DEMORPAS Project Final Dissemination Forum 10th March 2016, World ATM Congress, Madrid
Workshop Contents 1. Introduction to DEMORPAS Project 2. Operational environment 3. Exercises performed 4. Analysis of results 5. Conclusions 6. Q&A 1
Introduction to DEMORPAS Project 2
Mission Statement DEMORPAS is a demonstration project that aims at demonstrating how to integrate RPAS into non-segregated airspace in a manned and unmanned multi-aircraft flight environment, in order to explore the feasibility of integration with the wider aviation community by 2016 3
Consortium FADA- CATEC ISDEFE CRIDA INTA ENAIRE Spanish Air Force Spanish AESA 4
Objectives Demonstration of the feasibility of introducing RPAS in nonsegregated airspace Potential solutions in the areas where integration problems exist Performance of real RPAS flights in a mixed environment under air traffic control Assessment on the impact of RPAS integration with manned aircraft on human actors Assessment on the reliability on RPAS trajectories and their capability of flying standard procedures 5
Operational Environment 6
Operational Environment 7
Operational Environment 8
Exercises performed 9
Exercises Execution Resources ¾ RPAS ALO ¾ STEMME S-15 ¾ SINA position STEMME S-15 RPAS ALO Wingspan 3,48 m Wingspan 18 m MTOW 60 kg MOTW 1100kg Maximum Speed 97 Kts (180 km/h) Maximum Cruising Speed 113Kts (210 km/h) Range 50 km Range 1100 km Ceiling 4270 m (14000ft) Ceiling 16000 ft (4880 m) Endurance > 4 hours Operational endurance 6 hours Emergency recovery Parachute system 10
Exercises Execution Exercises ¾ First Exercise RPAS ALO ALO ATC Remote Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers get used to each other and to RPA behavior. ¾ Second Exercise RPAS ALO STEMME S-15 ALO ATC RPAS and Manned Aircraft sharing airspace assess perception of the actors. Conclusions about stress can be derived. STEMME 11
Exercises Execution 1 st Exercise execution ¾ Operational Scenario Execution of ad-hoc procedures. RPA asks to modify its flight plan to perform a surveillance mission. ¾ Emergency Scenario How RPAS emergencies can be handled by Air Traffic Controllers. Simulated emergencies. 12
Exercises Execution 1 st Exercise execution 19 th to 23 th October 2015 Matacán Air Base Taxi Out RPAS ALO Operational Scenario 2 live flight trials Take Off Landing Emergency Scenario Taxi In 13
Exercises Execution 2 nd Exercise execution ¾ Mixed Operational & Emergency Scenario Execution of ad-hoc procedures. RPA simulated loss of telemetry trajectory change. Conflict between both aircraft detected and solved by ATC. 14
Exercises Execution 2 nd Exercise execution 23 th to 27 th November 2015 Matacán Air Base RPAS ALO & STEMME Manned Aircraft 1 live flight trials Operational & Emergency mixed Scenario 15
Analysis of results 16
Analysis of results Qualitative and quantitative results ¾ Human Factor assessment ¾ Trajectory analysis RADAR vs. Telemetry Air Traffic Controller RADAR vs. Flight Plan Remote Pilot Manned aircraft Pilot Flight Plan Radar Telemetry 17
Analysis of results Human factors ¾ Remote pilots Situational awareness improved thanks to the ATC radar information (SINAposition). Workload too many tasks assigned to the same person. Communications and phraseology Improved thanks to the training. Were communications similar to those with manned aircraft? EXE-2 50% 50% YES NO 18
Analysis of results Human factors ¾ ATCOs Feasibility to follow ATC instructions and procedures (e.g. Transference of control between ATC units). Situational awareness Good prediction of RPAS evolution. How predictable was the RPAS evolution? 60% ACC 40% more difficult than manned aircraft 100% As manned aircraft TWR 19
Analysis of results Human factors ¾ ATCOs Feasibility to follow ATC instructions and procedures (e.g. Transference of control between ATC units). Situational awareness Good prediction of RPAS evolution. Workload More demanding due to communications. Latency: Read back was appropriate. Compared to manned aircraft, how was the remote pilote read-back time? 67% TWR Significantly lower 17% 20% 60% 8% Slightly lower Equal Slightly higher 8% 20% Significantly higher ACC 20
Analysis of results Human factors ¾ ATCOs Feasibility to follow ATC instructions and procedures (e.g. Transference of control between ATC units). Situational awareness Good prediction of RPAS evolution. Workload More demanding due to communications. Latency: Read back was appropriate. RPAS reaction time was similar to manned aircraft. Compared to manned aircraft, how was the RPAS reaction time? 64% 18% 67% 33% 18% Slightly lower Equal Slightly higher TWR ACC 21
Analysis of results Human factors ¾ Manned aircraft pilots RPAS take-off and landing procedures RPAS emergency procedures risk for VFR mainly How would the integration of RPAS emergency impact on safety? Controllers 17% 66% 17% 57% 29% 14% Risk Risk for VFR No risk TWR ACC 22
Quantitative Analysis Trajectory Analysis ¾ Compliance with the Flight Plan 23
Quantitative Analysis Trajectory Analysis ¾ Comparison of RADAR and Telemetry Horizontal plane Controllers considered acceptable the difference. NM Max Average Exe1_Op 0.41 0.0723 Exe1_Em 0.51 0.137 Exe3 0.49 0.046 Radar.- Exe1_Em Telemetry.- Exe1_Em 24
Quantitative Analysis Trajectory Analysis ¾ Comparison of RADAR and Telemetry Vertical plane ATC background is essential. FL Max Average Exe1_Op 2.73 1.27 Exe1_Em 3 1.0063 Exe3 2.72 0.65 Radar.- Exe1_Em Telemetry.- Exe1_Em 25
Conclusions 26
Conclusions Demonstration the feasibility of introducing RPAS in non-segregated airspace Potential solutions in the areas where integration problems exist Performance of real RPAS flights in a mixed environment under air traffic control 27 Assessment on the impact of RPAS integration with manned aircraft on human actors Assessment on the reliability on RPAS trajectories and their capability of flying standard procedures < < < < =
Questions & Answers 28