Mark Watson

1
Mark Watson Richard Pugh(NATS)
CARE / ASAS Action FALBALA Project Disseminati
on Forum - 8th July 2004 WP4 - Operational
Indicators, Interviews Workshop
2
FALBALA Work Package 4

• Investigation of three Package I Airborne
  Surveillance applications
• Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during
  Flight Operations (ATSA-AIRB)
• Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA)
• Enhanced Sequencing and Merging operations
  (ASPA-SM)
• Assessment based on views of controllers, pilots,
  flight operations and ATM experts.

3
Work Package 4Operational Indicators, Interviews
Workshop

• 1. Define the Operational Indicators
• 2. Interviews with Controllers, Pilots ATC
  Experts
• 3. Operational Workshop to brainstorm selected
  issues

4
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

5
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
• . . .

6
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

7
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)

8
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

9
Summary of Responses(Enhanced Situational
Awareness during Flight Ops)

• Controller
• Benefits
• Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of safety benefit
• Improved common situational awareness between
  controller and pilot
• Workload
• Generally A LITTLE impact on ATC
• possible workload increase if pilots query ATC
  instructions
• Other Issues
• Main concern covers equipage - 100 equipage is
  required to be useful
• Likely to be of most benefit outside Controlled
  Airspace

• Pilot
• Benefits
• Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of benefit
• More accurate position information, can
  compensate for loss of party-line effect caused
  by datalink
• Workload
• Generally NO CHANGE, possibly a REDUCTION
• workload will depend on design
• Other Issues
• May offer safety benefit in remote areas, not in
  radar controlled airspace
• 100 equipage required to be useful?

10
Summary of Responses(Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach 1)

• Controller
• Feasible
• All answers from VERY DIFFICULT to EASY! Depends
  on the airport.
• Already in use at FRA.
• Would be very difficult to implement at LHR,
  might be feasible at LGW.
• Benefits
• 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.

• Pilot
• Feasible
• Generally ACHIEVABLE, EASY at Frankfurt. Visual
  following is already in use at Frankfurt.
• DIFFICULT at LHR.
• 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.

11
Summary of Responses(Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach 2)

• Controller
• 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.

• 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.

12
Summary of Responses(Enhanced Sequencing
Merging 1)

• Pilot
• Feasible
• Not asked, as it was felt that this was
  specifically a Controller question
• Benefits
• Generally A LITTLE or A LOT
• Reduction of voice communications
• More efficient user preferred trajectories
• Time-based spacing may give benefits

• Controller
• Feasible
• 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
• Considerable differences in opinion, some NO,
  some A LOT
• Some anticipate capacity efficiency benefits,
  others dont
• 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

13
Summary of Responses(Enhanced Sequencing
Merging 2)

• 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 de-skilled to some
  extent
• What would the consequence then be of a system
  breakdown?
• What happens when the sequence breaks down, e.g.
  after a Go-around?

• Pilot
• Workload
• Range from REDUCTION to INCREASE, depends on how
  SM is implemented, in particular the level of
  automation
• Without automation to assist the spacing task,
  workload may be increased
• With proper assistance, pilots 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 ?

14
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-SM

15
Workshop QuestionsEnhanced Sequencing and Merging

• Where would ASPA-SM 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?

16
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?

17
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?

18
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 high-density
  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 ...

19
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

20
WP4 Conclusions (3)

• Enhanced Sequencing Merging Operations
  (ATSA-SM)
• 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.

21
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.

22

• Any Questions?