PHARE Operational Scenarios

1
PHARE Operational Scenarios

• J-P. Nicolaon,
• Operational Task Force Chairman
• EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

2
Overview of the work on PHARE scenarios

• JULY 1990

PHARE Medium Term Scenario (Research Programme)
Initial operational organisation based on
Human in the loop 4D Navigation Automated ATC
Tools Data-Link Communication with the aim to
increase ATC productivity
3
PHARE medium term scenario 2000-2015

• Envisaged changes in en-route controllers
  working methods
• Extended planning horizon
• Multi-Sector Planning Controller
• Redistribution of workload from Tactical to
  Planning Controller
• Assisted runway management
• Assisted Arrival and Departure sequencing
  management
• Computer-based merging and final approach spacing
  advisories

4
Scenarios for PD/1, PD/2 and PD/3
1990
1994
1995
1997
PD/1 En-route
PHARE Medium Term Scenario
PD/2 Arrivals
PD/3 Gate to gate
5
(No Transcript)
6
Scenario for PD/1

• Planning up to 20/25 minutes ahead of time
• Conflict-free sector transit plan (4D and 3D)
• Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4D aircraft
• Information and directives to his TC
• Co-ordination of entry/exit conditions
• Update ground system

PC Role
7
Scenario for PD/1

• R/T
• Conflict-free passage
• Monitoring 4D aircraft
• Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4D aircraft
  if current contract was to be modified
• R/T transmissions to 3D aircraft of instructions
  as proposed by the ground system
• Handling of exceptions

TC Role
8
HIPS
9
Scenario for PD/1

• PD/1 highlighted the need to look at task sharing
  between Planning Controller and Tactical
  Controller
• Results were taken into account when designing
  scenarios for PD/2 and PD/3

10
PD/2 Frankfurt TMA
11
PD/2 ground tracks
With PHARE tools
Without PHARE tools
Identical traffic samples in both cases
12
Scenario for PD/2

• The main PD/2 objectives became
• to experiment / demonstrate the performance of
  the Arrival Management software and the
  feasibility of real flight according to automatic
  trajectory uplink
• to assess the controllers behaviour and
  acceptability versus automation
• to evaluate landing rate improvement

13
Scenario for PD/2
Controllers roles changed as follows
Observer
PC

• Monitoring of 4D aircraft
• R/T transmission of Arrival Manager advisories to
  3D aircraft
• Deconflicting remaining conflicts (if existing)

TC
14
Lessons learned from PD/2

• Automated Arrival Manager interactivity required
• The definition of STARs, Holds and Stacks needs
  to be reconsidered
• Results were taken into account when designing
  scenarios for PD/3

15
Scenario for PD/3

• Main concept elements
• Timely work sharing
• Complementary tasks remaining consistent and
  relevant with time
• ? Layered Planning
• Multi-Sector Planner 30'
• Planning Controller 10'
• Tactical Controller Assume Control

16
4D TRAJECTORY MANAGEMENT
Sector n-1
Sector n
Sector n1
Sector n2
PC modification via trajectory negotiation
sector contract approval clearance
aircraft position
assume control by sector n

• TC trajectory modification via
• formalize clearance
• trajectory negotiation
• or R/T communication

MSP modification via uplink
previous sector contract approval
MF
Objectives to differentiate clearance from
planning to pilot to update
ground system (planning and negotiation authority)
17
Multi-Sector Planner (30' gt10')
(En-route)

• To equilibrate traffic between sectors
• To reduce local complexity
• to optimize trajectory

18
Tactical Load Smoother
19
(No Transcript)
20
En-route Planning Controller (10' gtAssume
Control)

• To manage Problem Situations
• to resolve 4D conflicts
• to prepare and transfer solutions for 3D aircraft
  to the Tactical Controller
• To transfer problems to the Tactical Controller
  if he was in a better position to resolve them
• To negotiate trajectory with 4D aircraft
• To assist the Tactical Controller after assume
  control

21
En-route Tactical Controller (Assume Control gt
Sector Exit)

• To resolve conflicts unresolved by the Planning
  Controller and new conflicts
• To monitor aircraft trajectories
• To negotiate short-term trajectory modification
• To uplink formalized clearances
• To manage R/T

22
Arrival TMA Controllers

• Arrival Sequence Planning Controller (ARR- SP)
• Interaction with the Arrival Manager (AM)
• Conflict-free passage
• Trajectory Negotiation
• Co-ordination
• Tactical Controller
• R/T
• Final responsibility for real-time separation and
  final runway spacing

23
Departure TMA Controllers

• Departure Planning Controller (DEP-PC)
• Interaction with the Departure Manager (DM)
• Initial conflict-free SIDs (before departure)
• Trajectory Negotiation / Co-ordination
• Departure Tactical Controller (DEP-TC)
• R/T
• Ultimate responsibility for real-time separation
  and final runway sequencing

24
Conclusions drawn from the scenario work.

• The co-operation between the PHARE partners
• highlighted
• divergence in approaching concept design
• necessity of compromises (Done !)
• Demonstrated enrichment of ideas
• Made possible common understanding

25
Conclusions drawn from the scenario work.

• It addressed
• all phases of flight
• transition for 2000-2015 period
• long-term applications
• was partly technology driven
• showed difficulties to balance functional
  requirements for advanced tools with controller
  roles
• showed need for further research into progressive
  and pragmatic adaptation of scenarios for short
  and medium-term implementation

26
PHARE Operational Scenarios

• J-P. Nicolaon,
• Operational Task Force Chairman
• EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
• next