1 CoSpace Experimental results on sequencing & merging Karim Zeghal ASAS Thematic Network, Second workshop 6-8, October 2003, Malmö, Sweden

2 Introduction 4 Motivation Increase of controller availability through a better allocation of spacing tasks between air and ground Neither to “transfer problems” nor to “give more freedom” to pilots! One option to improve safety, and beyond efficiency and/or capacity 4 Constraints Human: consider current roles and working methods System: keep things as simple as possible 4 Assumptions Airborne surveillance capabilities (ADS-B, “state vectors”) Airborne functions (ASAS, “manual mode”)

3 Principles 4 Starting point Analogy with visual separation clearances … … but no transfer of separation responsibility 4 Just new “spacing” instructions Spacing not separation, instruction not clearance To be used with current practices FAA/Eurocontrol PO-ASAS and ICAO SCRSP ASAS circular “spacing category” 4 Task distribution Decision-making on the ground (controller defines strategy) Execution in the air (pilot implements actions) 4 Two classes of operations Crossing and passing en-route Sequencing in terminal areas

4 Sequencing of arrival flows 4 Controller Defines sequence order Issues spacing instruction 4 Pilot Adjusts speed to acquire and maintain spacing Not authorised to change trajectory nor altitude AFR  40 spacing WPT DLH  41

5 Controller Controller: “AZA324, select target 2443” Pilot Pilot: “AZA324, target 2443 identified, 3 o’clock, 30 miles” Controller Controller: “AZA324, behind target merge to INKAK to be 8 miles behind” Controller Controller: “ASAS324, cancel spacing, reduce speed 220 knots” In situation INKAK

6 Real-time simulations Initial ideas IFATCA’98 ETMA / ER exploratory ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance TMA exploratory ground air CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Joint NUPII Joint EVP

7 Controller E-TMA simulation Initial ideas IFATCA’98 ETMA / ER exploratory ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance TMA exploratory ground air CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Joint NUPII Joint EVP

8 Experiment setup 4 Overall Six controllers during 3 weeks Dense and “generic” airspace (simplified Paris South-East arrivals) Four (combined in two) arrivals sectors All traffic equipped Use of spacing at controller discretion No specific tools (paper strips with graphical markings only) 4 Independent variables Spacing: without, distance, time Sector configuration Sequencing constraint: 8Nm at IAF

9

10 Exit point Converging point 2- Maintaining1- BuildingSequencing phases: HeadingSpeedTypes of instruction: Controller activity 4 Natural mapping of the sequencing activity over the geographical sector

11 Spatial mapping of instructions Very high Without Very high With Heading, direct, speed (and spacing)

12 Distribution of instructions (2001) 0 Distance to exit point (Nm) SpeedHeadingDelegation High With Distance to exit (Nm) Number of instructions SpeedHeading Distance to exit point (Nm) Number of instructions Without Converging High Number of instructions Very high Without

13 Monitoring 4 Global level Reduced amount of time associated to monitoring? 4 Local level Aircraft still monitored? Collaboration with NOVADIS, Grenoble Use of eye movement analysis

14 Eye-tracker data 5 seconds5 minutes

15 Distribution of eye-fixations Number of instructions Number of instructions High Very High High Very High Without With Distance to exit (Nm) % of fixations

16 Speed Heading Spacing Same trend in 2002

17 Spacing at exit point Unacceptable - 5Nm - 60s Small Nm s Optimal Nm s Large 8.5Nm+ 95s+ WithoutDistanceTime

18 Summary ground E-TMA 4 Initial understanding of impact on controller activity and effectiveness in E-TMA Increased availability (instructions, eye-fixations) More stable flows transferred to the approach Seems to be beneficial when properly used 4 Issues Applicability conditions (nothing more than today’s practices): if not respected, use of spacing worse than conventional control Too much expectation? Risk of disengagement? Abnormal situations Applicability to other E-TMA airspace (even AO vs AR) Applicability (usefulness) in TMA

19 Controller TMA simulation Initial ideas IFATCA’98 ETMA / ER exploratory ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance TMA exploratory ground air CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Joint NUPII Joint EVP

20 Understand TMA specificity 4 Airborne spacing appropriate in E-TMA but problematic in TMA? Anticipation needed with spacing hardly compatible with today’s practices (late vectors for final integration)? Difference between E-TMA and TMA? 4 With E-TMA sectors previously considered and associated approach sectors (Paris Orly and CDG) Standard trajectories (E-TMA) vs radar vectoring (TMA) Integration on a point (E-TMA) vs on an axis (TMA) … plus high time critically (pressure, lack of space, larger turns) generating uncertainty and preventing early planning

21 Experiment setup 4 Objective: assess usability of proposed applications 4 Setup Four approach controllers during 9 days Standard trajectories, merging point, INI+ITM grouped, with EXC and PLC Two approach sectors Independent variables: without spacing, distance, time All traffic equipped Use of spacing at controller discretion Traffic coming under spacing 31 per hour with sequence of up to 5 June’02

22 Method of use 4 From same IAF Kept in “remain” with direct Use of heading then “merge” (to create spacing) 4 From different IAF Use of “merge” Use of heading then “merge” (to create spacing)

23 Distribution of instructions (without) 4 Method of analysis used for E-TMA and translated to TMA

24 Distribution of instructions (with)

25 Distribution of instructions (all) Without spacingDistance based spacingTime based spacing INIR INIO

26 Summary ground TMA 4 Usability Seem usable in TMA under medium-high traffic Change in working method (standard trajectories, final integration on a point, unique approach control position) 4 Impact Analysis of instructions suggests a positive impact on activity “Potential for providing more availability” “Provides but also requires anticipation” “Allows to smooth traffic but gives the feeling of loosing capacity (less pressure)” 4 Issues Cost of cancelling then (re-)initiating spacing Reluctance to cancel spacing leads to “group” aircraft Recovery of abnormal situations

27 Flight deck simulation Initial ideas IFATCA’98 ETMA / ER exploratory ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance TMA exploratory ground air CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Joint NUPII Joint EVP

28 Summary flight deck 4 General Overall positive feedback on concept and interface Active part (“in the loop”) and understanding of the situation More anticipation and optimised flight management? However, a new task with potential risk of workload increase Managed (automatic) mode helpful 4 Tolerance vs activity Tolerance at or above 0.5Nm seems acceptable (under nominal conditions and down to initial approach) Lower impact of tolerance than anticipated (“keep the bug aligned” culture) 4 Issues Down to final approach (June ‘03) Abnormal situations

29 Next 4 Ground (with NUPII Bretigny) 2003: TMA under very high traffic 2004: Interaction TMA / E-TMA with AMAN, and uplink for target selection, downlink of spacing parameter 2005: Extend scope towards assessing impact on ATC 4 Air (with EVP WP3) 2004: From cruise to final approach, in varied conditions (long sequences) Full flight simulator (A330 from TuB/ZFB) 2005: Extend scope towards automatic mode and uplink for target selection