1. Federal Aviation Administration AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations ASAS-GN Seminar 13 Nov 08, Rome By Ken Carpenter, QinetiQ

2. 2 Federal Aviation Administration AP23 Overview: Deliverables Five deliverables from AP23:  D1 – General data exchange  D2 – Methodology to prioritize applications for AP23  D3 – Operational Role of Airborne Surveillance in Separating Traffic  D4 – Draft proposal for a second set of ADS-B/ASAS applications  D5 – Draft White Paper on Issues Surrounding Airborne Separation

3. 3 Federal Aviation Administration Background “The operational role of airborne surveillance in separating traffic”  Work started in 2005 (ASAS SG)  The world was different then  We were trying to avoid saying “ASAS”  Emphasised the use of “airborne surveillance”  The word “separation” in ASAS looked like a mistake  SESAR and NextGen have changed all that  Now discuss the use of ASAS in a TM environment  and emphasise new ASAS-based separation modes

4. 4 Federal Aviation Administration Objective  Overall picture of ASAS in the ATM paradigm  Common sense of direction for ASAS community  Explain ASAS to wider community  The document is conceptual  Tries not to state requirements  Tries not to design equipment nor procedures  Discusses many applications but not in order to propose them  It introduces “application elements”  Discusses airborne separation  = airborne separation & self-separation applications

5. 5 Federal Aviation Administration Application categories  We suggest no change in the PO-ASAS categories  Situational awareness applications: could have been called “traffic information applications”  Airborne spacing applications: the controller continues to provide separation; the flight crew provide a specified spacing from specific reference aircraft  Airborne separation applications: subject aircraft is receiving a separation service; but is cleared to provide airborne separation from specific reference aircraft  Self-separation: subject aircraft is not receiving a separation service

6. 6 Federal Aviation Administration Status of the document  The document is complete  Will deliver imminently  You can all see the document … please!  I would like to tell you where to get it (and now I can!)  It should be circulated as widely as possible  all 100 pages of it  It will be submitted to ASP/1 in December  To be reported by ASP as “Work in progress”, not yet for adoption by ICAO  ASP will do what it determines  Further work by AP23 depends on feedback

7. 7 Federal Aviation Administration Contents  Part I: Concept  Airborne separation  Airborne surveillance applications  The elements of applications  Some minimal technical information  Part II: Operational use  Describes the potential evolution of ATM and use of ASAS  Looks at 2010, 2020 and 2030 (but don’t be too literal)  Discusses: terminal areas, en-route operations, procedural airspace and the surface

8. 8 Federal Aviation Administration Concept: terminology Airborne Separation is used to refer to any separation mode in which the flight crew is the separator  This definition includes airborne separation and airborne self-separation applications  No change proposed (yet?) in PO-ASAS category names  We keep the name “airborne separation applications”  AP23 plans to address this ambiguity (D5)  Alternatives?  NextGen use “delegated separation” for more than the PO-ASAS airborne separation applications  We use the plain language word “delegate”  but the controller cannot be responsible for the pilot’s actions

9. 9 Federal Aviation Administration Concept: airborne separation  Separation: “The tactical process of keeping aircraft away from hazards by at least the appropriate separation minima”  from ICAO Doc 9854, “The Global ATM Operational Concept”  The definition of “separation” applies equally to airborne separation and ground-based separation  Airborne separation is not collision avoidance

10. 10 Federal Aviation Administration Concept: airborne separation  Airborne separation will work well with trajectory management  Self-separation does not need to exclude trajectory management  (Delegated) airborne separation applications are tools for controllers  So they will be used only in controlled airspace  Benefits need to be mutual  Benefits are mutual  Self-separation is a manner of operation  Flexible and efficient for operators  Permitted by ANSPs (or airspace managers)

11. 11 Federal Aviation Administration Concept: application elements  AP23 asked for candidate applications  Over 100 separate suggestions  We grouped them by category found elements common to many applications  Decided to base work on “application elements”  These elements are operational  PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM might need to discuss elements  They do not need to discuss anything else  The functional and performance requirements for each element will depend on context  A later talk will tell you much more about application elements

12. 12 Federal Aviation Administration Identifying designated aircraft

13. 13 Federal Aviation Administration Use: terminal areas  S&M, aka M&S, as a separation application  The use of ASAS is part of a larger story  The big benefits come from airspace reorganisation and good trajectory management, arriving on time  Using ASAS gives predictable and reliable throughput  Task of managing the interval is in the right place  CSPA  Has yet to be developed  A central and demanding application  Climb out  Use ASAS to fan out, or pass aircraft in front

14. 14 Federal Aviation Administration Use: en-route  Trajectory Management dominates  but it is not realistic to expect no conflicts  ASAS will be used to resolve tactical conflicts  Delegated airborne separation  can resolve crossing and passing encounters  minimal deviation from the desired trajectory  Four variants of self-separation:  unmanaged airspace  dedicated airspace, with no TM  dedicated airspace, a/c on agreed trajectories  managed airspace, some a/c self-separating and others not (SESAR scenario)  Flow corridors

15. 15 Federal Aviation Administration Use: “procedural airspace”  Airspace that is not under ground surveillance  Whole family of applications being studied for oceanic airspace  Self-separation and cruise climbing  Self-separation on dedicated tracks in the OTS  but  Procedural separation should simply disappear

16. 16 Federal Aviation Administration Use: the surface  The surface is different  There is no accepted concept of “separation”  The surface is important  Runway incursions – big safety issue  ASAS provides knowledge of the offence  Main benefits likely to be at un-towered airports  Operational use at non-towered airports  autonomous runway crossing (safe window of opportunity)  assess take-off times wrt local traffic (integrated with TM)

17. 17 Federal Aviation Administration Conclusion  Airborne separation should be regarded as an embedded part of trajectory management  TM and ASAS are complementary  A concept of use for ASAS is available  Get it from: One Sky Team ICAO: www.icao.int/anb/panels/scrsp/indexp.html (click information/documents)www.icao.int/anb/panels/scrsp/indexp.html and …. ?

18. 18 Federal Aviation Administration Thank you ken.carpenter@atc.qinetiq.com