RACOON
Summary
RACOON is the ENAV‐led demonstration activity on Remote TWR concept and RNP APCH procedures.
The project aims at demonstrating, within
the Italian airport context, that these two
concepts represent, singularly or combined, a viable solution to optimise, under specific
operational and technical conditions, the level of aerodrome ATS services, with special reference to Cost Efficiency and Access & Equity KPAs.
The project addresses both single and multiple airport remote TWR concepts and relies on a stepwise demonstration
approach, encompassing the execution of RTS and Shadow Mode sessions as
preparatory steps to the Live/Flight trials. 1
The Partnership
… and as supporting Partners:
2
Scope
• Deployment of the required technical infrastructure and definition of the operational conditions for operating at least one National interest airport remotely from the cluster Strategic Airport
• Provision of ATS/ATC services to a Single runway Aerodrome from a remote location, under given operational conditions and technical assumptions (night operations, low traffic conditions, good weather condition)
• Sharing of ATS services for multiple airport, under given operational conditions and technical assumptions (night operations, low traffic conditions, good weather condition)
• Acceptability/flyability of RNP APCH (APV BARO / LPV SBAS) procedures, also in combination with the Remote Tower solution
• GNSS monitoring (including real time monitoring solutions) 3
KPAs addressed
1.
The Project is oriented at investigating onto:
– Cost Effectiveness
– Access and Equity
with the aim at demonstrating how the described solutions can provide improvements to those KPAs … 2.
4
… without negatively affecting the main KPAs in ATM:
– Safety
– Security
– Capacity
– Human Performance
Demonstration Context
• The North‐West traffic cluster • Milano Malpensa ‐ LIMC, being the Strategic airport, to host the Remote Tower Centre (RTC)
• Milano Linate ‐ LIML, as the National interest airport to be operated remotely through the Remote Tower Module (RTM);
• A generic additional airport ‐ LIXX, to be operated remotely through the same RTM
5
Demonstration Approach
•
STEP 1: execution of RTS exercises aimed to support the definition of the safety and security cases for the identified scenarios
•
STEP 2: conduction of Shadow Mode operations to assess the readiness of the Remote TWR environment
•
STEP 3: Demonstrations with Flight Trials to investigate different use cases:
– RNP APCH procedures, with local control
– Conventional procedures, with remote control
– RNP APCH procedures, with remote control
– ATS services for multiple airports
•
STEP 4: development of a CBA methodology for the combined use of the two concepts within a cluster of airports where such solution would be viable to increase Cost‐efficiency and Access&Equity KPAs. 6
Demonstration Scenarios
ID Description HLS‐RCN‐001 Conventional procedures conducted on Night single remote airport (LIML) Shadow M. Live Trials CBA HLS‐RCN‐002 Non‐Conventional procedures conducted Both at LIML RWY36, overlaying ILS Live Trials CBA HLS‐RCN‐003 Non‐Conventional procedures conducted Both at LIML RWY35, existing FATO (and new FATO, if possible) Non‐Conventional procedures conducted Night on single remote airport (LIML) Live Trials CBA HLS‐RCN‐005 Multiple (2) airports traffic coordination: 1 Night local (LIMC) and 1 remote (LIML) RTS Shadow M. Live Trials CBA HLS‐RCN‐006 Multiple (3) airports traffic coordination: 1 Night local (LIMC) and 2 remote (LIML/LIXX) RTS Shadow M. Live Trials CBA HLS‐RCN‐004 7
Day/night ops Means of Demo Shadow M. Live Trials CBA Schedule
8
Expected Outcomes
‐
Demonstrating that Remote Tower concept for Single Runway Airport is a mature and cost‐efficient solution for maintaining the level of ATS services provision at small/medium airports
‐
Delivering positive business case for the introduction of remote tower services (single/multiple airports) for the Italian airports, and a CBA model to be applied to any other clustering of Airports in Europe
‐
Delivering recommendations to support standardisation/certification work on Remote Tower operations
‐
Fostering the deployment of RNP‐APCH in line with the PCP IR objectives and ICAO resolutions on RNP
‐
Proposing GNSS real time monitoring solutions
‐
Demonstrating that Remote TWR services and RNP APCH procedures, singularly or in combination, are a viable solution to increase the level of service and accessibility to different classes of airspace users
‐
Preliminary assessing the operational and technical feasibility of the multiple airports solution and then feeding the SESAR 2020 further work on this item 9
Thanks for your attention
@radioracoon1
https://twitter.com/RADIORACOON1
10
Remote Towers ‐ Scope
Dublin
Shannon
Cork
11
The provision of
aerodrome control
service (air
movements control
and surface
movements control)
for Cork and Shannon
airports from a
Remote Tower Facility
(RTF), located at
Dublin Air Traffic
Services unit.
Aim of Project
 The aim is to delivery benefits in line with SESAR high level objectives:
Safety Enhanced controller tools Cost
Greater productivity and resource deployment
Capacity
Enhanced Contingency
Environment
Improved airport integration
13
Project Team / Consortium
• Project Management
•
Barry Griffin
•
Engineering Manager Dublin •
T +353 1 8067308
•
barry.griffin@iaa.ie
• Operational Requirements •
Peter Kavanagh
•
Manager Operational Requirements
•
T +353 61 366082
•
Peter.kavanagh@iaa.ie
• Project Coordination
•
Gerald Caffrey
•
Manager Operational Support •
T +353 1 6031521
•
gerald.caffrey@iaa.ie
• Project Management
•
Patrick Tarrant
•
Manager Flight Data Processing
•
T +353 61 366212
•
patrick.tarrant@iaa.ie
• Contractual Aspects
•
Cathal Casserly
•
Manager Contracts and Procurement
•
T +353 1 6031517 •
cathal.casserly@iaa.ie
• Airport Interface •
Robert Hilliard
•
Director Dublin Airport Authority
•
robert.hilliard@daa.ie
• Operations Management
•
Cathal MacCriostail
•
Operations Manager Cork & Shannon •
T +353 21 4237868
•
cathal.maccriostail@iaa.ie
14
• Airlines Interface •
Brian Horgan
•
Operations Manager Stobart Air
•
brian.horgan@stobartair.com
• Regulatory Management •
Tom Regan
•
Regulatory Liaison
•
tom.regan@iaa.ie
Timescales
Call for Tender – October 2014 Contract with System Supplier – March 2015
System Site Acceptance Testing Completed – December 2015
Regulatory Acceptance for Trials – April 2016
Demonstrations Commence – April 2016
Demonstrations Conclude – August 2016
Final Reporting – September 2016
16
Project Trials
 Minimum of 50 Demonstration Exercises
 Three Batches: 5, 15, 30
 Exercise Scenarios/Periods to Match Objectives
 Iterative progression, SMC, SMC & AMC, in sequence leading to simultaneous
 Objectives for each exercise, incrementally added
 Shadow Operations at Local Towers
17
18
Project Dependencies & Risks
 Supplier Equipment/Existing Technology
 Regulatory Acceptance not Received
 Project Scope not Fully Understood
 Project Plan/Objectives/Criteria not clear
 Timelines/Milestones not Maintained  Resources (Human/Budget) not Properly Estimated/Controlled
19
Interface with the Regulator
 Regular Meetings and Briefings
 Ensures Expectations of SJU, NSA and Project are met
 Regulatory Requirements and Safety Objectives Well Understood
 Enables Concurrent Sign‐off at Project Milestones
20
21
Expected Outcomes
 Expectations of SJU, Project Sponsor/Consortium Achieved
 ATM Services/Performance Improvements
 Contribution to EATMN Performance
 Shortcomings and/or Limitations Minimal
 Evidential Justification for Deployment by Irish Aviation Authority
 Support to SESAR Vision – ATM Master Plan
22
Thank you..
23
Remote Tower (RTO)
SESAR Large Scale Demonstration
LOT 2 Solutions for small/medium size airports
Organisation
Demo objectives
Goal LVNL
• Obtain experience with the remote tower concept;
• Investigate future applications
– Service provision regional airports
– Cost efficiency of incidental flights during night period
– Back-up facilities for conventionele torens.
Airport situation NL
Demonstration LVNL
Groningen
Beek simulated
(medium size)
(small size)
LVNL Schiphol‐Oost
Remote Tower demonstration for
Eelde (live) and Beek (simulated
by NARSIM) from one CWP with
one ATCO.
Saab Remote Tower System
Project Planning
Synergies
1. Experience within projectteam (e.g.
relationship with NSA’s)
2. Exchange of information with other
ANSPs (e.g. ENAV, DSNA)
3. Support to SESAR demo days and
workshops
Final thought
The wise man said
it could not be
done.
The fool did it,
because he did not
know, that it
could not be done.
Thank you..
33
Moving From Airspace to 4D Trajectory Management
Airspace users plan their business and mission trajectories:
 Following User‐Preferred Routes
 Within airspace not constrained by a fixed route network; and
 Where airspace reservations are managed dynamically All stakeholders use a shared and consistent view of flight data, working collaboratively to plan and execute trajectories that fully meet Airspace User needs
In the execution phase 4D trajectory data is enriched with current airborne data shared via data link
34
Moving from Airspace to 4D Trajectory Management
4D Trajectory Management creates an environment where air and ground stakeholders share a common view of the aircraft’s trajectory, so that the flight can be managed as closely as possible to the Airspace User’s ideal profile, while optimising the flow of air traffic.
SESAR ANNUAL DEMO WORKSHOP
Toulouse, 28‐29 October 2014
Day 2: New Project Plans
PEGASE Project: Project Coordinator: Jean‐Louis BIGOT (Airbus)
PEGASE: Project Description
PEGASE: Providing Effective Ground & Air data Sharing via EPP.
•PEGASE supports SESAR Priority Strategic Business Needs
moving from Airspace to 4D Trajectory Management
•PEGASE will provide EPP information on projected aircraft trajectory
calculated with the aircraft’s systems.
EPP: Extended Project Profile 36
•
EPP information will be shared with ANSPs, and ground manufacturer systems, for operational use. •
Off‐line analysis will be performed for statistics on EPP performance and reliability.
PEGASE: Project Objectives
• Building on previous SESAR exercises and SESAR i4D flight trials
• Aligned with PCP* AF**#6 (Initial Trajectory Information Sharing)
• Designed to illustrate that EPP provides accurate and reliable info:
– 100 flights in busy European airspace – 3 ANSPs and one ground manufacturer + the Network Manager
• Designed to demonstrate that EPP incorporated in ATC ground systems enables:
–
–
–
–
A reduction of spurious conflict and traffic alerts
A better management of separations and complex traffic flows
Lesser need for Radio Telephony communications
More predictable climb / descent
• Paving the way to SESAR 2020 Very Large Demonstrations
* PCP: Pilot Common Project, ** AF: ATM Functionalities 37
PEGASE: Consortium Description
• The PEGASE Consortium
includes the following partners:
–
–
–
–
–
AIRBUS
EUROCONTROL NATS
skyguide
THALES
And… is supported by Honeywell & SITA
38
PEGASE: Project Content
•• Laboratory Simulator
Validation
Validation
• Flight Tests
• EPP Performance Analysis
• End‐User Feedback on EPP Operational Usage 39
PEGASE: Implementation Timeframe
PHASE I:
Simulator sessions : Airbus / EUROCONTROL / NATS / Skyguide / Thales
PHASE III: Running mode
(+/‐ 10 flights per month)
PHASE II:
1st EPP flight
Equipment
Request
Simulator
preparation
Simulator
sessions
Flight
preparation
1st EPP Flight
With partners
• Laboratory activities: to provide the “GO” for flight
Ferry Flight Execution, Analysis, Operational
Gate
P 1
Gate
Demonstration Plan
40
D
P
P 2
Demonstration Report
D
R
PEGASE: Expected Results
• Illustrate EPP reliability, to foster ANSPs confidence on data usage.
• Confirm expectations for the efficiency of
future ATC tools based on improved 4D accuracy:
‐
‐
‐
‐
Conformance Monitoring
Conflict Detection
Enhanced Arrival Management
...
Specifically, with regards to benefits on:
‐ Safety
‐ Flight Predictability & flexibility
‐ Airspace and Airport Capacity.
41
Thank you..
42
FREE Solutions
Summary
FREE Solutions aims to bridge R&D towards
deployment, proving the benefits of some Free
Route
operational
solutions
in
real‐life
environment. The project will demonstrate the
potential linked with deployment of more efficient
City‐Pairs, Direct Routing and Free Routing
operations over a wide multi‐FAB continental area
as a first step towards the implementation of
Airspace Users’ preferred business trajectories.
Making reference to current ATM system
capabilities and more effective FUA operations,
FREE Solutions demonstration activities are
expected to bring effective benefits in terms of fuel
savings, reduction of CO2 emissions, improved real‐
time flight planning capabilities as well as higher
ATM performances, flexibility and efficiency.
43
The Partnership
•
44
The consortium ‐ led by ENAV S p A ‐ consists of 5 AU, 5 ANSPs and NM: ENAV S.p.A., Air France Group, Alitalia, DFS, DSNA, EUROCONTROL/Network Manager, Lufthansa, MATS, Ryanair, Skyguide and Swiss Airlines. Scope
•
FREE Solutions project activities are mainly focusing on two ATM Functionalities
already identified in the Pilot Common Project:
– Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route;
– Network Collaborative Management.
•
The scope of the project is the definition and demonstration of Free Route
operational solutions over a wide multi‐FAB continental area to improve ATM
performances, flexibility and efficiency.
– City‐pairs and Direct Routings: more efficient city‐pairs and direct routings providing
performance enhancements in terms of mileage savings, fuel consumption and
environmental impacts, combining horizontal and/or vertical efficiency improvements.
– Free Routing: designing and testing an ad hoc cross‐border/FAB Free Route Airspace
(FRA) across 4 countries where AUs will be free to fly from a fixed entry point to a fixed
exit point on the basis of their business/operational needs.
– Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA): further exploiting the effective and flexible use of
airspace through a more efficient and dynamic civil‐military coordination and an
enhanced AUs flight planning process.
45
Project Work flow
WP2 DEMONSTRATION PLAN, REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
WP6 COMMUNICATION & FINAL REPORT
WP3 OPERATIONAL SOLUTIONS DESIGN
City Pairs
Direct Routing
Cross‐Border Free Route
A‐FUA
WP5 FLIGHT TRIALS
CONOPS Consolidation
Demo Trials preparation
Initial Safety Req.s
Dress Rehearsal & Training
Demonstration Plan
Flight Trials Execution
WP4 SOLUTIONS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Data Collection & Analysis
Environment\Capacity Case
Safety Case
HP Case
WP1 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
Project Monitoring and Control Quality & Risk Management
46
Final Demonstration Report
Communication
KPAs addressed
•
The FREE Solutions project will assess the identified operational solutions performance benefits mainly in the following KPAs:
–
–
–
–
–
Safety Environment Capacity
Efficiency
Human Performance
•
The Safety performance assessment aims at demonstrating that all identified scenarios are acceptably safe and are not negatively affected by the proposed operational solutions.
•
The Safety assessment approach adopted by FREE Solutions project encompasses a structured, planned and systematically organized process performed in accordance with European and National Regulations too.
47
Demonstration Approach
•
STEP 1: Demonstration Plan production and definition of the most promising project operational solutions for both short to medium term and long term period. This first step will lead to the execution of a first set of flight trials focused on a set of optimised City Pairs. •
STEP 2: Building on the analysis and the outcomes of the trials performed on the city pairs, a set of cross‐border Direct Routings (DRs) will be selected for the execution of a second set of flight trials dedicated mainly to the defined Direct Routing operations. •
STEP 3: To pave the way and derisk/refine the procedures to be used for the final set of flight trials dedicated to cross‐border Free Routing operations a dedicated set of Real Time Simulation / Dress Rehearsal activity will be performed. The execution of RTS exercises will be also used for further consolidate the safety case for the proposed scenarios/exercises.
•
STEP 4: Building on the proposed operational solutions and on the results of the RTS exercises, the final step of the FREE Solutions demonstration foresees the execution of a set flight trials focused on the defined Free Routing operations that will make reference to a dedicated Free Route Area. 48
Demonstration Scenarios
ID
Description
Weekend/Weekday
KPAs
SCN‐LSD0105‐001
City‐pairs
Weekends
Safety, Environment, Capacity, Predictability, Efficiency
SCN‐LSD0105‐002
City‐pairs
Weekdays
Safety, Environment, Capacity, Predictability, Efficiency
SCN‐LSD0105‐003
Direct Routing
Weekends
Safety, Environment, Capacity, Predictability, Efficiency
SCN‐LSD0105‐004
Direct Routing
Weekdays
Safety, Environment, Capacity, Predictability, Efficiency
SCN‐LSD0105‐005
Free Routing
Weekends
Safety, Environment, Capacity, Predictability, Efficiency,
49
Schedule
50
Expected Outcomes
•
Demonstrate the benefits of the proposed FREE Solutions in a cross‐border/multi‐
FAB scenario to the wider aviation community.
•
Accelerating the cross‐border Free Route operational acceptance and the subsequent deployment of the proposed operational solutions.
•
Development of a positive business case for the deployment of cross‐border Free Route operations
•
Delivery of recommendations and more advanced ATM system requirements in support of the deployment/certification of Free Route operations
•
Contribution to the SESAR work by delivering a comprehensive assessment on the operational and technical feasibility of Free Route operations.
51
Thanks for your attention
52