benefits, others don’t

• Some concern that pilots will need more assistance (support tools) to maintain the spacing

• Time-based spacing alone may provide some benefits

• May be some environmental benefits


Summary of Responses(Enhanced Sequencing & Merging 2)

PilotWorkload:• Range from REDUCTION to

INCREASE, depends on how S&M is implemented, in particular the level of automation

• Without automation to assist the spacing task, workload may be increased

• With proper assistance, pilot’s overall workload could be reduced

Other Issues:• What is the impact on avionics ? If

FMS and CDTI changes are required then this will not be feasible before 2015

• Is Intent information required to perform spacing tasks ?

ControllerWorkload: Generally REDUCTION in controller

workload Reduction in R/T loading Better conformance of flights with

clearances Instructions may be less time-critical Ability to establish sequence further

out from touchdown

Other Issues:• The task of controllers may be de-

skilled to some extent

• What would the consequence then be of a system breakdown?

• What happens when the sequence breaks down, e.g. after a Go-around?


3. Operational Workshop

London Heathrow Airport

18th March 2004

26 Attendees from

Eurocontrol, Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa, DFS,

NATS, DGAC, Sofreavia and UoG

Discussion of each of the three applications

Demonstration of the CO-SPACE Implementation of ASPA-S&M


Workshop QuestionsEnhanced Sequencing and Merging

Where would ASPA-S&M be applicable, i.e. which airports

?

Is it necessary to automate the spacing on the aircraft?

Is it necessary to have Intent information?

Could the same benefits be derived from other concepts, such as

the use of time-based spacing by ATC or 4D Trajectory

negotiation?


Workshop Questions Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach

Answers to the questionnaires show wide range of views. Why do we

have these differences ?

Visual separation is in use in Frankfurt, with an agreed benefit. Why

only in Frankfurt?

Are there possibilities to use visual separation at other airports to

increase capacity?


Workshop Questions Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight

Operations

What benefits?

E.g. what is the expected impact on controller and pilot workload

What about Partial Situational Awareness ?

Possibly caused by lack of aircraft equippage or filtering?

What information should be displayed?


WP4 Conclusions (1)

Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight

Operations (ATSA-AIRB) Improved Traffic Situational Awareness for Pilots

• Can compensate for the loss of Party-Line expected to result from datalink

Little effect on Pilot and Controller workload

Most benefit will be obtained in remote (non-radar airspace), not in high-density environments

Requires 100% equipage to get full benefits (or TIS-B)

Design work is required for the traffic display

•Issues such as filtering, the means of labelling aircraft tracks ...


WP4 Conclusions (2)

Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA) CAPACITY benefits at Frankfurt Airport

• A consequence of the runway configuration at Frankfurt

Application to other airports is expected to be limited

• Benefits are not clear for single runway airports

• “Normal” visual approaches are not common in Europe

Safety benefits could arise

• from improved visual acquisition

• from improved spacing accuracy

There is a risk that capacity could be reduced if pilots tend to apply greater spacing than currently achieved by radar control


WP4 Conclusions (3)

Enhanced Sequencing & Merging Operations (ATSA-S&M) Agreement that Sequencing and Merging could provide:

• Improved efficiency through reduced R/T usage, and more consistent spacing

• Make ATC instructions less time-critical

• Ability to establish the sequence further out

Sequencing & Merging is expected to provide most benefit when spacing is defined in terms of TIME

There is disagreement about the level of automation required on the aircraft. The impact on pilot workload will depend on the automation provided.

Sequencing and Merging appears highly feasible at some airports (e.g. the Paris CDG and Orly). Appears feasible at Gatwick. The limited size or high complexity of other TMA areas (e.g. those for Heathrow, Frankfurt) would make it harder to implement without major airspace changes.


WP4 Recommendations

The Operational Indicators should be updated and prioritised for use in future

assessments.

Sequencing and Merging appears feasible and beneficial for some TMA areas. More

detailed study is recommended for these areas.

Aspects of Sequencing and Merging such as integration with arrival tools, integration

with RNAV and abnormal procedures (failure modes) should be studied further.

Enhanced Visual Spacing on Approach offers benefits for only a limited number of

airports. It should be considered with regard to specific airports and not for general

use.

The design of the CDTI is important to all applications, especially Enhanced

Situational Awareness. Design work is needed to assess filtering algorithms and how

to combine TCAS and ADS-B traffic information.


Any Questions?

mark watson & richard pugh ( nats)

Documents