Episode 3 D Detailed Operational Description - Arrival and Departure - High and Medium/Low Density Operations - E5.

Transcription

1 Episode 3 Single European Sky Implementation support through Validation Programme Project title Episode 3 Project N Project Coordinator Deliverable Name Deliverable ID Version 3.00 Rosalind Eveleigh Document information Sixth framework programme Priority 1.4 Aeronautics and Space EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Detailed Operational Description - Arrival and Departure - High and Medium/Low Density Operations - D Owner Contributing partners EUROCONTROL Page 1 of 83

2 - This page is intentionally blank - Page 2 of 83

3 Approval DOCUMENT CONTROL Role Organisation Name Document owner EUROCONTROL Rosalind Eveleigh Technical approver EUROCONTROL Giuseppe Murgese Quality approver EUROCONTROL Catherine Palazo Project coordinator EUROCONTROL Philippe Leplae Version history Version Date Status Author(s) /12/2009 Approved De Garis R Ramsay I /01/2010 Approved Eveleigh R /04/2010 Approved Eveleigh R Justification - Could be a reference to a review form or a comment sheet Approved by the Episode 3 consortium Final Alignment with ATM Process Model Alignment of data types across DODs Update of SADT diagrams. Approved by the Episode 3 consortium Page 3 of 83

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT INTENDED AUDIENCE DOCUMENT STRUCTURE BACKGROUND GLOSSARY OF TERMS OPERATING CONCEPT-CONTEXT AND SCOPE SCOPE Timeframe and Associated Capability Levels Airspace Business Trajectory Lifecycle ATM PROCESSES DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT SESAR CONCEPT ADDRESSED IN THE DOCUMENT Trajectory-based operations Trajectory lifecycle Airspace Capacity Separation Modes Queue Management Information sharing and Air-Ground Datalink Related SESAR Operational Improvements (OIs) Related SESAR Performance Requirements CURRENT OPERATING METHOD AND MAIN CHANGES ASPECTS OF TODAY'S OPERATIONS THAT WILL REMAIN ASPECTS OF TODAY'S OPERATIONS THAT WILL CHANGE ASPECTS OF TODAY'S OPERATIONS THAT WILL DISAPPEAR PROPOSED OPERATING PRINCIPLES ARRIVAL QUEUE MANAGEMENT (A3.2.3) Scope and Objectives Assumptions Expected Benefits, Issues and Constraints Overview of Operating Method Optimise Arrival Queue (A ) Implement Arrival Queue in TMA (A ) Enablers Transition issues TERMINAL AREA EXIT QUEUE MANAGEMENT (A.3.2.2) Optimise Terminal Exit Queue (A ) Implement Terminal Exit Queue (A ) Manage Terminal Area Exit Queue Principles DE-CONFLICT AND SEPARATE TRAFFIC IN ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE OPERATIONS (A.3.3.2) Scope and Objectives Assumptions Expected Benefits, Issues and Constraints Overview of Operating Method Detect and Solve Conflicts in Terminal Area (A ) Implement Separation in Terminal Area (A ) Enablers Transition issues Transition to Low-Density Procedures APPLY SAFETY NETS (A.3.4.2) Page 4 of 83

5 4.4.1 Scope and Objectives Assumptions Expected Benefits, Issues and Constraints Overview of Operating Method Apply Safety Nets in the TMA Airspace (A3.4.2) Enablers Transition issues ENVIRONMENT DEFINITION AIRSPACE CHARACTERISTICS TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES REFERENCES AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS REFERENCES APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS A. ANNEX: OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS B. ANNEX: DETAILED USE CASE C. ANNEX: OI STEPS TRACEABILITY TABLE D. ANNEX: HOT TOPICS Page 5 of 83

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Scope of the document within the SESAR vision (SESAR ConOps)...9 Figure 2: ATM Capability Levels addressed...13 Figure 3: Airspace and flight phase boundaries...14 Figure 4: ATM Model Phase Level diagram...15 Figure 5: Overall ATM Process Model in the Execution Phase...17 Figure 6: Life cycle of the Reference Business Trajectory...22 Figure 7: Manage Arrival Queue low-level processes...34 Figure 8: Manage Terminal Area Exit Queue low-level processes...44 Figure 9: De-Conflict & Separate Traffic in Terminal Area low-level processes...47 Figure 10: Apply Safety Nets low-level processes...53 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: ATM Model low-level processes addressed...20 Table 2: Classification of Trajectory Modifications...23 Table 3: Key Performance Areas addressed...30 Table 4: Use Cases for Optimise Arrival Queue...39 Table 5: Use Cases for Implement Arrival Queue in TMA...43 Table 6: Use Case for Optimise Terminal Area Exit Queue...45 Table 7: Use Cases for Implement Terminal Area Exit Queue...45 Table 8: Use Cases for Detect and Solve Conflicts in Terminal Area...50 Table 9: Use Cases for Implement Separation in Terminal Area...52 Table 10: Use Cases for Apply Safety Nets in the TMA Airspace...55 Table 11: Actors roles and concerned processes...59 Table 12: Operational Scenarios identified for Arrival and Departure operations...65 Table 13: Use Case summary...67 Table 14: Operational Improvements addressed...80 Page 6 of 83

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this document is to describe the SESAR 2020 concept related to the execution phase of arrival/departure operations, in high and medium/low density environments. The level of details provided permitted the definition of validation exercises within Episode 3. This document was afterwards refined in order to take into account the lessons learned during the exercises. The ATM system and operational descriptions are supported by an ATM process model that describes the whole system and allows defining the scope and interface between the complete set of SESAR Detailed Operational Descriptions. Operational Scenarios ( what ) and Use Cases ( how ) are developed from this approach. This document is directly, or indirectly, linked with: SESAR General Detailed Operational Descriptions providing overall context; SESAR Detailed Operational Description L, M1, M2: Collaborative layered planning, including Collaborative Decision Making and User Driven Prioritisation Process aspects, taking place in the long and medium/short term planning phases; SESAR Detailed Operational Description E6, E1: En-route traffic management and/or Runway operations in the execution phase; SESAR Detailed Operational Description E4: Dynamic Demand and Capacity Balancing/Complexity Management for the terminal area in the execution phase. The business or mission trajectory of an airspace user of any kind represents their intention to operate in a desired way. In the SESAR concept, air traffic service providers and airports will facilitate the execution of these trajectories and will ensure that this service is delivered in a safe and cost effective way within the infrastructural and environmental constraints. Trajectory-based operations, represented by the Reference Business Trajectory (RBT), form the basis of the concept. A degree of pre-de-confliction of traffic flows, improved conflict management enabled by improved trajectory prediction and automation support will result in a reduction of controller task load per flight and fewer last-minute tactical interventions during flight execution. These are the principles on which SESAR will deliver greater airspace capacity than today. The Air Traffic Management model offers, for the execution phase, a process split which is globally layered according to different time horizons. Three levels have thus been identified for arrival-departure operations, in decreasing order of strategic applicability: Queue management, Separation provision, and Collision avoidance. These processes may all have an impact on the Reference Business Trajectory, and in particular trigger Reference Business Trajectory revisions. Page 7 of 83

8 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT The purpose of this document is to refine the SESAR operational concept for the execution phase in terminal airspace, according to the processes detailed in this document. Referred as Conflict Management in Arrival & Departure High & Medium/Low Density Operations, this document is part of a set of Detailed Operational Description (DOD) documents which refine and clarify the high level SESAR ConOps concept description in order to support the Episode 3 exercises, which have the objective of developing a better understanding of the SESAR Concept. This set of DODs can be considered as step 0.2 of E-OCVM [1] - i.e. the description of the ATM Operational Concept(s). The DOD document structure and content is derived from the one of the OSED (Operational Service and Environment Definition) described by the ED-78A guidelines [2]. According to the ED-78A, the OSED identifies the Air Traffic Services supported by data communications and their intended operational environment and includes the operational performances expectations, functions and selected technologies of the related CNS/ATM system. The structure of the DOD has been defined considering the level of details that can be provided at this stage i.e. the nature and maturity of the concept areas being developed. The current version of this DOD has been reviewed and updated to its final form by the addition of the results of the relevant validation activities, namely WP5.3.1 TMA Expert Group final report.[33] It may be considered as an input document to the SJU WPB and the associated operational threads WPs. The complete detailed description of the mode of operations is composed of 10 documents according to the main phases defined by SESAR i.e. Long Term Planning phase, Medium/Short Term Planning and Execution Phase (the complete set of documents is available from the Episode 3 portal home page [3]): The General DOD (G DOD) [4]; The Long Term Network Planning DOD (L DOD) [5]; The Collaborative Airport Planning DOD (M1 DOD) [6]; The Medium & Short Term Network Planning DOD (M2DOD) [7]; The Runway Management DOD (E1 DOD) [8]; The Apron & Taxiways Management DOD (E2/3 DOD) [9]; The Network Management in the Execution Phase DOD (E4 DOD) [10]; The Conflict Management in Arrival & Departure High & Medium/Low Density Operations DOD ( DOD), this document;[11] The Conflict Management in En-Route High & Medium/Low Density operations DOD (E6 DOD) [12]; The Episode 3 Lexicon (Glossary of Terms and Definitions) [13]. The operational enhancements described in this document are related to the execution and management of the Business Trajectory in the Arrival and Departure phases of flight in both High and Medium/Low Complexity situations. The document addresses the 2020 horizon environment and operations that will be incorporated in the end state system - i.e. transition elements are not taken into account. In other words, the operations described below are mainly related to ATM Service Level 3 to ATM Service Level 4 capabilities (refer to Figure 1 below). However, mixed equipage Page 8 of 83

9 situations involving levels 0-1 were considered as part of the exercises conducted by WP5.3.5 and the resulting recommendation is replicated below 1. The figure below gives an overview of the scope of the document within the SESAR vision. SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT Figure 1: Scope of the document within the SESAR vision (SESAR ConOps) The SESAR target concept of operations is a trajectory-based concept. All partners in the ATM network will share trajectory information in real time to the extent required from the earliest trajectory development phase through operations and post-operation activities. ATM planning, collaborative decision making processes and tactical operations will always be based on the latest trajectory data. A trajectory integrating ATM and airport constraints is elaborated and agreed for each flight, resulting in the trajectory that a user agrees to fly and the ANSP and Airports agree to facilitate. Considering the scope of the present document within the SESAR Collaborative Layered Planning processes, and in terms of airspace, the traffic presentation at the terminal airspace boundaries is expected to be the result of a number of operational processes in various phases: Collaborative layered planning, including CDM and UDPP aspects, taking place in the long or medium/short term planning phases (refer to L DOD [5], M1 DOD [6] and M2 DOD [7]); En-route traffic management and/or Runway operations in the execution phase (refer to E1 DOD [8] and E6 DOD [12]); Dynamic DCB/complexity management for the terminal area in the execution phase (refer to E4 DOD [10]); Queue Management in the execution phase - in the context of an enlarged arrival management horizon, and possibly management of terminal area exit queues closely linked to departure queues (refer to 4.1 and 0 below). For the execution phase in the Terminal Airspace, the main impacts of SESAR will be: Trajectory based operations and the use of 4D trajectories; 1 Precise handling of traffic mix will be determined by the different mixes and different capabilities as well as designing needs. The way a conflict is solved depends on many aspects (for example % of capabilities). [36] Page 9 of 83

10 The extended temporal scope of arrival queue management; The introduction of new types of airspace structures; The introduction of new separation modes; The introduction of initial ASAS based operations. These improvements will be made possible through: Better planning through the introduction of the NOP; Data sharing through the SWIM infrastructure including the use of air-ground datalink; Enhanced CNS aircraft and ground capabilities; Enhanced ground tools and automation support. 1.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE The intended audience includes: Episode 3 partners; The SESAR community. 1.3 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE The structure of the document is as follows: 2 of this document provides an overview of the functions addressed in this document; 3 provides a description of how today's operation will be changed with the implementation of the concept area under analysis; 4 gives a description of the future operating principles by looking at Arrivals and Departures main processes. It details the benefits, the constraints, the human factors aspects, the enablers, the actors and the operating methods; 5 describes the environmental characteristics and constraints specific to this DOD (global/common environmental issues are presented in a high level document [4]); 6 lists roles and responsibilities applicable to this concept area; 7 details references and applicable documents cited along this document; Annex A provides the list of the various scenarios relevant to this document; Annex B provides the summary of the Use Cases defined in this document; Annex C contains the traceability table of the SESAR Operational Improvement (OI) steps addressed by this document; Annex D lists Hot Topics raised during Episode 3 and concerning DOD. 1.4 BACKGROUND The Episode 3 project, also called "Single European Sky Implementation Support Through Validation", was signed on 18 th April 2007 between the European Community and EUROCONTROL under the contract N TREN/07/FP6AE/S / The European Community has agreed to grant a financial contribution to this project equivalent to about 50% of the cost of the project. Page 10 of 83

11 The project is carried out by a consortium composed of EUROCONTROL, Entidad Publica Empresarial Aeropuertos Espanõles y Navegacion Aérea (AENA); AIRBUS France SAS (Airbus); DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS); NATS (EN Route) Public Limited Company (NERL); Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt e.v.(dlr); Stichting Nationaal Lucht en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium (NLR); The Ministère des Transports, de l Equipement, du Tourisme et de la Mer de la République Française represented by the Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA); ENAV S.p.A. (ENAV); Ingenieria y Economia del Transporte S.A (INECO) ISA Software Ltd(ISA); Ingeneria de Sistemas para la Defensa de Espana S.A (Isdefe); Luftfartsverket (LFV); Sistemi Innovativi per il Controllo del Traffico Aereo (SICTA); THALES Avionics SA (THAV); THALES AIR SYSTEMS S.A (TR6); Queen s University of Belfast (QUB); The Air Traffic Management Bureau of the General Administration of Civil Aviation of China (ATMB); The Center of Aviation Safety Technology of General Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAST); Austro Control (ACG); Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland (LVNL). This consortium works under the co-ordination of EUROCONTROL. With a view to supporting SESAR Development Phase activities whilst ensuring preparation for partners SESAR Joint Undertaking activities, Episode 3 focuses on: Detailing key concept elements in SESAR; Initial operability through focussed prototyping exercises and performance assessment of those key concepts; Initial supporting technical needs impact assessment; Analysis of the available tools and gaps for SESAR concept validation; and Reporting on the validation methodology used in assessing the concept. The main SESAR inputs to this work are: The SESAR Concept of Operations (ConOps): T222 [17]; The description of scenarios developed: T223 [18] & [19]; The list of Operational Improvements allowing to transition to the final concept: T224 [20]; The definition of the implementation packages: T333 [20] & [21]; The list of performance assessments exercises to be carried out to validate that the concept delivers the required level of performance: T232 [22]; The ATM performance framework, the list of Key Performance Indicators, and an initial set of performance targets: T212 [23]. The objective of detailing the operational concept [25] is achieved through the development of the DODs. These documents are available for the SESAR development phase and are produced through the System Consistency work package of Episode 3. The life cycle of the DOD documents is defined through three main steps: Initial DODs provided as the first inputs to the Episode 3 project; Interim DODs containing first refinement and consolidation from Episode 3 partners aligned to the prototyping/evaluation work, provided by mid-project duration; Final DODs updated by the findings and reports produced by the prototyping/evaluation activities, provided at the end of the project. 1.5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS The Episode 3 Lexicon contains lists of agreed acronyms and definitions [13]. Page 11 of 83

12 To complement the existing definition of RBT and to provide clarification on the use of the terms update and revision the following definitions are proposed for inclusion in the Lexicon: o RBT update: whenever the RBT exceeds the deltas of the TMR, an update of the RBT will automatically be initiated by the ground system: o RBT revision: whenever there is a mutually agreed change to the RBT, the RBT will be revised and will replace the previously agreed RBT. Note: Throughout this document references to SBT and RBT also mean the military context of Shared Mission Trajectory (SMT) and Reference Mission Trajectory (RMT) which have not generally been referred to in the interests of clarity. A more detailed view of SMT/RMT may be found in the EUROCONTROL SJU Early Project 2 deliverable Understanding Trajectory Management V2.01. Page 12 of 83

13 2 OPERATING CONCEPT-CONTEXT AND SCOPE 2.1 SCOPE Timeframe and Associated Capability Levels The context targeted by this document is SESAR's 2020 environment. At least for some parts of the concept described, a step by step implementation can be envisioned during the transition period until Whenever possible, this will be explicitly indicated in this document. ATM Capability Levels are defined to describe the on-going deployment of progressively more advanced ATM Systems for aircraft, ground systems and airports (refer to Figure 2).The main capabilities required by the key SESAR target date of 2020 are described as ATM Service /Capability levels 3 to 4 (scope of DODs). More advanced capabilities for the high-end capacity target of the SESAR Concept (2025 and beyond) are described as ATM Service/Capability Level 5. 5 Available 2025+: Trajectory Sharing Air-Air; Met data sharing (Air-Air/Air-Ground) ; Avionics enabling 4D Contract and Airborne Self-Separation ATM Capability Level SESAR 2020 Requirements: Trajectory Sharing meeting ATM requirements; avionics with VRNP capability, 3D-PTC (User Preferred Route) and airborne separation capability ( ASEP-C&P ) Aircraft Delivered 2017 onwards: avionics enabling multiple CTO, 3D-PTC (published route) and initial airborne separation capability ( ASEP ITP ) Aircraft Delivered 2013 onwards: ADS-B/IN and avionics enabling PTC-2D, TC-SA & airborne spacing ( ASAS S&M ); Datalink: Link applications 1 0 Current Aircraft : ADS-B/out (position/aircraft/met data); Avionics with 2D-RNP, vertical constraint management and single RTA; Datalink: Event reporting and Intent sharing Date of Initial Operating Capability Figure 2: ATM Capability Levels addressed Airspace Two categories of arrival and departure operations are addressed in this document High Complexity and Medium/Low Complexity. Page 13 of 83

14 The airspace boundaries associated with arrival and departure correspond roughly to the following flight events: From the top of descent to the final approach for the arriving flights; From initial climb to the top of climb for departing flights. This is intended to clarify the respective scopes of the en-route, Arrival/Departure and Airport DODs, and is not intended to reflect the geographical boundaries between the different air traffic control authorities. The airspace associated to Arrival/Departure operations will sometimes be referred to as terminal area within this document. This document also covers arriving flights that are still in the en-route phase as far as Queue management is concerned. APT DOD ARR/DEP DOD ENR DOD ARR/DEP DOD APT DOD Figure 3: Airspace and flight phase boundaries While the SESAR concept prioritises the ambition of the user to plan flights unconstrained by route networks, it recognises that fixed route structures may be needed to maximise capacity, and, more specifically, that route structures may be essential in vicinity of major airports, and may there extend from/to cruising levels. ([17], D.5, D.7 and F.3.3) 2 The SESAR ConOps ([17], F.3.3.1) also mentions the use of dynamic routes. Pre-defined routes would be contained within predefined airspace volumes, such as cones and tubes shapes, designed to apply strategic de-confliction and separate flows, while also enabling to the maximum extent possible efficient vertical profiles - e.g. CDA. For medium/low complexity arrival/departure operations, dynamic routes as agreed between the User and the service Provider in the RBT may be used in some areas and pre-defined routes in other ones within the TMA. 2 D.5 It is recognised however that in especially congested airspace, the trade off between flight efficiency and capacity will require that a fixed route structure will be used to enable the required capacity. [ ] Where major hubs are close, the entire area below a certain level will be operated as an extended terminal area, with route structures eventually extending also into en-route airspace to manage the climbing and descending flows from and into the airports concerned. D.7 The SESAR concept will increase capacity by reducing the requirement for tactical intervention. In highly congested areas dominated by climbing and descending traffic flows this will be achieved by deploying route structures that provide a greater degree of strategic de-confliction and procedures that capitalise on the greater accuracy of aircraft navigation. F.3.3 For high-complexity operations, an efficient airspace structure combined with advanced airborne and ground system capabilities will be deployed to deliver the necessary capacity and ensure separation is maintained. The concept recognises that when traffic complexity is high, the required capacity can only be achieved at the cost of some constraint on individual optimum trajectories [ ] High-complexity terminal operations will feature separated 3D departure routes and 3D arrival routes [ ]. Page 14 of 83

15 2.1.3 Business Trajectory Lifecycle Amongst the ATM planning phases identified in the SESAR concept, this document is specifically focused on the execution phase. In terms of business trajectory lifecycle, this corresponds to the management of the reference business trajectory (RBT), as illustrated by Figure 1 above. 2.2 ATM PROCESSES DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT The ATM Process Model has been developed as part of the Episode 3 definition phase. It is intended to capture the whole ATM process. It is to be aligned with the SESAR concept and provides a mechanism for scoping the DODs. The execution phase is related to the safe and efficient facilitation of the airspace users RBTs in the managed airspace by ensuring provision of separation to prevent collision. This is described in the Manage Execution Phase of the Process Model (Figure 4 below, concerned processes identified with light blue background). Figure 4: ATM Model Phase Level diagram Note: details about input/output flows, actors and triggers for each process can be found in the SESAR/Episode 3 Information Navigator [14]. In particular, these are not repeated in section 4 below. The reader is referred to the ATM Model for more details. Page 15 of 83

16 There are three major activities defined in the model (Figure 5 below) which will be further described in section of this document: Manage Traffic Queues: Queue management is the process establishing and maintaining a safe, orderly and efficient flow of traffic. This process aims at managing the cases where demand will still excess capacity despite all measures that would have been taken in previous phases - due to limited resources. This is especially the case for runways. In the execution phase, it involves metering and sequencing of the traffic, refining the planned queues that have been created in the short term planning phase, by taking into account the actual traffic situation and various additional parameters such as e.g. wake turbulence categories. The scope of this process extends, for arrivals, to the en-route phase of flights as far as metering is concerned. Queue management is also closely related to the separation process in the context of the present document, we considered the separation between aircraft in the same arrival queue to be part of Queue management (refer to 4.1 below). De-Conflict and Separate Traffic: This process provides traffic de-confliction and separation. Despite measures taken in planning phases, strategic de-confliction will be required in high complexity operations to ensure that the task of separation provision remains manageable. Apply Safety Nets: This process will enable to assist the Sector Controller and Pilots with the appropriate safety nets (ACAS or ground-based STCA), in order to be able to carry out the appropriate actions in case of collision risk. All three above processes will impact the RBT at the air or ground initiative - according to the separation mode and the look-ahead time. Actions for queue management purposes will result in new or updated constraints on the arrival time at a merging point i.e. a CTA (refer to 4.1). Actions to provide separation should generally result in closed loop trajectory changes from the original RBT (to ensure downstream trajectory integrity) or if unavoidable, a tactical open loop instruction. In all cases, the direct consequence will be a revised RBT. Collision avoidance, when a risk is detected, will result in tactical open loops. In all cases, it is anticipated that the look-ahead time associated with these processes may not be sufficient to enable CDM to take place i.e. in the general case, RBT revisions there will be immediate ones. On the other hand, the results of previously conducted CDM processes could be taken into account in particular as an input to Arrival Queue Management (refer to ConOps [17], F : The AMAN will work with shared data that enables the automatic consideration of the output of UDPP. ). Page 16 of 83

17 Figure 5: Overall ATM Process Model in the Execution Phase The branch of the ATM process model concerned with the present document has been further detailed in a trajectory oriented perspective. Processes have therefore been classified according to their potential impact on the trajectories: Processes potentially having a direct impact on trajectories: these processes encompass the orderly organization of the traffic flows and their safe and efficient execution these two kinds of processes being typically performed at different time horizons (within the execution phase scope); Processes not having a direct impact on trajectories 3, such as the transfer of control and the monitoring. Processes which do not have a direct impact on the trajectories will not be detailed in the main sections of this document, but will appear as use cases in the relevant annex ( B). The inputs and outputs of the high level processes depicted on the previous figure are shortly described in the next sections. 3 On the other hand, trajectory sharing is an essential enabler to simplification of transfer of control. Page 17 of 83

18 The lowest level of decomposition of the ATM Processes to be covered by the Arrival/Departure DOD is shown in the following table, along with the related SESAR ConOps references: Code 4 ATM Process Description A A A A Arrival Queue Management Optimise Arrival Queue Implement Arrival Queue Terminal Area Exit Queue Management Arrival queue management is meant as the process establishing and maintaining a safe, orderly and efficient flow of traffic down to the runway (or runways). This flow of traffic is established on the basis of the Reference Business Trajectories (RBT), and is targeted to comply with the destination airport requirements in terms of runway throughput. This process deals with all the activities related to creation of a final optimised arrival sequence, ensuring an arrival sequence that is going to be executed by the Executive Controllers. This process aims to include all the activities of the Executive Controller to execute the arrival sequence in the TMA, including giving the appropriate instructions to the flight crew. The last activity covered by this process is the handover from the Executive Controller to the Tower Runway Controller. This process deals with all the activities related to the creation and execution of an optimised Terminal Area Exit queue - i.e. the sequencing at Terminal Area Exit points of flows coming from one or several airports in the Terminal Area. SESAR ConOps References F.2.3, F.2.6.4, F , F.2.7, F.3.1, F.3.2, F.3.3, F.4.2.1, F.4.2.2, F.4.2.3, F.4.2.4, F , F , F.5.1.4, F , F , F , F , F.6.2 F.2.3, F.2.6.4, F , F.3.1, F.3.2, F.3.3, F.4.2.1, F.4.2.2, F.4.2.3, F.4.2.4, F , F , F.5.1.4, F , F , F , F , F.6.2 F.2.3, F.2.6.4, F , F.2.7, F.3.1, F.3.2, F.3.3, F.4.2.1, F.4.2.2, F.4.2.3, F.4.2.4, F , F , F.5.1.4, F , F , F , F , F.6.2 F This refers to the code associated to the process in the ATM Process Model SADT diagrams. 5 Note: The existence of this process is being debated. The corresponding section in this document is not developed, but only kept as a placeholder. Page 18 of 83

19 Code 4 ATM Process Description A A De-Conflict and Separate Traffic in High Complexity Arrival and Departure Operations Detect and Resolve conflicts This process aims at maintaining a safe separation between aircraft 6. Part of the separation provision is ensured by other processes (e.g. queue management in the execution phase for same flow arrivals, and other processes striving to provide a level of strategic de-confliction even before the execution phase), and this process is consequently concerned with steps coming afterwards: Segregation of traffic flows (arrivals versus departures, but also amongst different arrival flows and amongst different departure flows); Medium term or tactical conflict detection and resolution. This process aims to detect conflicts in Terminal Area, monitor trajectory conformance and provide conflict resolution advisory(ies) - possibly involving a change in the separation mode - taking into account the context and ATM capability level(s) of involved aircraft. It is expected that strategic deconfliction and complexity management will not solve all separation aspects, i.e. all routes and profiles in the Terminal Area cannot be separated from each other in all cases. Detect/Solve conflicts is triggered either through continuous traffic monitoring, or by specific events such as an RBT update or revision, a pilot or Airspace User request - or the fact that it is time to clear for the next portion of the RBT. Depending on the separator, it could be ground-based or airborne-based. SESAR ConOps References F.2.3.3, F.2.4, F.2.4.1, F , F.3.3, F.4, F.4.3, F.6, F.6.2.1, F F.2.3.3, F.4, F.4.3, F.6, F For all conflict detection in TMA the precision of the avionics/or ground-based must be good enough to predict a standard separation between flights in a specific point e.g. 30s» 2NM, standard separation in TMA could be 5NM or 3NM. Page 19 of 83

20 Code 4 ATM Process Description A A A Implement Separation solution De-Conflict and Separate Traffic in Medium/Low Complexity Arrival and Departure Operations Apply Safety Nets in the TMA Airspace This process aims to implement the most appropriate separation solution in Terminal Area, according to the output of the "Detect and Solve Conflict" process. This process can be ground-based or airborne-based depending on the separation mode. It may involve: authorisation of the next segment(s) of the RBT, through RBT clearances (including TMR when applicable), if no conflict has been detected; an RBT revision process; or (if it cannot be avoided) a timecritical action using closed loop instructions. See above the description for the "De-Conflict and Separate Traffic in High Complexity Arrival and Departure Operations" process. This process will allow the Controller to be informed with the actions of the embarked ACAS system or groundbased safety nets (i.e. Short term Conflict Alert, Area Proximity Warning and Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) to be able to monitor and carry out with the appropriate actions (i.e. an open-loop tactical instruction given to the Flight Crew) in order to prevent collision with other aircraft or terrain. Note: There is no discontinuity in the service provided by on-board safety net equipment while flying through different volumes of airspace - e.g. from an en-route to a TMA sector. SESAR ConOps References F.2.4, F.2.4.1, F , F.3.3, F.4, F.6, F.6.2, F F.2.3.3, F.2.4, F.2.4.1, F.3.5, F.4, F.4.3, F.6, F.6.2.2, F F.7 Table 1: ATM Model low-level processes addressed 2.3 SESAR CONCEPT ADDRESSED IN THE DOCUMENT The following leading characteristics of the SESAR 2020 concept are especially addressed in the present document: Trajectory-based operations (refer to below); Airspace Capacity (refer to below); New Separation Modes (refer to below); Information managed on a system-wide basis and air-ground datalink (refer to below); Page 20 of 83

21 Another key characteristic of the SESAR concept, namely Queue Management, is also described below (refer to ) Trajectory-based operations The SESAR trajectory-based approach reconfirms three important characteristics of trajectories while also enhancing their significance and effects as a result of much improved data quality: The Business/Mission Trajectory: Expressing the Specific Needs of Airspace Users: The trajectories represent the business/mission intentions of the airspace users. By safeguarding the integrity of the trajectories and minimising changes the concept ensures the best outcome for all users. Airlines, business, General Aviation and the military all have business or mission intentions, even if the terminology is different and their specific trajectories have different characteristics. The trajectory is always associated with all the other data needed to describe the flight. (ConOps) Through a collaborative layered planning system and prior to agreeing to facilitate a requested trajectory Network Management assesses the impact of the additional flight on the overall traffic situation, ensuring that the proposed flight is within the capacity limitations of the System and where an imbalance is identified proposes solutions whereby the flight can be accommodated, e.g. issues a TTO for which the user determines how best to meet, if necessary, in coordination with the Network Manager using NOPLA services. This collaborative process results in minimising the increase of complexity through the optimum use of ATM assets. Trajectory Ownership: The airspace user owns the Business Trajectory, thus in normal circumstances the users have primary responsibility over their operation. In circumstances where (including those arising from infrastructural and environmental restrictions/regulations) need to be applied, the resolution that achieves the best business/mission outcome within these constraints is left to the individual user. Typically constraints will be generated/released and taken into account by various ATM partners through CDM processes. The owners prerogatives do not affect ATC or Pilot tactical decision processes (for example separation provision, weather avoidance etc). (ConOps) 4D trajectories: The business/mission trajectories will be described as well as executed with the. precision in all 4 dimensions. The trajectories will be shared and updated from the source(s) best suited to the prevailing operational circumstances and capabilities and the sources include the aircraft systems, flight operational control systems and ANSP trajectory predictors... The ability to generate trajectories in the ATM system from flight plan data will be retained for those flights that are unable to comply with SESAR trajectory management requirements. (ConOps) Trajectory lifecycle During flight execution, ground-based system tools will continuously probe the next portion of the RBT to be flown to verify that there will be no infringement on the separation minima applicable to the next portion of the RBT to be flown..at any given time, the RBT can be decomposed into 3 main components/states (Figure 6): Executed: already flown portion of the RBT - i.e. prior to the current position of the aircraft; Authorised: portion of the RBT for which controller tools have verified remains free of conflict as described above - i.e. a conflict-free segment ahead of the current aircraft position. Page 21 of 83

22 Agreed 7 : the remaining portion of the RBT. Authorised RBT Agreed RBT Executed RBT (Executed trajectory) Figure 6: Life cycle of the Reference Business Trajectory In addition, either the Flight Crew or the Service Provider may initiate a proposed RBT revision which contains changes to the current, agreed trajectory for the purposes of, for example, separation management, complexity management (from the Service Provider), or for weather avoidance from the Flight Crew. Only when these changes are issued in the form of a clearance or instruction by the Service Provider and accepted by the Flight Crew will the proposed trajectory become the new agreed RBT and be instantiated within the FMS. There can only be one valid RBT. Trajectory Management will be supported via: Enhanced monitoring, conflict detection and resolution tools fed by the shared airborne predictions; Separation provision will be aided by enhanced aircraft capabilities (level and/or time constraints, initial 8 ASAS applications). RBT updates processed onboard will be broadcast via the SWIM architecture when their evolution is larger than thresholds specified in the Trajectory Management Requirements (TMR). This will ensure consistency between air and ground views of the RBT, while avoiding saturation of the SWIM network with unnecessary information exchanges. TMR thresholds can be defined in a flexible manner in accordance with needs, which in turn depend for example on such aspects as the traffic complexity. 7 It is the initial state, immediately after RBT has been initially agreed, and also after proposals for revisions have been accepted. 8 Initial ASAS applications meant here as e.g. Airborne Spacing (ASPA) and Airborne Separation (ASEP) applications, but excluding e.g. Self Separation (SSEP). Page 22 of 83

23 Trajectory modifications can be triggered due to a variety of reasons, resulting in various mechanisms. The table below provides some examples: Category Possible Causes Typical time horizon 9 RBT revision with CDM (i.e. RBT owner is involved prior to the "authorisation to proceed") Closed-loop instruction (immediate RBT revision, without CDM) Open-loop instruction (immediate revision, without CDM) Update in Airspace User constraints Crew/airborne system request Conflict detection MTCD Possibly: Arrival queue optimization 10 Crew request - e.g. weather; Arrival queue optimisation; Strategic de-confliction; Separation provision. Crew request - e.g. traffic, weather; Separation provision; Collision avoidance - e.g. STCA or MSAW alarm. Table 2: Classification of Trajectory Modifications minutes ahead minutes ahead. Less than 5 minutes ahead. In the context mentioned above, trajectory modifications resulting from an action of the crew following an ACAS resolution advisory are deliberately not taken into account as they are the only ones which do not necessarily follow an instruction given by the ground ATC authority Airspace Capacity According to the SESAR ConOps E , it is an assumption that the SESAR concept will create sufficient terminal area and en-route capacity so that it is no longer a constraint in normal operations. This capacity is a function of controller task load. To meet the capacity goal there must therefore be a substantial reduction in controller task load per flight if this is to be realised while meeting the safety, environmental and economic goals. Controller task load is generated from two different sources: there is the routine task load associated with managing a flight through a sector (such as co-ordination in and out, routine communications, data management) and the tactical task load associated with separation provision (conflict/interaction detection, situation monitoring and conflict resolution). The ConOps further states in E To address the controller task load issue, without incurring a significant increase in ANSP costs, three lines of action are included in the concept: Automation for the routine controller task load supported by better methods of data input and improved data management. Automation support to conflict/interaction detection and situation monitoring and conflict resolution. A significant reduction in the need for controller tactical intervention: 9 These are not definitive, absolute, figures; they are provided only for illustration. 10 Would also cover FOC request (or more generally UDPP), as far as execution phase is concerned (typically an airline giving a wished priority list within a bunch of flights scheduled to arrive at about the same time in hub operations). Page 23 of 83

24 o o Reduce the number of potential conflicts using a range of de-confliction methods; Redistribute tactical intervention tasks to the pilots: Cooperative separation or Self-separation. Finally according to ConOps D.7 The SESAR concept will increase capacity by reducing the requirement for tactical intervention. In highly congested areas dominated by climbing and descending traffic flows this will be achieved by deploying route structures that provide a greater degree of strategic de-confliction and procedures that capitalise on the greater accuracy of aircraft navigation Separation Modes The following separation modes are envisioned for high complexity terminal area operations (ConOps [17], F.6.2.3): Notes: Surveillance (conventional, ANSP is the separator); Precision Trajectory 2D and Precision Trajectory 3D Clearances (new ANSP modes see below the separator is the ANSP); ASAS Airborne Separation (new airborne mode the separator is the aircrew). The ConOps mentions ASAS Cooperative separation which would actually refer to Airborne Separation as per P.O. ASAS [16]. Airborne spacing (e.g. sequencing & merging) can also be used as a tool which transfers the workload to the cockpit for establishing and maintaining a specified distance or time interval between successive flights but leaves the responsibility for the separation with the ANSP; In Terminal Airspace, the pre-determined separator is the ANSP according to the ConOps. The selection of separation mode will depend on the environment and on the aircraft capability. Pre-defined Routes in Performance Based Navigation Operations 2D and 3D routes are envisioned as pre-defined and published routes which require defined precision navigation. Aircraft established upon these assigned routes would be considered geographically separated from aircraft navigating upon adjacent precision trajectory routes. From the TMA perspective they may be issued as part of either the arrival or the departure route and as such are similar in function to the current SIDs and STARs; albeit with much greater detail. Because they constrain the performance of the aircraft it is possible that they may only be issued during periods of medium to heavy traffic loads as a capacity enhancement tool: allowing aircraft to follow a user-preferred trajectory at all other times.[29] The routes are geographically separated from adjacent routes: meaning that an aircraft established on one route is always considered separated from one operating on an adjacent route. In a TMA environment this type of structured route will permit climb and descent with respect to other aircraft and without the requirement for issuing intermediate clearances/instructions. Once the adjacent flights have reported established, the ATCO is free to focus on other flight interactions without the requirement for continuous monitoring. Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) are one example of a PTC and are potentially beneficial from both an operating efficiency and from an environmental perspective[31]. 2D Routes: 2D routes (with lateral containment) may be defined for a given airspace volume. Depending on the airspace and operational environment 2D routes may be fixed or temporary in nature (c.f. Flex tracks or NAT tracks). Page 24 of 83

25 The allocation of 2D routes is a de-confliction method providing vertical and longitudinal separation from adjacent routes. Separation between flights operating on the same route (if required) is obtained through. 3D Routes: 3D routes (with lateral and vertical containment) may be defined for a given airspace volume. The use of such routes is dependant upon the airspace, the traffic complexity, the ATM Service level of the service provider and the ATM Capability level of the aircraft concerned. 3D routes may be fixed or temporary in nature with the route selected and agreed in the RBT. The separation mode using 3D is applicable to ATM CL-3/4 aircraft. They are applied dynamically to best match the aircraft s performance capability and contain the vertical evolution of the trajectory. This has the potential to provide significant gains in airspace capacity and will be supported by automation tools to assess trajectories and propose 3D separation provision solutions under time critical conditions. The allocation of 3D routes is a powerful de-confliction method since adjacent routes are geographically separated. Longitudinal separation between flights on the same route is provided by ATC to complement the 3D route. This may be achieved through surveillance based separation and/or the dynamic application of constraints or delegated to flights that can utilise appropriate ASAS capabilities. 2D/3D route allocation, as well as the use of precision trajectory clearances in either two or three dimensions (PTC-2D/3D), is expected to provide strategic de-confliction between arrivals and departures whilst enabling continuous climb/descent and be major contributors to increased capacity in high density TMAs. The present DOD will consider: PTC-2D and possibly PTC-3D on pre-defined routes for arrivals and departures typically for high density operations in terminal airspace; PTC-2D on User-preferred trajectories (dynamic routes) for arrivals and departures typically for medium/low density operations in terminal airspace; PTC-3D on user-preferred routes 11 corresponds to a proposed Operational Improvement with an initial operational date of 2025, and is thus excluded from the scope of this document Queue Management 'All phases of DCB prepare the traffic for arrival in the TMA, but in particular Dynamic DCB (ddcb) will reduce the requirement for queuing for both arrivals and departures. By maintaining a balanced flow of aircraft that does not exceed the runway capacity excessive queuing will become a procedure that is imposed primarily to cope with a sudden and unexpected change in airport capacity (e.g. loss of an approach system or a sudden change in wind requiring a runway change). At some airports where airspace configuration does not permit linear patterns, limited queuing will remain to ensure that there are no breaks in the arrival flow thus ensuring optimised runway throughput. Similarly, for departure, taxi out and departure will be completed with a minimum of delay since the numbers will be controlled through the ddcb process to ensure that there are no surges beyond the capability of the runway to cope. [27],[33] For the arrival queue management, constraints are thus referred to as runway metering constraints in the document. They consist mainly in the targeted landing rate, which may be complemented by time intervals blocked for departing flights movements depending on the airport configuration. 11 'In this case User Preferred Route refers to those segments of the RBT that are not on a Pre-defined Route Page 25 of 83