Rome 12-13 November 2008 Johan Martensson, CASCADE CRISTAL-ITP ASAS-GN Rome 12-13 November 2008 Johan Martensson, CASCADE

Objectives ATSA-ITP: Airborne Traffic Situational Awareness - In Trail Procedure in procedural airspace Flight Economy Reduced Carbon Dioxide Emissions Whilst maintaining Safety and comfort CRISTAL ITP Is the way to achieve this…

ATSA-ITP Procedure 1. Climb is desired 2. Standard climb ? Blocked REFERENCE AIRCRAFT BLOCKING AIRCRAFT Desired Altitude FL360 FL350 ATSA-ITP aircraft ADS-B out (consistent with ITP) No specific ADS-B requirements Standard Separation FL340 Standard Separation 1. Climb is desired 2. Standard climb ? Blocked 3. ITP ? FC-Assessment; FC-request; ATC-Assessment; ATC-clearance; FC-reassessment 4. Assessments ok ! ITP can be performed

Standardisation Industry standards ICAO material WG51/SC-186 - RFG ATSA-ITP SPR-INTEROP ED-159/DO-312 issued 19th of June 2008 Ad-hoc working group for ITP CPDLC provisions ICAO material SASP (Separation and Airspace Safety Panel) Approval of RFG ATSA-ITP procedure and CRM (with limitations) PANS-ATM (Doc4444) draft amendment finalised, including voice and CPDLC phraseology ICAO Circular in progress ANC (Air Navigation Commission) Will process the SASP draft PANS-ATM amendment NAT groups OPLINK

World’s first flight trial of ATSA-ITP Activities Simulations World’s first flight trial of ATSA-ITP Benefit analysis Pioneer preparation ITP Training material - Controller - Flight crew NATSIM

Milestones Project Kick-off July 2007 Simulations 2007 Flight test Airbus stand alone October 2007 Airbus – NATS (Shanwick) October 2007 Airbus – ISAVIA (Flight test rehearsal) December 2007 ISAVIA stand alone (Reykjavik) January 2008 Flight test Airbus – ISAVIA March 2008 Benefit Analysis NATS October 2008 Preparation for pioneer trials Ongoing 2007 2008

Results Procedure acceptability Procedure acceptable in typical North Atlantic environment (controller and flight crew) NAT organized track system and Random track system NAT flight level orientation schemes Low and high ABS-B out equipage *1 Low and high Traffic density *2 Straightforward controller and flight crew training Controllers – one day training; theoretical briefings and simulation sessions Flight crews – procedure, phraseology and simulator training *1 Low equipage level limit opportunities and could cause communications workload *2 Assessed scenarios: Controller perspective OTS and Random track low – high, Flight crew perspective OTS low – high, Random track low – medium

Results Human Machine Interaction Flight Crew HMI Supportive in assessment and communication tasks Minimizes Detailed ITP criteria memory task Flight crew manual calculations Graphical displays (CDTI) are preferred for ITP Controller HMI Current HMI in Reykjavik and Shanwick is acceptable to support ITP Strip markings and clearance composition should be automatically handled by the FDPS ITP should be integrated in the conflict probe

Results Technical feasibility ITP Distance (observations) ITP aircraft altitude ITP Distance Reference aircraft altitude

Results Communications Refinement of phraseology (voice and CPDLC) Recommendations for voice and CPDLC Voice communication Time consuming Writing down and manually entering messages into the FDPS is workload demanding Risks for third party CPDLC Strong preference for CPDLC in ITP requests and ITP clearances Defined CPDLC message elements preferred, but Acceptable with CPDLC based on preformatted free text Flight crew request: REQUEST I-T-P CLIMB (or DESCENT) TO (level) (ITP Distance) MILES BEHIND (Reference Aircraft identification) ATC Clearance I-T-P CLIMB (or DESCEND) TO (level) BEHIND (Reference Aircraft identification) Voice (Voice; partial msg, time, workload) CPDLC

Results – CPDLC

Results Efficiency, Capacity and Economics Input data “BASIC” (Low) Results “BEHAVIOUR” (High) Results Scenario Traffic growth (%) ADS-B Out Equipped (%) ITP Equipped (%) Total Fuel Burn Reduction (%) Step Climb Increase (%) 2010 114 45 5 0.03 17 0.09 132 2015 134 80 20 0.08 56 0.20 211 2020 156 95 70 0.24 273 0.62 607 2020 all ITP 100 0.38 556 0.99 1,107 Basic – Operations using today’s compromise altitudes as initial altitudes. Behaviour – Operator with adapted behaviour, starting at their optimal level knowing ITP will allow to climb to follow the optimal profile.

Results Efficiency, Capacity and Economics “BASIC” (Low) Results “BEHAVIOUR” (High) Results Scenario Annual Fleet Fuel Burn Savings (tonnes / Euros) Annual Fleet CO2 Reduction (tonnes) Annual Fuel Burn Saving per ITP Aircraft 2010 4,105 / €2,944,989 9.3k €89k 13,446 / €9,645,188 31k €294k 2015 11,600 / €8,321,220 26k €54k 31,125 / €22,327,040 71k €145k 2020 36,810 / €26,405,079 84k €43k 94,543 / €67,819,365 215k €111k 2020 all ITP 57,797 / €41,460,451 131k €47k 151,329 / €108,554,552 344k €124k Basic – Operations using today’s compromise altitudes as initial altitudes. Behaviour – Operator with adapted behaviour, starting at their optimal level knowing ITP will allow to climb to follow the optimal profile.

Next Steps Pioneer trials  Operations 2008 Q2-Q4 Results consolidation of phase 1 2008 Q3-2009 Q2 Phase 2 - preparation for revenue flight trials 2009 Q3 Pioneer airline project for ITP Preparation for revenue flight trials Pioneer trials  Operations Result consolidation Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2007 2008 2009 2010

Next Steps Revenue aircraft Trial Potential trial sites Reykjavik – Radar coverage Gander – Radar coverage Reykjavik and Gander – ADS-B coverage Shanwick and Gander – RLongSM Santa Maria 3 1 2 4 5

Conclusions CRISTAL ITP – An important step towards ATSA-ITP implementation ITP procedure feasible for NAT Controller and flight crew acceptance Technical systems are able to support ITP Human Machine Interaction Technical performance ITP is capable of saving ~ 1% Fuel burn reduction Saving € 108 million (€ 124k per aircraft ) annually and Reducing carbon dioxide emissions with 344 000 tonnes annually Preparation for revenue aircraft trials ongoing Moving towards implementation