Findings and trends from the Co Space EVP

Findings and trends from the Co. Space / EVP series of flight deck experiments on ASAS spacing Karim Zeghal EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre ASAS-TN, 19 -21 April 2004, Toulouse 1

Motivation ü Motivation • Identify a more effective allocation of spacing tasks between controller and flight crew • One option to improve air traffic management • Neither “transfer problems” nor “give more freedom” to pilots … shall be beneficial to all parties ü Constraints • Human: consider current roles and working methods • System: keep things as simple as possible ü Assumptions • Airborne surveillance capabilities (ADS-B, “state vectors”) • Airborne functions (ASAS, “manual mode”) 2

Principle ü Principles • Use of spacing instructions (not separation not clearance) to be used with current practices • No modification of responsibility for separation provision • Flight crew tasked by the controller to maintain a given spacing to a designated aircraft • FAA/Eurocontrol PO-ASAS, ICAO SCRSP ASAS circular ü Expected benefits • Increase of controller availability, leading to improve safety • … in turn: better traffic management and, depending on airspace constraints, more capacity • Gain in awareness and anticipation for flight crew ü Two classes of operations • Crossing and passing • Sequencing of arrival flows 3

Stepwise validation ü Air & ground • Two streams of experiments with unified perspective ü Operational • Start in cruise (extended TMA) and progressively get closer to the runway (TMA) ü Validation • Start assessing usability and progressively address impact on user activity and eventually on the ATC system ü Technology • Start with a basic working environment and progressively introduce assistance and technology when need clearly identified 4

Stepwise validation CRZ-IAF air CRZ-FAF IFATCA’ 98 ground Ext TMA Enroute Ext TMA TMA 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TMA 2003 5

Starting point 6

From usability to activity 7

More assistance, more realism 8

Getting down to final with time 9

More complex scenarios 10

Stepwise validation CRZ-IAF air CRZ-FAF IFATCA’ 98 ground Ext TMA Enroute Ext TMA TMA 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TMA 2003 11

Experiment set-up ü Objective • Extend the scope to the approach phase, with time based spacing ü Environment • Paris South arrival flights, from cruise to final approach (~40 minutes flight time) • Recorded scenario including ATC instructions and background traffic • Target under conventional control ü Flight deck • Flight crew tasks: automatic flight, checklist, operational flight plan, ATIS, briefing, and manual speed adjustments • Cockpit simulator: A 320 FMGS trainer from FAROS ü Flight crew • 12 Airbus rated airline pilots ü Exercises • Achieved: 24 runs in time, 6 in distance, 12 in conventional 12

Activity Ok 13

Spacing performance Tolerance Maximum 5 s 4. 6 s ü Average deviation well below tolerance ü No loss of spacing Average 0. 9 s 15

Findings ü Benefits • Positive feedback on concept (active part, being “in the loop”, understanding of the situation, more anticipation) • Spacing feasible (e. g. ± 5 s) until final approach, with limited assistance, at acceptable workload (under nominal conditions) ü Limits • Where to end spacing on final (at FAF, before or later)? • Under which degraded situations (aircraft, meteo, …) spacing still feasible? ü Issues • New task with potential risk of workload increase (appropriate level of assistance) • Preceding pilot behaviour? Risk of oscillatory effects? 16