CARE / ASAS Action
FALBALA Project
Dissemination Forum - 8th July 2004
WP4 - Operational Indicators, Interviews
& Workshop
Mark Watson & Richard Pugh
(NATS)
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 1
FALBALA Work Package 4

Investigation of three Package I Airborne Surveillance
applications:
 Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations (ATSAAIRB)
 Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA)
 Enhanced Sequencing and Merging operations (ASPA-S&M)

Assessment based on views of controllers, pilots, flight
operations and ATM experts.
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 2
Work Package 4
Operational Indicators, Interviews &
Workshop

1. Define the “Operational Indicators”

2. Interviews with Controllers, Pilots & ATC Experts

3. Operational Workshop to brainstorm selected issues
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 3
1. Operational Indicators

Stage 1 identified a set of metrics, “Operational Indicators”,
which could be used throughout the project

Two perspectives
 Airspace Perspective (characteristics of the airspace)
 Aircraft Perspective (characteristics for an individual flight)

Operational Indicators were used as input for the Quantitative
analysis done by WP1 and WP2 (already discussed)

Operational Indicators were used as an aid for discussions in
WP4
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 4
Examples of Operational Indicators

Airspace Perspective, e.g.:
 Runway Capacity
 Use of Radar Vectoring
 Use of Holding Patterns
 Aircraft Spacing
...
 Aircraft Perspective, e.g.:
 No. of surrounding aircraft (and distribution by range)
 Relative distance and bearing of traffic on same route
 Relative distance and bearing of traffic on other routes
...
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 5
2. Questionnaires
Questionnaires were developed to discuss the operational
benefits and limitations of the three ASAS applications:

Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight
Operations

Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach

Enhanced Sequencing and Merging
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 6
Questionnaire Participants

ATM and Airline Experts
 Controllers from DFS, DGAC and NATS
 Pilots from Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France

Varying previous experience of ASAS Concepts (from
none to extensive)
Pilot
Respondents
ATC
Respondents
Air France
(AFR)
2 (management pilot & airline
manager)
DFS
2 (current controller &
management controller)
Lufthansa
(DLH)
3 (Airline manager & pilots)
NATS
4 (ATM managers & LTMA
controller)
British Airways
(BAW)
3 (joint response airline
manager and management
pilots)
DGAC
4 (ATM managers & Paris
controllers)
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 7
Questionnaires

Two Questionnaires:
 1 for Controllers (and ATC Experts)
 1 for Pilots (and Flight Ops Experts)

Questionnaires included:
 Background to the FALBALA project
 A brief overview of each of the three applications
 A brief summary of the FALBALA WP1 Results, showing some of the Radar
Analysis
 Questions were multiple choice style but with scope for written
comments and explanation to be added
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 8
Summary of Responses
(Enhanced Situational Awareness during Flight Ops)
Controller
Pilot
Benefits:
Benefits:
• Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of
benefit
• More accurate position information,
can compensate for loss of party-line
effect caused by datalink
 Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of
safety benefit
 Improved common situational
awareness between controller and
pilot
Workload:
Workload:
 Generally NO CHANGE, possibly a
REDUCTION
 workload will depend on design
 Generally A LITTLE impact on ATC
 possible workload increase if pilots
query ATC instructions
Other Issues:
Other Issues:
• May offer safety benefit in remote
areas, not in radar controlled
airspace
• Main concern covers equipage 100% equipage is required to be
useful
• 100% equipage required to be
useful?
• Likely to be of most benefit outside
Controlled Airspace
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 9
Summary of Responses
(Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach 1)
Controller
Pilot
Feasible:
Feasible:
• Generally ACHIEVABLE, EASY at
Frankfurt. Visual following is already
in use at Frankfurt.
 All answers from VERY DIFFICULT
to EASY! Depends on the airport.
• Already in use at FRA.
• DIFFICULT at LHR.
• Would be very difficult to implement
at LHR, might be feasible at LGW.
Benefits:
Benefits:
 Mainly A LOT, one A LITTLE
(depends on the airport!)
 Clear capacity benefits at FRA,
ATSA-VSA could improve spacing
precision further.
 At LHR, there is no scope for
reducing spacing, ATSA-VSA may
even reduce capacity.
• Answers range from NO to A LOT
(depends on the airport!)
• At some airports ATSA-VSA is not
seen as feasible.
• At others capacity is maximised by
existing procedures, no scope to
reduce spacing.
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 10
Summary of Responses
(Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach 2)
Controller
Pilot
Workload:
• Generally REDUCTION, but not
agreed by all, possible INCREASE at
LHR
• Spacing information and Ground
speed information provided on CDTI
would assist visual spacing.
Workload:
 Possible REDUCTION in workload
though not agreed by all.
 If capacity increases as a result then
there may be no net change for
workload.
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 11
Summary of Responses
(Enhanced Sequencing & Merging 1)
Controller
Pilot
Feasible:
Feasible:
• Not asked, as it was felt that this was
specifically a Controller question
 All answers from VERY DIFFICULT
to EASY !
 Difficult at LHR and FRA due to
complexity of airspace. May be more
achievable at LGW and Paris airports
Benefits:
Benefits:
 Generally A LITTLE or A LOT
• Reduction of voice communications
• Considerable differences in opinion,
some NO, some A LOT
• More efficient user preferred
trajectories
• Some anticipate capacity & efficiency
benefits, others don’t
• Time-based spacing may give
benefits
• Some concern that pilots will need
more assistance (support tools) to
maintain the spacing
• Time-based spacing alone may
provide some benefits
• May be some environmental benefits
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 12
Summary of Responses
(Enhanced Sequencing & Merging 2)
Pilot
Workload:
• Range from REDUCTION to
INCREASE, depends on how S&M is
implemented, in particular the level of
automation
• Without automation to assist the
spacing task, workload may be
increased
• With proper assistance, pilot’s overall
workload could be reduced
Other Issues:
• What is the impact on avionics ? If
FMS and CDTI changes are required
then this will not be feasible before
2015
• Is Intent information required to
perform spacing tasks ?
Controller
Workload:
 Generally REDUCTION in controller
workload
 Reduction in R/T loading
 Better conformance of flights with
clearances
 Instructions may be less time-critical
 Ability to establish sequence further
out from touchdown
Other Issues:
• The task of controllers may be deskilled to some extent
• What would the consequence then
be of a system breakdown?
• What happens when the sequence
breaks down, e.g. after a Goaround?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 13
3. Operational Workshop
London Heathrow Airport
18th March 2004
26 Attendees from
Eurocontrol, Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa, DFS,
NATS, DGAC, Sofreavia and UoG


Discussion of each of the three applications
Demonstration of the CO-SPACE Implementation of ASPA-S&M
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 14
Workshop Questions
Enhanced Sequencing and Merging

Where would ASPA-S&M be applicable, i.e. which airports ?

Is it necessary to automate the spacing on the aircraft?

Is it necessary to have Intent information?

Could the same benefits be derived from other concepts, such as
the use of time-based spacing by ATC or 4D Trajectory
negotiation?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 15
Workshop Questions
Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach

Answers to the questionnaires show wide range of views. Why do we
have these differences ?

Visual separation is in use in Frankfurt, with an agreed benefit. Why
only in Frankfurt?

Are there possibilities to use visual separation at other airports to
increase capacity?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 16
Workshop Questions
Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight
Operations

What benefits?
 E.g. what is the expected impact on controller and pilot workload

What about Partial Situational Awareness ?
 Possibly caused by lack of aircraft equippage or filtering?

What information should be displayed?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 17
WP4 Conclusions (1)

Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight
Operations (ATSA-AIRB)
 Improved Traffic Situational Awareness for Pilots
• Can compensate for the loss of Party-Line expected to result from
datalink
 Little effect on Pilot and Controller workload
 Most benefit will be obtained in remote (non-radar airspace), not in highdensity environments
 Requires 100% equipage to get full benefits (or TIS-B)
 Design work is required for the traffic display
•Issues such as filtering, the means of labelling aircraft tracks ...
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 18
WP4 Conclusions (2)

Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA)
 CAPACITY benefits at Frankfurt Airport
• A consequence of the runway configuration at Frankfurt
 Application to other airports is expected to be limited
• Benefits are not clear for single runway airports
• “Normal” visual approaches are not common in Europe
 Safety benefits could arise
• from improved visual acquisition
• from improved spacing accuracy
 There is a risk that capacity could be reduced if pilots tend to apply greater
spacing than currently achieved by radar control
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 19
WP4 Conclusions (3)

Enhanced Sequencing & Merging Operations (ATSA-S&M)
 Agreement that Sequencing and Merging could provide:
• Improved efficiency through reduced R/T usage, and more consistent
spacing
• Make ATC instructions less time-critical
• Ability to establish the sequence further out
 Sequencing & Merging is expected to provide most benefit when spacing
is defined in terms of TIME
 There is disagreement about the level of automation required on the
aircraft. The impact on pilot workload will depend on the automation
provided.
 Sequencing and Merging appears highly feasible at some airports (e.g. the
Paris CDG and Orly). Appears feasible at Gatwick. The limited size or high
complexity of other TMA areas (e.g. those for Heathrow, Frankfurt) would
make it harder to implement without major airspace changes.
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 20
WP4 Recommendations

The Operational Indicators should be updated and prioritised for use in future
assessments.

Sequencing and Merging appears feasible and beneficial for some TMA areas. More
detailed study is recommended for these areas.

Aspects of Sequencing and Merging such as integration with arrival tools, integration
with RNAV and abnormal procedures (failure modes) should be studied further.

Enhanced Visual Spacing on Approach offers benefits for only a limited number of
airports. It should be considered with regard to specific airports and not for general
use.

The design of the CDTI is important to all applications, especially Enhanced
Situational Awareness. Design work is needed to assess filtering algorithms and how
to combine TCAS and ADS-B traffic information.
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 21
Any Questions?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR4/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 22