Findings and trends from the CoSpace / EVP series of flight deck experiments on ASAS spacing

1. Findings and trends from the CoSpace / EVP series of flight deck experiments on ASAS spacing Karim ZeghalEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre ASAS-TN, 19-21 April 2004, Toulouse

2. Motivation • Motivation • Identify a more effective allocation of spacing tasks between controller and flight crew • One option to improve air traffic management • Neither “transfer problems” nor “give more freedom” to pilots… shall be beneficial to all parties • Constraints • Human: consider current roles and working methods • System: keep things as simple as possible • Assumptions • Airborne surveillance capabilities (ADS-B, “state vectors”) • Airborne functions (ASAS, “manual mode”)

3. Principle • Principles • Use of spacing instructions (not separation notclearance) to be used with current practices • No modification of responsibility for separation provision • Flight crew tasked by the controller to maintain a given spacing to a designated aircraft • FAA/Eurocontrol PO-ASAS, ICAO SCRSP ASAS circular • Expected benefits • Increase of controller availability, leading to improve safety • … in turn: better traffic management and, depending on airspace constraints, more capacity • Gain in awareness and anticipation for flight crew • Two classes of operations • Crossing and passing • Sequencing of arrival flows

4. Stepwise validation • Air & ground • Two streams of experiments with unified perspective • Operational • Start in cruise (extended TMA) and progressively get closer to the runway (TMA) • Validation • Start assessing usability and progressively address impact on user activity and eventually on the ATC system • Technology • Start with a basic working environment and progressively introduce assistance and technology when need clearly identified

5. Stepwise validation CRZ-IAF CRZ-IAF CRZ-IAF CRZ-FAF air IFATCA’98 Ext TMA Enroute Ext TMA Enroute ground Ext TMA Ext TMA TMA TMA 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

6. Starting point

7. From usability to activity

8. More assistance, more realism

9. Getting down to final with time

10. More complex scenarios

11. Stepwise validation CRZ-IAF CRZ-IAF CRZ-IAF CRZ-FAF air IFATCA’98 Ext TMA Enroute Ext TMA Enroute ground Ext TMA Ext TMA TMA TMA 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

12. Experiment set-up • Objective • Extend the scope to the approach phase, with time based spacing • Environment • Paris South arrival flights, from cruise to final approach (~40 minutes flight time) • Recorded scenario including ATC instructions and background traffic • Target under conventional control • Flight deck • Flight crew tasks: automatic flight, checklist, operational flight plan, ATIS, briefing, and manual speed adjustments • Cockpit simulator: A320 FMGS trainer from FAROS • Flight crew • 12 Airbus rated airline pilots • Exercises • Achieved: 24 runs in time, 6 in distance, 12 in conventional

13. Activity Ok

14. Spacing performance • Average deviation well below tolerance • No loss of spacing Tolerance 5s Maximum 4.6s Average 0.9s

15. Findings • Benefits • Positive feedback on concept (active part, being “in the loop”, understanding of the situation, more anticipation) • Spacing feasible (e.g. ±5s) until final approach, with limited assistance, at acceptable workload (under nominal conditions) • Limits • Where to end spacing on final (at FAF, before or later)? • Under which degraded situations (aircraft, meteo, …) spacing still feasible? • Issues • New task with potential risk of workload increase (appropriate level of assistance) • Preceding pilot behaviour? Risk of oscillatory effects?