1 cospace experimental results on sequencing & merging karim zeghal asas thematic network,...

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



ETMA / ERactivity

ETMAmonitoring


ETMAtime/distance

TMAexploratory

groundair

CRZ-IAFinterface

CRZ-IAFactivity


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



ETMA / ERactivity

ETMAmonitoring


ETMAtime/distance

TMAexploratory

groundair

CRZ-IAFinterface

CRZ-IAFactivity


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


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


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)


Speed Heading SpacingM

ean

num

ber o

f ins

truc

tions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




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)



Mea

n nu

mbe

r of i

nstr

uctio

ns

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




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


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




0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

29

9

2

11 1 1

21

12 12

4




Mea

n nu

mbe

r of i

nstr

uctio

ns

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




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




Mea

n nu

mbe

r of i

nstr

uctio

ns

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




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



ETMA / ERactivity

ETMAmonitoring


ETMAtime/distance

TMAexploratory

groundair

CRZ-IAFinterface

CRZ-IAFactivity


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

1 cospace experimental results on sequencing & merging karim zeghal asas thematic network,...

Documents

aviation psychology

iaf11th symposium

knots11th symposium

sweden11th symposium

usa11th symposium

manual mode11th symposium

terminal areas11th symposium

ground controller