Post on 30-Dec-2015
1
CoSpaceCoSpace
Experimental results on Experimental results on sequencing & mergingsequencing & merging
Karim Zeghal Karim Zeghal
ASAS Thematic Network, Second workshop ASAS Thematic Network, Second workshop 6-8, October 2003, Malmö, Sweden6-8, October 2003, Malmö, Sweden
2
IntroductionIntroduction
MotivationMotivation• 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
Constraints Constraints • Human: consider current roles and working methods• System: keep things as simple as possible
AssumptionsAssumptions• Airborne surveillance capabilities (ADS-B, “state vectors”)• Airborne functions (ASAS, “manual mode”)
3
PrinciplesPrinciples
Starting point Starting point • Analogy with visual separation clearances … • … but no transfer of separation responsibility
Just new “spacing” instructions 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”
Task distributionTask distribution• Decision-making on the ground (controller defines strategy)• Execution in the air (pilot implements actions)
Two classes of operationsTwo classes of operations• Crossing and passing en-route• Sequencing in terminal areas
4
Sequencing of arrival flowsSequencing of arrival flows
ControllerController• Defines sequence
order• Issues spacing
instruction
PilotPilot• Adjusts speed to
acquire and maintain spacing
• Not authorised to change trajectory nor altitude
AFR123235 40
spacing
WPT
DLH456250 41
5
ControllerController: “AZA324, select target 2443”
PilotPilot: “AZA324, target 2443 identified, 3 o’clock, 30 miles”
ControllerController: “AZA324, behind target merge to INKAK to be
8 miles behind”
ControllerController: “ASAS324, cancel spacing, reduce speed 220 knots”
In situationIn situationINKAK
6
Real-time simulationsReal-time simulations
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Initial ideasIFATCA’98
ETMA / ERexploratory
ETMA / ERactivity
ETMAmonitoring
control qualityvery high traffic
ETMAtime/distance
TMAexploratory
groundair
CRZ-IAFinterface
CRZ-IAFactivity
CRZ-IAFactivity/margins
Joint NUPII
Joint EVP
7
Controller E-TMA simulationController E-TMA simulation
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Initial ideasIFATCA’98
ETMA / ERexploratory
ETMA / ERactivity
ETMAmonitoring
control qualityvery high traffic
ETMAtime/distance
TMAexploratory
groundair
CRZ-IAFinterface
CRZ-IAFactivity
CRZ-IAFactivity/margins
Joint NUPII
Joint EVP
8
ALURA
AMORO
ATNBAGOL
BENIP
BOLLY
BULOL
BUSIL
CHABY
CLM
DERAKDJL
DORDI
EPL
FAO26
GALBI
GERBI
GVA
INKAK
IPLAN
IXILU
KELUK
KOTUN
LAULY
LESPI
LISMO
LOGNI
LUSAR
LUVAL
MILPA
MLNS
MOLEK
MOU
OKRIX
OMAKO
OSKIN
PAS
PENDU
REKLA
RESPO
RIGNI
RLP
ROA
ROMTA
SAUNI
TINIL
TRO
TUROM
VAS02
VAS03
VAS04
VDP
VERDI
VERIX
INIR INIO
AR2
AR2
AO1 FE
AO2
AO2
AR1 FE
Experiment setupExperiment setup
Overall 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)
Independent variablesIndependent variables• Spacing: without, distance,
time• Sector configuration
Sequencing constraint: 8Nm at IAF
10
Exitpoint
Convergingpoint
2- Maintaining 1- BuildingSequencing phases:
HeadingSpeedTypes of instruction:
Controller activityController activity
Natural mapping of the sequencing activity over the Natural mapping of the sequencing activity over the geographical sectorgeographical sector
12
Distribution of instructions (2001)Distribution of instructions (2001)
0
Distance to exit point (Nm)
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed Heading Delegation
HighWith
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Very highWith
Distance to exit (Nm)
Num
ber
of
inst
ruct
ion
s
Speed HeadingDistance to exit point (Nm)
Num
ber
of in
stru
ctio
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Without
ConvergingHigh
Num
ber
of in
stru
ctio
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Very highWithout
13
MonitoringMonitoring
Global levelGlobal level• Reduced amount of time
associated to monitoring?
Local levelLocal level• Aircraft still monitored?
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Collaboration with NOVADIS, Grenoble
Use of eye movement analysisUse of eye movement analysis
14
Eye-tracker dataEye-tracker data
5 seconds 5 minutes
15
Distribution of eye-fixationsDistribution of eye-fixations
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Num
ber
of in
stru
ctio
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Num
ber
of in
stru
ctio
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
High
Very High
High
Very High
Without
Without
With
With
Distance to exit (Nm)
% o
f fi
xati
ons
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
Without - AR
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
10
20
30
40
50Time - AR
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
10
20
30
40
50Distance - AR
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed
Heading
Spacing
Same trend in 2002Same trend in 2002
17
Spacing at exit pointSpacing at exit point
6
2013
90
2
16
59
45
2 1
71
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Unacceptable- 5Nm- 60s
Small5 - 7.5Nm60 - 85s
Optimal7.5 - 8.5Nm
85 - 95s
Large8.5Nm+
95s+
Without Distance Time
18
Summary ground E-TMASummary ground E-TMA
Initial understanding of impact on controller activity Initial understanding of impact on controller activity and effectiveness in E-TMAand effectiveness in E-TMA• Increased availability (instructions, eye-fixations)• More stable flows transferred to the approach
Seems to be beneficial when properly used
IssuesIssues• 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 simulationController TMA simulation
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Initial ideasIFATCA’98
ETMA / ERexploratory
ETMA / ERactivity
ETMAmonitoring
control qualityvery high traffic
ETMAtime/distance
TMAexploratory
groundair
CRZ-IAFinterface
CRZ-IAFactivity
CRZ-IAFactivity/margins
Joint NUPII
Joint EVP
21
Experiment setupExperiment setup
BSN
DESCT
FAG26
FAO26
INKAK
LOR12
LORTA
MLNS
MOLEK
ODRAN
OKRIX
OMAKOVAS02
VAS03
VAS04
VASPO
XERAM
INIR
INIO
AR2AO2
LFPG
LFPO
INIRINIOAR2AO2
Objective: assess usability of proposed applicationsObjective: assess usability of proposed applications SetupSetup
• 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 useMethod of use
From same IAFFrom same IAF• Kept in “remain”
with direct• Use of heading
then “merge” (to create spacing)
From different IAFFrom different IAF• Use of “merge”• Use of heading
then “merge” (to create spacing)
23
Distribution of instructions (without)Distribution of instructions (without)
Speed Heading
Mea
n n
um
ber
of
inst
ruct
ion
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Without spacing - INIO sector
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Method of analysis used for E-TMA and translated to Method of analysis used for E-TMA and translated to TMATMA
24
Distribution of instructions (with)Distribution of instructions (with)
Speed Heading Spacing
Mea
n n
um
ber
of
inst
ruct
ion
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Time based spacing - INIO sector
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
25
Distribution of instructions (all)Distribution of instructions (all)Manoeuvring instructions distance distribution
Without delegation (All sessions)Sector INIO (ref. pt. VAS03) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
Speed Heading
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of i
nstr
uctio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionWithout delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIO (ref. pt. VAS03) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
42
10
35
1 3 3 2
27
5 5 63
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionDistance delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIO (ref. pt. VAS03) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
Speed Heading SpacingM
ean
num
ber o
f ins
truc
tions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionDistance delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIO (ref. pt. VAS03) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
18
3 39
48
1
1
4 6 23
4
16
2 2 1
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionTime delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIO (ref. pt. VAS03) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
Speed Heading Spacing
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of i
nstr
uctio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionTime delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIO (ref. pt. VAS03) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001
4 3 4 42 1
24 3 2 3
3 3 3 3 2 2
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionWithout delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIR (ref. pt. LOR12) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
Speed Heading
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of i
nstr
uctio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionWithout delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIR (ref. pt. LOR12) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
29
9
2
11 1 1
21
12 12
4
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionDistance delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIR (ref. pt. LOR12) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
Speed Heading Spacing
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of i
nstr
uctio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionDistance delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIR (ref. pt. LOR12) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1114
6 6 7
2
7
5
5 5 4
312
5 4 3 2
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionTime delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIR (ref. pt. LOR12) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
Speed Heading Spacing
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of i
nstr
uctio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance to reference point (Nm)
Manoeuvring instructions distance distributionTime delegation (All sessions)
Sector INIR (ref. pt. LOR12) - (Duration of analysis 0h50mn)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
28 7
26
2
64
4 1
15 4 3 3 1
Without spacing Distance based spacing Time based spacing
INIR
INIO
26
Summary ground TMASummary ground TMA
UsabilityUsability• Seem usable in TMA under medium-high traffic• Change in working method (standard trajectories, final
integration on a point, unique approach control position)
ImpactImpact• 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)”
IssuesIssues• Cost of cancelling then (re-)initiating spacing• Reluctance to cancel spacing leads to “group” aircraft• Recovery of abnormal situations
27
Flight deck simulationFlight deck simulation
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Initial ideasIFATCA’98
ETMA / ERexploratory
ETMA / ERactivity
ETMAmonitoring
control qualityvery high traffic
ETMAtime/distance
TMAexploratory
groundair
CRZ-IAFinterface
CRZ-IAFactivity
CRZ-IAFactivity/margins
Joint NUPII
Joint EVP
28
Summary flight deckSummary flight deck
GeneralGeneral• 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
Tolerance vs activityTolerance 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)
IssuesIssues• Down to final approach (June ‘03)• Abnormal situations
29
NextNext
Ground (with NUPII Bretigny)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
Air (with EVP WP3)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