1 / 13

Airborne Spacing and Safety Alberto Pasquini - Deep Blue (ENAV) alberto@dblue.it

Airborne Spacing and Safety Alberto Pasquini - Deep Blue (ENAV) alberto@dblue.it. Scope. Introduce and discuss some preliminary reflections about potential safety problems of Spacing applications

shawna
Download Presentation

Airborne Spacing and Safety Alberto Pasquini - Deep Blue (ENAV) alberto@dblue.it

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Airborne Spacing and Safety Alberto Pasquini - Deep Blue (ENAV) alberto@dblue.it

  2. Scope • Introduce and discuss some preliminary reflections about potential safety problems of Spacing applications • Reflections based on the experience as Safety Manager of the Mediterranean Free Flight (MFF) project and on a set of dedicated Real Time Simulation (RTS) exercises • Not the official position of MFF and based on preliminary results and observations

  3. Context: the MFF project • Mediterranean Free Flight pre-operational project on Free Routing, ASAS Spacing, ASAS Separation, Free Flight in Mediterranean area • Focus on procedures and validation, based on existing, proven technologies • 5-year programme that started in June 2000 • 9 partners (major Mediterranean air traffic service providers, Eurocontrol, Industries)

  4. Context: Safety Analysis in MFF • Safety Policy and Plan designed to satisfy the ESARR4 requirements and under evaluation by Safety Regulation Commission • Methodology based on the application of the EUROCAE ED78A guidelines and on the Safety Assessment Methodology proposed by Eurocontrol • Safety Assessment in three steps (3 Safety Cases) because of the evolutionary characteristics of MFF

  5. Steps of the Safety Analysis • Identification of the Operational Scenarios for the application of the MFF procedures (OSED) • Identification of potential hazards and of the severity of their consequences (OHA) • Evaluation of acceptability (with reference to frequency), and safety requirements for limitation of non acceptable hazards or mitigation of their consequences (ASOR) • Assessment of the achievement of the Safety Requirements (SSA)

  6. Hazards identification & RTS role • Potential hazards identified on the basis of past project, meetings with operational experts, and “expert opinions” • For each potential hazards need to understand: detectability, mitigation ability, consequences, credibility, related hazards • Use of the RTS to study some potential hazards • Creation of the hazardous conditions through specific “traffic sample” and cooperation of pseudopilots

  7. 8 Nm An example - 1 Wrong target in ASAS Spacing Target 2 Delegated 2 Delegated 1 Target 1 8 Nm 8 Nm

  8. An example - 2 Aspects to be investigated for the hazard Wrong target in ASAS Spacing • Does the controller “feel” responsible for the separation even if the action of maintaining the distance has been delegated ? • Does he assign the correct priority to the related actions ? • Are the related tools offering adequate support for the related activities ? • Is the ASAS interfering with the possible emergency manoeuvre ?

  9. Collection of data • Information from: • Meetings between safety observers and human factor experts • Analyses of safety reports and questionnaires by controllers • Brainstorming sessions between controllers and safety observers • Debriefing with controllers involved in the exercises

  10. Characteristics of the simulation • 7 weeks of simulation (1 week for training, 4 weeks dedicated to ground side, 2 weeks dedicated to airborne side), 18 + 4 controllers full time • Free Routing, ASAS Spacing and Crossing concepts en Route and approach to Terminal Area • Improved MTCD (partially), Trajectory Editor, ASAS Spacing/Crossing Graphical Tool, ADS-B and CPDLC (50% equipped) • 30 safety oriented scenario executed (about 50% successful)

  11. Results (Spacing) - 1 • Controllers fix the objective of Spacing manoeuvres leaving some degree of flexibility for the fine actions needed to achieve this objective (they still keep the responsibility) • This degree of flexibility is different for different manoeuvres (spacing, heading and merge, crossing) • Indications about the progress towards the desired objective are less evident to controllers (and this evidence decreases with the degree of flexibility)

  12. Results (Spacing) - 2 • In particular, controllers have less direct indications about possible errors or malfunctions (e.g. errors resulting from miss communication, ac system failures or pilot errors) • More effective monitoring tools would be needed to ensure that controllers have indications about the progress towards the intended manoeuvre objective

  13. Limitations • Results based on expert opinions, meetings with controllers, and real time simulations • Real time simulation concerning an on-going pre-operational project (some problems with platform, procedures under validation, etc.) • Multi national controller team with different background and safety attitude

More Related