PHARE Operational Scenarios J-P Nicolaon Operational Task Force

PHARE Operational Scenarios J-P. Nicolaon, Operational Task Force Chairman EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre 1

Overview of the work on PHARE scenarios JULY 1990 PHARE Medium Term Scenario (Research Programme) : Initial operational organisation based on : Human in the loop 4 D Navigation Automated ATC Tools Data-Link Communication with the aim to increase ATC productivity 2

PHARE medium term scenario 2000 -2015 l Envisaged changes in en-route controllers’ working methods Extended planning horizon l Multi-Sector Planning Controller l Redistribution of workload from Tactical to Planning Controller l l Assisted runway management Assisted Arrival and Departure sequencing management l Computer-based merging and final approach spacing advisories l 3

Scenarios for PD/1, PD/2 and PD/3 1990 PHARE Medium Term Scenario 1994 1995 1997 PD/1: En-route PD/2: Arrivals PD/3: Gate to gate 4

5

Scenario for PD/1 PC Role • Planning up to 20/25 minutes ahead of time • Conflict-free sector transit plan (4 D and 3 D) • Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4 D aircraft • Information and directives to his TC • Co-ordination of entry/exit conditions • Update ground system 6

Scenario for PD/1 TC Role • • R/T Conflict-free passage Monitoring 4 D aircraft Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4 D aircraft if current “contract” was to be modified • R/T transmissions to 3 D aircraft of instructions as proposed by the ground system • Handling of exceptions 7

HIPS 8

Scenario for PD/1 highlighted the need to look at task sharing between Planning Controller and Tactical Controller l Results were taken into account when designing scenarios for PD/2 and PD/3 l 9

PD/2 Frankfurt TMA 10

PD/2 ground tracks Without PHARE tools With PHARE tools Identical traffic samples in both cases 11

Scenario for PD/2 The main PD/2 objectives became: l to experiment / demonstrate the performance of the Arrival Management software and the feasibility of real flight according to automatic trajectory uplink l to assess the controllers behaviour and acceptability versus automation l to evaluate landing rate improvement 12

Scenario for PD/2 Controller’s roles changed as follows: PC Observer TC l Monitoring of 4 D aircraft l R/T transmission of Arrival Manager advisories to 3 D aircraft l Deconflicting remaining conflicts (if existing) 13

Lessons learned from PD/2 Automated Arrival Manager interactivity required l The definition of STARs, Holds and Stacks needs to be reconsidered l Results were taken into account when designing scenarios for PD/3 l 14

Scenario for PD/3 Main concept elements : • Timely work sharing • Complementary tasks remaining consistent and relevant with time Layered Planning Multi-Sector Planner Planning Controller Tactical Controller 30' 10' Assume Control 15

4 D TRAJECTORY MANAGEMENT Sector n-1 Sector n aircraft position Sector n+1 sector contract approval = clearance Sector n+2 PC modification via trajectory negotiation assume control by sector n TC trajectory modification via: • formalize clearance • trajectory negotiation • or R/T communication MSP modification via uplink previous sector contract approval MF Objectives : to differentiate clearance from planning to pilot to update ground system (planning and negotiation authority) 16

Multi-Sector Planner (30' =>10') (En-route) l To equilibrate traffic between sectors l To reduce local complexity l to optimize trajectory 17

Tactical Load Smoother 18

19

En-route Planning Controller : (10' =>Assume Control) l To manage Problem Situations to resolve 4 D conflicts l to prepare and transfer solutions for 3 D aircraft to the Tactical Controller l To transfer problems to the Tactical Controller if he was in a better position to resolve them l To negotiate trajectory with 4 D aircraft l To assist the Tactical Controller after assume control l 20

En-route Tactical Controller (Assume Control => Sector Exit) To resolve conflicts unresolved by the Planning Controller and new conflicts l To monitor aircraft trajectories l To negotiate short-term trajectory modification l To uplink formalized clearances l To manage R/T l 21

Arrival TMA Controllers l Arrival Sequence Planning Controller (ARR- SP) Interaction with the Arrival Manager (AM) l Conflict-free passage l Trajectory Negotiation l Co-ordination l l Tactical Controller R/T l Final responsibility for real-time separation and final runway spacing l 22

Departure TMA Controllers l Departure Planning Controller (DEP-PC) Interaction with the Departure Manager (DM) l Initial conflict-free SIDs (before departure) l Trajectory Negotiation / Co-ordination l l Departure Tactical Controller (DEP-TC) l R/T l Ultimate responsibility for real-time separation and final runway sequencing 23

Conclusions drawn from the scenario work. The co-operation between the PHARE partners: l highlighted: l divergence in approaching concept design l necessity of compromises (Done !) Demonstrated enrichment of ideas l Made possible common understanding l 24

Conclusions drawn from the scenario work. l It addressed: l l l all phases of flight transition for 2000 -2015 period long-term applications l was partly technology driven l showed difficulties to balance functional requirements for advanced tools with controller roles l showed need for further research into progressive and pragmatic adaptation of scenarios for short and mediumterm implementation 25

PHARE Operational Scenarios J-P. Nicolaon, Operational Task Force Chairman EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre next 26