CRISTAL%20ATSAW%20Project

1
CRISTAL ATSAW Project

• Sep 2007
• ASAS TN
• Christelle Pianetti, DSNA
• Simona Canu-Chiesa, Airbus

2
Scope and objectives (1)

• Project partners
• Airbus, DSNA Egis Avia (formerly Sofréavia,
  Project Leader)
• Project performed in partnership with EUROCONTROL
  CASCADE (CRISTAL Initiative)
• Focus on three ATSAW applications
• Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA)
• Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during
  Flight Operations (ATSA-AIRB)
• Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness on the
  Airport Surface (ATSA-SURF)
• Reference documents
• RFG ATSAW application descriptions, CASCADE
  validation plan and ATSAW validation objectives

3
Scope and objectives (2)

• Five validation exercises
• Two perspectives Airborne side ATC side
• Two validation levels Application level
  Benefit level

4
Airbus Objectives

• Past validation activities conducted internally
  by Airbus allowed to
• Validate a solution from the pilot perspective
• Make an Industrial and Economic assessment
• gt Development launch decision
• Still some questions to be answered
• What is the air traffic controller point of view?
• Do we present the most interesting aircraft to
  the pilots in all situations?
• Impact on phraseology?
• gt Need for air/ground cooperation

5
Traffic filtering investigation (1/2)
6
Traffic filtering investigation (2/2)

• Three different scenarios
• Arrival flight at CDG, cruising flight and
  departure flight from CDG
• Four design meetings with Airbus pilots
• Baseline filter always well accepted
• Filtering should only be adapted for non
  Proximate, TA or RA traffic
• Maximum 8 traffic on basic display.
• Preferred filter depending on pilots Convergence
  based filtering is often preferred in low
  altitude flight phases but do not match to cruise
  phase (especially OTS).
• Radio/Transmission based filtering was rejected.
• Filtering principle should be transparent for
  pilots (maybe adaptive to match different
  contexts but automatically)

7
Airbus RT experiments

• Operational evaluations of traffic display using
  A380 flight simulator
• ATSA-VSA at a major airport (i.e. Frankfurt)
• ATSA-SURF at a major airport (i.e. Paris CDG)
• ATSA-AIRB during approach (i.e. Paris ACC and
  TMA)
• Four sessions in May-June 06
• All three ATSAW applications evaluated in each
  session by test pilots and training instructor
  pilots
• Pilots feedback collected through debriefing
  after each scenario

8
Airbus RT Results

• Confirmation of preceding evaluation results
• Operational benefits in terms of
• Airport capacity a/c spacing for ATSA-VSA,
• Safety for ATSA-SURF,
• Flight efficiency management for ATSA-AIRB.
• ADS-B information contribute to a better
  situational awareness, could decrease crew stress
  and situation analysis effort during all
  flight/ground phase.
• Ease A/C identification decrease risk of
  confusion between traffic.
• TCAS ADS-B information can be integrated on
  CDTI.
• Phraseology proposed for traffic identification
  assumed to be useful if improved (workload,
  wording, etc.).

9
DSNA RT experiments

• Evaluation of ATSA-AIRB using real-time
  simulation facilities at DSNA
• Operational use of CDTI
• in response to traffic
• information by ATC
• Six sessions (of one day each)in May-June 06
• Two CDG approach scenarios, two Bordeaux ACC
  scenarios two Nice approach scenarios
• Participation of eight ATCOs ten pilots

10
DSNA RT Results (ATSA-AIRB)

• Evaluation of new phraseology
• Option tested
• No modification for the traffic information
  issued by the ATCO
• Possible use of identifier of other traffic in
  pilots answer
• Identifier spelled identification
• C_D_T_I contact ltidentifiergt or Traffic
  ltidentifiergt in sight
• Divided opinions of participants
• Interest in sharing the information on the
  identifier
• But not in heavy traffic and workload situations
• Spelling the call-sign is found complex, time
  consuming and possibly source of confusion
• No specific clearance after identification of
  traffic

11
DSNA RT Results (ATSA-AIRB)

• Impact on controller tasks and global integration
• No major impact foreseen on controllers activity
• Impact only related to the phraseology, and
  possible abusive uses of the CDTI by flight crews
• No clear trend on Radio/Transmission
  communication durations, workload, usefulness to
  know the a/c equipage
• Training (or at least briefing) on the new system
  is requested by the controllers

12
DSNA RT Results (ATSA-AIRB)

• Impact on controller/flight crew cooperation
• CDTI considered quite positively by both
  controllers and pilots on their cooperation
• CDTI seen as a mean for the pilots to better
  understand the situation
• And for the controllers as a mean to have more
  efficient communications with pilots, less pilot
  requests on the traffic
• Both pilots and controllers raised the importance
  of training and the need for a clear definition
  of procedure to avoid abusive uses of the CDTI by
  the pilots.

13
DSNA RT Results (ATSA-AIRB)

• Impact on safety of flight operations
• CDTI felt positive on safety by both pilots and
  controllers
• Possible benefits better identification of
  dangerous situations, better preparation to TCAS
  alerts
• But risk of abusive uses
• Training as a key issue

14
Next steps

• CRISTAL-ATSAW final report development (Oct 07)
• Summary of the main achievements
• Answer to the covered ATSAW Validation Objectives
  
• Conclusions on the feasibility and potential
  benefits of the evaluated ATSAW applications
• Recommendations to complete validation and
  progress with their implementation