CARE ASAS Validation Framework

1
CARE ASAS Validation Framework
2
Partners

• CARE ASAS Board - Francis Casaux
• EURCONTROL - Mick van Gool, Ulrich Borkenhagen
• Consortium Partners
• Aena, Isdefe, NATS, NLR, QinetiQ
• Currently 6 months into 12 month programme

3
Validation of ASAS

• Validation
• Does proposed operational concept provide
  anticipated performance?
• Operational concept
• Performance Framework

4
High Level Validation Process
5
ASAS Framework Requirements

• Operational Concept - Airborne Separation
  Assurance Systems
• Performance Framework
• Reference Scenario
• High level objectives
• Metrics
• Links to Previous work
• Support to Users

6
Operational Concept

• ASAS application categories, from PO-ASAS
• Airborne Traffic Situation Awareness
• Current ATC rules apply
• Airborne Spacing
• Aircrew given more tasks
• Airborne Separation
• Temporary delegation of separation to aircrew
• Airborne Self-separation
• Full delegation of separation

7
Performance Framework

• ATM 2000 Strategy Objectives
• Safety
• Capacity
• etc
• Framework Scenario
• Operationally realistic
• Scenario data repository
• Metrics
• System Performance Metrics
• Human Performance Metrics

8
Validation Exercises
9
Links to Previous Work

• CARE Integra
• MAEVA
• EMERALD RTD Plan
• Other EUROCONTROL work

10
Support to User

• Guidelines - assistance to validation teams and
  managers
• Case Studies (Worked examples)
• Scenario database
• Documentation
• Dissemination Forum

11
Work Packages
12
Scenario Framework
13
Scenario Framework based on Template

• Why is a scenario template needed ?

• STANDARDIZE the validation scenarios for ASAS
  Applications

• Facilitate the TRACEABILITY of the scenarios

• SUPPORT DESIGNERS in the creation of validation
  scenarios for ASAS applications

• ENSURE THOROUGH AND CONSISTENT validation of ASAS
  applications

14
Objectives of Template

• MAIN GOAL Supporting the designer in the
  creation of a validation scenario

• Structure based on PO-ASAS categories and
  applications with EMERALD

• One template for each PO-ASAS category Airborne
  Traffic Situational Awareness, Airborne Spacing,
  Airborne Separation, Airborne Self-Separation

• Items for scenario definition clustered in seven
  groups Objectives, Airspace, Traffic, ATS
  Involved, Rules, Tasks, Actors (Performer
  Supervisor), Technology

• USER SELECTS the ITEMS that will form the
  scenario but SOME of them are MANDATORY

• Based on the chosen items, designer develops the
  scenario

15
Scenario Definition Groups

• OBJECTIVES to be grouped by types (Safety,
  Capacity)

• AIRSPACE Restrictions, Types, Areas, Elements,
  Geographical Scope

• TRAFFIC Volume, Complexity, Flight Schedule,
  Timeframe, Aircraft Type, Equipment Type,
  Aircraft Performance

• ATS INVOLVED ATC, FIS, TIS-B, APP, Alert
  Service, GNSS, ATFM, Performance Management, New
  Services

• RULES Flight Rules, Longitudinal Separation,
  Lateral Separation, Phraseology, RVSM, Aircraft
  Sequencing, Conflict Resolution Strategy,
  Co-ordination and Transfer Procedures, Trained
  Flight Crews

• TASKS AND ACTORS - Perform Separation
  Assurance Performer Supervisor

• TECHNOLOGY
• GROUND Communications, Surveillance, ATM
• AIRBORNE Redundancy, Communications,
  Surveillance, Navigation, Display

16
Example Technology Group

• AIRBORNE
• Redundancy
• Communications
• Voice
• Data link
• Surveillance
• Mode-S
• TCAS II/ETCAS
• Audio/visual alerts
• Traffic information processing
• Surveillance data processing
• Spacing function processing
• Navigation
• GNSS with augmentation
• FMS
• Automatic management of the separation
  (connection with FGCS)
• Display
• CDTI/EFIS/MCDU
• HUD

• GROUND
• Communications
• Voice
• Data link
• Inter-sector information transfer
• Surveillance
• Radar coverage
• No radar coverage
• TIS-B
• ADS-B
• CWP HMI with aircraft equipment, ID and
  delegation status
• Controller assistance tool
• Sequencing tool
• Separation monitoring tool
• ATM
• Planning
• Automation

17
Applied on Historic Data

• Enhanced Visual Adquisition, EMERALD
• Longitudinal Station Keeping, EMERALD and NATS
• Closely Space Parallel Approaches, EMERALD
• Station Keeping Approach, EMERTA
• Autonomous Aircraft, EMERALD
• Baseline En-route Free Flight, NLR
• TMA ASAS Autonomous Aircraft, NLR
• FREER-EACAC, EEC
• Multi agent optimal ASAS operations (COAST),
  Glasgow University
• Optimal FFA/MAS Transition Methodology, Glasgow
  University
• ASAS Crossing Procendure, CENA
• Sector capacity assessment for ASAS, CENA

18
Scenario Database

• Gathered data from sources in CARE ASAS and the
  VF consortium
• Uses EUROCONTROL Validation Data Repository
• Agreed data structure for scenarios based on
  template
• Obtained agreement for sharing of data
• Access via EUROCONTROL

19
System Performance Metrics
20
System Performance Metrics

• Aim was not to develop new metrics
• Accessible advice to validators
• High level objectives
• Hierarchy mapping objectives to metrics
• Many to many
• Taxonomy
• Perspectives

21
Objectives

• Objectives covered, based on ATM 2000 Strategy
  are
• Safety
• Capacity
• Efficiency
• Environment
• Security Defence
• Security Defence extended to include terrorist
  threat
• Uniformity and Quality not considered further

22
Hierarchy

• OBJECTIVES
• ? PERFORMANCE AREAS
• (? ASPECTS)
• ? METRICS

23
Hierarchy

• PERFORMANCE AREAS broken down into ASPECTS where
  appropriate
• Example
• ACCESS (PERFORMANCE AREA)
• Airports
• Sectors (ASPECTS)
• Routes
• Assists use with scenarios that look at specific
  airspace

24
Taxonomy

• METRICS ? INDICATORS
• CARE-ASAS PRC
• Validation C/AFT
• Framework TORCH

25
Database tool

• For easy manipulation of data and linkages

26
Database tool

• Enabling instant switch from top-down...

27
Database tool

• to bottom-up view

28
Perspectives

• Different views (perspectives) can be applied to
  the information stored
• Airline perspective as in C/AFT
• ATM perspective as in PRC
• Scenario

29
Perspectives

• Further perspectives under consideration are
• Study type (FTS, RTS, Analytic or Survey)
• ASAS categories (Situational awarenessSelf
  Separation)
• Links Human Performance metrics

30
Links to Previous and Parallel Work
31
Potential Links

• CARE Integra
• MAEVA
• EMERALD
• Ongoing EUROCONTROL work

32
CARE Integra

• EUROCONTROL funded study
• Metrics
• Capacity
• Safety
• Environment
• Economics
• QinetiQ involvement in Integra and VF
• Use of Integra metrics

33
MAEVA

• A Master ATM European Validation Plan
• Supporting EC in management of ATM projects
• Validation Guideline Handbook - exercise level
• Validation Master Plan - project validation plans
• Monitoring of projects
• Final Consolidation of Results from Projects
• NATS and Isdefe involvement in MAEVA VF
• Alignment of VF with MAEVA VGH

34
MAEVA Five-Step Validation Methodology
Step 1 Aims
Step 2 Preparation
Step 3 Execution
Step 4 Analysis
Step 5 Conclusions
35
Others

• EMERALD RTD Plan
• Plan for RTD for future technology for ATM
  systems
• NATS and QinetiQ involvement in EMERALD VF
• Production of updated EMERALD RTD Plan
• On-going EUROCONTROL work
• Validation Guideline VALSUP
• Alignment of VF with VALSUP

36
Support to the User
37
Documentation

• Final report incorporating work package reports
• Guidance Material for application of framework
• Case studies of two applications
• In-descent spacing
• Fully autonomous aircraft
• Detailed RTD Plan developed from EMERALD Plan

38
Data and Tools

• Scenario data repository
• Produced in WP1
• Metrics database
• Produced in WP2
• Not a deliverable under contract

39
Dissemination Forum

• Dissemination Forum 10th October at Bretigny

40
Summary

• Validation Framework still under development
• Exploiting existing work for ASAS validation
  exercises
• Scenario template developed
• Scenario data collated for VDR
• Mapping of system performance metrics human
  performance metrics to objectives - in progress
• Support user - about to start