C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 1 Electronic separation Clearance Enabling the Crossing of Traffic under Instrument meteorological Conditions

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 2 ECLECTIC: What is it?  To assess operational feasibility and acceptability of ASAS Crossing Procedures (ACP)  Procedures which allow the flight crew to provide separation with respect to one aircraft designated by ATC  The controller remains responsible for separation of other aircraft  Airborne separation Minima  A CENA Project : prospective study for Package 2  European context : EEC, NUP II, MFF, MA-AFAS

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 3 ECLECTIC: How?  First step  A demonstrator running on PC unit  Several scenarios of crossing  Different crossing angles  Different altitudes and speeds  Different horizontal separation at CPA before ASAS manoeuvre  Controller radar display  Flight deck MMI example (CDTI + control unit)  Automatic or manual initiation of ACP and piloting (through pseudo A/P)  Further steps  Experimentations with traffic simulator and real controllers  Traffic scenarios with several aircraft

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 4 ECLECTIC: An example of ACP  ASAS « lateral crossing procedure »: Aircraft cleared for ACP Crossed (« designated ») aircraft Manoeuvring envelope « Clear of Traffic » New « ACP » trajectory Initial planned trajectory New waypoints introduced by ASAS algorithms

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 5 Considerations & assumptions  ACP considered as a « standard » procedure  Proposed by ATC  If impossible, flight crew will advise ATC immediately  No monitoring by ATC  ACP is considered as safe as today’s procedures  Airborne separation value may be different from the radar one  Radar separation minima are not the same everywhere  The airborne value may depend on the equipment  Contingency in case of « ASAS unavailability »  The ACP abortion does not mean immediate risk of collision  ATC should be able to recover  ATC may use half vertical separation as a last resort  ACAS

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 6 Scenarios  Different crossing angles: « Head-on » « crossing » « Same route »

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 7 Different solutions  Pass behind…  Or in front

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 8 Issues  The phraseology must remain simple and robust  The « other aircraft » designation is still an open issue  Unambiguous  Must not generate confusion with traffic not involved  The need to lock the navigation of the other aircraft and to advise it about the ASAS crossing, to be discussed  End of procedure:  At « Clear of Traffic », or  After resuming navigation?

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 9 Example of phraseology  Atc: ABC123, for ASAS separation, identify traffic  Pil : Traffic identified, ABC123  Atc: ABC123, pass behind traffic, maintain airborne separation, report clear of traffic (or : resuming navigation)  Pil :Passing behind traffic, maintaining airborne separation, ABC123  … ( the controller is NOT required to monitor the crossing)  Pil : ABC123, clear of traffic (or: resuming navigation)  Atc: ABC123, roger. * note : the unambiguous identification of the other aircraft is still an open issue, which may be solved through data-link communication

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 10 How does it work ?  Traffic scenario  Simplified aircraft simulator  ASAS algorithm + parameters computes alternative routes for separation  The aircraft is piloted in real time though A/P commands  The HMI (ND) is for demo and experimentations purpose, not a proposal for implementation

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 11 Crossing at 120° angle (1/6)  The other aircraft has been identified  Its flight path is displayed (magenta track)  Current distance between aircraft: 153NM  (display range 320NM)

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 12 Crossing at 120° angle (2/6)  The ASAS system has been switched on: an alternative route (with offset solution) is proposed to the pilot (yellow dotted line)  (display range 160NM)

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 13 Crossing at 120° angle (3/6)  The alternate route is activated : its colour is changed to green  The separation is assured at the required value (here: 8NM)  (display range 160NM)

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 14 Crossing at 120° angle (4/6)  The aircraft is following the new route  (display range 80NM)

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 15 Crossing at 120° angle (5/6)  (display range 40NM)

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 16 Crossing at 120° angle (6/6)  Aircraft have passed the CPA at (slightly less than) the required separation value…  Own aircraft can resume its navigation (here, « direct to »)  (display range 40NM)

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 17 First results of achieved separation  Parameters:  Offset solution  Required separation value : 8NM  Angle of deviation :  60° (crossings at 23°)  30° (crossings at other angles)  Crossings :  23° :  60° :  120°:  Head-on

C ENTRE D'ETUDES DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE ASAS-TN, 2nd workshop - Malmö 6 ~ 8 october 2003page 18 Further work  Other parameter values  5NM, 3NM as examples for separation  Other angles of deviation  « Pass in front »  Other algorithms  One waypoint solution  Open angle of deviation  Manoeuvring Envelope  Simulations