CARE/ASAS Action
FALBALA Project
Dissemination Forum – 8th July 2004
Work Package 3
Chris Shaw & Karim Zeghal
(EUROCONTROL)
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 1
Work package 3
Assessment of possible operational benefits

Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck

Three Package 1 applications
 Enhanced Traffic Situational
Awareness during Flight
Operations ATSA-AIRB
 Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach ATSA-VSA
 Enhanced Sequencing and
Merging ASPA-S&M
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 2
Work package 3
Assessment approach

Application description
(Package 1)

Past studies (NUP II, US Ohio
Valley flight trials, CoSpace)


Potential ATC and airborne
benefits
Limitations & applicability
WP 1 & 2 Current situation
analysis – airspace &
aircraft perspective
WP 4 Operational
indicators, interviews &
workshop
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 3
Work package 3
Assessment of possible operational benefits

Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck

Three Package 1 applications
 Enhanced Traffic Situational
Awareness during Flight
Operations ATSA-AIRB
 Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach ATSA-VSA
 Enhanced Sequencing and
Merging ASPA-S&M
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 4
ATSA-AIRB
US Ohio valley CDTI/ADS-B flight trials

Cargo Airline Association (CAA), FAA
Safe Flight 21 program, MITRE, NASA,
DoD

OpEval1 – Wilmington, Ohio, July 1999

25 aircraft, dedicated experiment, focus
on enhanced visual acquisition and
enhanced visual approach

OpEval2 – Louisville, Kentucky,
October 2000

Continued investigation, focus on
approach spacing for visual
approaches during night and day.
Airborne Express
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 5
ATSA-AIRB
OpEval 1 – traffic pattern
10 - 15 Mile Final
Alt 30 -50
210 kts
Alt 30 - 50
210 kts
Wilmington airport, Ohio
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 6
ATSA-AIRB
Potential benefits

Potential ATC benefits [OpEval 1]
 Controllers indicated that CDTI had a:
• slight positive effect on providing control information
- allowed controller to call traffic earlier than normal
• moderately positive effect on communicating

Potential airborne benefits [OpEval 1]
 Liked: Flight ID tags, altitude information, and additional selected
information
 Increased flight crew confidence in their ability to maintain awareness of
the exact position of traffic even when traffic transitioned in and out of
obscurations.
 Aided in planning and workload management, and intra-cockpit
communication
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 7

ATSA-AIRB
Limitations and applicability
Limitations [OpEval1&2, WP2&4]
 Partial awareness due to partial equipage
 Display clutter is an issue in high density
areas
 Pilot hesitation over controller instruction

Applicability [WP2&4]
 38 out of 57 core Europe scenarios with
over 15 traffic targets displayed with an
altitude filter of -2700 feet to +2700 feet.
 Application dependent
 Filter could use intent
WP2 – CENA CDTI
prototype showing 36
traffic aircraft
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 8
Work package 3
Assessment of possible operational benefits

Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck

Three Package 1 applications
 Enhanced Traffic Situational
Awareness during Flight
Operations ATSA-AIRB
 Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach ATSA-VSA
 Enhanced Sequencing and
Merging ASPA-S&M
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 9
ATSA-VSA
Potential benefits
Baseline and CDTI for enhanced visual acquisition
OpEval 1
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 10
ATSA-VSA
Potential benefits
DAY
NIGHT
Three methods used for visual acquisition and
the order of use in OpEval 2
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 11
ATSA-VSA
Potential benefits
OpEval 1
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 12
ATSA-VSA
Potential benefits

Majority of flight crews said that CDTI helped during
visual approach [OpEval 1] – questionnaire comments:
 Allowed us to tighten up our approach
 Very useful for acquiring and re-acquisition of traffic
 Display of ground speed and distance information reduced the
workload of following traffic
 Increased situational awareness in busy traffic pattern
 Supported re-checking the position of traffic without consulting ATC
 Improved our awareness of ATC traffic pattern objectives
 Using the system to support flight deck objectives improved with
experience – for example, our confidence in maintaining a desired
interval during the approach
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 13
ATSA-VSA
Limitations

Clutter and head down time an issue [OpEval, WP4]

Frequency of use depends on percentage of aircraft
equipped [WP4]

Only for use in Visual Meteorological Conditions
[OpEval2]

Identification using call sign a potential issue [OpEval 2]
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 14
ATSA-VSA
Applicability

Visual separation currently used in Frankfurt TMA and US results
imply a CDTI could help in visual acquisition, maintaining visual
contact, gauging distance and closure rates [WP4, OpEval 2]

Frankfurt analysis example: own aircraft 1.0 NM behind leading
aircraft whilst flying visually separated to the parallel runways. Wake
vortices? [WP4]

Successive visual approaches not often flown in major capacitylimited European airports because of risk of go-around [WP 4]. Why
is risk not same in US?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 15
Work package 3
Assessment of possible operational benefits

Initial assessment of possible
operational benefits, limitations
and applicability – ATC and
flight deck

Three Package 1 applications
 Enhanced Traffic Situational
Awareness during Flight
Operations ATSA-AIRB
 Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach ATSA-VSA
 Enhanced Sequencing and
Merging ASPA-S&M
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 16
ASPA-S&M

What does it mean?
A typical example
 CoSpace, in collaboration with NUP
(COOPATS tiger team) covering
TMA and E-TMA

Analysing applicability?
Some indications
 CoSpace assumptions and findings,
feedback from ANSP participating,
WP1 and WP4

Extrapolating benefits?
Issues…
 CoSpace results, expected benefits
from WP4 and radar data from WP1
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 17
ASPA-S&M
A typical example

Four new instructions to
90s
 Maintain spacing (remain, merge)
XYZ123
060 - 24
 Create then maintain spacing
(heading then remain/merge)

XYZ456
070 - 24
Two constraints
 Required anticipation to setup S&M
(target selection)
“Behind target, merge WPT 90s behind”
 Restriction to manoeuvre aircraft under S&M
(e.g. heading not compatible with merge)

Same instructions for E-TMA and TMA

In TMA, aircraft arrives under S&M
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 18
ASPA-S&M
Air & ground interface
INKAK
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 19
ASPA-S&M
Typical uses in TMA

Maintaining spacing with S&M, but handling final
integration as today
 For aircraft under S&M on long downwind leg
 Limited benefits
 No constraint (except same trajectory)

Maintaining spacing and handling final integration with
S&M
 Maximum benefits, specifically under very high traffic conditions
 However, need to delay aircraft of one flow while keeping them under S&M
 Constraints typically in terms of airspace design
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 20
ASPA-S&M
Constraints

Airspace design
 Unique merging point (by definition of merge)
 Enough space (anticipation)
 Standard trajectories (by definition of remain,
merge)
 TMA: Holding legs (to delay for final integration)
 TMA: Geometry of legs (to easily visualise situation)

ATC organisation
 Grouping of positions (e.g. feeder & pickup for TMA)
 Executive and planning controllers

Traffic
 High or very high
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 21
ASPA-S&M
Applicability characteristics
London Heathrow
small
high
no
normal
no
London Gatwick
small
medium
yes
occasional
possibly
Paris CDG
medium
medium
yes
occasional
possibly
Paris Orly
medium
medium
yes
occasional
possibly
Frankfurt
large
high
yes
occasional
possibly
Generic
medium
simple
yes
no
yes
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 22
ASPA-S&M
Applicability assessment from WP4

With existing airspace structure, Paris (CDG and Orly)
highly feasible to the use of S&M, and feasible at London
Gatwick

Applicability to London Heathrow hardly feasible in today’s
operations (limited airspace and use of stacks) same for
Frankfurt (large but complex airspace)
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 23
ASPA-S&M
Identifying metrics

Three dimensions of analysis for CoSpace air & ground
real-time experiments

Four key metrics
Human
shaping
factors
 Number and geographical
distribution of instructions
(controller)
Human
activity
 Number of instructions
per aircraft (pilot)
 Actual spacing compared
to required spacing
 Length and dispersion
of trajectories
Effectiveness
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Safety
Slide 24
ASPA-S&M
Expected benefits

From WP1
 Analysis of spacing between successive aircraft with radar data

From WP4
 Reduction of voice communications
 Less time-critical instructions, capability to establish the sequence further
out, and generally reduction in controller workload
 Improvement of ATC efficiency through more consistent spacing
… but
 Possibility to increase capacity?
 Percentage of equipped aircraft?
 Pilot workload & level of cockpit automation
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 25
ASPA-S&M
Extrapolating benefits?
Specific
Conventional ATC
Potential benefit?
Yes No
metric i
metric i
-
+
Generic
Conventional ATC
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Generic
With S&M
Slide 26
ASPA-S&M
Illustration: spacing on final
Paris CDG
RW26L
RW26R
RW27L
RW27R
80
Generic
60
No
Time
40
20
23
023
9
RW27R
21
021
9
RW27L
19
019
9
17
017
9
120
15
015
9
London Heathrow
13
013
9
11
011
9
90
-9
9
70
-7
9
<6
0
0
(s)
100
80
60
40
20
23
023
9
RW07R
21
021
9
19
019
9
RW07L
17
017
9
15
015
9
13
013
9
80
11
011
9
70
-7
9
<6
0
Frankfurt
90
-9
9
0
(s)
60
40
20
Note: reference points are different
23
023
9
21
021
9
19
019
9
17
017
9
15
015
9
13
013
9
11
011
9
90
-9
9
70
-7
9
<6
0
0
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
(s)
Slide 27
ASPA-S&M
Limitations of comparisons

Generic
Actual spacing should be related to
desired spacing
 Is large spacing due to
• required spacing (e.g. for wake
vortex, departure, runway
inspection)
• low traffic
• inefficient sequencing?
 Is small spacing due to
• visual separation
• tight (but controlled) sequencing
due to a high traffic load
• missed sequencing?
%
Conventional ATC
Small
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Below
With ASAS spacing
Required
Above
Slide 28
ASPA-S&M
Issues related to extrapolation
Generic
Conventional ATC
Results of
experiments
Generic
With S&M
Impact of the differences
between the generic and
specific environment?
Specific
Conventional ATC
Known
Unknown
Specific
With S&M
Impact of the limitation of use of
S&M resulting from constraints of
specific environment?
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 29
WP3 – S&M conclusion


Initial understanding of applicability of S&M to TMA and E-TMA

Paris (CDG and Orly) highly feasible and London Gatwick feasible

London Heathrow hardly feasible (limited airspace and use of stacks)

Frankfurt, divergent assessment (large but complex airspace)
Assessment of benefits related to spacing at reference points hardly feasible
in the scope of FALBALA

Determine minimum applicable spacing (e.g. considering wake vortex, runway type of
operations, runway occupancy time) and traffic demand

Investigate other benefits in terms of ATC effectiveness (e.g. flight efficiency)
and human activity (e.g. increased availability, more anticipation)

Experiments on generic environment should be continued to develop trends
already identified

Experiments on specific environment necessary to assess benefits
July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR5/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG
Slide 30