Simulation in Air Traffic Control IALA seminar Jurgen van Avermaete General Manager Procedures

Transcription

1 Simulation in Air Traffic Control IALA seminar Jurgen van Avermaete General Manager Procedures 1

2 Jurgen van Avermaete (1966) Eindhoven University of Technology, MSc Electrical Engineering ( 85-91) Trainer at Ter Aa College ( 92) National Aerospace Laboratory, Human Factors department ( 93-00) Pilot performance evaluation, Human Factors in Aircraft Maintenance Air Traffic Control The Netherlands Research & Development ( 00-05) Human Factors Department ( 05-13) Procedures Department (as of July 1st) 2 2

3 Contents Air Traffic Control The Netherlands Simulation facilities Training process Some observations on the use of simulation in ATC Conclusions 3 3

4 ATC The Netherlands 862 fte staffmembers (31 december 2012), including 225 ATCos Schiphol-East: headquarters, area control dutch civilian airspace and approach control for Schiphol and Rotterdam airports. Other locations Schiphol-Centrum: Main Control Tower & Tower-West Maastricht (TWR and approach control) Groningen (TWR+APP) Rotterdam (TWR) 4 4

5 Simulation facilities Computer based simulations Basic simulator (generic airspace) Radar simulator (actual soft- and hardware) 360 degrees Tower Simulator (generic cabin, database and visual for all airports) 26 Simulation Training Operators 360 degrees research simulator (third party) Flight simulators (third party) 5 5

6 Training processes Recruitment Selection Unit Training Development training Initial Training Continue, re-train, additional training Competent ATCo Staff Competence check 6 Conversion training 6

7 Training new ATCo R&S Initial Training (7-11 months) Unit Training (2-3 years) Simulator 26 weeks OJT weeks 7 7

8 Growing use of simulators Didactical purposes controlled gradual growth competence scheme interventions remedial training Exposure to traffic situations Complexity traffic Crisis and emergency training Standardisation training Availability training seats 8 8

9 Expected results Reduction of OJT time Increased throughput in training Standardised performance on competence scheme Increased succes rate Better pass/fail decisions 9 9

10 Simulator Fidelity Early in the training simplifications in the task will enhance skill acquisition. The simulator needed can be equally simplified

11 Simulator Fidelity Required simulator fidelity is determined more by face validity expert users than by outcome Training Needs Analysis

12 Requirements on simulators Growing regulatory requirements Next: simulator fidelity Simulators Instructors Zero OJT not to be expected Contrary to pilot training Training process Organisation Licensed operator 12 12

13 Team training Training as a (fixed) team requires more than one trainee in the simulation, all other multiplayer simulation is less of a training. System acceptation Proof of concept Concept initiation, options generation System Familiarisation Problem analysis 13 13

14 Training vs test facility LVNL radar simulator is exact copy of operational equipment and is also used for system validation PRO System behaviour in training is real behaviour Always latest version available Start in OJT requires no further familiarisation on equipment CON System availability More difficult to work with different versions Specific training features may be complicated 14 14

15 System changes Lesson learned: Include modification of simulator in standard change project deliverables After realisation of the change on the operational system the business case for the simulator becomes more challenging 15 15

16 Conclusions Growing need for use of simulators Simulator fidelity needed depending training use Growing regulatory requirements Face validity discussions may reveal hidden task aspects Add simulator modification to standard change project deliverables 16 16

17 Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland Bezoekadres Stationsplein ZuidWest CV SCHIPHOL Postadres Postbus ZT SCHIPHOL T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E communications@lvnl.nl W