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

2. 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…

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. Results – CPDLC

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Next Steps Pioneer trials  Operations
2008 Q2-Q4 Results consolidation of phase 1
2008 Q 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

15. 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

16. 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 tonnes annually
Preparation for revenue aircraft trials ongoing
Moving towards implementation