Mark Watson & Richard Pugh ( NATS)

Mark Watson & Richard Pugh(NATS) CARE / ASAS Action FALBALA Project Dissemination Forum - 8th July 2004 WP4 - Operational Indicators, Interviews & Workshop

FALBALA Work Package 4 • Investigation of three Package I Airborne Surveillance applications: • Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations (ATSA-AIRB) • Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA) • Enhanced Sequencing and Merging operations (ASPA-S&M) • Assessment based on views of controllers, pilots, flight operations and ATM experts.

Work Package 4Operational Indicators, Interviews & Workshop • 1. Define the “Operational Indicators” • 2. Interviews with Controllers, Pilots & ATC Experts • 3. Operational Workshop to brainstorm selected issues

1.Operational Indicators • Stage 1 identified a set of metrics, “Operational Indicators”, which could be used throughout the project • Two perspectives • Airspace Perspective (characteristics of the airspace) • Aircraft Perspective (characteristics for an individual flight) • Operational Indicators were used as input for the Quantitative analysis done by WP1 and WP2 (already discussed) • Operational Indicators were used as an aid for discussions in WP4

Examples of Operational Indicators • Airspace Perspective, e.g.: • Runway Capacity • Use of Radar Vectoring • Use of Holding Patterns • Aircraft Spacing • . . . • Aircraft Perspective, e.g.: • No. of surrounding aircraft (and distribution by range) • Relative distance and bearing of traffic on same route • Relative distance and bearing of traffic on other routes • . . .

2.Questionnaires Questionnaires were developed to discuss the operational benefits and limitations of the three ASAS applications: • Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations • Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach • Enhanced Sequencing and Merging

Questionnaire Participants • ATM and Airline Experts • Controllers from DFS, DGAC and NATS • Pilots from Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France • Varying previous experience of ASAS Concepts (from none to extensive)

Questionnaires • Two Questionnaires: • 1 for Controllers (and ATC Experts) • 1 for Pilots (and Flight Ops Experts) • Questionnaires included: • Background to the FALBALA project • A brief overview of each of the three applications • A brief summary of the FALBALA WP1 Results, showing some of the Radar Analysis • Questions were multiple choice style but with scope for written comments and explanation to be added

Summary of Responses(Enhanced Situational Awareness during Flight Ops) Controller Benefits: • Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of safety benefit • Improved common situational awareness between controller and pilot Workload: • Generally A LITTLE impact on ATC • possible workload increase if pilots query ATC instructions Other Issues: • Main concern covers equipage - 100% equipage is required to be useful • Likely to be of most benefit outside Controlled Airspace Pilot Benefits: • Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of benefit • More accurate position information, can compensate for loss of party-line effect caused by datalink Workload: • Generally NO CHANGE, possibly a REDUCTION • workload will depend on design Other Issues: • May offer safety benefit in remote areas, not in radar controlled airspace • 100% equipage required to be useful?

Summary of Responses(Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach 1) Controller Feasible: • All answers from VERY DIFFICULT to EASY! Depends on the airport. • Already in use at FRA. • Would be very difficult to implement at LHR, might be feasible at LGW. Benefits: • Answers range from NO to A LOT (depends on the airport!) • At some airports ATSA-VSA is not seen as feasible. • At others capacity is maximised by existing procedures, no scope to reduce spacing. Pilot Feasible: • Generally ACHIEVABLE, EASY at Frankfurt. Visual following is already in use at Frankfurt. • DIFFICULT at LHR. Benefits: • Mainly A LOT, one A LITTLE (depends on the airport!) • Clear capacity benefits at FRA, ATSA-VSA could improve spacing precision further. • At LHR, there is no scope for reducing spacing, ATSA-VSA may even reduce capacity.

Summary of Responses(Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach 2) Controller Workload: • Possible REDUCTION in workload though not agreed by all. • If capacity increases as a result then there may be no net change for workload. Pilot Workload: • Generally REDUCTION, but not agreed by all, possible INCREASE at LHR • Spacing information and Ground speed information provided on CDTI would assist visual spacing.

Summary of Responses(Enhanced Sequencing & Merging 1) Controller Feasible: • All answers from VERY DIFFICULT to EASY ! • Difficult at LHR and FRA due to complexity of airspace. May be more achievable at LGW and Paris airports Benefits: • Considerable differences in opinion, some NO, some A LOT • Some anticipate capacity & efficiency benefits, others don’t • Some concern that pilots will need more assistance (support tools) to maintain the spacing • Time-based spacing alone may provide some benefits • May be some environmental benefits Pilot Feasible: • Not asked, as it was felt that this was specifically a Controller question Benefits: • Generally A LITTLE or A LOT • Reduction of voice communications • More efficient user preferred trajectories • Time-based spacing may give benefits

Summary of Responses(Enhanced Sequencing & Merging 2) Controller Workload: • Generally REDUCTION in controller workload • Reduction in R/T loading • Better conformance of flights with clearances • Instructions may be less time-critical • Ability to establish sequence further out from touchdown Other Issues: • The task of controllers may be de-skilled to some extent • What would the consequence then be of a system breakdown? • What happens when the sequence breaks down, e.g. after a Go-around? Pilot Workload: • Range from REDUCTION to INCREASE, depends on how S&M is implemented, in particular the level of automation • Without automation to assist the spacing task, workload may be increased • With proper assistance, pilot’s overall workload could be reduced Other Issues: • What is the impact on avionics ? If FMS and CDTI changes are required then this will not be feasible before 2015 • Is Intent information required to perform spacing tasks ?

3.Operational Workshop London Heathrow Airport 18th March 2004 26 Attendees from Eurocontrol, Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa, DFS, NATS, DGAC, Sofreavia and UoG • Discussion of each of the three applications • Demonstration of the CO-SPACE Implementation of ASPA-S&M

Workshop QuestionsEnhanced Sequencing and Merging • Where would ASPA-S&M be applicable, i.e. which airports ? • Is it necessary to automate the spacing on the aircraft? • Is it necessary to have Intent information? • Could the same benefits be derived from other concepts, such as the use of time-based spacing by ATC or 4D Trajectory negotiation?

Workshop QuestionsEnhanced Visual Separation on Approach • Answers to the questionnaires show wide range of views. Why do we have these differences ? • Visual separation is in use in Frankfurt, with an agreed benefit. Why only in Frankfurt? • Are there possibilities to use visual separation at other airports to increase capacity?

Workshop QuestionsEnhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations • What benefits? • E.g. what is the expected impact on controller and pilot workload • What about Partial Situational Awareness ? • Possibly caused by lack of aircraft equippage or filtering? • What information should be displayed?

WP4 Conclusions (1) • Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during Flight Operations (ATSA-AIRB) • Improved Traffic Situational Awareness for Pilots • Can compensate for the loss of Party-Line expected to result from datalink • Little effect on Pilot and Controller workload • Most benefit will be obtained in remote (non-radar airspace), not in high-density environments • Requires 100% equipage to get full benefits (or TIS-B) • Design work is required for the traffic display • Issues such as filtering, the means of labelling aircraft tracks ...

WP4 Conclusions (2) • Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach (ATSA-VSA) • CAPACITY benefits at Frankfurt Airport • A consequence of the runway configuration at Frankfurt • Application to other airports is expected to be limited • Benefits are not clear for single runway airports • “Normal” visual approaches are not common in Europe • Safety benefits could arise • from improved visual acquisition • from improved spacing accuracy • There is a risk that capacity could be reduced if pilots tend to apply greater spacing than currently achieved by radar control

WP4 Conclusions (3) • Enhanced Sequencing & Merging Operations (ATSA-S&M) • Agreement that Sequencing and Merging could provide: • Improved efficiency through reduced R/T usage, and more consistent spacing • Make ATC instructions less time-critical • Ability to establish the sequence further out • Sequencing & Merging is expected to provide most benefit when spacing is defined in terms of TIME • There is disagreement about the level of automation required on the aircraft. The impact on pilot workload will depend on the automation provided. • Sequencing and Merging appears highly feasible at some airports (e.g. the Paris CDG and Orly). Appears feasible at Gatwick. The limited size or high complexity of other TMA areas (e.g. those for Heathrow, Frankfurt) would make it harder to implement without major airspace changes.

WP4 Recommendations • The Operational Indicators should be updated and prioritised for use in future assessments. • Sequencing and Merging appears feasible and beneficial for some TMA areas. More detailed study is recommended for these areas. • Aspects of Sequencing and Merging such as integration with arrival tools, integration with RNAV and abnormal procedures (failure modes) should be studied further. • Enhanced Visual Spacing on Approach offers benefits for only a limited number of airports. It should be considered with regard to specific airports and not for general use. • The design of the CDTI is important to all applications, especially Enhanced Situational Awareness. Design work is needed to assess filtering algorithms and how to combine TCAS and ADS-B traffic information.

Any Questions?

Mark Watson & Richard Pugh ( NATS)