Final Project Report Document information Project Title Coupled AMAN/DMAN Project Number 06.08.04 Project Manager DFS Deliverable Name Final Project Report Deliverable ID D01 Edition 00.01.01 Template Version 03.00.04 Task contributors DFS Abstract Coupled Arrival and Departure Manager is expected to increase predictability and runway throughput while reducing fuel consumption at highly utilised airports operating runways with interdependencies between Arrivals and Departures. An integrated sequence of arrivals and departures is calculated considering also the surface movement of departures. The concept was validated in real-time simulations in different European airport environments. Single and Multiple Remote Tower Applications offer the possibility to provide Air Traffic Services (ATS) location independent which allows to pool operators and thus increase cost efficiency of Air Traffic Service. The concept enables the full range of ATS to be provided whilst maintaining safety, capacity, human performance and overall level of service to the same high standard as in current operations. The Contingency Application focusses on providing increased capacity in contingency situations when the local tower is not available. The concepts for Single and Multiple Remote Tower Applications were validated in real-time simulations and passive shadow mode trials at 1 of 21
low traffic density airports (small to medium size) while the Contingency Application was validated in passive shadow mode trials for medium traffic volume airports. 2 of 21
Authoring & Approval Prepared By - Authors of the document. Name & Company Position & Title Date Rainer Kaufhold / DFS P06.08.04 Project Manager 05/07/2015 Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date Damien Lefebvre / DSNA P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Michele Raimondo / ENAV P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Ruth Tapia / INDRA P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Andres Grijalba / ENAIRE P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Adrian Clark / NATS P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Roger Lane / EUROCONTROL P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Mattes Kettner / SEAC P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Ake Wall / NORACON P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Miroslav Pecheu / THALES P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Hans Hedde / DFS P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Reviewed By - Other SESAR projects, Airspace Users, staff association, military, Industrial Support, other organisations. Name & Company Position & Title Date Ester Martin Dominguez / ENAIRE WP6 Manager 12/07/2016 Haude Hermand / THALES P12.04.04 Project Manager 12/07/2016 Ruth Tapia Neila / INDRA P10.09.01 Project Manager 12/07/2016 El Mizeb Mustapha /THALES P10.09.02 Project Manager 12/07/2016 Elinor Ulfbratt / Natmig P12.04.08 Project Manager 12/07/2016 Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date Rainer Kaufhold / DFS P06.08.04 Project Manager 12/07/2016 Michele Raimondo / ENAV P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Andres Grijalba / ENAIRE P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Roger Lane / EUROCONTROL P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Damien Lefebvre / DSNA P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Ruth Tapia / INDRA P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Adrian Clark / NATS P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Ake Wall / NORACON P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Mattes Kettner / SEAC P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Miroslav Pecheu / THALES P06.08.04 Project Member 12/07/2016 Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date N/A 3 of 21
Document History Edition Date Status Author Justification 00.00.10 01/12/2015 First Draft Rainer Kaufhold First Draft for Review by SJU 00.00.50 15/03/2016 Draft Rainer Kaufhold 00.01.00 23/05/2016 Final Rainer Kaufhold Final Update 00.01.01 05/07/2016 Final Rainer Kaufhold Update according to SJU Review Update considering SJU reservations Intellectual Property Rights (foreground) This deliverable consists of SJU foreground. 4 of 21
Acronyms Acronym AFI AMAN A-SMGCS ATCO ATS DMAN IFR INTEROP OI step OSED PSM PTZ-Camera RTC RTM SAR SPR TOBT TSAT TTG TTL TTOT VFR Definition Arrival Free Interval Arrival Manager Airport Surface Movement Guidance and Control System Air Traffic Control Operator Air Traffic Service Departure Manager Instrument Flight Rules Interoperability Operational Improvement Step Operational Service and Environment Description Passive Shadow Mode Pan Tilt Zoom Camera Remote Tower Center Remote Tower Module Safety Assessment Report Safety and Performance Report Target Off-block Time Target Start-up Approval Time Time to Gain Time to Lose Target Take-off Time Visual Flight Rules 5 of 21
1 Project Overview Coupled AMAN/DMAN Coupled Arrival and Departure Manager is expected to increase predictability and runway throughput while reducing fuel consumption at highly utilised airports operating runways with interdependencies between Arrivals and Departures. An integrated sequence of arrivals and departures is calculated considering also the surface movement of departures. The following two core solutions were developed within the project. A flow based integration was developed as a first solution where the operators are required to meter the traffic to the runway. The integrated sequence allows the ATCOs to proactively balance arrival and departure flows. In a more advanced solution the sequence based integration was developed where the operators are asked to follow the sequence as closely as possible. The challenge was to balance planning stability with the need for updates to consider any changes that could not be compensated. In addition to these solutions focussing on integration of arrival and departure management, complementary solutions were developed which investigated integration of departure and surface management. In these solutions the surface routing provided estimated taxi times based on a planned surface routing to the departure management. While the first solution considered updated of taxi times up to startup time, the second solution in addition to this also considered updated taxi times during taxiing. In a very first step the solution for a basic departure manager was develop in order to provide a common baseline for DMAN that can be used for coupling with AMAN. 1.1 Project progress and contribution to the Master Plan The concept documents (considering operational, interoperability, safety and performance requirements) for the different solutions were developed iteratively from V2 to V3 maturity in a number of workshops considering the respective validation results. While the flow based solution reached full V3 maturity, the sequence based solution reached just V2 maturity and needs further investigation. The concept for flow based integration of Arrival and Departure Management (TS-0202 and TS-0308) was validated in different airport environments by NATS (Gatwick), ENAV (Milano Malpensa), DSNA (Paris Charles de Gaulle) and DFS (Munich) using pre-industrial prototypes for coupled arrival and departure management (coupled AMAN/DMAN) and Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS) provided by SELEX, THALES, DFS, BARCO and ATRICS. The validations showed that taxi times calculated by surface routing can increase predictability of predeparture sequencing. The integrated sequence that was built based on the sequence pattern and AFI-size (both inputs from the supervisor) provided a better situations awareness to ATCOs and allowed them to pro-actively adjust the arrival and departure flows. A fast-time simulation was used to evaluate the potential benefit of the coupled AMAN/DMAN in terms of predictability and runway throughput. The concept for sequence based integration of Arrival and Departure Management (TS-0203 and TS- 0309) was validated in different airport environments by NORACON (Stockholm Arlanda), ENAIRE (Barcelona) and ENAV (Milano Malpensa) using pre-industrial prototypes for coupled AMAN/DMAN and Routing provided by THALES, NATMIG, SELEX and INDRA. Real-time simulations were used to validate how the information of the integrated sequence has to be displayed to the operators (ATCOs Air Traffic Control Operators and Supervisors), as approach as well as tower runway controllers were asked to follow the planned sequence as closely as possible. The solutions #14 and #15 have not reached V3 maturity as the planned sequence was not stable enough to follow it for the departure controllers while approach controllers needed further system support for providing the required flexible arrival spacing. The projects contribution to the different Operational Improvement steps (OI steps, based on Integrated Roadmap DS15) addressed in detailed in the following table: 6 of 21
Code Name Project contribution Maturity project start Maturity project end TS-0202 TS-0308 Pre-Departure Sequencing supported by Route Planning Flow based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management The project contributed with real-time and fast time simulations as well as with a passive shadow mode trial to the development of the operational, interoperability, safety and performance requirements. Both OI steps were addressed in integrated validations V2 V2 V3 V3 The exercises were run in different major European airport environments facing interdependencies between arrivals and departures on the runways. TS-0203 Departure Management supported by Route Planning and Monitoring TS-0309 Sequence based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management The project contributed with real-time simulations to the development of the operational, interoperability, safety and performance requirements. Both OI steps were addressed in integrated validations The exercises were run for Stockholm Arlanda, Barcelona and Milan Malpensa airport. V2 V2 V2 V2 Table 1: Contribution to OI steps (coupled AMAN/DMAN) The project addressed the following SESAR Solutions and associated Operational Improvements (OI) from the ATM Masterplan: Solution #53 (addressed by TS-0202) Pre-Departure Sequencing supported by Route Planning Solution #54 (addressed by TS-0308) Flow based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management Solution #14 (addressed by TS-0203) Departure Management integrating Surface Management constraints Solution #15 (addressed by TS-0309) Integrated and throughput-optimised sequence of arrivals and departures Solution #106 (addressed by TS-0201) Departure manager (DMAN) baseline for integrated AMAN DMAN 7 of 21
1.2 Project Achievements 1.2.1 Achievements Flow based Integration of AMAN/DMAN For the flow based integration of Arrival and Departure Management, involved controllers were presented with an integrated arrival and departure sequence calculated from the sequence pattern coordinated between tower and approach supervisors, which increases their situational awareness. In this solution the procedures for controllers remain as they are in current operations, i.e. they adjust the traffic flow to the runway for arrivals and departures based on the planned sequence for arrivals and departures (only the algorithm for calculating the sequence will change). Supervisors have to input the sequence pattern in addition to the size of the Arrival Free Intervall (AFI-size), which has proven to be feasible, and they were provided with a shared view of traffic demand to support them in agreeing it. Coupled AMAN/DMAN was also linked to the Time-Based Separation concept (solution #64). A baseline scenario of uncoupled AMAN and DMAN was compared with AMAN-DMAN in Distance- Based Mode and Time-Based Mode. While the Distance Based Mode showed an improvement in all KPAs that were addressed, the Time Based Mode needs further investigation. The following benefit assessment is given for the distance based integration. Airport Capacity Airport Capacity in terms of Runway Throughput could be increased by up to 10% (results from Gatwick validation). The major benefit in terms of absolute movements was on departure capacity while arrival capacity was only slightly increased. Flight Efficiency Fuel consumption was reduced by more than 100 kg per flight on average for distance based separation while time based separation showed a reduction of around 60 kg per flight on average. 1.2.2 Achievements Pre-Departure Sequencing supported by Route Planning While the operational procedures for clearance delivery and tower ground controller remain as in current operations, taxi times were calculated up to startup time by the Surface Routing for each departure flight and were used to calculate the Take off Times. Predictability The main benefits regarding Pre-Departure Sequencing supported by Route Planning are related to the more accurate taxi-out times expected to be provided by the Routing and Planning service. However, the magnitude of the potential benefits depends on the accuracy of the static taxi-out time DMAN takes as input when it works as standalone solution distinguishing between the following two cases: In case static taxi-out time is quite tuned (using A-CDM) taking into account the allocated stands and the selected runway threshold, no great improvement is expected to be achieved when the flow based integration between departure management and Routing Planning service is implemented. In case static taxi-out time is an average time regardless where the parking position is located, the integration between departure management and Routing Planning service will bring higher accuracy of both Target Take-Off Time (TTOT) and Target Startup Approval Time (TSAT). Departure Predictability in terms of compliance to TTOT and TSAT could be significantly improved (higher percentage of flights within 5 min window around TTOT and TSAT) while Arrival Predictability in terms of compliance to TLDT (percentage of flights within 5 min window around TLDT) was slightly decreased. 8 of 21
1.2.3 Achievements Sequence based Integration of AMAN/DMAN For the sequence based integration of Arrival and Departure management, involved controllers were presented with an integrated arrival and departure sequence that were not bound to any pattern anymore. In contrast to the flow based concept, in the sequence based concept tower runway controllers were asked to follow target take-off time (TTOT) as closely as possible. The flow based (solution #54) and sequence based integration of arrival and departure management (solution #15) were seen as independent of each other and hence developed in parallel. The validations did not show the expected benefit in terms of increased runway throughput. Nevertheless the validations allowed to gain valuable results in terms of how to adjust the concept and assess it in future research activities. The sequence based validations identified the need to increase stability of the combined runway sequence presented for the controllers. As the runway sequence was instable in all the validations and changes occurred without any obvious reason for the controller, predictability could not be improved. The validations identified the need for high quality in all elements used in the calculations, any limitations will risk disturbing calculations for an optimal runway sequence with acceptable stability and accuracy. The key result from the validations was that the planned integrated sequence needs to be more stable. The arrival sequence needs to be quite stable at the beginning of the planning horizon in order to allow the ATCO to establish the planned sequence using time to lose (TTL) and time to gain (TTG) indications. Furthermore the arrival sequence needs to be fixed once no procedure for overtaking can be applied any more (e.g. on final or any time before). At the same time the departure sequence needs to be updated at the beginning of the planning horizon in order to reflect any changes in target off-block time (TOBT) as with current DMAN. Stability of the departure sequence needs to be increased after pushback in order to allow ATCOs to work towards the planned sequence. The system needs to fix the departure sequence as soon as it is clear that no overtaking can take place any more. Nevertheless it must be considered that the ATCO can always adjust the sequence at the very end of the planning horizon (by sorting aircraft in the intersections) in order to further optimise the sequence for runways throughput. Another main result of the project activities is that approach controllers need to be supported by spacing indicators (not matter whether time or distance based) in establishing the planned sequence with the flexible spacing. 1.2.4 Achievements Departure Management integrating Surface Management constraints Stability of the departure sequence needs to be increased after pushback in order to allow ATCOs to work towards the planned sequence. The system needs to fix the departure sequence as soon as it is clear that no overtaking can take place any more. Nevertheless it must be considered that the ATCO can always adjust the sequence at the very end of the planning horizon (by sorting aircraft in the intersections) in order to further optimise the sequence for runways throughput. 1.3 Project Deliverables The following table lists the key deliverables from the project: Reference Title Description D16 S01V3 Validation Report Basic AMAN/DMAN/A- SMGCS This document is the Validation Report for the V3 Coupled AMAN/DMAN validation activities related to flow based integration. It describes the results for coupled AMAN/DMAN validation which was a V3 real-time simulation for Gatwick airport 9 of 21
D17 S01V3 Final OSED based on a pre-industrial validation platform provided by Barco. This document is the Operational Services and Environment Description (OSED) for coupled AMAN/DMAN related to TS- 202 and TS-308: It addresses the methods, use cases and requirements developed for Flow based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management and Pre-Departure Sequencing supported by Route Planning. D18 S01V3 Final SPR This document contains the specimen Safety Assessment for a typical application of the Coupled AMAN/DMAN application. The report presents the list of Safety Requirements specifying the Coupled AMAN/DMAN at V3 maturity level and the collected evidences on their validity. D82 D28 D29 S01V3 Final INTEROP S02V3 Validation Report Advanced AMAN-DMAN- Routing S02V3 Final OSED This document provides interoperability requirements for a flow based concept of Coupled AMAN/DMAN. A master/slave configuration has been identified as coupling solution, where AMAN acts as master leading to an optimization of traffic flows (coupled pre-departure sequencing and arrival metering) This document is the Validation Report for the V3 Coupled AMAN/DMAN validation activities related to sequence based integration of arrivals and departures. It describes the results for coupled AMAN/DMAN validation VP-343 which was a V3 real-time simulation for Barcelona airport based on a pre-industrial validation platform provided by INDRA. This document is the Operational Services and Environment Description (OSED) for coupled AMAN/DMAN related to TS- 203 and TS-309: It addresses the methods, use cases and requirements developed for Sequence based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management and Departure Management supported by Route Planning and Monitoring. Two previous editions have preceded this document during the project. The document has been updated as more knowledge was gained from the validations within the project. D30 S02V3 Final SPR This document contains the specimen Safety Assessment for a typical application of the sequence based concept of Coupled AMAN/DMAN. The report presents the list of Safety Requirements specifying the Coupled AMAN/DMAN at V2 maturity level and the collected evidences on their validity. D91 S02V3 Final INTEROP This document provides interoperability requirements for the sequence based concept of Coupled AMAN/DMAN. The internal interactions of the Coupled AMAN/DMAN function where already analysed in the OSED and SPR (Safety and Performance Report). It is therefore that this document focuses on the interaction of the Coupled AMAN/DMAN function with its surrounding elements rather than on its internal processes. Table 2: Deliverables (Coupled AMAN/DMAN) 10 of 21
1.4 Contribution to Standardisation During the project, there was no standardisation activity with respect to coupled AMAN/DMAN. While there is standardisation for DMAN available (being part of A-CDM), there is no standardisation available for AMAN (just guidelines developed by EUROCONTROL). Therefore it does not seem reasonable to look for standardised AMAN/DMAN before having an AMAN standard available. 1.5 Project Conclusion and Recommendations Solution #53 (Pre-Departure Sequencing supported by Route Planning) This solution was validated in four different airport environments up to V3 maturity. The additional benefit of integrating Route planning depends on the level of taxi-time estimates already available with Airport CDM and the complexity of the manoeuvring area (e.g. frequent temporary closure of taxiways and use of different taxi-routes over a day depending on traffic). Being part of PCP the solution will be implemented at the defined European airports. Solution #54 (Flow based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management) This solution was validated in four different airports environments up to V3 maturity. Coupling AMAN/DMAN has shown to increase predictability and by this contributes to network management. In addition to this, overall delay can be reduced and better distributed between inbound and outbound traffic. The project proposes the solution (distance based) to be deployed in a controlled and coordinated way at European airports. Due to the promising first results of the validations, it is proposed to further investigate the time based coupling of AMAN/DMAN. Solution #14 (Departure Management integrating Surface Management constraints) This solution was validated at two airports (Stockholm Arlanda and Barcelona) up to V2 maturity. V3 maturity could not be reached in the validations as the integrated sequence provided by coupled AMAN/DMAN was not sufficiently stable for the controller to follow it. Apart from that, no increase in runway throughput could be proven. Although, already being part of PCP, the project recommends that the solution should further be investigated at major European hubs. Solution #15 (Integrated and throughput-optimised sequence of arrivals and departures) This solution was validated at two airports (Stockholm Arlanda and Barcelona) up to V2 maturity. V3 maturity could not be reached in the validations as the integrated sequence provided by coupled AMAN/DMAN was not sufficiently stable for the controller for follow it. Apart from that no increase in runway throughput could be proven. The project recommends that the solution should further be investigated at major European hubs before being proposed for a future Common Project. Especially stability of the integrated sequence needs to be improved (compare chapter 1.2.2) and the approach controller needs to be supported by spacing indicators. 11 of 21
12 of 21
2 Project Overview Remote Tower Single and Multiple Remote Tower Applications offer the possibility to provide Air Traffic Services (ATS) location independent which allows to pool operators and thus increase cost efficiency of Air Traffic Service. The project validated whether the full range of ATS can be provided whilst maintaining safety, capacity, human performance and overall level of service to the same high standard as in current operations. The concepts for Single and Multiple Remote Tower Applications were validated in real-time simulations and passive shadow mode trials at medium traffic volume airports. The Contingency Application focusses on providing increased capacity in contingency situations when the local tower is not available. The project validated the Contingency Application in passive shadow mode trials for medium traffic volume airports in an environment without ground radar and a mix of IFR and VFR traffic. 2.1 Project progress and contribution to the Master Plan The operational, interoperability, safety and performance requirements for the different solutions were developed iteratively from V2 to V3 maturity in a number of workshops considering the respective validation results (the maturity at the end of the project for each OI is given in the table below). The activities from this project covered all three remote tower applications: single and multiple remote tower as well as remote contingency. The concept for SDM-0201 was validated in two different medium traffic density airport environments by DFS (Erfurt and Saarbrücken) based on a research prototype for Single Remote Tower provided by DLR and a pre-industrial prototype provided by Frequentis. Passive Shadow Mode trials were used to evaluate safety and human performance aspects in order to ensure a sufficient level of safety can be provided with the remote provision of ATS. While a complementary project addressed small airports with mainly one movement at a time, this project addressed small to medium size airports with more than one movement at a time. This validation complemented solution #52 (Remote Tower for two low density aerodromes). The concept for SDM-0205 was validated at two low traffic density airports by DFS (Erfurt and Braunschweig) based on a research prototype for Multiple Remote Tower provided by DLR. A Realtime Simulation was used to evaluate safety and human performance aspects in order to ensure a sufficient level of safety can be provided with the remote provision of ATS to two airports at a time. This validation complemented solution #71 (single remote tower for small aerodromes) by aiming at identifying the limits of the concept regarding the number of simultaneous traffic. The concept for SDM-0204 was validated at a medium traffic volume airport by ENAIRE (Girona) based on a pre-industrial prototype provided by INDRA. Passive Shadow Mode trials were used to evaluate safety and human performance aspects in order to ensure a sufficient level of safety can be provided with the remote provision of ATS in contingency situations. Apart from that the increase in capacity that can be provided in contingency situations (resilience) was evaluated. The validations addressed an environment with no ground radar surveillance and a mix of IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) and VFR (Visual Flight Rules) traffic. The projects contribution to the different OI steps (based on Integrated Roadmap DS15) are addressed in detail in the following table: Code Name Project contribution Maturity project start Maturity project end SDM-0201 Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service for Single Aerodrome The project contributed with three passive shadow mode validations to development of operational, safety and performance requirements for V2 V2 13 of 21
Single Remote Tower Application for medium size airports considering human performance aspects. (Note that solution #71 remote tower for small aerodromes reached V3 maturity). The exercises were run at Erfurt and Saarbrücken airport with the V3 validation being run with additional chartered traffic in order to evaluate defined scenarios of medium size airports. In order to allow provision of air traffic services at a medium sized airport, controllers were supported by an infrared visual presentation and by an object bounding functionality. Traffic was composed of IFR and VFR flights. SDM-0204 Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service for Contingency Situations at Small to Medium Aerodromes (with a Single Main Runway) The project contributed with two passive shadow mode validations to development of operational, safety and performance requirements for Contingency Situations considering human performance aspects. V2 V3 The exercises were run at Girona airport being characterised by combined VFR and IFR traffic and controllers not being supported by ground surveillance. SDM-0205 Remotely Provided Air Traffic Services for Two Low-density Aerodromes The project contributed with a realtime simulation validation to development of operational, safety and performance requirements for Multiple Remote Tower Application considering human performance aspects. V2 V3 The exercise focussed on simultaneous movements on two low traffic density airport being controlled at a time. Table 1: Contribution to OI steps (Remote Tower) The project addressed the following SESAR Solutions and associated Operational Improvements (OI) described in the ATM Masterplan: Solution #12 (addressed by SDM-0201): Aerodrome Control Service or Aerodrome Flight Information Service for medium size airport provided from a remote location. 14 of 21
Solution #52 (addressed by SDM-0205): Remote Tower for two low density aerodromes Solution #13 (addressed by SDM-0204): Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service for Contingency Situations at Aerodromes 2.2 Project Achievements The scope of this project focussed on environments with medium traffic volumes and specifically investigating simultaneous movements for single and multiple remote tower. The contingency tower validations focussed on an environment with IFR and VFR Traffic mix and without ground radar surveillance. The main driver for Remote Provision of ATS for Single and Multiple Remote Tower is Cost Effectiveness. However, this is not proved through the validation activities. Rather the validation activities were used to validate the assumption in the business case i.e. that it is operationally feasible to provide ATS from a remote location (with focus on safety and capacity). The single remote tower concept was validated in passive shadow mode trials at Saarbrucken and Erfurt Airport. V3 maturity could not yet be reached, as ATCOs were not able to separate VFR traffic without reducing capacity compared to current operations. ATCOs requested a more reliable bounding of moving objects and automatic tracking of the PTZ-camera in order to overcome the remaining problems. Further validations are needed to prove this. The project investigated the impact of the multiple remote tower concept on the human operators performance and safety aspects by conducting a real-time simulation. An experimental work place for multiple remote tower control was set up, consisting of the video panoramas representing the far view of the airports Braunschweig and Erfurt. One video panorama was shown on top of the other. Furthermore the working position featured two approach radar displays, two displays and control units for the pan-tilt-zoom cameras (PTZ-camera), electronic flight strips and radio and telephone communication. Additionally, advanced features like overlay of aircraft information into the far view and PTZ-camera automatically tracking objects were realized. The validation showed that workload was higher in the multiple remote environment compared to a single remote environment with comparable traffic volumes. There was no significant effect of the advanced features on the workload. The validation for contingency tower confirmed that no ground radar is required to provide ATS from a remote location in contingency situations. While ATCOs were able to provide ATS to IFR traffic, the solution was limited to one additional VFR at a time. Sequencing VFR traffic showed the same problems as in the single remote validation for medium traffic volumes. 2.3 Project Deliverables The following table lists the key deliverables from the project: Reference Title Description This document is the Operational Services and Environment Description (OSED) relating to the Remote Tower element of the SESAR operational concept. This document covers the remote provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS): D94 Operational concept description, OSED 1. To single aerodromes - in a one to one relationship of one ATCO providing ATS for one airport from the remote facility; 2. To multiple aerodromes in parallel - in a one to two relationship of one ATCO providing ATS for two airports from the remote facility; 15 of 21
3. As a Contingency solution when the local Tower is not available, the ATCO cannot be located at the local Tower and the service is relocated to a remote contingency facility. D93 D108 D109 D97 D107 D111 Validation Report for Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service for Single Aerodrome Safety Assessment Report for Single Remote TWR Human Factors Assessment Report for Single Remote TWR Validation Report for Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service for Multiple Aerodromes Validation Report for Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service in Contingency Situations HF case-report for Contingency TWR This document is the Validation Report for the V2 and V3 Single Remote Tower validation activities of this project. It describes the results for remote provision of ATS for medium size airports (solution #12): Single Remote TWR V2 a V2 Passive Shadow Mode Trial (PSM) at Saarbrücken airport based on an initial prototype; Single Remote TWR V3 a V3 Passive Shadow Mode Trial (PSM) at Saarbrücken airport based on a pre-industrial validation platform. Additional flights were chartered for the validation in order to be able to assess defined scenarios. This document contains the specimen Safety Assessment for a typical application of the Remote Tower for single airport application. The report presents the list of Safety Requirements specifying the Remote Tower system and the collected evidences on their validity. This document contains the Human Performance (HP) assessment report for the Remote Provision of ATS to a Single Aerodrome. The HP assessment report describes the changes resulting from the introduction of the Remote Tower concept from a human performance perspective and identifies the potential human performance issues and benefits associated with those changes. A description of the HP related activities conducted to date to address the potential HP issues and benefits identified is provided. This document describes the results from the v2 validation exercise on multiple remote tower (SDM-0205). The exercise was a RTS providing ATS to two airports at a time. The focus was on controlling simultaneous movements at two airports. This document describes the results of the validation exercises contributing to the validation of Contingency Tower (SDM-0204) - the Remote Provision of ATS during Contingency Situations at Small to Medium Aerodromes (with a Single Main Runway). It covers feedback from the V3 exercise. Both exercises were Live Passive Shadow Mode Trials (PSM). The exercise addressed contingency operations at medium traffic density airports with controllers not being supported by ground radar surveillance and the traffic being composed of VFR and IFR. This document contains the Human Performance (HP) assessment report for the provision of ATS in contingency situations. The HP assessment report describes the changes resulting from the introduction of the Remote Tower concept from a human performance perspective and identifies the potential human performance issues and benefits associated with those changes. A description of the HP related activities 16 of 21
D110 Safety Assessment Report Contingency TWR conducted to date to address the potential HP issues and benefits identified is provided. This document contains the specimen Safety Assessment for a typical application of the Remote Tower for contingency tower application. The report presents the list of Safety Requirements specifying the Remote Tower system and the collected evidences on their validity. Table 3: Deliverables (Remote Tower) 2.4 Contribution to Standardisation 2.4.1 Contribution to EASA ED Decisions and Rule Making Tasks Deliverables from this project have contributed to the development of Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and guidance materials on the implementation of the Remote Tower concept for single mode of operation produced by EASA in July 2015 under ED Decision 2015-014-R,[4]. These guidance materials are based on the concept developed under this SESAR project. Due to the ongoing development work of this project and implementation projects outside of SESAR, EASA also produced requirements on Air Traffic Controller licensing in July 2015 under ED 2015-015- R. 2.4.2 Contribution to EUROCAE EUROCAE Working Group (WG) 100 is tasked to develop standards for remote and virtual towers (RVT). For this work the operational documents developed in SESAR have been used. The primary input is the Final OSED (D35). OSED requirements (regulatory, operational, functional, performance, security, safety and human performance requirements) are, where applicable, being used as an input into the development of Minimum Aviation System Performance (MASP) specifications for Remote and Virtual Tower Visual Surveillance systems. 2.5 Project Conclusion and Recommendations Solution #12 - Aerodrome Control Service for medium size airport provided from a remote location The overall conclusion of this project is that Remote Provision of ATS to single medium size aerodromes is not yet acceptable to controllers and operationally feasible. It must be highlighted that it could not be proven that sequencing of traffic can be done reaching the same capacity as in current operations. It is expected that an improved bounding of objects in combination with an improved functionality of PTZ-camera regarding automatic tracking of objects and an improved interface for the PTZ-camera to focus on an object will support the controllers in order to provide also the required sequencing without losing capacity. Apart from this project the solution is also addressed in different demonstration projects paving the way for implementation. The solution is expected to be ready for continuing with implementation process at medium size airports after successful demonstrations. 17 of 21
Solution #52 - Remote Tower for two low density aerodromes This project has provided initial evidence that Multiple Remote Tower is also acceptable for medium size airports with simultaneous movements. Advanced features are recommended for multiple remote tower applications especially when simultaneous movements are controlled. This project contributed to the concept at V2 maturity (after that the concept reached V3 maturity in the complementary project). Solution #13 - Remotely Provided Air Traffic Service for Contingency Situations at Aerodromes This project focussed on an environment with a mix of IFR and VFR traffic and no availability of ground surveillance. Validation results from a complementary project could be supported in terms of significantly increasing resilience with the remote contingency tower for IFR traffic. It was even proven that there is no need for ground surveillance in the remote contingency tower. On the other hand the validation showed that the prototype under test was not mature enough to conclude that frequent simultaneous VFR movements can be controlled (which is a similar result as was reached for Single Remote Tower for medium size airports). The solution is limited to IFR traffic an one VFR at a time. The above results will be used as basis for further developments in more complex environments and higher density aerodromes (single and contingency). The result will also be used as foundation for further development of the remote provision of ATS for multiple aerodromes, to increase the number and complexity of aerodromes. The results can also be used as input to development of remote tower centres (RTC) to optimize the use of remote tower modules (RTM) and other planning tools and functions required when several aerodromes are grouped within the same remote tower centre for improved efficiency without constrains on capacity or safety. 18 of 21
3 References [1] SESAR Programme Management Plan, Edition 03.00.01 [2] European ATM Master Plan [3] WPB.01 Integrated Roadmap version DS15 release note, D83, 00.01.00, July 01 2015 [4] Multilateral Framework Agreement ( MFA ) signed between the SJU, EUROCONTROL and its 15 selected members on August 11, 2009, amended on 14 June 2010, 19 October 2010 and 2 July 2012 [5] P06.08.04, D16, 00.01.03, 16/07/2015, Validation Report Basic AMAN/DMAN/A-SMGCS [6] P06.08.04, D17, 00.01.01, 21/07/2015, S01V3 Final OSED [7] P06.08.04, D18, 00.01.11, 28/09/2015, S01V3 Final SPR [8] P06.08.04, D82, 00.01.01, 21/07/2015, S01V3 Final INTEROP [9] P06.08.04, D28, 00.01.00, 30/05/2016, Validation Report Advanced AMAN-DMAN-Routing [10] P06.08.04, D29, 00.01.00, 30/05/2016, S02V3 Final OSED [11] P06.08.04, D30, 00.02.00, 30/05/2016, S02V3 Final SPR [12] P06.08.04, D91, 00.01.00, 30/05/2016, S02V3 Final INTEROP [13] P06.08.04, D93, 00.02.00, 11/04/2016, VALR - Single Remote Tower [14] P06.08.04, D94, 00.07.00, 30/05/2016, OSED - Single Remote Tower [15] P06.08.04, D108, 00.02.00, 30/05/2016, SAR - Single Remote Tower [16] P06.08.04, D109, 00.02.00, 30/05/2016, HF - Single Remote Tower [17] P06.08.04, D97, 00.01.01, 22/08/2014, VALR - Multiple Remote Tower [18] P06.08.04, D98, 00.05.02, 02/01/2015, OSED - Multiple Remote Tower [19] P06.08.04, D107, 00.01.01, 30/05/2016, VALR - Contingency Tower [20] P06.08.04, D110, 00.02.00, 30/05/2016, SAR - Contingency Tower [21] P06.08.04, D111, 00.02.00, 30/05/2016, HF - Contingency Tower [22] P06.08.04, D02, 00.01.00, 11.05.2012, 6.8.4 Concept Consultation Report [23] P06.08.04, D03, 00.01.00, 11.05.2012, 6.8.4 Validation Consultation Report [24] P06.08.04, D05, 00.01.00, 11.05.2012, 6.8.4-S01 Business Case Report [25] P06.08.04, D06, 00.01.00, 14.02.2011, 6.8.4-S01V1 State of the Art Analysis [26] P06.08.04, D07, 00.01.01, 06.06.2011, 6.8.4-S01V1 Initial OSED [27] P06.08.04, D08, 00.01.00, 20.10.2011, 6.8.4-S01V2 Validation Plan for V2 [28] P06.08.04, D09, 00.02.00, 21.09.2012, 6.8.4-S01V2 Validation Report Basic DMAN/A- SMGCS [29] P06.08.04, D10, 00.01.00, 26.04.2012, 6.8.4-S01V2 Mockup Basic AMAN-DMAN [30] P06.08.04, D11, 00.01.00, 28.09.2012, 6.8.4-S01V2 Validation Report Basic AMAN-DMAN [31] P06.08.04, D12, 00.02.00, 28.09.2012, 6.8.4-S01V2 Validation Report Basic AMAN/DMAN/A- SMGCS [32] P06.08.04, D13, 00.01.03, 29.01.2013, 6.8.4-S01V2 Preliminary OSED [33] P06.08.04, D14, 00.01.00, 18.02.2013, 6.8.4-S01V2 Preliminary SPR 19 of 21
[34] P06.08.04, D15, 00.01.02, 30.07.2014, 6.8.4-S01V3 Validation Plan for V3 [35] P06.08.04, D21, 00.01.00, 05.07.2012, 6.8.4-S02V1 Initial OSED [36] P06.08.04, D22, 00.01.00, 28.06.2013, 6.8.4-S02V2 Validation Plan for V2 [37] P06.08.04, D23, 00.01.02, 17.05.2013, 6.8.4-S02V2 Validation Report Advanced DMAN- Routing [38] P06.08.04, D24, 00.01.01, 02.03.2015, 6.8.4-S02V2 Validation Report Advanced AMAN- DMAN-Routing [39] P06.08.04, D25, 00.01.00, 23.07.2015, 6.8.4-S02V2 Preliminary OSED [40] P06.08.04, D26, 00.01.00, 20.11.2015, 6.8.4-S02V2 Preliminary SPR [41] P06.08.04, D27, 00.01.01, 23.11.2015, 6.8.4-S02V3 Validation Plan for V3 [42] P06.08.04, D32, 00.02.00, 08.04.2011, 6.8.4-OSED basic DMAN [43] P06.08.04, D35, 00.01.00, 07.12.2012, 6.8.4-Validation Report Basic DMAN [44] P06.08.04, D41, 00.01.00, 07.12.2012, 6.8.4-Validation Plan Basic DMAN [45] P06.08.04, D80, 00.01.00, 16.04.2013, 6.8.4-S01V2 Preliminary INTEROP [46] P06.08.04, D81, 00.01.00, 12.08.2013, 6.8.4-S01V2 VALR AMAN/DMAN/A-SMGCS- Gap Indicator [47] P06.08.04, D83, 00.01.00, 30.05.2016, 6.8.4-S02V3 FinaI INTEROP [48] P06.08.04, D85, 00.01.00, 18.12.2012, 6.8.4 VALP - Single Remote TWR Ph1 V2 [49] P06.08.04, D86, 00.01.00, 08.02.2013, 6.8.4 VALR - Single Remote TWR Ph1 V2 [50] P06.08.04, D87, 00.01.00, 18.04.2013, 6.8.4 OSED Single Remote TWR Ph1 V3 [51] P06.08.04, D88, 00.01.00, 08.10.2014, 6.8.4 VALP - Single Remote TWR Ph1 [52] P06.08.04, D89, 00.01.00, 26.08.2015, 6.8.4 VALR - Single Remote TWR Ph1 V3 [53] P06.08.04, D92, 00.01.00, 20.11.2015, 6.8.4 VALP - Single Remote TWR Ph2 [54] P06.08.04, D95, 00.01.00, 18.04.2013, 6.8.4 OSED Multiple Remote TWR V2 [55] P06.08.04, D96, 00.01.00, 11.07.2013, 6.8.4 VALP Multiple Remote V2 [56] P06.08.04, D100, 00.01.00, 30.05.2016, 6.8.4 Multiple Remote Advanced - Human Performance Consolidated DEL 12.04.07 T012 [57] P06.08.04, D101, 00.01.00, 30.05.2016, 6.8.4 Multiple Remote Advanced - VALP VP-750 Consolidated DEL T021 12.04.07 [58] P06.08.04, D104, 00.01.00, 05.02.2015, 6.8.4 Contingency Tower V2 - VALP VP-751 [59] P06.08.04, D105, 00.01.00, 16.11.2015, 6.8.4 Contingency Tower V2 - VALR VP-751 - Consolidated Del 12.04.08 T039 [60] P06.08.04, D106, 00.01.00, 13.08.2015, 6.8.4 Contingency Tower V3 - VALP VP-752 20 of 21
-END OF DOCUMENT- 21 of 21