preliminary validation report for v2 exercises, enhanced runway … · 2019. 7. 16. · 6.3.1...

Preliminary Validation Report for V2 exercises, Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems

Document information

Project Title Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems

Project Number 06.08.02

Project Manager EUROCONTROL

Deliverable Name V2 Validation Report

Deliverable ID D 04

Edition 00.00.02

Template Version 03.00.00

Task contributors

NATS and EUROCONTROL.

Please complete the advanced properties of the document

Abstract

This document is the Validation Report for the Step 1 V2 validation activities of the

06.08.02 project. It describes the validation exercises that took place between

September 2011 and April 2013, as well as the analysis of those exercises and

recommendations for next steps of the project.

These validation exercises consisted of an initial live trial of an EBS voice procedure

at London Heathrow, cockpit simulator exercises using qualified Flight Crew to clarify

the EBS cooperative procedure (both EXE-06.08.02-VP-048), a fast-time simulation of

differing EBS equipage levels at a capacity constrained segregated runway airport

performed on AirTop (EXE-06.08.02-VP-049) and an ATCO HMI workshop that

identified HMI requirements (EXE-06.08.02-VP-050)

Project Number 06.00.00 Edition 00.00.00 D04 – V2 Validation Report

2 of 86

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Authoring & Approval

Prepared By - Authors of the document.

Name & Company Position & Title Date

Kevin Harvey/EUROCONTROL P06.08.02 Project manager 30/04/2013

Steve Bancroft/EUROCONTROL P06.08.02 Project member 30/04/2013

Andy Milligan/NATS P06.08.02 Project member 30/04/2013

Lucy Glasgow/NATS NATS HF expert 30/04/2013

Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project.


Ulrika ZIVERTS, Airspace Users 06.08.02 Project member 21/05/2013

Helena JOHANSSON, ETF 06.08.02 Project member 21/05/2013

Andy MILLIGAN, NATS 06.08.02 Project member 21/05/2013

Jérôme JOURNADE, AIRBUS 06.08.02 Project member 21/05/2013

Stephen BANCROFT, EUROCONTROL 06.08.02 Project member 21/05/2013

Reviewed By - Other SESAR projects, Airspace Users, staff association, military, Industrial Support, other organisations.


Anthony INARD, EUROCONTROL 06.02 Project member 30/05/2013

Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.


Kevin HARVEY EUROCONTROL 6.8.2 Project leader 31/05/2013

Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.


<Name / Company> <Position / Title> <DD/MM/YYYY>

Rational for rejection

None.

Document History

Edition Date Status Author Justification

00.00.01 30/04/2113 First Draft ECTL, NATS Results from validation exercises

00.00.02 30/05/2113 Released version

ECTL, NATS Revised to accommodate comments on first draft

Intellectual Property Rights (foreground)

This deliverable consists of SJU foreground.


3 of 86



Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 6

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT .................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 INTENDED READERSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 9

2 CONTEXT OF THE VALIDATION .......................................................................................................... 11

2.1 CONCEPT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.2 SUMMARY OF VALIDATION EXERCISE/S ................................................................................................. 15

2.2.1 Summary of Expected Exercise/s outcomes ......................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Benefit mechanisms investigated ............................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Summary of Validation Objectives and success criteria ...................................................... 18 2.2.4 Summary of Validation Scenarios ........................................................................................... 20 2.2.5 Summary of Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 22 2.2.6 Choice of methods and techniques ......................................................................................... 22 2.2.7 Validation Exercises List and dependencies .......................................................................... 23

3 CONDUCT OF VALIDATION EXERCISES .......................................................................................... 24

3.1 EXERCISES PREPARATION ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 EXERCISES EXECUTION ......................................................................................................................... 24 3.3 DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................ 24

3.3.1 Deviations with respect to the Validation Strategy ................................................................ 24 3.3.2 Deviations with respect to the Validation Plan ....................................................................... 24

4 EXERCISES RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.1 SUMMARY OF EXERCISES RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 26 4.1.1 Results on concept clarification ............................................................................................... 27 4.1.2 Results per KPA ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.3 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives ............................................... 28

4.2 ANALYSIS OF EXERCISES RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 28 4.2.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results .............................................................................................. 29

4.3 CONFIDENCE IN RESULTS OF VALIDATION EXERCISES ......................................................................... 30 4.3.1 Quality of Validation Exercises Results .................................................................................. 30 4.3.2 Significance of Validation Exercises Results ......................................................................... 30

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 32

5.1 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 32 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 33

6 VALIDATION EXERCISES REPORTS .................................................................................................. 34

6.1 VALIDATION EXERCISE VP048 (AIRBUS LIVE TRIAL) REPORT .............................................................. 34 6.1.1 Exercise Scope ........................................................................................................................... 34 6.1.2 Conduct of Validation Exercise ................................................................................................ 35 6.1.3 Exercise Results ......................................................................................................................... 37 6.1.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 39

6.2 VALIDATION EXERCISE VP048 (EMIRATES COCKPIT FLIGHT SIMULATOR) REPORT ............................ 41


4 of 86



6.2.1 Exercise Scope ........................................................................................................................... 41 6.2.2 Conduct of Validation Exercise ................................................................................................ 42 6.2.3 Exercise Results ......................................................................................................................... 47 6.2.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 49

6.3 VALIDATION EXERCISE VP049 (AIRTOP SOFT, FAST TIME SIMULATION – EGLL MODELLING) REPORT ............................................................................................................................................................ 51

6.3.1 Exercise Scope ........................................................................................................................... 51 6.3.2 Conduct of Validation Exercise ................................................................................................ 55 6.3.3 Exercise Results ......................................................................................................................... 60 6.3.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 71

6.4 VALIDATION EXERCISE VP050 (ATCO HMI WORKSHOP) REPORT ..................................................... 72 6.4.1 Exercise Scope ........................................................................................................................... 72 6.4.2 Conduct of Validation Exercise ................................................................................................ 73 6.4.3 Exercise Results ......................................................................................................................... 75 6.4.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 82

7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 84

7.1 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 84 7.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 84


5 of 86



List of tables

Figure 1: Validation Objectives ............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2: Benefits Mechanism............................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: EGLL representing approach (AirTOp) .................................................................................. 59 Figure 4: EGLL representing final approach (AirTOp) ......................................................................... 59 Figure 5: EGLL representing runway 27R (AirTOp) ............................................................................. 60 Figure 6: VMC Scenario Results ........................................................................................................... 66 Figure 7: VMC Future Scenario Results ............................................................................................... 67 Figure 8: LVC Scenario Results ............................................................................................................ 68 Figure 9: LVC Future Scenario Results ............................................................................................... 69 Figure 10 ASMGCS display with EBS information ............................................................................... 74 Figure 11: Proposed phraseology ......................................................................................................... 36 Figure 12: Voice communication message ........................................................................................... 37

List of tables

Table 1: Concept Overview ................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2: Concept Overview ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3: Concept Overview ................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4: Concept Overview ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: Stakeholders Expectations ..................................................................................................... 16 Table 6: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for modelling ..................................... 19 Table 7: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for Airbus live trial............................. 18 Table 8: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for ATCO HMI workshop .................. 20 Table 9: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for Emirates flight simulation ............ 19 Table 10: Choice of metrics and indicators for FTS .............................................................................. 20 Table 11: Summary of validation scenarios for VMc and LVC ............................................................. 21 Table 12: Summary for validation scenarios for increase in A380’s (Future) ....................................... 22 Table 13: Methods and Techniques ...................................................................................................... 23 Table 14: Exercises execution/analysis dates ...................................................................................... 24 Table 15: Summary of Validation Exercises Results ............................................................................ 27 Table 16: Results per KPA for the modelling ........................................................................................ 28 Table 17: Analysis of exercise results ................................................................................................... 29 Table 18: Differing Runway configuration between simulations. .......................................................... 51 Table 19: Exercise Validation Objectives .............................................................................................. 52 Table 20: Simulation Runway Configurations ....................................................................................... 53 Table 21: Example AROT data EGLL 27R ........................................................................................... 54 Table 22: Example AI – TTV data EGLL 27R ....................................................................................... 54 Table 23: Preparatory Activities ............................................................................................................ 55 Table 24: Execution Activities ............................................................................................................... 56 Table 25: Scenario Development .......................................................................................................... 56 Table 26: Simulation Separation Matrix ................................................................................................ 57 Table 27: Summary of Exercise Results VMC/LVC .............................................................................. 62 Table 28: Summary of Exercises Results VMC/LVC Future scenarios ................................................ 63 Table 29: Scenario construction ........................................................................................................... 64 Table 30: Scenario Results ................................................................................................................... 65 Table 31: Scenario, and impact on runway throughput and AROT ...................................................... 65 Table 32: ATCO Questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 81 Table 33Table of runways and available exits ...................................................................................... 36 Table 34: Intended KPA and KPI and outcome ................................................................................ 38 Table 35: Summary of scenarios .......................................................................................................... 43 Table 36: Detailed description of scenarios .......................................................................................... 46 Table 37: Summary of validation results ............................................................................................... 48


6 of 86



Executive summary

This document is the Validation Report for the Step 1 V2 validation activities of the 06.08.02 project. It describes a series of validation exercises that took place between September 2011 and April 2013, as well as the analysis of those exercises and recommendations for next steps of the project.

These validation exercises were:

an initial live trial of an EBS voice procedure (EXE-06.08.02-VP-048) cockpit simulator exercises using qualified Flight Crew to clarify elements of the EBS

cooperative procedure (EXE-06.08.02-VP-048) a fast-time simulation assessing the impact of differing EBS equipage levels at a capacity

constrained airport with segregated runways performed on AirTop (EXE-06.08.02-VP-049) an ATCO HMI workshop that identified HMI requirements (EXE-06.08.02-VP-050)

The purpose of these validations was to assess the concept of operational project P06.08.02 related to the advanced notification of the Arrival Runway Occupancy Time (AROT) and runway exit from the aircraft to the ground, the use of that data by ATM and the potential benefit to capacity and predictability. A live trial of an Airbus A380 into Heathrow and a cockpit simulator session examined the phraseology, timing of the data transfer and finally the ability of the Flight Crew to respond to a change request from the ground. Both exercises were completed successfully and have enabled the concept and procedures to be refined. Ideally the transfer of EBS data between the cockpit and ground should take place early in the approach, when the flight crew workload best accommodates it. Changes can be introduced, but cannot be accomplished with 12 nms of landing. An ATCO workshop examined the feasibility of the concept and EBS procedure from ATC’s perspective and investigated the system requirements (in terms of controller HMI) that would be needed to support the transfer of EBS data and display the correct information to the ATCO. Tower and Ground controllers consider that their planning would benefit from the exit indication but do not require visualisation of the AROT on their HMI. The AROT should be used to assist in determining the separation on final approach. The modelling demonstrated that there was potential for a significant saving in runway useage with EBS. As the equipage level amongst the arrival fleet increases the cumulated AROT reduces. Compared with the baseline the runway occupancy diminished by 12 minutes per hour with a 78% equipage level. However, the study was based on arrivals at a capacity constrained airport operating segregated runways and showed that existing wake vortex minima may preclude an increase in runway throughput. Further validations are planned to model a mixed mode runway and then assess the combined benefit of EBS and Time Based Spacing within the framework of OFA 01.03.01. A data gathering exercise with airlines using BTV is underway and a live trial of EBS with voice takes place in Q1 and Q2 of 2013. A real time simulation will examine the ATCO HMI and datalink procedure. These validation activities will be reported upon at a later date.


7 of 86



1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the document

This document provides the validation reports for a series of exercises within Step 1 V2 for the Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems project (P 06.08.02)

Project 06.08.02 deals with the development and validation of operational concepts, requirements and procedures related to the dissemination of the runway exit and Arrival ROT, calculated in advance within the cockpit and its integration into and use by ATM.

This document describes the results of the following activities:

The initial trial of the EBS voice procedure with an Airbus A380 aircraft into London Heathrow ((EXE-06.08.02-VP-048)

The cockpit simulations performed by Emirates on a full A380 simulator and using current Flight Crew making approaches to Paris Charles de Gaulle and London Heathrow EXE-06.08.02-VP-048)

The modelling or Fast Time Simulation (FTS) performed in December 2012 by EUROCONTROL using AirTOpSoft on the impact of differing levels of EBS equipage on a segregated, capacity constrained runway (based on EGLL data) in VMC and LVC (EXE-06.08.02-VP-0491)

The ATCO HMI workshop, held at Bretigny using an HMI prototype develop on the iTWP platform with controllers from London Heathrow, Manchester and Liepzig (EXE-06.08.02-VP-050)

This Validation report describes the results of the validation exercises (EXE-06.08.02-VP-048, EXE-06.08.02-VP-049, EXE-06.08.02-VP-050,) defined in the Validation Plan document as well as the analysis of validation data gathered. It should be noted that for both EXE-06.08.02-VP-048 and EXE-06.08.02-VP-049 further validation activities are underway.

1.2 Intended readership

Participants in the following related SESAR projects may be interested in this V2 Validation Report:

06.02 (Coordination and consolidation of operational concept definition and validation): these projects needs to coordinate all results and inputs coming from 06.XX.XX projects.

06.03.02 (Airport ATM Performance (Execution Phase)): this project will perform integrated validation exercises with the results of several projects, among which 06.07.02 is included.

06.07.02 (A-SMGCS Routing and Planning function); This project deals with the development and validation of operational concepts, requirements and procedures related to the A-SMGCS Routing and Planning function and will take the exit provided by EBS equipped flights as the start point for the planned route.

06.08.01 (Flexible and Dynamic Use of Wake Vortex separations) This project deals with the development and validation of operational concepts, requirements and tools to enable the flexible and dynamic application of wake vortex separations.

06.09.02 (Advanced Integrated CWP(A-iCWP)): this project is responsible for the definition of the SESAR CWP, in which the routing and planning function (with EBS data) is to be embedded;

12.05.03 (Enhanced Controller Tools to manage all aspects of 4D trajectories):

1 2 further studies into mixed mode and segregated non-capacity constrained will be finalised in 2013.


8 of 86



12.05.04 (Integrated Tower Working Position (iCWP) design, specification, prototyping and test/validation): this project is responsible for integrating ATC tools into the SESAR CWP

16.06.05 (Human Performance support and coordination function): for the validation results on human performance aspects.

B.05 (Performance Analysis of ATM Target Concept): for the quantified validation results on KPAs.

1.3 Structure of the document

The document is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 – Introduction describes the purpose and scope of the document, the intended

audience, and gives an explanation of the abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the document.

Chapter 2 – Context of the Validation summarises the scope of the validation reference to

the Validation Plan and the validation exercises.

Chapter 3 – Conduct of validation exercises describes the exercises preparation and execution, and the deviations from the planned activities.

Chapter 4 – Results of exercises provides a summary of the exercises results and analysis, and describes the confidence in the results of validation exercises.

Chapter 5 – Conclusions and recommendations presents the conclusions synthesised

from all validation exercises and gives some recommendations.

Chapter 6 – Validation exercises reports presents the individual results of the four

validation exercises carried out in the framework of 06.08.02 V2 validation activities.

Chapter 7 – References lists all the applicable and reference documents.

.

1.4 Glossary of terms

Term Definition

Airborne Intended Exit

The term used to describe the runway exit selected by the Airborne System/Flight Crew

Ground Preferred Exit The term used to describe the runway exit selected by the Ground System

Agreed Exit The term used to describe the runway exit agreed between the Flight Crew and the Ground System or ATCO.

EBS

The term Enhanced Braking Systems (EBS) refers to new generation braking systems that apply predetermined braking to the aircraft such that the aircraft reaches a defined speed at a selected point on the runway. EBS provides a calculated AROT by adapting braking regardless of dynamic atmospheric conditions.

Airborne System

For the purposes of P06.08.02 the term Airborne System refers to the onboard system (airborne) required to incorporate an Enhanced Braking System. This includes:

o a control display unit with the ability to display AROT and pilot selected exit


9 of 86



Term Definition

o the ability to determine the aircraft actual position along the runway (e.g. GPS) o the ability to apply a control signal to the aircraft’s braking system o the ability to calculate, in advance, a maximum incurred AROT to reach a defined speed during the runway roll out phase o the ability to communicate exit and AROT by datalink to the Ground system

Arrival Runway Occupancy

The Arrival Runway Occupancy Time measured from the time an aircraft crosses the threshold until the tail is clear of the runway

.

1.5 Acronyms and Terminology

Term Definition

A-SMGCS Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems

A/C Aircraft

AMAN Arrival Manager

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

AOC Airline Operational Control (Airline Operations Centre)

AROT Arrival Runway Occupancy Time

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATIS Airport Terminal Information Service

ATM Air Traffic Management

BTV Brake to Vacate

BTV-ATM Brake To Vacate – Air Traffic Management

CDG Roissy Charles-de-Gaulle airport

CFMU Central Flow Management Unit

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CPDLC Controller Pilot Datalink Communications

DL Data Link

DMAN Departure Manager

D-TAXI Data link Taxi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_control


10 of 86



Term Definition

DOD Detailed Operational Description

EBS Enhanced Braking System

EFB Electronic Flightbag Computer

FAF Final Approach Fix

FM Flight Management

FMS Flight Management System

FTS Fast Time Simulation

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

INTEROP Interoperability Requirements

ITWP Integrated Tower Working Position Project

LVC Low Visibility Conditions

LVO Low Visibility Operations

LVP Low Visibility Procedures

NATS National Air Traffic Services LTD

OANS Onboard Airport Navigation System

OCD Operational Concept Description

RTS Real Time Simulation

R/T Radio Telephony

VALR Validation Report

VALS Validation Strategy

VP Verification Plan

VR Verification Report

VS Verification Strategy


11 of 86



2 Context of the Validation

Step 1 V2 validation activities of the 06.08.02 project focus on the following themes of research:

The provision of EBS information via voice communication

The provision of EBS information via data link

The procedures needed to support the transfer of EBS data from the cockpit to the ground and for changes to be notified to the Flight Crew with both voice and datalink.

The controller HMI interface enabling visualisation of the appropriate EBS data,

The potential benefit of making EBS available to ATM

The table below provides the list of validation objectives from 06.02 VALS for Step 1 addressed by the exercises reported in this document.

OFA01.03.01 Brake to Vacate

Validation Objective OI Addressed by

OBJ-06.02-VALS-0010.0018 - Validate Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with ground ATC by voice will increase capacity.

AUO-0702

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048 EXE-06.08.02-VP-049

OBJ-06.02-VALS-0010.0019 - Validate Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with ground ATC by datalink will increase capacity.

AUO-0703

EXE-06.08.02-VP-049 EXE-06.08.02-VP-050

Figure 1: Validation Objectives

The V2 Validation activities used:

– A cockpit flight simulator with qualified Flight Crew from a commercial airline (Emirates) using BTV (EXE-06.08.02-VP-048)

– An Airbus A380 test flight into Heathrow to develop and trial a voice procedure (EXE-06.08.02-VP-048)

– A fast time simulation using AirTOpSoft to assess the impact of differing levels of EBS equipage on the AROT and runway throughput (EXE-06.08.02-VP-049)

– A mock-up developed by another SESAR project (06.07.02) for the ATCO HMI workshop. The mock up was further enhanced with the provision of the airborne intended exit on the controller A_SMGCS display and electronic flight strips (EXE-06.08.02-VP-050). This exercise was used to determine the HMI requirements (P06.08.02 OSED and P06.09.02 OSED)

2.1 Concept Overview

Validation Exercise ID and Title

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048 : Live trial with voice (Airbus flight trial into Heathrow)

Leading organization EUROCONTROL


12 of 86



Validation exercise objectives OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0310 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0410

Rationale To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted runway exiting To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted ROTs To establish and test a voice procedure

Supporting DOD / Operational Scenario / Use Case

06.02 Step 1 DOD

Surface-In

OFA addressed 01.03.01

OI steps addressed AUO-0702-Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by voice

Enablers addressed PRO-218 (b, c) Brake to vacate (BTV) procedures (Airport) PRO-AC-18 cockpit procedure to perform automatic braking according to a pre defined runway exit AERODROME-ATC-62: Handle Brake To Vacate (BTV) information coordinated between Ground ATC and Pilot

Applicable Operational Context

Airport

Expected results per KPA CAP ROT actual and estimate captured, debriefs performed

Validation Technique Flight trial

Dependent Validation Exercises

EXE-06.08.02- VP-048. (Emirates trial with voice procedure)

Table 1: Concept Overview, live trial with voice


EXE-06.08.02-VALP-VE02.0330 Emirates Trial-Flight simulation

Leading organization EUROCONTROL/NATS

Validation exercise objectives OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0310 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0410

Rationale To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted runway exiting To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted ROTs To establish and test a voice procedure


13 of 86




06.02 Step 1 DOD

Surface-In


OI steps addressed AUO-0702-Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by voice AUO-0703-Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by Datalink

Enablers addressed PRO-218 (b, c) Brake to vacate (BTV) procedures (Airport) PRO-AC-18 cockpit procedure to perform automatic braking according to a pre defined runway exit


Airport

Expected results per KPA CAP: ROT actual and estimate captured, debriefs performed

Validation Technique Cockpit simulation


EXE-06.08.02-VP-053 EXE-06.08.02- VP-048. (Emirates trial with voice procedure)

Table 2: Concept overview, Flight simulation


EXE-06.08.02-VP-049 : Model Based simulations

Leading organization EUROCONTROL

Validation exercise objectives OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0130

Rationale To quantify the benefits that reduced ROTs can deliver in all weather conditions To quantify the impact of various levels of aircraft equipage (EBS) on ROT and runway throughput/capacity


06.02 Step 1 DOD

Surface-In/Surface-out

Taxi-In/Taxi-Out


OI steps addressed AUO-0702-Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by voice AUO-0703-Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by Datalink

Enablers addressed AERODROME-ATC-62: Handle Brake To Vacate (BTV) information coordinated between Ground ATC and Pilot


14 of 86



AERODROME-ATC-63: Handle Brake To Vacate (BTV) information coordinated between Ground ATC and Pilot via data link


Airport

Expected results per KPA CAP 311- Reduced runway occupancy, throughput/capacity increase CAP 321- fewer ‘go arounds’, reduced separation of finals

Validation Technique Fast Time simulation


N/A

Table 3: Concept Overview, modelling


EXE-06.08.02-VP-050 : ATCO HMI workshop

Leading organization NATS

Validation exercise objectives OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0510 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110

Rationale To quantify the benefits that reduced ROTs can deliver in all weather conditions Define requirements for EBS data to be displayed on the HMI


06.02 Step 1 DOD

Surface-In


OI steps addressed AUO-0703-Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by Datalink

Enablers addressed PRO-218 (b, c) Brake to vacate (BTV) procedures (Airport) AERODROME-ATC-62: Handle Brake To Vacate (BTV) information coordinated between Ground ATC and Pilot AERODROME-ATC-63: Handle Brake To Vacate (BTV) information coordinated between Ground ATC and Pilot via data link


Airport

Expected results per KPA N/A

Validation Technique HF workshop


15 of 86




EXE-06.08.02-VP-053

Table 4: Concept overview, ATCO HMI

2.2 Summary of Validation Exercise/s

2.2.1 Summary of Expected Exercise/s outcomes The stakeholders’ expectations addressed in V2 are as follows:

Stakeholder External / Internal

Involvement Why it matters to stakeholder

Performance expectations

Air Navigation Service Providers

Internal/external

Support to trials, expert input

Demonstration that EBS linked to the ground system can bring real improvements in runway throughput

Reduced runway occupancy times,

reduced final approach spacing in all visibility conditions,

increased runway throughput on segregated and mixed mode runways,

Airport Operators

Internal Expert input – provision of validation sites

Demonstration that EBS linked to the ground system can bring real improvements in runway throughput, provides better predictability and is cost beneficial

Improved runway throughput, hence increased runway capacity and in turn increased airport capacity

Ground Handling

see Airport operators

SJU Internal The final client of P6.8.2.

Demonstration that the project results are validated against the objectives, to enable transition to V3

Increased runway throughput

Research Institutes

Internal EUROCONTROL is directly involved

Demonstration that EBS is feasible and brings benefits to all airport stakeholders

Increased runway throughput


16 of 86



Airframe manufacturers

Internal Airbus is the manufacturer of the airborne system and is a partner in the project

Demonstrate BTV contribution to the KPAs

Positive contributions to SESAR concept KPAs:, predictability and capacity

Airspace Users Internal/External

Recipient of benefit and direct expert input and source of data

Direct recipient of all ATM improvements either directly or indirectly.

Improvements in runway throughput, ATM wide information sharing and operational resilience gives greater slot and movement opportunities.

Table 5: Stakeholders Expectations

2.2.2 Benefit mechanisms investigated

In the V2 validation exercises Capacity is addressed in EXE-06.08.02-VP-0048 and EXE-06.08.02-VP-049. PRE is addressed in EXE-06.08.02-VP-049.

The figure below illustrates the relationship with the Indicators and KPAs that were identified in the V2 VALP.

The exercises described in this Validation report do not conclude the validation activities as further study is ongoing. For example for the predictability of EBS to be fully investigated data from airlines equipped with BTV will be collated to ascertain the consistency of meeting the runway exit.


17 of 86



Figure 2: Benefits Mechanism

Feature Description: Aircraft are fitted with an EBS and using such are able to optimise their runway braking action depending on specific aircraft and environmental characteristics (e.g. aircraft weight,).

(1a) Due to increased braking optimisation the aircraft will spend less time on the runway before reaching its designated exit. This benefit is predicted to increase in LVCs due to improved situational awareness.

(2a) Aircraft will be able to achieve the same runway exit more consistently for that aircraft type given the same landing configuration.

(3a) Due to reduced ROTs for arrivals, the runway utilisation is optimised thereby enabling more departures.

(4a) Due to decreased ROTs for arrivals the overall runway throughput for arrivals and departures is increased.

Feature Indicators Positive/ Negative

KPA

Aircraft exiting runway using

BTV system

Runway Occupancy

Time

Consistent runway exit achieved

Operational efficiency

CAP

PRE

AUO-0702 AUO-0703

6.8.2 Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems (1/1)

1a 1b

2a

2b

Departure throughput per hour

3a

3b

Relative increase of

runway throughput

4b

4a


18 of 86



(1b) Better runway utilisation thereby increasing capacity.

(2b) Predictability of ground routing.

(3b) Increased capacity of runway

(4b) Increased capacity of runway

2.2.3 Summary of Validation Objectives and success criteria

Modelling (Fast Time Simulation)

The main goal of the Fast Time Simulation was to assess the impact of differing levels of EBS equipage on the AROT and runway throughput. The intention was to determine the potential benefit (reduction in AROT and increase in runway throughput) when different proportions of the arrival stream were equipped with EBS. This was done in both VMC and LVC where a baseline scenario was compared with 3 scenarios of differing equipage levels. In addition an assessment of the potential impact of an increase in the number of A380 aircraft (requiring larger separation on final thereby reducing the landing rate) was made.

Airbus live trial

Validation Objective ID

Validation Objective Success Criteria Validation Scenario

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0210

To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted runway exiting

The predicted and actual exits were compared

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0310

To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted ROTs

The predicted and actual AROTs were recorded and compared

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0410

Establish an EBS voice based operating procedure

Positive assessment from controller and Flight Crew of voice procedure developed and used in live trial

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0410

Table 6: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for Airbus live trial

Emirates flight simulations



OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0110

To quantify the benefits that reduced ROT’s can deliver in all weather conditions

Positive response from all Flight Crew on the EBS concept and potential for decreasing ROTs. Clarity on procedures.

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0210


The predicted and actual exits were compared

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110


19 of 86





OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0310

To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted ROTs

The predicted and actual AROTs were recorded and compared

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0410

Establish an EBS voice based operating procedure

Positive assessment from controller and Flight Crew of voice procedure developed and used in live trial

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0410

Table 7: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for Emirates flight simulation



OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0110


Reduced AROT, improvements in runway throughput

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130

To quantify the impact of various levels of aircraft equipage (Enhanced Braking Systems) on ROT and runway throughput / capacity

Reduced AROT, improvements in runway throughput

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110 SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120

Table 8: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for modelling

ATCO HMI workshop


Validation Objective

Success Criteria Validation Scenario

Operational requirement

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0510

To define the requirements for EBS data to be displayed on the HMI

Positive response from all ATCOs on the EBS concept and potential for decreasing ROTs HMI requirements identified

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110

REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0016 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0017 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0021 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0022 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0023 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0024 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0025 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0026

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0110


Positive response from all ATCOs on the EBS concept and potential for decreasing ROTs in LVC, particularly if coupled with MLS/GBAS HMI requirements identified

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110 SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120

REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0016 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0017 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0021 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0022


20 of 86





Success Criteria Validation Scenario

Operational requirement

REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0023 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0024 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0025 REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0026

Table 9: Summary of validation objectives and success criteria for ATCO HMI workshop

2.2.3.1 Choice of metrics and indicators

Live trial into Heathrow

The Key Performance Indicators and metrics related to V2 validation objectives that were used are listed below:

Workload and suitability as an indicator of human performance

Cockpit Simulation


Workload and situation awareness as an indicator of human performance

Modelling (Fast Time Simulations)

The table below contains the list of metrics retained for exercises EXE-06.08.02-VP-049

KPI Metrics Impacted KPA

Runway Throughput per

hour

Difference between baseline and EBS runway throughput for 4 hour measured

period Capacity

Runway occupancy time

Difference between cumulative AROT for baseline and EBS cumulative AROT

for 4 hour measured period Capacity

Table 10: Choice of metrics and indicators for FTS

ATCO HMI workshop


Usability was measured through effectiveness and satisfaction

Situation awareness as an indicator of human performance

2.2.4 Summary of Validation Scenarios

Hereunder is the list of scenarios per validation.


21 of 86



Airbus Live trial

The approach was flown into London Heathrow, runway 27L during normal operations.

Cockpit Simulation

Validation Scenario Identifier Airport configuration

Scenario

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120

Segregated (EGLL) 27R

Baseline EBS landing

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0 0110


Non EBS landing

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120


Exit change

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120


Exit change

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120

Segregated (LFPG) 27R

Baseline EBS landing

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110


Contaminated runway non EBS landing

Cockpit simulator

SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120


Runway change and exit blocked

Table 11 Summary for validation scenarios, cockpit simulation

7 scenarios were examined, 4 into London Heathrow and 3 into Paris Charles De Gaulle. Arrivals were made to 27R at both airports.

Modelling (Fast Time) simulation

Validation Scenario identifier Airport configuration

Scenario2 Number of flights in measured

period

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110


Baseline VMC 221

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0310


VMC BTV level 1 221

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0310


VMC BTV level 2 221

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0310


VMC BTV level 3 221

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0120


Baseline LVC 129

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0320


LVC BTV level 1 129

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0320


LVC BTV level 1 129

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0320


LVC BTV level 1 129

Table 12: Summary of validation scenarios for VMC and LVC

2 For detail on the scenario description see table 29


22 of 86



Validation Scenario Identifier Airport configuration

Scenario Number of flights in measured

period

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0110


Baseline VMC 221

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0310


VMC Future 1 217

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0310


VMC Future 2 217

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0320


Baseline LVC 129

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0320


LVC Future 1 131

FTS SCN-06.08.02-VALP-VS02.0320


LVC Future 2 131

Table 13: Summary for validation scenarios for increase in A380’s (Future)

ACTO HMI workshop

The operational environment used for the test of the HMI mock up mock was Paris Charles de Gaulle. The mock up itself was developed on the ITWP platform.

2.2.5 Summary of Assumptions

EBS is used throughout this document and is a generic term for a system (airborne) that will accurately calculate the AROT and intended exit. In reality one system, BTV, manufactured by Airbus can provide this data today. BTV or BTV derived data has been used for all the validation described in this report.

Modelling (Fast Time) Validation

The traffic sample is from 18/07/2011. London Heathrow is already capacity constrained and the inbound flow is governed by criteria used to determine separation on finals (radar separation, wake vortex etc.) This meant that even if the traffic sample was extrapolated to 2019 the actual arrival rate in the 4 hour period would not have changed. As a consequence the baseline traffic sample was not boosted. However, additional scenarios to assess the potential impact of an increased number of A380 aircraft operating into Heathrow were developed.

EBS values for Airbus types are calculated by an Airbus macro. This cannot be independently verified. EBS values for the Boeing aircraft were calculated based on the aircraft size, weight and landing speed, using expert judgment and reductions similar to those predicted by the Airbus macro for the Airbus fleet.

ATCO HMI workshop

The HMI mock up assumed ground datalink capability.

2.2.6 Choice of methods and techniques


23 of 86



Project 06.08.02 V2 exercises assessed:

The potential benefit of EBS equipage during the FTS

The controller HMI requirements and usability during the workshop

The Flight Crew workload and ability to respond to a change proposal from the ground during the cockpit simulation

The usability of a voice procedure during the Airbus test flight into Heathrow

Supported Metric / Indicator Platform / Tool Method or Technique

Capacity Predictability

AirTOpsoft FTS (modelling)

Human performance Workload

Existing (Emirates A380 cockpit simulator)

RTS

Human performance

Existing (BTV) Live trial

Human performance

ITWP RTS mock up + Workshop

Table 14: Methods and Techniques

2.2.7 Validation Exercises List and dependencies

The four exercises were independent of one another. Nevertheless the Airbus Flight Trial and the cockpit simulator session were related in that they both aimed to establish elements of the EBS cooperative procedure. For the live trial this involved communication by voice and established the feasibility at a given point in the approach. The cockpit simulation investigated the latest point at which a change could be introduced. This has allowed further development of the procedures necessary to support the transfer and use of EBS data by ATM.

The ATCO HMI workshop established requirements for the HMI that will be tested in later validations (RTS)

The modelling is an independent study that assesses potential benefit of differing equipage levels in LVC and VMC on arrivals at a capacity constrained airport with segregated runways.


24 of 86



3 Conduct of Validation Exercises

3.1 Exercises Preparation

The preparation of each validation exercise is detailed in the V2 Validation Plan and in chapter 6 of this document.

3.2 Exercises Execution

The modelling took place at EUROCONTROL, Bretigny. The time necessary to gather data and observe AROTs has been extensive and was completed between June 2011 and November 2012. 13 Scenarios based on data from Heathrow, each measuring 4 hours of traffic were completed in December 2012 and January 2013

Preparation for the Airbus voice trial and the Emirates cockpit simulator sessions began in Aug 2011. The dates of the exercises themselves were dictated by the availability of the aircraft and simulator.

Exercise ID Exercise Title

Actual Exercise execution start date

Actual Exercise

execution end date

Actual Exercise

start analysis date

Actual Exercise end

date

Exercise EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

Airbus live trial 11/08/2011 16/09/2011 16/09/2011 15/10/2011


Cockpit simulation

11/08/2011 20/04/2012 23/04/2012 04/05/2012


Modelling 11/09/2011 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 15/02/2013


ATCO HMI 22/09/2012 22/09/2012 22/09/2012 31/12/2012

Table 15: Exercises execution/analysis dates

3.3 Deviations from the planned activities

The deviation from the planned activities of each validation exercise is detailed in § 6 of this document.

The main deviations were:

Reduced measurements in the cockpit simulation to allow more time to be devoted to the procedure (higher priority) The flight simulator was not the appropriate environment to measure brake cooling time, brake temperature, and fuel burn, as identified in the V2 VALP.

Additional scenarios developed for the modelling (FTS) to assess the impact of an increase in the number of A380 aircraft

3.3.1 Deviations with respect to the Validation Strategy

None

3.3.2 Deviations with respect to the Validation Plan


25 of 86



None for all exercises


26 of 86



4 Exercises Results

4.1 Summary of Exercises Results

The table below provides a summary of the Validation Exercises results compared to the Validation Objectives identified within the Validation Plan. EXE-06.08.02-VP-050 was an exercise aimed at defining HMI requirements for ATCOs. There were no KPIs defined for this.

Exercise ID


ID


Title

Success Criterion

ID

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110

Aircraft lands with use of EBS, in VMC and uses standard exit for type to vacate runway

ID not available

Voice procedure tested. Predicted exit achieved. ROT measured

Success criteria partially achieved, voice procedure used. limited landings -, exit met, ROT measured

OK

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210

Aircraft lands without use of EBS, in VMC and uses standard exit for type to vacate runway

ID not available

ROT measured

Success criteria partially achieved, limited number of landings. ROT measured

EXE-06.08.02-VP-049

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110


ID not available

KPI: Runway Throughput: + AROT

KPI: Runway Throughput: unchanged AROT reduced (up to 12 mins/hour with 78% equipage in VMC. 8 mins/hour with 59% equipage in LVC

OK

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210


OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0320

Aircraft lands with use of EBS, in LMC and uses standard exit for type to vacate runway. ROT and exit details are made available to wider ATM community in advance

EXE-06.08.02-VP-

OBJ-06.08.02-

Aircraft lands with use of

ID not available

Requirem-ents identified

Success criteria

OK


27 of 86



Exercise ID


ID


Title

Success Criterion

ID

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

050

VALP-V002.0110

EBS, in VMC and uses standard exit for type to vacate runway

achieved

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210


Table 16: Summary of Validation Exercises Results

4.1.1 Results on concept clarification EXE-06.08.02-VP-050 and EXE-06.08.02-VP-048 have both influenced the development of the EBS concept. They have enabled agreement on the timings and processes for the procedure of the transfer EBS data between the aircraft and the ground. In addition, the requirements for the information that will be displayed to the ATCO and the potential means of negotiating a change have been developed. The P06.08.02 OSED and use cases have been amended to reflect this and the HMI requirements included in the P06.09.02 OSED. To summarise, the validation exercises have affected the concept in the following ways:

The voice procedure is workable but if the transfer of information is made with the Tower controller this is too late for effective planning and input into the system. A better procedure would be for the data transfer to take place earlier in the approach with the exit relayed to the Tower and Ground controllers.

In most cases the exchange of information will be system to system, once datalink is operable, with no input from the Flight Crew or controller.

There is potential for dialogue where circumstances dictate it is necessary (e.g. a blocked exit) Initially, the concept foresaw EBS as a tool that would allow the ground controller to change the exit close to or even after landing. The validation has shown that this is not feasible for the Flight Crew.

Any dialogue should be completed by 12 nms from touchdown. There is no operational requirement for the AROT to be displayed to controllers.

4.1.2 Results per KPA

The validation results are presented below for the fast time modelling per Key Performance Area. The KPAs were defined in the VALP in section 3.1.

Fast Time Simulations

KPAs KPIs Results


28 of 86



Predictability Consistency of runway exiting

N/A in fast time modelling. Analysis of ‘go arounds’ inconclusive

Capacity AROT The runway occupancy times are reduced in all scenarios. The higher the equipage level the greater the reduction in total AROT. With 78% equipage level 12 minutes of runway time is saved per hour

Arrival Runway Throughput per hour

Hourly runway throughput was unchanged despite the reduction in AROT

Table 17: Results per KPA for the modelling

Of the other exercises reported upon in this report, one was aimed at defining HMI requirements, so there were no relevant KPA’s. The live trial and flight simulator sessions recorded 5 landings at 2 different airfields. This was not considered to be sufficient for statistical analysis. The exercises were developed to test and confirm procedures and this aim was successfully achieved. Subjective analysis by controllers and Flight Crew indicated that the concept was viable and expected to bring benefit. The procedure with voice is workable though further examination will be made on the point in the approach that it should take place and also on whether it is scalable (i.e. the additional R/T loading with an increased number of EBS equipped flights) The mock up HMI was considered suitable for further development and testing.

4.1.3 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives

N/A

4.2 Analysis of Exercises Results

The table below summarises the main outcomes of each exercise.

Exercise ID


Validation Objective Title Exercise Results

VP048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0410

Establish and test an EBS voice based operating procedure

The procedure was developed, and tested live. Further live trials will confirm it’s validity.

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0310

To quantify the consistency of predicted and actual ROTs

Insufficient data available to draw conclusions. Airline data required.

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0210


Insufficient data available to draw conclusions. Airline data required.

VP049 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0110


Reduction in AROT. Greater proportion of flights spends less than 50 seconds on the runway. No change to runway throughput in segregated mode


29 of 86



Exercise ID


Validation Objective Title Exercise Results

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130

To quantify the impact that various levels of aircraft equipage (EBS) on AROT and runway throughput/capacity

Reduction in AROT with increased equipage level. Significant gain in freed runway time with 78% equipage level (12 mins saved per hour)

VP050 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0510

Define requirements for EBS data to be displayed on the HMI (Tower)

A set of requirements have been developed and a mock up prepared on ITWP ready for RTS

Table 18: Analysis of exercise results

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048 (EBS with voice procedure) demonstrated that any benefit to the ATCO from a voice procedure, whereby the Flight Crew relay their EBS calculated runway exit and possibly the associated AROT, will depend on establishing a means of getting the information to the right controller in a timely manner. The Flight Crew would prefer to complete the voice procedure early in the approach, probably around TOD but the controllers that will use the exit information are the Tower and Ground ATCOs. The challenge is to establish a point at which the workload is manageable for both the Flight Crew and the ATCO and a means of relaying the information effectively. Further live trials are taking place in Q1/2 of 2014. The modelling exercise (EXE-06.08.02-VP-049) showed that with an increased level of EBS equipage there would be a saving in terms of the runway occupancy time. This was true in both VMC and LVC. However, despite the free runway time, which in the case of 78% equipage could be as much as 12 mins saved per hour, there was no change to the hourly arrival throughput. The model replicated the arrival procedures and methods used at EGLL, where the runway throughput is already maximised. As a result the wake vortex and radar separation minima preclude any further reduction in spacing on final approach. This explains why no increase in runway throughput was found. This may not be the case in mixed mode3 where it is possible that departing aircraft could use the free runway time. This would increase the total runway throughput. Future studies will look at the combination of TBS and EBS where the AROT is used to assist in reduced spacing on final approach. The ATCO HMI workshop (EXE-06.08.02-VP-050) successfully developed a set of operational requirements using a mock up display on ITWP. Controllers confirmed that an indication of the airborne intended exit was useful; however, displaying the AROT was not deemed to be of value. The AROT should be provided so that the system incorporates it into the calculation for TBS.

4.2.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results

There were no significant unexpected behaviours. The assessment of the likely ‘go arounds’ was not completed successfully in EXE-06.08.02-VP-049 as specific parameters governing the exiting were not identical in every scenario making a precise comparison impossible.

The initial intention for the live trial EXE-06.08.02-VP-048 was to complete a number of landings of the Airbus A380. This would have allowed the project to gather predicted and actual ROT data. The difficulty of accommodating a trial aircraft into one of Europe’s busiest airports meant that only a single approach could be flown so there was no statistical data available.

3 A mixed mode study will be completed in Q2 2013


30 of 86



4.3 Confidence in Results of Validation Exercises

4.3.1 Quality of Validation Exercises Results

The validation exercises were completed as planned without major problems.

Modelling (fast time Simulation)

A realistic operational environment with an accurate representation of EGLL arrival methods and traffic flows was used. The model measured traffic during a 4 hour busy period and results were obtained for VMC and LVC samples. ATCO HMI workshop The mock up HMI developed on the ITWP platform enabled the controllers to assess the proposed HMI modifications. By using the ITWP, other HMI improvements (e.g Taxi in routeings) could be visualised allowing a clear distinction between EBS and non EBS equipped flights. The controllers were presented with a holistic view of the future HMI in a datalink environment. The objective opinions of the controllers were gained through debrief and questionnaires. The platform, simulated scenarios, traffic sample and procedures were operationally accurate. The three controllers were current in the Tower and Ground control positions and were afforded sufficient time to be conversant with the EBS concept and objectives of the workshop. Cockpit simulations and trial of voice procedure Flight Crew familiar with BTV performed both exercises under realistic conditions. Unfortunately only a limited number of scenarios could be performed but together with the subjective opinion during debrief this has allowed further development of the procedures and definition of elements of the EBS concept.

4.3.2 Significance of Validation Exercises Results Cockpit simulations and trial of voice procedure

The simulator runs in a realistic operational environment and debriefs with the Flight Crew clarified aspects of the proposed operational procedures. The operational significance of the results (in terms of the Flight Crew response times and ability to manage the change) are considered to be sufficient for further development of the procedure.

There was no statistical significance from this initial live trial of the voice procedure due to the limited scope. However, the operational comment and discussion has influenced the concept and design of the procedure.

Modelling (fast time Simulation)

The project deemed the fast time simulation to be of sufficient statistical representation due to the operational data utilised over an arrival period of 4 hours and the number of scenarios completed in VMC and LVC.

The high quality of comparative AROT and exit data within the various simulated scenarios and the realistic traffic and separation matrixes ensured operational significance.

ATCO HMI workshop

The results permit confirmation of the technical requirements for the design of the HMI. This will enable further development of the functions necessary to support the EBS procedure on prototypes


31 of 86



and industrial platforms. The requirements stemming from the workshop will be tested alongside the cockpit/ATCO procedures and if necessary, additions and changes to the HMI required to support the procedures, will be introduced for further evaluation in V3.


32 of 86



5 Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

The items listed below are a synthesis of the conclusions from the four exercises detailed in this report:

It is concluded that:

As the EBS equipage rate Increases, cumulative AROT will decrease for a given runway and airport environment.

At a capacity constrained airport with segregated runways (e.g. EGLL) EBS has potential to significantly reduce AROT (12 mins/hour with 78% equipage)

Despite the reduction in cumulative AROT, arrival throughput at a capacity constrained airport with segregated runway operations may remain unaffected due to other limiting criteria (e.g wake vortex, separation on finals)

An increase in the proportion of A380 arrivals may reduce arrival throughput. However when aircraft are BTV equipped, if the resulting fleet mix on final approach can be arranged where A380’s are paired, specific separation can be applied where the lead A380 is BTV equipped. This unique operational procedure could mitigate any potential loss in arrival throughput.

EBS equipage coupled with TBS and/or GBAS has the potential to increase arrival throughput in VMC and LVC. eg: In CAT III GBAS extended separations need not apply compared to CAT III ILS where there is a requirement to protect the Critical Safety Zone. Standard wake turbulence and / or Minimum Radar Separation will suffice. With TBS spacing could be adapted for pairs of aircraft where the lead aircraft is EBS equipped ensuring a free runway after a predicted AROT.

The EBS concept was received positively by ATCOs participating in an HMI workshop. Participants all considered there are potential benefits in its application.

The Runway Exit should be displayed to both the runway and ground controller. This information should be displayed on both the ASMGCS label and the flight strip.

The Arrival Runway occupancy time (AROT) is not required to be displayed to either the runway or ground controller.

An indication that EBS has disengaged should be displayed to both the runway and ground controller and displayed prominently on the ATCO HMI as soon as the aircraft has disengaged.

Both the Runway Exit and an indication that EBS has disengaged should be displayed continuously on the flight stip.

The use of an arrow to notify the runway exit / start of taxi in route and the exit identifier in the label were judged to be easy to locate. There remain some concerns regarding potential display clutter and association between indication and correct aircraft.

The voice trial phraseology was suitable for the transfer of the AROT and exit data.

Initial briefing and arming can be completed in around 60s

The Flight Crew would expect to arm the BTV generally before TOD

A recalculation of BTV will not be feasible within 12nms from touchdown (e.g. in event of a last minute runway change)


33 of 86



The procedure (voice and datalink) may differ from airport to airport, depending upon local requirements and procedures.

Changes at all stages are manageable up to 12nm final for the same runway – re-arming generally takes between 8 and 20s, even late on

Due to the early arming of the tool, and the speed with which the crew were able to change the exit, there is real viability in an open conversation between ATC and the crew with regard to the BTV exit

5.2 Recommendations

It is recommended that:

The EBS concept be modified to take account of the controller comments on the provision of AROT information.

The requirements developed as a result of the ATCO HMI workshop be integrated into the P06.08.02 OSED and communicated to P06.09.02.

The results of the ATCO HMI workshop be shared with P06.07.02 so that the EBS and D-TAXI (Taxi-in routing) HMI procedures can be integrated.

Further investigation should be made into the validity of the ATCO HMI through real time simulation, particularly in relation to the potential display clutter (V2).

Further investigation be made into quantifying the impact on runway throughput considering different or variable separation minima and associated technologies in a future based operating environment.

Further analysis be made into the potential reduction in ‘go arounds’

The results of the modelling (runway throughput and AROT) be communicated to B05 and 6.02

Further development should be made on the voice procedure to ensure timely communication to the concerned parties with respect to BTV equipage, planned ROT and planned exit utilisation.

The voice procedure should be trialed with a commercial operator over a period of some months to allow sufficient data (objective and subjective) to be gathered.

The conclusions on the procedure be incorporated into the OSED and the concept and operational procedure be amended to reflect the Flight Crew requirement

The conclusions from the voice trial and cockpit simulations be taken into the proposed airport trial for an ATC procedure (EGLL)

Further investigation into the relationship between the predicted and actual AROT be made with commercial operators.


34 of 86



6 Validation Exercises reports

6.1 Validation Exercise VP048 (Airbus live trial) Report

Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems aims to develop a concept which maximises runway throughput and capitalises on this predictable operational consistency. In order to achieve this, data calculated by the airborne system (intended exit and associated ROT) is communicated to the ground. Ideally this communication would be via datalink, with the airborne and ground systems transferring the data without pilot or controller actions. The controller would be presented with the relevant information.

However, until the datalink equipage (ground) messages and protocols are developed voice communication can be used to inform ATC of the intended exit and AROT4. A voice procedure has workload implications for both the Flight Crew and ATCO as data needs to be requested, recorded and possibly put into a system so that it can be retrieved by other interested parties.

This report summarises the output from the initial development of a voice procedure and the subsequent test of that procedure with the arrival of an Airbus A380 into London Heathrow. It should be noted that further live trials with a commercial carrier are taking place in Q1/2 of 2013. These will be reported upon in an update of this document.

6.1.1 Exercise Scope

BTV is an EBS, manufactured by Airbus, currently available as an option on A380 aircraft. The P06.08.02 project is addressing one element that BTV can provide, namely advanced notification of the intended runway exit and AROT. With a number of aircraft in service already using BTV it is possible to live trial a procedure.

This exercise considers the development of an agreed procedure and the possible workload implications for the Flight Crew and ATCO.

6.1.1.1 Objectives

This exercise validated the following Project Validation Objectives (taken from the P06.08.02 V2 VALP):

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0410 (Establish an EBS voice based operating procedure) OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210 (To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted runway exiting)

The purpose of the trial was to test a voice procedure, record the actual and predicted times and get comment from the Flight Crew and ATCO.

The main objectives were:

Determine what phraseology should be used

Determine whether the AROT and exit information was useful to ATC

Determine whether the procedure was acceptable to the Flight Crew and ATCO

4 Subsequent validation exercises showed that the ATCOs will do not require or use the AROT. The voice communication procedure will, most likely, be restricted to the advance communication of the exit


35 of 86



6.1.1.2 OI steps

This was a functional level exercise within Step 1 V2 of the P06.08.02 Concept validation. The exercise addresses one OI step:

Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by voice (AUO-0702)

6.1.1.3 Success criterion: The success criterion was identified as: A procedure is developed that is acceptable to the project ATCO and Flight Crew. Data on the predicted and actual AROT

6.1.1.4 Metrics and Indicators As the exercise was aimed at developing and testing a procedure and as there was only one landing, analysis of the predicted and actual data is statistically irrelevant. As a consequence there were no objective metrics. The analysis was made through the subjective opinion of the controller, Flight Crew and project experts through an exercise debrief.

6.1.1.5 Assumptions

Currently, aircraft land and may for various reasons (operator procedures, lack of pilot familiarity with the airport etc.) spend an indeterminate amount of time on the runway before they exit. This can have an impact on runway throughput and can, in extreme cases lead to subsequent landing aircraft having to go-around, thus losing a landing slot.

EBS can predict the exit and AROT. If ATC are informed of this information it will allow better planning on final approach and on the surface. This objective of P06.08.02 is to consider what benefits can be gained in terms of ‘freed runway capacity’, if aircraft exit at their chosen point, as quickly as possible. This does not necessarily mean the first achievable exit.

This exercise took these assumptions and investigated the potential for using a voice procedure to relay the EBS calculated exit and AROT.

6.1.2 Conduct of Validation Exercise

6.1.2.1 Exercise Preparation

The exercise required no system development as it was a test of a procedure using an existing, certified system onboard the aircraft.

Discussion was underway between NATS, EUROCONTROL and Emirates concerning the possibility of a future trial using voice communication when the project was informed that Airbus were sending an A380 aircraft to EGLL to conduct Airport Compatibility tests on behalf of BA.

This afforded the project the opportunity to develop a procedure for initial testing.

6.1.2.2 Exercise execution

The original intention was to arrange for the A380 to make a number of approaches in to EGLL which would allow for multiple tests of the procedure and the chance to record the predicted and actual ROT


36 of 86



for a series of landings. However the complications of integrating a test aircraft into a busy traffic pattern at an airport with all landing slots allocated meant that the test was limited to a single approach and landing. Under normal circumstances the declared landing runway (as stated on ATIS) was expected to be either 27R or 09L. However, due to the flexible approach that EGLL Air Traffic Controllers work, it was possible that the final runway selection may be subject to last minute change (even up to the point the aircraft leaves the hold) This local procedure is referred to as TEAM “Tactically Enhanced Arrival Measures”. TEAM is a procedure where ATC allow landing aircraft onto the departing runway to minimise inbound holding. Currently a maximum of 6 arrivals per hour (1 every 10 minutes) may be accommodated on the dedicated departure runway. For the purpose of this trial, all options needed to be planned for as the weather and runway could not be guaranteed in advance. The table below lists the runways together with the standard exit and the optional one that may be suggested by ATC. All the standard exits were acceptable to Heathrow and Airbus could plan for them before departure. Exits

RWY Standard Exit Optional Exit

27R A10E A11

27L N7 n/a

09R N3 n/a

09L A5 A4

Table 19Table of runways and available exits

The requirement for a degree of flexibility influenced the development of the procedure. In ideal circumstances the Flight Crew would prefer to communicate the EBS information soon after the calculation is made. This could be around Top Of Descent (TOD) whilst they were still in contact with an en route or Terminal controller. This would result in additional workload for the radar controller as he/she would need to record the information and relay it to Heathrow Tower. This would have involved a telephone call between two busy controllers and was not considered practical. It was therefore agreed that for this initial test the first confirmation of the BTV details to ATC should be made on initial contact with the Heathrow Tower controller. Normally this was expected to be around 6-8 nautical miles from Touchdown. By this stage the landing runway would be known and the controller that would be most interested in the advanced notification of the exit would be on the receiving end of the voice call. The Phraseology to be used between the pilot and controller was agreed between NATS and Airbus. It was agreed that on top of the standard phraseology for an approach to Heathrow, the crew were requested to add the AROT and exit data together with confirmation that BTV was armed.:

Flight Crew to ATCO “callsign, BTV Equipped, Exit ??, ROT of ?? seconds”.

ATCO to Flight Crew Acknowledgement

Figure 3: Proposed phraseology

e.g if 27R was in use the initial call would be " Heathrow tower, Airbus Industrie 123, BTV equipped, exit A10E, ROT 50 seconds" The suggested phraseology was provided to the Flight Crew and ATCO in advance.


37 of 86



6.1.2.2.1 Day of landing

On the day of the landing the weather conditions at EGLL were CAVOK, QNH 1011, winds 250 < 5 kts. Runway 27R was the landing runway however it was agreed that the A380 would be a “TEAM lander” and thus planned by Terminal Control for 27L. No runway or exit changes were initiated by the tower controller. On initial contact with the tower, the A380 reported: “A51DD final 27L, we are BTV equipped, planning N6, ROT 80 seconds.” This was acknowledged by the tower controller prior to issuing a landing clearance.

Figure 4: Voice communication message

The A380 touchdown was in the vicinity of the runway threshold, the deceleration profile was notably that of a BTV landing i.e. minimal deceleration after touchdown however extensive braking was evident prior to turning off at N6. Subsequent video analysis identified an ROT of approximately 62 seconds from main gear touchdown to wings and tail clear on high speed exit N6.

6.1.2.3 Deviation from the planned activities N/A

6.1.3 Exercise Results

6.1.3.1 Summary of Exercise Results

The findings summarised below are based on feedback from the Flight Crew, controller and a project observer who was present in Heathrow tower for the landing.

6.1.3.1.1 Results on concept clarification

Feedback from the Flight Crew indicated that they were able to respond to a runway change (i.e. TEAM) and recalculate the BTV exit point fairly rapidly up to the final approach fix inbound. However they recognised that this may not be the case for a commercial airline as it added workload during a busy phase of flight. The ATCO confirmed that the exit data was ‘nice to have’ but was not used in his surface movement planning.

6.1.3.1.2 Results per KPA


38 of 86



The intention was to measure data (predicted and actual AROT) and gather expert opinion on the EBS procedure over a series of landings. Due to operational reasons (accommodating a trial at one of Europe’s busiest airports) only one landing was possible. The analysis of the AROT is therefore statistically meaningless. The table below summarises the expected and actual outcomes.

Table 20: Intended KPA and KPI and outcome

6.1.3.1.3 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives

N/A

6.1.3.2 Analysis of Exercise Results

Feedback and analysis from Airbus following EGLL landing indicated that the aircraft landing weight was 353t (MLW=390t). The exit selection was made by the Flight Crew for the following reasons:

o N6 was preferred for convenience with parking stand o DRY line: 1694m o WET line: 2004m o First possible DRY exit: N5W o First possible WET exit: N65

The times for the AROT were recorded as:

o BTV ROT prediction: 80s o Tower observed ROT (measured from main gear touchdown to tail clear): 62s o Airbus analysis measured ROT: 52s

There is insufficient data to conclude on KPIs.

The EBS voice procedure was considered acceptable by the Flight Crew and ATCO though both questioned the time at which the exchange of information took place. Ideally the transfer of data by voice should happen at a point in the approach when both the Flight Crew and controllers are not busy. At 6 nms from touchdown the Flight Crew have more urgent priorities. The Tower ATCO also believed this was too late for effective surface planning.

6.1.3.2.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results

5 : Airbus SOPs recommend selection of an exit after the WET line even in DRY conditions for brake temperature reasons

Operational Scenario

Indicators KPA (benefit)

Expected outcome

Actual outcome

Heathrow Rwy 27L Exit A10E or Rwy 09L Exit N6, VMC, BTV equipped aircraft.

Trial initial voice procedure

Capture ROT

Capture estimated ROT

Debrief from crew

Debrief from ATCO

CAP

PRE

ROT actual & estimate captured, debriefs performed

Voice procedure acceptable

Predicted AROT : 80 secs

Observed AROT: 62 secs

Airbus measured AROT: 52 secs.


39 of 86



There was some discrepancy between the predicted and recorded AROTs. Although not relevant in terms of providing performance data due to the single arrival, the project investigated the potential causes and concluded that:

o Judging the precise moment that the aircraft crossed the threshold and point at which the tail was clear of the runway by sight is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

o The BTV prediction has built-in margins on piloted phases (flare and derotation): this could account for +8s

o The BTV prediction assumes the use of Max Reverse (conservative for ROT): this could account for +9s

o BTV assumes disconnection at 10kt (for this landing the pilot disconnected at 30kt): this could account for +12s

o Subsequent analysis by Airbus indicated that the BTV ROT prediction model is based on conservative assumptions for ROT. As such, the concept of a trade off is identified between the <guarantee to provide an envelope ROT figure> and the <defined accuracy>

6.1.3.3 Confidence in Results of Validation Exercise

6.1.3.3.1 Quality of Validation Exercise Results

With a single approach and landing the data collected should be seen as no more than an indication that the actual AROT was lower than the predicted and that the exit was achieved.

Nevertheless the feedback from the Flight Crew, ATCO and project observer will mean changes to the proposed procedures. The quality of the subjective data was significant in progressing the concept of the EBS cooperative procedure.

6.1.3.3.2 Significance of Validation Exercise Results

There was no statistical significance from this initial trial due to the limited scope. However, the operational comment and discussion will now influence the future concept. For example one of the single most important aspects identified during this event was the importance of not being able to change BTV exits after the vicinity of the FAF. Furthermore, airlines may choose to implement more restrictive company procedures and thus require that any BTV selection be finalized prior to the approach phase. This clearly negates the possibility of a tower controller adapting local traffic by requesting subsequent exit changes to BTV equipped aircraft. It was likewise identified that the relatively short distances of high speed exits has an impact on runway exit speed. In the case of 27L (N6) there was an immediate 90 ° left turn on to A. The BTV tool is currently operated with a final speed of 10kts. Currently, once a pilot is visual with the selected exit he can choose to manually disconnect and continue on for the high speed exits at a speed higher than 10kts. Further development with the BTV tool will help identify high speed exits and thus higher end target speeds.

6.1.4 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1.4.1 Conclusions

In general the voice trial was considered as a valuable learning process for the Flight Crew and ATCO. Participants all considered that there could be potential benefit to ATCOs and the ground systems with the advanced notification of the AROT and runway exit. In summary the following conclusions have been made:


40 of 86



The phraseology was suitable for the transfer of the AROT and exit data. The voice communication procedure should be completed before the FAF6. A recalculation of BTV will not be feasible within 10nms from touchdown7 (e.g. in event of a

last minute runway change) The procedure will differ from airport to airport, depending upon local procedures.

6.1.4.2 Recommendations

Further development is required with the voice procedure to ensure timely communication to the concerned parties with respect to BTV equipage, planned ROT and planned exit utilisation.

The voice procedure should be trialed with a commercial operator over a period of some months to allow sufficient data (objective and subjective) to be gathered.

Further investigation should be made into the Flight Crew workload at various points in the approach to determine the appropriate time for the transfer via voice.

Further investigation should be made into the ATCO workload at various points in the approach to determine the optimum time for the transfer via voice.

Further investigation be made into a comparison of the predicted and actual AROT.

6 Although this was a finding from this particular exercise further investigation has shown that in order to be of use to ATC in planning surface movement the exit should be notified earlier than the FAF 7 Subsequent cockpit simulations determined 12 nms from touchdown as the limit for recalculation.


41 of 86



6.2 Validation Exercise VP048 (Emirates cockpit flight simulator) Report

An EBS system will calculate the airborne intended exit and associated AROT in advance. When communicated to the ground this data is available for use by the ATCO (e.g. in planning surface movements or determining separation on final approach) Within the cockpit there is workload associated with selecting the runway exit and arming the EBS and if the data is then transferred by voice there will be additional workload. Similarly if any change is made to the landing runway or exit a recalculation will be required and if voice communication is used the revised information needs to be communicated again.

With datalink available the initial transfer of data should be system to system so the Flight Crew workload would not be increased. However, a runway or exit change would necessitate a re-calculation and depending upon where in the approach this happens it may be that, due to the additional workload, the Flight Crew would choose not to engage EBS and complete an Autobrake landing.

This report summarises the output from a series of scenarios flown in an Emirates Airbus A380 cockpit simulator equipped with BTV. Approaches were flown into London Heathrow and Paris Charles de Gaulle and changes introduced that forced the Flight Crew to recalculate BTV. The sessions assumed that datalink was in place thus alleviating the need for each recalculation to be communicated to ATC, however the context was equally applicable in a voice or datalink environment.


BTV is an EBS, manufactured by Airbus, currently available as an option on A380 aircraft. The P06.08.02 project is addressing one element that BTV can provide, namely advance notification of the intended runway exit and AROT. A procedure for transferring the data with voice and datalink is under development but there may be occasions when the initial runway exit selection has to change (e.g runway change, exit blocked etc) In this case a recalculation must be completed implying additional workload.

This exercise considered the impact on the Flight Crew workload of a change, initiated by the ground (ATCO or system) Each change required a recalculation of BTV and was introduced at varying points on the approach.

6.2.1.1 Objectives

This exercise validated the following Project Validation Objectives (taken from the P06.08.02 V2 VALP):

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110 (To quantify the benefits that EBS can bring in all weather conditions) OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210 (To quantify the consistency of actual and predicted runway exiting)

The purpose of the trial was to test a change procedure, observe the flight crew response, record the actual and predicted times and get comment from the Flight Crew.

The main objectives were:

To define realistic scenarios to investigate the impact on the Flight Crew of an ATM request for a runway or runway exit change at various stages of the approach after TOD.

To simulate each scenario involving a new BTV calculation. To observe the reaction and response of the Flight Crew to the introduction of the change.


42 of 86



To discuss the implications of ATM introduced change with the Flight Crew

6.2.1.2 OI steps

This was a functional level exercise within Step 1 V2 of the P06.08.02 Concept validation. The exercise addresses the procedure, relevant for two OI steps


Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by Datalink (AUO-0703)

6.2.1.3 Success criterion:

The success criterion was identified as: An assessment by the flight crew of the latest acceptable time for a change to the runway exit to

be successfully incorporated into the BTV system An assessment of the flight crew procedure for runway exit selection with the BTV system An assessment of latest acceptable time for a change to the runway in use to be successfully

incorporated into the BTV system

6.2.1.4 Metrics and Indicators As the exercise was aimed at developing and testing a procedure there were no relevant KPIs and metrics. The analysis was made through the subjective opinion of the Flight Crew and observations from project experts.

6.2.1.5 Assumptions


The Flight Crew would prefer to complete the transfer of EBS data as soon as possible after calculation and at a time where the flight deck workload allows it. ATC would like the option to propose a change to the runway or runway exit after the initial calculation and transfer of the information if operational circumstances suggest this would benefit ATM (e.g EGLL TEAM procedure – see exercise on live trial into EGLL)

This exercise took these assumptions and investigated the impact on Flight Crew workload via an assessment of latest acceptable time for a change to the runway exit to be successfully incorporated into the BTV system.



The Exercise was conducted on a full A380 simulator with qualified flight crew. There were no additional technical modifications required.


43 of 86




The exercise took place on the 19th and 20th of April 2012. The first day was used to clarify a number of issues including the airports available in the simulator database, Emirates SOPs and recommendations for the use of BTV and options for recording and filming in the simulator. A list of 13 scenarios had been drawn up and with a better understanding of the SOPs for BTV, the project members were able to reduce and prioritise the exercises for the following day.

Emirates confirmed that the Company recommendation for BTV is to use an exit after the wet line. A runway is deemed ‘contaminated’ by the Flight Crew based on the information on the met and runway state, available at the time. A decision that the runway is contaminated results in BTV being disengaged and Autobrake 4 selected. Two airports (EGLL and LFPG) were selected. Four approaches were made to EGLL and three into LFPG. The first approach into each airport was a standard arrival using BTV. This served as a reference and enabled a series of snapshots (points in the approach that could be returned to at a later stage) to be made. One additional landing using Autobrake was made at each of the airports so that a time could be recorded for the BTV and Autobrake landing. After the standard arrival each scenario introduced a change that forced the Flight Crew to recalculate and re-arm BTV. Observers measured the time that the Flight Crew took to disengage BTV, discuss the options and then re calculate BTV. One project member acted as ATC providing instructions for descent and radar vectors. However the communication of the changes (e.g. exit blocked) was introduced by providing the Flight Crew with a printed card with the message on, replicating, to a degree, the arrival of a datalink message. The same aim could have been accomplished via voice communication. A summary of the scenarios is provided in the table below. Ex. No. Airport Scenario Measurements) 2.1A EGLL Standard approach, BTV

landing Predicted, Actual AROT, time to brief and recaculate

2.1B EGLL Standard approach, Autobrake landing

Actual AROT

2.2A EGLL Exit unavailable message soon after TOD

Flight Crew response, time to brief and recalculate

2.2B EGLL Exit unavailable message passing 4000ft in descent


3.1 LFPG Standard approach, BTV landing

Predicted, Actual AROT, time to brief and recaculate

3.2 LFPG CB activity, weather warning issued at 6 nms. Flight Crew elect to disengage BTV


3.3 LFPG Runway change followed by exit blocked


Table 21: Summary of scenarios

The detailed description of each scenario (weather, the point at which exercise started, subject of the change and the observations) is provided in the tables below:

EXERCISE NUMBER 2.1A

Airport EGLL

Runway 27R

Available exits A10E, A10W, AB11, AB12, AB13

Met Conditions CAVOK, 16C surface wind 270/15. Visibility 10 kms+, QNH 1013

Summary of exercise VMC approach into London Heathrow using BTV. 300 tonnes start weight, no change introduced.

Exercise start point and condition EBBR FIR point SOGRI FL 280.

Exercise end point Observers decision after runway exit

Approximate exercise time 50 minutes

Observation during simulation run Landing briefing included BTV calculation and took 7


44 of 86



minutes. BTV element was less than 2 minutes as the crew were both familiar with EGLL. Exit A10E selected (first available exit after the ‘wet’ line) and predicted ROT was 70 seconds. Regular snapshots were taken (e.g on entry into UK airspace, FL150, approaching Lambourne hold, 600ft etc.) A series of ATC instruction to descend, take the LAM 3A STAR and follow radar vectors to the ILS were made. Landing clearance was given on passing 1200. ROT was measured as 75 seconds (observer measurement only) Aircraft exited at A10E.

Message to Flight Crew N/A

EXERCISE NUMBER 2.1B

Airport EGLL

Runway 27R


Met Conditions CAVOK, 16C surface wind 270/15. Visibility 10 kms+, QNH 1013+

Summary of exercise VMC approach into London Heathrow using AUTOBRAKE. No changes introduced.

Exercise start point and condition 6000ft departing LAM


Estimated exercise time 15 minutes

Observations The Flight Crew were asked to use Autobrake. Observed ROT 87 seconds. Aircraft exited at A10E.


EXERCISE NUMBER 2.2A

Airport EGLL

Runway 27R



Summary of exercise VMC approach into London Heathrow using BTV with an exit change introduced soon after TOD. This necessitated a recalculation of BTV.

Exercise start point and condition Entering UK airspace approx 20nms before LOGAN, FL 250, BTV armed.

Exercise end point Observers decision after BTV re-calculation


Observations BTV was armed as in the first exercise. Descent instructions were given to FL 170 and the crew were alerted to an incoming ‘datalink message” (card with printed message) informing them that A10E was blocked. The Flight Crew disengaged BTV then recalculated for a new exit. Discussion was brief and A10W selected after a process that took 1 minute.

Message to Flight Crew Message from EGLL tower “Exit A10E unavailable”


45 of 86



EXERCISE NUMBER 2.2B

Airport EGLL

Runway 27R



Summary of exercise VMC approach into London Heathrow using BTV with an exit change introduced as the aircraft passed 4000ft approaching the ILS.

Exercise start point and condition 6000ft departing LAM, BTV armed

Exercise end point Observers decision after BTV re-calculation


Observations BTV was armed as in the first exercise. Descent instructions were given to 4000ft and the crew were alerted to an incoming ‘datalink message” (card with printed message) informing them that A10E was blocked. The Flight Crew disengaged BTV then recalculated for a new exit. Discussion was brief and A10W selected after a process that took 1 minute.

Message to Flight Crew Message from EGLL tower “Exit 10E unavailable”

Paris (LFPG) Approaches

EXERCISE NUMBER 3.1

Airport LFPG

Runway 27R

Available exits Z2, Z1

Met Conditions SCT 1500, BKN 4000, SCT CB 3500, temp 27C SW 270/18 gusting 25, QNH 1010, CB activity in vicinity of airport, intermittent showers.

Summary of exercise BTV landing at LFPG with met conditions that could result in a contaminated runway.

Exercise start point and condition Approaching VEDUS, FL 150, CB activity evident on weather radar. Flight Crew landing briefing completed, VEDUS 5J STAR and BTV calculated. Predicted ROT 78 seconds, exit Z2



Observations Standard approach, descent given and STAR followed to intercept ILS, with an observed ROT of 82 seconds.


EXERCISE NUMBER 3.2

Airport LFPG

Runway 27R



Summary of exercise During decent, ATC advises that there are showers over the airfield. The warning is updated on final approach (6 nms from touchdown) braking action


46 of 86



reported "good" by a vehicle. If runway is deemed contaminated, BTV should be disarmed and a normal auto brakes landing carried out.

Exercise start point and condition 7000ft in descent on VEDUS 5J STAR and BTV calculated.



Observations After the update at 6 nms the Flight Crew decided to consider the runway as contaminated and elected to disengage BTV. A manual re calculation of performance for a contaminated runway was made by the F/O (7000 metres) and Autobrake 4 selected. Observed ROT was 118 seconds

Message to Flight Crew Voice communication that recent showers had occurred in vicinity of the airport.

EXERCISE NUMBER 3.3

Airport LFPG

Runway 27R



Summary of exercise During decent, ATC offer 27L as an alternative runway, knowing that this will reduce the taxi time to the stand Descent given to 4000ft and as aircraft approaches ILS they receive a ‘datalink message’ alerting them to Exit V2 unavailable. The Flight Crew decided, after a very brief discussion to exit at the runway end. The process took 8 seconds.

Exercise start point and condition 7000ft in descent on VEDUS 5J STAR and BTV calculated.



Observations On receipt of the voluntary runway change the Flight Crew briefly discussed and agreed to change to 27L. BTV was disengaged and then recalculated for 27L in under a minute. Exit V2 was selected. After the exit was closed BTV was recalculated to runway end a process that took 8 seconds

Message to Flight Crew Message from LFPG tower: Exit V2 unavailable

Table 22: Detailed description of scenarios

After the simulator session a discussion was carried out with the Flight Crew to get their views on the timings and acceptability of an ATM request for an exit or runway change. In addition the process and information flow that could lead to a decision that the runway has become contaminated8 (The primary difficulty being that BTV is not certified for a contaminated runway, but the Flight Crew do not

8 Contaminated runway’ means a runway of which more than 25% of the runway surface area within the required length and width being used is covered by the following: (a) surface water more than 3 mm (0.125 in) deep, or by slush, or loose snow, equivalent to more than 3 mm (0.125 in) of water; (b) snow which has been compressed into a solid mass which resists further compression and will hold together or break into lumps if picked up (compacted snow); or (c) ice, including wet ice.


47 of 86



have a way of knowing whether the runway is contaminated or not) was debated at length. The significance of this is that when the Flight Crew determine that the runway has become contaminated, BTV is disengaged and the ground can no longer rely on the ROT and runway exit information.

6.2.2.3 Deviation from the planned activities

The plan as detailed in the V2 VALP was to assess the latest point at which BTV could be successfully recalculated and then measure the predicted and actual AROT in VMC and LVC so that a statistical comparison could be made. Limited time meant that the objectives had to be prioritised and the scope was therefore restricted to the most significant element, that of developing a procedure and determining how late a change could be introduced. No LVC scenario was run and some exercises were terminated before the landing meaning that the number of measurements of the predicted and actual AROT are limited9. This has no impact on the concept or subsequent validations.



Ex ID Validation

Obj. ID Validation Obj. title

Scenario Success criterion

AROT(secs) and exit

Observed Recalcuti-on time (secs)

Validation Objective status

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210


Standard approach, BTV landing

Predicted exit achieved. ROT

Predicted: 70 Observed: 75 Exit met

120 OK

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110


Standard approach, Autobrake landing

ROT Observed 87 N/A OK

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110


Exit unavailable message soon after TOD

Change managed

N/A 60 OK

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110


Exit unavailable message passing 4000ft in descent

Change managed

N/A 60 OK

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0210


Standard approach, BTV landing

Predicted exit achieved. ROT

Predicted: 78 Observed: 82 Exit met

N /A OK

EXE- OBJ- Aircraft lands CB activity, Change Observed: N/A OK

9 The observed AROT should be viewed as no more than an indication as it was based on the observer estimate of crossing the threshold to tail clear of the runway.


48 of 86



06.08.02-VP-048

06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110

with use of EBS, in VMC and uses standard exit for type to vacate runway

weather warning issued at 6 nms.

managed Decision on EBS diisengage

118

EXE-06.08.02-VP-048

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0110


Runway change followed by exit blocked

Change managed

N/A >60 8

OK

Table 23: Summary of validation results


The simulator sessions showed that changes could be introduced in the descent phase and in most circumstances could be managed by the Flight Crew, provided they were familiar with the airport layout. However this is dependant upon the workload of the Flight Crew which differs from airport to airport. At busy airfields like EGLL a change could be accommodated only during the quieter stages of approach when the aircraft was stable. This might limit the possibility of introducing a change to positioning for the hold or on release from the hold.

The Flight Crew would consider a change request a ‘low priority’ so would only be guaranteed to respond if it was essential, for example if an exit was unexpectedly blocked. In order to limit workload the Flight Crew would prefer to complete the BTV calculation before TOD in conjunction with the landing briefing. However in circumstances where the change was necessary the Flight Crew considered that the latest at which a change would be considered was 12nms from touchdown.

Early planning for the taxi route and stand is valuable for the A380 operation with so many passengers to disembark. The advanced knowledge of the route and stand can be factored into the AO planning of the turnaround and brake cooling times.

The meeting and simulator session were of great value to the 6.8.2 project as it has allowed some of the conceptual ideas to be confirmed and proved others to be unworkable. The EBS concept and use cases can be better defined in the intermediate OSED and considerable time and effort will be saved in developing the scenarios for the Real Time simulation and live trials.


An analysis of the exercise results and discussions during debrief with the Flight Crew show that:

The Flight Crew complete the BTV calculation and arm the system as part of the landing briefing, normally before TOD. The initial briefing and arming in the simulator occurred in a range of 120-60 seconds.

Re-arming as a consequence of a ground enforced change generally took between 8 and

20s, even late on in the approach. The time for recalculation reduced compared with the initial briefing as the Flight Crew were aware of the local restrictions (e.g. taxi ways not available for the A380) due to the earlier discussion during the landing briefing. In general, changes at all stages of the approach were manageable.

During de-brief, the Flight Crew said they would be prepared to re-arm BTV for the same

runway anywhere up to 12nm final. For a new runway it would be limited to normal runway change procedures.


49 of 86



Due to the early arming of the tool, and the speed with which the crew were able to change

the exit, there is real viability in an open conversation between ATC and the crew with regard to the BTV exit.

The predicted and actual ROT times were within 5 seconds of each other though this must be

tempered by the difficulty in defining the moment that the threshold was crossed and the tail became clear of the runway. The AROT without BTV exceeded the AROT with BTV for the two measured landings (12 seconds longer at EGLL and 36 seconds longer at Paris CDG) However, the sample is too small for meaningful statistical analysis and was based on observer judgement rather than precise measurement.

6.2.3.2.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results

N/A



The exercise used operational Emirates pilots using BTV under Emirates operating procedures. This ensured that the Flight Crew were interacting with the BTV system in the way that would be expected in everyday operation. The runway for each airport was as defined in the simulator database and also reflected existing operations.

The changes to the exit and runway and the scenario with heavy rain were realistic.

The lack of a datalink messaging capability meant that printed cards were needed to communicate the change to the Flight Crew. Although this was a ‘work around’ designed to get the message to the Flight Crew at the appropriate time, the end purpose was successfully reached.


The simulator session lasted 4 hours allowing 7 approaches to be flown. Each change was only tested once so statistically the significance is low.

However, the main aim was to assess the latest point at which the Flight Crew could accept a change proposal from the ground and this was achieved. The simulator runs in a realistic operational environment and debriefs with the Flight Crew clarified aspects of the proposed operational procedures. The operational significance of the results (in terms of the Flight Crew response times and ability to manage the change) are considered to be sufficient for further development of the procedure.


6.2.4.1 Conclusions

The exercise clarified the potential EBS cooperative procedure. The following conclusions were drawn:

The Flight Crew would expect to arm the BTV generally before TOD

Initial briefing and arming occurred in around 60s

Changes at all stages were manageable up to 12nm final for the same runway – re-arming generally took between 8 and 20s, even late on


50 of 86



For a new runway it would be limited to normal runway change procedures

Due to the early arming of the tool, and the speed with which the crew were able to change the exit, there is real viability in an open conversation between ATC and the crew with regard to the BTV exit



Further flight deck studies with other airlines be considered

The conclusions on the procedure be incorporated into the OSED and the concept and operational procedure be amended to reflect the Flight Crew requirement

The conclusions be taken into the proposed airport trial for an ATC procedure (EGLL)


51 of 86



6.3 Validation Exercise VP049 (AirTOp Soft, Fast Time Simulation – EGLL modelling) Report

Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems aims to develop a concept which maximises runway throughput and capitalises on this predictable operational consistency. One element within this project is to investigate the impact of EBS equipped aircraft on runway throughput and Runway Occupancy Time (AROT) within realistic airport environments including LVC’s.

This activity follows on from an initial study made in the framework of Episode 3, and specifically written up in D5.3.3-02 Runway Operations Fast Time Simulation Report.

The primary results of the Episode 3 study identified how runway layout and fleet mix had a substantial impact on quantifying any resulting capacity gains. Furthermore, capacity gains were identified in a mixed mode environment in that an increase in hourly departure rate was possible due to reduced ROT on landing aircraft.

The EP3 model based simulation was a first evaluation of the Airbus BTV system runway occupancy time performance, based on one airport (Charles de Gaulle, Paris). The P6.8.2 model based simulations will evaluate EBS performance at several airports, covering a range of runway layouts and traffic mixes. Air Traffic Management (controller) and Airspace User (flight crew) expertise has enhanced the preparation, execution and analysis of the P6.8.2 model based simulations as has the availability of recorded flight data for aircraft performance input. The AirTop model incorporates enhanced runway occupancy features as compared to the TAAM airport simulator which was used in EP3. Non Airbus aircraft are included in the evaluation.

This report summarises the output from a Fast Time simulation performed by DSR/CMN/APT in Bretigny between May 2012 and June 2013 during which the impact of EBS equipped aircraft was investigated at an airport with a capacity constrained segregated runway (based on EGLL data) Subsequent reports will assess the impact at other airport environments (e.g mixed mode)


The Airport simulator AirTOpSoft is the sole simulator utilised with the scope of this validation activity. AirTOpSoft is marketed as a new generation of ATC fast time simulator(s); it includes modules for En-route traffic modeling, advanced TMA modeling, airport ground movements as well as Flow management rule-based modeling.

This validation activity combines three separate fast time simulation models. The following table attributes differences between the three simulations10

Rnway configuration Weather / visibility conditions

Prevailing Density

Airport

mixed mode VMC Medium

EBBR

segregated mode VMC, LVC High

EGLL

segregated mode VMC Medium

ESSA

Table 24: Differing Runway configuration between simulations.

10 This VALP reports on the high density, segregated mode study based on EGLL. The EBBR and ESSA studies will be reported on later in the project V2 lifecycle.


52 of 86



This exercise validated the following Project Validation Objective (taken from the P06.08.02 V2 VALP):


Identifier

Objective KPA

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0110

To quantify the benefits that reduced ROT’s can deliver in VMC conditions

CAP

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0120

To quantify the benefits that reduced ROT’s can deliver in LVC conditions

CAP

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130

To quantify the impact of various levels of aircraft equipage (optimised braking systems) on ROT and runway throughput / capacity

CAP,

PRE

Table 25: Exercise Validation Objectives

6.3.1.1 OI steps

This was a functional level exercise within Step 1 V2 of the P06.08.02 Concept validation. The exercise addresses two OI steps as defined by the SJU:

Optimised braking to vacate11 at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by voice (AUO-0702)


6.3.1.2 Success criterion:

The success criterion was identified as; successful when sufficient information exists to demonstrate benefit in terms of potential runway occupancy, runway throughput and a potential reduction in the incidence of ‘go arounds’.

6.3.1.3 Metrics and Indicators

The primary analysis indicators are hourly runway throughput (capacity) in addition to total runway ROT values. In addition, the instances of potential “go arounds” can be evaluated by viewing simulation events.

The following table illustrates the various runway configurations and weather conditions as well as appropriate indicators and KPAs.

11 The project title changed to include EBS instead of BTV after its inception.


53 of 86



Table 26: Simulation Runway Configurations

6.3.1.4 Assumptions

The following caveats and assumptions are attributed in general to the three independent simulation studies identified within this validation activity.


It is known that low visibility (LVC) reduces the aircrews’ ability to exit the runway. This is reflected in the larger standard final approach separations provided by ATC in these circumstances (e.g minimum 6 miles at Heathrow regardless of standard vortex separation).

This objective of P06.08.02 is to consider what benefits can be gained in terms of ‘freed runway capacity’, if aircraft exit at their chosen point, as quickly as possible. This does not necessarily mean the first achievable exit.

All three studies, although of an operational nature i.e. representative traffic and airport layouts are not to be considered full operational studies as not all local procedures have been incorporated in the simulation definition.

The traffic sample was representative of a busy day at EGLL. The airport already operates to capacity with demand and capacity finely balanced. It was not considered necessary to develop a future traffic sample (e.g based on projected traffic growth) as the arrival rate in the simulation would not have changed. Had a boosted traffic sample been used the only impact would have been that more traffic would be in the arrival hold. In addition to a standard daily traffic samples, obtaining actual AROT data and runway exit utilisation data by aircraft type was a fundamental requirement to investigate any impact of EBS equipped aircraft. Runway AROT data has been obtained for EBS aircraft via a number of methods depending on aircraft types. For all Airbus aircraft, with the exception of current day BTV equipped A380s, an excel macro provided by Airbus Industries identifies TTV (Target Time to vacate) premised on landing weight. For the A380, actual performance data has been obtained from Emirates for 2 months in 2012. For Boeing aircraft, project members detailed a hypothesis with two model types (single aisle and a wide body) A judgment was made on the potential AROT based on size, weight and landing speed. In addition, a corrective value on observed ROT was applied to ensure that the measurement consistent with Airbus BTV equipped aircraft.

Operational Scenario

Indicators KPA (benefit)

Airports Expected outcome

mixed mode Reduced total ROT, Capacity / runway throughput

CAP 311 EBBR, Reduced runway

occupancy, throughput/capacity increase

segregated mode Reduced total ROT, Capacity / runway throughput

CAP 311 ESSA Reduced runway

occupancy

Segregated Mode, capacity constrained, Low Visibility operations including A380 operations

Reduced ROT CAP 311 CAP 321

EGLL Reduced runway occupancy, throughput/capacity increase, fewer go arounds, reduced separation on final


54 of 86



As with TTV, the standard definition of AROT is measured from crossing threshold to tail clear on runway exit.

The following table is an example of ROT data as obtained for exit EGLL (27R) A10E;

EXIT A10E Number

Total by Type % by type

VMC ONLY LVC

A319 599 2887 20,7 00:00:59 00:01:07

A320 1083 3561 30,4 00:00:57 00:01:10

A321 817 1620 50,4 00:00:56 00:01:06

A332 231 294 78,6 00:01:05 00:01:21

A333 156 181 86,2 00:01:05 00:01:11

A343 174 192 90,6 00:01:10 00:01:13

A346 423 433 97,7 00:01:04 00:01:15

A388 88 89 98,9 00:01:17 00:01:32

Table 27: Example AROT data EGLL 27R

The following table is an example of AROT data as provided by Airbus Industries. The calculations for each aircraft type were performed with two different landing weights allowing for a spread of ROT times. The AirTOP simulator was able to apply a random feature to ensure the AROT of a BTV aircraft was inside this defined spread.

EXIT A10E

Exit distance (m)

Exit Speed (kts)

Lweight (t) IAS kts TTV

Lweight (t) IAS kts TTV

A319 2130 20 45 110 00:00:46 60 127 00:00:42

A320 2130 20 47 110 00:00:45 62 126 00:00:39

A321 2130 20 60 125 00:00:41 72 137 00:00:36

A332 2130 12 140 119 00:00:39 175 132 00:00:36

A333 2130 12 142 120 00:00:42 177 132 00:00:35

A343 2130 12 155 124 00:00:41 180 132 00:00:35

A346 2130 12 200 132 00:00:39 250 147 00:00:32

Table 28: Example AI – TTV data EGLL 27R

For the EGLL simulation, a separate LVC traffic sample was required. The LVC traffic sample differed from the daily traffic sample in that the assumption of an existing CFMU imposed flow rate of 27 per hour was deemed to be in effect and thus cancelling the majority of local and regional traffic to and from EGLL. This modified baseline traffic sample was agreed with EGLL ops staff and considered representative of a resulting traffic mix and hourly flow rate.

In addition to the preparation of a different traffic sample, AROT data is also observed to be different in LVC periods. For EBS aircraft, the VMC BTV was applied universally as the BTV system incorporates a visual aid to runway positioning along with defined braking regardless of visibility conditions. It is understood that these BTV values are potentially slightly optimistic in that the time taken to exit the runway i.e. the actual turn and taxy after reaching 10 kts as well as the actual placement of the runway CAT 1 or CAT III hold lines may differ from any actual VMC observed and / or recorded timings.


55 of 86





The basis for the traffic samples is data obtained from the CFMU (18 July 2011). Recorded traffic samples of all IFR flights for 24 hours, have been subsequently subdivided to represent a given runway’s operation. With the inclusion of observed or recorded ROT, the reference or baseline scenario has been compared against future EBS equipage levels. As simulation preparation proceeded, the entire project team met and discussed on more than one occasion the impact of EBS on Boeing aircraft, the impact of BTV with standard auto brake landings and moreover the definitions of AROT and TTV. For Boeing aircraft, project members developed a a method of assigning potential AROTs based on two model types (single aisle and a wide body) and using weight and landing speed.

In preparing the EGLL simulation it became apparent that observed AROT values differed from data recorded AROT values and especially TTV in that threshold over flight at 50’ is considered the start event of the AROT duration not main gear touchdown. As such, the project incorporated a standard 7 second value to be included or deducted as required when changing between the various AROT data sources. This 7 second parameter was used for all aircraft types where required regardless of landing weight and IAS/TAS.

The preparatory activities were:

Activity 1.01 Prepare Validation Exercise Plan, including objectives, measurements, timetable.

Activity 1.02 Identify candidate airfields for suitable mix of varied airport operations and layouts

Activity 1.03 Define simulation platform (tool) for candidate airfields

Activity 1.04 Define local procedures including wake turbulence

Activity 1.05 Obtain traffic sample and airspace requirements

Activity 1.06 ROT data (observed and EBS values)

Activity 1.07 Define equipage levels

Activity 1.08 Traffic sample preparation

Activity 1.09 Prepare and validate the simulation model

Activity 1.10 Assistance from AirTopSoft

Table 29: Preparatory Activities


The three model based simulation studies12 made a comparative analysis, measuring baseline traffic against a series of traffic samples modified to reflect differing levels of EBS aircraft rates. Different simulation runs were performed so that various fleet mix / fleet equipages could be incorporated.

The following activities take place during the execution phase:

Activity 2.1 Perform simulation runs

measurements

12 This VALP reports on the segregated capacity constrained study


56 of 86



Activity 2.2 Quality check/verification of data by validation team.

Table 30: Execution Activities

EGLL - High Density segregated mode The following table identifies the various levels of EBS equipage as reflected by scenario. As identified by validation objective OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130 varying levels of EBS equipage are required to investigate any impact of EBS capability. This could have been done through a percentage basis though the project deemed a more operationally appropriate method would be to assess the impact by aircraft type. By allocating EBS AROT values to specific aircraft types the overall equipage rate increased (46%, 63% and 78%) As such, initially the only current BTV equipped aircraft are considered along with single aisle aircraft currently pending BTV certification. Subsequently, a single aisle and wide body aircraft representative of types currently under redevelopment by Boeing are considered in addition to the above Airbus aircraft. Finally, the BTV3 scenario incorporates all of the above types along with A330 and A340’s.

Scenario VMC % equipped with EBS

LVC % equipped with EBS

Tfc mix

BASE N/A N/A All original types

BTV 1 46 % 11 % 319/320/321 and 388 all BTV

BTV 2 63% 49% As level 1 but with B738, B77W BTV

BTV 3 78% 59% As level 2 but with selected types * BTV ROTA

* the concept of <selected> types refers to the top 10 aircraft types represented in the traffic sample and in particular the A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, B738, B77W, A388

Table 31: Scenario Development

The EGLL modelling investigated a total of 4 levels of EBS equipage furthermore; these scenarios incorporated standard VMC conditions and LVC conditions. A direct comparison between LVC and VMC operations is not feasible. During LVC conditions, a significant number of local and regional flights are often cancelled due to reduced runway capacity which itself results from a requirement of increased separation. It is this change to the fleet mix between the VMC and LVC samples that explains the differing EBS equipage levels.

This study is premised on a 4 hour segregated mode arrival flow on Heathrow’s 27R runway. The measured hour period is between 7 and 12 (UTC). Local noise abatement requirements incorporate a runway change to the other parallel runway to alternate between arrivals and departures.

As scenarios developed in cooperation with NATS EGLL, a further two scenarios were envisaged with respect to a greater number of A380 aircraft. The fleet mix of A380’s has been currently increasing year on year. Although not limited to, various operational procedures are impacted by the A380 including runway line up time, wake turbulence criteria, runway occupancy, and utilisation within the TEAM procedure (landing mixed mode on departure runway, one aircraft every 10 minutes). During the project definition phase, NATS EGLL requested the additional scenarios to investigate the changing fleet mix at Heathrow. Furthermore, in keeping with a concurrent NATS project, a separate separation criteria was established between two A380’s where the lead A380 is BTV equipped. These two additional scenarios incorporated replacing all B744 with A380’s and are subsequently referred to as Future 1 (non BTV) and Future 2 (all types BTV)

As EGLL operates with non ICAO Wake Turbulence Separation, UK CAA separation was utilised. In coordination with NATS EGLL, for simulation purposes it was deemed that all standard separations


57 of 86



should be further reduced by 0.5 nm. The extra reduction as applied by the simulator separating to the threshold would compensate in a similar manner the “catch up effect” where aircraft are traditionally separated only to 4 nm on final. After this point, pilot discretion speed reductions are permitted, and thus separations can easily reduce to 2 or 2.5 nm where (where extra wake turbulence hasn’t been considered prior to 4 nm on final).

The following separation matrix illustrates all separation minima as applied in this simulation in addition to the 0.5nm catch up as identified above

Leading Following Sep (Nm.)

EGLL catch up (-0.5nm)

A388 <BTV> SH 3 2.5

SH SH 4 3.5

SH H 6 5.5

SH M 7 6.5

SH UM 7 6.5

H SH 4 3.5

H H 4 3.5

H UM 5 4.5

H M 5 4.5

UM UM 3 2.5

UM LM 4 3.5

Table 32: Simulation Separation Matrix

The primary requirement of such a Runway Occupancy Study is the ability to compare the impact of EBS equipped aircraft’s landing profile along with actual present day <observed> Runway Occupancy Time and runway exit utilisation by aircraft type. This study incorporated such data as recorded by ASMGCS systems and subsequently provided by NATS

The following image of EGLL airport layout illustrates the landing runway and subsequent exits utilised within the scope of data obtained.


58 of 86



Figure 5: EGLL airport layout representing landing 27R

The following captures from AirTOP illustrate a simulation run incorporating arrival traffic for 27R at EGLL. Various colours identify the different wake turbulence separation criteria applied by the simulator in particular, the colour blue identifies BTV equipped A380’s.


59 of 86



Figure 6: EGLL representing approach (AirTOp)

Figure 7: EGLL representing final approach (AirTOp)


60 of 86



Figure 8: EGLL representing runway 27R (AirTOp)


During the project preparation phase, additional scenarios investigating the potential impact of an increase in the number of A380 aircraft into Heathrow were developed. These two additional scenarios were prepared by replacing all B744 with A380’s and are referred to as Future 1 and Future 2 in the exercise results. Future 1 does not assume any EBS equipage whereas Future 2 assumes all aircraft types are BTV equipped.



The following tables illustrate in summary the validation objectives in association with each scenario and resulting impact on defined metrics. Each scenario is statistically analysed against the initial baseline either VMC or LVC as indicated.

Exercise ID


ID KPA

Scenario

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

VP049 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-

CAP, PRE Baseline VMC

Reduction in AROT, increased

N/A ok


61 of 86



Exercise ID


ID KPA

Scenario

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

VO02.0110 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130

rwy throughput, reduction go arounds

VP049

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0110 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130

CAP, PRE

VMC BTV 1 Reduction in AROT, increased rwy throughput, reduction go arounds

Reduction AROT 6 min / hr, throughput unchanged, go arounds inconclusive

Partially ok

VP049


CAP, PRE


Reduction AROT 10.5 min / hr, throughput unchanged, go arounds inconclusive

Partially ok

VP049


CAP, PRE



Partially ok

VP049


CAP, PRE

Baseline LVC Reduction in AROT, increased rwy throughput, reduction go arounds

N/A ok

VP049


CAP, PRE

LVC BTV 1 Reduction in AROT, increased rwy throughput, reduction go arounds


Partially ok

VP049

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0120 OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-

CAP, PRE



Partially ok


62 of 86



Exercise ID


ID KPA

Scenario

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

VO02.0130

VP049


CAP, PRE



Partially ok

Table 33: Summary of Exercise Results VMC/LVC

Exercise ID


ID KPA

Scenario

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

VP049


CAP, PRE

Baseline VMC

Reduction in AROT, increased rwy throughput, reduction go arounds

N/A ok

VP049


CAP, PRE

VMC Future 1


Reduction arrival throughput (-1 / hr) relative increase AROT, total ROT similar but with 4 fewer movements, go arounds inconclusive

Partially ok

VP049


CAP, PRE

VMC Future 2


Similar arrival throughput with non BTV, Reduction in total AROT 14 min / hr compared with VMC future 1 (non BTV), go arounds inconclusive

Partially ok

VP049

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0120

CAP, PRE

Baseline LVC Reduction in AROT, increased rwy

N/A ok


63 of 86



Exercise ID


ID KPA

Scenario

Success Criterion

Exercise Results


Status

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-VO02.0130

throughput, reduction go arounds

VP049


CAP, PRE

LVC Future 1 Reduction in AROT, increased rwy throughput, reduction go arounds

Similar arrival throughput, slight increase in cumulative AROT +1.5 min/hr, note extra arrival

Partially ok

VP049


CAP, PRE

LVC Future 2 … Reduction in AROT, increased rwy throughput, reduction go arounds

Similar arrival throughput to non BTV, significant reduction in total AROT -11 min/hour compared with LVC Future 1

Partially ok

Table 34: Summary of Exercises Results VMC/LVC Future scenarios


Results confirm that EBS equipage will contribute to a quantifiable reduction in AROT applicable in segregated mode runway operations. However, runway throughput remains unchanged due to other criteria in today’s operating environment. In terms of the EBS concept the potential for benefit has been shown through reduced runway occupancy but in order to boost throughput on a segregated capacity constrained runway, other runway management technologies such as TBS spacing will be required.


The KPA “CAP” measurement was identified by runway throughput. No impact on runway throughput was identified with one small exception. The primary reason why there is no change in runway through put is that an arrival flow of traffic must remain separated by Minimum Radar Separation or Wake Turbulence criteria, which ever is greater. This separation must be applied during the approach phase regardless of ground movements and procedures.

The AROT is the final quantifiable element in the approach and landing which is demonstrated to be reduced with EBS aircraft however; due to the prevailing separation EBS aircraft arrive at the threshold in a similar manner as non EBS aircraft. The one exception is where a special separation criteria was applied on the basis of A380 pairs on final approach where the lead A380 is BTV equipped. In this situation the deemed separation that is currently applied (non ICAO Wake criteria but greater than MRS) is reduced by 1 nm in consideration of a reduced buffer built into absorb lengthy AROT’s.

In considering “go arounds” analysis and subsequent results remain inconclusive on the basis that aircraft performance tables in AirTOp don’t fully represent real touch down speeds.


64 of 86



The KPA “PRE” measurement was identified in the VALP as consistent exiting, however the model was applying various rules including a randomisation of exits designed to respect by percentage the exit utilisation observed in real current day operations. As such, the AiRTOP simulation model is unable to provide any metrics on predictability other than the result of pre defined “Runway Exit Selection Rules”. Measurement of predictability will come from a separate data gathering exercise in cooperation with airlines.


n/a

6.3.3.2 Analysis of Exercise Results EGLL - High Density segregated mode The following table illustrates how each scenario developed with differing levels of BTV equipage which is attributed by aircraft types. The inclusion of Future 1 and 2 scenarios are not considered a progression of BTV equipage levels in that they incorporate a significant change in fleet mix i.e. all B744 have been changed to A388.

VMC Number

Name Tfc mix

BASE Baseline All original types

1 BTV level 1 – 46% 319/320/321 and 388 all BTV

2 BTV level 2 – 63% As level 1 but with B738, B77W BTV

3 BTV level 3 – 78% As level 2 but with 10 most common types BTV AROT

Future 1 All B744 change to A388 VMC AROT for Select types *

Future 2 All B744 change to A388 BTV AROT for Select types *

Table 35: Scenario construction

In summary the Baseline VMC simulations illustrate a significant reduction in AROT (6 mins / hr, 10 ½ mins / hr and 12 minutes per hour) for each deemed level of EBS equipage. This reduction in AROT is obtained whilst the runway throughput remains the same through all scenarios.

Likewise, the Baseline LVC simulations also illustrate a significant reduction in AROT (2.5 mins / hr, 7.5 mins / hr and 8 minutes per hour) for each deemed level of EBS equipage. This reduction in AROT is obtained whilst the runway though put remains the same through all scenarios.

KPI Baseline BTV 1 BTV 2 BTV 3 Future 1 Future 2

Runway throughput

MVTS/4HR

221 221 221 221 217 217

AROT 3:30:55 3:04:42 2:47:50 2:43:02 3:29:48 2:34:15


65 of 86



(HH:MM:SS)

KPI Baseline LVC

LVC BTV 1 LVC BTV 2 LVC BTV 3 LVC Future 1

LVC Future 2

Runway throughput

MVTS/4HR

129 129 129 129 131 131

AROT

(HH:MM:SS)

2:26:30 2:16:39 1:56:52 1:54:21 2:34:44 1:51:51

Table 36: Scenario Results - AROT and throughput

The table below shows the impact on runway throughput and the reductions in AROT for each scenario. The AROT reduction is measured in terms of minutes per hour.

Scenario and equipage level

Change in Runway Throughput

Increase in free runway time (AROT

minutes/hour)

Baseline VMC N/A N/A

VMC BTV 1, 46% None + 6

VMC BTV 2, 63% None + 10.5

VMC BTV 3, 78% None + 12

Baseline LVC N/A

LVC BTV 1, 11% None + 2.5

LVC BTV 2, 49% None + 7.5

LVC BTV 3, 59% None + 8

Table 37: Scenario, and impact on runway throughput and AROT

During the 6.8.2 Early Project, the project received a document detailing comments on proposed BTV implementation on behalf of SEAC. SEAC drew particular attention to the impact of an AROT of less than 50 seconds for a given runway at a given airport.

In particular:

[Nowadays some airports already operate with 2.5 NM minimum in-trail separations for which a 50 sec ROT is required. However it is not only a reduced ROT of 50 sec but much more predictable, consistent and reliable ROT. Increased (landing) capacity can only be gained by reduced ROT if also the in-trail separation is not defined by wake vortex separation. For Heavies a reduced ROT will not always benefit increased capacity as the following aircraft must be separated at 4 to 6 NM, dependent on aircraft size. Reduced ROT could however be of benefit for airports that operate their runways in so called mixed -mode. Capacity gains due to BTV can and will be different per airport, dependent on their type of runway operation.]

As such, the project has considered the impact of a 50-60 second threshold in the results.

VMC results

The next two graphs illustrate total AROT by EBS equipage level for the VMC simulations. The AROT value in the standard HH:MM:SS format is further divided into 3 categories. The category of less than 50 seconds per arrival is thus representative in scenarios where EBS equipage increases.


66 of 86



The following bar graphs identify by each primary simulation i.e. VMC and LVP and the resulting cumulative AROT by EBS equipage scenario. Each individual bar element is further divided to identify the distribution of the aircraft within the three primary categories of ROT i.e less than 50 seconds, between 50 and 60 seconds and greater than 50 seconds. In considering 2.5nm spacing as utilised today, the impact of EBS equipage is clearly identifiable when considering a 55 second AROT.

AROT Compared with BTV Equipage Level

VMC Simulations EGLL 27R

1:00:29 1:01:07

1:26:201:37:18

0:41:28

0:11:56

0:10:55

0:09:46

1:48:58

1:51:39 1:10:35 0:55:58

0:00:00

0:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

2:30:00

3:00:00

3:30:00

4:00:00

Baseline VMC

0%

VMC BTV level 1

46%

VMC BTV level 2

63%

VMC BTV level 3

78%

Scenario BTV Equipage Level

AR

OT

(h

:m:s

)

Total AROT>60sec

Total 50<AROT<60sec

Total AROT<50sec

Figure 9: VMC Scenario Results

In summary the Baseline VMC simulations illustrate a significant reduction in AROT (6 mins / hr, 10.5 mins / hr and 12 minutes per hour) for each deemed level of EBS equipage. This reduction in AROT is obtained whilst the runway though put remains the same through all scenarios. The impact of an increasing number of landings with an AROT of less than 50 seconds is evident.


67 of 86




VMC Simulations EGLL 27R

1:00:42

1:36:11

0:41:15

0:23:39

1:47:51

0:34:25

0:00:00

0:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

2:30:00

3:00:00

3:30:00

4:00:00

VMC Future 1 VMC Future 2


AR

OT

(h

:m:s

)

Total AROT>60sec

Total 50<AROT<60sec

Total AROT<50sec

Figure 10: VMC Future Scenario Results

The VMC Future simulations represent an operational environment where all B744 were changed to non BTV A380’s.

This change in aircraft type produces a change in landing sequence due to differing aircraft performance and wake turbulence separation. Most notably, the A380 as a Super Heavy requires a minimum of 7nm for all following Medium and Upper Mediums, in the case of a B744 the minimum is 5nm. In comparison to the baseline, the result was one less movement per hour along with an increase in total AROT furthermore, the total AROT was similar by comparison yet 4 fewer movements were realised in the same period.

The VMC Future 2 simulation is as above with the exception all of the standard types including the A380 were EBS equipped. Results indicated, in comparison to the Future 1 (non BTV) a similar arrival through put along with a cumulative reduction in AROT in the order of 14 minutes per hour.

LVC Results

The following two graphs illustrate total AROT by EBS equipage level for the LVC simulations. The AROT value in the standard HH:MM:SS format is further divided into 3 categories. The category of less than 50 seconds per arrival is thus representative in scenarios where EBS equipage increases


68 of 86




LVC Simulations EGLL 27R

0:08:050:13:56

0:35:500:40:37

0:16:25 0:09:05

0:11:490:08:09

2:02:001:53:38

1:09:13 1:05:35

0:00:00

0:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

2:30:00

Baseline LVC

0%

LVC BTV level 1

11%

LVC BTV level 2

49%

LVC BTV level 3

59%


AR

OT

(

h:m

:s)

Total AROT>60sec

Total 50<AROT<60sec

Total AROT<50sec

Figure 11: LVC Scenario Results

In summary the Baseline LVC simulations illustrate a significant reduction in AROT (2.5 mins / hr, 7.5 mins / hr and 8 minutes per hour) for each deemed level of EBS equipage. This reduction in AROT is obtained whilst the runway though put remains the same through all scenarios.

The quantifiable impact of reducing AROT is greater in LVC simulations as compared to VMC simulations on the basis that the LVC traffic sample is representative of a real LVC operational day where local and regional traffic would have been cancelled. As such, the inbound Heavy aircraft would be representative of almost the entire arrival flow. It is these Heavy aircraft that normally exit further down the runway and thus have the greater reduction in AROT when considered EBS equipped.


69 of 86




LVC Simulations EGLL 27R

0:08:01

0:41:300:14:21

0:28:15

2:12:22 0:42:06

0:00:00

0:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

2:30:00

3:00:00

LVC Future 1 LVC Future 2


AR

OT

(h

:m:s

)

Total AROT>60sec

Total 50<AROT<60sec

Total AROT<50sec

Figure 12: LVC Future Scenario Results

In summary, the LMC Future simulations represent an operational environment where all B744 were changed to non BTV A380’s.

This change in aircraft type clearly produces a change in landing sequence due to differing aircraft performance and wake turbulence separation. Most notably, the A380 as a Super Heavy requires a minimum of 7nm for all following Medium and Upper Mediums, in the case of a B744 the standard LVP separation of 6nm is applied.

The LVC Future 2 simulation is as above with the exception all of the standard types including the A380 were EBS equipped. Results indicated, in comparison to the baseline a similar arrival through put along with a cumulative reduction in AROT in the order of 11 minutes per hour compared with LVC Future 1 (non BTV).

6.3.3.2.1 Comparison with current operations.

The results obtained are indicative of capacity constrained segregated operations and demonstrate a reduction in AROT per landing aircraft equipped with EBS.

Furthermore, regardless of the prevailing visibility in LVC, a similar reduction in AROT is observed.

The reduction in AROT per landing is greater for Heavy wide body aircraft as they traditionally exit further down the runway and thus maximise delayed or managed braking and thus obtain the greater reduction in AROT.

With respect to the A380 pairs (lead and trailing aircraft where lead is BTV equipped) BTV equipage is integral to reduced separation procedures. The impact of this runway management procedure and subsequent EBS technology can thus be extrapolated across other major hub airports.


6.3.3.3.1 Unexpected Behaviours


70 of 86



The AirTOP simulator did record via the simulation log in excess of half a dozen events where a following aircraft landed whilst the preceding arriving aircraft had not fully vacated the runway safety zone. In a real operational environment, this identical situation would have resulted in a go around and thus the interest in varying AROT’s with respect to possible go arounds with subsequent aircraft.

During the analysis phase, it became apparent that the aircraft performance tables used within AirTOP resulted in touchdown speeds that although consistent with other aircraft types in a similar category, were not always representative for a given aircraft type with a typical landing weight.

Even in real operational environment, go around relevance can be only compared on a daily basis if wind conditions are identical. Even though the IAS or TAS remains constant for a given aircraft on approach, the wind has a direct impact on resulting ground speed. Even for pairs of aircraft correctly separated for example at 2.5 nm in low wind situations, this distance becomes critical in terms of obtaining a free runway, a go around would be required where a landing clearance cannot be given. In AirTOP no wind effect was simulated.

The project team tried to adapt certain aircraft types and events as recorded in the simulation logs with differing touch down speeds. The initial problem was due to version control on behalf of AirTOP in that the version used for the simulation was not available within the context of the existing licence. By using an updated version, the landing sequence was slightly altered and furthermore the applications of Runway Exit Selection rules were different. The direct result was that the situations as initially reordered could not be replicated.

In conclusion, with the context of this EGLL study, data on go arounds remains inconclusive and subject to theory only.


This AirTOP EGLL study represents a substantial development in assessing the benefit of EBS as compared to the previous EP3 study. This study incorporates a real operational environment. The greatest significant difference is through the utilisation of extensive ASMGCS recorded data where real AROT and exit utilisation were gathered. These values were applied against EBS aircraft simulated with a spread of landing weights furthermore; within AirTOp these AROTS were all validated to an accuracy of +/- 1 second.

The above referenced EBS values are representative of Airbus Industries TTV data utilising their propriety BTV system and calculated by an Airbus macro. The A380 type was not included in the macro so airline data was obtained from Emirates. This incorporated an entire spread of AROTS where BTV was and wasn’t used as well as different situations where the pilot manually disconnected BTV on the landing roll out in sight of the high speed exits. Sufficient data was obtained to allow realistic values to be assigned to the A380s in the traffic sample.

For Boeing aircraft, the project assumed various elements in concluding what could be theoretically obtained by Boeing aircraft should certain Boeing aircraft become available with a similar EBS product. This was validated by the AU representatives within the project.

By way of verification the project team reviewed all the above operational data along with actual flight recorder data from Novair A321’s landing at Stockholm and concluded that all data obtained was consistent and as a result a “rule of thumb” was attributed where with BTV almost a one third reduction in AROT’s was possible for a given landing.

The Project has assessed results as of high quality and realistic. The model and results were presented to EGLL operational staff and their conclusion was likewise favourable.



71 of 86



The project has deemed the simulation to be of sufficient statistical representation due to the operational data utilised over an arrival period of 4 hours and the number of scenarios in VMC and LVC.

The operational significance is implied by the high quality of comparative AROT and exit data within the various simulated scenarios furthermore, realistic traffic and separation matrixes were utilised.


6.3.4.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions have been made:

As the EBS equipage rate Increases, cumulative AROT will decrease for a given runway and airport environment.

At a capacity constrained airport with segregated runways (e.g. EGLL) EBS has potential to significantly reduce AROT (12 mins/hour with 78% equipage)

Despite the reduction in cumulative AROT, arrival throughput remains unaffected due to other limiting criteria (e.g wake vortex, separation on finals)

An increase in the proportion of A380 arrivals may reduce arrival throughput. However when aircraft are BTV equipped, if the resulting fleet mix on final approach can be arranged where A380’s are paired, specific separation can be applied where the lead A380 is BTV equipped. This unique operational procedure could have a positive impact on arrival throughput.

EBS equipage coupled with TBS and/or GBAS has the potential to increase arrival throughput in VMC and LVC.

o In an operational environment where CAT III GBAS is utilised, the primary difference

as compared to CAT III ILS is the lack of a requirement to protect the Critical Safety Zone. As such, extended separations need not apply; standard wake turbulence and / or Minimum Radar Separation will suffice. On the runway, the impact of reduced visibility or LVC will still prevail; as such resulting AROT’s are statistically greater due to the unknown position of the aircraft relative to an appropriate exit. EBS systems can manage braking regardless of visibility conditions and thus ensure consistent and predictable AROT’s without any degradation of runway braking performance.

o In a TBS environment, the impact of wind is negated in that a precise number of

seconds separation is maintained between aircraft as opposed to a distance which is subject to a varying impact of wind. It is conceivable that a defined TBS could be adapted for pairs of aircraft where the lead aircraft is EBS equipped and thus can ensure a free runway after a predicted AROT.



Further investigation be made into quantifying the impact on runway throughput considering different or variable separation minima and associated technologies in a future based operating environment.

Further analysis be made into the potential reduction in ‘go arounds’

The results be communicated to B05 and 6.02


72 of 86



6.4 Validation Exercise VP050 (ATCO HMI workshop) Report

Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems aims to develop a concept which maximises runway throughput and capitalises on this predictable operational consistency. One element within this project is to develop an appropriate HMI that can be used by Air Traffic Controllers to safely and expeditiously make use of the EBS techniques.

This report summarises the output from a HMI workshop held in Bretigny on 20-21st September 2012 during which the suitability of such an ATCO HMI was assessed.


As the EBS process develops alongside datalink and electronic flight strips it is expected that data in the form of predicted runway exit, predicted ROT etc. will be automatically transmitted between the ground and the air systems, with a method of intervention by the ATCO and the pilot in certain circumstances.

This exercise considered the data that the ATCO will need to see displayed and how it will be displayed in order to facilitate this advance in the EBS concept.

6.4.1.1 Objectives

This exercise validated the following Project Validation Objective (taken from the P06.08.02 V2 VALP):

OBJ-06.08.02-VALP-V002.0510 (Validate requirements for EBS data to be displayed on the HMI (Tower ATCO)

The purpose of the workshop was to discuss possible options for new ATCO HMI which will make use of the Airbus Brake To Vacate (BTV) technology and so enable Enhanced Braking System (EBS) information to be incorporated into electronic flight strips in the tower environment. The main objectives for the two days were:

Determine what EBS information should be displayed to ATC

Determine whether AROT information should be displayed

Determine whether confirmation of exit should be displayed

Determine whether indication that EBS is disengaged should be displayed

Identify when Actors need to see EBS information

Identify how EBS information should be displayed to Actors

Assess what method of interaction with the HMI is appropriate

Define potential HMI components (e.g. menus, buttons, icons).


73 of 86



6.4.1.2 OI steps

This was a functional level exercise within Step 1 V2 of the P06.08.02 Concept validation. The exercise addresses two OI steps



6.4.1.3 Success criterion: The success criterion was identified as: An indication of runway exit and ROT on the electronic flight progress strip and ASMGCS display

is developed which is acceptable to the project ATCOs.

6.4.1.4 Metrics and Indicators

As the exercise was aimed at determining requirements for the ATCO HMI there were no relevant KPIs and metrics. The analysis was made through the subjective opinion of controllers through questionnaires and exercise debriefs. The exercise was observed and monitored by an HF expert.

6.4.1.5 Assumptions


It is known that low visibility (LVC) reduces the aircrews’ ability to exit the runway. This is reflected in the larger standard final approach separations provided by ATC in these circumstances (e.g minimum 6 miles at Heathrow regardless of standard vortex separation).


This exercise took these assumptions and investigated the HMI that will be required by the ATCO in order to safely and expeditiously make use of the EBS techniques.



The indication of EBS capability and/or the exit and AROT are closely tied with the provision of the taxi in routeing. The routeing will be displayed to ATCOs on their ASMGCS display and this is applicable for all flights. An EBS equipped flight will (with datalink available) provide the airborne intended exit that forms the start point of the taxi in route. There is therefore a need to distinguish an exit determined by the airborne system (as opposed to the ground system for non EBS equipped flights)


74 of 86



Working with P06.07.02 and P06.09.02 an initial set of requirements were developed for the provision of the AROT and exit data to the controller. A prototype was developed and made available on the iTWP platform developed by EUROCONTROL. This platform was used during the ATCO HMI workshop as it provided a combination of HMI developments including the display of the exit.

The iTWP platform can be configured for use on a number of airports. For this exercise Paris Charles de Gaulle airport was selected. A ‘light’ traffic sample with a sufficient number of EBS equipped flights was developed.

NATS agreed to provide two controllers and a third, on secondment to EUROCONTROL, agreed to participate. NATS also provided Human factors expertise and developed the questionnaires.


After receiving some background information about the project and short period of familiarisation, controllers adopted the position of either a Runway or Ground controller and interacted with the iTWP interface. During the sessions controllers rotated positions. The purpose of the sessions was to allow the controllers to assess the information available from the EBS equipped flights and to understand the proposed EBS cooperative procedure. At the end of each session a short debrief was held and at the end of the second day a longer review and debrief was conducted and participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire. Controllers were able to access the runway exit information via the mouse. This could be visualised on the ASMGCS display either on the label or the electronic flight strip. In addition a green arrow indicating the exit could be displayed (see figure below)

Figure 13 ASMGCS display with EBS information

The following stakeholders attended the two day workshop

Andy Milligan NATS Project Lead

Kevin Harvey Eurocontrol


75 of 86



Paul Johnson Projects’ Manager, NATS Heathrow

Andrew McKevitt Manchester ATCO

Sean Jackson Heathrow ATCO

Helena Johansson ATCO Stockholm/ETF representative

Michael Lange Liepzig ATCO

Lucy Glasgow Human Factors NATS

Marc Bonnier Eurocontrol

Steve Bancroft Eurocontrol

Roger Lane Eurocontrol

Table 38: ATCO HMI workshop attendees


N/A



The findings summarised below are based on questionnaire data received from the operational controllers who attended the workshop and from informal discussions held during feedback sessions. A tabulated summary of the results can be found later in this section (paragraph 0)

Controllers reacted positively to the EBS concept and proposed procedure. They concluded that the Runway Exit should be displayed to both the runway and ground controller but there was no operational requirement to view the AROT. The proposed HMI indications of the exit on the ASMGCS label and electronic flight strip were considered to be suitable for further trials. An indication when EBS has been disengaged is required.


The results clarified the requirements for the ATCO HMI indications. They allow a baseline of the basic HMI indications and timeliness to be set. Further V2 validation will take place with the HMI, by including additional functionalities.

The controllers provided valuable and generally positive feedback on the EBS concept and proposed procedures to support the exchange of information. In particular they confirmed that presentation of AROT data is of little value, particularly when given as a time value. The AROT will be used by the system to help determine the separation (TBS) but controllers have no requirement to visualise the information.


N/A as this exercise examined HMI indications.


N/A


76 of 86




6.4.3.2.1 Presentation of EBS information

6.4.3.2.1.1 Runway exit

All participants agreed that the runway exit should be displayed on both the radar label and the flight strip on both the runway controller and ground controller positions. Responses as to whether this information should be displayed continuously or only when selected varied. Two of three stated it should be continuously display on both the label and flight strip, while one controller responded that it should be displayed on the label when hooked. It was reported that on the ground this information would be useful as soon as the aircraft had lined up on final approach (approximately 10nm).

6.4.3.2.1.2 Arrival Runway Occupancy Time (AROT)

None of the participants considered that it was necessary to display the AROT time on the Runway or the Ground controller position.

6.4.3.2.1.3 Brake to Vacate disengaged

It was unanimously agreed that an indication that EBS had been disengaged should be displayed on both the label and flight strip on both the Runway and Ground controller positions. As with the runway exit information, it was felt that the EBS indication should be continuously displayed on the flight strip with some also thinking it should be displayed continuously on the label too.

It was suggested that the exit which was selected should remain displayed to the runway controller even in situations when EBS had disengaged, thus allowing the information which was used during planning to be readily accessible. One suggestion was that this information could be displayed in a light grey font with perhaps a red surround.

6.4.3.2.2 Comparison with current operations.

Overall, the application of the EBS concept was reported to have a positive impact on a controller’s ability to space aircraft effectively on the runway in a mixed mode operation when compared to current operations when considering: the known runway exit, known AROT and reduced AROT compared to non EBS flights. Similarly, the application of EBS on the ability to increase throughput during mixed mode operations was also rated positively when considering: known runway exit, know AROT, reduced AROT compared with non EBS and a controller’s ability to plan taxi routes.

6.4.3.2.3 HMI

Opinions as to what participants thought of the symbols to indicate that aircraft were EBS equipped were sought. For the purposes of this workshop a green arrow was used to notify runway exit / start of taxi in route and the exit identifier in the label (after runway 27L/Y3) (as shown in figure 1). There was some discussion about the suitability of the colour and use of an arrow on the taxiway due to potential confusion as to which aircraft it related to and it adding clutter to the display. The possibility that the arrow symbology may already in use at individual airports to indicate a different aspect was also raised. However, despite these reservations all controllers responded that the symbol on the radar (the green arrow) was easy to interpret. One individual commented that a white arrow may be clearer to see. The symbol on the label also received generally positive feedback with those who expressed a preference indicating that they found also it easy to interpret.

6.4.3.2.4 Acceptability of concept


77 of 86



Feedback regarding the ability of participants to quickly and easily locate the information in the ATM window was unanimously positive. One participant indicated that they did not find locating information on the radar label or strip easy and although further investigation to the reasons for this were not undertaken at the time, it is possible that the difficulty was due to lack of familiarisation with the iTWP system, rather than problems with the design of simulated HMI.

EBS functionality was rated to be useful by all workshop attendees. Furthermore they considered the EBS concept was potentially acceptable for use within a Tower. One attendee reported that the EBS concept would only be acceptable for use within Approach if there was very careful design of procedures which were easy to apply.

6.4.3.2.5 Perceived benefits

All participants identified that the EBS concept would have a positive impact with respect to the consistency of meeting the runway exit point, on a controller’s ability to plan surface movements and on the situational awareness of flight crews. It was also reported that EBS would have a positive impact on the volume of traffic that could be handled. However one participant qualified his response by stating that this benefit would only occur in combination with the introduction of time based spacing, without which there would be no impact on the volume of traffic that could be handled.

Responses from all participants indicated that the EBS concept would have a positive impact on operations in Low Visibility Procedures (LVPs) and on the confidence controllers would have in aircraft complying with the appropriate exit.

6.4.3.2.6 General

The application of the full co-operative procedure was considered to have potential uses in the three different airfields that were represented at the workshop. These related to particular benefits in low visibility conditions and also achieving more expeditious A380 procedures. The full benefits may not materialise until EBS is integrated with time based spacing, however even in the short term it may reduce spacing between two A380s on approach. Even for airports with lower traffic volume there are safety benefits in terms of increased situational awareness and reduced workload due to reduced co-ordination between runway and ground controllers where runway and taxiway interactions exists.

6.4.3.2.7 Questionnaire results

The data below shows the responses from three operational ATCOs to the questionnaire. They have been summarised in the preceding paragraphs.

Responses

Questions ATCO 1 ATCO 2 ACTO 3

1.1 As runway controller where do you need the Runway Exit?

both label and flight strip

both label and flight strip

both (5min before entering my area of responsibility until

leaving

1.2 Should this information be displayed:

continuously? EFS only both both

only when hooked label only both both

1.3 As Runway controller when do you need AROT displayed?

Other: not displayed

Other: Not displayed

Other: Not displayed

Comment:

other: information redundant to Twr

controller

on landing only runway. Not sure if

this is helpful

just the name of the exit, not the time itself

(see not 1.1)


78 of 86



unless TBS in use


continuously? not displayed not displayed not displayed

only when hooked not displayed not displayed not displayed

Comment

on mixed mode runway then

selectable, not displayed by

available selectable in the system

1.5 As runway controller where do you need EBS displayed?

both label and flight strip: as soon as a/c

disengages

both label and flight strip as soon as pilot disengages

both label and flight strip. When arrived before, immediately after disengagement


continuously? both both both

only when hooked label only both

Comment:

I think the label portion could be displayed for a short time as long as it is highlighted before information disappears from label as subsequently when hooked label will display info

exit is a good planning tool so all the time. AROT might be of some interest if spacing is tight so would be better as a second level selectable item

add 1.5 possible display: greying out the former around tower so that this information is still available (on what you planned up to that time) surrounding

1.7 As Ground controller when need Runway exit?

EFS.. As soon as available, see twr response

both label and strip until runway vacated

both label and flight strip. As soon as a/c on final approach (about 10nm)


continuously? EFS only both both


1.9 As GROUND controller when do you need AROT displayed?

Not displayed Not displayed Not displayed

Comment:

again I feel this is redundant info for

the controller

I don't think this is useful for ground

no time itself just the exit as soon as a/c is on about 10nm final until

passing the holding point when leaving the

runway



79 of 86



continuously? not at all not displayed not displayed

only when hooked not at all not displayed

1.11 As ground controller when do you need EBS displayed?

both label and flight strip: same as tower to give max time to

amend plan if necessary

both as soon as the pilot de selects it.


continuously? both both


Comment:

same response as for tower

exit is a good planning tool but AROT is not useful for ground.

1.13 What impact does EBS have on your ability to space a/c

a. known runway exit positive impact positive impact positive impact

b. known AROT no impact positive impact positive impact

c. Reduced ARNOT compared with non EBS

positive impact positive impact positive impact

What impact does EBS have on your ability to increase throughput:

a. known runway exit positive impact positive impact positive impact

b. known AROT no impact positive impact

(mixed mode) positive impact

c. Reduced ARNOT compared with non EBS


d. your ability to plan taxi routes


Comment:

do you mean single mode operations?

add b. the exact AROT will not be known as discussed, however the certainty of the exit taxiway will increase and so the judgement ?away the established ROT

2.HMI

The symbol used to indicate a/c where EBS was easy to interpret on

a. label agree strongly agree neither

b. radar (green arrow) agree agree strongly agree


80 of 86



Comment:

although the green arrow was easy to interpret I felt it was too much clutter on the radar screen

green arrow needs careful design to ensure it is clear which aircraft it refers to

3. CONCEPT

3.1 Please indicate agreement with the following statements

a. easily locate information on ATM window

agree agree agree

b. easily locate information on radar label

agree agree disagree

c. easily location information on strips

neither agree strongly disagree

d. EBS functionality useful strongly agree agree agree

e. concept acceptable to use within tower

strongly agree agree agree

f. concept acceptable to use within Approach

strongly agree disagree agree

Comment:

re F.not unless procedures carful design and easy to apply. GEN comment: It should be on all the time

4. Perceived benefits

4.1 Impact of EBS with respect to:

a. volumes of traffic positive impact no impact positive impact

b. consistency of meeting runway exit


c. time based separation positive impact positive impact positive impact

d. surface movement planning


e. situational awareness of flight crews


f. impact of operations in LVC


g. confidence in exit compliance


Comment:

with correct application EBS will be an extremely useful tool for ATC and help increase efficiency and therefore cope with increasing capacity demands

a. not really significant without TBS


81 of 86



5. How do you envisage application of full co-operative procedure working at your airfield?

help in achieving more expeditious A380 procedures at Manchester and minimise capacity and landing rates in LVCs. Reduce co-ord between AIR and GND controllers where runway and taxiway interactions exists.

Ideal operation is fully integrated with TBS, fully automatic and transparent to the controller. Possible short term benefit of A380 following A380 on approach with reduced spacing if EBS.

for single runway mixed mode operations (even in low traffic situations) I see benefits in respect to safety (especially in low vis)and efficiency. For low traffic airports it might however be a "nice to have" function more than increasing the efficiency.

Please provide any issues that have not been covered in this questionnaire.

how does the application of EBS or AROT assist at airfields that require a runway back track after landing?

Table 39: ATCO Questionnaire



Although only three active controllers participated in the workshop, the project has a high level of confidence in the Exercise results. A sufficient number of runs were available to the controllers to allow them to assess the HMI options and detailed debriefs and the questionnaire afforded enough subjective comment to be gathered. All controllers participated actively and contributed positive comment on the validity of the concept, the exit and AROT indication and the proposed procedure.

In many regards the controller comments confirmed the initial requirements prepared by the project and the views of the experts involved in the HMI developments on the iTWP.


The results permit confirmation of the technical requirements for the design of the HMI. This will enable further development of the functions necessary to support the EBS procedure on prototypes and industrial platforms. The requirements have been incorporated in the P06.09.02 OSED and will be tested in a larger scale real time simulation (linking a cockpit and ATC simulator) later in the V2 lifecycle. This simulation is organised and managed by P06.07.02 (EXE-06.07.02-VP-665) but will include D-TAXI and EBS procedures using the iTWP HMI. This affords an incremental testing of the HMI design. The requirements stemming from the workshop will be tested alongside the cockpit/ATCO procedures and if necessary, additions and changes to the HMI required to support the procedures, will be introduced for further evaluation in V3.

The iTWP platform, simulated scenarios, traffic sample and procedures were operationally accurate. The three controllers were current in the Tower and Ground control positions and were afforded sufficient time to be conversant with the EBS concept (the EGLL controller was already familiar with the EBS concept and was aware of the impact of BTV arrivals in day to day operations) and objectives of the workshop.


82 of 86




6.4.4.1 Conclusions

Overall, the EBS concept was received positively. Participants all considered there are potential benefits in its application. With respect to what information would be useful to display to ATCOs and when this information should be displayed the following conclusions have been made:

The Runway Exit should be displayed to both the runway and ground controller. This information should be displayed on both the ASMGCS label and the flight strip.

The Arrival Runway occupancy time (AROT) is not required to be displayed to either the runway or ground controller.

An indication that EBS has been disengaged should be displayed to both the runway and ground controller and displayed prominently on the ATCO HMI as soon as the aircraft has disengaged.

Both the Runway Exit and an indication that EBS has been disengaged should be displayed continuously on the flight stip.

The use of an arrow to notify the runway exit / start of taxi in route and the exit identifier in the label were judged to be easy to locate. There remain some concerns regarding potential display clutter and association between indication and correct aircraft.

.



The EBS concept be modified to take account of the controller comments on the provision of AROT information.

The requirements developed as a result of the ATCO HMI workshop be integrated into the P06.08.02 OSED and communicated to P06.09.02.

The results of the ATCO HMI workshop be shared with P06.07.02 so that the EBS and D-TAXI (Taxi-in routing) HMI procedures can be integrated.

Further investigation should be made into the validity of the ATCO HMI through real time simulation, particularly in relation to the potential display clutter (V2).

The issue of EBS disengagement be further investigated through real time simulation.


83 of 86




84 of 86



7 References Reference to Main Documentation, delete If not required.

This section identifies the documents (name, reference, source project) the Validation Report has to comply to or to be used as additional inputs.

7.1 Applicable Documents

[1] Template Toolbox 03.00.00 https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/SESAR%20Template%20Toolbox.dot

[2] Requirements and V&V Guidelines 03.00.00 https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Requirements%20and%20VV%20Guidelines.doc

[3] Templates and Toolbox User Manual 03.00.00 https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Templates%20and%20Toolbox%20User%20Manual.doc

[4] European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM) - 3.0 [February 2010]

[5] EUROCONTROL ATM Lexicon https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://atmlexicon.eurocontrol.int/en/index.php/SESAR

7.2 Reference Documents

The documents mentioned in the template are examples that can be removed.

The following documents provide input/guidance/further information/other:

[6] WP C.03, C.03-D03-Regulatory Roadmap Development and Maintenance Process https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/General.aspx

[7] WP C.03, C.03-D02-Standardisation Roadmap Development and Maintenance Process https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/General.aspx

[8] SESAR Business Case Reference Material https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx

[9] SESAR Safety Reference Material https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx

[10] SESAR Security Reference Material https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx

[11] SESAR Environment Reference Material https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx

[12] SESAR Human Performance Reference Material https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/SESAR%20Template%20Toolbox.dot

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Requirements%20and%20VV%20Guidelines.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Requirements%20and%20VV%20Guidelines.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Templates%20and%20Toolbox%20User%20Manual.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Templates%20and%20Toolbox%20User%20Manual.doc

https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http:/atmlexicon.eurocontrol.int/en/index.php/SESAR

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/intraprogman/Assessment%20Library/C.03-D03-Regulatory%20Roadmap%20Development%20and%20Maintenance%20Process.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/intraprogman/Assessment%20Library/C.03-D03-Regulatory%20Roadmap%20Development%20and%20Maintenance%20Process.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/General.aspx

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/intraprogman/Assessment%20Library/C.03-D02-Standardisation%20Roadmap%20Development%20and%20Maintenance%20Process.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/intraprogman/Assessment%20Library/C.03-D02-Standardisation%20Roadmap%20Development%20and%20Maintenance%20Process.doc

https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx











85 of 86



[13] D07 Guidance on list of KPIs for Step 1 Performance Assessment Ed1 https://extranet.sesarju.eu/Programme%20Library/Forms/Procedures%20and%20Guidelines.aspx

Remark: if help is needed, the WP16 Front-Office can be contacted by e-mail. Do not hesitate to send an e-mail to [email protected]. Please start the subject line with Front-Office and use relevant keywords e.g. Safety, ATM Security, etc., or 16.06.01, 16.06.02 ...”

[14] ATM Master Plan https://www.atmmasterplan.eu



mailto:[email protected]

https://www.atmmasterplan.eu/


86 of 86



-END OF DOCUMENT-