Avinor. Southern Norway Airspace Project SNAP. Flyoperativt Forum. Per Arnt Auen, project manager. Gardermoen,

Transcription

1 Avinor Southern Norway Airspace Project SNAP Flyoperativt Forum Gardermoen, Per Arnt Auen, project manager

2 SNAP 1. Background, objectives and schedule 2. Airspace organization 3. RTS results

3 Background, objectives and schedule 3

4 SNAP Background / challenges in existing airspace organization 1. Safety 1. Reported incidents (Møre, Vestlandet) 2. Recommendations from reports 3. Expected traffic growth 2. Capacity 1. Occasional constraints 2. Expected traffic growth 3. Reduce charges 1. Political requirement 2. Operators' expectations 4. Environment 1. Political requirement 5. Standardisation 1. Difference in service provision at comparable units 6. Regulatory requirements 1. Controlled airspace down to top of TIZ 2. SID/STAR at airports with IFR traffic 7. Interface to Oslo AoR 1. Non optimal interface after Oslo ASAP implementation

5 SNAP Objectives Overall objective SNAP shall implement a new airspace organization in Stavanger AoR and Bodø AoR from Ørland/Værnes TMA and southwards. Objectives 1. Increase safety level and reduce the number of incidents. 2. Increase capacity to meet expected demand up until the year Reduce aviation s negative influence on environment. 4. Increase standardisation and efficiency in ANS provision. 5. Facilitate increased revenues and/or reduced route charges.

6 SNAP schedule

7 SNAP airspace organization 7

8 SNAP Change elements Each ATCO must handle more aircraft at least equally safe and with less environmental footprints: Changed routes (SID/STAR and ATS routes) New/changed SID/STAR RWY independent TMA entry/exit points System supported conflict handling System sequencing (PMS) CDO/CCO One-way segregated routes New/changed sector boundaries Conflict areas within one sector Balanced workload Changed work methodology Sequencing by ACC Crossing arrivals/departures in TMA Less vectoring Technology CNS Arrival Manager (AMAN) Electronic handoff

9 ACC sectors Medium manning 9

10 ACC sectors High manning 10

11 SNAP «Direct to Final» design 1. RWY independent TMA entry/exit points 2. Arrivals will be sequenced by ACC 3. Sequencing in TMA by speed control or vectors 4. Continuous climb and descent (CCO/CDO) 5. No hard level constraints 6. Planned routing: STAR to Base Point (direct) 7. Most SID climb above STAR before crossing 11

12 SNAP PMS design (ENZV, ENBR, ENVA) 1. RWY independent TMA entry/exit points 2. Arrivals will be sequenced by ACC 3. PMS design allows 4 minutes on sequencing leg 4. Single sequencing legs 5. Continuous climb and descent (CCO/CDO) 6. No hard level constraints 7. Planned routing: STAR start point direct to Merge Point 8. SID climb above STAR before crossing 12/04/

13 Uniform PMS design and work methodology ENVA RWY09 (rotated) ENBR RWY35 ENZV RWY36

14 SNAP RTS results 14

15 SNAP validation European Operational Concept Validation Methodology, E-OCVM Validation team: Project Team, Airspace Designer, Airspace Design Responsible, Other Experts. Validation criteria: ICAO 11 KPA (doc 9854 Global ATM Operational Concept)

16 SNAP Real Time Simulations (RTS) Prototyping Performance

17 SNAP RTS results will we achieve our objectives? 1. Safety 1. By design 2. Increased safety levels 3. Increased controller and pilot predictability 2. Capacity 1. Reduced controller workload 2. Increased controller productivity 3. Handles expected 2030 traffic levels 3. Environment 1. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions 2. Reduced noise impact 3. Reduced fuel burn 4. Standardization and Efficiency 1. Increases standardization of service provision 2. Expected 2030 traffic levels handled by similar ATCO numbers as available on today s shift 5. Increased revenues / reduced route charges 1. Inferred from #2 and #4 above

18 Video from SNAP RTS West Coast TMA North ENBR RWY35 arrivals High-traffic High-manning 2-hours 1 minute historic plots Red - descending Purple - climbing Green - level