AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations

1. AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations ASAS-GN Seminar 13 Nov 08, Rome By Ken Carpenter, QinetiQ

2. AP23 Overview: Deliverables Five deliverables from AP23: • D1 – General data exchange • D2 – Methodology to prioritize applications for AP23 • D3 – Operational Role of Airborne Surveillance in Separating Traffic • D4 – Draft proposal for a second set of ADS-B/ASAS applications • D5 – Draft White Paper on Issues Surrounding Airborne Separation

3. Background “The operational role of airbornesurveillance in separating traffic” • Work started in 2005 (ASAS SG) • The world was different then • We were trying to avoid saying “ASAS” • Emphasised the use of “airborne surveillance” • The word “separation” in ASAS looked like a mistake • SESAR and NextGen have changed all that • Now discuss the use of ASAS in a TM environment • and emphasise new ASAS-based separation modes

4. Objective • Overall picture of ASAS in the ATM paradigm • Common sense of direction for ASAS community • Explain ASAS to wider community • The document is conceptual • Tries not to state requirements • Tries not to design equipment nor procedures • Discusses many applicationsbut not in order to propose them • It introduces “application elements” • Discusses airborne separation • = airborne separation & self-separation applications

5. Application categories • We suggest no change in the PO-ASAS categories • Situational awareness applications:could have been called “traffic information applications” • Airborne spacing applications:the controller continues to provide separation;the flight crew provide a specified spacing from specific reference aircraft • Airborne separation applications: subject aircraft is receiving a separation service;but is cleared to provide airborne separation from specific reference aircraft • Self-separation: subject aircraft is not receiving a separation service

6. Status of the document • The document is complete • Will deliver imminently • You can all see the document … please! • I would like to tell you where to get it (and now I can!) • It should be circulated as widely as possible • all 100 pages of it • It will be submitted to ASP/1 in December • To be reported by ASP as “Work in progress”, not yet for adoption by ICAO • ASP will do what it determines • Further work by AP23 depends on feedback

7. Contents • Part I: Concept • Airborne separation • Airborne surveillance applications • The elements of applications • Some minimal technical information • Part II: Operational use • Describes the potential evolution of ATM and use of ASAS • Looks at 2010, 2020 and 2030 (but don’t be too literal) • Discusses: terminal areas, en-route operations, procedural airspace and the surface

8. Concept: terminology Airborne Separation is used to refer to any separation mode in which the flight crew is the separator • This definition includes airborne separation and airborne self-separation applications • No change proposed (yet?) in PO-ASAS category names • We keep the name “airborne separation applications” • AP23 plans to address this ambiguity (D5) • Alternatives? • NextGen use “delegated separation” for more than the PO-ASAS airborne separation applications • We use the plain language word “delegate” • but the controller cannot be responsible for the pilot’s actions

9. Concept: airborne separation • Separation: “The tactical process of keeping aircraft away from hazards by at least the appropriate separation minima” • from ICAO Doc 9854, “The Global ATM Operational Concept” • The definition of “separation” applies equally to airborne separation and ground-based separation • Airborne separation is not collision avoidance

10. Concept: airborne separation • Airborne separation will work well with trajectory management • Self-separation does not need to exclude trajectory management • (Delegated) airborne separation applications are tools for controllers • So they will be used only in controlled airspace • Benefits need to be mutual • Benefits are mutual • Self-separation is a manner of operation • Flexible and efficient for operators • Permitted by ANSPs (or airspace managers)

11. Concept: application elements • AP23 asked for candidate applications • Over 100 separate suggestions • We grouped them by categoryfound elements common to many applications • Decided to base work on “application elements” • These elements are operational • PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM might need to discuss elements • They do not need to discuss anything else • The functional and performance requirements for each element will depend on context • A later talk will tell you much more about application elements

12. Identifying designated aircraft

13. Use: terminal areas • S&M, aka M&S, as a separation application • The use of ASAS is part of a larger story • The big benefits come from airspace reorganisationand good trajectory management, arriving on time • Using ASAS gives predictable and reliable throughput • Task of managing the interval is in the right place • CSPA • Has yet to be developed • A central and demanding application • Climb out • Use ASAS to fan out, or pass aircraft in front

14. Use: en-route • Trajectory Management dominates • but it is not realistic to expect no conflicts • ASAS will be used to resolve tactical conflicts • Delegated airborne separation • can resolve crossing and passing encounters • minimal deviation from the desired trajectory • Four variants of self-separation: • unmanaged airspace • dedicated airspace, with no TM • dedicated airspace, a/c on agreed trajectories • managed airspace, some a/c self-separating and others not (SESAR scenario) • Flow corridors

15. Use: “procedural airspace” • Airspace that is not under ground surveillance • Whole family of applications being studiedfor oceanic airspace • Self-separation and cruise climbing • Self-separation on dedicated tracks in the OTS • but • Procedural separation should simply disappear

16. Use: the surface • The surface is different • There is no accepted concept of “separation” • The surface is important • Runway incursions – big safety issue • ASAS provides knowledge of the offence • Main benefits likely to be at un-towered airports • Operational use at non-towered airports • autonomous runway crossing (safe window of opportunity) • assess take-off times wrt local traffic (integrated with TM)

17. Conclusion • Airborne separation should be regarded as an embedded part of trajectory management • TM and ASAS are complementary • A concept of use for ASAS is available • Get it from: One Sky Team ICAO: www.icao.int/anb/panels/scrsp/indexp.html(click information/documents) and …. ?

18. Thank you ken.carpenter@atc.qinetiq.com