KDC ASAS 2008 project - How could ASAS benefit the NL ATM System

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "KDC ASAS 2008 project - How could ASAS benefit the NL ATM System"

Mavis Carr
7 years ago
Views:

1 WG Air briefing 25 May 09 KDC ASAS 2008 project - How could ASAS benefit the NL ATM System Nico de Gelder 1

2 WG Air briefing Intro & overview ASAS 2008 study ASAS Merging & Spacing example application or high capacity CDAs as example challenge ASAS Surface application - runway incursion & high capacity surface operations Next steps 2

3 Intro - ASAS Enabling Technologies Aircraft Sensors Traffic Display ADS-B 3 TIS-B ADS-B receiver ground station

4 KDC ASAS Study - Objectives To study if and how ASAS could benefit the Schiphol concept evolution workshops addressing specific problem areas and Airborne (and Ground) Surveillance Applications The result should be a short list of applications with recommendations for more detailed / focussed research and focus on implementation 4

5 KDC ASAS Study - Participants KDC ASAS project team NLR (project lead) KLM LVNL, Air Traffic Control the Netherlands Schiphol Group Delft University of Technology involving Operational, ASAS, ATM (air & ground part), Human Factors expertise 5

6 Specific challenges Schiphol Airport Schiphol Specifics Complex and busy ATM environment Air Traffic Control Proficient, but high workload Difficult to reach required proficiency levels 6 Noise hindrance (perception) Capacity improvement ( ,000/yr) Sustainability (95%) Runway configurations Weather/wind conditions Low visibility operations

7 KDC ASAS study Scope KDC ASAS study looked at today s situation, and near-to-medium future ( 2018) required: >120 nm Schiphol concept evolution Conceptual simple and stable traffic flows high capacity CDA operations independent parallel approaches high capacity airport surface operations particularly in low visibility conditions 7

8 KDC ASAS study Scope 8 Mainly expert assessment of the applications They rated aspects like: Importance for Schiphol Safety Efficiency capacity Efficiency economy / fuel usage Environment noise, emissions Sustainability Complexity of application, incl. transition path Maturity of application Standardisation status Controller & Pilot workload Readiness for implementation Minimum equipage level

9 KDC ASAS Study External Interest 9 Interest in both current and follow-up work ACSS highly interested in current and follow-up work; pioneering: Louisville, US Philadelphia wants to co-operate (with their SafeRoute avionics) SURF, AIRB, M&S, ITP - towards operational trials EUROCONTROL highly interested in current and follow-up work wants to co-operate particularly towards pre-operational trials of Merging & Spacing BOEING very interested in this and follow-up work wants to be involved AIRBUS interested in ASAS Schiphol NATS/DFS/NASA/MITRE/... short discussions

10 Results = Recommendations 10

11 Medium & High Capacity CDA Operations - Merging & Spacing (M&S) 11

12 CDA & Airborne Spacing Scenario Overview a/c 1 1) 3) 5) 7) 8) 2) 4) 6) AMAN ATC A/c In Both this 2 inform transmit Aircraft aircraft uses follows scenario, computes ASAS a/c flying continue CPDLC a/c 2 aircraft flight a/c to 1 their merge with 2 on crew RTA 1 is respective at of behind desired the message planned Initiation target a/c spacing trajectory a/c to aircraft, planned 1 Point. instructed ID at the and until and merge trajectories the Initiation FAF aircraft when required point 2 Point spacing. with is a/c the 2 the its reaches depends instructed RTA desired (Spacing at Initiation the spacing. aircraft Initiation defined Point, as it trajectories when Spacing Point switches both takes to aircraft and logically into ADS-B reach account following range. a common wake (ABSOLUTE a/c 1. vortex, merge etc. TIME) point ASAS logic downstream.) compensates (RELATIVE TIME) for wind. a/c 2 ADS-B Range a/c 1 Initiation Point a/c 2 a/c 2 a/c 12 a/c 1 Common Merge Point FAF Runway 12

13 TMA Operations - M&S Two scenarios, for TMA operations + CDAs 30 landings per hour per runway (current LVNL Strategy & Vision) 40 landings per hour per runway (growth scenario) Expert assessment - conclusions 30 scenario several projects has shown that it is feasible without the support of M&S 40 scenario M&S enables growth towards 40 scenario but is M&S adequate to support the 40? an initial performance assessment has been carried out 13

14 Initial Performance Assessment 14 Time containment model based on RNP containment methodology Input: 40 landings per hour per runway worse case conditions assumed Mean final approach ground speed 125 kt Mean absolute groundspeed differential between pairs of aircraft of 10 kt 20% Heavy, 80% Medium 99.5% success rate assumed Success = remain within time containment limit, i.e. adhere to distance-based separation minima Maximum of two (2) ATC interventions per day & per runway

15 Time Containment - Model If outside containment limit ATC intervention, possibly go-arounds aircraft of interest traffic to follow tdesired tmin = tdesired - tcontainment Time Interval RNP value (e.g 5 sec) Time Containment Limit (tcontainment) 15

16 Time Containment - Example with only Mediums t_containment for 40 landings/hour - 100% Mediums (for 125 kt mean & 10 kt final appr groundspeed differential) 18 t_containm ment (s) separation minimum (NM) all M traffic sequence all M

17 Time Containment - Effect of Separation Minima t_containment for 40 landings/hour - 20% Heavies (for 125 kt mean & 10 kt final appr groundspeed differential) t_contain nment (s) all M 100% HM 80% HM traffic WVC sequence 60% HM 40% HM 20% HM separation minimum (NM) all M 100% HM 80% HM 60% HM 40% HM 20% HM Conclusion: only possible option is 2.5 miles min separation (containment limit of at least 4 s, this gives a bare minimum time spacing SD of 1.5 s)

18 Time containment Effect of Traffic Mix t_containment for 40 landings/hour miles minimum separation (for 125 kt mean & 10 kt final appr groundspeed differential) 18.0 t_containm ment (s) all M 100% HM 80% HM traffic sequence 60% HM 40% HM 20% HM 10% 15% 20% 20% 15% 10% percentage Heavies all M 100% HM 80% HM 60% HM 40% HM 20% HM 18 20% % %

19 M&S Perf Assessment - Conclusions 3 NM (and 4, 5) minimum separation 40 landings per hour per runway is not feasible No airborne or ground tool is able to achieve this goal NM (and 4, 5) minimum separation Spacing error should be less than sec (at threshold), 95% of the time Sequence should cluster heavy aircraft when more than 15% is Heavy (clusters of 2-3 heavy aircraft in case of 20% Heavies) For a theoretical 2.3 NM (and 4, 5) minimum separation Spacing error should be less than 5.1 sec (at threshold), 95% of the time No clustering of heavy aircraft required

20 Recommendations Merging & Spacing Recommendations To include Merging & Spacing in the ATM System Strategy of the Dutch Aerospace sector To start Design and Development activities aiming at implementation of M&S at Schiphol in the short-to-medium term -> WG AIR initiative To monitor global activities w.r.t. time based separation minima 20 Next phase: Can Merging & Spacing really deliver 40 landings per hour per runway (at Schiphol Airport)? And how to get required equipage levels?

21 Recommendations ATSA-SURF Situational Awareness on Airport Surface Worldwide, but also locally at Schiphol, the issue of runway incursions is a serious problem 21 Conclusions Viable concept to increase safety on the airport surface [ref. US CAST study] Slight improvement in time spent in ILS SA in low visibility conditions, possibly enabling a reduction in min separation distances for instrument approaches Slightly more efficient taxi procedure/operation Recommendations To strive for a) industry and certification standards and b) a mandatory implementation To encourage airlines to install ATSA-SURF on their fleets To monitor time spent in ILS SA of equipped aircraft, to investigate possible separation reduction in low visibility

22 Recommendations ATSA/ASEP-SURF Airport Surface Operations in Low Vis Need to sustain capacity during airport surface operations in low visibility conditions Higher A-SMGCS levels assumed Conclusions General principle is to fully leave responsibility for collision avoidance in the cockpit as in good vis Good candidates to enable procedures similar to those in good visibility supplementing A-SMGCS CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS) for Taxi an enhanced ATSA-SURF application and the next logical step: Airborne Separation for Taxi (ASEP-SURF) for BZO-C & BZO-D 22 Recommendations To define and validate the enhanced ATSA-SURF concept, in the context of higher A-SMGCS levels To define and validate the ASEP concept for Taxi, again in the context of higher A-SMGCS levels

23 Recommendations ASEP/ATSA-CSPA Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches Conclusions Potential to (partly) address the safety issue for independent parallel approaches However, other promising measures are also identified Recommendations To include ATSA-CSPA and ASEP-CSPA in the KDC IPC study 23

24 Next Steps 24

25 Next Steps KDC (partners), DGLM to initiate an European mandate on ATSA-SURF, ATSA-AIRB implementation KDC / WG AIR to initiate follow-up ASAS Merging & Spacing project as part of broader time-based arrival concept propose to focus on Merging & Spacing (ASPA-M&S) co-operate with third parties propose to include closely spaced landings (2.5 NM) KDC / WG AIR to initiate follow-up ASAS Surface project, as part of a broader A-SMGCS (sustainability & runway safety) project propose to focus on enhanced ATSA-SURF and possibly ASEP-SURF applications 25 KDC to include ASEP/ATSA CSPA in the Independent Parallel CDA (IPC) project

26 Questions? 26

SESAR Air Traffic Management Modernization. Honeywell Aerospace Advanced Technology June 2014

SESAR Air Traffic Management Modernization Honeywell Aerospace Advanced Technology June 2014 Honeywell in NextGen and SESAR Honeywell active in multiple FAA NextGen projects ADS-B Surface Indicating and