Airborne Separation Assistance Systems ASAS Summary of simulations

  • Slides: 13
Download presentation
Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS) - Summary of simulations Joint ASAS-TN 2/IATA/AEA workshop NLR,

Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS) - Summary of simulations Joint ASAS-TN 2/IATA/AEA workshop NLR, Amsterdam, 8 th October 2007 Chris Shaw EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, France European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation 1

Contents of presentation l l Introduction Radar airspace l l Non-radar airspace l 2

Contents of presentation l l Introduction Radar airspace l l Non-radar airspace l 2 Simulations of airborne spacing merge and remain behind in TMA Simulations of air traffic situational awareness for oceanic step climbs

Introduction (1/2) l l Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) invented 1980 s. 74%

Introduction (1/2) l l Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) invented 1980 s. 74% of flights in Europe equipped with ADS-B Mode S extended squitter of which 79% broadcasting position (Eurocontrol, August 2007) l Benefits: l l l 3 Surveillance cost 1/10 of ground based radar -> reduced navigation service charges ~30% Wider coverage – niche areas too expensive for ground radar Increased efficiency of flight operations enabled by airborne separation Secondary surveillance radar coverage 10, 000 feet - green quadruple

Introduction (2/2) l Airborne Separation Assistance System (ASAS) l 1983: “Analysis of in-trail following

Introduction (2/2) l Airborne Separation Assistance System (ASAS) l 1983: “Analysis of in-trail following dynamics of Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI)”, Sorensen & Goka, NASA l 2007: > 80 ASAS applications identified (Eurocontrol/FAA) l Example ASAS applications with early benefits: l l 4 Airborne spacing merge and remain behind in TMA Airborne traffic situational awareness for oceanic step climb © EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

Merge and remain behind in TMA (1/6) l Motivation l l Air-air surveillance capabilities

Merge and remain behind in TMA (1/6) l Motivation l l Air-air surveillance capabilities (ADS -B) Cockpit automation (ASAS) Constraints l 5 Paris Orly, 2002, source: ADP Merge Remain Assumptions l l Improve the sequencing of arrival flows through a new allocation of spacing tasks between air and ground Neither “transfer problems” nor “give more freedom” to pilots … shall be beneficial to all parties Human: consider current roles and working methods To achieve spacing at waypoint To maintain spacing

Merge and remain behind in TMA (2/6) l l Development and refinement of spacing

Merge and remain behind in TMA (2/6) l l Development and refinement of spacing instructions and working methods Identification of required functional evolutions (air and ground) and route structure © EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Aircraft under spacing Aircraft with target selected 6

Merge and remain behind in TMA (3/6) Assessment of feasibility, benefits and limits l

Merge and remain behind in TMA (3/6) Assessment of feasibility, benefits and limits l l l Representative environment with very high traffic From cruise to final approach Nominal and non nominal conditions (mixed equipage, go-around, emergency, radio failure, airborne spacing error, …) l l Large panel of participants l 7 Controller, pilot and system perspectives Controllers from various ANSP (AENA, DSNA, Flown trajectories Baseline Distribution of inter aircraft spacing at final approach fix. Baseline Number of aircraft passing final approach fix (period 45 min) 27 With spacing Number of aircraft l Flown trajectories With spacing 26 25 With spacing 24 23 60 90 120 150 180 © EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre 22 Baseline

Merge and remain behind in TMA (4/6) EUROCONTROL-DSNA Project, October 2005 – February 2007

Merge and remain behind in TMA (4/6) EUROCONTROL-DSNA Project, October 2005 – February 2007 Evaluation of operational benefits of airborne spacing sequencing and merging for Paris Arrivals Charles de Gaulle North – partial equipage – time gain 8

Merge and remain behind in TMA (5/6) A new RNAV route structure? l 100

Merge and remain behind in TMA (5/6) A new RNAV route structure? l 100 New route structure 80 60 Baseline 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Distance to final approach fix (NM) Frequency occupancy (%) l A preliminary step to prepare implementation of airborne spacing A transition towards extensive use of P-RNAV A sound foundation to support further developments such as CDA (continuous descent) and 4 D (target time of arrival) Altitude (feet x 100) l 120 100 Baseline New route structure 80 60 40 20 0 Final Approach © EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre 9 60

Merge and remain behind in TMA (6/6) l Point merge preliminary fasttime simulation results

Merge and remain behind in TMA (6/6) l Point merge preliminary fasttime simulation results (RAMS platform) l l l 4 Initial approach fixes 1 runway 1 hour traffic ~30 aircraft with 20% heavy/80% medium mix 2 controllers Continuous descent approach from 12, 000 -> 3, 000 feet Distance range 60 -90 NM © EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre 10

Oceanic step climbs (1/3) • Crew Aircraft But standard request at FL 340 longitudinal

Oceanic step climbs (1/3) • Crew Aircraft But standard request at FL 340 longitudinal a step would climb like separation with to climb airborne …. . does traffic not exist situation at level awareness above > 10 mins FL 360 FL 350 ATSA-ITP 5 mins Criteria FL 340 ASSTAR step climb with airborne traffic situation awareness 11

Oceanic step climbs (2/3) l l Today over North Atlantic average 0. 2 step

Oceanic step climbs (2/3) l l Today over North Atlantic average 0. 2 step climbs per flight recorded Fast time simulations show with airborne traffic situation awareness l l 12 number of step climbs per flight could be 2 or more. ~75% of climb requests could be satisfied immediately and at least 93% satisfied eventually. ASSTAR fast time simulations

Oceanic step climbs (3/3) l Costs l Implementation costs per aircraft l l l

Oceanic step climbs (3/3) l Costs l Implementation costs per aircraft l l l Maintenance costs per annum l l l Cost benefit analysis by BAE Systems D 5. 3 (http: //www. asstar. org/) 1, 200 € retro fit 1, 500 € forward fit Benefits l l 45, 000 € retrofit 35, 000 € forward fit 150 Kg fuel saved per single oceanic transition 54, 000 € per aircraft per year 0. 6% reduction in emissions Payback period 0. 9 years retro fit l 0. 7 years forward fit (Assuming 2 transitions a day and 0. 5 € per kilogram) l 13