report of the continental rvsm real time simulation … · european organisation for the safety of...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

REPORT OF THE CONTINENTAL RVSM REAL TIME SIMULATION

EEC Report N° 294

EEC TASK AS16EATCHIP Task : NAV.ET2.ST02

Issued : February 1996

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should be reproducedin any form without the Agency's permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAA

Report on the Continental RVSM Real-Time Simulation

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAEUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

ReferenceEEC Report N° 294

Security ClassificationUnclassified

Originator EEC - RTO - Real-Time Simulation(Operations)

Originator (Corporate author) Name/LocationEUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP15F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : + 33 1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor EATCHIP Development DirectorateDED1

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/LocationEUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B-1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : + 32 2 729 9011

TITLE :Report of the Continental RVSM Real-Time Simulation

AuthorN B Sylvester-Thorne

Date

2/96Pages

vii+107Figures

741 Map

Tables

5Annexes

4References

0

EATCHIP TaskSpecificationNAV.ET2.ST02

EEC Task N°

AS16

Task N°. Sponsor Period

May 1995

Distribution Statement

(a) Controlled by : Head of Real-Time Operations(b) Special Limitations (if any) : None(c) Sent to NTIS : No

Descriptors (keywords)Air Traffic Control, Reduced Vertical Separation, Sectorisation, Civil-Military co-ordination, Air TrafficController Workload.

Abstract :

This report describes a real-time simulation to assess the initial operational effects of the introductionof reduced vertical separation in continental Europe.


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be any missing pages,please contact:

Publications officeEUROCONTROL Experimental centre

B.P. 1591222 Brétigny-Sur-Orge CEDEX

(France)





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

ABREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

AS16 SIMULATION OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SIMULATION METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2AIRSPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3ATC ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3ORGANISATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

MAIN REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11.1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 11.2 SIMULATION OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 31.3 CAVEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 4

2 SIMULATION METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 12.1 AIRSPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 12.2 ATC ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 12.3 TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 22.4 TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 32.5 ORGANISATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 32.6 ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 3

3 SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13.1 SIMULATOR SIM5+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13.2 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13.3 PFL PROFILE CALCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 23.4 TRACK DEVIATION MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 23.5 SHORT TERM CONFLICT ALERT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 33.6 CONTROLLER WORKING POSITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 33.7 INPUT DEVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43.8 CWP DISPLAY (SONY and HP 21") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43.9 RADAR WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43.10 STCA WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 53.11 DISPLAY MANAGEMENT WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 83.12 CLOCK WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 9


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 iii



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Contents

3.13 SCALE (ZOOM) SELECTION GAUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 93.14 LOWER-UPPER LAYER SELECTION GAUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 103.15 SPEED VECTOR PANEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 113.16 SECTOR NAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 113.17 DMW BUTTONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 123.18 RESERVED AREAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 123.19 QUICK WAY BACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 123.20 SPECIFIED DISPLAY DIAMETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 123.21 VIDEO MAP SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 133.22 DISPLAY ALL TRACKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 143.23 AUTOMATIC LABEL ANTI-OVERLAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 143.24 MINIMUM LABEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 173.25 ENTRY/EXIT DATA WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 173.26 MILITARY FLIGHT DATA WINDOWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 203.27 MILITARY ENTRY/EXIT WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 213.28 FLIGHT DATA MESSAGE WINDOW - FDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 233.29 ADDITIONAL FLIGHTS WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 243.30 ELASTIC VECTOR - RANGE and BEARING and DIRECT

ROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 253.31 RADAR LABEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 263.32 RADAR LABEL AND MANUAL ANTI-OVERLAP FUNCTION . . . 3 - 303.33 CFL and PFL MENU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 303.34 ASSUME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 313.35 MILITARY to CIVIL COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 313.36 SUPPORT POSITION FUNCTIONALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 32

4 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 14.1 DATA COLLECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 14.2 ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 14.3 SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 54.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN ORGANISATIONS A AND A1 . . . . . . 4 - 64.5 COMPARISON ORGANISATIONS B and B1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 124.6 GENERAL SIMULATION ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 204.7 SUMMARY - ORGANISATIONS A/A1 and B/B1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 274.8 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 364.9 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 37

TRADUCTION EN FRANCAIS (Pages Vertes)


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 iv



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Contents

ANNEXES

EXERCISE SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX ADESCRIPTION OF NASA TLX AND ISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX BOPERATIONS ROOM LAYOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX CPROCEDURES FOR CIVIL/MILITARY COORDINATION . . . . . . . . ANNEX D


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 v



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have contributed to the contents and the production of this report. My thanks go to AlanMarsden for his help in making sense of numerous recordings and statistical analyses, to all of theparticipants for their constructive attitude in providing feedback during the simulation, to each of the

administrations for the contribution of staff and their patience in reviewing the report, to BeatriceBettignies for her perseverance in the production of the French "pages vertes".


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 vi



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ABBREVIATIONS

ACC Air Traffic Control CentreADEP Aircraft Departure pointADEST Aircraft DestinationAFL Actual Flight LevelATC Air Traffic ControlATCEU Air Traffic Evaluation Unit at Hurn UK; now called Air Traffic

Management Development CentreATS Air Traffic Service

CBA Cross Boarder AreaCBT Computer Based TrainingCFL Controlled Flight LevelCRNA Centre Regional de la Navigation AerienneCWP Controller working Position

DFS Deutscher Flügsicheung - German Civil Aviation AuthorityDMW Display Management Window

FDM Flight Data Message FPL Flight Plan

HMU Height Monitoring Unit

ICAO International Civil Aviation OrganisationISA Instantaneous Subjective Assessment

MASPS Minimum Aircraft System Performance SpecificationMNPS Minimum Navigation Performance SpecificationMode C Height value provided by aircraft systemNASA TLX A taskload index originated by NASA in the USANAT North AtlanticPFL Planned Flight Level

QWB Quick Way Back to default setting

RA Reserved AreaRFL Requested Flight LevelRGCSP Review of the General Concept of Seperation PanelRTF Radio-Telephone FrequencyRVSM Reduced Vertical Separation minima

SIM5+ 5th Generation of EEC Real-Time SimulatorSTCA Short Term Conflict Alert

TLS Target Level of SafetyTSA Temporary Segregated Area


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 vii



AAAAA

Executive Summary - The Continental RVSM Real-Time Simulation

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

EEC Task AS16 was a real-time simulation carried out at theEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) at Brétigny between 9 -24 May 1995. The task was to make an initial investigation of theoperational implications associated with the implementation of RevisedVertical Separation Minima (RVSM) in a Continental Europeanenvironment.

BACKGROUNDThe vertical separation in current use was specified in the early 1960sprompted by the introduction into commercial service of jet aircraftcapable of flying above 30,000ft. The perceived inaccuracy of altimetry athigh altitudes resulted in the doubling of the normal 1000ft verticalseparation to 2000ft above Flight Level 290.

Since then there have been a number of activities seeking as their goalthe safe application of 1000ft vertical separation above FL290. Amongthe several bodies exploring the requirements for the safe implementationof RVSM, the Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel(RGCSP) have identified the following needs:

Requirements a. Aircraft airworthiness criteria which conform to MASPS (MinimumAircraft System Performance Specification).

b. The provision of altitude monitoring facilities.

c. New operational procedures

The majority of recently delivered civil aircraft conform to MASPS, butsome older aircraft still have to be upgraded to comply. Because anydegradation of system performance outside the MASPS requirements willbe unacceptable, monitoring systems are necessary to ensure that heightkeeping errors are detected as soon as possible. The monitoringrequirements have resulted in the specification of a HMU (HeightMonitoring Unit)

Implementation The RGCSP identified that the NAT (North Atlantic) region provides thebest characteristics for the first implementation of RVSM because thetraffic flows are generally one way and aircraft are already equipped toMNPS (Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications) standards.



page 1



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


While feasible in the North Atlantic (NAT) region, the global application of1000 ft VSM between FL 290 and FL 410 is not currently consideredviable over continental Europe. European traffic is multi-directional,unsupported by Height Monitoring Units and subject to meteorologicalcharacteristics originating from the large land mass. These areas arebeing addressed and statistical data is being collected to help identify anappropriate Target Level of Safety.

Previous Simulations

Simulations have already taken place:

EU760 May 1991 at the ATCEU in Hurn UK, based on Shannon's airspace. EU Report N°586 CAA Paper 92018.

AR37 May 1994 at the EEC Bretigny involving the Shannon/Brest Transition areas. EECReport N° 284

AS16 SIMULATION OBJECTIVES

AS16 addressed the basic aspects of the introduction of additional RVSMlevels above FL290 in a European environment. RVSM was appliedthroughout the area, ie. no transition back to conventional separation

Within this framework the simulation concentrated on:

a. the operational implications associated with the use of theadditional levels,

b. the ramifications for civil/military coordination.

SIMULATION METHOD

It was desirable to base the simulation scenario on an area served bymultiple ATC centres including a civil and military element. Severaladministrations were approached with a view to providing controllers andidentifying appropriate simulation airspace. Unfortunately all thoseapproached found the allocated period in May 1995 a very difficult periodin which to release controllers for a simulation. France and Switzerlandwere able to provide staff for a short duration. In consequence, we wereconstrained by staff availability to complete the task over a period oftwelve working days from 9 - 24 May inclusive.



page 2



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


AIRSPACEThe airspace encompassed two Reims ACC sectors (UH and UE), oneZurich ACC sector (U2) and a French Military sector associated with theairspace of UH and UE. Today's route structure applied in these sectors.The surrounding airspace was represented by three support positions toensure the operational integrity of all the normal interfaces with theadjacent sectors and centres. The support positions were manned bystaff from Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS), SWISSCONTROL, and ReimsACC.

ATC ENVIRONMENTAn experimental environment was created with a view to providing a stateof ATC functionality representative of systems that will be available withinthe next five years. Interaction with radar and flight data was based ontwo principles:

a. transporting the current French digitatron functions from a discretedevice into a window on the main operating display,

b. additional information was available interactively via the radarlabel,

In consequence there were no paper strips. All data was presented onlarge screen displays for each controller. Radar and FPL data wasdisplayed in windows and managed through the use of a mouse.

TRAFFICTraffic scenarios were representative of those currently experienced andthose forecast for the year 2000.

ORGANISATIONFour scenarios were chosen to address the objectives in a structuredmanner. These were:

Org A. current traffic without RVSM levels,

Org A1. current traffic with RVSM levels,

Org B. year 2000 traffic without RVSM levels,

Org B1. year 2000 traffic with RVSM levels.



page 3



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


CONCLUSIONS

Caveats The simulation assessment is subject to two caveats:

• The simulated future ATC system was immature. The informationdisplayed did not give the controller the comprehensive "picture"necessary to fulfil his job.

• Civil/military coordination took place in an entirely Frenchenvironment. Thus, some of the results are particular to thisenvironment.

Level Orientation Levels between FL290 and FL410 were allocated in accordance withICAO recommendations. This method of level orientation provedsatisfactory, was readily assimilated and was endorsed by the simulationparticipants.

Civil The additional number of levels available with RVSM made the controllerstask easier. The controller was able to resolve conflicts more frequentlyby the simpler option of a climb or descent by 1000ft, instead of the morework intensive use of radar headings. In some areas inter-centretelephone coordination has been reduced; mainly because of the greateruse of level separation (not requiring telephone coordination) instead ofradar related tactics (generally requiring coordination) across Centreboundaries.

The level of traffic captured by RVSM may require changes in existingsectorisation. The availability of RVSM attracts traffic from the lowerlevels. This could result in a need for stratified sectorisation where thisdoes not exist or a review of the division levels between statified sectorswhere they already exist.

No operational problems were identified that could be considered to bean obstruction to the implementation of RVSM.

Military Operational Air Traffic is normally not displayed to French Civil controllers.The functionality simulated provided military controllers with the capabilityto address a radar track and label to a specified French civil sector inadvance of telephone coordination. The availability of this functioncoupled with the introduction of RVSM levels points to a greater degreeof military initiated coordination than is usual today.

The combination of RVSM, the density of year 2000 civil traffic samplesand the need to maintain 2000ft separation for non-MASP military aircraft,made the task of separating OAT from GAT very difficult. In some cases,to the extent that portions of the simulated airspace became "no go"areas during periods of busy GAT. The additional vectoring to avoidbusy areas and maintain 2000ft separation had a detrimental effect on theability of the military flights to complete their mission. The fact that GAT



page 4



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


was on a direct route was not easily discernable by the military controllerand thus could not be planned for.

The new ATC functionality was well received by the military participantsand, even with the additional factors outlined above, enabled militarycontrollers to handle double the number of aircraft possible today.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Significant benefits accrue from the use of RVSM; ever effort should bemade to introduce RVSM in the widest area possible at the earliest time.

Consideration should be given to the problems that may arise if civilMASP and non-MASP are expected to fly in the same airspace.

Military non-MASP aircraft suffer a penalty compared with MASP aircraft.Wherever possible consideration should be given to making militaryaircraft MASP compliant.



page 5



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


1 INTRODUCTION

EEC Task AS16 was a real-time simulation carried out at theEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) at Brétigny between 9 -24 May 1995. The task was to make an initial investigation of theoperational implications associated with the implementation of RevisedVertical Separation Minima (RVSM) in a Continental Europeanenvironment.

1.1 BACKGROUND

The vertical separation in current use was specified in the early 1960sprompted by the introduction into commercial service of jet aircraftcapable of flying above 30,000ft. The perceived inaccuracy of altimetry athigh altitudes resulted in the doubling of the normal 1000ft verticalseparation to 2000ft above Flight Level 290.

Jet Aircraft Provoked by jet aircraft favouring the levels above FL290, as early as1966, consideration was given to the use of Reduced Vertical SeparationMinima. The implementation of 1000ft separation above FL290 offereddouble the number of available levels at the popular cruising altitudes.This could result in a significant increase in airspace capacity and agreater likelihood that aircraft operators could fly at their optimum cruisinglevel.

ICAO In the 1970's ICAO introduced provisions to allow the application ofRVSM in designated areas under specific conditions. However, theseprovisions needed to be supported by a comprehensive study to assessthe risks attached to their implementation.

Statistical Studies Under the guidance of the RGCSP (Review of the General Concept ofSeparation Panel), who was responsible for RVSM in ICAO, worldwidefeasibility studies were made during the 1980s. These included severalby Eurocontrol and its member states (France, Germany, the UK and theNetherlands). Since then, a considerable amount of data has beencollected and collision risk evaluations in conditions of RVSM have beenundertaken.

Target Level ofSafety

One of the specific requirements established by ICAO for RVSM wasto determine the probability of risk of collisions due to loss of verticalseparation. The risk should never be less than a fixed Target Level ofSafety (TLS) currently calculated as equivalent to 5 collisions per 109

hours of flight


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 1- 1



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


R e g i o n a lIntroduction

The findings of the various evaluations were studied by the sixthmeeting of the RGCSP in 1988. These evaluations, together with thetechnical improvements in the construction, maintenance and use ofaltimeters, indicated that the use of 1000ft RVSM above FL290 wastechnically feasible, but that it should be introduced on a regionalbasis. The RGCSP specified that the RVSM implementation shouldbe subject to three requirements:

Requirements a. Aircraft airworthiness criteria which conform to MASPS (MinimumAircraft System Performance Specification).

b. The provision of altitude monitoring facilities.

c. New operational procedures

MASPS The majority of recently delivered civil aircraft conform to MASPS, butsome older aircraft still have to be upgraded to comply. Degradation ofsystem performance outside the MASPS requirements may occur due topoor maintenance or resulting from problems during flight operations suchas damage to static ports. As any degradation of the required high levelsof accuracy is unacceptable, monitoring systems are necessary to ensurethat height keeping errors are detected as soon as possible. Monitoringwill use statistical methods related to the type of traffic expected to useRVSM airspace. The monitoring requirements have resulted in thespecification of a HMU (Height Monitoring Unit).

Application The RGCSP identified that the NAT (North Atlantic) region provides thebest characteristics for the first implementation of RVSM because thetraffic flows are generally one way and aircraft are already equipped toMNPS (Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications) standards.Traffic predictions indicate that the traffic volume will double in the NATregion by year 2010. The application of RVSM in this region shouldabsorb this increase. It should also provide fuel and time saving benefitsto the airlines by allowing a greater number of aircraft to use moretime/fuel-efficient tracks.

Feasibility While feasible in the North Atlantic (NAT) region, the global application of1000 ft VSM between FL 290 and FL 410 is not currently consideredviable over continental Europe. European traffic is multi-directional,unsupported by Height Monitoring Units and subject to meteorologicalcharacteristics originating from the large land mass. These areas arebeing addressed and statistical data is being collected to help identify anappropriate Target Level of Safety.

Historically, poor altimetry performance has lengthened the statisticalodds of two aircraft being in close proximity. The improved heightkeeping performance of the present aircraft population is significantlyshortening this statistical difference. Thus, a time will arrive whenadditional measures may be needed to sustain the Target Level of Safety.Such circumstances will arise when the whole aircraft population iscertified for altimetry MASPS and a large percentage of these aircraft areflying to an accuracy of less than one nautical mile (exact figure not yetdetermined ). The introduction of a systematic offset from the ATS route





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


centre-line is seen as the additional measure necessary. Practicalapplication of such an offset will require the mandatory carriage ofnavigational equipment meeting RNP 1 requirements.

Simulations Simulations have already taken place:

EU760 May 1991 at the ATCEU in Hurn UK, based on Shannon's airspace. EU Report N°586 CAA Paper 92018.

AR37 May 1994 at the EEC Bretigny involving the Shannon/Brest Transition areas. EECReport N° 284

1.2 SIMULATION OBJECTIVES

General Objectives Simulation in general has the following objectives:

a. To obtain quantitative information on workload and capacity aspects,both with and without the use of offset navigation, as a contributorypart to a full cost/benefit analysis of RVSM.

b. To assess whether the introduction of RVSM in continental Europeanhigh density airspace is operationally acceptable, taking into accountthat aircraft may have to navigate systematically offset from the routecentre-line.

c. To assess whether current ATC procedures are adequate for thecontrol of traffic navigating using offsets from the ATS routes.

d. To examine the effects of the transition, both vertical and lateral,into and out of RVSM airspace.

e. To assess the effect of RVSM operations, with and withoutsystematic offsets, on military operations and on civil/militaryco-ordination.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


AS16 Objectives AS16 was a simulation of short duration and could not deal with all of theabove objectives. AS16 addressed the basic aspects of the introductionof additional RVSM levels above FL290 (without using offsets) in aEuropean environment. RVSM was applied throughout the area, ie. notransition back to conventional separation

Within this framework the simulation concentrated on:

a. the operational implications associated with the use of the additionallevels,

b. the ramifications for civil/military coordination.

1.3 CAVEAT

Generally, radar targets of OAT are not presented to French civilcontrollers. This is a specific characteristic of French Civil/militaryoperations that affects civil/military coordination in a way that may not beapplicable in other European countries.



04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

45

46

47

48

49

50

45

46

47

48

49

50

410400390380370360350340330320310300

EWEWEWEWEWEW

E

W

E

W

E

W

E 290

410

390

370

350

330

310

RVSM TODAY

MILITARY SECTOR

CONTINENTAL RVSM SIMULATION

ATN

CLM

CTL

DIKMI

FFM

GIGGIHANNY

KLO

KOTIS

KRH

LUX

MOU

NEGRA

NTM

OLBEN

PARTA

RALIX

RESIASPR

SUXAN

TADEL

TENEX

TRO

AS16

BENGO

TRA

AARAU

AGERI

ALBIX

ARBOS

ARPUS

BARAU

BEGAR

BLM

CANNE

COLOM

DANAR

DIJ

DIK

DITOR

EPL

FRANE

FRI

FUSSE

GTQ

HERBI

HOCHR

IXILU

JAMBA

KASON

KPT

LASON

LINNA

LUL

LUXIE

MAPAK

MARGY

MET

MONCE

MONDO

MOROK

NELLI

PAS

RAMBE

REMIRRLP

ROLEX

ROUSY

SAA

SALAZ

SRN

STR

SUL

TGO

VALDA WIL

ZUE

TZO

UE

U2

UH

FS

SWISS

SWISS

MIL

DFS

195unl

285345

195

unl

000

195

000

unl

285000

000

000

unl

unl

132.50

134.60

134.40

128.30

120.92

133.05

133.05

244.50



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


2 SIMULATION METHOD

It is anticipated that RVSM will be applied initially in a large portion ofEurope. Thus, it was desirable to base the simulation scenario on an areaserved by multiple ATC centres including a civil and military element.Several administrations were approached with a view to providingcontrollers and identifying appropriate simulation airspace. Unfortunatelyall those approached found the allocated period in May 1995 a verydifficult period in which to release controllers for a simulation. France andSwitzerland were able to provide staff for a short duration. Inconsequence, we were constrained by staff availability to complete thetask over a period of twelve working days from 9 - 24 May inclusive.

2.1 AIRSPACE

The airspace encompassed two Reims ACC sectors (UH and UE), oneZurich ACC sector (U2) and a French Military sector associated with theairspace of UH and UE. Today's route structure applied in these sectors.Within the context of the EATCHIP Flexible use of Airspace, TemporarySegregated Areas (TSAs) were located within sectors UH and UE. ACross Border Area (CBA) was created across the frontier between Franceand Germany.

In addition to these sectors, the surrounding airspace was represented bythree support positions to ensure the operational integrity of all the normalinterfaces with the adjacent sectors and centres. The support positionswere manned by staff from Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS),SWISSCONTROL, and Reims ACC.

2.2 ATC ENVIRONMENT

An experimental environment was created with a view to providing a stateof ATC functionality representative of systems that will be available withinthe next five years. Interaction with radar and flight data was based ontwo principles:

a. transporting the current French digitatron functions from a discretedevice into a window on the main operating display,

b. additional information would be available interactively via the radarlabel,

In consequence the decision was taken not to provide paper strips. Alldata was presented on the latest large screen displays for each controller.Radar and FPL data was displayed in windows and managed through theuse of a mouse. A full description of the functionality is given in section3 .


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 2 - 1



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


2.3 TRAFFIC

Traffic scenarios were representative of those currently experienced andthose forecast for the year 2000. Current traffic data was provided by theFrench and Swiss authorities. This data provided two reference samples.The EEC created augmented traffic samples to represent year 2000traffic. These samples were based on forecasts made byEUROCONTROL. Broadly, the year 2000 samples contained 25% moretraffic that the reference samples.

The following table shows the mean hourly flow of traffic in each of themeasured sectors classified by Organisation and traffic sample.



AAAAAAAAAA

OrgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAA

SampleAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAA

UEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAA

UHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAA

U2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAA

MIL

A 1 39 51 45 9

A 2 34 36 40 10

A1 1 39 49 49 9

A1 2 34 36 40 10

B 3 51 63 57 9

B 4 47 48 48 10

B1 3 51 62 58 9

B1 4 47 48 50 11

RVSM levels between FLs 290 and 410 were allocated in line with theICAO recommendation thus:

410 Eastbound

400 Westbound

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA





390AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA








AAAAAA

Eastbound

380 Westbound

370 Eastbound

360 Westbound














AAAAAA

Eastbound

340 Westbound

330 Eastbound

320 Westbound














AAAAAA

Eastbound

300 Westbound

The table shows three highlighted levels; 310, 350 and 390. In thechange to RVSM, these levels become eastbound where previously theywere assigned to flights in a westbound direction. In Orgs. A1 and B1,





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


traffic with RFLs at these levels were allocated the level immediatelyabove ie. FL320 instead of FL310, unless the aircraft performance ceilingindicated that the level below would be more appropriate ie. FL380instead of FL390. In Org. B1 the additional forecast traffic has beenallocated a level commensurate with the length of the flight sector andaircraft operating ceiling.

2.4 TRAINING

In addition to the normal simulation practice, where participants receivefamiliarisation and training at the EEC, a computer based package wasmade available so that they could learn about the simulation environmentbefore coming to the EEC.

2.5 ORGANISATION

Four scenarios were chosen to address the objectives in a structuredmanner. These were:

Org A. current traffic without RVSM levels, Org A1. current traffic with RVSM levels, Org B. year 2000 traffic without RVSM levels, Org B1. year 2000 traffic with RVSM levels.

Organisation A provided a reference against which the other threeorganisations could be judged. Every organisation included six exercises.Each exercise was of 90 minutes duration. An hour of analytical data wasrecorded from each exercise. The remaining 30 minutes allowed thetraffic to build up and subside. The daily programme generally includedthree exercises a day. On completion of a days exercises and at the endof an organisation participants were asked for their comments. Aftercompletion of Orgs. A and A1 and Orgs B and B1 a questionnaire wasdistributed.

Following two days familiarisation at the EEC, the programmecommenced with Org A. The programme plan is shown in Annex A

2.6 ANALYSIS

Qualitative Subjective data was collected from participants in the form of responsesto Instantaneous Subjective Analysis (ISA), NASA Task Load Index(NASA TLX) analysis and questionnaire. ISA and NASA TLX is explainedin Annex B

Quantative Recorded data provides, amongst others, analysis of R/T and telephoneoccupancy, pilot orders, Flight Level occupancy and designated controllerinputs.





AAAAAReport on the Continental RVSM Real-Time Simulation

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

3 SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

The initial stages of preparation for the simulation were based onproviding a functioning system derived from a previous Frenchsimulation (EEC Task AR38). However, the Group advisingpreparation team eventually felt that this was inappropriate. Theenvisaged implementation timescale for RVSM is early in the nextcentury, by which time ATC systems will have evolved and thesimulation should reflect this evolution. Within the time remaining theEEC included elements of a "next generation" ATC system within theFunctional Specification for the simulation. This resulted in asimulation environment where all information was displayed to thecontroller on a large 2K by 2K display. The controller managed thedisplayed data through a windows structure using a mouse inputdevice.

3.1 SIMULATOR SIM5+

SIM5+ is the fifth and current Real-Time simulator at the EEC. The +indicates it is a developed variant of the fifth version. The simulatorrepresents the aircraft and ATC system by having separate AIR andGROUND elements. These two elements of the simulator are referredto in the descriptions that follow.

3.2 DEFINITIONS

In order to understand this chapter the reader should be aware of thefollowing acronyms and their attributes:

AFL Actual Flight Level of the aircraft corresponding to the mode C level.

RFL Requested Flight Level as found in the flight plan and requested bythe pilot.

CFL Intermediate Flight Level used tactically by the controller to achievethe RFL or PFL. It was treated during the simulation as a displayentity only ie. it had no effect on profile calculation.

PFL Planned Flight Level, used by the controller to plan the exit level forsector. The PFL is the RFL until modified by a level described in thesimulator profile (Letter of Agreement level or equivalent) or an inputby the controller.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° 294 3 - 1





3.3 PFL PROFILE CALCULATION

The PFL Profile Calculation identifies the entry and exit levels for eachsector taking into account local agreements between sectors andLetters of Agreements (LOAs) between centres. Controllers wereable to modify this profile by changing the PFL. Changing the PFLwas available to all controllers who had the flight displayed in theirEntry/Exit window. Only one controller at a time was able to make achange (an indication was given on all other displays that a controllerwas in the process of modifying a profile).

When the PFL had been input, the profile was recalculated:

at the time the PFL was accepted; using the flight plan data (not the current radar position).

Where appropriate the profile change caused a change in sectorsequence. The flight plan was then displayed according to the newsector sequence in the entry/exit window of the relevant sectors.Where a change resulted in a previously included sector beingremoved from the sequence the line of text in the FPL window washighlighted in yellow. This indicated that the subject traffic would nolonger enter the sector. Mouse button 1 on the callsign in the line ofdata removed the line of text.

When a controller opened the PFL menu (Button 1 on the exit PFLfield displayed in the entry/exit window) a message was generated toall other CWPs. This message blocked PFL input at all otherpositions until the input sequence was completed (or abandoned) andthe profile recalculated. The HMI is described in the section detailingthe Entry/Exit Window.

3.4 TRACK DEVIATION MONITORING

Track deviation monitoring identified disparities between the flight planidentified position of the aircraft and its actual position. Suchdisparities result from controller instructions not known to the FlightPlan processing system. These include heading or a direct routeinstructions, although input provision was made for the latter.

Since the deviation on the horizontal plane could induce timedeviation from the originally calculated trajectory track, deviationmonitoring was required to recompute the time estimates. A timedeviation of 3 minutes activated a recalculation of profile.

Changes in climb or descent characteristics could also result in a timedeviation and as such give rise to a recalculation of profile.







3.5 SHORT TERM CONFLICT ALERT (STCA)

STCA provided a warning of the forecast proximity of two aircraft. Theforecast proximity was based on the horizontal and vertical positionscalculated by the simulator Ground system. The Ground systemtrajectory was calculated on the basis of the entry and exit valuesshown in the Entry/exit window. CFL changes input via the radarlabel were display entities only and did not result in a recalculation ofthe profile. Consequently they were not taken into account by STCA.Operation of the STCA function caused the text ALRT , colouredYELLOW, to be displayed in the top line of the radar label and theidentities of the conflicting pair with forecast minimum separation inthe STCA window. This text continued to be displayed until it wasdetected that the conflict criteria were exceeded.

The parameters applied were :

Horizontal < 5 (4.9 nm and less) Vertical < 1000 ft FL 410 and below (< 2000 ft above FL 290

for Orgs A and B) Two minutes warning prior to loss of separation.

STCA warning was given for all flights above FL180.

3.6 CONTROLLER WORKING POSITIONS (CWPs)

CWP capabilities are described as generic capabilities applicable toall positions and as specific capabilities for named positions eg.French Military.

3.7 INPUT DEVICE

Orders were input using a three button mouse.

We tried to establish a button allocation based predominantly onbutton 1 (left button) as the main input button, however itbecame necessary to allocate certain input to buttons 2 and 3;button 2 (middle button) inputs were related to display aspectsnot affecting the flight profile eg. closing a menu and button 3(right button) for window resizing and moving. All references tomouse inputs refer to the button used to perform the input eg.Button 1 on callsign in radar label...... .







3.8CWP DISPLAY (SONY and HP 21")

On initiation the display contained at least three default windows andcould contain two additional windows:

Default Windows

Radar Window Entry/Exit Window for all displays. French Military also had the

Flight Data window. Display Management Window (including Clock Window)

Additional Windows

Additional Flights Window STCA Window

3.9 RADAR WINDOW

Activation Present at exercise start

Attributes Non iconifyNon CloseableNon re-sizeableNon moveableNo frameRadar label overlap detection

Content Video mapsAircraft tracks (radar label)

Position Full screen

Colour Backdrop Dark blueOwn sector BlueRoutes Sky blueNon-active Reserved Areas Light MauveActive Reserved Areas Dark Mauve







3.10 STCA WINDOW

Activation Initiation of STCA

Attributes Non iconifyNon CloseableNon re-sizeableNon moveableNo frameRadar label overlap detection

Content Callsigns of aircraft pair involved in STCA and forecast minimumseparation

Position Bottom right of screen

Colour Background - Dark Grey Text - Red

Function The STCA window was presented to the sectors where the aircraftwere assumed. This could cause an STCA window to be displayed ontwo sectors if each sector controlled one of the pair involved in theSTCA.

Figure 3-1 - STCA Window







Default picture centre and diameter (Sony and 21" displays):

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


























AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA













AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


























AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA




AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

Figure 3-2 Civil CWP Display - SONY

UH - 473937N 0064023E 140nm UE - 482008N 0061257E 180nmU2 - 471400N 0083423 E 180nm DFS - 484500N 0082400E 180nmSWISS - 465223N 0082222E 180nm FS - 481903N 0060352E 180nm







Default picture centre and diameter (Sony and 21" display):

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

























AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA












AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
























AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AA




AAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-3 Military CWP Display - SONY

481903N 0060352E 170nm







3.11 DISPLAY MANAGEMENT WINDOW (DMW)


Attributes Non IconifyNon CloseableNon re-sizeableNon MoveableSingle line frameText well separated from frame

Content This window provided display management of the radar window. Itcontained:

Range scale selection Layer filter selectionSpeed vector selection Reserved Area button ( Military DMW only)Quick-way-back (QWB) button2 pre-set scale buttonsRadar track selection button (ALL); for civil or military tracksaccording to CWP.Move button to change radar centreAutomatic label anti-overlap selectionMinimum LabelSector nameClock

Size Full width of screen

Colour Window background Dark greyButton Up Light GreyButton Depressed (selected) Medium greyText Black

Position Top of Screen







3.12 CLOCK WINDOW (initially located in Display Management Window)


Attributes Non iconifyNon CloseableNon re-sizeableMoveableUp-date every five secondsSame font for all charactersSingle line frameText centred in middle of window, well separated from frame

Contents Exercise time expressed as :

HH : MM : SS (Large Characters)

Size Including one line of text.

Colour Window background Dark blueText White

Position Right-hand end of DMW.

Dialogue Press and Hold Button 1 in the clock window; move to new positionand release.

3.13 SCALE (ZOOM) SELECTION GAUGE

Attributes Governed by those of the DMW

Contents A moveable slider. When the position of the slider was at the extremeleft the smallest scale (distance across the radar window) representing10 nm is selected; at the right-hand of the slider the maximum scalehad been selected - 500 nm. The intervening increments were in 5 nmsteps. The chosen selection was displayed above the slider button .

Position Inside DMW at left hand end.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

















AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
















AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-4 Scale Selection Gauge







Dialogue Press and hold Button 1 on the slider button in the gauge and movethe slider left to decrease and right to increase distance acrossscreen. Button 1 was released when the desired scale was displayedabove the slider.

3.14 LOWER-UPPER LAYER SELECTION GAUGE

Attributes Governed by those of the DMW.

Contents Two moveable sliders. The left slider could be moved to the left orright to define the lower value at which a radar track would bedisplayed while the right slider moved in the same manner anddefined the upper value. Values in 1000ft steps were available from50 - 660. The chosen selections were displayed above the sliderbuttons.

Position Inside the DMW to the right of the Scale Selection gauge.

Dialogue Press and hold Button 1 on the appropriate slider button in the gaugeand move the button left to decrease and right to increase the value.Button 1 in the space to the left of the lower value slider and the lowervalue was decreased by 5000ft. Button 1 to the right of the lower

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


























AAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-5 Lower-Upper Layer Selection Gauge

value slider reversed the decreased 5000ft selection.

Default settings At exercise start or when a QWB selection was made the followinglower/upper settings were applied:

Sector U2 - 230/400Sectors UH and UE - 150/660Sectors French Mil, DFS, FS and SWISS - 90/660







3.15 SPEED VECTOR PANEL

Attributes Governed by those of the DMW.

Contents Six selectable diamonds marked 0-5 minutes.

Position Inside the DMW to the right of the Upper-lower Selection Gauge.

Dialogue Button 1 on the chosen vector diamond in the selector. Selection ofa value between 1 and 5 provided a vector corresponding to thedistance flown in the time chosen. Selection of the value 0 stoppedthe display of a speed vector.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
















AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-6 Speed Vector Gauge

3.16 SECTOR NAME

Attributes Governed by those of the DMW

Contents Text SECTOR followed by a space then the name of the currentsector ( max. 5 characters) eg. SECTOR UH

Position Inside DMW at the right-hand end of the window above the clock.

Dialogue None







3.17 DMW BUTTONS

3.18 RESERVED AREAs (RAs)

This button offered the military controller the possibility to activate ordeactivate a Reserved Area.

Activation Button 1 on RAs button exposed a menu to select RA.

Dialogue Button 1 on chosen RA in pop-up menu. The menu closed and thechosen RA was displayed in a warning colour (light mauve) on allpositions with the relevant portion of simulation airspace displayed inthe radar window. The active period started from 10 minutes after theRA choice was completed in the pop-up menu. When active thewarning colour changed to dark mauve. When active the proceduredescribed above deactivated the RA and removed the displayed RAfrom all positions.Button 2 inside the pop-up menu closed the menu without input.

3.19 QUICK WAY BACK (QWB)

Selection of this button restored the display to its default centreposition and range settings.

Activation Button 1 on QWB

Dialogue None.

3.20 SPECIFIED DISPLAY DIAMETER

Selection of the appropriate button set the diameter of the radarwindow to the chosen value. The following values were usedaccording to sector:

UH - 100 and 170nmUE, U2, DFS, FS and SWISS - 150 and 210nmFM - 140 and 200nm

Activation Button 1 on selected button.

Dialogue None.







3.21 VIDEO MAP SELECTION

A MAPS button gave access to a menu to select the required videomaps. On completion of the selection the associated video map(s)was displayed.

The following selection was available:

French Military positions:

1 Sector, Military waypoints 4 Frontiers2 Civil Routes and Beacons 5 Reserved Areas3 Beacon Names 6 Civil Sectors

Selection 1 was the default displayed at the start of each exercise.The rest of the selections were deactivated.

French Civil and Swiss positions:

Selection 1 and 2 were the defaults displayed at the start of eachexercise. The rest of the selections were deactivated.

1 Sector 4 Frontiers2 Routes and Beacons 5 Reserved Areas3 Beacon Names

Activation Button 1 on the map button opened a menu offering the selection tobe displayed.

Dialogue Button 1 on the selection(s) required followed by Button 2 to close themenu.







3.22 DISPLAY ALL TRACKS

Displayed, in addition to tracks currently on display, all other radartracks.

Activation Button 1 on ALL.

Dialogue None

MOVE (Off Centring)

This function allowed the controller to off-centre the radar image.

Activation Button 1 on MOVE button.

Dialogue After MOVE button was selected the cursor moved to the middle of the

radar window and changed to the MOVE cursor shape ( ). Movingthe cursor dragged the radar image with the cursor.When the image was in the required position, (anywhere in the radarwindow) Button 1 caused the cursor to revert to its normal format, theMOVE button to return to "button up" status and fixed the radar pictureon its new centre.

3.23 AUTOMATIC LABEL ANTI-OVERLAP

Button OVERLAP positioned to the left of clock.

When selected the label anti-overlap function was activated. Thefunction was inactive as default at exercise start (button up).

Dialogue Button 1 on the OVERLAP button (button became depressed)activated.Button 1 on the depressed OVERLAP button (button up) deactivated.



AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAA

AA

AReport on the Continental RVSM Real-Time Simulation


AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA


AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

Figure 3.7 CIVIL DISPLAY MANAGEMENT WINDOW



AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAA

AA

AReport on the Continental RVSM Real-Time Simulation


AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-8 FRENCH MILITARY MANAGEMENT WINDOW







3.24 MINIMUM LABEL

This function allowed the military controller to reduce the label contentof all civil tracks so that only the AFL and CFL was displayed.

Activation Button 1 on MINLBL button and button became depressed.Button 1 on MINLBL for a second time returned the labels to thenormal format.

Dialogue None

3.25 ENTRY/EXIT DATA WINDOW

An Entry/Exit data window was provided to the executive and planningpositions of all Civil subject sectors.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


Figure 3-9 ENTRY/EXIT DATA WINDOW with PFL menu displayed

The Entry/Exit data window provided the controller with information onand access to:

Traffic entering and leaving the sector; Access to a Flight Data Message window (FDM).







Activation Active at exercise start.

Attributes IconifyNon closeableRe-sizeableMoveableFrame

Content Default size of 10 lines of data:

CALLSIGN TYPE Entry PFL DEST Exit PFL NEXT SECTOR.A scroll bar was added when window size could not accommodatearriving data. The scroll bar would disappear if the window was resizedto accommodate all available data.

At the start of the simulation the data line contained only:CALLSIGN Entry PFL Exit PFL NEXT SECTOR. TYPE and DESTwere added during the simulation at the request of the participants.

Position At bottom left of screen

Colour Backdrop Dark blueText Green, white, yellow or grey according to statusMedium Blue Text lockedScroll Bar Grey

Attributes Each line of data was presented in green 10 minutes before the flightentered the sector. Button 1 on callsign changed the text colour towhite or appropriate colour according to status of flight. Sorting bytime of sector entry - earliest at the top.

7 minutes before exiting the sector the Next Sector text was added.When the aircraft crossed the boundary of the next sector, the dataline was removed.

If a controller was in the process of making a PFL input the text on allother displays was coloured MEDIUM BLUE. This indicated that thePFL was inaccessible until the input action was completed. Access tothe FDM was still available.

A change in PFL was shown in yellow to other affected controllers withdata displayed. Button 1 on the yellow text would restore the text toits appropriate colour.

The scroll bar was positioned to the right of the window when therewas more data than could be accommodated in the window.







The text line on traffic exiting to another Centre became grey when theNext Sector was added. The PFL was then inaccessible. Thisemulated the ACT message being sent and any further coordinationwas by telephone. Any resulting level changes were entered in theCFL field of the radar label.

The text line of traffic exiting to another sector in the same centrestayed white until 3 minutes before sector exit. Access to the PFL forinter-sector changes remained available until 3 minutes before sectorexit.

Following a change in PFL where the new profile removed a sectorfrom a sector sequence, the complete data line appeared in yellow toindicate that the sector was no longer affected by this flight. Button 1 still gave access to the FDM. Button 2 removed the line of data from the display.

Dialogue Button 1 on Callsign opened FDM window.Button 1 on exit PFL opened PFL menu.Button 1 in scroll bar offered standard scroll bar dialogue.







3.26 MILITARY FLIGHT DATA WINDOWS

A flight data window was provided to the military controller, assistantand supervisor positions.

The flight data window gave information on and access to:

All military traffic; Access to a Flight Data Message window (FDM);

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-10 MILITARY FLIGHT DATA WINDOW




CALLSIGN PFLA scroll bar was added when the window size could not accommodatemore than ten lines of data. The scroll bar disappeared if the windowwas resized to accommodate all available data.

Position Bottom left of screen

Colour Backdrop Dark blueText WhiteScroll Bar Grey







3.27 MILITARY ENTRY/EXIT WINDOW

An Entry/Exit data window was provided to the military controller,assistant and supervisor positions. This window held data on civiltraffic within the military area of responsibility.

The Entry/Exit data window provided information on or access to:

Information on civil traffic entering and leaving the Frenchsimulated airspace;

Access to a Flight Data Message window (FDM);

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-11 MILITARY ENTRY/EXIT WINDOW of CIVIL DATA










CALLSIGN, Entry PFL at entry sector, Exit PFL at exit sector, NextSector. In this case NS was the first penetrated sector outside UH andUE.A scroll bar was added when window size could not accommodatemore than ten lines of text. The scroll bar disappeared if the windowwas resized to accommodate all available data.

Position Bottom left of screen to right of Flight Data window.







3.28 FLIGHT DATA MESSAGE WINDOW - FDM

The FDM provided additional FPL information and gave access tosend flight information to another sector not included in the sectorprofile.

Activation Only available when the flight was assumed. Button 1 on Callsign inradar label, on Callsign in Entry/Exit windows, Additional Flightswindow or Military Flight Data window

Figure 3-12 FDM WINDOW with menu displayed .

Attributes Non iconifyCloseableRe-sizeableMoveableFrame

Content Default display contained a header giving:

Callsign RFL Aircraft Type TAS ADEP ADEST

and 5 lines of flight plan data showing reporting points or sectorentry/exit with time and PFL.A scroll bar was added when FPL data included more than fivereporting points.A SEND button to access the sector menuAn CNL button to close the window

Position Adjacent to Exit window.







Colour Backdrop Dark BlueText WhiteButton Light Grey

Dialogue Button 1 on SEND button opened a pop-up menu, button 1 onselected destination, in the pop-up menu, sent information to chosensector and closed the FDM window.Button 1 on CNL closed window and returned to ENTRY/EXIT window

3.29 ADDITIONAL FLIGHTS WINDOW

Displayed CALLSIGN ENTRY PFL EXIT PFL and Next Sector relatedto the originator of the SEND message ie. when sent from UH thedisplayed data was related to the UH sector.

Activation If not displayed it was triggered by message sent from the sectororiginating SEND message

Dialogue Button 1 on CALLSIGN opened FDM Window.Button 2 on CALLSIGN removed message from window

Position To right of Entry/Exit Windows

Colour Backdrop Dark BlueText White

Attributes Non iconifyMoveable



















Figure 3-13 ADDITIONAL FLIGHTS WINDOW







3.30 ELASTIC VECTOR - RANGE and BEARING and DIRECT ROUTE

This function enabled the controller to measure the range and bearingof a selected position from a radar symbol and/or enter a direct routefrom the current position to a navigation point on the original flightplan.

Function When selected the cursor changed into a (white) cross with a rangeand bearing readout presented at the side of the cross. On activation,the cross was at the cursor position reading nil range and bearing untilthe cursor was moved. A Flight Leg was displayed at the same timeas the cursor change.

The range and bearing was displayed thus:

090 / 031

The range changed in 1 nautical mile (max three characters)increments.The bearing changed in 5 degree increments.

Activation Button 1 on the track symbol.

Dialogue Move the cursor to the point where the range and bearing was neededor move to fix on the original FPL for a direct route.If a direct route input was required, Button 1 was used to capture fixname and update FPL processing. The Flight Leg was updated by thechange in route caused by the Direct input and remained displayed for10 seconds after the Direct input had been processed.If only range and bearing used, Button 2 deactivated elastic vector.

3.30.1 FLIGHT LEG

The flight leg displayed the FPL route of the chosen flight and theETAs (2 figures eg. 45, indicating the minutes past the hour) for theroute points on the Flight Leg.

Activation Displayed for 10 seconds following use of the "assume" function orButton 2 on track symbol initiated and when initiated deactivated.

Colour Flight Leg GreenText Magenta

Attributes Single line displayed in the radar window between radar symbol andeach of the flight plan points. Displayed within the chosen displayedrange or to the last point in the FPL.







3.31 RADAR LABEL

The radar label comprised :

Data block (maximum four lines); Radar position symbol; Lead line connecting data block to position symbol; Speed vector (0 to 5 minutes); Trails (history dots/afterglow) 6 dots; First three characters of first navigation point outside

designated sector for the control position.

DATA BLOCK The data block contained four lines of information, a correlation line,position symbol, trails and a speed vector :

Example :

Line 0 ALRTLine 1 CALLSIGNLine 2 AFL ↑-↓ GSLine 3 CFL FIX/ASSUMED SECTOR

The mode C was separated from the tendency symbols by a singlespace; the tendency symbol was separated from the ground speed bya single space. The whole data block was FLUSH left (line 2 and 3were fully justified) and positioned at 45 degrees from the positionsymbol as default.

ALRT The STCA alert was displayed in accordance with the rules describedfor STCA.

Colour Yellow.

Dialogue None.

IDEN The IDENT feature operated when the pilot selected IDENT followinga controller request. IDEN was displayed in Line 0 for 20 seconds.

Colour Yellow.

Dialogue None.







CALLSIGN The aircraft Callsign as found in the flight plan.

Colour Not assumed - grey: Assumed - white. Military flight presented forcoordination - Yellow.

Dialogue Button 1 on grey callsign gave "assume" button. Button 1 on "assume"button assumed the flight. Button 1 on white or yellow callsign openedFDM. Button 2 on yellow callsign removed radar label from display.

MODE C The actual flight level of the aircraft as determined by MODE C.

Colour Not assumed - greyAssumed - white.

Dialogue None.

TENDENCY When an aircraft was detected to be in climb the up arrow ↑ wasdisplayed between the MODE C and GS. This arrow was replaced bythe stable sign - when the aircraft was detected to be in level flight.When an aircraft was detected to be in descent the down arrow ↓ wasdisplayed.


Dialogue None

GROUND SPEED Ground speed was continuously displayed in the radar label. Only thefirst two characters were displayed.


Dialogue None







CFL The Cleared Level entered by the sector controller. Only displayed onposition in the same ATC centre. The CFL remained displayed untilCFL = AFL. A CFL could only be entered when the label wascoloured white ie. assumed.

Colour White except: after entry of a CFL at a civil sector position, the CFLon French Military screens was displayed in yellow for 30 seconds andthen reverted to grey. This colour distinction occurred only on themilitary display, the CFL stayed in white on all civil displays.

Dialogue Button 1 opened a CFL menu.

FIX or On civil sectors the first point outside the assumed sector. ASSUMEDSECTOR

On military displays the controlling civil sector


Dialogue None.

POSITION The position symbol was a filled white circleSYMBOL

Colour Not assumed - grey

Assumed - white.

Dialogue None.

LEAD LINE A straight line connecting the radar label data block and the positionsymbol.

Colour Grey at all times (to distinguish it from the vector line).

Dialogue None.

SPEED VECTOR The speed vector, when selected, extended from the position symbolby the chosen number of minutes ahead of the aircraft on the aircrafttrack. The speed vector was a straight line.


Dialogue None.







TRAILS Six trail dots were positioned behind the aircraft position symbol andrepresented 1 minute of past track .


Dialogue None.

Figure 3-14 Radar Label showing interaction .







3.32 RADAR LABEL AND MANUAL ANTI-OVERLAP FUNCTION

When anti-overlap was not selected, this function manually rotated theradar label to de-conflict radar label data blocks. The radar labelmoved by an increment of 45 degrees (clockwise) each time themouse button was clicked. 8 increments completed a revolutionaround the track symbol.

Dialogue Button 2 on any field of the radar label.

3.33 CFL and PFL MENU

The menu structure was the same for CFL and PFL. The menuopened when either a CFL or PFL field was addressed.

Attributes Opened centred on current CFL or PFL. If there was no CFLcurrently displayed then the menu centred on the RFL. FL incrementsof 1000ft or 2000ft above FL290 (1000ft up FL410 in Orgs A1 and B1).The Military CFL menu displayed FLs 245, 255, 265, 275, 285 and295 instead of whole 1000ft divisions 240 -290.

Dialogue Button 1 on the FL value closed the window and in the case of a PFLinput caused a profile recalculation. In the case of a CFL input theCFL field in radar label was updated but no recalculation of profile wasmade.Button 2 inside the menu closed without input.Button 1 on scroll bar to page up or page down a complete page orpress and hold to move slider.

Figure 3-15 CFL/PFL Pop-Up Menu







3.34 ASSUME Allowed the controller to take eligibility for the flight.

Attributes Single button accessible via the Callsign element of the data block.

Dialogue Button 1 on a grey callsign opened the assume button. Button 1assumed the flight causing the radar label to change to white.Button 2 closed the assume button without input.





Figure 3-16 Assume Button

3.35 MILITARY to CIVIL COORDINATION

When coordination was needed for a military track with a civil sectorcontroller, the military controller could bring the track to the attentionof the appropriate civil controller.

Attributes Menu accessible via the radar label.










AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAA

Figure 3-17

Dialogue Button 1 on the callsign in the radar label on the Military display. Apop-up menu offered a selection ofsector. After the sector had beenselected the track and associatedlabel appeared on both theexecutive and planners displays ofthe addressed sector with thecallsign highlighted in yellow. Button 1 on the callsign in theradar label on the Civil sectordisplay by either (Exec or Plc) ofthe addressed civil controllersremoved the track from both sectordisplays.







3.36 SUPPORT POSITION FUNCTIONALITY

Support positions were provided with SONY displays. Displayfunctionality was the same as that provided to the French and Swisssubject displays with one exception; the additional flights window andassociated functionality was not available.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


4 RESULTS

4.1 DATA COLLECTED

Questionnaire A questionnaire was completed by all participants at the end of Org. A1and the end of Org. B1.

De-Briefing A de-briefing was held to obtain controller opinions at the end of eachdays exercises and at the end of Orgs A1 and B1.

Recordings For post-exercise analysis pilot and controller orders, R/T and Telephoneoccupation time were recorded.

ISA Instantaneous Subjective Assessment (full description at Annex B) is atechnique to help determine workload. Individually participants areprompted during an exercise to register their perception of their workloadat 2 minute intervals. They register a value by pressing one of 5numbered buttons. These buttons correspond to:

1 - under-utilised, 2 - relaxed, 3 - comfortab le, 4 - high, 5 - excessive

NASA TLX The NASA Task Load Index (full description at Annex B) is a postexercise subjective assessment technique. Six dimensions are used:

Mental d emand, Physical demand, Tempo ral d emand, Performance, Effort andFrustration.

Before simulation exercises started all participants were asked to ratethese dimensions relative to each other (fifteen possible pairings) ascontributory factors to the controller task.

4.2 ANALYSIS OF DATA

All data has been analysed by organisation and traffic sample. Thepresented data uses average values from the three exercises in eachorganisation.

Questionnaire and De-Briefing

Participant opinions from debriefing and answers from the questionnairesare the predominant contributors in the analysis of this simulation.

Recordings RTF occupancy times have been used as a contributory indicator ofworkload. RTF occupancy times are presented showing the average valuefor the whole of the measured period and the peak 10 minute value.Analysis to obtain reference data has evaluated all values, from eachexercise, occurring above the 75th percentile to obtain mean values forthe recorded hour and the peak ten minutes. These 75th percentile mean





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


values have been compared with the TLX and ISA mean data and thesubjective comments from exercise de-briefings. The result of thisanalysis indicates their are slightly different values for the participantgroups comprising: 1. French Civil/Military and 2. Swiss controllers.

French Civil/Military RTF occupancy of greater than 35% is busy to high workload, RTF occupancy of greater than 50% is excessive workload,

Peak 10 minute RTF occupancy of greater than 50% is high toexcessive workload,

Swiss RTF occupancy of greater than 40% is busy to high workload, RTF occupancy of greater than 55% is excessive workload,

Peak 10 minute RTF occupancy of greater than 55% is high toexcessive workload,

The data are presented in this report in a chart, example below, showing


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


R/T Utilisation - Sector U2

Organisation and T raffic S ample

R/T

Pe

rce

nta

ge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A/T 8 A/T 9 A1/T 8 A1/T 9 B/T 8 B/T 9 B1/T 8 B1/T 9

45

5552 54

6156

6562

AAAAAAAAA

Average Peak 10'

55% Ref.

40% Ref.

Fig: 4 -1

the reference values.

Telephone records show a very low level of occupancy. Typically below8%.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Where appropriate, diagrams have been use to present informationderived from pilot order or controller order records. See example below.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA







AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



Average Number of Radar Headings per Exercise

Organisation

N°

of R

ad

ar H

ea

din

gs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A A1 B B1

24

37

15

21

R V S M R V S M

Fig: 4 - 2

Traffic Data Traffic data has been extracted and is displayed graphically to show: t h e a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f a i r c r a f t t h a t

passed through the sector during the measured hour - the flowrate, .

the average number of aircraft in the sector - the mean, the average peak number of aircraft in the sector during the

busiest 10 minutes - the average peak.

An example is shown below:

UH T raffic Data

Organisation and T raffic sample

Num

be

r of a

/c

05

101520253035404550556065


36

49

36

63

48

62

4851

1310

1310

15 13 1512

7 6 7 59 7 9

6

Flow per hour Average Peak Mean

Fig:4 - 3





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ISA Values of 3 or above are considered to be significant. Experience hasshown that where mean values of 4 or 5 appear for more than 40% ofthe measured period then the simulated scenario will probably berejected by the participants as non-viable. No mean values above 3 wererecorded during the simulation. The mean values are presented on achart showing both NASA TLX and ISA data; an example is shown onthe next page

NASA TLX Data are presented showing mean values and reference data. Thereference data was obtained by the same method used to evaluate theRTF occupancy. The results indicate:

a TLX value of 7.5 represents a busy workload a TLX value of 9 represents a high workload a TLX value of 11 represents an excessive workload

The data are presented in this report in a chart, example below:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA





AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA




T LX/ISA - UE Planning Controller

Organisation and T raffic Sample

TLX

/ISA

Sc

ore

0123456789

1011


Ref: 11 - Excess ive

Ref: 9 - High

Ref: 7.5 - Busy

ISA ISA

Fig: 4- 4





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


4.3 SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

During familiarisation and the early stages of the simulation feedbackfrom the participants resulted in changes to the specified functionality.These changes included:

Changes replacement of automatic assume based on a parameter time by amanual assume triggered by the receiving sector,

the addition of aircraft type and destination in the data line in theEntry/Exit window,

the addition in the radar label of first route point outside the sector.

assume function automatically triggers Flight Data Message (FDM) andFlight Leg. The Flight Leg was displayed for a duration of 10 seconds.

highlighting of PFL changes to affected sectors,

highlighting of FDM data line on first arrival in the window,

addition of minimum label function, showing track symbol, AFL and CFLonly, on French Military displays,

Deficiencies These changes certainly improved the operating environment. However,the controllers found the improvements still did not provide thetransparency of information equivalent to that offered by paper strips. Inparticular they found data in the Entry/Exit windows difficult to assimilatequickly. They would have liked to have seen:

entry/exit data geographically orientated in windows adjacent tothe main entry and exit points or (a French Civil request) adisplay of "electronic" strips,

better mechanisms for sorting of data in the Entry/Exit,

conflict detection assistance.

In consequence the Planning Controllers considered that the informationwas not presented in a manner conducive to fulfilling the planningfunction.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


4.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN ORGANISATIONS A AND A1

Civil Questionnaire and Debriefing

Questions 1 and 2 covered training for the simulation. Responses tothese questions are in section 4.6. Participants were asked to compareOrg A (without RVSM) and Org A1 (with RVSM) and replied accordingly:

Question 3 Was the addition of RVSM very helpful, helpful or not helpful inperforming your control task?








AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA





Helpful44%

Very Helpful56%

Fig: 4 - 5

Participants found that the availability of RVSM levels decreased the need to use reduced lateralseparation and consequently diminished the requirement for radar control using headings to resolveconflicts. This also reduced the need for telephone coordination.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Question 4 With RVSM, did you perceive that the number of potential conflictswere either increased, decreased or unchanged?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA









AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Unchanged11%

Decreased 89%

Fig: 4 - 6

Question 5 What effect did RVSM have upon inter-sector coordination?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA





AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA








Increased11%

Unchanged 33%Decreased

56%

Fig: 4 - 7





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Question 6 What effect did RVSM have upon inter-centre coordination?





AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA







Decreased 56%

Unchanged44%

Fig: 4 - 8

Question 7 What effect did RVSM have upon civil/military coordination?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA












AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADecreased

20%

Increased40%

Unchanged 40%

Fig: 4 - 9

Although not reflected in the answers to the questionnaire,during debriefing comment suggested there was a slightincrease in Civil/Military coordination. This was attributed tocivil use of levels that were previously a military domain andbunching of traffic at the popular levels. Thus militarycontrollers found it more difficult to find a suitable level fortheir traffic.





Question 8 Do you consider that the (ICAO recommended) allocation of RVSMFlight Levels is the most appropriate?

No1 1 %

Yes8 9 %

Fig: 4 - 10

Alternative suggestions included a 'twinning" of levels in a singledirection eg. FLs 310 and 320 as eastbound levels. It was feltthat local sector flows could benefit from such arrangements.

Question 9 Did you have any problem in assimilating the new allocation of FlightLevels?

No1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 - 11




Military Questionnaire and Debriefing

Questions 1 and 2 covered training for the simulation. Responses tothese questions are in section 4.6 Participants were asked to compareOrg A (without RVSM) and Org A1 (with RVSM) and replied accordingly:

Question 3 With RVSM was your task more difficult, same difficulty or less difficult?

More Diff icult1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 -12

In Org A military traffic was flying mainly at levels such asFL300, 320, 340 etc. and was thus segregated from civil traffic.In Org A1 this was no longer the case and the militarycontrollers had to provide 2000ft separation for all their trafficagainst other aircraft that were no longer segregated by 1000ftbut using the same flight levels.




Question 4 In Org. A1 (with RVSM) did you perceive that the number of potentialconflicts was increased, unchanged or decreased?

Increased 1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 -13

The confluence of the north/south and east/west flows at pointssuch as EPL and LUL became particularly difficult points tocross for military traffic. Avoidance of these areas became anecessity.

Question 5 In Org A1 (with RVSM) was the need for coordination with the civilgreater, same or less than Org A?

Greater than Org A1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 -14

With RVSM it was more difficult to find free airspace thusavoiding the need for coordination.




4.5 COMPARISON ORGANISATIONS B and B1

Civil Questionnaire and Debriefing

Participants were asked to compare Org B (increased traffic withoutRVSM) and Org B1 (increased traffic with RVSM) and repliedaccordingly:

Question 1 Do you consider the (Org B) level of traffic would be operationallymanageable without RVSM.

No2 8 %

Yes7 2 %

Fig: 4 - 15

The high "yes" response is probably attributable to three aspects:

despite being in accordance with or above the 1995 declaredflow maxima for the sectors concerned, participants felt thebase traffic samples were not representative of the busiestdays,

an element of familiarity with the traffic samples, a yes answer was given on several occasions with the caveat

"but only just".




Question 2 Do you consider that the management of traffic with RVSM was mucheasier, easier, same, less easy, or much less easy?

Much Easier2 2 %

Easier7 8 %

Fig: 4 - 16

Participants found the Executive was able to resolve conflicts morefrequently with a level change of 1000ft and consequently had lessneed to use other techniques involving a higher workload. However,the Planners monitoring task was greater.

Question 3 Do you consider the (Org B) level of traffic would be operationallymanageable with RVSM.

No1 1 %

Yes8 9 %

Fig: 4 - 17

The response in the questionnaire and in debriefing was morepositively "yes" than for the reply concerning the capability tomanage the traffic without RVSM. However, comment suggests avertical sectorisation of the area controlled by UE and UH isdesirable to manage continuously this level of traffic.




Question 4 This question gave participants answering "No" to Q3 to explain why. Allcomments are included under Q3.

Question 5 Compared with Org B, did you perceive that the number of conflicts wereincreased, unchanged or reduced?

Unchanged2 2 %

Decreased7 8 %

Fig: 4 - 18

Question 6 What effect did RVSM minima have upon the need for inter-sectorcoordination?

Increased1 1 %

Unchanged3 3 %

Decreased5 6 %

Fig: 4 - 19




Question 7 What effect did RVSM minima have upon the need for inter-centrecoordination?

Unchanged3 3 %

Decreased6 7 %

Fig: 4 - 20

Question 8 What effect did RVSM minima have upon the need for civil/militarycoordination?

Increased5 0 %

Unchanged 5 0 %

Fig: 4 - 21

This disparity of view seems to be linked to an uncertainty of the value(from the civil point of view) of the new coordination functionality. A radarlabel on military traffic could be displayed at the appropriate sector priorto telephone coordination.




Military Questionnaire and Debriefing

14 Participants were asked to compare Org B (without RVSM) and OrgB1 (with RVSM) and replied accordingly:

Question 1 Without RVSM, was the control task very difficult, difficult, same, easier,much easier?

Difficult100%

Fig: 4 - 22

Question 2 With RVSM, was the control task very difficult, difficult, same, easier,much easier?

Very Difficult100%

Fig: 4 - 23




Question 3 With RVSM did you perceive the number of potential conflicts betweencivil and military flights were increased, unchanged or decreased?

Increased100%

Fig: 4 - 24

Question 4 With RVSM was the need for coordination with the civil , greater, sameor less than Org B (without RVSM)?

Same as Org B100%

Fig:4 - 25

Paradoxically, a large number of conflicts were resolved without usingany of the available means for coordination. This appears to have beenthe case because the controller did not have assistance in trajectoryplanning and consequently was driven by the increased number ofpotential conflicts to find solutions that would not require coordination.This mainly involved avoiding areas of dense traffic.




Question 5 In Org B (without RVSM), were the Military aircraft able to achieve theirmission objective?

Yes100%

Fig: 4 - 26

Question 6 In Org B1 (with RVSM), were the Military aircraft able to achieve theirmission objective?

No100%

Fig: 4 - 27

Military controllers found that, with RVSM, there was a large amountof path stretching to accommodate avoiding action against civiltraffic. This manouvering was considered detrimental to theachievement of the mission objective both in terms of time andadditional fuel expended.




Question 7 In Org B1 (with RVSM) were the general operating procedures changedto accommodate RVSM?

No100%

Fig: 4 - 28

Military aircraft were considered non-MASP compliant therefore theseparation minima between OAT and GAT remained 2000ft.




4.6 GENERAL SIMULATION ISSUES

In addition to questions directed specifically at issues associated withRVSM, participants were asked questions about the simulated ATCenvironment.

Familiarisation

Was the Computer Based Training, a significant help, helpful or nothelpful?

Significant Help9 %

Helpful9 1 %

Fig: 4 - 29

Did familiarisation at Brétigny prepare you for the simulation, well,adequately or inadequately?

Adequately9 %

Well9 1 %

Fig: 4 - 30




CivilWhere you given sufficient information to perform the executive controltask?

No44%

Yes56%

Fig: 4 - 31

The electronic environment lacked the transparence of informationoffered by paper strips. Participants found difficulty in makingcomparisons between two flights for the detection of conflicts. Therewas no possibility of annotating conflict pairs. The "note keeping"aspects of paper strips were also missed eg: assigned headings,revision information after the ACT data has been transmitted. TheHMI was improved in response to controller suggestions but stillrequired further improvement that was not possible during thesimulation.

Where you given sufficient information to perform the planning controltask?

Yes22%

No78%

Fig: 4 - 32

The same problems encountered by the executive controller werealso experienced by the planning controller. The most importantproblem was the difficulty of identifying conflicting aircraft and the




point of conflict and thus developing a strategy for the executive tofollow. This shortcoming made the planning task difficult to fulfil.

Inter-Centre information was presented from the previous Centre 7minutes before Centre exit. Was this too early, correct or too late?

Correct1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 - 33

Currently at CRNA-Est, UH and UE are often managed as a single.In these circumstances a longer warning time is more appropriate.

Inter-Centre information was sent to the next Centre 7 minutes beforeCentre exit. Was this too early, correct or too late?

Correct8 9 %

Too Late 1 1 %

Fig: 4 - 34




Inter-Sector information was presented from the previous Sector 7

Too Late 44%

Correct 56%

Fig: 4 - 35

minutes before Sector exit. Was this too early, correct or too late?

It is not clear why 7 minutes was acceptable for Inter-Centre transferyet only marginally acceptable for inter-sector. Those who recordeda "too late " response suggested 10 minutes would be a moreappropriate time.

Was the Flight Leg useful as an aid to planning

Not Useful 2 2 %

Very Useful 2 2 %

Useful 5 6 %

Fig: 4 - 36




Military

Were you given sufficient information to perform the control task?

Opinion changed from Orgs A/A1 to Orgs B/B1. Following OrgsA/A1 the response was favourable.

No3 3 %

Yes6 7 %

Fig: 4 - 37

However, the response became a unanimous "No" after Orgs B/B1.The contributory factors to the change in reply seem to have been:

in Orgs A/A1 controllers experienced for the first time theimproved "visibility" of civil traffic offered by the simulatedadditional functionality.

in Orgs B/B1 participants were now more accustomed to their"new" functionality and probably better able to assesspossible future improvements. At the same time civil traffichad increased significantly and civil controllers were makingmore use of direct routes. No pre-warning that a civil aircraftwas on a direct route was available on the military display.




Which elements of the simulation functionality do you considernecessary to control traffic in an RVSM environment?

Displayed CFL of civil traffic:

Helpful 33%

Essential 67%

Fig: 4 - 39

Essential1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 - 38

Send label toCivil controller:




Short Term Conflict Alert:

Essential1 0 0 %

Fig: 4 - 40

Control of Reserved Area activity:

Helpful 33%

Essential 67%

Fig: 4 - 41

In addition to the functionality responded to above, participantssought a visual warning to identify when a civil flight was no longeron the FPL but on a direct route.




4.7 SUMMARY - ORGANISATIONS A/A1 and B/B1

General RVSM doubles the number of levels available between FL290 and 410.The French sectors encompass this range of levels entirely within theirsectorisation (FL195 - Unlimited). Thus, the number of flights controlleddoes not change as a consequence of RVSM. However with RVSM, theSwiss U2 (FL285 - 345) captures additional flights at FL 340 that mayotherwise have been at FL350, FL300 instead of FL280 and thus in adifferent sector.

ICAO The ICAO recommended allocation of Flight Levels above FL290 wasendorsed by 89% of the participants. Judicious use of local variations,such as "twining" of levels in a single direction, was also proposed as abeneficial arrangement. No problems were experienced in theassimilation of the RVSM level allocation scheme.

OAT Operational Air Traffic is normally not displayed to French Civilcontrollers. The functionality simulated provides military controllers withthe capability to address a radar track and label to a specified Frenchcivil sector in advance of telephone coordination. The availability of thisfunction coupled with the introduction of RVSM levels points to a greaterdegree of military initiated coordination than is usual today.

Task Load The greater number of levels offered by the introduction of RVSM hasallowed the controller to resolve conflicts more frequently by the simpleroption of a climb or descent by 1000ft, instead of the more work intensiveuse of radar headings. Figs 42 and 43 illustrate the reduction in the useof radar headings in RVSM exercises while at the same time showing anincrease in the use of level changes.

Average Number of Radar Headings per Exercise

Organisation

N°

of

Rad

ar H

ead

ing

s

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

A A 1 B B1

24

37

15

21

R V S M R V S M

Fig: 4 - 42

EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report 294 4 - 27



Average Number of Level Changes per Exercise

Organisation

N°

of

Lev

el C

han

ges

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

A A 1 B B1

68

74

84

96

Fig: 4 - 43

French Civil

UE Traffic Data

Organisation and Traffic sample

Nu

mb

er o

f a/

c

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

5 5

A / T 8 A / T 9 A 1 / T 8 A 1 / T 9 B / T 8 B / T 9 B1 /T8 B1 /T9

3 9

4 7

5 1

4 7

5 1

3 4

3 9

3 4

1 61 51 61 41 5

1 11 31 3

79

78655

7

F low per hour Average Peak Mean

Fig: 4 - 44

Traffic We can see from the above Fig. 44 and Fig. 45 on the next page, bothUE and UH sectors dealt with significant numbers of aircraft in Orgs A/A1and B/B1. Questionnaire responses and debriefing indicate that in OrgB Sector UH was probably saturated. This is supported by the NASATLX and ISA scores shown on Fig. 46. Sector UE appears to be closeto capacity, albeit with a different traffic sample with fewer aircraft butprobably greater complexity.




UH Traffic Data


Nu

mb

er o

f a/

c

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

5 5

6 0

6 5


3 6

4 9

3 6

6 3

4 8

6 2

4 85 1

1 31 0

1 31 0

1 51 3

1 51 2

7 6 75

97

96

F low per hour Average Peak Mean

Fig: 4 - 45

Task Load Questionnaires and debriefing have shown that participants found thecontrol task easier in RVSM exercises. Figs. 46 and 47 show NASA TLXand ISA graphs in support of the controller perceived reduction of taskload in the RVSM exercises (A1/T8, A1/T9, B1/T8 and B1/T9). For noclear reason the pattern of reduced task load is not reflected in sector UEin the relationship between A/T9 and A1/T9.

TLX/ISA - UE Executive Controller

Organisation and Traffic Sample

TL

X/IS

A S

core

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

A/T8 A/T9 A1/T8 A1/T9 B/T8 B/T9 B1/T8 B1/T9

Ref: 11 - Excessive

Ref: 9 - High

Ref: 7 - Busy

ISA ISA

R V S M R V S M

Fig: 4 - 46




TLX/ISA - UH Executive Controller


TL

X/IS

A S

core

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


Ref: 11 - Excessive

Ref: 9 - High

Ref: 7.5 - Busy

ISA ISA

R V S M R V S M

Fig: 4 - 47

R/T Usage Figs. 48 and 49 show the distribution of R/T usage by organisation andtraffic sample. These graphs continue to support the trend in RVSMexercises towards a lightening of controller workload.

R/T Utilisation - Sector UE


R/T

Pe

rce

nta

ge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


515455

46

3838

4440

Average Peak 1O'

50% Ref.

35% Ref.

Fig: 4 - 48




R/T Utilisation - Sector UH


R/T

Pe

rce

nta

ge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


44

545458

39

54

39

50

Average Peak 10'

50% Ref.

35% Ref.

Fig: 4 - 49

E/P Controllers The graphs so far have described the situation concerning the executiverole. What about the Planner? We can see from Fig. 50 that the trendindicated for the executive was also reflected in the controllers responsesto the planners task. However, it should be remembered that thesimulation environment did not provide the planner with the appropriateinformation to fulfil comprehensively the planning task. While it isprobably true to deduce a general lightening of the task, responses fromparticipants suggested an increased load in the monitoring resulting fromthe larger number of levels.

ISA French Civi l

Organisat ion and Traf f ic Sample

ISA

Sco

re

0

1

2

3

4


UE Execut ive UH Execut ive UE Planner UH Planner

R V S MR V S M

Fig: 4 - 50




Swiss U2 Sector

U2 Traffic Data

O r g a n i s a t i o n a n d T r a f f i c s a m p l e

Nu

mb

er

of a

/c

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

5 5

6 0

A / T 8 A / T 9 A 1 / T 8 A 1 / T 9 B / T 8 B / T 9 B 1 / T 8 B 1 / T 9

4550

58

48

57

40

49

40

21212020191517

1410

1210

12910

78

F l o w p e r h o u r Ave rage Peak M e a n

Fig: 4 - 51

Traffic Figure 51 illustrates the propensity for a sector within a vertically layeredsectorisation to capture additional traffic as a result of RVSM. It is mostnotable in the comparison between A/T8 and A1/T8. The traffic sampleand sectorisation has not changed, but the flow through the sector hasincreased from 45 to 49 aircraft in the measured hour.

TLX/ISA - U2 Executive Controller


TL

X/IS

A S

core

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


Ref: 11 - Excessive

Ref: 9 - High

Ref: 7.5 - Busy

ISAISA

Fig: 4 - 52

Task Load The same tendencies identified for French Civil are not so evident fromthe data available for the Swiss U2 sector. The simulation staffing for U2involved only two controllers. One controller consistently returned lowISA and NASA TLX scores, while the other responded with significantlyhigher values. In consequence there is a high standard deviation for thestatistical means, as can be seen in Fig.52. This reflects a strongindividual effect that masks the trend, expressed in the questionnaire anddebriefing, for a lightening of the control task in RVSM exercises.




R/T Utilisation - Sector U2


R/T

Pe

rce

nta

ge

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0


4 5

5 55 2 5 4

6 15 6

6 56 2

Average Peak 10'

55% Ref .

40% Ref .

Fig: 4 - 53

RTF Usage In Fig 53, A1/T8 shows the increased RTF utilisation associated with theadditional aircraft captured as a result of the availability of RVSM.Whereas when we compare B and B1 exercises, where the number of"RVSM captured" aircraft is small, we see a reduction in RTF usage inOrg B1.

U2 - Comparison Execut ive/Planner

Organ isa t i on and T ra f f i c Samp le

TL

X/IS

A S

core

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

A / T 8 A / T 9 A 1 / T 8 A 1 / T 9 B/T8 B/T9 B1/T8 B1/T9

E x e c u t i v e P l a n n e r I S A E x e c I S A P l n r

R V S M R V S M

R e f : 1 1 - E x c e s s i v e

R e f : 9 - H i g h

R e f : 7 . 5 - B u s y

Fig: 4 - 54

E/P Controllers The strong individual effect, explained in the description of Fig 52, masksany identifiable trends in the relationship between executive and planner.




French Military

Military Traffic Data


Nu

mb

er o

f a/

c

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

A / T 8 A / T 9 A1 /T8 A1 /T9 B/T8 B/T9 B1/T8 B1/T9

9

1 1

9

1 0

9

1 0

9

1 0

7

4

7

6

7

666

5

3

5

4

5

444

Flow per hour Average Peak Mean

Fig: 4 - 55

Traffic No increase in military traffic was foreseen for the time-scale covered bythe simulation, so it is no surprise that the traffic statistics remain virtuallyconstant between organisations. The only exception occurring in B1/T8when the traffic appears to have been spread more widely during themeasured period and thus gives a lower average peak.

TLX/ISA - Military Radar Controller

Organisat ion and Traff ic Sample

TL

X/IS

A S

core

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

A / T 8 A / T 9 A 1 / T 8 A 1 / T 9 B/T8 B/T9 B1 /T8 B1/T9

Ref: 7 - Busy

Ref: 9 - High

Ref: 11 - Excessive

ISAISA

Fig: 4 - 56

Task Load It was evident from the debriefing and NASA TLX responses that thereremained a significant learning component still inherent in A/T8, A/T9 andto a lesser degree in A1/T8. This was apparent from the comparativelyhigh values attributed to the performance and effort factors in the NASATLX during these exercises. These values diminished as controllersbecame more confident with the new environment. The ISA valuesremained below the 3 threshold throughout the simulation. French Militarycontrollers are normally restricted to handling 2 flights. As can be seenfrom Fig 55 controllers handled an average of 4 flights with the helpoffered by the additional functionality.




French Military Sector


ISA

SC

ore

0

0 .5

1

1 .5

2

2 .5

3

3 .5

4

A / T 8 A / T 9 A1 /T8 A1 /T9 B/T8 B/T9 B1/T8 B1/T9

Radar Controller Assistant

Fig: 4 - 57

FIg 57 is illustrative of the comparison of task load between Radarcontroller and assistant and as can be seen, there is no trend in thedistribution of workload.




4.8 CONCLUSIONS

Objectives The simulation objectives sought an assessment of:

• the operational implications associated with the use of the additionallevels,

• the ramifications for civil/military coordination.

Caveats The simulation assessment is subject to two caveats:

• The simulated future ATC system was immature. The informationdisplayed did not give the controller the comprehensive "picture"necessary to fulfil his job.

• Civil/military coordination took place in an entirely French environment.Thus, some of the results are particular to this environment.

Level Orientation Levels between FL290 and FL410 were allocated in accordance withICAO recommendations. This method of level orientation provedsatisfactory, was readily assimilated and was endorsed by the simulationparticipants.

Civil The additional number of levels available with RVSM made thecontrollers task easier. The controller was able to resolve conflicts morefrequently by the simpler option of a climb or descent by 1000ft, insteadof the more work intensive use of radar headings. In some areas inter-centre telephone coordination has been reduced; mainly because of thegreater use of level separation (not requiring telephone coordination)instead of radar related tactics (generally requiring coordination) acrossCentre boundaries.

The level of traffic captured by RVSM may require changes in existingsectorisation. The availability of RVSM attracts traffic from the lowerlevels. This could result in a need for stratified sectorisation where thisdoes not exist or a review of the division levels between statified sectorswhere they already exist.

No operational problems were identified that could be considered to bean obstruction to the implementation of RVSM.




Military Operational Air Traffic is normally not displayed to French Civilcontrollers. The functionality simulated provided military controllers withthe capability to address a radar track and label to a specified Frenchcivil sector in advance of telephone coordination. The availability of thisfunction coupled with the introduction of RVSM levels points to a greaterdegree of military initiated coordination than is usual today.

The combination of RVSM, the density of year 2000 civil traffic samplesand the need to maintain 2000ft separation for non-MASP military aircraft,made the task of separating OAT from GAT very difficult. In some cases,to the extent that portions of the simulated airspace became "no go"areas during periods of busy GAT. The additional vectoring to avoidbusy areas and maintain 2000ft separation had a detrimental effect onthe ability of the military flights to complete their mission. The fact thatGAT was on a direct route was not easily discernable by the militarycontroller and thus could not be planned for.

The new ATC functionality was well received by the military participantsand, even with the additional factors outlined above, enabled militarycontrollers to handle double the number of aircraft possible today.

4.9 RECOMMENDATIONS

Significant benefits accrue from the use of RVSM; ever effort should bemade to introduce RVSM in the widest area possible at the earliest time.

Consideration should be given to the problems that may arise if civilMASP and non-MASP are expected to fly in the same airspace.

Military non-MASP aircraft suffer a penalty compared with MASP aircraft.Wherever possible consideration should be given to making militaryaircraft MASP compliant.




AAAAA

Sommaire du Rapport de la Simulation Temps-Réel RVSM Continentale

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


TRADUCTION EN FRANCAIS

(Par B Bettignies)

INTRODUCTION

La simulation en temps réel AS 16 a été effectuée au CentreExpérimental EUROCONTROL (CEE) de Brétigny du 9 au 24 Mai 1995.L objectif de cette simulation était de faire une première analyse desconséquences au niveau opérationnel de la mise en place de laréduction du minimum de séparation verticale entre avions (RVSM) dansun environnement d Europe Continentale.

HISTORIQUELa séparation verticale actuellement en vigueur a été définie au débutdes années 60 au moment de la mise en service d avions à réactioncommerciaux qui pouvaient évoluer à plus de 30 000ft. Le manque deprécision des altimètres à haute altitude a eu pour conséquence undoublement de la séparation verticale qui est ainsi passée de 1000 à2000ft au-dessus de FL290.

Sous la direction du RGCSP (Review of the General Concept ofSeparation Panel - organisme chargé de la RVSM au sein de l OACI),plusieurs études ont été menées à travers le monde afin d évaluer lespossibilités d application de la RVSM. Le RGCSP a bien précisé que lamise en place de la RVSM serait soumise à trois conditions impératives:

Impératifs a. Des critères de navigabilité conformes au standard MASPS(Minimum Aircraft System Performance Specification).

b. La mise en place de systèmes de surveillance du maintiend altitude.

c. De nouvelles procédures opérationnelles.

La plupart des avions civils arrivés récemment sur le marché sont déjàau standard MASPS, mais certains appareils plus anciens devront subirdes modifications pour être en conformité avec ce standard. Unedégradation des performances système en dehors des exigencesMASPS peut survenir en raison d une mauvaise maintenance ou à lasuite de problèmes survenus en vol (prises statiques endommagées, parexemple). Etant donné qu il est inconcevable de réduire le degré deprécision exigé, il est nécessaire de mettre en place des systèmes desurveillance destinés à détecter au plus vite les erreurs de maintiend altitude. Ces impératifs de surveillance ont permis de définir lescaractéristiques d une unité de surveillance d altitude (HMU - HeightMonitoring Unit).





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Mise en Oeuvre Le RGCSP a estimé que la région de l Atlantique Nord (NAT) était laplus favorable pour la mise en place de la RVSM. Les flux de trafic decette zone sont généralement à sens unique et les avions qui y évoluentsont déjà au standard MNPS (Minimum Navigation PerformanceSpecifications). Si la mise en place d une VSM de 1000ft entre FL290et FL410 semble applicable à la région de l Atlantique Nord (NAT), ellen est pas à l heure actuelle envisageable sur l ensemble de l Europecontinentale. Le trafic européen est multi-directionel, ne bénéficie pasd unités de surveillance d altitude (HMU) et est soumis à desconditions météorologiques liées au caractère continental de cette zonegéographique. Ces problèmes sont actuellement à l étude et des étudessont menées pour définir un Target Level of Safety qui soit adapté à cetenvironnement.

Simulations Plusieurs simulations ont déjà eu lieu:

EU760 - Mai 1991 à l ATCEU de Hurn (Royaume-Uni), centrée sur l espace aérien deShannon. Rapport EU N° 586 Document CAA 92018.

AR37 Mai 1994 au CEE de Brétigny, concernant les zones de transition de Shannon etde Brest. Rapport CEE N° 284.

OBJECTIFS DE LA SIMULATION

La simulation AS16 a permis d étudier les aspects majeurs de la miseen place en Europe des niveaux supplémentaires RVSM au-dessus deFL290 (sans utiliser d “ offset ” ). La RVSM a été appliquée surl ensemble de l espace, c est à dire qu aucune zone de transitionvers une séparation conventionnelle n a été simulée.

A l intérieur de ce cadre, la simulation s est plus particulièrementattachée à l étude de deux points:

a. Les implications d ordre opérationnel liées à l utilisation des nivauxsupplémentaires,

b. Les ramifications concernant la coordination entre civils et militaires.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


METHODOLOGIE DE LA SIMULATION

Il était souhaitable d’établir le scénario de la simulation sur une zonecouverte par plusieurs centres de contrôle y compris une interface entrecivils et militaires. Plusieurs administrations ont été contactées pournous fournir des contrôleurs et définir un espace de simulation approprié.

Malheureusement, toutes les administrations contactées ont trouvé quela période de Mai 1995 qui était réservée pour la simulation leur posaitun problème pour pouvoir libérer des contrôleurs. La France et la Suisseont pu néanmoins détacher des contrôleurs pour une brève période. Enraison de ce problème de disponibilité, nous avons dû effectuer cettesimulation sur une période de douze jours ouvrables, du 9 au 24 Maiinclus.

ESPACE AERIEN

L’espace simulé comprenait deux secteurs du centre de contrôle deReims (UH et UE), un secteur du centre de Zurich (U2) et un secteurmilitaire français qui recoupait l’espace de UH et UE. Le réseau deroutes actuel s’appliquait à ces secteurs. En complément, 3 secteursadjacents ont été utilisés pour assurer la continuité du contrôle avecl’espace environnant la zone simulée. Ces positions étaient occupéespar des contrôleurs détachés par le Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS),SWISSCONTROL et le centre de contrôle de Reims.

ENVIRONNEMENT ATC

Un environnement ATC censé représenter les systèmes de contrôle durafic aérien qui seront disponibles d’ici cinq ans a été conçu pour cettesimulation par le CEE. Deux axes ont orienté les modificationsconcernant l’utilisation du radar l’accès aux données de vol:

a. Transférer les fonctions du digitatron français (qui est actuellementun boîtier indépendant) sur une des fenêtres de l’écran principal ducontrôleur,

b. Obtenir des informations supplémentaires par le biais de l’étiquetteradar

En conséquence, il a été décidé de ne pas utiliser de strips papier etd’afficher toutes les données sur l’écran large dernier modèle de chaquecontrôleur. Plusieurs fenêtres permettaient d’afficher les données radaret de plans de vol qui étaient gérées à l’aide de la souris.

TRAFIC

Les échantillons de trafic étaient représentatifs de la charge actuelle etde celle prévue pour l’an 2000.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ORGANISATIONS

Afin d’atteindre les objectifs de la simulation, quatre organisations ont étédéfinies :

Org A . Trafic actuel sans niveaux RVSM,

Org A1. Trafic actuel avec niveaux RVSM,

Org B. Trafic de l’an 2000 sans niveaux RVSM,

Org B1. Trafic de l’an 2000 avec niveaux RVSM.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


CONCLUSIONS

Objectifs Les objectifs de la simulation visaient à évaluer :

• les conséquences sur le plan opérationnel del’utilisation des niveaux supplémentaires,

• les implications au niveau de la coordination entrecivils et militaires.

Orientation desniveaux de vol

Les niveaux situés entre FL290 et FL410 étaient allouésen fonction des recommandations de l’OACI. Cetteméthode d’orientation de niveaux s’est avéréesatisfaisante, facilement assimilée et acceptée par lescontrôleurs participant à la simulation.

Civils Les niveaux supplémentaires offerts par la RVSM facilitaientla tâche des contrôleurs civils. Le contrôleur pouvait souventrésoudre les conflits plus facilement en faisant simplementmonter ou descendre le trafic de 1000ft, plutôt qu’en utilisantla méthode plus complexe des caps radar. Dans certaineszones, la coordination téléphonique entre centres étaitdiminuée. Ceci était principalement dû à l’utilisation accruedes séparations par niveaux (qui ne nécessitent pas decoordination téléphonique) au lieu de séparations radar (quientraînent généralement une coordination) lors destransferts entre centres.

Le niveau de trafic assimilé par la RVSM pourrait entraînerdes modifications de la sectorisation actuelle. En effet, ladisponibilité des niveaux RVSM « attire » le trafic desniveaux inférieurs. Cela pourrait nécessiter la mise en placed’une division verticale des secteurs là où elle n’existe pasencore ou du moins, impliquer une reconsidération desniveaux de coupures entre secteurs verticaux là où ils sontdéjà en place.

Aucun problème opérationnel pouvant représenter unobstacle à la mise en place de la RVSM n’a pu être identifié.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


Militaires Habituellement, les OAT (« Operational Air Traffic ») ne sont pas visiblessur les radars des contrôleurs civils français. Les moyens techniques misen oeuvre pour la simulation permettaient aux contrôleurs militairesd’attribuer un vecteur et une étiquette radar à un secteur civil françaisdonné avant de faire une coordination téléphonique. Cette possibilitéassociée à la mise en place des niveaux RVSM mets en évidence unecoordination amorcée par le contrôleur militaire qui pourrait être plusimportante qu’elle ne l’est actuellement.

La séparation des OAT du GAT était rendue très difficile en raison dedivers facteurs qui se combinaient: mise en place de la RVSM, densitédes échantillons de trafic civil pour l’an 2000 et nécessité de conserverune séparation de 2000ft pour les avions non-MASP. Dans certains cas,certaines parties de l’espace simulé se transformaient même en « zonesinterdites » pendant les périodes intenses de GAT.

Les vols militaires avaient des difficultés à effectuer leurs missions enraison des guidages radar destinés à leur faire éviter les zones de traficintense et à maintenir la séparation de 2000ft. Le contrôleur militaire nevoyait pas facilement que le GAT était sur une route directe et enconséquence, ce trafic ne pouvait pas être pris en compte à l’avance.

Le nouveau système ATC simulé a été bien perçu par les militairesparticipant à la simulation. Malgré les facteurs mentionnés plus haut, lescontrôleurs militaires pouvaient gérer deux fois plus d’avions qu’ils ne lefont actuellement.

RECOMMANDATIONS

Des bénéfices importants découlent de l’utilisation de la RVSM. Enconséquence, il est souhaitable de mettre en place au plus tôt la RVSMsur une zone qui sera la plus importante possible.

Il convient de ne pas négliger les problèmes qui pourraient surgir en casd’utilisation simultanée d’un espace aérien par des avions civils MASPet non-MASP.

Les avions militaires non-MASP sont pénalisés par rapport à ceux quisont au standard MASP. Il convient donc d’envisager, si possible, demettre les avions militaires au standard MASP.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ANNEXES





ANNEX A

EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 Annex A - 1

EUROCONTROL

EXERCISE SCHEDULE

The exercise programme was split into a familiarisation period and organisational elements. Eachorganisational element (A, A1, B and B1) included 6 exercises, each with a duration of 90 minutes.

Week 1Day

0900 - 1030 1100 - 1230 1400 - 1530 1600 - 1700

Traffic Org Traffic Org Traffic Org

Mon 8/5 Public Holiday

Tues 9/5 Briefing TTRG FAM TTRG FAM Debriefingeach day

Wed 10/5 TTRG FAM TTRG FAM TTRG FAM

Thur 11/5 TT994 A TT894 A TT994 A

Fri 12/5 TT894 A TT994 A TT894 A

Week 2Day

0900 - 1030 1100 - 1230 1400 - 1530 1600 - 1700

Traffic Org Traffic Org Traffic Org Debriefingeach day

Mon 15/5 TT994R A1 TT894R A1

Tues 16/5 TT994R A1 TT894R A1 TT994R A1

Wed 17/5 TT894R A1 Review TT820 B

Thur 18/5 TT920 B TT820 B TT920 B

Fri 19/5 TT820 B TT920 B Spare Review

Week 3Day

0900 - 1030 1100 - 1230 1400 - 1530 1600 - 1700

Traffic Org. Traffic Org Traffic Org Debriefingeach day

Mon 22/5 TT920R TT820R B1 TT920R B1

Tues 23/5 TT820R B1 TT920R B1 TT820R B1

Wed 24/5 TT920R B1 Debrief Debrief

Thur 25/5

Fri 26/5



ANNEX B

EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - Annex B- 1

EUROCONTROL

DESCRIPTION OF NASA TLX AND ISA

NASA TLX

NASA TLX is a subjective technique used in assessing workload. The technique usesa rating scale considered to be sensitive to the participants workload and comprisestwo parts;

1. - an individual comparison of workload aspects (dimensions - see below) by theeach participating controller to obtain a set of personal weightings prior to thestart of the simulation;

2. - the rating of tasks at the end of a simulation exercise, taking into account theparticipants view collected in 1.

Mental Demand Describes how much mental and perceptual activity was involved (eg thinking,deciding, calculating, remembering, searching). Was the task easy or demanding,simple or complex, exacting or forgiving ?

Physical Demand Describes the degree of physical demand incurred by the operating environment.

Temporal Demand Describes how much time pressure was experienced owing to the rate at which theindividual tasks were presented. Was the pace slow and leisurely or rapid and frantic.

Own performance Describes how well the subject felt that the goals of the experiment wereaccomplished. How satisfied was the subject with his performance in attaining thelevel required for accomplishment of the task aims.

Effort Describes the combined degree of mental and physical activity required to achievethe level of performance attained.

Frustration Describes how discouraged, irritated, stressed the participant felt during the task.

The completion of the NASA TLX workload assessment by each controller at the endof each exercise is performed using a mouse input device in a 'windows' environmenton a computer terminal. A comprehensive briefing will be given to all participantsprior to the start of the simulation on both the NASA TLX method and the means ofdata input.



ANNEX B

EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - Annex B- 2

EUROCONTROL

INSTANTANEOUS SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT (ISA)

The ISA technique allows the participant to assess his workload during the course ofa simulation exercise. The participant is warned by the illumination of a light adjacentto the radar screen every two minutes. This light remains illuminated for 30 secondsduring which time the controller can make a selection of his or her workload intensityby pressing a button. These buttons are labelled as follows :

Excessive The participant is behind with the task requirements, has no spare capacity and isstarting to shed tasks.

High The controller has little or no spare capacity and is fully occupied in the completion ofessential tasks.

Comfortable The controller is in control of all tasks, is stimulated but could accept additional tasksif required.

Relaxed Ample spare capacity is available should the need arise.

Under-utilised The controller does not have an adequate number of tasks to perform.

This measurement facility is similar to that developed by the UK CAA Evaluation unitat Hurn. At Brétigny, the ISA facility is connected directly to an EXCEL interface on aPC and a graphical representation of all of the controller responses is provided duringan exercise.



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ANNEX D

These procedures were provided in French. An English translation supplements the original French Text.

REGLES DE COORDINATION CIVILS/MILITAIRES POUR LA SIMULATION RVSM - AS16

1. La prévention des abordages demeure la responsabilité du contrôleur militaire, même dans les casd'urgence.

2. Les coordinations tactiques compte tenu de la densité du trafic ne seront pas systématiques.

3. La coordination comprend la transmission des intentions de contrôle et des moyens de coordinationtactique qui sont :

- les liaisons téléphoniques directes reliant le contrôleur militaire et son adjoint aux contrôleurscivils des différents secteurs,

- la visualisation automatique sur le secteur civil concerné d'un aéronef militaire faisant l'objetd'une coordination, par le biais d'une sélection opérée à partir du poste militaire.

4. Transmission des intentions de contrôle.

Visualisée dans les étiquettes des pistes sur les écrans de la position militaire, la transmission desintentions de contrôle comprend les éléments suivants :

- nom du secteur civil,- niveau autorisé par le contrôleur si un changement de niveau doit avoir lieu.

Elle s'effectue de façon continue et constitue la base de la coordination en permettant de minimiserla coordination téléphonique.

Dès qu'un appareil est pris en compte par un contrôleur civil, le nom du secteur de contrôle UE ouUH apparaît dans l'étiquette de l'aénonef concerné sur la position militaire.

Lorsqu'un changement de niveau doit être effectué, le contrôleur civil introduit le niveau autorisé(CFL) dans le système. Ce niveau s'inscrit dans l'étiquette de l'aéronef concerné sur la positionmilitaire tout d'abord en jaune pendant 30 secondes, puis en gris et disparaît dès que le niveau estatteint.

5. Les coordinations peuvent s'effectuer dans les conditions ci-après :

5.1. Sur l'initiative du contrôleur militaire lorsqu'il l'estime nécessaire.Une coordination pourra comprendre deux phases :

- une phase préparatoire qui consiste à visualiser automatiquement sur l'écran du secteur civilconcerné l'aéronef militaire faisant l'objet d'une coordination, cette première action permet dedonner les éléments de position, ell facilite et minimise le dialogue téléphonique,


EEC Task - AS16 EEC Report N° - 294 ANNEX D - 1



AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ANNEX D

- une éventuelle phase de coordination téléphonique au cours de laquelle, dans la mesure dupossible, le contrôleur civil fournira les éléments utiles dont il dispose sur le ou les trafics CAGconsidérés.

5.2. Sur l'initiative du contrôleur civil :

- pour solliciter le contrôleur militaire pour une action tactique dans un espace réservé activé.

Les éléments permettant d'identifier le vol CAG comporteront l'indicatif, niveau actuel, la trajectoireet le niveau demandé avec un préavis minimal de 2 minutes.

6. Ces règles de coordination s'appliqueront lors de la simulation AS16 fixée du 9 au 24 Mai 1995.

Un bilan sur l'ensemble des coordinations entre contrôleurs civils et militaires sera effectué lors dechaque séance de de-briefing.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ANNEX D

PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL/MILITARY COORDINATION DURING THE RVSM SIMULATION - EEC TASK AS16

1. The prevention of collisions is always the responsibility of the military controller, even in anemergency.

2. During periods of busy civil traffic a request for military coordination may be refused.

3. Coordination includes the control intentions and the mode of dialogue using :

direct telephone line between the military controller or assistant and the concerned civilcontroller,

the automatic display of the subject aircraft at the civil sector concerned resulting from aninput by the originating military controller.

4. Transmission of civil control intentions

The label of each civil flight is displayed on the screen of each military position. Each labelcomprises the following information :

sector namecleared flight level (CFL) if different from actuel flight level (AFL)

These control intentions displayed in the label form the basis for coordination and reduce the needfor telephone coordination.

When a flight is assumed by a civil controller the sector name is displayed on the military sectorscreens.

Following the input of a CFL by the civil controller the corresponding CFL on the military displayis shown is yellow for a period of 30 seconds after which the text reverts to grey.

5. Coordination may take place :

5.1. Originated as appropriate by the military controller. Such coordination consists of two phases :

a preparatory phase whereby the military controller causes the label of the subject militaryaircraft to be displayed on the screen of the concerned civil sector. This initial action providesthe civil controller with the position of the aircraft thus reducing telephone dialogue ;

a subsequent phase during which telephone dialogue communicates the information necessaryto maintain separation between the subject of coordination and all civil traffic.





AAAAA


AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA


ANNEX D

5.2. Originated by the civil controller :

to obtain coordination on the penetration of civil traffic within a reserved area.

In this case the civil controller shall give at least 2 minutes warning and identify the subject aircraftwith its current level to the military controller.

6. These procedures shall apply for the duration of the simulation.

They will be the subject of review at each debriefing.



report of the continental rvsm real time simulation … · european organisation for the safety of...

Documents