100 likes | 270 Views
RFG ASPA-S&M Requirements Determination. ASAS-TN2 26-28 th September Malmo, Sweden. The operational requirements. Objectives: more predictable spacing, reduced controller workload, more efficient flight profiles, increase runway capacity
E N D
RFG ASPA-S&M Requirements Determination • ASAS-TN2 • 26-28th September • Malmo, Sweden
The operational requirements • Objectives: more predictable spacing, reduced controller workload, more efficient flight profiles, increase runway capacity • The controller gives an aircraft a spacing value to acquire and maintain behind another aircraft • Two main variants of the procedure: remain behind (same route) and merge behind (converging routes)
Progress so far: operational requirements • Mature Operational Service and Environment Description (OSED) available • Convergence on almost all main issues • Work continuing on clarifying operational requirements, incl: • Unambiguous measurement of spacing value • Relationship of ASAS with surrounding environment • Current update to incorporate initial OSA and OPA findings Operational Requirements OSED
Progress so far: safety requirements • Entire ED-78A / DO-264 process applied to an airborne ASAS application • Full collaboration between US and Europe • OSA proposes safety objectives and safety requirements for the S&M procedure • Operational Hazards workshops held in March 2005 and September 2005 with pilots and controllers Safety Requirements OSA
Progress so far: safety requirements • ED-78A severity risk table was used • New row added… “Example of ASAS operational effect” to aid further safety assessment work on ASAS • Safety assessment proposed new mitigation procedures (to be included in OSED as exceptions) • OHA almost complete – validation by operational personnel on-going • ASOR work on-going Safety Requirements OSA
Progress so far: performance requirements • OPA process carried out as per ED78A • Focused on technical performance requirements (i.e. ADS-B datalink specific) • Assumes ground-based performances, and voice R/T communications performances, are AS TODAY (therefore, no specific parameters were derived) • Collaboration in validation from EEC and MITRE – sharing databases, calculations and results Performance Requirements OPA
Fast-time simulation / validation ACL ADV1 ACL ADV2 From MITRE fast-time simulations Initial spacing = 110 seconds Required spacing = 110 seconds Level altitude, constant CAS for lead aircraft
Progress so far: performance requirements • Issues • Operational assumptions • Link between performance objectives and performance parameters • The operational performance / behaviour of the aircraft in the scenario - not something previously considered in ED78A • Second iteration of OPA currently underway • Performance parameters include ‘maximum/minimum closure rate’; ‘spacing tolerance’; ‘stability of aircraft speeds’ etc… • Definition of validation inputs to follow Performance Requirements OPA
Lessons learnt • ED78A is a good basis for assessment, but needs: • To consider behaviour of aircraft for performance assessment • Careful use by experts to apply various risk tables to ASAS • Understanding of inter-relationship between C, N and S • Some differences between US and Europe in applying methodologies have been resolved • This process of learning was the purpose of choosing ASPA-S&M as a fast-track application
The way ahead • OSA to be completed and validated as soon as possible • OPA is being re-drafted – materially complete by late 2005 (awaiting validation results) • Further simulations to be planned through 2006, in US and Europe • INTEROP work to start on completion of mature OSED and SPR