Mediterranean Free FlightASAS Separation and Spacing

Presented by Andy Barff – Project Leader MFF Real-time SimulationsASAS-TN, Malmö 7-10-03

This presentation explains 2 aspects of MFF:

ASAS Separation Applications and Simulation Design

ASAS Spacing – “An Integrated Approach”

ASAS Separation

MFF ASAS Separation Concept

Definition in line with PO-ASAS Delegation of separation responsibility to the flight crew for a particular

manoeuvre in relation to a target aircraft – limited in space and time

Applications Crossing Procedures

Lateral Crossing (pass behind)Vertical Crossing (pass above or below)

Overtaking ProceduresLateral overtaking (pass to the right or left)

In-trail ProceduresRemain in trailMerge in trail In-trail climb or descent In-trail climb or descent to same level

MFF ASAS Separation Simulation

Simulation of Greek and Maltese airspace October 20th – 31st 2003

4 days training1 day of reference exercises5 days of ASAS evaluation

2 large sectors over central Mediterranean (mainly high seas)Simulation of radar and ADS-B surveillanceAn area of poor or no surveillance Inter-centre transfer procedures

Experimental DesignQualitative assessment of ASAS Separation applicationsTraffic samples “tuned” to offer several ASAS opportunities every 6-10minsCurrent fixed route structure and existing sector dimensions

Technical FeaturesPosition symbol reflects surveillance qualityADS-B down-linked parameters displayed on demand in track label

MFF RTS3 Greece-Malta Scenario

Radar cover limited in this area

Radar cover onlyno ADS-B surveillance here

AFR123350m.84

BAW456350m.84

AFR123350 350350 g45hdg m.84 rocd

BAW456350 350350 g45h270 m.82 r0

Target

Delegated

“AF123 pass behind targetmaintain airborne separation,report clear of target”

“AF123 clear of target,turning direct to ABC”

Target

Delegated

“AFR123 pass behind targetmaintain airborne separation,report clear of target”

- Is the controller able to re-assume full control at this point – maybe no!- He will want to wait until the delegated a/c is back in surveillance cover and re-identified……

“AF123 clear of target,turning direct to ABC”

- “AFR123 squawk ident”- “AFR123 re-identified, back under positive radar control”

ASAS Spacing – “An Integrated Approach”

ASAS Spacing as a “System Component”

ASAS Spacing cannot be considered in isolation Unlike RVSM for example…….

It seems that the benefits of ASAS Spacing will be greatest when it is a component of an integrated concept of operations

Current practices will have to evolve to include ASAS Spacing in the more efficient management of arrival flows probably including RNAV arrival procedures

Current practices (generally) include: Extensive marshalling and vectoring at low altitudes Some use of holding (ready supply of a/c to maximise runway capacity)

This is not really compatible with the extensive use of ASAS Spacing because spacing set up in the ETMA will be “lost” if there is holding or extensive vectoring

New tasks for en-route sectors establishing the sequence in the vicinity of “top of descent”

Conventional traffic control – en-route sector has little awareness of approach sequence

Holding stack feeding traffic marshalling and sequencing at low altitudes

AMAN advisories organise arriving traffic and build initial sequence – ASAS Spacing initiated

ASAS Spacing maintains sequence with optimal spacing

Flows integrated using merging techniques

Continuous descent from ideal TOD to FAF

Towards a more efficient arrival flow

ASAS Spacing as a “System Component”

MFF is initiating a study of Rome arrivals using ASAS Spacing as a tool in a more efficient arrival concept…..

Subtle sector revisions to allow the controllers to concentrate on the management of arrivals. Overflights and outbounds handled mainly by other sectors

Key objectives:To ensure that the en-route/ETMA sectors can effectively establish the

arrival sequence before or shortly after Top of DescentTo study the feasibility of merging of ASAS spaced flows at medium levelTo study the impact on the TMA sectors in terms of holding (reduction),

environmental/efficient trajectories (mileage/levels) and controller workload/concept feasibility

▼230

▼230

▼RFL ▼270

MFF RTS3 Rome Scenario