TEMPORARY OPERATING INSTRUCTION

Transcription

1 PD/1++ Trial Report Appendix B TEMPORARY OPERATING INSTRUCTION APPENDIX B Appendix B is a direct copy of the temporary operating instructions given to the participating controllers prior to the PD/1++ trial. B1. INTRODUCTION During July and August simulated trials will take place within the North Sea Suite s area of responsibility to test new controller tools, new sectorisations and new procedures for possible implementation in en route European Airspace in These trials are for the purpose of research, not operational development, and the proposals as presented are not a fait accompli. This is a means of refining future ATC concepts of operation through exposing these concepts to operational controllers. As a research facility it is to be expected that at times serviceability and response times may vary from that required for an operational system. During this period the sectors will be operated from an experimental suite of ATC workstations known as the NATS Research Facility (NRF) at the Strategy and Development Directorate s site at Hurn. DOC Version 1.0 / April 1999 B-1

2 Appendix B PD/1++ Trial Report B1.1 New Controller Tools The controllers on the simulation will be presented with a number of advanced tools. These tools were developed under the auspices of the Eurocontrol PHARE programme for use by en route controllers. It is assumed that all participants will have received some form of paper based or computer based training and training time will be provided at Hurn for all participants to work up to a common minimum standard in using the tools. This instruction is not a blow by blow manual on how to do ATC using these tools. It is more to suggest some combinations of tools for various tasks that will give participants a starting pointing, The most immediate thing you will notice is that there are no strips. The strip functions are divided between the various tools available to participants. As a very basic concept for using the tools: The Sector Inbound Lists (SILs) provide warning of traffic entering the sector and together with the track data blocks (TDBs) provide colour coded alerts as to a flights status. The TDBs provide the most basic information relating to the aircraft, and through the TDBs, various electronic co-ordination and tactical date entry functions can be accessed. In addition the TDBs serve as the source through which information on flights can be accessed and datalink messages can be initiated, validated and registered. The Augmented Dynamic Flight Leg (ADFL) can be accessed through the TDB and it provides many of the functions related to the acceptance and looksee functions normally available through the various proposals for electronic strips but with a more selective presentation. The ADFL uses a graphical presentation for its information giving information into, throughout and outwith the sector. It has much better conflict probing capabilities, reinforced by datalink communications in the case of 4D aircraft. There is no current equivalent to deviation monitoring which warns if aircraft are not maintaining the trajectory planned for them. The Conflict Risk Display (CRD) provides a controller with a dynamic record of as yet unresolved conflicts, which can be transposed into highlighted labels on the controllers main radar display. The Eurocontrol Highly Integrative Problem Solver (HIPS) is essentially a planning tool enabling the planner to produce conflict free trajectories between aircraft in the sector. It allows the planner to consider solutions based on speed, track or level variations and because it is reinforced by datalink it is capable under the right circumstances of calculating solutions which in current ATC are too close to call. It also serves as the design tool for trajectories which can be uplinked to 4D equipped aircraft. One of the most disconcerting things about the tools is that they encourage ATC practices that are currently (and rightly) regarded as reckless. Multiple opposite direction unrestricted climbs and descents don t need intervention if the tools show the trajectories are separated. Five mile crosses don t need two miles extra for the pension and kids. For these trials would participants B-2 Version 1.0 / April 1999 DOC

3 PD/1++ Trial Report Appendix B please assume the tools are right unless they let them down. If they do let them down, would the participants please keep working with them, let the trails team know and please try to work with the trials team to analyse the failures. B1.2 New Sectorisations The baseline airspace used will be that defined in the current proposals for sectorisation of Sectors 10 and 11 (the North Sea) on Swanwick O date. They assume that Sector 33 (the old Beeno sector 11 low position) is no longer included in the design. The boundary of Sectors 10 and 11 has been amended to permit Sector 11 to control the new conditional routes between the Maastricht and Scottish areas and also those conditional routes between BPK and both DANDI and BEENO. The standing agreements are those that are current in MATS part 2 at LATCC and the draft Swanwick procedures. An alternative airspace configuration will be tested by amalgamating sectors 10 and 11 into a new sector called Hornsea, which contains the whole of both sectors 10 and 11. B1.3 New Procedures Domestic RVSM is assumed to be in operation throughout European airspace. It is assumed that 70% of aircraft are fitted with datalink capability, a 4D Flight Management System (FMS) and are RVSM capable and that all can navigate on all promulgated routes including the conditional route structure. During the majority of the runs, the traffic will consist of a mixture of 3D and 4D traffic, based on the 70/30 split mentioned above. The most unusual features of these exercises are: 4D traffic, once free of all imposed constraints, will climb or descend to its requested level, and won t ask first; For the tools to work, the tactical will have to look out for deviation alerts and assess the need for any remedial tactical instruction to recover the situation, and then impose the solution; In order to ensure 3D aircraft comply with their planned trajectories, the tactical controller will receive prompts in the Communications List Window (CLW) when a tactical instruction is required to ensure compliance. Unfortunately not all these prompts in the form of ATC phraseology and will at times require inspirational interpretation at times; For guidance a 4D aircraft should receive preference when there is a choice between facilitating a 4D and a 3D aircraft. The views are sought of the participants on the practicality of the concept of mixing 3D and 4D traffic and the control techniques presented to facilitate this process. An advanced procedures concept will be tried out during the August trial. This assumes a number of radical changes to current procedures: DOC Version 1.0 / April 1999 B-3

4 Appendix B PD/1++ Trial Report Aircraft which cannot comply with the conditions for RVSM, are not data link equipped and do not have a 4D FMS will be restricted to a maximum level of FL290. These aircraft will stay en route on airways, UIRs and conditional routes. The sector is simulated on a busy north-about day at a weekend with all conditional routes available. (You could assume that advanced airspace utilisation methods in 2015 will allow use of CDRs most of the time - so we are effectively simulating that possibility). Aircraft which can comply with all of these conditions and who have filed requested levels above FL290 will fly great circle direct routings between city pairs. This is not Freeflight as freeflight assumes even greater flexibility in choice of flight trajectory, but it is some way towards that concept; The procedures assume that arrival and departure management is in place for all airports on the periphery of the sectors (LTMA, MTMA, EHAM TMA, EGNV/EGNT). This simulator has no such traffic management capability but some automatic trajectory constraints are imposed in an attempt to attempt to simulate this. 4D aircraft will fly profiles that mimic the 3D profiles defined by SIDS, STARS and Standing Agreements. In the case of an inbound to any of the peripheral airports the inbound 4D direct routing will terminate at the first standing agreement, after which 4D and 3D nav route adherence will be the same. A suitably equipped departure will assume its direct routing after the last standing agreement has been complied with; This means that at each TMA interface in and out of N Sea there is a transitional region of airspace of between two and eleven thousand feet where 3D and 4D traffic are mixed. It is anticipated that this may cause problems, but the precise nature of those problems is unclear. The controllers on the trial are asked to help identify and define any problems and are invited to propose solutions for resolving them; All sector entry exit conditions will be determined by the planner. The planner will plan so far as possible conflict free trajectories for all aircraft. The tactical will provide all R/T communications and will tactically control all 3D traffic as required. It is unclear to the trials team how difficult or easy the tactical controller will find it to tactically separate the 3D traffic from 4D aircraft s known trajectories by following planned trajectories for 3D aircraft below FL290. The controllers on the trial are asked to help identify and define those problems and are invited to propose solutions for resolving them; An attempt has been to made to anticipate those direct routings that would logically have overflown but then would have been diverted away from North Sea airspace by traffic management (but not CFMU) criteria. Tools such as those developed under PHARE may or may not be suitable (with, if necessary, adaption and development) for the control of aircraft flying direct routings. The participants views are sought on this matter. B-4 Version 1.0 / April 1999 DOC

5 PD/1++ Trial Report Appendix B B2. Airspace NEW FAMBO UR4 GOLES UW534 SKATE UW538 UW532 GORAM GAZAR GIGGS UR4 ROLLS UL7 SILVA UL74 ROYCE OTR UL602 DANDI LONAM B1/UB1 DOGGA TOPPA BEENO UL603 KIPPA SITKO ELDIN KOMIK BLUFA SPY UW550 UA37 UW551 PAM SPRAT B3. STANDING AGREEMENTS Landing MTMA GOLES FL200 (landing EGNM FL200 OTR) Figure B1 - PD/1++ Airspace Dep MTMA GOLES climbing to FL190 Landing LTMA Sprat FL 280 Dep LTMA SPRAT FL 270 Landing EGNT/EGNV FAMBO FL 260 Dep EGNT/EGNV FAMBO CLIMBING TO FL 250 (NOTE not the same as current agreement) DOC Version 1.0 / April 1999 B-5

6 Appendix B PD/1++ Trial Report Landing EHAM TMA DOGGA FL290, SITKO FL 250 KIPPA FL290, KOMIK FL 230 LONAM FL250 TOPPA FL250 Dep EHAM TMA BEENO +FL180, ELDIN FL240 -, DOGGA FL280 LONAM FL240 TOPPA FL 240 (Turboprop SA s have not been implemented) B4. RVSM ALLOCATION A very simple approach, levels between FL 290 and FL 410 will be allocated at 1000 foot intervals based on the semi circular rule. B5. TRAFFIC SAMPLES, DISTRIBUTION AND LOADING The samples are based on real NAS traffic samples chosen for a busy day when the oceanic tracks where very north about and so demand in N Sea airspace would be high. They are all morning samples but some are increased by 25, 50 and 75 %. Growth is not constant across all flights and routes, differential growth rates have been imposed depending on some broadly derived projected growth figures for the routes. B6. FREQUENCIES B6.1 Measured Sectors Sector UK North (of EGBB) Sector UK South (of EGBB) Hornsea Europe B6.2 Feed Sectors UK North SCOATCC Manchester Lakes Wirral UK South LUS Clacton Daventry Europe Copenhagen Amsterdam Maastricht B-6 Version 1.0 / April 1999 DOC