TT Reykjavik - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

TT Reykjavik

Description:

ASAS in Oceanic Procedural Airspace. Non Iceland Specific. No increase in ... Pilots, SAS & Air Canada. Applications. Pilot Delegated Track Crossing Procedure ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:57
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 34
Provided by: brynjara
Learn more at: https://asas-tn.org
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: TT Reykjavik


1
TT Reykjavik NUP -- ITP
2
NUP 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

3
NUP 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.

4
NUP 1, Application Selection
  • ITC / ITD (Later renamed ITP)
  • Most significant benefit expected
  • Simple to implement
  • Short ASAS Duration
  • In principle Level 3 / Separation Application

5
The 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)
8
This 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
9
NUP 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

10
PO-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

11
Air Space Utilization ?
12
NAT TRACKS EAST BOUND TRAFFIC
13
NAT TRACKS WEST BOUND TRAFFIC
14
(No Transcript)
15
OTS Aircraft Climb Possibility
16
(No Transcript)
17
A 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

29
Reykjavik 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

30
Spacing In Trail Climb HMI
31
Spacing 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

32
NUP 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

33
NUP 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com