1. Author: MARA ĆUJIĆ An Analysis of the Task List impact upon RAMS Workload Calculations November, 2004

2. CONTENTS √ Information about CEATS √ Objectives √ Research process and data collected √ Setting scenarios for running RAMS √ Sensitivity analysis √ Comparison of workload results √ Survey in national ACC √ Conclusions and Recommendations

3. CEATS ♦ CSPDU ♦ CRDS ♦ CUAC ♦ CTC CRDS √ FTS2, FTS3 √ SSRTS1, SSRTS2, SSRTS3, RTS1 It was done: In progress: √ FTS4, SSRTS4, RTS2 RTS i FTS

4. OBJECTIVES PROBLEMOBJECTIVES Questionnaire with controllers who had experience in RTS 1. Task list (FTS3) 2. Task duration times 3. Task distribution 4. There was not task list for CEATS 1. New task list definition 2. Estimation of task duration times 3. New task distribution 4. Unique task list for CEATS Disagreement RTS and FTS

5. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (10 CEATS controllers + RTS expert ) 1.Start questionnaire 2.Progress questionnaire 3.Final questionnaire ♦ defining first new, ♦ new ideas for designing ♦ 31 tasks (29+2) were task list the final questionnaire included in task list ♦ ( 29 tasks) ♦ data for analysis TASK LIST IN FTS3 (15) WAS TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION INTERVIEW (10 CEATS controllers) ♦ IT WAS REALISED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

6. Final Questionnaire FIRST PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE No.TASK NAMEmin (s)max (s)PCECPC/EC 1Check flight plan 123 2Update flight plan 123 √ Information about minimum and maximum task duration times √ Task distribution between controllers 35 47

7. SECOND PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE No.TASK NAME Very smallSmallMediumHighVery high importance 1Check flight plan 2Update flight plan X X √ Estimate the importance of the tasks √ Busy sector and high workload were considered √ Values from 1 to 5 were aligned to each task Final Questionnaire

8. THIRD PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE √ Estimate the frequency of task execution √ Peak hour period was taken in consideration No.TASK NAME Very smallSmallMediumHighVery high frequency 1Check flight plan 2Update flight plan X X √ Values from 1 to 5 were aligned to each task Final Questionnaire

9. RESULTS √ Average minimum and maximum values of task duration times √ Average values for importance of each task √ Average values for frequency of task execution √ Task distribution between controllers √ Factors affecting controller workload

10. THE TASK LIST THE MOST IMPORTANT TASKS 1. Conflict resolution (4.91) 2. Pilot readback to instruction (4.82) 3. Surveillance of A/C in sector (4.73) 4. Level change coordination (4.73) 5. Monitoring of all A/C influenced by an A/C climbing or descending (4.64) THE MOST FREQUENT TASKS 1.Pilot readback instruction (4.55) 2. Surveillance of A/C in sector (4.45) 3. Identification of A/C (4.36) 4. R/T handover to CEATS sector (4.18) 5. First call of A/C (4.18)

11. ACTORS (31) TASKS (1) TASK (14) TASKS (16) TASKS PC EC PC/EC Task distribution between controllers

12. Running RAMS 1. RAMS WORKLOAD CALCULATION RAMS calculates workload as a sum of the task duration times triggered during simulation, which is expressed as a percentage loading. 1 PEAK HOUR LOADING > 55% Sector is overloaded = 70% Capacity level is reached

13. 2. SETTING SCENARIOS FOR RUNNING RAMS a) Task list b) Task duration times c) Actors (PC and/or EC) d) Appropriate “trigger” e) Appropriate “time offset” Running RAMS TASKS SECTORISATION TRAFFIC SAMPLE ROUTE NETWORK

14. SIMULATIONS BASIC FEATURES OF (FTS3) 1. Traffic sample- 28 June 2002, increased by 32% 2. ARNVbis Route network 3. Sectorisation was based on FTS2- 31 sectors

15. SCENARIO 1 1. TASK LIST IN FTS3 for CEATS (15) 2. NEW AVERAGE TASK DURATION TIMES (defined by interview) 3. NEW TASK DISTRIBUTION (defined by final questionnaire) SIMULATION 1 BASIC FEATURES OF (FTS3) + SCENARIO 1

16. SIMULATION 2 BASIC FEATURES OF (FTS3) + SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 2 1. NEW TASK LIST (31) (defined by survey) 2. NEW AVERAGE TASK DURATION TIMES (defined by interview) 3. NEW TASK DISTRIBUTION (defined by final questionnaire)

17. Comparison of workload 1. Workload increase ~70 % (PC) 2. Workload decrease in one sector (PC) 3. Workload decrease in six sectors (EC) 4. Similar workload results in most of the sectors (EC) 1. High workload increase ~130 % (PC) 2. Workload results are increased by ~50% (EC) FTS3 and Simulation 1 FTS3 and Simulation 2

18. FTS3 (PC and EC) SECTOR OVERVIEW Simulation 2 (PC2 and EC2) Simulation 1 (PC1 and EC1) ■ wk < 55% ■ 55% <wk < 70% ■ wk > 70%

19. SSRTS3, Simulation 1 and 2 √ Workload in SSRTS3 is defined by ISA method √ Transformation of RTS workload values into FTS percentage values was made subjectively √ Comparison of workload results was done in three sectors (C_5U, C_6U, C_8H) √ Workload results after Simulation 2 were more aligned to estimated workload results in SSRTS3

20. WORKLOAD RATING FTS3 ~100% Simulation 1 ~ 35% Simulation 2 ~ 30% EC in comparison with PC

21. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Objective: Testing the influence of change of task duration times on controller workload using RAMS Selected tasks: 1. Screen set up (19.64s) 2. Conflict resolution (18.73s) 3. Surveillance of A/C in sector (16.36s) 4. Monitoring of all A/C influenced by an A/C climbing or descending (16.36s)

22. Simulation 3 √ The selected tasks (2) were included in the list with average maximum task duration times √ It was used the same task list (31) with the same task duration times like in Simulation 2 ActorsTASK NAME Task duration times in simulation 3 (s) Task duration times in simulation 2 (s) PCSurveillance of A/C in sector16.36 8.3 ECSurveillance of A/C in sector20.45 10.4 PCConflict resolution18.91 10.3 ECConflict resolution23.64 14.8

23. SECTOR OVERVIEW Simulation 2 (PC2 and EC2) Simulation 3 (PC3 and EC3) ■ wk < 55% ■ 55% <wk < 70% ■ wk > 70%

24. FTS3, Simulation 1, 2 and 3

25. NATIONAL ACC REASON FOR SERVEY Differences in controller opinions OBJECTIVES Gathering data about minimum and maximum task duration times and actors who perform the tasks PLACES OF RESEARCH ACC Bratislava, ACC Budapest and ACC Vienna

26. RESULTS 1. Average task duration times are very similar in ACC Bratislava, Budapest and CRDS, except ACC Vienna 2. There is a group of tasks which has the same task distribution between controllers in each ACC and CRDS (13 tasks) 3. The tasks “Usage R&B” and “Usage MTCD” are performed in National ACC very rarely and task duration times for the group of “ Monitoring” tasks were not estimated by many controllers

27. CONCLUTIONS √ The task duration times, number of the tasks and task distribution between controllers have high influence on RAMS workload calculations √ The recommended standard task list for CEATS sectors consists of 24 tasks √ The controllers’ answers are very various and significantly affected by different training of controller teams and air traffic procedures in each ACC, different equipment…

28. RECOMMENDATIONS √ Observing controllers during performance of tasks in RTS environment √ Conducting a similar survey by questionnaire but with participation of more controllers √ Defining the other approach for transformation of workload values obtained in RTS into percentage values calculated in FTS

29. THANK YOU