Work Package 4: Final Project Report Appendix B: Results of Operational Interviews

Transcription

1 Work Package 4: Final Project Report Appendix B: Results of Operational Interviews First Assessment of the operational Limitations, Benefits & Applicability for a List of package I AS applications FALBALA Project Drafted By: Mark Watson & Richard Pugh (NATS) Authorised by: Thierry Arino on 9 th June 2004 ADDRESSEES: Francis Casaux (CARE/ASAS Manager), Mick Van Gool (CARE Manager), Bogdan Petricel (AGC Programme), Costas Tamvaclis (ADS Programme) COPY TO: CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, UoG & Sofréavia Participants. Page B-1/21

2 RECORD OF CHANGES Issue Date Detail of changes th May 2004 Document initialisation th May 2004 Addition of pilot questionnaire results th June 2004 First Delivered Version, as Appendix B to the WP4 Final Report IMPORTANT NOTE: ANY NEW VERSION SUPERSEDES THE PRECEDING VERSION, WHICH MUST BE DESTROYED OR CLEARLY MARKED ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH THE MENTION OBSOLETE VERSION Page B-2/21

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION OPERATIONAL INTERVIEWS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ACRONYMS...20 Page B-3/21

4 1 Introduction 1.1 Scope and Objectives The purpose of Work Package 4 was to obtain expert assessments of the three ASAS applications in each TMA airspace. As part of this activity a series of interviews and questionnaires were arranged with operational experts, including pilots and controllers. These were held during February The issues identified by the questionnaires and interviews were then used as the basis of discussion at the Operational Workshop in March The purpose of this document, Appendix B to the Work Package 4 final report, is to record the process by which the questionnaires were developed, and the full results of the questionnaires Copies of the actual documents used during the interviews can be found in further appendices to the Work Package 4 Report. These are: Appendix D: Supporting Information To Pilot and Controller Questionnaires Appendix E: Controller Questionnaire Appendix F: Pilot Questionnaire 1.2 Document Overview The following section describes the questionnaires that were produced by Work Package 4 for controllers and pilots. Section 3 presents the results in detail and summarises the main points. Page B-4/21

5 2 Operational Interviews 2.1 Purpose Following the scope of FALBALA as a whole, the questionnaires addressed the three AS applications: Enhanced traffic situational awareness during flight operations (ATSA-AIRB) Enhanced successive visual approaches (ATSA-SVA), preferably named Enhanced visual separation on approach (ATSA-VSA) in the study, to avoid any misunderstanding between visual separation and visual approach; Enhanced sequencing and merging operations (ASPA-S&M) 2.2 The Participants Both ATM and Airline experts with experience of each of the three TMA areas of Paris, Frankfurt and London were asked to participate in the work package. Air Traffic Controllers from DGAC, DFS and NATS participated together with other ATM experts Pilots and Flight Operations experts with experience of each of the three areas were also asked to participate. Air France, British Airways and Lufthansa supported the project. Naturally, pilots tend to have experience of flying in several areas, not just one, as a result of the routes they fly All the ATC participants were familiar with one of the TMA areas. However there was considerable variation in the awareness they had of ASAS applications. Some participants had considerable experience, for example controllers who had participated in the COSPACE simulations at Bretigny. Others had no experience of ASAS Similarly there were different levels of ASAS knowledge among the pilots though most had previously participated in some ASAS discussions. In particular the pilots from Lufthansa were very familiar with the Enhanced Visual Separation on Approach since Visual Separation is already used at Frankfurt. Lufthansa have also been particularly active in the development of Enhanced Sequencing and Merging ideas. 2.3 The Questionnaires It was decided that two questionnaires should be developed; one for controllers (and ATC experts) and one for pilots (and flight ops experts). The general format of the questionnaires was identical. However there are differences in the detail of the questions to address issues specific to pilots/controllers. The questionnaires can be seen at the end of this document. Page B-5/21

6 2.3.2 The questionnaires were designed assuming no prior knowledge of ASAS. To ensure participants could understand the questions, a briefing paper and presentation were produced to support the questionnaire itself. The briefing paper is included with this document. These were supplied with the questionnaire to all participants. In many cases, face-to-face briefings were also given Both the briefing paper and presentation provided: Background to the FALBALA project (Scope, Objectives) A brief overview of each of the three applications including a description of the objectives, new procedures, technical requirements and the anticipated benefits and issues. A brief summary of the FALBALA Work Package 1 results, showing some of the radar analysis results for London, Paris and Frankfurt For each application questions were chosen to assess: The Feasibility of using each application in the airspace of each expert, i.e. how easy or difficult would it be to implement the application in that airspace? The potential impact on Workload and more generally on Working Practices from introducing the application. The anticipated Benefits from each application. Where applications are seen as having particularly one type of benefit (e.g. Safety, or Capacity), questions were specific about the type of benefit. In other cases the type of benefit was left unspecified. Other issues? The final question on each application was left deliberately open-ended to allow participants to raise any other, unanticipated issues The questions were phrased as a basic multiple choice selection with opportunity to add explanation and further issues as written comments. This style of questioning was intended to provide some framework for the answers received (for ease of analysis) while still leaving freedom for replies to cover unanticipated issues. Further, it was hoped that the use of multiple choice questions would encourage as much participation as possible. An example of a typical question is shown below: Do you think Enhanced Sequencing and Merging could provide benefits (capacity/efficiency/safety) in the airspace you work with? Which & Why? No / A Little / A Lot This approach to the questionnaire development reflected the fact that there would be a small number of participants so no real quantitative analysis could be performed. However, the inclusion of a multiple-choice style of question was felt to lead the participant without being too constraining, whilst providing an overview of where answers were either common or contradictory. Page B-6/21

7 2.3.7 The questionnaires and briefing material were disseminated via the project representative either within that country or that had the contact with the participant. So, for example, NATS disseminated the questionnaire and briefing material to NATS and British Airways participants, conducted the briefing, and then collected the completed questionnaires. Page B-7/21

8 3 Questionnaire Results 3.1 Review of Respondents Once the questionnaires were returned to NATS the results were compiled into two spreadsheets one for ATC answers and one for Pilot answers. For each question the open answers were summarised and grouped by country participants. Finally, results from both pilots and ATC were combined for each question, grouping by common answers. The most significant answers formed the basis of the discussion points for the operational workshop In total, the project received 16 responses from 10 ATC respondents and 8 airline respondents. For each organisation, there was a mixture of operational staff, (pilots or controllers) and management staff (ATM & airline managers) This is shown in more detail in Table 3.1. In each organisation, at least some of the respondents had previous experience of ASAS projects. Table 3.1: Summary of Questionnaire Respondents Pilot Respondents ATC Respondents Air France (AFR) Lufthansa (DLH) British Airways (BAW) 2 (management pilot & airline manager) DFS 2 (Frankfurt controllers) 3 (Airline manager & pilots) NATS 4 (ATM managers & LTMA controller) 3 (joint response airline manager and management pilots) CENA 4 (ATM managers & Paris controllers) 3.2 Detailed Results ATC Results The following tables 3.2 to 3.9 present the answers to each of the applications in turn, firstly from the controller s perspective, and secondly from the pilot s perspective. Following this are tables 3.10 to 3.12, which summarise the comments and presents the controller and pilot comments side by side Although the answers are presented side by side, the pilot and controller questions were sometimes slightly different. For example, for ATSA-AIRB, the pilot was asked what benefit the application would have to him, whilst the controller was asked what would be consequence to ATC of pilot having ATSA-AIRB Similarly, the difference in understanding of the applications was reflected in some answers. For example, DLH pilots are used to flying visual separation on approach into Frankfurt, so better understood the application. The precise wording of the questions can be seen in the attached questionnaire templates. Page B-8/21

9 Table 3.2: Controller Questionnaire - ASPA-S&M 3A 3B 3C How feasible would it be to use Enhanced Sequencing Do you think Enhanced Sequencing and Merging could provide benefits (capacity /efficiency /safety) in the airspace you work and Merging in some part of the airspace you work with? with? workload? V. Difficult Difficult Achievable Easy No A Little A Lot Reduction No Change Increase DFS1 * * * DFS2 * * * NATS1 LHR LGW * * NATS2 * * * NATS3 * * * NATS4 * * * CENA1 Qualified ANSWER NO ANSWER CENA2 ENAC NO ANSWER ORLY Identifying aircraft by callsign and SSR could generate confusion (E) How do you think Enhanced Sequencing and Merging would change controller Pilot assuming spacing task reduces ATC task which will increase his efficiency. 3D Do you have any other issues or comments on Enhanced Sequencing and Merging? Other possible benefit is to traffic fluidity. (C1) France DFS NATS Similar to a conditional clearance, so easy to achieve (C1) ATC still has to create spacing, but then delegating would be easy. (C2) Achievable during STAR & initial approach, difficult on intermediate segment of approach (O) Display traffic congestion will require considerable pilot expertise to interpret. High density of traffic and turning points (D2) Requires more air traffic standardisation (D2) Airspace constraints, traffic levels and four stack operation makes HRW,STN, City, & LTN poorly suited to S&M (N1) LGW would be suitable due to large RMA and 2 directions of Inbound flows, as well as variable traffic flows, allowing low traffic level introduction (N1) There may be application for Gatwick operations (N3). Transferring spacing task to pilot reduces ATC workload and should allow capacity and efficiency benefits (C1, C2) One person needs to manage the sharing of responsibilities (C2) Benefits will exist if there is synergy between pilots and ATC.(C1) Pilot tools might help reduce aircraft spacing (C2) Extra pilot workload might decrease efficiency (C1) S&M will help maintain optimum performance for [the whole approach phase] (O) Small efficiency gain as pilots know intention of preceding a/c (D1) Will need speed control (D1) Only when the traffic is more standardised (D2) Capacity, noise, and efficiency would benefit (N1) Biggest benefit would be time based spacing (N1) Sequencing and Merging is already achieved efficiently through radar techniques. No real benefit in using an alternative procedure (N4) Reduction in R/T (D1) A small reduction in surveillance due to aircraft conforming more to their clearances (D2) Reduction of of R/T loading. (N1) Sequencing can be established much further out. (N1) ATCO may feel increased need to monitor the aircraft "like a hawk" - controller still responsible for separation even if no longer issuing executive speed instructions (N3) Does it de-skill ATC, and then what happens when something goes wrong? (N1) No flexibility, spacing establishde further out. (N1) LTMA is very tactical, hence limited application (N3). If introduced at LGW, further ATC support tools would be necessary How does the following aircraft know the target aircraft's intentions? (N2) There is potential benefit of ES&M in conjunction with RNAV procedures. (N4) Page B-9/21

10 Table 3.3: Controller Questionnaire - ATSA-VSA 2A 2B 2C Approaches at the airport(s) you work with? work with? Approaches affect controller workload? V. Difficult Difficult Achievable Easy No A Little A Lot Reduction No Change DFS1 * * * DFS2 * * * NATS1 (Diff. LHR) (Ach. LGW) * * NATS2 * * * NATS3 * * * NATS4 * * CENA1 * No answer given CENA2 * * ENAC N/A at Paris N/A at Paris N/A at Paris ORLY N/A at Paris N/A at Paris N/A at Paris France DFS NATS How feasible would it be to use Enhanced Successive Visual Not possible in Paris due to environmental constraints (E, O) Will become easy when everyone is aware of other's constraints Safer visual separation (C2) Most achievable as more or less already practised, (C1) Already practised (D1) RT Loading and phraseology are concerns (N1) Present procedures are adequate (N1) Already done in a limited and very specific format in TC (N2) What about runway occupancy times? Will go-arounds increase if separation is reduced on approach? (N3) Existing separation and vortex rules would need to be reviewed (N2) Do you think Enhanced Successive Visual Approaches could give capacity or other benefits at the airports(s) you Should reduce ATC visual traffic surveillance (C1) Compare movements in IMC versus VMC (D1) might reduce ATC workload Difficult to reduce the spacing at Heathrow without impinging on wake vortex limits. (N4) Not until separation and vortex limits are improved (N2) Visual separation already done in VMC to maximise capacity (N1) How would the use of Enhanced Successive Visual Increase If benefits are capacity then workload could remain constant or increase (C1) Less surveillance of a/c separation (C2) Only when all aircraft can fly and are experienced at this (D2) reduction of frequency (D1) Increase RTF loading (N1) The controller would have to pass traffic information to the following aircraft and verify that the pilots had acquired the traffic to be followed. This would be time consuming, occupying the frequency at a stage when the timing of instructions is important. (N4) Does this concept fit with automated support tools (FAST, PST??) (N3) * Page B-10/21

11 Table 3.4: Controller Questionnaire - ATSA-AIRB 1A Do you think the use of Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness Overall do you think the use of Enhanced Traffic Situational by pilots would affect the task of controllers? Awareness by pilots would provide safety or other benefits? No A Little A Lot No A Little A Lot DFS1 * * DFS2 * * NATS1 * * NATS2 * * NATS3 * * NATS4 * * CENA1 * * CENA2 * * ENAC * * ORLY * * * French ATC DFS NATS Pilots may request complementary info from ATC to validate their own assessment (O) Pilots may hesitate executing an instruction if appears contradictory (E) Allows pilots to suggest efficient solutions for spacing (C2) Pilots can inform ATC when clear of converging traffic sooner (C2) Traffic id is achieved faster and safer (C2) Pilots can fly instructions more efficiently as they have better understanding (D2) More informed requests from pilots (N1) ATC control function would not change (N1) Might cause workload increase if pilots try to negotiate with ATC. (N2) No change to the role of the ATCO! (N3) No change to controller procedures (N4) 1B Once pilots and ATC have a common situational awareness, it allows ATC might have to provide same situation awareness to nonequipped a/c to enhance their traffic awareness (C1) ATC instructions to be better understood, anticipated and applied (O) Better situational awareness makes pilot more confident, reducing their Real benefits only when high equipage, and what is the cognitive workload (C2) consequence of unequipped or ADS-B transponder failure on Would only provide safety benefit out of controlled airspace(e) Pilots can react more effectively if safety is infringed (D1) Increased information will improve safety (D1) Mental picture easier to acquire and maintain (N1) Slight reduction in R/T as information is more evident (N1) Do you have any other issues or comments for Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness? 1C Pilots may question the ATC strategy (C1) Ground and air become partners and co-operate once responsibilities are defined (C2) Does increase in pilot workload offset benefits? (C2) Pilots try to manager their own separation (C2) Better understanding of ATC problems and decisions (D1) Filters would have little effect on a/c not showing Mode C (N1) Page B-11/21

12 Table 3.5 Pilot Questionnaires - ASPA - S&M 3A AFR1 AFR2 DLH1 DLH2 DLH3 BAW2 Compared to today s situation do you think Enhanced Sequencing and Merging could provide benefits? No A Little A Lot 3B How do you think the use of Enhanced Sequencing and Merging would change pilot working practices? Reduction No Change Increase 3C Do you have any other issues or comments on Enhanced Sequencing and Merging? Will need an appropriate phraseology and maybe some training Intent Information is necessary to perform spacing tasks! Link to autoflight system is required. Intent information would significantly improve situational awareness and therefore affectivity and safety of the new procedures. Today instructions are received from ATC to sequence aircraft without any information about traffic merging. ATC are often controversial (conflicting?) between sectors (reduce, speed up, reduce..) (A1) Without any automation linking the spacing to the flight crew nor directly to the autopilot, no noticeable benefit will occur. (D1) Better adherence to existing separation minima which may result in more capacity (D2) Reduction of Routine voice comm. (D2) Delegation of complex spacing tasks to the cockpit will reduce controller workload which may lead to more capacity. (D2) If properly defined Enhanced S&M will allow more efficient user preferred trajectories (less fuel, less noise) (D2) Reduction of Routine Voice comm. (D3) Sequencing and Merging may provide benefits but there are alternative concepts which might provide benefits too. For example 4D-Trajectory negotiation. (B1) The use of time-based spacing may offer benefits. Also there may be joint benefits from using S&M with RNAV procedures (B1) Better knowledge of merging traffic and certainly less controller instructions for the merger. (A2). If this is used to place more responsibility in the air, there should be a large reduction in controller workload. (B2) Quite no change but much better understanding and awareness and so far better efficiency. (A1) Because "As a package 1 application it is likely that spacing wil be maintained manually ". (D1) Working practice, of course, will change as pilot perform new spacing tasks (D2) Workload: If properly defined, should potentially reduce pilot's workload because beyond the one-time activation of a suitable (closed!) trajectory Exactly knowing the exact trajectory until the merging point (compared to current "blind" adherence to ATC Flight crew is more flexible in tactical preparation (D3) Workload impact would depend on the implementation. How does the pilot know the appropriate speed to maintain spacing? What are the indications on the PFD? (B1) If there is no automation to maintain the spacing then workload may be increased? (B1) Only better communication bewteen pilot / controller. More efficiency. (A2) Increased workload on flight deck. (B2) How shall pilots change heading to rejoin original trajectory at a set angle (TBD) and at the desired spacing value behind the target aircraft without intent data of leading a/c? (D1) On which data source does the controller instructed heading based on? Just on experience? Why heading and not track? (D1) No redundancy for the trailer: Is instructed merge WPT 2 part of leaders track? Does the leader fly direct to WPT2 or via WPT1? (D1) What will be the avionics impact for S&M, if change to the FMS, PFD etc are required then this application is not going to be feasible before (B1) Viability needs to be assessed especially with speed variability. This is a good goal but the safety case is likely to be quite complex.(b2) For final approach sequencing and merging at an airfield such as LHR much better to invest in a ground based tool. For en-route/tma this application may have large benefits but will take a lot of development and investment to achieve.(b2) How do the benefits trade off against ground based developments such as ifacts and eventual FACTS tools? Again, this is costly to implement as stated earlier and requires 100% equipage. Introduction of PRM in the US has shown that 100% compliance is required Page B-12/21

13 Table 3.6: Pilot Questionnaire - ATSA-VSA (Part 1) 2A 2B 2C AFR1 AFR2 DLH1 DLH2 DLH3 BAW2 Have you experience of flying instrument Do you think the use of Enhanced Successive Visual Approaches would be Do you think the use of Enhanced Successive Visual approaches using visual separation? feasible? Approaches would give safety or other benefits? Yes No V. Difficult Difficult Achievable Easy No A Little A Lot (mainly USA) FRA! FRA! FRA! A lot of communication may be required to tell if the crew is able to acquire the traffic visualy (D1) Visual acquisition and visual separation by the pilot can be difficult depending on visibility, sun position etc. (D1) By allowing clear identification of other traffic it makes successive visual Safety by giving good awareness & enhanced landing capacity approaches acceptable even within non-familiar airspace or countries (A1) when environmental constraints exist (A1) Using a CDTI all relevant information like traffic ID, distance, GS would be available dynamically, so less voice communication required to identify the traffic (D1) Best example in France: Nice (A1) Visual following is in use today at FRA. The traffic information on the CDTI will support and alleviate this procedure.(d2) The information provided by the CDTI replaces most of the controller call-outs and reduces controller workload (D1) Speed Changes have to be recognised visually & taken into account to maintain safe distance (D1) Large speed adjustments may be required if the target changes speed unexpectedly. (D1) Visual following is in use today at FRA. The traffic information on the CDTI will support and alleviate this procedure.(d2) Visual Following is in use today at FRA (D3) Enhanced quantity and quality of visual separation events due to accurate and increased CDTI information (D1) More Precise separation between traffic leads to increased landing capacity! (D1) It may be feasible but don't see a need to use visual approaches at LHR for example (B1) An unambiguous traffic identification allows better SVA.(A2) But at what cost in terms of capacity? Visual separation is very poor unless there is a high degree of uniformity/highly regimented traffic stream (B2) Safety- pilot can much better judge the behaviour of the preceding traffic (D2) Capacity - with supporting information on a CDTI, visula separation may be applied more often, which can result in less separation on approach, hence more capacity. (D2) Safety & Capacity (D3) It is high unlikely that the current spacing achieved at LHR by radar controllers could be improved on using visual spacing. It is more likely that pilots would "play it safe" and allow extra spacing, reducing the capacity. (B1) Better Awareness of Surrounding traffic implies more safety and less stress in heavy traffic.(a2) Conceivably but unlikely to pay off at a location such as LHR. What credit can be given? (B2) Page B-13/21

14 Table 3.7: Pilot Questionnaire - ATSA-VSA (Part 2) 2D How do you think the use of Enhanced Successive Visual Approaches would affect pilot workload? Reduction No Change Increase AFR1 AFR2 DLH1 DLH2 DLH3 BAW2 2E Do you have any other issues or comments for Enhanced Successive Visual Approaches? There is a risk of accepting visual approaches without VMC The objectives should be to perform SVA on a more regular basis to enhance the runway throughput and to conduct safer operations. Also in weather conditions worse than optimum only by means of the CDTI (taking into account other constraints) The use of time-based spacing on approach may offer greater capacity benefits, particularly in strong headwind conditions. Good Awareness (A1) Information about ground speed of other traffic is very useful (A1) If crews are left to determine/maintain their own separation it is quite likely that LHR For EVA, no large operational changes are required as the CDTI would lose capacity. Ground based approach sequencing tool such as FAST/RASS and acts as an additional source of information. (D1) development of it to include time based separation would be more beneficial and not A continuous monitoring of the traget's profile is possible even in require all aircraft to be equipped (note that if LHR mandates carriage of airborne difficult light conditions. It is much easier to recognize the equipment this is equivalent to a worldwide mandate). In addition, ground based tool development of leader's airspeed. (D1) could learn from the conditions and take Met into account.(b2) More Head-Down time may be compensated for by less required time for the visual acquisition of a target (D2) Additional workload at high density airfield such as LHR. (B2) Page B-14/21

15 Table 3.8: Pilot Questionnaire - ATSA-AIRB (part 1) AFR1 AFR2 DLH1 DLH2 DLH3 BAW2 1A Do you think Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness would be Do you think Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness would change of benefit as a pilot compared to the situation today? pilot workload? No A Little A Lot Reduction No Change Increase 1B Surrounding traffic position will be accurate (A1) Awareness reduces stress & uncertainty so workload reduced (A1) Relative traffic position will be accurate (A1) Of benefit when surrounding traffic can be clearly identified and displayed.(d1) A correlation between RT and the displayed symbol must be easily possible.(d1) Monitoring CDTI is a task (A1) Materialize position of surrounding traffic for R/T or visually is much more difficult (A1) Depends on Design. (Is there a need to eneter data into FMS to achieve Enhanced Traffic Information, can it be filtered, How can cluttering be avoided?) (D1) Safety enhancement, Compensation for loss of party-line effect (D2) Better mental picture of surrounding traffic (D2) Today, even in VMC it is not possible to get a clear picture of the traffic situation(d3) Workload will depend on design (D2) ETSA may be of most use in other parts of the world, remote areas for example. Benefits less clear in radar-controlled Workload will depend on how easy it is to interpret the display. For airspace (B1) example how will aircraft be labelled, Mode A code, callsign? (B1) ETSA would give improvements over TCAS in the accuracy of No change to Pilot/Controller responsibilities so no major change and information provided, however 100% equippage is required to equally little major benefit. Requires all aircraft in the airspace to be make it useable. Will this be achieved? (B1) equipped unless TIS-B picture provided. (B2) Better Awareness of surrounding traffic on the CDTI (A2) However a new display implies more head-down piloting. (A2) Less Stress (A2) Not very much more than TCAS except instantaneous vector assume that this is vector relative to aircraft flight path rather than ground. No information on speed or historical/intent vector. Ident may be useful but not provided. (B2) Page B-15/21

16 Table 3.9: Pilot Questionnaire - ATSA-AIRB (part 2) AFR1 AFR2 DLH1 DLH2 DLH3 BAW2 1C Overall do you think the use of Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness by pilots would provide safety or other benefits? No A Little A Lot 1D Do you have any other issues or comments for Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness? Guidance rules for pilots use must be provided It would provide safety in that way, that pilots can anticipate intentions of other traffic! (D1) Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness should not use EFIS or any primary display in order to not mix TCAS and ASAS information (A2) Mainly safety benefits (D2) Approach planning (remaining flight time) and a/c configuration is more accurate (D3) Separation is more flexible (D3) ETSA may provide safety benefits in remote parts of the world (B1) Better awareness implies more safety. (A2) Only provides current direction. Why not add a snail trail per ATC. Is only worthwhile if the surveillance data is guaranteed i.e. much better than the current TCAS drop out rate.(b2) Benefits unlikely to outweigh cost of implementation. Cost of modifying flight critical displays is likely to be very large and likely impossible on many aircraft such as legacy 757/767 due to limitations of the EFIS symbol generator which would therefore require new EFIS SG at very high cost, plus certification/oem SB costs and new panel together with ADS-B link, all likely to cost much more than $100k per tail. For an airline like BA this would be a multi-million pound project. More likely that initial implementation on new delivery aircraft built for ADS-B but unless required it is still likely to be a customer selectable option and therefore chargeable.(b2) Page B-16/21

17 Table 3.10: Enhanced Sequencing and Merging Operations (ASPA-S&M) Pilot Responses Feasible? Controller Responses Not asked, as it was felt that this was specifically a Controller question All answers from VERY DIFFICULT to EASY! Generally A LITTLE or A LOT Reduction of voice communications More efficient user preferred trajectories Time-based spacing may give benefits Range from REDUCTION to INCREASE, depends on how S&M is implemented, in particular the level of automation Without automation to assist the spacing task, workload may be increased With proper assistance, pilot s overall workload could be reduced What is the impact on avionics? If FMS and CDTI changes are required then this will not be feasible before 2015 Is Intent information required to perform spacing tasks? Benefits Workload Other issues? Depends on airport and TMA configuration and procedures Difficult at LHR and FRA due to complexity of airspace May be more achievable at LGW and Paris airports May need increased standardisation of ATC procedures and additional tools Considerable differences in opinion, some NO, some A LOT Some anticipate capacity & efficiency benefits, others don t Some concern that pilots will need more assistance (support tools) to maintain the spacing Time-based spacing alone may provide some benefits May be some environmental benefits Generally REDUCTION in controller workload Reduction in R/T loading Better conformance of flights with clearances Possible increase in pilot workload? Ability to establish sequence further out from touchdown Regularity of traffic may be improved (A benefit) The task of controllers may be de-skilled to some extent What would the consequence then be of a system breakdown? What happens when the sequence breaks down, e.g. after a Go-around? Page B-17/21

18 Table 3.11: Enhanced Visual Separation On approach (ATSA-VSA) Pilot Responses Generally ACHIEVABLE, EASY at Frankfurt, Visual following is already in use at Frankfurt DIFFICULT at LHR. But probably achievable IF there is a need. Mainly A LOT, one A LITTLE (depends on the airport!) Clear capacity benefits at FRA, ATSA-VSA could improve spacing precision further. At LHR, there is no scope for reducing spacing, ATSA-VSA may even reduce capacity. Generally REDUCTION, but not agreed by all, possible INCREASE at LHR Spacing information and Ground speed information provided on CDTI would assist visual spacing Feasible? Benefits Effect on workload? Controller Responses All answers from VERY DIFFICULT to EASY! Depends on the airport. Already in use at FRA. Would be very difficult to implement at LHR, might be feasible at LGW. Might be achievable in Paris but not with existing environmental constraints. Concern over increased R/T loading Wake vortex rules would need to be reviewed Answers range from NO to A LOT (depends on the airport!) At some airports ATSA-VSA is not seen as feasible. At others capacity is maximised by existing procedures, no scope to reduce spacing. Possible REDUCTION in workload though not agreed by all. An increase in capacity might lead to a net effect of no change on workload. Benefit may only be obtained if all aircraft use procedure. Other Issues (Controller Responses): Concerns about changes required to procedures and coordination Limited benefit achieved by ATSA-VSA over VSA? Page B-18/21

19 Table 3.12: Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness During Flight Operations (ATSA-AIRB) Pilot Responses Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of benefit Position information will be more accurate (compared to TCAS) Will compensate for loss of party-line effect if datalink introduced Improved Safety Generally NO CHANGE, possibly a REDUCTION Workload will depend on design Easier to maintain mental picture of surrounding traffic May offer safety benefit in remote areas, not in radar controlled airspace 100% equipage required to be useful TCAS and ASAS information should not be mixed - separate displays? Benefits Workload Other Issues Controller Responses Generally A LITTLE to A LOT of safety benefit Improved common situational awareness between controller and pilot Pilots should be able to react more effectively if safety infringed Generally A LITTLE impact on ATC Improved understanding by pilots of ATC strategy Possible workload increase if pilots were to query ATC instructions as a result of the CDTI, or request additional information Main concern covers equipage - 100% equipage is required to be useful Likely to be of most benefit outside Controlled Airspace Page B-19/21

20 4 Acronyms ACC AIP AIS ANS ASPA ASPA-S&M ATC ATIS ATM ATS ATSA ATSA-AIRB ATSA-SVA CARE CENA CFMU DFS EAD EEC ETMA FAF FAP FALBALA FL IAF IFR Area Control Centre Aeronautical Information Publication Aeronautical Information Service Air Navigation Services Airborne Spacing Enhanced sequencing and merging operations Air Traffic Control Automatic Terminal Information Service Air Traffic Management Air Traffic Services Airborne Traffic Situational Awareness Enhanced Traffic Situational Awareness during flight operations Enhanced Successive Visual Approaches Co-operative Actions of R&D in EUROCONTROL Centre d Etudes de la Navigation Aérienne Central Flow Management Unit Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH European AIS Database EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Extended TMA Final Approach Fix Final Approach Point First Assessment of the operational Limitations, Benefits & Applicability for a List of package I AS applications Flight Level Initial Approach Fix Instrument Flight Rules Page B- 20/21

21 LVP METAR NATS NOTAM SID Low Visibility Procedures Meteorological Aerodrome Report National Air Traffic Services Notice to Airmen Standard Instrument Departure SOFREAVIA Société Française d Etudes et Réalisations d Equipements Aéronautiques SSR STAR TMA TBD TOD UoG VFR WP Secondary Surveillance radar Standard (Instrument) Arrival Terminal control Area To Be Defined Top Of Descent University of Glasgow Visual Flight Rules Work Package *** END OF DOCUMENT *** Page B- 21/21