Title: TT Reykjavik
1TT Reykjavik NUP -- ITP
2NUP 1, ITP
- Objectives
- ASAS in Oceanic Procedural Airspace
- Non Iceland Specific
- No increase in HF communication load
- Short duration
- Situation
- 1999
- Before P.O. ASAS definition
- No ASAS Spacing / Separation definitions
- No Package 1 definition
3NUP 1, ITP
- Definition Team
- ATC Controller, Iceland CAA Nav-Canada
- Pilots, SAS Air Canada
- Applications
- Pilot Delegated Track Crossing Procedure
- Pilot Delegated In-Trail Climb (ITC) In-Trail
Descent (ITD) - Pilot Delegated Station Keeping In Oceanic
Non-Radar Airspace. - Pilot Delegated Movement between OTS Tracks.
- Pilot Delegated Lateral Passing Manoeuvres On OTS
Tracks.
4NUP 1, Application Selection
- ITC / ITD (Later renamed ITP)
- Most significant benefit expected
- Simple to implement
- Short ASAS Duration
- In principle Level 3 / Separation Application
5The Traffic
- Daily Traffic Pattern highly cyclic
- Approx. 12 hour period mostly west bound.
- Approx. 12 hour period mostly east bound.
6(No Transcript)
7(No Transcript)
8This information is from the Report of the NICE
Task Force, The NAT/IMG Cost Effectiveness
Program from October 1999, in which LIDO GmbH
provided the above diagram, in its section on
LIDO Flight Planning
9NUP 2, ITP
- Objectives
- Validation
- Pilot / Controller usability of application
- Controller workload issues
- Cost Benefit Issues
- Benefit assessment
- Fast time simulation
- ITP sole solution to Operational Problem?
- Ground automation
10PO-ASAS
- Need to align ITP to PO-ASAS Definitions
- ATSAW, benefits
- RFG type, ATSAW type considered
- Concerns with passing safety case
- Changes in separation criteria
- Need for Level 2 application
- Not to be pushed to Package 2
11Air Space Utilization ?
12NAT TRACKS EAST BOUND TRAFFIC
13NAT TRACKS WEST BOUND TRAFFIC
14(No Transcript)
15OTS Aircraft Climb Possibility
16(No Transcript)
17A three day simulation december 2004
- Day 1 base line scenario
- Day 2 ITP, all aircraft equipped
- Day 3 ITP, 80 equipped
18- Traffic
- real traffic from december 2002
- 3 NAT tracks, A, B and C
- No crossing traffic
- Time of entering the airspace
- From 1130 to 1800
- Number of aircraft per track
- A 9
- B 49
- C 45
-
19- Participants
- 4 controllers
- 1 female, 3 males
- Age 28 38
- ATC experience 2 8 years
- 2 pilots
- Requesting clearances and accepting messages.
20- The process
- Pilots asked for FL changes, both standard and
ITP requests - The controller accepted or rejected the request
- If clearance was issued the pilot would accept
through CPDLC if ITP or via voice if standard
clearance. - For ITP clearances, regular level reports throuch
ADS-C
21(No Transcript)
22(No Transcript)
23(No Transcript)
24(No Transcript)
25 Briefing and training
- Performed by an air traffic controller
- An easy adjustment to new procedures
- The working environment, FDPS and situation
display the same as used in the Oceanic Area
Control Center
26- Measurements
- ISA, during the simulation
- NASA-TLX
- Post run questionnaires
- Work shop environment at the end of each day
- Data on when the sectors were splitted
27- Main results
- Responsibility the main issue
- Workload increases with ITP but not significantly
- Number of simultaneous ITP contracts for a
controller 1 3 - Easy adjustment to new procedures
- Phraseology needs adjustment
- Performance of ITP applicable within the
simulation environment - The controllers positive towards ITP
28- NASA-TLX
- Scale Value Weight
- Mental Demand 57.5 0.30
- Physical Demand 8.75 0
- Temporal Demand 41.25 0.28
- Performance 38.75 0.10
- Effort 46.25 0.17
- Frustration 42.5 0.15
- Total Workload 49.25
29Reykjavik SPACING In Trail Climb
- Reykjavik ITP
- HMI design and mockup evaluation
- Early safety considerations
- Concept The aircraft is responsible for
ensuring spacing with designated traffic - gt Spacing application
30Spacing In Trail Climb HMI
31Spacing In Trail Climb Conclusions
- Results
- Automatic altitude changes rejected
- Pilot manual action on FCU is preferred (safety
aspects) - Phase of flight not heavy
- Computation by FMS of point of crossing with
Flight Level - Would require significant FMS change
- Time opportunity window considered useful
- Requires significant FMS change
- Alerts needed when spacing infringed
- Significant changes required not justified by
Spacing ITC alone - Airbus push for In Trail Procedures based on
ATSAW - ATSA-ITP developed at RFG
32NUP 2, ITP Conclusions
- ITP
- Simulation shows acceptable by controllers
- Spacing Application
- Historical reasons for selecting
- Stepping stone into level 3 application
- No specific separation change required
- Spacing role not realistic
- 80 equipage - gt acceptable nuisance
33NUP 2, ITP Conclusions
- RFG Level 0,5 1,5 Application
- Logical simplification of the NUP ITP
- Passing safety case
- ITP not sole means of solving problem
- 30 / 30 affects (RVSM results)
- CPDLC usage already enabling an increase in
actual climbs