Discussions Summary

ASSTAR - Crossing & Passing session

page 2ASSTAR User Forum #1 in Rome, 4th April 2006

ASAS C&P Radar Airspace session 1/4Operational - Procedure

Target identification + feedback from pilot(clock / distance) & Flight ID / callsign use

– Issue on use of Callsign - ICAO Flight ID ; how it is readback ; what is on CDTI ; misinterpretaion risks

– Package 2/3 environment may consider a more advanced environment regarding how this information is transmitted & for selection means on-board.

Is the target aircraft informed ?– From experience in FR visual clearance it is considered, but optional

– Implies extra communications information (contradicts with limiting R/T use, and with reduction in comm. transactions)

page 3ASSTAR User Forum #1 in Rome, 4th April 2006

… continued Why not include enhanced conflict detection & resolution on ground (e.g.

through ongoing ANSP system upgrades ? to assist ATCO in providing a simple vectors, like a heading change

– The best place to calculate an optimized trajectory is on-board (as done for the FMS route today - it contains data not available in the ground system : atmospheric, met. conditions, aircraft performance specific to each aircraft, …)

Transition considerations into a 4D environment.

– Concept can manage ASAS tactical manoeuvres and still use 4D (i.e; keep the FM engaged and execute both tactical & strategic).

Interest for capabilities related to Trajectory Change Points – (would resolve controller issues raised in MFF , moreover would feed ground probes).

– Datalink is an option – extrapolating from the current situation to a near-term approach, idea was not impose too many options.

– FR considers that D/L availablity should be contribute for its use – but other D/L issues (latency, integrity, availability) need to be considered.

– G2G provides some rational & choices of Datalink use

page 4ASSTAR User Forum #1 in Rome, 4th April 2006

ASAS C&P Radar Airspace session 2/4Responsibility - Roles

When delegating – who is responsible for separation - procedure if error

– ASEP-C&P clearly implies DELEGATING separation responsibility to the crew.

– In case of error the procedure remains identical as today : ICAO contingency procedure If separation "fails" next layer is safety net => ground : 1/2 vertical separation exists. Similar for for airborne separation failure : aircrew already has responsibility for collision avoidance – and applies own separation if it has to be applied. (Auto TCAS not favoured)

does ATCO expect separation minima to be the same as ATCO applied minima?

– Separation minima vary today f() of means (monopulse : 3Nm, en-route ~12Nm) ; airborne separation has no obvious reason to be the same, moreover it is based on high performance NAV (GNSS), so should provide higher performance SEP.

page 5ASSTAR User Forum #1 in Rome, 4th April 2006

… continued

ASAS C&P pilot-controller transaction being understood as a multiple comm. syndrome (feeling being that this may adversely affect the ASAS application objective). Controller may also retain the crossing situation mentally – for his next step strategic planningLarge heading change the closer you get => using up more airspace

– ATCO do not consider that transactions are significantly higher than a ATCO controlled crossing under strict procedure; Positively accept the scenario

– ATCO can anticipate the conflict (well in advance compared to when he would trigger the ATCO controlled crossing) : as the ASAS C&P allows for delegation to the aircraft he is relieved from the continuous execution if this crossing.

page 6ASSTAR User Forum #1 in Rome, 4th April 2006

ASAS C&P Radar Airspace session 3/4 Standards - Terminology - Phraseology

RFG interest and basis for post package 1 applications ?

– Take into account experience / lessons learnt from MAAFAS (spacing), MFF (with & without delegation)

– Consider that the applications fall into the Airborne SEParation category – Controller not needed to monitor, otherwise Operational interest nil.

Is crossing distance specified (e.g. crossing a heavy) ?

– Target a/c wake category is a parameter in the ASAS algorithm

– The information should come from the ADS-B data (not be prescribed by controller, again for a simple transaction with reduced R/T time)

Nomenclature / terminology / phraseology to be standardised

– Agreed, group has intended unique terms

– apologies for inconsistency in some presentations

page 7ASSTAR User Forum #1 in Rome, 4th April 2006

ASAS C&P Radar Airspace session 4/4Technical Environment

Radar applications versus. Surveillance (ADS-B based) applications

– In considering a transition scenario (today-> tomorrow) : ATCO relies on radar, so the primary objective is understand how ASAS will be integrated into the radar environment.

– Although ADS-B is being considered for some airspace, it is not considered as applicable in core European area as being able to respond to needs.