eurocontrol experimental centre · eurocontrol experimental centre brest real-time simulation eec...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

BREST REAL-TIME SIMULATION

EEC Report No. 327

EEC Task S07EATCHIP Task ISS

Issued: March 1998

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should bereproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Report No. 327

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:EEC - RTO(Real-Time Simulations Operations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreB.P.15F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFranceTelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:Service du Contrôle du Trafic AérienFrance

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:SCTA9, rue ChampagneF91200 – Athis MonsFrance

TITLE:

BREST REAL-TIME SIMULATION

AuthorEEC - RTOEEC - ORA

Date

03/98Pages

viii + 65Figures

-Tables

-Annexes

7References

-

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

ISS

EEC Task No.

S07

Task No. Sponsor

AR44

Period

1996

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: Head of RTO(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):

Air Traffic Control (ATC), Brest FIR/UIR, Military traffic, Route Network, Sectorisation.

Abstract:

AR44 was a Real-Time simulation conducted by the EEC/Brétigny in order to evaluate:The effects of the implementation of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) above flight level 290 forNorth Atlantic traffic (NAT).The transition area defined within Brest airspace.Two different proposals for revised sectorisation and route network in order to increase Brest FIR/UIRcapacity to meet the future demands of traffic.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

Brest Real-Time SimulationEUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

EEC Task S07 – EEC Report No. 327 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................................vi

ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................................................vii

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1

2. OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................................1

2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................12.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES (NORTH-WEST SESSION) .................................................................................................12.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES (SOUTH-EAST SESSION)...................................................................................................1

3. CONDUCT ........................................................................................................................................................2

4. STAFF................................................................................................................................................................2

5. SIMULATION FACILITY ...............................................................................................................................2

6. TRAFFIC SAMPLES........................................................................................................................................3

6.1 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TRAFFIC SAMPLE NAMES ..........................................................................................3

7. ORGANISATIONS TESTED ...........................................................................................................................4

7.1 NORTH-WEST SCENARIO ..................................................................................................................................47.2 SOUTH-EAST SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................4

8. NORTH-WEST SESSION ................................................................................................................................5

8.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................................58.2 CHANGES.........................................................................................................................................................58.3 TRAFFIC SAMPLES:...........................................................................................................................................58.4 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE NORTH-WEST SESSION .................................................................................................6

8.4.1 Organisation 0........................................................................................................................................68.4.2 Organisation 1........................................................................................................................................68.4.3 Organisation 2........................................................................................................................................8

8.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NORTH-WEST SESSION ..................................................................................... 10

9. SOUTH-EAST SESSION................................................................................................................................ 12

9.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................... 129.2 TRAFFIC SAMPLES :........................................................................................................................................ 129.3 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE SOUTH-EAST SESSION ................................................................................................ 13

9.3.1 Organisation 0...................................................................................................................................... 139.3.2 Organisation 1...................................................................................................................................... 139.3.3 Organisation 2...................................................................................................................................... 15

9.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SOUTH-EAST SESSION....................................................................................... 18

RESUME FRANCAISE........................................................................................................................................... 19


EEC Task S07 – EEC Report No. 327vi

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX A DESCRIPTIONS OF ORGANISATIONS ................................................................................... 27

ANNEX B SIMULATION PROGRAMME EXECUTED ............................................................................. 35

ANNEX C CONTROL ROOM LAYOUTS................................................................................................... 41

ANNEX D RADAR WINDOWS................................................................................................................... 47

ANNEX E FLIGHT STRIPS......................................................................................................................... 53

ANNEX F MAPS.......................................................................................................................................... 55

ANNEX G CIVIL- MILITARY PROTOCOL ............................................................................................... 63


EEC Task S07 – EEC Report No. 327 vii

ABBREVIATIONS

CRNA Centre du Contrôle Régional pour la Navigation AérienneCWP Controller Working Position

FDM Flight Data MessageFIR Flight Information RegionFLAS Flight Level Allocation System

MASP Minimum Aircraft System PerformanceNS Next SectorNAT North Atlantic Traffic

OCL Oceanic ClearanceORG Collection of Simulation Exercises to form an Organisational Structure

PFL Planned Flight Level

RVSM Revised Vertical Separation Minima

TAAM Total Airspace and Airport ModellerTID Touch Input Device


EEC Task S07 – EEC Report No. 327viii

Intentionally Blank


EEC Task S07 – EEC Report No. 327 1

1. INTRODUCTIONThe implementation in 1997 of the reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM) aboveflight level 290 for North Atlantic traffic (NAT), the need to restructure Brest airspace tomeet the future demands of traffic and the airspace transferred from Paris to Brest werethe reasons for AR44.

RVSM has been the object of various simulations both within and out of the EurocontrolExperimental Centre (EEC). Brest transition area was tested in AR37 Real TimeSimulation of NAT/RVSM, which took place in Brétigny in 1994.

The two new sectorisations simulated in AR44 are the result of the Total Airspace andAirport Modeller (TAAM) simulation carried out in 1995 by the French administration.

The first new sectorisation keeps the actual route structure unchanged while the secondone involves a new route structure with consequent restructuring of the military air space.Both of them aim to increase the capacity of CRNA Ouest and to balance sectors workloads while creating more efficient traffic flows.

All civil aircraft flying above FL 280 were assumed to be equipped to Minimum AircraftSystems Performance (MASP) requirements.

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 General ObjectivesOptimise workloads and increase sector capacities through:

1. Evaluation of the two proposals for sector and route restructuring for CRNA Ouestresulting from the TAAM simulation.

2. Evaluation of the transition area defined in Brest for the implementation of reduced verticalseparation minima for North Atlantic traffic from 1997.

2.2 Specific Objectives (North-West session) To compare the two new sectorisations with actual traffic (1995) and the expected traffic forthe year 2000 (1995+19%). They were evaluated with and without military activity tocompare the impact of military operations in both of them. To evaluate the interface between SHANNON and BREST with the implementation of a newflight level allocation system (FLAS) for the North Atlantic traffic. To evaluate the transition area that will extend to 00845W and will include the air spacedelegated to Brest and Shannon by London. To compare controller workload with the actual sectorisation and with the two newsectorisations and 1995 traffic.

2.3 Specific Objectives (South-East session)To compare the two new sectorisations with 1995 traffic and the expected traffic for the year2000 (1995+18%). They were evaluated with and without military activity to compare theimpact of military operations in both of them.


EEC Task S07 – EEC Report No. 3272

To evaluate the interface between PARIS and BREST with the 1995 sectorisation and withthe two new proposed.To evaluate the interface between SHANWICK and BREST with the introduction of RVSMfor the North Atlantic traffic and the implementation of the transition area in Brest that willextend to 00845W.

Shanwick-Brest interface was tested with the 1995 sectorisation and with the two newproposed sectorisations and 1995 traffic.

3. CONDUCTAR44 was conducted over a four week period from 18 March to 12 April 1996.

The simulation was divided in two sessions

• north-west session 8 March to 29 March 1996• south-east session11 April to 12 April 1996

A total of 54 exercises were planned and completed. This included exercises involving twonew organisations defined by the participants.Debriefings were held after each exercise and questionnaires were administered for thenew organisations (Org.1 and Org.2). A general questionnaire was administered at theend of the north-west and south-east sessions.

4. STAFFA total of 48 controllers took part in the simulation.

♦ Brest 35

♦ London 2 (adjacent position in north-west session)

♦ Shannon 2 (adjacent position in north-west session)

♦ Paris 2 (adjacent position in north-west and south-east sessions)

♦ Bordeaux 1 (adjacent position in south-east session)

♦ Madrid 1 (adjacent position in south-east session)

♦ Shanwick 1 (adjacent position in south-east session)

♦ French Military 4

5. SIMULATION FACILITYThe working environment of Brest Air Traffic Control Centre was represented in theBrétigny simulation room.

A minimum of four and a maximum of eight Brest sectors, depending on the differentorganisations, were simulated in the north-west and south-east sessions.

Each sector, consisting of a radar and planning Controller Working Position (CWP),comprised:



♦ a large SONY colour radar display and mouse input device - radar controller.

♦ a 21” colour radar display and mouse input device - planning controller.

♦ two colour flat panel touch input telecommunications systems - both controllers.

♦ a colour Digitatron (Touch Input Device (TID) )- planning controller.

♦ a strip printer - planning controller.

♦ a strip table - both controllers.

♦ an overhead map display.

6. TRAFFIC SAMPLESCRNA provided four base traffic samples for 1995 from which forecast and training fileswere created.

The need to keep all sectors “busy” resulted in an increase of all 1995 traffic samplesduring the preparation phase.

The Directorate & EATCHIP Development (DED4) provided forecast traffic samples for 2000.Traffic samples 2000 showed an increase of 19% for the north-west scenario and 18% forthe south-east scenario.

Traffic samples 2000 were slightly augmented during the preparation phase.

The table below gives the total number of traffic samples created during the preparationphase:

TNRW TN21W TN22W TSR1A TSR2ATNRE TN21E TN22E TSR1B TSR2B

TNR1W TNR2W TSRA TS21A TS22ATNR1E TNR2E TSRB TS21B TS22B

6.1 Abbreviations Used In Traffic Sample Names

T Traffic file

N or S NW scenario or SE scenario

R or 2 Reference traffic year 1995 and 2 for traffic year 2000

2 or 1 Org. 2 or Org. 1

E or A North Atlantic Traffic Eastbound traffic flow or A weekend sample

W or B NAT Westbound traffic flow or B weekend sample



7. ORGANISATIONS TESTEDThe airspace simulated in AR44 included all sectors within BREST FIR/UIR, with theexception of sector KU, plus the adjacent airspace included in the simulation windowdefined by 42N and 51 30’N and 012W and 003E.

During the preparation phase, six different organisations were created for the simulation.Three for the north-west scenario and three for the south-east scenario.

7.1 North-West ScenarioTo include the north-west portion of Brest airspace plus a military sector plus 6 adjacentsectors.Three organisations originally created:

1. ORG 0 - 1995 sectors and route structure.

2. ORG 1 - New sectors 1 and 1995 route structure.

3. ORG 2 - New sectors 2 and new route structure.

7.2 South-East ScenarioTo include the south-east portion of Brest airspace plus a military sector plus 5 adjacentsectors.

Three organisations originally created:

1. ORG 0 - 1995 sectors and route structure.

2. ORG 1 - New sectors 1 and 1995 route structure.

3. ORG 2 - New sectors 2 and new route structure.

During the simulation two more organisations were created. One for the north-westscenario and one for the south-east scenario.



8. NORTH-WEST SESSIONThe north-west scenario ran as planned from the 18th of March until the 29th of March1996.

8.1 Specific Objectives To compare the two new sectorisations with actual traffic (1995) and the expected traffic forthe year 2000 (1995+19%). They were evaluated with or without military activity to comparethe impact of military operations in both of them. To evaluate the interface between SHANNON and BREST with the implementation of a newFlight Level Allocation System (FLAS) for the North Atlantic traffic. To evaluate the transition area that will extend to 00845W and will include the air spaceactually delegated to Brest and Shannon by London. To compare sectors workload with the actual sectorisation and with the two newsectorisations and actual traffic (1995).

8.2 ChangesFrom Wednesday 27th, for Org. 1 and 2, sectors FU and FS were joined together andbecame a unique sector called FUFS.

Also from Wednesday 27th the 21” screen in sector JS planner position was replaced by aSONY.

It is important to highlight that all participants considered the 21” screens unsuitable todisplay radar data.

Problems included:

♦ Small screens.

♦ Response time extremely slow.

8.3 Traffic Samples:The table below shows the different traffic samples created for each organisation duringthe preparation phase:

ORG TRAFFIC SAMPLE ROUTE NETWORK MEASURED SECTORS

Org.0 TNRWTNRE

1995 Routes JS, MS, QU, QS, OS

Org. 1 TNR1WTNR1ETN21WTN21E

1995 Routes JU, JS, QU, QS, FU,FS, OS, AN

Org. 2 TNR2WTNR2ETN22WTN22E

New Routes JU, JS, QU, QS, FU,FS, OS, AN



Two training samples, TTNW1 and TTNW2, were created in addition to the above table.A total of 27 exercises were executed during the simulation, three of them for trainingpurposes.

A total of 23 exercises were successfully measured.

8.4 Conclusions for the North-West Session

8.4.1 Organisation 0 Four exercises were completed for ORG 0, two of them westbound traffic and twoeastbound traffic. Traffic level corresponding to 1995.

Conclusions

The new boundary limits extended to 00845W and the use of reduced vertical separationminima for NAT traffic in the transition area were well accepted by the controllers.However OS planner position workload increased with the introduction of RVSM levelsand the subsequent need for managing data input. The limitations for updating the system related to the simulation environment had also anegative effect in OS planner position workload (to avoid the unnecessary production ofstrips the controller was forced to wait until the traffic was within the sector limits) A heavy workload for all sectors led to a busy situation where normal access to thetelephone was not possible, resulting in a disruption of the normal co-ordination process.The management of Paris arrivals via CAN with traffic proceeding ARE-BARLU wasdifficult to achieve.

Traffic integration in routes ASKIL-LND with LIZAD-LND and especially ASKIL-LND withLIZAD-GAPLI posed particular difficulties. This problem is a cause for concern due to thelimited radar cover existing from London in this area (less than 20NM of Brest airspacevisualised).

8.4.2 Organisation 1A total of eight exercises were completed for ORG 1: two Westbound, 1995 traffic; twoEastbound, 1995 traffic; two Westbound, 2000 traffic; two Eastbound, 2000 traffic.

Conclusions:

Shannon-Brest interface:

The extension of Brest airspace to 00845W and the allocation of RVSM for the NAT trafficwere well accepted by the controllers.

Controllers from Shannon stated that the evaluation of the different FLAS was difficult dueto absence of Shannon/London interface in the simulation. However, (and providingconflict free with NAT from London) the use of RVSM levels for the main flow wasconsidered correct.

The size of the transition area was considered suitable to achieve the transition fromRVSM levels to conventional levels.



The use, within the transition area, of RVSM for NAT traffic and conventional levels forNorth-South and South-North flows was considered an improvement on the currentsituation.

It is important to highlight that during the simulation all traffic within the transition areaflying FL290 or above was assumed to be equipped to Minimum Aircraft SystemsPerformance (MASP) Standard.

The possible use of the transition area for traffic not MASP equipped was stronglyrejected.

Sectorisation: It was not possible to describe sector boundaries adapted to the control requirementsbased on the existing route network. In sectors FU and FS the routes DIN-ARE-PETOXand PETOX-QPR-DIN are very near to the sector boundary and consequently increasedthe number of co-ordinations. During the simulation traffic would frequently follow a directroute between DIN and ETIKI thus removing sector FU/FS from the sector sequence andas a consequence it was not always clear for the controllers to determine the next sectorto transfer the aircraft and /or assume the control. Conflict resolution in routes TAKAS-ODELO-ROSKO and ETIKI-REGHI-ROSKO wasdifficult due to the proximity of ROSKO to the sector boundary in this sectorisation. Vertical sectors posed co-ordination problems between upper and lower sectors for thetransfer of aircraft and the update of the system profile. 1 - at BARLU if 2 a/c were presented at FL350 enroute to KATHY, one would need to bedescended to FL330 resulting in a change of sector and consequent need for co-ordination. 2 - traffic arriving or departing Paris presented difficulties for sector JU and JS close to theboundary resulting in an excessive workload. This sectorisation did not produce a satisfactory distribution of workload. In sectors FUand FS workload was considered too light to justify two vertical sectors.

Integration of traffic flows ASKIL-LND with LIZAD-LND and ASKIL-LND with LIZAD-GAPLIpresented the same problems as in ORG.0.

A similar situation occurred in sectors AN and OS with the flow BADEK-TAKAS. Again itwas difficult to achieve the integration of traffic flows in TAKAS.

The new working rule for Paris departures to maintain FL260 was considered extremelypenalising by the controller in charge of Paris feed sector. As a result aircraft weretransferred earlier to the Brest sectors for immediate climb. Military activity was considered in this organisation very restrictive especially in exerciseswith traffic level corresponding to year 2000. For these exercises conflict resolution inroutes CHW-DIN with NTS-DIN was only achieved by access to C6R and C8R militaryzones.



8.4.3 Organisation 2A total of twelve exercises were completed for ORG 2: three westbound, 1995 traffic;three eastbound, 1995 traffic; four Westbound, 2000 traffic; two Eastbound, 2000 traffic.

Conclusions:

Shannon-Brest interface :

The extension of Brest airspace to 00845W and the application of reduced vertical minimaseparation within the transition area was well accepted by controllers.

The evaluation of the different FLAS was difficult due to the absence of Shannon/Londoninterface in the simulation. However, controllers expressed their preference to have a widechoice of levels rather than a restrictive one.

The size of the transition area was considered suitable to achieve the transition fromRVSM levels to conventional levels.

The application of reduced vertical separation minima within the transition area and thepossibility to separate traffic flows by using different “sets” of levels (RVSM andconventional) was considered very useful.

Sectorisation:

For the same reasons as those experienced in Org 1, vertical sectors posed co-ordinationproblems between upper and lower sectors for the transfer of aircraft and the update ofthe system profile. This situation generated excessive workload in sectors JU and JS.

The workload in sectors FU and FS was considered too low to justify two vertical sectors.

Integration of traffic flows SUPAP-LND with LIZAD-LND and SUPAP-LND with LIZAD-GAPLI was difficult to achieve because management responsibility rests in two sectors atBrest, while significant portions of these routes lie in London ACC airspace.

A similar situation occurred in sectors AN and OS with the flow BADEK-TAKAS. Again itwas difficult to achieve the integration of flows in TAKAS.

The traffic routing NTS-CHOSE created a lot of conflicts with the departure flow fromParis. To solve this problem it was agreed to use odd levels on this route.

Conflicts in crossing routes BHD-DIN, ORTAC-ARE and BASIL-SEINE were difficult tomanage due to the proximity to sector boundaries.

To solve this problem a modification of the sector limits was considered involving:

1. A new boundary limit between ORTAC and the intersection of ORTAC-ARE withQU/QS limits.

2. The introduction of a new route SAM-ARE to replace the actual ORTAC-ARE.

The saturation of radar labels over BADEK made the radar visualisation very difficult. Itwas suggested to create a parallel route to the UT7 to solve this problem.



The management of NAT traffic via RATKA with destination Paris Orly was difficult toachieve. This traffic followed the route RATKA-PHILI-ODLON-BRIGO-ARE-AURAY withthe new traffic orientation for Orly (LFPO) arrivals tested in this organisation.

Controllers from London endorsed the new route SUPAP-LND.

The management of Paris departures was considered difficult due to the convergence ofthis traffic in LGL. The number of co-ordinations increased between Paris feed sector andJS sector in order to avoid LGL by using direct routes. The possibility to create a routeMANEX-CHOSE to facilitate the departing flow was suggested.

The new military zones were considered less restrictive in this organisation than the actualmilitary zones contemplated in Org.1. However controllers stated the need for thefollowing changes:

• RAFALE zone in BADEK corner. To improve conflict resolution in routes ODLON-BADEK and UT7. The airspace gained with this modification would allow theseparation of UT7 in two flows improving radar visualisation around point BADEK.

• TRA8A zone in CHOSE angle. To improve conflict resolution in routes LGL-CHOSEand NTS-CHOSE.

• TRA6 zone in ARE corner. To facilitate conflict resolution for traffic converging in ARE.

General conclusions:

Controllers expressed their preference for Org2 over Org1. Sector boundaries, routenetwork and military zones in Org.2 were considered more suitable for managing forecasttraffic in Brest ACC.

The extension to 00845W of Brest airspace did not have any particular effects on thesectors involved.

Controllers endorsed the implementation, within the transition area, of reduced verticalseparation minima above FL290 only in the situation where 1000’ can be applied to allaircraft within the area.

Transition area limits were considered correct.

Alternative Flight Level Allocation Systems were tried but further discussions betweenIrish and French authorities are necessary to determine appropriate Letters of Agreement.

Vertical sectors increased the number of co-ordinations between upper and lower sectorsfor the transfer of aircraft and posed problems in managing the system profile.

Poor management of the sector planned flight level (PFL) occasionally resulted in theremoval of the upper sector from the aircraft’s sector sequence. This was probably relatedto lack of familiarisation with the effect of PFL input on system co-ordination; however, ithighlights the need for unambiguous procedures for managing data input and transfer co-ordination.

During the simulation new working rules were established by the controllers improving themanagement of traffic considerably.



Controllers agreed to:

♦ To regulate Paris TMA arrivals in the Brest sectors first managing the traffic.

♦ To anticipate the descent for Paris TMA destinations, to reduce workload in the sectorsinterfacing with Paris. For NAT arrivals to Paris, the transition to conventional levels inthe transition area implied a first level of descend.

♦ To limit Paris arrivals from BHD sector to a maximum FL330.

♦ To limit Paris departures to BHD to a maximum FL290.

For both organisations (Org1 and Org2) co-ordination between planner controllers insectors JU and JS and also in sectors OS and AN was difficult to achieve. Controllerssuggested that this situation would improve by positioning both planners next to eachother in the control room.

The vertical division of airspace at FL345 was approved for sectors QU/QS but generateda lot of discussion for sectors JU/JS. The possibility to delegate FL330 to JU to facilitatethe management of traffic destination London was considered.

The managing of traffic converging in adjacent FIRs, (LND and TAKAS), was difficult toachieve in all the organisations tested.

From the first exercises controllers stated that the speed vector should be changed inBrest ACC to 3’ instead of the current display of 6’.

In Org.1 and Org.2 sector FUFS, which was configured as a “grouped” FU and FS, wasnot viable due to heavy workload especially in an eastbound configuration. During thesimulation civil-military relations benefited from:

• Same radar display.

• Shared control room.

• Visualisation of military traffic in civil sectors if requested.

• Better understanding through common debriefings

8.5 Recommendations for the North-West SessionIt is recommended to determine the attribution of either even or odd levels for all routes.

In the event that sector configurations with a vertical division are introduced it isrecommended that local operational rules and inter-sector letters of agreement beestablish to regulate the transfer of traffic between such sectors.

Such agreements should define:a) safe transfer levels between sectors;

b) co-ordination procedures for changes to transfer levels;

c) data input rules governing the modification of flight profile and sector sequence.It is recommended to evaluate local operational rules and inter-Centre letters ofagreement to permit the safe management of traffic converging in LND and TAKAS.



It is recommended that a further evaluation be made to identify a suitable vertical divisionbetween sectors JU and JS.It is recommended to modify the speed vector display to three minutes.

It is recommended to implement the civil/military interface recreated during the simulation.• same radar picture

• civil aircraft flight data available at all Military positions.

It is recommended to allow flexibility in the control room definition to suit the differentconfigurations.



9. SOUTH-EAST SESSIONThe south-east scenario ran as planned from the 1st of April until the 12th of April 1996

9.1 Specific ObjectivesTo compare the two new sectorisations with 1995 traffic and the expected traffic for the year2000 (1995+18%). They were evaluated with and without military activity to compare theimpact of military operations in both of them.

To evaluate the interface between PARIS and BREST with the 1995 sectorisation and withthe two new proposed.

To evaluate the interface between SHANWICK and BREST with the introduction of RVSMfor the North Atlantic traffic and the implementation of the transition area in Brest that willextend to 00845W.

Shanwick-Brest interface was tested with the 1995 sectorisation and with the two newproposed and traffic 1995.

Changes:

From Monday 8th April, Org. 2 was modified reducing its number of measured sectorsfrom 8 to 7. Sector AG was included in sectors NU and NS maintaining the same verticaldivision. The new sectors created as a result of this addition were still named NU and NS.

The last day of the simulation, Org. 2 was played without the modifications shown above.

Also from Monday 8th the 21” planner position screen of sector NU was replaced by aSONY. This applied for NU sector in both Org. 1 and Org. 2.

It is important to highlight that all participants considered the 21” screens unsuitable todisplay radar data.

Problems included:1. Small screens.

2. Response time extremely slow.

9.2 Traffic Samples :The table below shows the different traffic samples created for each organisation duringthe preparation phase:

ORG. Traffic Sample Route Network Measured SectorsOrg. 0 TSRA Actual Routes AS, G, NU, NSOrg. 1 TSR1A

TSR1BTS21ATS21B

Actual Routes AN, AW, F, NU, NS, A, G

Org. 2 TSR2ATSR2BTS22ATS22B

New Routes AN, AW, AUGU, ASGS,F, NU, NS, AG



Two training samples, TTNA1 and TTNA2, were created in addition to the above table.

During the simulation and due to the redefinition of Brest and Paris interface in two mainaxes of traffic, traffic samples TS23A and TS23B were created. Further modificationswere implemented Thursday 11th, increasing the number of aircraft in TS23B andreducing the number of aircraft in TS23A. However the new traffic samples resulted fromthis modification were still coded TS23A and TS23B.

A total of 27 exercises were executed during the simulation, three of them for trainingpurposes.

A total of 23 exercises were successfully measured.

9.3 Conclusions for the South-East Session

9.3.1 Organisation 0Four exercises were completed for Org.0, two of them weekend traffic and two week daytraffic.

Traffic level corresponding to 1995.

Conclusions:

The new boundary limits extended to 00845W and the use of reduced vertical separationminima for NAT traffic in the transition area were well accepted by the controllers.

The Interface NU/NS was difficult especially in weekend exercises (sample A). The use ofdirect routes in these exercises made for an untidy traffic situation and increased the co-ordination between sectors. As a result, planning controllers were not always able to effectexit co-ordination and assist the radar controller.

The traffic in UT7 route (KORUL-LND) was considered unrealistic. Controllers’ commentsindicated that the traffic level recreated in UT7 during the simulation put together with NATtraffic would be very difficult to manage in a real environment.

Traffic samples were not considered representative for routes LOTEE-NTS and PATEL-NTS, main axes in the interface with Madrid. Traffic levels in these routes wereconsidered very low.

Difficulties were encountered in the managing NAT arrivals to Paris from 47N because ofthe excessive workload experience on NU and NS sectors. Participants suggested a neworientation of these arrivals towards the North sectors (NW scenario).

During debriefings a proposal to create a new axe, North of NTS, for LFPG arrivals wasconsidered.

9.3.2 Organisation 1A total of 6 exercises were completed for Org.1: two week-day, 1995 traffic; two week-end, 1995 traffic; one week-day 2000 traffic; one week-end 2000 traffic.



Conclusions:

Shanwick/Brest interface:The extension of Brest airspace to 00845W and the application of reduced verticalseparation minima were well accepted by the controllers.

However the controller from Shanwick stated that the simulation environment wasunrealistic. The early transmission of oceanic clearances, the absence of latitude changesand the acceptance of cruising levels, (for NAT departing from Paris, higher than FL360)created an idealised interface which would never be found in the real world.

Sectorisation:

Controllers considered that sector definition was not fully adequate for the route network.The proximity to the sector boundary of DIN-ARE-PETOX and PETOX-QPR-DINARroutes increased the number of co-ordinations. For the same reason experience on Org 1,it was not clear to the controllers how to determine the next sector to transfer the aircraftand/or assume the control.

The traffic proceeding NTS-SIVIR routing via POMTA-KABIG was difficult to managebecause of the proximity of the crossing point to the boundaries in the SE corner of sectorF. This problem affecting sectors A and F created an uncertain situation when determiningsector responsibility.

Traffic via PATEL-KABIG-POMTA-ARE posed difficulties with traffic via NTS-ARE. Theconflict occurs on the sector boundary and was difficult to detect.

The allocation of even and odd levels to NAT departures proceeding via NTS increasedthe number of conflicts in F sector. To solve this problem, controllers agreed that it wasnecessary to determine the parity to be used. The proposal to allocate odd levels to trafficvia CHW-NTS was approved.

The management of southbound traffic in UT7 created control difficulties with traffic viaQPR-KORUL (convergence KORUL).

Traffic orientation for traffic from Madrid to England via UT7 was considered unrealistic.Controllers stated that the main axe for this flow is BELEN-NTS.

A new route direct to STG via 008W was commended by participants and would meritfurther study.This study should be undertaken in conjunction with Madrid to assure continuity fromBrest transition area to Madrid transition area.

The number of safety infringements detected confirms that controllers had difficultymanaging traffic when military zones were active.

Paris-Brest interface:

The management of departures and arrival flows into Paris, especially in exercises withtraffic level 2000, posed co-ordination problems between NU and NS.

To reduce co-ordinations between NU and NS it was agreed to descend Paris arrivalsearlier (FL310 before NTS) and to maintain transfer level for Paris departures until ANG.



These new rules reduced workload and provided greater scope for sequencing the arrivaltraffic flow.

NTS was confirmed as an extremely conflicting point. When the density of traffic was“reasonable” direct routes for Paris departures were co-ordinated to avoid conflicts overNTS.

9.3.3 Organisation 2A total of 14 exercises were completed for Org.2:

• 3 weekday exercises, 1995 traffic.

• 3 weekend exercises, 1995 traffic.

• 1 weekday exercise, 2000 traffic.

• 3 weekend exercises, 2000 traffic, AG sector included in sectors NU and NS 2 week-day exercises, 2000 traffic, AG sector included in sectors NU and NS and new trafficorientation for the interface Brest/Paris.

• 2 weekend exercises, 2000 traffic and new traffic orientation for the interfaceBrest/Paris.

Conclusions:

Shanwick-Brest interface:

The extension of Brest airspace to 00845W and the application of reduced verticalseparation minima within the transition area was approved by the controllers.

The same conclusions were drawn as for Org. 1. The simulation environment was notrealistic.

Sectorisation:

Sectors NU, NS and AG created traffic management difficulties.Problems included:

♦ Smaller sectors.

♦ Crossing points nearer to the sector limits.

♦ Lack of clear working rules.

♦ Difficulty in facilitating climbs for Paris departures due to overflying traffic oppositedirection in the same axe.

♦ Three sectors involved in conflict resolution.

The number of co-ordinations between sectors was considered unmanageable by plannercontrollers in sectors NU, NS and AG. This situation was particularly difficult in weekendexercises (untidy configuration of traffic due to direct routes).

Weekend traffic generated a very high workload in sector AG due to overflying flow fromBalearic islands to England (route CGC-BARLU). To reduce sector workload it wassuggested to move this traffic flow to the East (UA34).



Weekday exercises were not considered representative and therefore unsuitable toevaluate sectors NU, NS and AG. Paris flows and traffic via DIN-ETILA were consideredtoo low.

Conflict resolution in NTS appeared to be “even” worse due to the proximity of this point tothe sector boundary.

The management of traffic from Brest airports (LFRQ, LFRB, LFRH) was difficult toachieve due to:

• the number of conflicts generated when crossing with the departing flow from Paris.

• conflicts with traffic proceeding CGC-LMG.

To solve the problem controllers agreed to apply a maximum cruising level of FL 280 to alltraffic from Brest airports destination Paris. This measure facilitated the integration of thistraffic on the Paris arrival flow.

Difficulty was encountered in managing traffic flows LMG-MINEL-NTS-CHOSE-BARLUwith AURAY-GUEME-CHATO-ANG due to the use of even levels in both routes.

Controllers stated that AG limits should be modified to exclude the route LMG-NTS fromthe sector.

Traffic integration in KORUS was difficult to achieve and increased workload in verticalsectors AUGU and ASGS. To reduce co-ordinations for conflict resolution in KORUS,controllers suggested to transfer the responsibility to the geographical sector AW.

During exercises with traffic level year 2000, controllers’ comments showed that a newroute BADEK-STG via 008W should merit further study.

Traffic management for NAT arrivals to LFPO via TAKAS was difficult to achieve becauseseveral flows of traffic require integration at NTS causing late descents.

For reasons similar to those experienced for LFPO arrivals, participants encountereddifficulty in managing NAT arrivals to LFPG from 47N and suggested a new orientation ofthese arrivals towards the North sectors (NW scenario).

The new crossing point ETILA was considered to be too close to NTS. Controllers wouldlike to place ETILA further south to avoid conflicts with NTS.

Evaluation of new sectors AUGU and ASGS was considered difficult due to the lack ofconflicts in crossing routes BHD-PATEL and NTS-ATLEN.

Civil controllers agreed that the new military zones tested should be modified as follows:

♦ RAFALE zone in BADEK corner. To improve conflict resolution in routes ODLON-BADEK and UT7. The airspace gained with this modification would allow theseparation of UT7 in two flows improving radar visualisation around point BADEK.

♦ TRA8A zone in CHOSE angle. To improve conflict resolution in routes LGL-CHOSEand NTS-CHOSE.

♦ TRA6 zone in ARE angle. To facilitate conflict resolution for traffic converging in ARE.



General Conclusions:

The extension to 00845W of Brest airspace did not have any significant effects on thesectors involved.

Controllers endorsed the implementation, within the transition area, of reduced verticalseparation minima above FL290 only in the situation where 1000’ separation can beapplied to all aircraft within the area.

Transition area limits were considered correct.

Pending discussions on Letters of Agreement no conclusions can be drawn concerningBrest/Shanwick interface.

The managing of traffic converging in adjacent FIRs from sectors ANAW, AUGU andASGS (KORUL in Org.1 and KORUS in Org.2) was difficult to achieve.

Sectorisation 2 was initially rejected by controllers due to traffic management difficulties inNU, NS and AG sectors. Controllers’ comments indicate that in these sectors the planningcontrol position experienced the highest levels of workload. Controllers were not alwaysable to successfully accomplish the planning task and were frustrated in their efforts toprovide assistance to the radar controller whilst assuring sector exit conditions.

The new traffic orientation tested in the interface Brest/Paris and the introduction of newworking rules for traffic regulation suggested that with some modifications AG sectorwould be feasible.

Poor management of the sector planned flight level (PFL) occasionally resulted in theremoval of the upper sector from the aircraft’s sector sequence. This was probably relatedto lack of familiarisation with the effect of PFL input on system co-ordination; however, ithighlights the need for unambiguous procedures for managing data input and transfer co-ordination.

During the simulation the civil-military relations benefited from:

• Same radar display.

• Shared control room.

• Visualisation of military traffic in civil sectors if requested.

• Better understanding through common debriefings.



9.4 Recommendations for the South-East Session

It is recommended to determine an attribution of odd or even levels for all routes.

In the event that sector configurations with a vertical division are introduced it isrecommended that local operational rules and inter-sector letters of agreement beestablished to regulate the transfer of traffic between such sectors.

Such agreements should define:

a) safe transfer levels between sectors;

b) co-ordination procedures for changes to transfer levels;

c) data input rules governing the modification of flight profile and sector sequence.

It is recommended to evaluate local operational rules to permit the safe management oftraffic converging in KORUL.

A further evaluation of sectors NU, NS and AG with the new traffic orientation proposedand tested during the simulation is recommended.

It is recommended that an evaluation of the Eastern Brest FIR/UIR be undertaken in orderto identify a sectorisation suitably adapted to the linear nature of the route structure.

It is recommended to apply the civil/military interface recreated during the simulation.

It is recommended to allow flexibility in the control room definition to suit the differentconfigurations.

Simulation en temps réel BrestCENTRE EXPÉRIMENTAL EUROCONTROL

Tâche CEE S07 - Rapport CEE No. 327 19

RESUME FRANCAISETraduction en langue française du résumé,

de l’introduction, des objectifs, des conclusions et recommandations.


Tâche CEE S07 - Rapport CEE No. 32720

Intentionnellement Blanc



INTRODUCTION

Trois raisons ont justifié la réalisation de la simulation en temps réel AR44:

§ La mise en place d’une RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima) au dessus duFL290 pour la région de l’Atlantique Nord (NAT),

§ La nécessité de redécouper l’espace de Brest pour répondre à l’augmentation detrafic.

§ Le transfert de responsabilité de Paris vers Brest pour une partie de la zone.

La RVSM a fait l’objet de plusieurs simulations, notamment au Centre ExpérimentalEurocontrol (CEE). La zone de transition de Brest a pu être testée à Brétigny en 1994 lorsde la simulation en temps réel NATS/RVSM AR37.

Les deux nouvelles sectorisations simulées pour AR44 étaient le résultat de la simulationTAAM (Total Airspace and Airport Modeller) effectuée par l’administration française.

La première sectorisation conservait le réseau de routes actuel tandis que la secondemodifiait ce réseau et restructurait l’espace militaire. Ces deux sectorisations visaient àaugmenter la capacité du CRNA Ouest en équilibrant au mieux la charge de travail dechaque secteur pour faciliter l’écoulement du trafic.

Tous les appareils civils au dessus du FL280 étaient censés être équipés MASPS(Minimum Aircraft Systems Performance Specification).

DEFINITION DES TERMES RVSM

Conventional Vertical Separation Minima (CVSM)CVSM est le standard actuel en matière de séparation: 2000 ft au dessus du FL290.

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM)RVSM est un concept cautionné par l’OACI (Organisation de l’Aviation CivileInternationale) qui vise à réduire la séparation verticale standard à 1000 ft entre FL290 etFL410.

MASPS et Non-MASPSMASPS (Minimum Aircraft System Performance Specification): il s’agit des spécificationsminimales requises pour qu’un appareil soit autorisé à voler en condition RVSM.L’équipement nécessaire à une certification MASPS comprend au minimum deuxsystèmes autonomes de mesure d’altitude. D’une part, un transpondeur SSR (SecondarySurveillance Radar) indiquant l’altitude de l’appareil (Mode C) et d’autre part un systèmed’alerte et de contrôle automatique d’altitude.

Non-MASPS est le terme utilisé pour les avions qui ne répondent pas aux critèresMASPS.

OBJECTIFSObjectifs GenerauxMieux répartir la charge de travail des contrôleurs et augmenter la capacité des secteursau moyen de:

(a) La comparaison des deux schémas proposés à la suite de la simulation TAAMconcernant le réseau de route et sectorisation du CRNA Ouest.



(b) L’évaluation de la zone de transition de Brest dans le contexte de la mise en place dela RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima) pour le trafic de la région del’Atlantique Nord (NAT) dès 1997.

Objectifs Specifiques (Session Nord-Ouest)Comparer les deux sectorisations proposées avec le trafic actuel (1995) et celui prévupour l’an 2000 (1995+19%). Faire une évaluation avec et sans activation des zonesmilitaires pour comparer l’impact des opérations militaires sur chacune des sectorisations.

Evaluer l’interface entre Shannon et Brest par rapport au nouveau schéma d’orientationdes niveaux de vol (FLOS) dans la région NAT.

Evaluer la zone de transition qui s’étendra jusqu’au 008.45W et qui comprendra l’espacedélégué à Brest et Shannon par Londres.

Comparer la charge de travail des contrôleurs pour la sectorisation actuelle et pour lesdeux nouvelles.

Objectifs Specifiques (Session Sud-Est)

Comparer les deux nouvelles sectorisations sur la base du trafic 1995 et sur celle dutrafic prévu pour l’an 2000 (1995+18%). Faire une évaluation avec et sans activation deszones militaires pour comparer l’impact des opérations militaires sur chacune de cessectorisations.

Evaluer l’interface entre PARIS et BREST avec la sectorisation de 1995 et par rapport auxdeux nouvelles sectorisations.

Evaluer l’interface entre SHANWICK et BREST avec la nouvelle zone de transition deBrest (jusqu’au 008.45W) dans le cadre de la mise en place de la RVSM dans la régionNAT.

Evaluer l’interface entre SHANWICK et BREST avec la sectorisation de 1995 et parrapport aux deux nouvelles sectorisations.

Deroulement de la simulationLa simulation AR44 s’est déroulée sur une période de 4 semaines du 18 Mars au 12 Avril1996.

Cette simulation était divisée en deux sessions:

Session Nord-Ouest du 8 au 29 Mars 1996Session Sud-Est du 1er au 12 Avril 1996

Les 54 exercices prévus ont bien eu lieu, y compris les exercices basés sur les deuxnouvelles organisations définies par les participants.

Une séance de debriefing a eu lieu après chaque exercice et des questionnaires ont étéremplis pour les nouvelles organisations (ORG.1 and ORG.2). Un questionnaire général aégalement été rempli après la session Nord-Ouest et la session Sud-Est.

L’Environnement opeartionnel de la simulationL’environnement de travail du C.C.R. de Brest a été reproduit à l’identique dans la sallede simulation du Centre Expérimental à Brétigny.



Selon l’organisation et la session, quatre à huit secteurs étaient simulés pour Brest.

Chaque secteur était armé par un contrôleur radar et un contrôleur organique. Chaqueposition de contrôle (CWP: Controller Working Position) comprenait:

♦ un grand écran radar couleur SONY et une souris - contrôleur radar.♦ un écran radar couleur de 21” et une souris - contrôleur organique.♦ deux écrans tactiles couleur pour les systèmes de télécommunication - chaque

contrôleur.♦ un digitatron couleur (Touch Input Device TID) - contrôleur organique.♦ une imprimante pour les strips - contrôleur organique.♦ une table pour les strips - chaque contrôleur.♦ une carte.

Organisations SimuleesL’espace simulé pour AR44 comprenait tous les secteurs de la FIR/UIR de Brest hormis lesecteur KU, ainsi que l’espace adjacent compris entre 42°00’N et 51°30’N - 012°W et003°E.

Pendant la phase de préparation de la simulation, 6 organisations différentes ont étédéfinies: 3 pour le scénario Nord-Ouest et 3 pour le scénario Sud-Est. Au cours de lasimulation, 2 organisations supplémentaires ont été définies: une pour chacun desscénarios.

Session Nord-OuestCe scénario comprenait la partie Nord-Ouest de l’espace aérien de Brest, un secteurmilitaire et 6 secteurs adjacents.

Trois organisations ont été définies:

ORG. 0 - Sectorisation et réseau de routes de 1995.ORG. 1 - Nouveaux secteurs 1 et réseau de routes de 1995.ORG. 2 - Nouveaux secteurs 2 et nouveau réseau de routes.

Session Sud-EstCe scénario comprenait la partie Sud-Est de l’espace aérien de Brest, un secteur militaireet 5 secteurs adjacents.

Trois organisations ont été définies:

ORG. 0 - Sectorisation et réseau de routes de 1995.ORG. 1 - Nouveaux secteurs 1 et réseau de routes de 1995.ORG. 2 - Nouveaux secteurs 2 et nouveau réseau de routes.

Echantillons de trafic

Elaboration des échantillons de traficLe CRNA a fourni les 4 échantillons de trafic de référence pour 1995 à partir desquels leséchantillons d’entraînement et prévisionnels ont été fabriqués.



La nécessité d’avoir des secteurs « chargés » a donné lieu à une augmentation de tousles échantillons de trafic de 1995 pendant la phase de préparation.

Directorate & EATCHIP Development (DED4) a fourni les prévisions de trafic pour l’an2000. Les échantillons de trafic 2000 présentaient une augmentation de trafic de 19%pour le scénario Nord-Ouest et de 18% pour le scénario Sud-Est.

Les échantillons de trafic 2000 ont été légèrement augmentés pendant la phase depréparation.

Procedures OperationnellesProcédures ATCLes procédures ATC utilisées au cours de la simulation répondaient aux Lettres d’Accordactuelles et/ou instructions opérationnelles particulières.

Procédures ATC RVSMTous les avions civils évoluant au dessus du FL280 étaient censés être au standardMASPS (Minimum Aircraft Systems Performance Specification).

Les avions MASPS qui évoluaient dans la région RVSM recevaient soit une séparationverticale réduite de 1000 ft, soit une séparation radar latérale.

CONCLUSIONSNote : Se reporter au rapport principal pour l’ensemble des résultats et l’analyse détaillée.

La première partie présente les conclusions d’ensemble du scénario Nord-Ouest ainsi queles recommandations qui en découlent. La deuxième partie présente les conclusions etrecommandations concernant le scénario Sud-Est. La dernière partie présente lesconclusions générales relatives aux deux scénarios et les recommandations éventuelles.

Conclusions de la Session Nord-Ouest

Les contrôleurs ont manifesté leur préférence pour l’organisation 2 par rapport àl’organisation 1. Les secteurs, le réseau de routes et les zones militaires de l’organisation2 ont semblé plus adaptés à la gestion du trafic prévu pour le CCR de Brest.

Deux Systèmes d’Allocation des Niveaux de vol ont été testés mais des discussions entreles autorités irlandaises et françaises seront nécessaires pour établir les Lettres d’Accord.

Au cours de la simulation, de nouvelles méthodes de travail ont été définies pouraméliorer la gestion du trafic:

Réguler les arrivées de la TMA Paris à partir du secteur de Brest.Anticiper les descentes pour les arrivées de Paris afin de réduire la charge de travail dessecteurs adjacents.Pour les arrivées NAT sur Paris, la transition vers les niveaux classiques passait par unniveau intermédiaire.Transférer les arrivées de Paris en provenance du secteur BHD au maximum au FL330.Transférer les départs de Paris à BHD au maximum au FL290.

Pour les deux organisations, la coordination entre contrôleurs organiques était difficiledans les secteurs JU / JS et OS / AN. Les contrôleurs ont signalé que la situation pouvaitêtre améliorée en positionnant les deux contrôleurs organiques l’un à côté de l’autre dansla salle.



La division en couches de l’espace au FL 345 a été acceptée pour les secteurs QU/QSmais elle a entraîné beaucoup de discussions pour les secteurs JU/JS sans qu’unedécision puisse être prise. Il a été envisagé de donner la responsabilité du FL330 à JUpour facilité la gestion du trafic à destination de Londres.

Dans toutes les organisations, la gestion du trafic convergent dans les FIR adjacentes(LND et TAKAS) a posé des problèmes.

Les contrôleurs ont déclaré qu’il serait souhaitable de modifier le vecteur vitesse del’avion en le passant à 3 minutes au lieu de 6 actuellement.

Dans les organisations 1 et 2, le secteur FUFS (qui regroupait les secteurs FU et FS)n’était pas viable en raison de l’importance de la charge de travail, en particulier pour uneconfiguration vers l’Est.

Recommandations de la Session Nord-Ouest

Faire une évaluation des règles d’exploitation locales et des Lettres d’Accords pourpermettre une bonne gestion en toute sécurité du trafic convergent sur LND et TAKAS.

Faire une nouvelle étude pour identifier la meilleure limite verticale des secteurs JU et JS.

Configurer la salle de contrôle afin que les positions des contrôleurs organiques JU et JSsoit l’une à côté de l’autre.

Remplacer le vecteur vitesse actuel de l’avion (6 minutes) par un vecteur de 3 minutes.

Conclusions de la Session Sud-Est

Dans les FIRs adjacentes, il était difficile de gérer le trafic convergent en provenance dessecteurs ANAW, AUGU et ASGS (KORUL dans ORG.1 et KORUS dans ORG.2).

La sectorisation 2 a été rejetée au début par les contrôleurs en raison des problèmes degestion qu’elle entraînait pour les secteurs NU, NS et AG. Les commentaires indiquentque pour ces secteurs, les contrôleurs organiques avaient une charge de travailextrêmement importante. Ceux-ci n’ont pas toujours été capables de mener à bien leurtâche de planification Ils ne pouvaient pas aider le contrôleur radar et assurer en mêmetemps les conditions de sortie des secteurs.

La nouvelle orientation de trafic testée dans l’interface Brest/Paris et la mise en place denouvelles méthodes de travail pour réguler le trafic indiquaient qu’avec quelquesmodifications, le secteur AG pourrait être exploitable.

Recommandations de la Session Sud-Est

Faire une évaluation des règles d’exploitation locales pour permettre une bonne gestionen toute sécurité du trafic convergent sur KORUL.

Faire une nouvelle étude des secteurs NU, NS et AG avec la nouvelle orientation de traficproposée et testée au cours de la simulation.

Faire une évaluation de la partie Est de la FIR/UIR de Brest pour identifier la meilleuresectorisation en fonction de la structure linéaire des routes.



Conclusions Generales

L’élargissement de la FIR de Brest jusqu’au 008°45’W n’a pas eu de conséquenceflagrante sur les secteurs affectés.

Les contrôleurs ont donné leur accord pour la mise en place, dans la zone de transition,de RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima) au dessus de FL290, mais seulementdans le cas où une séparation de 1000 ft peut être appliquée pour tous les appareilsprésents dans la zone.

Les limites de la zone de transition RVSM ont été jugées correctes.

Les secteurs en couche provoquaient une augmentation de la coordination entre secteurssupérieurs et inférieurs au moment des transferts et posaient des problèmesinformatiques de gestion des profils de vol.

Les discussions concernant les Lettres d’Accord étant toujours en cours, aucuneconclusion ne peut être tirée en ce qui concerne l’interface Brest/Shanwick.

La mauvaise gestion des PFL (Planned Flight Level) dans certains secteurs a parfoisentraînée la disparition du secteur supérieur du profil de vol de l’avion. Cela étaitprobablement dû au manque de connaissance des effets de la saisie du PFL sur lacoordination du système. Néanmoins, cela met en évidence la nécessité d’avoir desprocédures claires en matière de saisie des données et de coordination lors destransferts.

Au cours de la simulation, les relations civils - militaires ont bénéficié de:

L’affichage radar identique.Le partage de la même salle de contrôle.La possibilité de visualiser le trafic militaire dans les secteurs civils si besoin était.Une meilleure compréhension des besoins de chacun grâce aux séances de debriefing encommun.

Recommandations Generales

Déterminer l’allocation des niveaux pairs ou impairs pour toutes les routes.

Au cas où un découpage en couches d’un secteur soit envisagé, il serait souhaitable dedéfinir des règles locales d’exploitation et des conventions de transfert entre ces secteurs.

Ces procédures devraient définir:

a) Les niveaux de transfert entre les secteurs présentant une sécurité optimale;b) Les procédures de coordination en ce qui concerne les montées ou descentes

vers le niveau de transfert;c) Les règles de saisie des données en ce qui concerne la modification du profil

de vol et la succession des secteurs.

La mise en place d’une nouvelle interface civils - militaires qui assurerait:

• la même image radar pour les écrans civils et militaires.• la possibilité pour toutes les positions militaires, d’avoir accès aux données de vols de

tous les appareils civils.



ANNEX A

DESCRIPTIONS OF ORGANISATIONS



NW SCENARIOThree organisations were created during the preparation phase:

♦ ORG 0, ORG 1 and ORG 2.

Feed sectors:

Six feed sectors were created for the three organisations: Paris, Hurn, Berry Head(BHEAD), Shannon (SHANN), Brest southwest (BRESW), Brest southeast (BRESE).

Vertical limits: PARIS - GND/ILLHURN - GND/ILLBHEAD - GND/ILLSHANN - GND/ILLBRESW - GND/ILL+ all measured sectors GND/FL195BRESE - GND/ILL

Military sector:One military sector was created for the three organisations:

MENHIR - GND/ILL all measured sectors + PARIS and BRESE feed sectors.

Organisation 0:

Actual sectorisation (except KU sector, not included in the simulation) and route networkof the northwest portion of Brest ACC. West boundary extended to 00845W.

Measured sectors: OS, QU, QS JS, MS.

Vertical limits: OS - FL195/illQU- FL345/illQS - FL195/345JS - FL195/illMS - FL195/ill

Transition area defined within sector OS.

It was agreed that the separation for traffic proceeding ASKIL-LND and LIZAD-LND orASKIL-LND with LIZAD-GAPLI would be provided by sectors QU or QS. Paris/Brest interface: sectors JS and MS

• Arrivals LFPG, LFPO, LFPB - FL310 via LOTKA or CAN FL290 via RANES or FERTE.

• Departures LFPG, LFPO, LFPB - FL280 via CAN or RANES.

Military zones C8R, C6R and C5 were simulated as being active during westboundexercises.

RVSM levels were applied in the interface with Shannon. These levels (FL320, FL340,FL360 etc.) were allocated to the predominant flow either Westbound (NAT departures) orEastbound (NAT arrivals). ETIKI point was included, for simulation purposes, within SHANNON feed sector. RVSMor conventional levels were allocated to traffic proceeding via ETIKI following the currentprocedures in Brest ACC.



The controllers requested a different allocation system for traffic entering via RATKA,TULTA and TAKAS for the last eastbound exercise executed. This time conventionallevels were applied to entry traffic (main flow).

Organisation 0 provided a base line for comparison with other organisations.

Organisation 1:

Simulated airspace corresponding to the NW portion of Brest ACC with the exception ofKU sector.

West boundary extended to 00845W. Measured sectors: OS, QU, QS, JU, JS, FU, FS, AN. Vertical limits: OS - FL195/ill

QU - FL345/illQS - FL195/345JU - FL345/illJS - FL195/345FU - FL345/illFS - FL195/345AN - FL195/ill

Sectorisation 1 was one of the two proposals resulted of the TAAM (Total Airspace andAirport Modeller) carried out by CRNA Ouest.

Actual route network. Transition area defined within sectors OS and AN. It was agreed that the separation for traffic proceeding ASKIL-LND and LIZAD-LND orASKIL-LND and LIZAD-GAPLI would be provided by sectors QU or QS.

Responsibility for traffic converging in TAKAS was agreed for OS sector. Paris/Brest interface: sectors JU and JS.

• Arrivals LFPG, LFPO, LFPB - FL280 via LOTKA or CANFL290 via RANES or FERTE.

• Departures LFPG, LFPO, LFPB - FL260 via CAN or RANES.

Military zones C8R, C6R and C5 were simulated as being active during westboundexercises.

RVSM levels were applied in the interface with Shannon. The RVSM levels (FL320,FL340, FL360 etc.) were allocated to the predominant flow either Westbound (NATdepartures) or Eastbound (NAT arrivals).

ETIKI point was included, for simulation purposes, within SHANNON feed sector. RVSMor conventional levels were allocated to traffic proceeding via ETIKI following the currentprocedures in Brest ACC.



During the simulation the controllers requested a different allocation system for trafficproceeding via RATKA, TULTA and TAKAS. Therefore it was tested for the mentionedtraffic the allocation of RVSM levels plus three conventional levels, FL330, FL350 andFL370.

Organisation 2:

Airspace simulated corresponding to the northwest portion of Brest ACC with exception ofKU sector.

West boundary extended to 00845W.

Measured sectors: OS, QU, QS, JU, JS, FU, FS, AN.

Vertical limits: OS - FL195/ill

QU - FL345/ill

QS - FL195/345

JU - FL345/ill

JS - FL195/345

FU - FL345/ill

FS - FL195/345

AN - FL195/ill

Sectorisation 2 was the second proposal resulted of the TAAM (Total Airspace and AirportModeller) carried out by CRNA Ouest.

New route network result of the TAAM simulation.

Transition area defined within sectors OS and AN. It was agreed that the separation for traffic proceeding ASKIL-LND with LIZAD-LND orASKIL-LND with LIZAD-GAPLI would be provided by sectors QU or QS.Responsibility for traffic converging in TAKAS was agreed for OS sector.

Paris/Brest interface: sectors JU and JS.

• Arrivals LFPG - FL280 via SEINE

• Departures LFPG, LFPO, LFPB - FL280 via CAN or LGL

In this organisation a new orientation for traffic destination LFPO was tested. As a result ofthis new procedure all Orly (LFPO) arrivals proceed via LEMAN (south sector of BrestACC). This south portion of Brest ACC was tested during the second part of the simulation(SE scenario). New military zones TRA8A, TRA6 and RAFALE were simulated as being active duringWestbound exercises.



RVSM levels were applied in the interface with Shannon. The RVSM levels (FL320,FL340, FL360 etc.) were allocated to the predominant flow either Westbound (NATdepartures) or Eastbound (NAT arrivals).

ETIKI point was included, for simulation purposes, within SHANNON feed sector. RVSMor conventional levels were allocated to traffic proceeding via ETIKI following the currentprocedures in Brest ACC.

During the simulation the controllers requested the following FLAS to be tested:

• TULTA, RATKA and TAKAS: RVSM levels plus conventional levels FL330, FL350 andFL370.

• TULTA, RATKA and TAKAS: RVSM levels 340 and 360 plus conventional levels FL330,FL350 and FL370.

• TULTA, RATKA and TAKAS: RVSM levels 340 and 360 plus conventional levels FL310,FL330 and FL350.



SOUTH-EAST SCENARIO:

Three organisations were created during the preparation phase:

ORG 0, ORG 1 and ORG 2.

Feed sectors:

Five feed sectors were created for the three organisations: Paris, Brest-West (BREW),Shanwick (SHWK), Madrid and Bordeaux (BORDX).

Vertical limits: PARIS- GND/ILLBREW- GND/ILL+ all measured sectors GND/FL195SHWK- GND/ILLMADRID- GND/ILLBORDX- GND/ILL

Military sector

One military sector was created for the three organisations:

• MENHIR - GND/ILL all measured sectors + PARIS, BREW and BORDX feed sectors

Organisation 0

Actual sectorisation and route network of the southeast portion of Brest ACC.


Measured sectors: AS, G, NU, NS.

Vertical limits: AS - FL195/illG - FL195/illNU - FL345/illNS - FL195/345

Transition area within AS sector. East limit 5NM west parallel to axe BHD-KORUL.RVSM and conventional levels were allocated to NAT traffic (interface Shanwick/Brest).

Oceanic clearances (OCL) were transmitted by telephone line.

Paris/Brest interface: NU and NS sectors.

• Arrivals LFPG, LFPB - FL310 via BULOM

• Arrivals LFPO - FL310 via SABLE

• Departures LFPG, LFPB, LFPO - FL290 via BULOM

Military zones C8R, C9, C6R and C5 were simulated as being active during weekdayexercises (B).

Organisation 0 provided a base line for comparison with other organisations.



Organisation 1:

Airspace simulated corresponding to the SE portion of Brest ACC.


Measured sectors: AN, AW, F, NU, NS, A, G.

Vertical limits: AN - FL195/illAW - FL195/illF - FL195/illNU - FL345/illNS - FL195/345A - FL195/illG - FL195/ill

Transition area within AN and AW sectors. East limit: 5NM west parallel to axe BHD-KORUL.

RVSM and conventional levels were allocated to NAT traffic (interface Shanwick/Brest).Oceanic Clearances (OCL) were transmitted by telephone line.

Sectorisation 1 was one of the two proposals resulted of the TAAM (Total Airspace andAirport Modeller) carried out by CRNA Ouest.

Actual route network.

Paris/Brest interface: NU and NS sectors.

• Arrivals LFPG, LFPB - FL280 via BULOM.

• Arrivals LFPO - FL280 via SABLE.

• Departures LFPG, LFPB, LFPO - FL270 via BULOM.

Military zones C8R, C9, C6R and C5 were simulated as being active during week-dayexercises (B).

Organisation 2:

Airspace simulated corresponding to the SE portion of Brest ACC.


Measured sectors: AN, AW, AUGU, ASGS, F, NU, NS, AG.

Vertical limits: AN - FL195/illAW - FL195/illAUGU - FL345/illASGS - FL195/345F - FL195/illNU - FL345/illNS - FL195/345AG - FL195/ill



Transition area within AN and AW sectors. East limit: 5NM west parallel to axe BHD-KORUS.

RVSM and conventional levels were allocated to NAT traffic (interface Shanwick/Brest).Oceanic clearances (OCL) were transmitted by telephone line.

Sectorisation 2 was one the second proposal resulted of the TAAM (Total Airspace andAirport Modeller) carried out by CRNA Ouest.

New route network result of the TAAM simulation.

Paris/Brest interface: AG sector

• Arrivals LFPG, LFPB, LFPO, LFPV - FL280 via LEMAN.

• Departures LFPG, LFPB, LFPO, LFPV - FL270 via LEDUC or DENIS.

In this organisation all traffic destination Orly (LFPO) have been reoriented to proceed viaLEMAN (no Orly arrivals via North sectors interfacing with Paris).

Military zones TRA8A, TRA6 and RAFALE were simulated as being active duringweekday exercises (B).

Two traffic orientation were tested in the interface Brest-Paris:

♦ Traffic orientation 1, defined during simulation preparation phase.

Arrivals Paris TMA: LEMAN-CHW.Departures Paris TMA: LGL-NTS.Alternative route LGL-LEDUC-CHATO-NTS when no military activity.Overflights: NTS-EVX

♦ Traffic orientation 2, defined during the simulation.

Arrivals Paris TMA: LEMAN-CHW.Departures Paris TMA: LGL-NTS.Alternative route LGL-LEDUC-CHATO-NTS when no military activity.Overflights Northbound: CHALA-LEMAN-EVX.Overflights Southbound: LGL-NTS



ANNEX B

SIMULATION PROGRAMME EXECUTED



SIMULATION PLANNINGNW SCENARIO

1st Week from 18/03/96 to 22/03/96

WEEK DESCRIPTION TRAFFICDECODE

Monday 18Training exercise 1, Org. 0, week, military activeTraining exercise 2, Org. 0, week, military activeTraining exercise 1, Org. 0, week, military active

SN0 TTNW1SN0 TTNW2SN0 TTNW1

Tuesday 19Traffic 95, Org. 0, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 95, Org. 1, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 95, Org. 2, week, military active, NAT exit

SN0 TNRWSN1 TNR1WSN2 TNR2W

Wednesday 20Traffic 95, Org. 0, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 95, Org; 1, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 95, Org. 2, week-end, NAT entry

SN0 TNRESN1 TNR1ESN2 TNR2E

Thursday 21Traffic 95, Org. 0, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 95, Org. 1, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 95, Org. 2, week, military active, NAT exit

SN0 TNRWSN1 TNR1WSN2 TNR2W

Friday 22Traffic 2000, Org. 1, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 2000, Org. 2, week, military active, NAT exit

SN1 TN21W

SN2 TN22W



SIMULATION PLANNINGNW SCENARIO

2nd Week from 25/03/96 to 29/03/96


Monday 25 Traffic 95, Org. 2, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 95, Org. 2, week, military active, NAT exit

SN2 TNR2ESN2 TNR2W

Tuesday 26Traffic 95, Org. 0, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 95, Org. 1, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 2000, Org. 1, week-end, NAT entry

SN0 TNRESN1 TNR1ESN1 TN21E

Wednesday 27Traffic 95, Org. 2, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 2000, Org; 2, week-end, NAT entryTraffic 2000, Org. 2, week, military active, NAT exit

SN2 TNR2ESN2 TN22ESN2 TN22W

Thursday 28

Traffic 2000, Org. 1, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 2000, Org. 2, week, military active, NAT exitTraffic 2000, Org. 2, week-end, NAT entry

SN0 TNRW

SN1 TNR1WSN2 TNR2W

Friday 29Traffic 2000, Org. 2, week, active military, NAT exitTraffic 2000, Org. 1, week-end, NAT entry

SN2 TN22WSN1 TN21E



SIMULATION PLANNINGSE SCENARIO

1st Week from 01/04/96 to 05/04/96


Monday 1st Training exercise 1, Org. 0, week, military activeTraining exercise 2, Org. 0, week, military activeTraining exercise 1, Org. 0, week, military active

SS0 TTSA1SS0 TTSA2SS0 TTSA1

Tuesday 2Traffic 95, Org. 1, week, military activeTraffic 95, Org. 2, week, military activeTraffic 95, Org. 0, week, military active

SS1 TSR1BSS2 TSR2BSS0 TSRB

Wednesday 3Traffic 95, Org. 0, week-endTraffic 95, Org; 1, week-endTraffic 95, Org. 2, week-end,

SS0 TSRASS1 TSR1ASS2 TSR2A

Thursday 4

Traffic 95, Org. 0, week, military activeTraffic 95, Org. 2, week, military activeTraffic 95, Org. 2, week-endTraffic 95, Org. 1 week, military active

SS0 TSRBSS2 TSR2BSS2 TSR2ASS1 TSR1B

Friday 5Traffic 2000, Org. 1, week, military activeTraffic 2000, Org. 2, week, military active

SS1 TS21BSS2 TS22B



SIMULATION PLANNINGSE SCENARIO

2nd Week from 08/04/96 to 12/04/96


Monday 8 Traffic 95, Org. 2, week-end, no AG sectorTraffic 95, Org. 2, week, military active, no AGsector

SS2 TSR2ASS2 TSR2B

Tuesday 9 Traffic 95, Org. 1, week-endTraffic 95, Org. 0, week-end

SS1 TSR1ASS0 TSRA

Wednesday 10Traffic 2000, Org. 2, 2 axes, week-end, no AGsectorTraffic 2000, Org; 2, 2 axes, week, military active,no AG sectorTraffic 2000, Org. 1, week, military active

SS2 TS23A

SS2 TS23B

SS1 TS21A

Thursday 11

Traffic 2000, Org. 2, 2 axes, week, military active,no AG sectorTraffic 2000, Org. 2, 2 axes, week-end, no AGsectorTraffic 2000, Org. 2, 2 axes, week-end, no AGsector

SS2 TS23B(+)

SS2 TS23A(-)

SS2 TS23A(-)

Friday 12 Traffic 2000, Org. 2, 2 axes, week-endTraffic 2000, Org. 2, 2 axes, week-end

SS2 TS23A(-)SS2 TS23A(-)



Intentionally Blank



ANNEX C

CONTROL ROOM LAYOUTS



SUPERVISION

JS

BRESW

AR44

28"

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

Strp.pr.

28" 28"21'Strp.

M M M M

21'pr.Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

28"M

28"M

RAD RADORG ORG

10

9

17

7

4

14

3

13

5 15 6 16

2

12

1

11

21" 21" 21"MMM 21" 21"MM

21 22 23

MS

BRESE

ORG.0 Scenario North West

132.02

134.82131.17

134.87

PARIS

MENHIR

SHANN BHEAD135.6 126.07 124.85

278.9

QS133.47

QU133.0

18

828"M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

21" 21"MM21"M

28"M

29

ORG

RAD

20M

21'

08.03.96

HURN135.05

24

OS129.5



SUPERVISION

NUG

BREW

AR44

28"

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

Strp.pr.

28" 28"21'Strp.

M M M M

21'pr.Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

28"M

28"M

RAD RADORG ORG

10

9

17

7

4

14

3

13

5 15 6 16

2

12

1

11

21" 21" 21"MMM 21" 21"MM

23

NS

PARIS

ORG.0 Scenario South East

133.0

134.87

129.0

132.12

124.85

SHWK

MENHIR

BORDX MADRID133.22 135.7 559.8

278.9

ORG

RAD 28"M

M21'

Strp.pr.

18

8

AS132.02

21" 21"MM

21"M

2221

28"M

29

ORG

RAD

M21' 20

08.03.96



SUPERVISION

JS

BRESW

AR44

28"

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

Strp.pr.

28" 28"21'Strp.

M M M M

21'pr.Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

28"M

28"M

RAD RADORG ORG

10

9

17

7

4

14

3

13

5 15 6 16

2

12

1

11

21" 21" 21"MMM 21" 21"MM

21 22 23

JU

BRESE

ORG.1 and 2 Scenario North West

132.02

134.82131.17

134.87

PARIS

MENHIR

SHANN BHEAD135.6 126.07 124.85

278.9

QS133.47

QU133.0

18

828"M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

21" 21"MM21"M

28"M

29

ORG

RAD

20M

21'

08.03.96

HURN135.05

24

OS129.5

AN131.27

FU129.02

FS136.35



SUPERVISION

NUG

BREW

AR44

AN

28"

28"

21'

AWORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

Strp.pr.

28" 28"21'Strp.

M M M M

21'pr.Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

28"M

28"M

RAD RADORG ORG

10

9

17

7

4

14

3

13

5 15 6 16

2

12

1

11

21" 21" 21"MMM 21" 21"MM

23

NS

PARIS


133.0

134.87

129.0

132.12

131.27

132.02

124.85

SHWK

MENHIR

BORDX MADRID133.22 135.7 559.8

278.9

ORG

RAD

F119.02

28"M

M21'

Strp.pr.

18

8

A124.67

21" 21"MM

21"M

2221

28"M

29

ORG

RAD

M21' 20

08.03.96



SUPERVISION

NUAG

BREW

AR44

ASGS

28"

28"

21'

AWORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

28"

21' ORG

RAD

M

M

Strp.pr.

28" 28"21'Strp.

M M M M

21'pr.Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

Strp.pr.

M

M21'

Strp.pr.

ORG

RAD

28"M

28"M

RAD RADORG ORG

10

9

17

7

4

14

3

13

5 15 6 16

2

12

1

11

21" 21" 21"MMM 21" 21"MM

23

NS

PARIS


133.0

134.87

136.45

132.12

124.67

132.02

124.85

SHWK

MENHIR

BORDX MADRID133.22 135.7 559.8

278.9

ORG

RAD

F119.02

28"M

M21'

Strp.pr.

18

8

AUGU129.0

21" 21"MM

21"M

2221

28"M

29

ORG

RAD

M21' 20

08.03.96

AN131.27



ANNEX D

RADAR WINDOWS



RADAR DISPLAY MANAGEMENT WINDOW



TOUCH INPUT DEVICE (DIGITATRON)

The Digitatron provided the controller with :• A window displaying traffic entering and exiting the sector

• A Flight Data Message window FDM

• A RIP (Strip Printing) window

Flight details were presented 8 minutes before aircraft entered the sector.

8 minutes before exiting the sector the flight details were transferred from the left handside to the right hand side of the screen and the NS (next sector) was added after theMODE C.



FLIGHT DATA MESSAGE WINDOW - FDM

Touching the callsign on the Digitatron screen allowed the controller to visualise flight plandata for a given aircraft. It will also give access to a second window for the transmissionof a RIP message to another sector concerning the selected aircraft.

The FDM will contain the following information:

• Flight Plan Data

• Route information

• ANN button RIP button



RIP WINDOW

The RIP function allowed the controller to send (by means of printing a strip) the flight planof an aircraft to another measured sector.

The ANN button closed the window and returned the display to the Digitatron.



MODs WINDOWThis allowed the controller to modify the flight level at which the next sector will receive the selectedaircraft. This level corresponds to the PFL (planned flight level).



ANNEX E

FLIGHT STRIPS



A strip was printed at a sector that appeared on an aircraft’s profile, 8 minutes before theboundary crossing of that sector.

A strip could also be printed at a sector that did not appear in the flight plan if:

• it had been subject to a RIP,

• the sector was providing separation for traffic flying within different sectors andconverging in a third sector (double strip) INF,

• following a MODS input where the new profile required a strip to be printed in a sectornot previously on the route.

STRIP FORMATCallsign SSRcompany nameTYPE TAS ADEADES RFLExit point +1 2nd RFL

(MODS/RIP/INF)

PFLXFLfrequencyNS

EFL LastBeaconprevioussector

POINT POINT POINT POINT FirstBeaconnext sector

CSTimeDate

TAS: true air speed.

ADEP: airport of departure.

ADES: airport of destination.

RFL: requested flight level (for NAT traffic the RVSM level and the conventional level).

PFL: planned flight level.

XFL: exit flight level.

EFL: entry flight level.

NS: next sector.

CS: current sector.



ANNEX F

MAPS



AIRSPACE MAP ORG 0 (NORD)

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

AKEMI

ANG

ANNET

ARE

ARTUN

ASKIL

BADEK

BALOT

BAMES

BARLU

BELEN

BETRI

BHD

BONET

BRY

BULOM

CAN

CAVAL

CGC

CHW

COQUE

DEVOS

DIN

DVL

VADOM

ERWAN

ETIKI

EVX

FAWBO

FERTE

GAPLI

GUR

JSY

KABIG

KATHY

KOLEK

KORUL

LAPEX

LARSI

LGL

LIZAD

LMG

LND

LOKTA

LOTEE

MAIXE

MORGO

NTS

ODELO

ORTAC

PATEL

PEROT

PETOX

POI

POMTA QPR

RANES RBT

TSU

REGHI

RIVAK

ROSKO

SABLE

SALCO

SEPAL

SITET

SIVIR

SOKMU

TAKAS

TERNI

TIOCH 46N10

46N7W

48N10

49N10

50N10

47N10

GUNSO

TULTA

MURELSUPAP

PHILIRATKA

ATLEN

SKESO

AR44 . ORG0 (NORD)

véro le 04/03/96

Transition Area

OS (195/ill) 129.50

QU (345/ill) 133.00

QS (195/345) 133.47

JS (195/ill) 134.82

MS (195/ill) 131.17

FREQUENCES



AIRSPACE MAP ORG 0 (SUD)

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

MUREL

AKEMI

ANG

ANNET

ARE

ARTUN

ASKIL

AVS

ZMR

BADEK

BALOT BAMES

BARLU

BELEN

BETRI

BHD

BLV

BONET

BRY

BULOM

SUPAP

CAN

CAVAL

CGC

CHW

COQUE

DEVOS

DIN

DVL

EPR

ERWAN

ETIKI

EVX

FAWBO

FERTE

RATKA

GAPLI

GUNSO

GUR

JSY

KABIG

KOLEK

KORUL

LAPEX

LARSI

LGL

LIZAD

LMG

LND

LOKTA

LOTEE

MAIXE

MORGO

NTS

ODELO

ORTAC

PATEL

PEROT

PETOX

POI

POMTA

QPR

RANES RBT

REGHI

RIVAK

ROSKO

SABLE

SALCO

SEPAL

SITET

SIVIR

SNR

SOKMU

STG

TAKAS

TULTA

TERNI

TIOCH

46N10 46N7W

48N10

49N10

50N10

47N10

TSU

VADON

MINEL

ATLEN

AR44 . ORG0(SUD)

véro le 04/03/96

AS

ill000

ill000

ill000

ill000

ill000

G

BORDX

NUNS

MADRI

SHWK

BREW

PARIS

133.00

124.85

133.22

135.70

5598AS (195/ill) 132.02

G (195/ill) 129.00

NU (345/ill) 134.87

NS (195/345) 132.12

XU (325/ill) 128.50

FREQUENCES

( + all measured sectors 133.00 )195000

Transition Area




12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

AR44 . ORG1 (NORD)

véro le 04/03/96

Transition Area

OS (195/ill) 129.50

QU (345/ill) 133.00

QS (195/345) 133.47

JU (345/ill) 131.17

JS (195/345) 134.82

FU (345/ill) 129.02

FS (195/345) 136.35

AN (195/ill) 131.27

FREQUENCES

AKEMI

ANG

ANNET

ARE

ARTUN

ASKIL

BADEK

BALOT

BAMES

BARLU

BELEN

BETRI

BHD

BONET

BRY

BULOM

CAN

CAVAL

CGC

CHW

COQUE

DEVOS

DIN

DVL

VADOM

ERWAN

ETIKI

EVX

FAWBO

FERTE

GAPLI

GUR

JSY

KABIG

KATHY

KOLEK

KORUL

LAPEX

LARSI

LGL

LIZAD

LMG

LND

LOKTA

LOTEE

MAIXE

MORGO

NTS

ODELO

ORTAC

PATEL

PEROT

PETOX

POI

POMTA QPR

RANES RBT

TSU

REGHI

RIVAK

ROSKO

SABLE

SALCO

SEPAL

SITET

SIVIR

SOKMU

TAKAS

TERNI

TIOCH 46N10

46N7W

48N10

49N10

50N10

47N10

GUNSO

TULTA

MURELSUPAPPHILI

RATKA

ATLEN

SKESO




12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

AR44 . ORG 1 (SUD)

véro le 04/03/96

Transition Area

MADRI

BORDX

SHWK

BREWPARIS

000ill

000ill

000ill 000

ill

000ill

ANF

AW

A

G

NUNS

133.00124.85

5598

135.70

133.22

AN (195/ill) 131.27

AW (195/ill) 132.02

F (195/ill) 119.02

NU (345/ill) 134.87

NS (195/345) 132.12

A (195/ill) 124.67

G (195/ill) 129.00

XU (305/ill) 128.50

FREQUENCES


AKEMI

ANG

ANNET

ARE

ARTUN

ASKIL

AVS

ZMR

BADEK

BALOT

MUREL

BAMES

BARLU

BELEN

BETRI

BHD

BLV

BONET

BRY

BULOM

SUPAP

CAN

CAVAL

CGC

CHW

COQUE

DEVOS

DIN

DVL

EPR

ERWAN

ETIKI

EVX

FAWBO

FERTE

GAPLI

RATKA

GUNSO

GUR

JSY

KABIG

KOLEK

KORUL

KORUS

LAPEX

LARSI

LGL

LIZAD

LMG

LND

LOKTA

LOTEE

MAIXE

MORGO

NTS

ODELO

ORTAC

PATEL

PEROT

PETOX

POI

POMTA

QPR

RANES RBT

REGHI

RIVAK

ROSKO

SABLE

SALCO

SEPAL

SITET

SIVIR

SNR

SOKMU

STG

TAKAS

TULTA

TERNI

TIOCH

46N10 46N7W

48N10

49N10

50N10

47N10

TSU

VADON

MINEL

ATLEN




12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

ANG

ARE

ARTUN

BADEK

BAMES

BARLU

BELEN

BHD

BONET

MEL

CAN

CAVAL

CORIO

CGC

CHW

DEVOS

DIN

DVL

EPR

ETIKI

EVX

FAWBO GAPLI

GUNSO

GUR

PETER

JSY

KATHY

LAPEX

LGL

LIZAD

LMG

LND

LOTEE

MORGO

NTS

ORTAC

PATEL

PEROT

POI

QPR

RBT

REGHI

RIVAK

SALCO

SEPAL

SITET

SIVIR

TAKAS

TERNI

TIOCH 46N10 46N7W

48N10

49N10

50N10

47N10

HERMI

ETILA

BIGOR

REBAL

GLENN

GUENO

KERLA

GALIS

KORUS

TULTA

LEMAN SEGRE

SEINE

DENIS

VERNE

CHOSE TESSY

GREGO

DOLUS HOMAR

CAVAS PHILI

LEDUC

CHATO AURAY

LEJON

NOVAN

BALOS

MOINO

VENAR

MAUZE

MINEL

GUEME

BASIL

CHALA

VALET

SIGIS

OLONE

SKESO

RATKA

PON

ODLON

ASPEN

RUTEK

MANEX

ATLEN

CARRL

HAGUE

SUPAP MUREL

MINARCADOR

BINOU

PLOGO

ARMEN

VAIRO

BAIGO

TOLPA

LANGO

GALAT

TSU

VADOM

SURGE

SAU

BRIGO

KABIG

AR44 . ORG2 (NORD)

véro le 12/03/96

Transition Area

FREQUENCES




12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 01 02 03

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

ANG

ARE TOLPA

AVS

BADEK

BAMES

BARLU

BELEN

BLV

BONET

CAN

CAVAL

CGC

CHW

DEVOS

SAU

DIN

DVL

EPR

ETIKI

EVX

FAWBO GAPLI

GUR

JSY

LAPEX

LGL

LIZAD

LMG

LND

LOTEE

MORGO

NTS

ORTAC

PATEL

PEROT

POI

QPR

RBT

REGHI

RIVAK

SALCO

SEPAL

SITET

SIVIR

SNR

SOKMU

STG

TAKAS

TERNI

TIOCH SURGE 46N10

46N7W

48N10

49N10

50N10

47N10

HERMI

ETILA

BIGOR

REBAL

GLENN

GUENO

KERLA

GALIS

KORUS

TULTA

LEMAN

SEGRE

SEINE

DENIS

VERNE

CHOSE

GREGO

DOLUS HOMAR

CAVAS

PHILI

LEDUC

CHATO AURAY

LEJON

NOVAN

BALOS

MOINO

VENAR

MAUZE

MINEL

GUEME

BASIL

CHALA

VALET

SIGIS

OLONE

SKESO

RATKA

PON

ODLON

RUTEK

MANEX

ATLEN

CARRL

ZMR

HAGUE

GUNSO

ARMEN

SUPAP

KABIG

TSU

MUREL

MINAR

VADOMMEL

LANGO

PLOGO

GALAT

BRIGO

AR44 . ORG 2 (SUD)

véro le 12/03/96

MADRI

BORDX

SHWK

BREW

PARIS

000ill

000ill

000ill

000ill

000ill

F

AN

AW

NUNS

AUGUASGS

AG

124.85

133.22

135.70

5598

133.00

AN (195/ill) 131.27

AW (195/ill) 132.02

AUGU (345/ill) 129.00

ASGS (195/345) 124.67

F (195/ill) 119.02

NU (345/ill) 134.87

NS (195/345) 132.12

AG (195/ill) 136.45

XU (285/il

FREQUENCES


Transition Area



Intentionally Blank



ANNEX G

CIVIL- MILITARY PROTOCOL



Ces dispositions s’inscrivent dans le cadre des directives générales pour lagestion de l’espace aérien (1050/DIRCAM - 112/DNA/SCTA du 08 Juillet1982).

1. PRINCIPES GENERAUX La prévention des abordages demeure la responsabilité du contrôleur militaire,même dans les cas d’urgence.

2. MOYENS DE CO-ORDINATION

Les moyens de co-ordination tactique mis à la disposition des contrôleurs sont:

• des liaisons téléphoniques directes reliant le contrôleur militaire et son adjointaux contrôleurs civils des différents secteurs ;

• la visualisation temporaire et sélective par le contrôleur civil des aéronefsmilitaires faisant l’objet de co-ordination par le biais d’une touche sélection(QUICK-LOOK) installée sur les positions civiles.

• 3. CO-ORDINATIONS

Les co-ordinations peuvent s’effectuer soit à l’initiative du contrôleur militaire, soit àl’initiative du contrôleur civil.

Pour réaliser leurs responsabilités en matière de sécurité des vols, les contrôleursmilitaires ont besoint de connaître les prévisions d’évolutions verticales et horizontalesdes trafics CAG environnants.

a) A l’initiative du contrôleur militaire : lorsqu’il l’estime nécessaire pour respecter lesnormes réglementaires d’espacement.

Sa demande comportera :

cabine de contrôle militaire, indicatif(s) (ou code(s) transpondeur) et niveaux(x) de vol del’appareil CAG pour lequel (lesquels) il recherche des informations.

Elle pourra être complétée par:

Position, indicatif (ou code transpondeur) et niveau vol de l’appareil militaire si ceséléments sont nécessaires à la co-ordination.

Cette demande s’effectuera, sauf cas particulier, avec un préavis maximum de 5 minutes.

En réponse, le contrôleur CAG fournira les prévisions d’évolutions pour le trafic CAGconsidéré.

La validité de l’information est limitée à 3 minutes ou 20 NM.

En visualisant le trafic militaire, il pourra considérer la co-ordination comme terminée dèslors que le croisement sera effectué.



b) A l’initiative du contrôleur civil: lorsqu’il le juge utile

• soit pour réactualiser la co-ordination précédemment effectuée

• soit pour coordonner avec le contrôleur militaire une action tactique dans unespace réservé activé.

Les éléments permettant d’identifier le vol CAG comporteront la position de l’appareil parrapport à un point géographique significatif (*), l’indicatif (ou code transpondeur), le niveauactuel ainsi que la trajectoire et le niveau demandés avec un préavis minimum de 3minutes.

(*) point géographique significatif : balise ou point de report important pouvant êtrefacilement localisé par les contrôleurs civils et militaires.

eurocontrol experimental centre · eurocontrol experimental centre brest real-time simulation eec...

Documents