EUROCONTROL

Transcription

EUROCONTROL

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION
FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
POLAND 99 REAL-TIME SIMULATION
EEC Report N° 352
Project SIM-S-E1
Issued: September 2000
The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should
be reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Reference:
EEC Report N° 352
Security Classification:
Unclassified
Originator:
EEC - OPS
(Real-time Simulation Operations)
Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
Centre des Bois des Bordes
B.P. 15
FR - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEX
Tel.: +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00
Fax.:+33 (0)1 69 88 75 00
Sponsor:
Polish Airports Air Traffic Agency (PATA)
Poland
Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name / Location:
PATA
Polish Airports
State Enterprise
Zwirki i Wigury 1,
00-906 Warszawa,
Poland
TITLE:
POLAND 99 REAL-TIME SIMULATION
Author
Date
Pages
Figures
Tables
Appendix
References
G. FLYNN
T. SYMMANS
9/00
X + 95
69
-
-
13
EATCHIP Task
Specification
-
Project
Task N° Sponsor
Period
SIM-S-E1
-
May-June 1999
Distribution Statement:
(a) Controlled by: . . . . . . . Simulation Service Manager
(b) Special Limitations: . . . None
(c) Copy to NTIS: . . . . . . . YES / NO
Descriptors (keywords):
Airspace – ATC Tasks – CCF Controller – EATCHIP – Electronic Co-ordination – FUA – Controller – HMI
Interface – MTCD – OLDI/SYSCO – Real-Time Simulation – RNAV – ROMBULPO – STCA - Warsaw FIR
Abstract:
This report describes a EUROCONTROL real-time simulation study of Polish airspace conducted of behalf
of PATA Poland. PATA intends to upgrade the Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems in operational use in
the Warsaw Air Traffic Control Centre. EUROCONTROL Advisory Service and the Airspace Management
and Navigation Unit provided assistance to Poland under the Polish ATC Harmonisation Work Programme
(PATCHWORK).
The simulated area comprised the Warsaw FIR and TMA, and tested different sector options for en-route
and TMA airspace. New conventional and RNAV SID’s and STAR’s developed for Warsaw APC were also
tested.
Sector options and areas to meet Polish Military airspace requirements were defined for the simulation and
civil and military requirements were addressed using FUA principles.
This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:
Publications Office
Centre de Bois des Bordes
B.P. 15
91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX
France
Poland 99 Real-Time Simulation
EUROCONTROL
SUMMARY
The Poland’99 real-time simulation took place at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
between May 17 and June 11, 1999. This was the first real-time simulation carried out at the EEC
at the request of the Polish Air Traffic Authority (PATA). In total, 3 simulation management staff 56
civil and 4 military controllers took part in 56 Simulation exercises.
This simulation was a follow-up to a Reorganised Airspace Mathematical Simulator (RAMS)
model based simulation EEC Note n° 13/99 and TMA evaluations carried out by EUROCONTROL
Airspace Management Navigation (AMN) section.
PATA controllers manned sectors representing the entire en-route airspace of the Warsaw
FIR/UIR and EPWA (Warsaw) approach. PATA provided military controllers to provide a control
service to all OAT flights.
The simulation studied 2 proposed airspace options for en-route and 2 sector options for
CCF/TMA airspace. Two sectors were designed for OAT controllers to provide a service to OAT
flights operating in the simulated area, which included military areas, routes and TSA’s defined for
the simulation. The airspace sharing was managed by the application of civil and military
co-ordination procedures using simplified Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) principles. To support
this procedure, the system provided electronic civil and military co-ordination to allow OAT flights
to cross civil airways and UAR’s.
The simulation platform provided advanced ATC system functionality in a stripless environment
and included Medium Term Conflict Detection, and safety net functions - Short Term Conflict Alert
(STAC) and Area Proximity Warning (APW).
The knowledge gained and experience of a stripless system and ATC future system functionality
will help the controllers and PATA management to specify features for the new Polish ATC
system.
Other elements central to the simulation were new conventional and RNAV SID’s and STAR’s,
designed for Warsaw by EUROCONTROL AMN. The tests involving RNAV STAR and SID routes
were enhanced by the participation of two line-pilots from LOT airlines. The pilots flew the EEC
Multi-Cockpit Simulator which has a direct interface into simulation exercises.
The results in this report were compiled using subjective data collated from controller’s responses
to questionnaires, post-exercise debriefing sessions, analysis of system data recorded during
exercises and observations of the EEC Project Team members.
Project SIM-S-E1 - EEC Report n° 352
V
EUROCONTROL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On behalf of the EEC project team, I would like to express thanks to the ATC and technical experts
from PATA for their assistance and patience during the preparation, testing and running of the
simulation. They are; Andrzej Bolimowski, Robert Michalak, Major Leszek Golab and Mariusz
Krzyzanowski.
Thanks must also go to PATA ATC civil and military managers for their co-operation in releasing
60 controllers from operational duties during the summer months.
We thank LOT airline management for it’s co-operation in lending us two pilots to fly our MCS,
Cpt. Kretowicz and Capt. Szajkowski.
On the technical side, my thanks to Jose Seixo who led the technical team responsible for
providing a stable platform and who worked for tirelessly and for long hours to solve all technical
problems and change requests.
I would like to formally thank all the EUROCONTROL HQ and EEC staff involved in all aspects of
the planning, preparation, administration and completion of this project. Their names are listed
alphabetically below.
A very special thank you to my co-Rombolpo Project Managers, Andy Barff and Rod Mc.Gregor
for their unselfish support, advice, professionalism and tireless patience.
Steven Bancroft
Dave Barrett
Véronique Begault
Josée Bralet
Carol Sheehan
Jacques De Poorter
Josiane Delwarte
Yvette Fauchot
Adrian Gizdavu
Stéphane Gouraud
Martin Griffin
Sandrine Guibert
André Guyot
Georg Heinz
Jacques Hougardy
Alan Marsden
Nicolas Muthelet
Franca Pavlicevic
Chantal Poinsot
Elisabeth Plachinski
Michèle Pommez
Françoise Roth
José Seixo
Peter Slingerland
Terry Symmans
My thanks to all the controllers who participated in this simulation and whose professional opinions and comments form the basis of the results and recommendations in this report. And last,
but not least, my thanks to the pseudo-pilots whose skills increased the level of realism in our
simulation.
Geraldine Flynn
Poland ’99 Project Manager
VI
EUROCONTROL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
1 . . . . .INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. . . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. . . . . SIMULATION CONDUCT . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 . .
3.2 . .
3.3 . .
3.4 . .
3.5 . .
3.6 . .
3.7 . .
3.8 . .
3.9 . .
3.10 .
3.11 .
3.12 .
3.13 .
3.14 .
3.15 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Route structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Terminal Airspace (CCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
En-route sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Military sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Danger and restricted areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Adjacent airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traffic sample data – civil traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traffic sample - military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traffic sample analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mitigating factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Operations room configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Adjacent sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ATC procedures and controller tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Analysis methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. . . . . Results - Objective 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 .
4.2 .
4.3 .
...
4.4 .
...
4.5 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Organisations 1 & 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General comments pertinent to the results
The interface between CCF and
adjacent en-route sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lateral interface between CCF and
en-route sectors Organisation 1 . . . . . . . . .
Comments on specific problem sectors . . .
. . . . . . . 17
. . . . . . . 19
. . . . . . . 21
7. . . . . Results - Objective 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.1 .
7.2 .
7.3 .
...
7.4 .
7.5 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Controller tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
General comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
On-line Data Interchange (OLDI)
System Supported Co-ordination (SYSCO) . . . . . . . 57
Message In/Out windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Civil and military co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8. . . . . Objective 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8.1 .
8.2 .
8.3 .
8.4 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
Evaluation Development .
Conduct of the Simulation
InterimFindings . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
64
66
66
9. . . . . Objective 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10. . . . Objective 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1 . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2 . . . Civil and military co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
11. . . . Conclusions and recommendations . 73
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Objective 1 .
Objective 2 .
Objective 3 .
Objective 4 .
Objective 5 .
Objective 6 .
Objective 7 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
74
76
78
80
81
81
. . . . . . . 22
. . . . . . . 23
5 . . . . Results Objective 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. . . . . Results - Objective 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.1 . .
6.2 . .
....
6.3 . .
....
6.4 . .
6.5 . .
6.6 . .
6.7 . .
6.8 . .
6.9. .
6.10.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The three button mouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Controllers responses to HMI
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
General statements contained in
the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Specific tools and features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Military Flight List (MFL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
MTCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Controllers comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
STCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Area Proximity Warning (APW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
French Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Green pages: French translation of the summary, the introduction,
. . . . . . . . . . objectives, conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Pages vertes : Traduction en langue française du résumé, de l’introduction,
. . . . . . . . . . des objectifs, des conclusions et des recommandations . . . . . . . 83
VII
EUROCONTROL
ABBREVIATIONS
ACT . . . . . . . . . .
AFL . . . . . . . . . .
ahd. . . . . . . . . . .
AIP . . . . . . . . . . .
AMN . . . . . . . . . .
ANP . . . . . . . . . .
ANT . . . . . . . . . .
AOC . . . . . . . . . .
APW . . . . . . . . . .
arc . . . . . . . . . . .
ARN . . . . . . . . . .
ARR . . . . . . . . . .
ASM . . . . . . . . . .
asp . . . . . . . . . . .
ASW . . . . . . . . . .
ATC . . . . . . . . . .
ATCC . . . . . . . . .
ATM . . . . . . . . . .
ATS . . . . . . . . . .
ATSA . . . . . . . . .
CAA . . . . . . . . . .
CBT . . . . . . . . . .
CCF . . . . . . . . . .
CFL . . . . . . . . . .
CRD . . . . . . . . . .
CTR . . . . . . . . . .
CWP . . . . . . . . . .
DCT . . . . . . . . . .
DEP . . . . . . . . . .
DFL . . . . . . . . . .
DSI . . . . . . . . . . .
EAT . . . . . . . . . .
EATCHIP . . . . . .
ECAC . . . . . . . . .
EEC . . . . . . . . . .
EFL . . . . . . . . . .
EPT . . . . . . . . . .
ETE . . . . . . . . . .
ETL . . . . . . . . . .
ETX . . . . . . . . . .
EUR-ANP . . . . . .
EUROCONTROL
EXC . . . . . . . . . .
FDPS . . . . . . . . .
FIR . . . . . . . . . . .
FUA . . . . . . . . . .
GAT . . . . . . . . . .
VIII
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Activation Message (OLDI)
Actual Flight Level
Assigned heading
Aeronautical Information Publication
EUROCONTROL Airspace Management and Navigation Unit
Air Navigation Plan
Airspace and Navigation Team
Assume Of Control
Area Proximity Warning
Assigned Rate of Change (climb or descent)
ATS Routes and associated Navigation means plan
Arrival list
Airspace Management
Assigned speed
Air-Situation Window
Air Traffic Control
Air Traffic Control Centre
Air Traffic Management
Air Traffic Service
Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Agency
Civil Aviation Authority
Computer Based Training
Combined Control Function
Cleared Flight Level
Conflict and Risk Display
Control Area
Controller Working Position
Direct
Departure list
Dynamic Flight Leg
Denmark Sweden Interface (project)
Estimated Approach Time
European ATC Harmonisation and Integration Programme
European Civil Aviation Conference
Entry Flight Level
Entry point
Estimated Time of Entry
Extended Track Label
Estimated time of exit
European Air Navigation Plan
European Organisation for The Safety of Air Navigation
Executive Controller
Flight Plan Data Processing System
Flight Information Region
Flexible Use of Airspace
General Air Traffic
HMI . . . . . . .
ISA . . . . . . . .
L-NAV. . . . . .
LoA . . . . . . .
MCS . . . . . . .
MFL . . . . . . .
MTCD . . . . . .
NM . . . . . . . .
OAT . . . . . . .
ODID . . . . . .
OLDI. . . . . . .
ORG . . . . . . .
P&H . . . . . . .
PATA . . . . . .
PLC . . . . . . .
R+B . . . . . . .
RNAV . . . . . .
ROMATSA . .
ROMBULPO .
RSPD . . . . . .
RTF . . . . . . .
RTSIM . . . . .
SC . . . . . . . .
SEL . . . . . . .
SFC . . . . . . .
SFL . . . . . . .
SI . . . . . . . . .
SID . . . . . . . .
SIL . . . . . . . .
SSR . . . . . . .
STAR . . . . . .
STCA . . . . . .
StS . . . . . . . .
SYSCO . . . . .
TARA . . . . . .
TMA . . . . . . .
TOC . . . . . . .
TOD . . . . . . .
TSA . . . . . . .
VAW . . . . . . .
VOR . . . . . . .
XCM . . . . . . .
XFL . . . . . . .
XIN . . . . . . . .
XPT . . . . . . .
XRQ . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EUROCONTROL
Human Machine Interface
Instantaneous Self Assessment (workload computation model)
Lateral Navigation
Letter of Agreement
Multi-Cockpit Simulator
Military Flight List
Medium Term Conflict Detection
Nautical Miles
Operational Air Traffic
Operational Display and Input Device
On-line Data Interchange
Organisation –(simulation scenario)
Press & Hold
Polish Air Traffic Agency
Planning Controller
Range and Bearing
Area Navigation
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
Romanian Bulgaria Poland (Project)
Reported speed
Radio Telephony
Real time simulation
Single Click (Mouse action)
Sector List
Surface level
Supplementary Flight Level
Sector Indicator (Co-ordination partner)
Standard Instrument Departure (route)
Sector Inbound List (window)
Secondary Surveillance Radar
Standard Arrival Route
Short Term Conflict Alert
Support to States (EUROCONTROL)
System Assisted Co-ordination
Terminal Area RNAV Applications (Task Force)
Terminal Manoeuvring Area
Top Of Climb
Top Of Descent
Temporary Segregated Area
Vertical Aid Window
Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-directional Range
Crossing Request Cancellation Message (OLDI)
Exit Flight Level
Military crossing identification notification message
Exit Point
Military Crossing Request (OLDI)
IX
EUROCONTROL
X
1.
EUROCONTROL
INTRODUCTION
PATA Poland is in the process of constructing a new En-Route Air Traffic Control Centre
and Tower complex adjacent to Warsaw airport. In addition to this new infrastructure, PATA
intends to upgrade the Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems in operational use in the
Warsaw Air Traffic Control Centre. EUROCONTROL Advisory Service and the Airspace
Management and Navigation Unit provided assistance to Poland under the Polish ATC
Harmonisation Work Programme (PATCHWORK).
As part of the PATCHWORK programme a real-time simulation took place at the
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre between May 17 – June 11, 1999.
The Poland ’99 simulation was also part of a series of simulations in the ROMBULPO
project. The ROMBULPO project managed simulations for the national administrations of
ROMATSA (Romania), ATSA (Bulgaria) and PATA (Poland). The project used a common
simulator platform upon which each of the three states defined their individual
Human-Machine-Interface (HMI) specifications.
The EEC simulator platform is a continually evolving system that incorporates EATCHIP
III principles. The EEC has enhanced and modified the baseline HMI and system safety
net logic developed during the DSI (Sweden-Denmark Interface) simulations.
The simulation data will give PATA management practical information on future stripless
system functionality and limitations, and future controller procedures. This simulation
supports their initiative to meet future ATM demands.
1
EUROCONTROL
2.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives in Poland ’99 simulation were:
1. Evaluate two new en-route sectorisation plans resulting from current Fast-Time (RAMS)
simulation based on the ATS Route Network version 3 (ARN3) using increased traffic
levels;
2. Evaluate the new Warsaw TMA including Standard Instrument Departure and Arrival
Routes (SIDs and STARs) resulting from the DED 4 Airspace Study;
3. Evaluate the use of the specified HMI (for both En-route and Approach Controller
Working Positions (CWPs), with specific focus on the following tools or features;
Label and Track information (incl. interaction)
Dynamic Flight Leg (DFL)
Conflict and Risk Display (CRD)
Vertical Aid Window (VAW)
Sector List (SEL)
Sector Inbound List (SIL), Arrival List, Departure List, and other list presentation.
4. Develop and assess Controller Tasking in Warsaw Area Control Centre (ACC) and
Approach (APP) for Planner – Executive, using a new system with object-oriented
Human Machine Interface (HMI), On-line Data Interchange (OLDI) System Supported
Co-ordination (SYSCO), and system supported Civil-Military co-ordination;
5. Evaluate the impact of RNAV Arrival Routes (RNAV STARs) for Warsaw, including their
associated ATC procedures, from an operational and cost-benefit viewpoint. This may
include an evaluation of airborne procedures;
6. Expose as many controllers as possible to the new system HMI and functionality;
7. Perform an initial evaluation of new Civil/Military Operational Concept /Flexible Use of
Airspace (FUA) concepts.
2
EUROCONTROL
3.
SIMULATION CONDUCT
3.1
AIRSPACE
The simulated area included the Warsaw FIR/UIR and sections of the following adjacent
FIR/UIR’s, Berlin, Minsk, Praha, Vilnius, Bratislava, Kalingrad, and Malmö.
This region area was divided into Measured and Non measured sectors. Measured
sectors are those that are central to the study and are subject to analyses. The non
measured sectors are geographical areas abutting the Warsaw FIR. They are referred to
as “Feed” sectors and are not analysed. The configuration of the Feed sectors does not
represent actual sector structures in the adjacent FIR/UIR’s.
3.2
ROUTE STRUCTURE
The simulated route structure was a combination of the existing upper and lower route
structures and ARN3 phase 2 routes, where defined.
3.3
TERMINAL AIRSPACE (CCF)
The basic shape and design of the simulated CCF/APC airspace was recommended
following the EUROCONTROL Airspace Management and Navigation TMA airspace
study. Based on this study, the PATA working group submitted two configuration options of
the CCF for study. Both options used the same lateral dimensions and circular shape: a
radius of 75nm centred on point OKE.
3
EUROCONTROL
The first option, Organisation 1, set the lower vertical division between CCF and APC at
FL105 and divided the lateral airspace above FL105 into CCF East (CE) CCF West (CW)
sectors.
OATE
GRU
EPSY
DW
UNL
SIE/SUW GND
MISKA
KOPOP
GORTI
BUGUM
VAVEK
LISSU
BIRGA
EPMO
TRZ UNL
LDZ 315
CCF 285
TA 105
GND
DODEK
UNL
SIE/SUW 285
CCF
105
TA
GND
LEGIO
KRASO
TISKO
OBEGO
EPBC
GANPI
LUMOK
WAR
WAG
KUKOV
EPMM
OKE
WAO
SIE
PNO
EPBP
KRN
LIN
LDZ
PEPEN
MARIA
KOZEN
EPLK
EPDE
UNL
TRZ
315
LDZ
GND
MAKOV
LUBEN
ARDAG
EPRA
OMAVA
GOSLO
UMTOR
KRASI
Fig. 3 - 1 : CCF airspace organisation 1
4
EUROCONTROL
In the second option, Organisation 2, the lower vertical limit between CCF and APC was
set at FL65 and the lateral area was single sector. In both options, the upper vertical limit
of CCF airspace was set at FL285.
Warsaw approach sector dimensions were the current sector dimensions. A full description
is contained in the Polish AIP.
OATE
GRU
EPSY
DW
UNL
GRU
GND
UNL
SUW 285
CCF GND
GRU
UNL
SUW GND
UNL
285
MISKA
KOPOP
BUGUM
GORTI
VAVEK
LISSU
TRZ
LDZ
CCF
TA
BIRGA
EPMO
UNL
315
285
105
GND
DODEK
UNL
SIE 285
CCF 105
TA GND
LEGIO
KRASO
TISKO
OBEGO
EPBC
GANPI
LUMOK
WAR
WAG
KUKOV
EPMM
OKE
WAO
SIE
PNO
EPBP
KRN
LIN
LDZ
PEPEN
MARIA
KOZEN
EPLK
EPDE
UNL
TRZ
315
LDZ
GND
MAKOV
LUBEN
ARDAG
EPRA
OMAVA
GOSLO
UMTOR
KRASI
Fig. 3 - 2 : CCF airspace organisation 2
5
EUROCONTROL
3.4
EN-ROUTE SECTORS
The simulated en-route sectors were a combination of sector options tested using the EEC
RAMS model based simulation and new sector proposals submitted by the PATA working
group. Two combinations, Organisation 1 and Organisation 2 were submitted by the PATA
working group, and are shown Figure 3 - 3 and Figure 3 - 4.
PO99
org.1
KAL
FW UNL
GND
GUNTA
NINTA
REP
FE
KOLJA
PENOR
ALM
VARPA
DOXON
OKLAD
LARMA
UNL
GRU GND
ROE
KOSMO
REDFI
DETNI
BAKLI
VEBEX
KOSEL
BABIK
ARGAD
TOXAR
TILAV
NONSA
EPCE
TRB
OL
GARGO
GOLBO
SUDOL
RENKI
DOLAT
TOF
STENA
FWE
EDDB
ESIKA
GORIG
EPPO
KULUV
KOBUS
KOPOP
UNL
DRE
315
LDZ
GND
XIDNA
SIE/SUW UNL
LISSU
CCF 285
KRASO EPMO
105
UNLDODEK
LEGIO
TA
TRZ 315
TISKO
GND
WAR EPBC
EPMM
LDZ 285 OBEGO
GANPI
LUMOK
WAG OKE
WAO
SIE
CCF105
KUKOV
PNO
LIN
TA GND PEPEN KRN
BARNU
INDIG
TRZ
H
EPWR
HG
RUDKA
EPBP
ZD
TOSPO
LDZ
MARIA
KOZEN
EPDE
EPLK
UNL
TRZ 315
LDZ GND
MAKOV
ARDAG EPRA
LUBEN
GOSLO
UMTOR
PRASK
HDO
BUGUM
BIRGA
BADNO
MIXAT
UNL
TRZ
GND
MISKA
GORTI
EPPW
BESTO
ABLOX
GP
KI
VAVEK
MOLIL
POZ
EPKS
CZE
EPZG
GOVEN
SOTET
GILBO
DIBRI
EPMI
SUI
UNL
GND
EPSY
OATE
EPBY
KELOD
LEG
SIE/SUW
DW
DRE UNL
GND
BESKO
LUPAS
OLKIN
GRU
PNEWY
ATVEL
MRA
OATW
DRE
GILAS
EDDT
EPMB
CHO
DODAN
VABER
SUW
SKARY
KALIT
BODLA
ONUKA
KESIX
KMI
EPSC
LOBSU
RAKIT
VIZAN
GDA
KRT
RADUN
EPKO
EPSN
SITNO
PRAMA
GOMED
EPGD
EPSK
DAR
DIRSO
VNO
PENOX
EPOK
FLD
KNA
KR
KOLOB
GOSOT
TRT
UNL
GND
OMAVA
KRASI
USTIL
BALBA
OKX
KAROV
MYSKO
EPKT
WOLOD
JED
KUZUK
PT
TARNO
SA
LKPR
KRW
RAK
REGLI
OKL
BAVOK
UNL
FS GND
EPKK
PADKA
EKTIL
OR
RZE
DIBED
SKAVI
ZAB
TBV
EPRZ
JED UNL
GND
RASOG
JAB
LUGIR
BN
PODAN
BILNA
HLV
LENOV
GRELA
ZLA
PPD
ABKOL
49
VI
DBV
IVF
NEMPI
KSC
VOLEV
TIRIS
JEL
KEKED
OKR
NIT
VÈro:03.05.99
Fig. 3 - 3 : Organisation 1
6
EUROCONTROL
PO99
org.2
KAL
FW UNL
GND
GUNTA
NINTA
REP
PENOR
ALM
VARPA
DOXON
OKLAD
LARMA
UNL
GRU GND
ROE
KOSMO
REDFI
DETNI
BAKLI
VEBEX
KOSEL
BABIK
ARGAD
TOXAR
TILAV
NONSA
EPCE
TRB
OL
GOLBO
DODAN
SUDOL
RENKI
EPMB
UNL
DRE GND
TOF
STENA
PNEWY
FWE
EDDB
ESIKA
DIBRI
DRE
GORIG
EPMI
SUI
BESKO
LUPAS
CZE
EPZG
GOVEN
KULUV
KOBUS
LEG
UNL
DRE 315
LDZ GND
XIDNA
BESTO
ABLOX
UNL
TRZ GND
BARNU
INDIG
BADNO
LDZ
BUGUM
MISKA
GORTI
RUDKA
UNL
TRZ 315
LDZ GND
TRZ
EPWR
UNL
SIE
285
CCF 105
MARIA TA
GND
EPBP
SIE
ARDAG EPRA
LUBEN
MAKOV
HG
GOSLO
UMTOR
MYSKO
EPKT
LKPR
KRW
REGLI
OKL
BAVOK
EPKK
PADKA
EKTIL
UNL
FS GND
USTIL
BALBA
KUZUK
TBV
UNL
JED(U)
315
JED(L)
GND
TARNO
SA
EPRZ
OR
RZE
DIBED
SKAVI
ZAB
WOLOD
JED
PT
RAK
UNL
GND
KRASI
OKX
KAROV
ZD
TOSPO
OMAVA
PRASK
HDO
SIE
EPMM
KOZENEPDE
EPLK
MIXAT
H
KI
BIRGA
LISSU
EPMO
UNL
LEGIO
TRZ 315 OBEGOTISKO
WAR EPBC
DODEK
LDZ 285 LUMOK GANPIWAG OKE
WAO
CCF105
KUKOV
PNO
LIN
TA GND PEPEN KRN
EPPW
EPKS
GP
EPSY
KRASO
MOLIL
EPPO
POZ
KELOD
VAVEK
SOTET
DW
UNL
SUW 285
CCF
UNL
GND
GRU 285
KOPOP
GILBO
DOLAT
GILAS
ATVEL
UNL
SUW GND
OATE
GRU
EPBY
EDDT
MRA
OLKIN
KALIT
BODLA
VABER
SUW
SKARY
OATW
CHO
GARGO
ONUKA
KESIX
KMI
EPSC
LOBSU
RAKIT
VIZAN
GDA
KRT
RADUN
EPKO
EPSN
SITNO
PRAMA
GOMED
EPGD
EPSK
DAR
DIRSO
VNO
PENOX
EPOK
FLD
KNA
KR
KOLOB
GOSOT
TRT
UNL
GND
FE
KOLJA
RASOG
JAB
LUGIR
BN
PODAN
BILNA
HLV
LENOV
GRELA
ZLA
PPD
ABKOL
49
VI
DBV
IVF
NEMPI
KSC
VOLEV
TIRIS
JEL
KEKED
OKR
NIT
VÈro: 03.05.99
Fig. 3 - 4 : Oganisation 2
7
EUROCONTROL
During the first two weeks of the simulation period, the working group and controllers rejected Organisation 2, and requested a third option, Organisation 3. This third option combined the CCF sector structure used in Organisation 1 and the en-route sectors from
Organisation 2. A map showing this combination of sectors is shown on Figure 3 - 5 below.
PO99
org.3
KAL
FW UNL
GND
GUNTA
NINTA
REP
FE
KOLJA
PENOR
ALM
VARPA
DOXON
OKLAD
LARMA
UNL
GRU GND
ROE
KOSMO
REDFI
DETNI
BAKLI
VEBEX
KOSEL
BABIK
ARGAD
TOXAR
TILAV
NONSA
EPCE
TRB
OL
GARGO
GOLBO
SUDOL
RENKI
DOLAT
TOF
STENA
FWE
EDDB
ESIKA
DRE UNL
GND
GORIG
KELOD
EPPO
CZE
EPZG
GOVEN
KULUV
KOBUS
VAVEK
BESTO
ABLOX
TRZ
UNL
GND
TRZ
BARNU
INDIG
H
EPWR
HG
RUDKA
UNL
285
105
GND
EPMM
SIE
EPBP
MARIA
KOZEN
EPDE
EPLK
UNL
TRZ 315
LDZ GND
MAKOV
SIE
ARDAG EPRA
LUBEN
GOSLO
UMTOR
PRASK
USTIL
BALBA
KAROV
LKPR
KRW
REGLI
OKL
BAVOK
EPKK
PADKA
EKTIL
KUZUK
UNL
JED(U)
315
JED(L)
GND
TARNO
SA
EPRZ
OR
RZE
DIBED
SKAVI
ZAB
TBV
WOLOD
JED
MYSKO
EPKT
PT
UNL
FS GND
UNL
GND
OMAVA
KRASI
OKX
RAK
ZD
TOSPO
LDZ
BADNO
HDO
BUGUM
MISKA
GORTI
SIE
CCF
TA
KRASO
UNL
DRE
315
LDZ
GND
XIDNA
BIRGA
LISSU
EPMO
UNLDODEK
LEGIO
TRZ 315
TISKO
WAR EPBC
OBEGO
LDZ 285 LUMOK GANPIWAG OKE
WAO
CCF105
KUKOV
PNO
LIN
TA GND PEPEN KRN
EPPW
MIXAT
LEG
KI
KOPOP
MOLIL
POZ
EPKS
GP
DW
UNL
SUW 285
CCF GND
GILBO
DIBRI
EPMI
SUI
SOTET
EPSY
OATE
EPBY
BESKO
LUPAS
UNL
SUW GND
OLKIN
GRU
PNEWY
ATVEL
MRA
OATW
DRE
GILAS
EDDT
EPMB
CHO
DODAN
VABER
SUW
SKARY
KALIT
BODLA
RAKIT
KESIX
KMI
EPSC
LOBSU
ONUKA
VIZAN
GDA
KRT
RADUN
EPKO
EPSN
SITNO
PRAMA
GOMED
EPGD
EPSK
DAR
DIRSO
VNO
PENOX
EPOK
FLD
KNA
KR
KOLOB
GOSOT
TRT
UNL
GND
RASOG
JAB
LUGIR
BN
PODAN
BILNA
HLV
LENOV
GRELA
ZLA
PPD
ABKOL
VI
DBV
IVF
NEMPI
KSC
VOLEV
TIRIS
JEL
KEKED
OKR
NIT
VÈro:03.05.99
3.5
8
MILITARY SECTORS
Two military sectors were defined for the simulation and the dimensions and shape of
these sectors were constant in all three organisations. The two sectors were named OAT
East and OAT West and the vertical dimensions were set at FL100 – FL660. The lateral
dimensions are shown on maps ORG1, 2 and 3.
3.6
EUROCONTROL
DANGER AND RESTRICTED AREAS
The following Danger and Temporary Reserved Areas were defined for simulation
purposes.
Danger Area D53, Ustka, from ground level to 15,000m amsl. Temporary reserved areas
TSA areas numbered 1 – 5 were defined specifically for this simulation. The TSA general
areas were sub-divided into sections identified by the letters A – D and are shown in
Figure 3 - 6 below.
PO99
Military sectors
TSA and D53
TSA3
OATW
D53
EPOK
EPGD
EPSK
EPCE
EPKO
EPMB
EPSN
4c
TSA2
4e
EPSC
4b
EPSY
1d
4d
4a
TSA4
EPBY
5a
TSA5
EDDT
EPMI
1b
5b
1a
EPMO
EPPO
EPPW
EPKS
EDDB
OATE
1c
TSA1
EPBC
5c
EPMM
EPZG
EPBP
EPLK
EPDE
EPRA
EPWR
EPKT
LKPR
EPRZ
EPKK
VÈro:09.07.99
Fig. 3 - 6 : Military sectors TSA and D53
9
EUROCONTROL
3.7
ADJACENT AIRSPACE
The configuration of Feed sectors designated to represent the FIR/UIR’s adjacent to the
Warsaw FIR/UIR were constant during the simulation. No realistic interaction or associated
workload for the adjacent sectors was simulated. The FIR/UIR’s simulated were: Malmo,
Berlin, Bratislava, Minsk, Praha, L’vov, Vilinius and Kalingrad. Warsaw tower and all other
airfields within Poland were designated to a single Feed sector. PATA controllers manned
all the Feed sectors.
3.8
TRAFFIC SAMPLE DATA – CIVIL TRAFFIC
PATA provided a traffic sample containing records of the total number of flights in Polish
airspace recorded on the busiest day of 1998 - 23 September 1998. The sample contained
details of flights between the hours 0206 – 2323. The sample contained 238 flights.
The PATA working group examined the traffic sample and extracted 138 flights to create
the basic 100% traffic sample representing the busiest 1hr and 30 minutes. After further
validation, the PATA working group requested that additional traffic be added to the
sample. Another 49 flights were selected and added to the sample. The new total for the
100% traffic sample was 182 flights in the time period of 11/2 hours. This number of
aircraft is significantly higher than actual traffic levels in Poland.
The traffic sample used during the controller-training period was 66% of the 100%
sample. Following standard procedure, the EEC created other samples based on the
100% sample by augmenting the numbers of flights by a further 40% above the 100%
sample. During the first two weeks of the simulation, it was clear that the 140% traffic
sample was unmanageable, particularly for CCF and approach controllers. Another
sample was created to represent a 40% increase above the base sample for en-route
sectors and a 30% increase above the base for CCF and approach. This traffic sample
was referred to as the 130% sample.
The EEC project team expressed concern about the augmented base sample, and
following discussion, the PATA working group decided to continue with the samples as
amended as the simulation objectives did not include any specific study on sector
capacity. In addition, this would give them an opportunity to test the sectors and the
system to a level beyond short-term forecast traffic increases.
3.9
TRAFFIC SAMPLE - MILITARY
The PATA military representative provided six base 100% military traffic samples that were
added to the civil samples. The military samples were not increased.
3.10
TRAFFIC SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Each simulation exercise lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes. Data were recorded during a onehour period referred to as the measured hour. This allowed the controllers to
familiarise themselves with the traffic situation during the first 15 minutes, after which the
traffic increased to a peak level for the sector. Towards the end of the measured hour, the
traffic levels gradually reduced until the last 15 minutes and the end of the simulation. The
tables below show the traffic loads on the simulated measured sectors for each traffic
sample.
10
3.11
EUROCONTROL
MITIGATING FACTORS
This four-week simulation was divided into two parts. Two different groups of controllers
participated in each two-week period. One of the secondary objectives was to expose as
many controllers as possible to advanced system HMI and functionality, but this imposed
other constraints upon the simulation. Some of these are listed below.
It reduced the theoretical number of measured exercises normally available during a
four-week period.
! As a result of the above, the number of variables that could be tested in different
exercises had to be reduced.
! There was less time available for the controllers to consolidate their training.
! It limited the possibility to make major changes to the sector configuration options.
! Removed the possibility to test sector options on more than one baseline traffic
sample.
! The runway configuration was 33/29 only.
The results and conclusions in this report should be considered carefully in relation to the
points above.
!
11
EUROCONTROL
3.12
OPERATIONS ROOM CONFIGURATION
Figures 3-7, 3-8 and 3-9 show the layout of the operations room for organisations 1, 2
and 3 respectively.
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
POLAND 99
Org.1
28"
12
13
31
32
33
34
28"
28"
28"
28"
28"
28"
EXC
EXC
OAT OAT
W
E
124.5
Hybrid
TRW
118.3
28"
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
FW
FS
FE
128.17 132.35 133.3
TRZ
EXC
28"
6
PLC
28"
26
28"
5
28"
25
28"
4
PLC
28"
24
EXC
28"
3
PLC
28"
23
EXC
28"
2
PLC
28"
22
28"
1
28"
21
134.57
LDZ
EXC
134.87
PLC
128.5
JED
28"
134.17
EXC
28"
DRE
28"
134.22
28"
SIE/SUW
28"
11
28"
EXC
10
28"
EXC
9
28"
EXC
FINAL APP
134.92
129.37
CCF EAST
131.8
GRU
134.27
CCF WEST
EXC
PLC
128.8
SUPERVISION
15.02.99/SLI
Fig. 3 - 7 : ORG1 Operation room layout
12
21"
EUROCONTROL
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
POLAND 99
Org.2
13
31
32
33
34
28"
28"
28"
28"
28"
28"
EXC
OAT OAT
W
E
124.5
8
28"
EXC
28
28"
PLC
27
28"
PLC
28"
12
EXC
Hybrid
TRW
118.3
28"
JED/LOW
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
FW
FS
FE
128.17 132.35 133.3
JED/UP
7
28"
6
PLC
28"
26
28"
5
28"
25
28"
4
PLC
28"
24
EXC
28"
3
PLC
28"
23
EXC
28"
2
PLC
28"
22
28"
1
28"
21
EXC
134.17
PLC
128.5
LDZ
SIE
134.87
134.12
TRZ
SUW
EXC
134.57
134.92
28"
EXC
134.47
EXC
GRU/LOW
28"
11
28"
EXC
CCF EAST
10
28"
EXC
FINAL APP
9
28"
131.8
129.37
EXC
134.22
GRU/UP
134.27
CCF WEST
EXC
PLC
128.8
SUPERVISION
15.02.99/SLI
Fig. 3 - 8 : ORG 2 Operation room layout
13
EUROCONTROL
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
POLAND 99
Org.3
28"
12
13
31
32
33
34
28"
28"
28"
28"
28"
28"
EXC
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
EXC
Hybrid
DRE
FE
TRW FW
FS
OAT OAT 118.3 128.17 132.35 133.3
E
W
124.5
28
28"
EXC
8
28"
PLC
27
28"
PLC
28"
EXC
28"
6
PLC
28"
26
28"
5
28"
25
28"
4
PLC
28"
24
EXC
28"
3
PLC
28"
23
EXC
28"
2
PLC
28"
22
28"
1
28"
21
134.22
JED/LOW
EXC
134.47
PLC
128.5
JED/UP
SIE
134.17
134.12
LDZ
SUW
EXC
134.87
134.92
7
28"
29
28"
9
28"
EXC
FINAL APP
11
28"
EXC
CCF EAST
10
28"
EXC
EXC
TRZ
134.57
129.37
131.8
GRU
134.27
CCF WEST
EXC
PLC
128.8
SUPERVISION
15.02.99/SLI
Fig. 3 - 9 : ORG 3 Operation room layout
14
EUROCONTROL
The following list details the equipment provided at each Controller Working Position on
measured sectors.
20” inch square colour display with multi-window display capability;
Main processor and display driver;
! 3 button mouse;
! simulation telecommunication system with controller headset, foot switch and panelmounted push-to-talk function.
Two controllers – Planner and Executive, manned all en-route measured sectors. The
measured sector CWP’s were identical but each position was individually configured to
suit the requirements of the Planner and the Executive controller.
!
!
In addition, an Instantaneous Self-Assessment (ISA) panel was installed at each
controller position and used by the controller at periodic intervals during the simulation
exercise.
A single Executive controller who used one CWP, manned the approach and CCF sectors.
All CWP’s allowed each controller to access the same system facilities.
3.13
ADJACENT SECTORS
The adjacent sectors were simulated on four positions equipped with 20” monitors. Each
of these hybrid positions incorporates an automatic function that replaces the
normal piloting function by interpreting the controller input as a pilot input.
3.14
ATC PROCEDURES AND CONTROLLER TASKS
The EEC provided the PATA working group with a generic Planner and Executive
controller task list.
New procedures to facilitate inter-sector transfer of flights were defined for the simulation.
The procedures were applied between selected sectors listed below. They were defined
to support the inter-sector transfer of flights in climb or descend without the need for
individual co-ordination. Full details of the Planner and executive task list, and the sector
procedures are described in the “POLAND ’99 Controller Handbook”.
3.15
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The subjective results contained in this report are a combination of recorded notes of
controllers’ comments made during post-exercise de-brief sessions, controller responses
to written questionnaires and direct comments made to the EEC project team. In addition,
the controllers assessed their workload using the Instantaneous Self-Assessment (ISA).
Every two minutes during a measured exercise a flashing light prompted the controller to
press one of five buttons that equated to his/her workload at that moment.
15
EUROCONTROL
16
4.
EUROCONTROL
RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 1
To evaluate two new en-route sector plans following a Fast-Time (RAMS) simulation based
on the ATS Route Network Version 3 (ARN3) using increased levels of traffic.
4.1
ORGANISATIONS 1 & 2
The PATA working group proposed the two en-route sector options, Organisation 1 and
Organisation 2, and these are maps are shown in Figures 3 - 3 and 3 - 4.
In Organisation 1, the civil en-route airspace was divided into 6 sectors. The landing
runway in use at Warsaw was R33 and departure runway R29.
Sector . . . Vertical dimensions
GRU . . . . . ground – unlimited
DE . . . . . . . ground – unlimited (except for south-eastern corner)
DE . . . . . . . FL 315 – unlimited
SE/SW . . . . ground – unlimited
JED . . . . . . ground – unlimited (except abutting CCF – FL285-315)
TZ . . . . . . . ground – unlimited (south-west section)
TZ . . . . . . . FL 315 – unlimited (above sector LZ)
TZ . . . . . . . FL 315 – unlimited above CCF airspace)
LZ . . . . . . . ground – FL 315 (except above CCF)
LZ . . . . . . . FL 285 – FL 315 above CCF
The TMA/CCF airspace dimensions were defined as:
Sector . . . . . . . Vertical dimensions
Approach . . . . . Ground – FL 105
CE and CW . . . . +FL105 – FL285
In Organisation 2, the en-route airspace was divided 8 sectors. The landing runway in use
at Warsaw was R11, departure runway R15.
Sector . . Vertical dimensions
GRU
DE . .
SE . .
SW .
JL . .
JU . .
TZ . .
TZ . .
TZ . .
LZ . .
LZ . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ground – unlimited
ground – unlimited (except for south-eastern corner) FL 315 – unlimited
ground – unlimited (except abutting CCF – FL285 – unlimited)
ground – unlimited (except abutting CCF – FL285 – unlimited)
Ground – FL315 (except abutting CCF – FL285-315)
FL315 – unlimited
ground – unlimited (south-west section)
FL 315 – unlimited (above sector LZ)
FL 315 – unlimited above CCF airspace)
ground – FL 315 (except above CCF)
FL 285 – FL 315 above CCF
17
EUROCONTROL
The TMA/CCF airspace was as follows,
Sector . . . . . . . . . Vertical dimensions
Approach sector. . . ground – FL 65
CC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FL65 – FL285
Two controllers manned approach airspace. One controller was responsible for arrivals
and the other for departures. The CCF airspace was a single sector (CC) manned by two
controllers – EXC and PLC.
The CCF/APC controllers preferred the 2 sector structure (CW/CE) defined for organisation
1 and rejected the single sector (CC) structure in organisation 2 as unworkable.
Due to time constraints it was not possible to make major system modifications to accommodate a completely new airspace organisation that would remove the flaws identified by
the controllers.
The PATA working group proposed a compromise to define a new airspace organisation
that combined the preferred elements of organisations 1 and 2 for en-route and CCF/APC.
The new organisation was named organisation 3 and is described in the tables below.
The landing runway in use at Warsaw was R33, departure runway R29.
Sector . . . Vertical dimensions
GRU . . . . . ground – unlimited
DE . . . . . . . ground – unlimited (except for south-eastern corner)
DE . . . . . . . FL 315 – unlimited
SE . . . . . . . ground – unlimited (except abutting CCF – FL285 – unlimited)
SW. . . . . . . ground – unlimited (except abutting CCF – FL285 – unlimited)
JL . . . . . . . Ground – FL315 (except abutting CCF – FL285-315)
JU . . . . . . . FL315 – unlimited
TZ . . . . . . . ground – unlimited (south-west section)
TZ . . . . . . . FL 315 – unlimited (above sector LZ)
TZ . . . . . . . FL 315 – unlimited (above CCF airspace)
LZ . . . . . . . ground – FL 315 (except above CCF)
LZ . . . . . . . FL 285 – FL 315 above CCF
The TMA/CCF airspace was that described for Organisation 1.
Sector . . . . . . . . . Vertical dimensions
Approach sector. . . ground – FL 105
CE & CW . . . . . . . . . FL105 – FL285
18
4.2
EUROCONTROL
GENERAL COMMENTS PERTINENT TO THE RESULTS
The controllers were unanimous in their opinion that none of the three en-route airspace
organisations contained the optimal sector structure for the airspace.
The controllers identified fundamental flaws common to each airspace organisation.
These were:
the complicated vertical and geographical interface between CCF airspace and
en-route sectors;
! the slice of airspace resulting from the vertical division level between the upper limit
of CE/CW and the division level of vertically superimposed en-route sectors adjacent
to, and overlying CCF airspace;
! the vertical division level between LZ and TZ sectors.
The figures below show the vertical level divisions between the upper level of CCF
airspace and the division level between upper and lower en-route sectors.
!
TZ
JU
FL315
FL315
FL285
LZ
JL
Fig. 4 - 1 : CCF airspace and Adjacent en-route sectors
The figure below, shows the upper limit of CW and CE and the vertical division level
between TZ and LZ sectors.
FL315
TZ
LZ
FL285
CE/CW
Fig. 4 - 2 : CE/CW and TZ&LZ sectors
19
EUROCONTROL
As explained previously, new inter-sector procedures to allow flights to be transferred
without individual co-ordination were developed and tested on selected sectors only.
No procedures of this type were defined to transfer Warsaw arrivals and departures
climbing or descending between LZ and TZ.
Results
The bar charts below show the controller responses to post-exercise questionnaires
regarding their workload.
The en-route controllers stated that an 8 en-route sector structure was better than the
6 en-route sector framework. The figures below show the controller responses to workload
questionnaires. One chart is shown for each organisation and they represent 100% traffic
levels.
low
manag eable
high
100%
100%
6%
3%
100%
100%
100%
9%
7%
9%
100%
80%
Question:
70%
100%
100%
100%
1 00%
6%
6%
1 3%
100%
12%
14%
90%
34%
47%
37%
35%
45%
5 3%
How would you rate your
overall workload during the
exercise just completed?
60%
57%
71%
50%
7 3%
94 %
88%
40%
63%
30%
57%
56%
53%
48%
4 0%
20%
29%
21%
10%
1 3%
GU
LZ
TZ
JD
DE
SS
CE
CW
FA
OE
OW
l ow
100%
manageable
high
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
12%
11%
90%
18%
22%
80%
19%
42%
44%
53%
53%
50%
70%
60%
61%
84%
50%
61%
82%
100%
OE
OW
81%
53%
30%
100%
82%
40%
56%
42%
47%
40%
20%
28%
10%
17%
16%
GU
LZ
TZ
DE
5%
5%
6%
SW
SE
JL
10%
JU
CC
FA
FD
low
manageable
high
100% 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
6%
5%
7%
10%
12%
10%
90%
35%
80%
44%
70%
60%
50%
50%
50%
47%
65%
60%
75%
50%
100%
76%
100% 100%
90%
40%
60%
30%
56%
44%
47%
50%
50%
CW
FA
20%
30%
29%
20%
10%
12%
6%
5%
GU
LZ
TZ
JD
DE
SW
SE
JL
JU
CE
OE
OW
The Figure 4 - 4 above clearly shows that a single CCF sector (CC) was unmanageable.
20
4.3
EUROCONTROL
THE INTERFACE BETWEEN CCF AND ADJACENT EN-ROUTE SECTORS
The vertically split en-route sectors in the vicinity of CCF airspace caused inter-sector
interface problems. A contributory factor to the interface problem was a disparity between
the upper vertical limit of CCF airspace, FL285, and the vertical division level between
upper and lower en-route sectors, FL315.
This vertical difference created a circular slice of airspace above CCF airspace (FL285 FL315) that encompassed the geographical and vertical dimensions of the LZ sector in
organisation 1, and sectors SE, SW and JU (JU) and (JL) JL in organisations 2 and 3.
Another contributory factor was that during the early stages of the simulation, the controllers often omitted to apply the prescribed inter-sector agreed transfer procedures. This is
a common occurrence during the early stages of any simulation when controllers are
becoming familiar with the equipment and new airspace. This caused the following
problem.
Example: the CE/CW/CC controller cleared a departure to a level above FL315. The
aircraft left the sector at a point along the vertical limit of FL285, (rather than a point on
the lateral boundary of CE/CW/CC sector).
The agreed transfer level between sectors CE/CW/CC and LZ for Warsaw departures was
FL260. There was no such agreement between LZ and TZ or between CE/CW/CC and TZ
to transfer this traffic without individual co-ordination.
The ‘anticipated’ procedure and flight profile for departures meant that the flight would
climb to FL260, and then LZ would co-ordinate an entry level with TZ. The ‘anticipated’
profile is represented by the green line in the diagram.
The solid black line shows an example of a non-anticipated profile as a result of controllers
amending, or neglecting to apply the procedure. The system co-ordination function was
limited to adjacent sectors. Where sectors were vertically superimposed, sector
sequence could be described to the system and individual co-ordination could be virtually
eliminated by applying agreed levels between the transferring and receiving sector.
However, in this case, the sequence was broken by a lower sector initiating a
co-ordination on a flight and requesting a level greater than the upper limit of the next
sector in the sequence LZ. This problem occurred less frequently as controllers became
familiar with the problem.
FL315
TZ
LZ
FL285
CE/CW
Fig. 4 - 6 : Departure example
The controllers stated that too many en-route sectors converged laterally above the
CCF/TMA airspace and that the vertical upper limit CCF/TMA airspace was too close to
the vertical boundary between en-route upper and lower airspace.
21
EUROCONTROL
4.4
LATERAL INTERFACE BETWEEN CCF AND EN-ROUTE SECTORS ORGANISATION 1
The geographical boundaries between CCF and en-route were equally as problematic.
The Figure 4 - 7 represents a view looking down from above the CCF sectors and shows
how the adjacent en-route sectors overlap CCF sectors in the vertical and
horizontal planes.
GU
TZ
LZ
SW/SE
JED
Fig. 4 - 7 : Organisation 1 - JED
As can be seen from the block diagram, traffic crossing the CCF area above FL285
penetrated at least two en-route sectors.
Although no entire group of en-route sectors contained in a single organisational structure
was considered suitable, the controllers identified certain individual sectors that were
acceptable. During debrief sessions the controllers reported that SE and SW, DE and GRU
had potential. No detailed comments on these sectors are included in this report.
The conclusions below refer to objective 1 - “To evaluate two new en-route sector plans
following a Fast-Time (RAMS) simulation based on the ATS Route Network Version 3
(ARN3) using increased levels of traffic”. The conclusion below applies directly to the
above objective. It does not apply to separate conclusions or recommendations concerning individual sectors that are included in this chapter.
Conclusion for objective 1
Neither of the two original airspace organisations, nor the third organisation
devised during the simulation, contained the optimum sector structure for the
simulated airspace.
However, the results confirmed the controllers’ opinion that a framework based on
8 en-route sectors was the better overall design.
The interface between adjacent superimposed or vertically spilt en-route sectors
and the CCF airspace was unsuccessful.
In addition, the tested vertical division level between upper and lower en-route
sectors (FL315) was unsuitable.
Recommendation
Any en-route airspace framework should contain no less than 8 en-route sectors.
Further testing on individual sectors and sector groups will be required to define
the best configuration and combination of individual sectors.
The en-route sectors adjacent to CCF airspace should be designed:
as single sectors (no vertically superimposed sectors or;
! have a common vertical division level with that in CCF airspace.
!
22
EUROCONTROL
4.5
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROBLEM SECTORS
4.5.1
Airspace sector JED
The controllers' opinion was that the JED airspace should be split into upper and lower
sectors. The workload graphs below show the controller responses to the end of exercise
questionnaires.
The bar chart for Organisation 1 shows that at traffic levels of 100% all the controllers
considered that the sector was manageable. The chart shows the controllers responses
to after-exercise questionnaires for exercises at 140%, 130%, and 100% traffic levels. The
graph shows that at traffic levels of 100%, all the controllers felt that the sector JED was
manageable. However, as the traffic levels increased, the percentage of controllers who
felt that the sector was manageable dropped to 55% at traffic levels of 130%, and to less
than 17% of controllers at traffic levels of 140%.
F requent ly too low
So metimes too low
Man ageable
So metimes too high
F requent ly too high
100 %
5,00%
16,6 7%
5,00%
55,0 0%
66,6 7%
100,00%
30,0 0%
16,6 7%
5,00%
140
130
100
JD
Fig. 4 - 8 : Organisation 1 - JED
The following figures show the controllers’ responses to the end of exercise questionnaires
for Organisations 2 and 3 when JED was split into JU and JL.
Frequent ly t oo low
So met imes too low
M anageable
100%
5, 88%
11,76%
82,35%
140
130
100
JU
Fig. 4 - 9 : Organisation 2 - JU
23
EUROCONTROL
Sometimes too low
Manageabl e
Sometimes too high
100%
11,76%
82,35%
5,88%
140
130
100
JL
Fig. 4 - 10 : Organisation 2 - JL
Sometimes too low
Manageable
Sometimes too high
100%
11 76%
82 35%
5 88%
140
130
100
JL
Fig. 4 - 11 : Organisation 3 - JL
Frequently too l ow
Sometimes too low
Man ageable
100%
5,88 %
11,76%
82,35%
140
130
100
JU
24
EUROCONTROL
Sometimes too low
Manageable
100%
10,00%
16,67%
100,00%
90,00%
83,33%
140
130
100
JU
During debrief sessions the controllers supported the principle of an upper and lower
en-route sector split, but they did not feel that FL315 was the optimum division level. The
controllers suggested several that future tests should evaluate alternative division levels FL245, FL285, FL350, and FL205.
Another factor that affected the benefit of upper and lower sectors in the airspace was that
there was no defined procedure to transfer flights without individual co-ordination between
the upper and lower sectors. The controllers stated that a similar procedure to that tested
on other sectors should be defined for all sectors.
JED airspace was one of those adjacent to CCF airspace and the controllers experienced
problems with traffic arriving and departing from Warsaw. Departures from Warsaw were
transferred without co-ordination from CC/CE/CW to JL climbing to an agreed level. If the
flight concerned requested a cruising level above FL310, the flight required a
co-ordinated entry level for JU sector. The flight remained within CCF airspace until it
passed FL285. It then entered JL between FL's 285-FL315 when it penetrated JU.
Depending on the performance of the flight, the time spent in JL was between 30 seconds
to 1 minute.
It is evident that the airspace design contributed to co-ordination workload, and an
unnecessary frequency change for the pilot. Arrival traffic caused the same problem in
reverse - a co-ordination was required to descend the flight to a level below FL315. The
flight penetrated CCF airspace once it descended below FL285.
Conclusion for JED airspace
Of the 2 options tested for JED airspace, the option to divide the airspace into an
Upper and Lower sector was the better solution. However, further study will be
required to define the optimum division level between the upper and lower sector.
In addition, the vertical interface between the upper level of CCF airspace and the
adjacent JL JU division level should be re-defined to eliminate the problem caused
by the “slice” above CCF.
25
EUROCONTROL
4.5.2
Sector TZ
As described previously, the controllers expressed the opinion that TZ was one of the
sectors on which they experienced the greatest problems.
Sometimes too low
Manageable
Sometimes too high
Frequently too high
100%
11,1 1%
13,6 4%
44,4 4%
40,9 1%
44,4 4%
66,6 7%
40,9 1%
33,3 3%
4,55 %
140
130
100
TZ
Fig. 4 - 14 : Organisation 1 - TZ
Figure 4 - 14 shows the controller questionnaire responses when asked to assess their
workload for sector TZ, organisation1.
The chart above shows that in organisation 1 exercises that used 100% traffic levels, 66%
of the controllers felt that the sector was manageable.
When the traffic levels were increased to 130%, less than 14% of the controllers
considered that the sector was manageable.
However, in exercises where traffic levels were 140%, almost 90% of the controllers felt
that the sector was unmanageable for some, or most of the exercise.
Manage able
Some times too high
Frequen ty too high
Man agea ble
So metimes to o high
Freq uen tly too hig h
100%
Ré pons es
1 00%
90%
3 3,33%
80%
50 ,0 0%
52 ,6 3%
5 0,0 0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
25 ,0 0%
6 6,67%
30%
42 ,1 1%
5 0,0 0%
20%
10%
25 ,0 0%
5,26%
140
130
100
TZ
140
130
100
TZ
The figures above show the controller responses to similar questionnaires for
organisations 2 and 3.
26
EUROCONTROL
Figure 4 - 16 shows the questionnaire responses for organisation 3 for traffic levels 100,
130 and 140 percent traffic levels. Thirty percent of the controllers felt that the sector was
manageable at 100% traffic levels. The percentage of controllers who felt that the sector
was manageable rose to 50% when traffic levels were increased to 140%. Once more, this
anomaly is common when a new organisation is introduced during a simulation.
In general, the workload problems involved the transfer of traffic, to or from, sector LZ.
This occurred in the portion of airspace where TZ was superimposed on sector LZ for
flights transferred in climb or descent.
During the simulation-planning phase, the Working Group decided to use agreed transfer
levels between APC and CCF airspace, and between CCF airspace and the first en-route
sector. This meant that flights could be transferred between sectors without the controllers
needing to co-ordinate each individual flight.
No procedure was defined to transfer flights between sectors TZ and LZ created additional
workload for the controllers and created a great deal of frustration.
Figure 4 - 17 below shows system-recorded tracks of arrivals and departures to Warsaw.
The predominant traffic flow to and from Warsaw is to, and from, the west.
If we look at the geographical shape of sector TZ and ignore any vertical division between
TZ and LZ, we can see that all the tracks to and from areas west of Poland penetrate the
lateral boundaries of sector TZ.
When considered in isolation, the proposed lateral sector shape of TZ is sound, although
the lateral dimensions are extremely large for a single sector.
The problems that the controllers experienced during the simulation were directly attributable to the vertical interface between LZ and TZ.
The recorded tracks of overflights are shown in Figure 4 - 17.
Organisation1 - Overflights
Fig. 4 - 17 : Overflight 1
27
EUROCONTROL
A single sector the size of TZ is not optimum for arriving and departing traffic. The basic
sector design could be used in current operating procedures, or for an interim period.
Further study is required to re-examine the sector design and develop associated intersector procedures for any future ATC stripless environment.
Sector modifications suggested by the controllers concerning sectors LZ and TZ included
changing the boundaries of sector LZ and TZ:
!
!
!
!
TZ ground level to FL460
LZ L315 - FL460
Extending sector LZ south from KARON to LUBEN
TZ vertical split at FL340.
Recommendation
Sector TZ alternative options should include dividing the airspace designated as TZ
(& LZ) laterally, testing other vertical division flight levels, and developing
procedures including agreed levels of transfer between vertically superimposed
airspace sections.
Sector designs for adjacent CCF and en-route airspace must take account of the
requirements of both airspace types, and create as seamless an interface as possible.
4.5.3
Sector LZ
Sector LZ was another sector that caused problems for the controllers. As mentioned
previously, one of the problems was due to the interface between TZ and LZ.
The fundamental cause of problems between CCF airspace was the difference between
the limits of both sectors' upper vertical limits. The diagram on page 3 shows the 'slice' of
airspace between the upper limit of CCF airspace and the upper limit of the surrounding
en-route sectors. As described in the section on sector JED, page 8, special transfer
procedures and agreed levels were applied between APC/CCF and CCF and the first
en-route sector for Warsaw arrivals and departures.
As described in the previous section on sector TZ, certain problems reported by the
controllers were;
!
!
the slice of airspace above the upper level of CCF airspace and the vertical division
level between LZ and TZ;
the need to individually co-ordinate certain flights in climb or descent between these
two sectors.
Conclusion LZ airspace
The vertical division level between sectors TZ and LZ was not optimum for Warsaw
arrivals and departures. In addition, the upper limit of LZ and the upper limit of CCF
airspace sectors were incompatible. The principle of agreed transfer levels between
CCF airspace and LZ successful and reduced co-ordination.
Recommendation
If LZ is to remain adjacent to CCF airspace, and retain a vertical boundary with
sector TZ, the shape and upper limit of LZ and CCF sectors should be set at the
same level take account of arrival and departure aircraft flight profiles.
28
5.
EUROCONTROL
RESULTS OBJECTIVE 2
“To evaluate two sector options for the new Warsaw TMA/CCF, including Standard
Instrument Departure and Arrival Routes (SID's and STAR's) resulting from the
EUROCONTROL AMN Airspace Study.
Following the AMN airspace study, the PATA working group submitted 2 CCF airspace
sector options for testing: organisation 1, and organisation 2. Both options used the same
overall circular shape and lateral dimensions recommended following the AMN study.
The concept behind the design and dimensions of CCF airspace was to allow early
sequencing of arrivals to Warsaw initiated by en-route controllers. Due to time constraints,
the controllers did not have an opportunity to develop, train, or test such streaming and
sequencing techniques.
In organisation 1, the airspace was divided into two sectors, CCF East and CCF West
(CE and CW respectively). The vertical dimensions were FL105 – FL285. The APC
airspace below CCF was from ground level to FL105. CCF East and West sectors were
manned by one controller on each position. One controller manned the Approach sector.
The runway configuration was runway 33 for arrivals and runway 29 for departures.
New conventional SID's and STAR's were developed for testing, and are shown in
Figure 5 - 1 and 5 - 2.
In organisation 2, CCF airspace was a single sector (CC) manned by one controller. The
vertical limits were from FL65 to FL285. Two controllers, one designated as responsible
for arrival traffic, and the other controller responsible for departing traffic manned the
approach sector. The runway configuration was runway 15 for arrivals and runway 11 for
departures.
29
EUROCONTROL
New conventional SID's and STAR's were developed for testing, and are shown below.
WARSZAWA/OKECIE
VOR/DME SIDS
(STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURES)
RUNWAY 29
BUL4A
BULEP
BIR4A
LIS4A
BIRGA
LISSU
ROB4A
ROBAL
KRASO
DODA
BEBUN
LEGIO
DODEK
OBEGO
TISKO
GANPI
LAMID
SIE4A
WAR
LUMOK
LUM4A
SIE
OKE
KERAX
MATEM
KRN
LIN
PETER
LDZ
LDZ4A
MAR4A
MARIA
KOZEN
ARD4A
ARDAG
Fig. 5 - 1 : Standard Instrument Departure - Routes R29
Specific simulation procedures were developed to introduce the application of standing
agreements between CCF airspace sectors and APC. This procedure defined conditions
and specified separation minima to allow flights to be transferred between CCF and
approach without individual co-ordination. Co-ordination would only take place when the
conditions specified in the procedure could not be met.
In general, the controllers accepted the circular shape of CCF airspace, but after the first
exercise using organisation 2, the CC and APC controllers decided to abandon a single
sector option as unworkable.
In addition, the approach controllers stated that traffic levels were unrealistic.
Amendments were made to the traffic samples to reduce the numbers of Warsaw arrivals
and departures while retaining the increased traffic levels of the en-route sectors.
30
EUROCONTROL
WARSZAWA/OKECIE
VOR/DME RADAR STARS
(STANDARD ARRIVAL ROUTES)
RUNWAY 33
BULEP
25500
BIR4C
LISSU
BIRGA
20500
32
0.
RDL
M
7∞
014.
31
T/
2∞
OBE4C
DODEK
23500
RDL 01
1.1∞T/
008∞M
L
0∞T/01
RD
1∞M
17000
RDL
286.
0∞T/28
3∞M
OBEGO
19000
TISKO
CASTR
WAR4C
GANPI
LUMOK
12000
9500
WAR
19000
11000
HD
G
∞M
FAP/FAF
4500
11000
RDL
074.
LENTL
M
071∞
0∞T/
H DG
/247
15500
∞M
HAL4C
4∞M
6000
LIN
4500
RD
LDZ
.3∞T
HALLI
286.
8∞T/
28
M
33∞
∞T/3
11000
35.6
RDL 091.9∞T/089∞M
L3
HDG
RD
016.
3000
KRN
250
5000
∞M
1∞
M
∞M
13
43
0∞
T/
/1
∞T
4.
5.8
13
R DL
8∞T/0
14
G
SIE
9
/14
∞T
HD
14
∞M
R
G
9.0
∞T
/3
06
HD
RD
30
R
RD
L
1.8
OKE
RD
15
LUM4C
L1
48
20000
20000
VIMER
∞M
46
T/1
.7∞
LDZ4C
10000
MARIA
RD
L2
04.1
∞T/2
01∞
M
10000
VID4C
KOZ4C
KOZEN
12000
ARDAG
18000
VÈro:12.05.99
Fig. 5 - 2 : Standard Arrival Routes R33
This prevented direct comparison between exercises. Therefore, in this section of the
report, the traffic levels are not referred to as percentages in relation to the base sample.
As previously explained, the base traffic sample was increased at the request of the
working group to test the sectors and system. There was no specific objective to test,
establish, or predict sector capacity.
31
EUROCONTROL
The traffic levels shown in the graphs are annotated as VL - very low, L - Low and H - high.
Frequentl y too low
Som etimes too l ow
Man ageable
Som etimes too high
Frequentl y too high
100%
18,75%
40,00%
44,44%
43,7 5%
10,00%
40,0 0%
55,56%
37,5 0%
10,0 0%
HI GH
LOW
VL
HIGH
LOW
CC
VL
HI GH
FA
LOW
VL
FD
Fig. 5 - 3 : Org 2 - CC FA FD
Sometime s too l ow
Mana geable
Sometime s too h igh
F requently too high
100 %
10,00%
25,00 %
33,33%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00 %
50,00%
50,00 %
70,00%
100,00%
75,00%
66,67%
40,00 %
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00 %
20,00%
10,00 %
HIGH
LO W
VL
HIGH
LO W
CE
VL
HIGH
LOW
CW
VL
FA
Fig. 5 - 4 : Org 1 - CE / CW / FA
Som etimes too low
Manageable
Som etimes too high
Frequently too high
100%
20,0 0%
20,0 0%
25,00%
50,00%
50,00%
66,67%
40,0 0%
40,0 0%
100,00%
100,00%
100, 00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
40,0 0%
40,0 0%
33,33%
25,00%
HIGH
LOW
CE
VL
HIGH
LOW
CW
VL
HIGH
LOW
VL
FA
Fig. 5 - 5 : Org 3 - CE / CW / FA
32
EUROCONTROL
A secondary simulation goal was affected by the decision to reject organisation 2. The
conventional STAR's and SID's and the RNAV SID's and STAR's designed for runways
15/11 could not be tested. Organisations 1 and 3 used runways 33/29.
The majority of the exercises in each two-week period were designated as RNAV exercises
and the controllers’ comments regarding the conventional SID's and STAR's were made
during debrief sessions.
The controllers’ comments on RNAV SID’s and STAR’s appear in Objective 5 in this
report.
The controllers agreed with the principle that SID's and STAR's could be useful, but felt
that they would need more time to become familiar with their application. They also said
that a greater degree of in-built separation between arrival and departure routes would be
an improvement.
They controllers supported the principle of a 2-sector structure, but stated that the upper
vertical limit of FL285 was too high. In addition, they felt that the lateral boundary between
CE/CW should be re-defined. The en-route controllers also supported these conclusions.
The controllers proposed alternative levels for future tests, the highest of which was
FL245. The controllers liked the APC limit of FL105 and stated that this should be the
minimum level for the upper limit of APC.
The controllers agreed with the procedures developed to transfer flights without individual
co-ordination between APC and CW/CE, and between CW/CE and the first en-route
sector. The stated that such a procedure reduced their workload when compared to
current practices.
GENERAL COMMENTS - CCF SECTORS AND SID'S AND STAR'S.
All departures should skip the approach sector and be transferred to CE/CW as
appropriate;
! FL110 should be the lowest division level between APC and CCF airspace;
! There should only be one STAR from each arrival gate;
! CW CE sectors should each have a single holding fix;
! Fixed speed limits points should be specified in SID's and STAR's;
! There should be agreed transfer procedure between all sectors.
The controllers agreed that the two-sector CW/CE configuration was good. However, the
interface with en-route was unsatisfactory and too many en-route sectors converged
above CCF airspace.
!
The drawing below shows the en-route sectors that overlay CE/CW airspace in
organisation 1. This situation worsened in organisation 3 when SIE/SUW airspace was
divided laterally to form two sectors, and when JED airspace was divided into upper and
lower sectors. If CCF airspace is to retain its circular shape, the surrounding airspace
must be re-designed to reduced the number of sectors boundaries that converge above
CW/CE.
33
EUROCONTROL
GU
TZ
LZ
SW/SE
JED
Fig. 5 - 6 : En-route sectors overlying CCF airspace
The principle of agreed levels between CW/CC/APC and CW/CE and the lower adjacent
en-route sectors was well received and reduced co-ordination workload compared to
current practises. The electronic co-ordination and sector sequence problems occurred
during the early stages of the simulation because controllers were unfamiliar with the new
procedure and initiated co-ordination when none was necessary.
Conclusion
The two-sector configuration for CCF airspace was extremely successful and has a
good basic structure, but further study is needed to refine its design.
The boundary between CW/CE should be realigned further west.
The minimum level between approach and CCF airspace should be set at FL245 or
below.
The lateral boundary between CW/CE was not optimum and should be re-studied.
Transfer procedures between CW/CE/APC and CE/CW and en-route were successful.
The minimum division level between CW/CE and APC should be FL110.
All departures should skip the approach sector and be transferred to CE/CW as
appropriate.
FL110 should be the lowest division level between APC and CCF airspace.
There should only be one STAR from each arrival gate.
CW CE sectors should each have a single holding fix.
Fixed speed limits points should be specified in SID's and STAR's.
34
EUROCONTROL
Recommendations
The vertical division levels of adjacent vertically superimposed en-route sectors
must be considered when defining the upper level of CW/CE.
If CCF airspace is to retain its circular shape, then the surrounding en-route airspace
must be re-designed to eliminate the simulated scenario where several en-route
sectors converged above CCF airspace.
CCF airspace should contain 2 sectors.
Additional training, involving cross-skill training between approach and en-route
controllers will be required to achieve the operational realisation of the concept of
early sequencing of arrivals to Warsaw.
Agreed inter-sector transfer procedures should be developed for as many sectors
as possible.
35
EUROCONTROL
6.
"To evaluate the use of the detailed HMI, with specific focus on the following tools or
features;
A) Label and Track information;
B) Dynamic Flight Leg;
C) Conflict and Risk Display;
D) Vertical Aid Window;
E) Sector List;
F) Sector Inbound List, Arrival List, Departure List, and other list presentations.
A full description of the HMI used in Poland '99 Simulation is available in the Poland '99
Facility Specification - Part 3.
The primary elements in the HMI were a large Air Situation Window, (radar display) text
list and graphical data windows, and a three-button mouse input device. The telephone
system provided verbal inter-sector communication. Flight data was provided and
managed electronically. No paper strips were provided.
6.1
THE THREE BUTTON MOUSE
The controllers used the three-button mouse to interact with the label and list-display
interactive fields by placing the mouse cursor over a field and applying a 'single click' or
'press and hold' action. Each button was defined for a particular purpose.
The left button was the 'Action Button' and used to input data, the right button was the
'Information Button', and displayed additional data, and the middle button, the 'Special
Button' allowed access to additional functions. (E.g. range and bearing)
The controllers agreed in principle that the mouse was an acceptable input device, but
56% of the controllers indicated that they were sometimes confused as to which mouse
button to use in particular circumstances. Incorrect selection of individual label fields was
a common problem the controllers experienced. Only 4% of the controllers stated that this
occurred rarely, while 12% reported that it was always a problem, and 64 % stated that it
happened often.
6.2
CONTROLLERS RESPONSES TO HMI QUESTIONNAIRE
The controllers' responses to the HMI questionnaire were mixed. Some elements of the
HMI were well received, while others prompted a negative response.
This section of the report will concentrate on the results relating to the specific elements
in the list above. In addition, we asked the controllers to reply to four general statements
listed below and select one of the following multiple-choice options.
A) Agree;
B) Not so sure;
C) Disagree;
36
6.3
EUROCONTROL
GENERAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. The combination of dynamic flight leg with conflict information, vertical aid
window, interactive radar labels, and lists provides a satisfactory system that
permits the removal of paper strips.
2. The integration of multiple display/input interfaces into a single display and input
interface is a very good idea.
3. The use of a “windows” style environment is a positive step for future ATC
systems.
4. The civil-military co-ordination in the simulation is safe and efficient when
compared to the existing system.
6.3.1
Statement 1 results
The combination of dynamic flight leg with conflict information, vertical aid window,
interactive radar labels and lists provides a satisfactory system that permits the
removal of paper strips.
The controllers were divided in their opinion. Forty two percent agreed with the statement,
but 46% were unsure while 13% disagreed.
The result is inconclusive, but not surprising. The two week period available for each
controller to become accustomed to a stripless environment was insufficient.
At the EEC, we have observed that controllers may become familiar with some support tools
in a short period of time. However, in environments where controllers write to update flight
progress strips, pen and paper are not support tools. They are part of the fundamental tools
controllers use to provide air traffic services.
The combination of dynamic flight leg with conflict information, vertical aid window,
interactive radar labels and lists provides a satisfactory system which permits the removal
of papers strips.
90%
80%
70%
60%
46%
50%
42%
40%
30%
20%
13%
10%
Agr ee
Not so sur e
D isagr ee
Fig. 6 - 1 : Statement 1 Results
37
EUROCONTROL
6.3.2
Statement 2 results
The integration of multiple display/input interfaces into a single display and input
Again, the controllers' opinion was divided. Although, in this example, 57% agreed while
41% remained unsure. Two percent of controllers disagreed with the statement.
The integration of multiple display / input interfaces into a single display and input
" The integration of multiple display / input interf aces into a single display and input interf ace is a very good idea "
90%
80%
70%
57%
60%
50%
41%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2%
Agree
Not so sure
Disagree
6.3.3
Statement 3 results
The use of a “windows” style environment is a positive step for future ATC systems.
This was an extremely positive result with 96% of the controllers agreeing with the
statement, 2% were unsure and 2% disagreed. Only 4% of the controllers had no previous
experience with windows environment (personal computers).
The use of a “windows” style environment is a positive step for future ATC systems
96%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2%
Agree
Not so sure
2%
Disagree
38
6.3.4
EUROCONTROL
Statement 4 results
The civil-military co-ordination in the simulation is safe and efficient when
compared to the existing system.
This result will be discussed in more detail as one of the main simulation objectives.
The civil-military co-ordination in the simulation is safe and efficient when compared to the
existing system
"Th e civil-military co-ordination in th e simula tion is saf e a nd ef f icient w hen comp ared to the exis ting s ystem "
90%
80%
70%
63%
60%
50%
40%
2 7%
30%
20%
1 0%
10%
Ag re e
Not so s ure
Disagree
39
EUROCONTROL
6.4
SPECIFIC TOOLS AND FEATURES
6.4.1
Label and track information
Several label formats were specified for the simulation. Different label format and
functions were provided on the En-route, Approach, and Military CWP's. A detailed
description of the labels is contained in the Poland '99 Real-time Simulation System
Handbook.
The labels provided controllers with a visual indication of the control-state of a flight. A
reduced label format was the minimum information for Unconcerned and Concerned
aircraft.
Fig. 6 - 5 : Reduced Label
Standard label formats for en-route and
approach were defined for 'Pending' and
'Assumed' showing additional information
necessary for the planning and control of the
flight.
The selected label format was displayed
when the mouse cursor was moved over a
standard label. This action cancelled the
minimum information displayed and showed
line 4, displaying the input fields ahd, asp and
arc fields. The next sector indicator field
displayed the sector frequency. The values
for CFL AFL and EFL/XFL were always
shown when the selected label was
activated.
Fig. 6 - 6 : Standard Label
The Extended Track label (ETL) displayed
comprehensive flight details. This information
appeared in a separate window at the track
position, or at a pre-set location on the screen
as required.
Fig. 6 - 7 : Extended Track Label
40
EUROCONTROL
Label and Track Information Results
In response to the two questions;
Was the information provided in the Extended Radar Label complete for your operational requirements (81% replied yes) and,
! Were you happy with the layout of the data fields in the standard label, selected label
and extended radar label? (79% replied yes).
Some controllers suggested improvements and identified other data or requirements that
were not available in the labels. They suggested that other elements should be removed.
These included:
!
additional information in the ETL that specified the exit point in the Warsaw FIR/UIR,
the ability to select or deselect certain fields, e.g. xpt, downstream sector indicator,
! the full FPL route;
! first point in the adjacent FIR/UIR;
! aircraft type in ETL;
! lthe R/T callsign of the flight should be removed;
! colour if the label should remain constant and not reflect flight status;
! in standard label, alter the size of the for the last point should be smaller;
! the text in the standard label should be moved to the left;
! the text of AFL and CFL should be different and their positions reversed;
! hdg displayed in ETL on EXC position;
! smaller font for next sector designator;
! input for heading, rate of climb and speed on one control position PLC or EXC only;
! frequency of adjacent centre/sector when combined sectors are provided at single
control position.
Although there was no specific objective to assess the fonts used, some controllers
commented that they were dissatisfied with the size and type of fonts used to display text.
!
!
Some controllers remarked that they would also like to select or alter the label size, and
others were unhappy with the colours used. Part of the objectives included an assessment
of the use of colour to identify a flight's status. An assessment on the colours used to
identify flight status was not part of the simulation.
In response to the question, 'did the use of colour states for the labels for indicating
aircraft status (assumed, concerned etc.) assist you in prioritising actions to take?' only
8% of controllers replied that colour use was rarely useful, and 8% of the controllers
stated that it never assisted them.
However, overall, 13% and 58% of the controllers stated that it was always, or often,
useful respectively.
41
EUROCONTROL
Question:
Did the use of colour states for the labels for indicating aircraft status (assumed, concerned
etc.) assist you in prioritising actions to take?
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
13 %
13%
8%
10%
Al ways
R egularly
Sometimes
8%
Rarely
Never
Fig. 6 - 8
Individual controller comments included;
Colour use to indicate the direction of the flight (east or west in accordance with the
semi-circular flight rule). This is currently available in the Warsaw ATC system.
This statement may require revision following the introduction of RVSM.
!
Different colours to distinguish speed vectors and leader lines;
A filter option to de-select unconcerned holding traffic in the adjacent CCF sector
(The airspace was shared between both sectors);
! The AFL should be shown in a different colour to other flight levels displayed in label.
Unconcerned traffic was displayed in grey. Some controllers commented that unconcerned
flights were difficult to see. An accepted premise is that unconcerned traffic should not
attract the controller's attention. However, another comment regarding the use of grey for
unconcerned was that it was difficult to distinguish between the grey and the white colour
used for assumed traffic.
!
!
Supporting data to indicate that colour use was useful comes from controller replies to the
question, 'were you sufficiently alerted to forthcoming events and urgency situations via
the use of specific colours within the radar label ?'.
The chart below shows that 80% of the controllers stated that this was the case, while 2%
stated that colour never provided them with an alert.
The system had no automatic anti-label-overlap function. This problem was particularly
severe during high and peak traffic periods. The chart below shows that only 2% of
controllers did not experience problems with label overlap.
Question:
Did you experience problema with the different labels overlapping with each other in the
radar window?
Did you expe rienc e problems w ith the dif f eren t la bels ove rlapp ing w ith each othe r in th e rada r w ind ow ?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
39%
40%
33%
30%
20%
16 %
1 0%
10%
2%
Alw ays
Regu larly
So met imes
Rarely
Never
Fig. 6 - 9
42
6.4.2
EUROCONTROL
Dynamic Flight Leg
When selected, the dynamic flight leg showed the controller a graphical display of the
selected flight's current planned path through the sector, and gave an indication of
conflicting flights along the planned route. The planned track was displayed as a solid
green line and conflicts were indicated in red. Predicted ETA's were displayed next to each
point on the flight leg.
The questions and responses are shown below.
Question:
Was the Dynamic Flight Leg (DFL) facility useful?
90%
80%
70%
60%
49%
50%
40%
30%
17%
20%
9%
10%
Al ways
17%
9%
R egularly
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Fig. 6 - 10
During debrief sessions, the controllers stated that the DFL was a useful tool. In general,
they liked the displayed EAT's. The military controllers suggested that it would be an
advantage to use separate colours to differentiate between civil and military flights, and
the civil controllers supported this view.
43
EUROCONTROL
The controllers disliked the fact that additional DFL's relating to conflicts at the waypoints
relevant to the route of the subject flight were displayed, and that this often cluttered the
display. The ETA's for all flights passing a common waypoint were superimposed on the
screen and overlapped. The controllers requested that individual DFL's could be selected
and de-selected as required.
Fig. 6 - 11 : Dynamic Flight leg display
6.4.3
The Conflict Risk Display CRD
The Conflict Risk Display (CRD) was deigned to allow the controller to visualise the MTCD
(Flight Plan) conflicts predicted for a sector. The conflict display showed the time to the
start of the conflict against the closest point of approach. This was to allow the controller
to prioritise resolution. Once invoked, the CRD displayed all system detected conflicts,
and conflicts plus risks. The CRD was updated every 30 seconds, or when a new aircraft
entered the system.
In an ATC system that uses paper flight strips, non radar separation can be achieved by
planning controllers who assess and establish procedural separation between flights
using the aircraft EAT's and planned flight level at defined reporting points.
In the simulation's advanced 'stripless' environment, future conflicts were calculated using
the MTCD function. This information was then displayed to the controllers via the Dynamic
Flight Leg (DFL), the Conflict and Risk Display (CRD) and in the Vertical Aid Window
(VAW).
The MTCD logic replaced the EAT estimates with a calculation using the horizontal
element of the aircraft trajectory. When two aircraft were predicted to infringe a
pre-determined separation distance, the horizontal conflict was re-assessed to determine
if vertical separation was also infringed.
The vertical analysis used system values such as AFL and CFL to determine if the conflict
was 'real'. If the planned flight levels of a conflict-pair overlapped, a 'risk of conflict' was
shown. The risk was used to assist the controller in planning the evolution of the two flights
from sector entry level (EFL) to sector exit level (XFL).
44
EUROCONTROL
Fig. 6 - 12 : Conflict Risk Display
Conflicts were shown in red and risks were indicated in yellow.
The controllers were asked the following questions about the CRD.
Was the Conflict and Risk Display (CRD) useful?
Did you consider the various conflicts and risks displayed in the CRD to be
“real ones"?
! Was the information presented in the CRD ever confusing to you?
In general, 76% of the controller considered that the CRD was useful 'regularly' or
'sometimes'. Thirteen percent replied that it was rarely useful, and 7% said that is was
'never' useful.
!
!
In total, 41% of the controllers considered that the CRD 'rarely' or never presented 'real'
risks. Of the remaining 59%, 4% stated that the CRD 'always' presented 'real' risks, and
55% stated that that the CRD 'regularly' presented 'real' risks.
The controllers' comments concentrated on the number of false conflicts that were
generated and in general felt that only real and not potential conflicts should be displayed.
They also remarked that in cases where more than 2 pairs of aircraft were displayed, it
was hard to correlate the graphic symbols with the aircraft concerned.
During periods of higher traffic levels, they felt that it was more difficult to assess the
situation. It was more when traffic levels were light or medium.
The MTCD logic is continuously under development in the EEC, and we recognise that
this function, although useful, is not yet suitable for operational use. The comments from
this and the other Rombulpo simulations will assist the development of this tool.
45
EUROCONTROL
Only 9% of the controllers were 'never' presented with confusing information. The controller
also recommended that better defined controller tasks, clearer information, and display of
actual conflicts only, would enhance the potential of the tool.
Question:
Was the Conflict and Risk Display (CDR) useful?
Was t he Conf lict and Risk Displa y ( CRD) usef ul ?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
36 %
40%
30%
20%
10%
13%
7%
4%
A lw ays
Regular ly
Some times
Ra rely
Never
Fig. 6 - 13
Question:
Did you consider the various conflicts and risk displayed in the CDR to be “real ones”?
Did you co nside r th e var iou s conf licts a nd r isks display ed in the CRD to be "r eal ones"
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
34%
30%
34%
23 %
20%
7%
10%
2%
A lw ays
Regular ly
Some times
Ra rely
Never
Fig. 6 - 14
6.4.4
Vertical Aid Window
The Vertical Aid Window (VAW) was provided to allow controllers to view the vertical
profile of a single flight through the sector, showing the EFL and XFL values for the flight.
Other aircraft (or restricted airspace) that were classified as RISKS or CONFLICTS were
also shown. Conflict information (including Conflict Number) was presented as filled
(colour) rectangles.
The edges of the regions corresponded to loss and restoration of separation. CFL (EFL)
and XFL values were input via the level value buttons displayed at either side of the
vertical view (CFL left side and XFL right side) with horizontal lines in the view showing
flight levels.
Controllers did not find this tool useful. Sixty three percent stated that it was 'never'
useful, and 25% stated that it was rarely useful. 49% considered that the VAW 'never'
displayed real conflicts.
Other comments were that it was too large, and the format of the display was confusing
and not 'user-friendly'.
46
EUROCONTROL
Question:
Was the Vertical Aid Window (VAW) useful?
Was the V er tical Aid Win dow ( VA W) usef ul?
90%
80%
70%
6 3%
60%
50%
40%
28%
30%
20%
10%
3%
A lw ays
3%
Regular ly
5%
Some times
Ra rely
Never
Fig. 6 - 15
6.4.5
Sector List
The Sector List window combined flight data showing entry and exit information and other
relevant flight information, for Pending, Assumed and Concerned flights through the
sector. It was an electronic version of a flight data progress board.
Each line of data represented a single flight and was sorted in descending order according
to Exit Point (XPT), Exit level (XFL) and Exit time (ETX).
Supplementary field were selected or deselected by an on/off switch in the header bar.
The supplementary fields showed SSR code, aircraft type, and arrival and departure
aerodromes. Controllers could interact with the same fields that appeared in the label field.
In the debrief session the controllers stated that they preferred the SIL to the SEL. The
controller responses in relation to the SIL questions appear below.
Fig. 6 - 16 : SIL
47
EUROCONTROL
The percentage of controllers who had access to the SIL was 72% while 68% of controllers
had access to the SEL. During debrief sessions, the controllers stated that the SIL was the
preferred option.
Of the above 72%, the total percentage of controllers that found the SIL useful was 87%.
Twenty percent of the figure of 87% said that it was only rarely useful, but the remaining
67% said that it was 'always' or 'regularly' useful.
88% percent of controllers agreed that, given the ability to select the format of the information displayed in the sector inbound list, they were able to select correct format for their
requirements.
Question:
Was the correct information displayed in the Sector Inbound list?
88 %
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
9%
10%
3%
Some in fo rmation was m issing
Some informa tion was not ne ce ssa ry
Cor rect
Fig. 6 - 17
6.4.6
Arrival List, Departure List, Military Flight List and other list presentations
Arrival and departure lists were provided on CCF and approach CWP's. The arrival and
departure lists were activated when the ACT was received. (ETE - 8 minutes) The flight
data line was deleted from the list when the flight changed state to unconcerned, or the
flight was deleted from the simulation.
ARR List dialogue was possible (as in all label fields). This included the option to select
the STAR field and raise the STAR pop-up menu. Selection of an alternate STAR from the
pop-up updated the list and label displays (text only) for the CCF and FINAL APP
controllers.
The arrival list contained the following information; aircraft callsign, aircraft type and
weight category, groundspeed, entry point, estimated time of sector entry, entry flight level
(CFL after assume), standard arrival route (from FPL), and estimated time of arrival over
final approach fix. ETE (descending), then EFL/CFL (descending) sorted the list.
The departure list contained the following information. Estimated time of departure (from
FPL), callsign, SID (from FPL), exit point, estimated time over exit point, exit flight level,
aircraft type and weight, and SSR code.
ETD (descending) sorted the list. DEP list dialogue was possible (as in all label fields).
This included the option to select the SID field and raising the SID pop-up. Selection of an
alternate SID from the pop-up updated the list and label displays for approach and the
CCF controllers.
48
EUROCONTROL
The results show that the Departure list was considered more useful than the Arrival list. The
Arrival list displayed all flights that entered CCF airspace. The information displayed was
identical on CW and CE sectors, and therefore included flights that would not necessarily
enter the sector.
Question:
Was the Arrival list useful?
Wa s the A rrival lis t usef ul?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
36 %
40%
27%
30%
20%
18%
9%
9%
10%
Alw a ys
Regula rly
Some times
Rarely
Ne ver
Fig. 6 - 18
This caused confusion between CE and CW controllers and the controllers stated that the
arrival list would only be useful if it displayed information specific to CW or CE.
Question:
Was the Departure list useful?
Was th e Depa rture list u sef ul?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
31 %
31%
30%
20%
1 5%
15%
8%
10%
Alw ays
Regu larly
So met imes
Rarely
Never
Fig. 6 - 19
49
EUROCONTROL
6.5
MILITARY FLIGHT LIST (MFL)
The Military Flight List was provided for OAT E and OAT W sectors and displayed the
details of military flights included in the simulation. Flights were displayed when each flight
was displayed on the pilot screen (i.e. ETD – 8 minutes), and while the flight was active
in the sector. The data display fields showed departure and arrival aerodrome, aircraft
type, and number of flights in formation, SSR code, entry level, exit flight level, and
military route. The MFL was always active at military control positions.
Fig. 6 - 20
The charts below show that 78% of the military controllers stated that the MFL was always,
or sometimes useful and 75% stated that the displayed information was always sorted in
accordance with their requirements.
Question:
Was the Military Flight list useful?
Was the Milita ry Flight list use fu l?
90%
80%
70%
67%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1 1%
11%
1 1%
10%
Alw ays
Somet ime s
Rar ely
Never
Fig. 6 - 21
50
EUROCONTROL
Question:
Were the flights presented in the Military Flight list scored correctly for your requirements?
Were the f lights p res ented in the Militar y Flig ht list sor ted cor re ctly f or yo ur req uir ements?
90%
75%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1 3%
1 3%
10%
A lw ays
Rar ely
Ne ver
Fig. 6 - 22
The military controllers also suggested a suggested a modification to include estimated
landing time.
Military flights were handled exclusively by military controllers. All military flights were
specifically identified in the traffic sample. Planned sector sequence was suspended and
the controllers made sector transfers by sending a ‘FORCE ACT’ message prior to
transferring the flight to the other military sector.
Once the ACT was been sent it was possible to co-ordinate on XFL/EFL.
Due to the special nature of military missions, normal safety net information was not
provided for military aircraft. An alert was only issued if an STCA warning was received
between a Civil and Military aircraft. The alert was displayed to both civil and military
controllers.
51
EUROCONTROL
6.6.
ALERT WARNINGS
The following lists of data supplemented the radar data on all civil control positions:
A) MEDIUM TERM CONFLICT ALERT WINDOW (MTCD)
B) SHORT TERM CONFLICT ALERT (STCA)
C) APW
6.7.
MTCD
The MTCD warnings were presented to the controllers up to 20 minutes in advance of the
predicted loss of separation. Conflict prediction was based on the FPL trajectory modified by
the following controller orders - EFL, CFL, XFL and DIRECT. MTCD computation occurred
when the profile was re-calculated. Additionally the simulator logic operated in a cyclic
manner; each profile was re-checked at 5 minute intervals.
The system compared the predicted flight plan profiles of all aircraft and alerts the planning controller when certain lateral and/or vertical parameters are infringed. The lateral
parameter used is larger than normal radar separation due to the uncertainty of predicted
aircraft positions 20 minutes in advance.
The horizontal flight plan profile considered by the MTCD takes into account DIRECT
inputs made by controllers. The vertical search for conflicts is made using the available
level information in the system. These are AFL (coming from the SSR Mode C), CFL, EFL,
XFL, and SFL. MTCD is not affected by heading, rate of climb/descent and speed orders.
These orders are only input to the system so that they can be displayed as “controller
reminders."
MTCD is performed in two stages:
The predicted horizontal profiles of a pair of aircraft are compared to the identified
potential conflicts purely in the horizontal plane.
! If a horizontal conflict is detected within a sector, then level values are compared to
identify if the aircraft paths are also likely to conflict in the vertical plane.
A full description of the MTCD parameters and conflict classification appears in the Poland
’99 system handbook.
!
The MTCD window provided a list of conflict pairs including the time to loss of separation
and the calculated minimum lateral distance. Via the MTCD window and a pop-up menu,
controllers could either acknowledge, (tick) refer, (mark for the attention of other sector
team member), or cancel a false or unnecessary risk alert as required.
6.8
CONTROLLERS COMMENTS
During de-brief sessions the controllers stated that they liked the MTCD tool when it operated without errors. However, sometimes false conflicts were generated and on other
occasions, genuine conflicts did not appear.
The controllers were unanimous in the opinion that 100% reliability must be guaranteed to
obtain the full potential benefit of the tool. Some felt that they were presented with too
much information.
52
6.9.
EUROCONTROL
STCA
The STCA was designed as a safety net to operate at the last possible moment in a
situation that the controller has not yet resolved. The system search occurred every 5
seconds to detect radar conflicts and display them to the controller.
To avoid false alarms, the warning time was kept as short as possible, but included
sufficient time for the controller to take action.
6.10.
DISPLAY
The word STCA was displayed in RED in Line 0 of the label block and remained until the
STCA function determined that the conflict was resolved.
6.11.
ALERT PARAMETERS
The warning time provided was 2 minutes prior to the point at which separation was
calculated to be first infringed.
Question:
Was the Short Term Conflict Alert (SCTA) facility useful?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
35%
29%
30%
24%
20%
10 %
10%
2%
Al ways
Regularly
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Fig. 6 - 23
Military Flights only displayed an STCA warning if the other aircraft was a civil flight.
In general, most of the controllers found the STCA tool to be a useful feature but on some
occasions, some false alerts occurred and other true conflicts were missed. Only 12%
stated that it rarely or never assisted them.
6.12.
AREA PROXIMITY WARNING (APW)
APW provided a visual alert to controllers of an imminent civil aircraft penetration into a
reserved volume of Military airspace.
APW had a 2-minute look-ahead parameter. The assigned CFL above the Restricted Area
suspended the APW warning unless the aircraft descended below the CFL.
The warning was displayed to the controller by the letters APW in Yellow in the track label;
however, if an STCA Alert existed simultaneously, the STCA had priority.
The warning was cancelled when the aircraft left the reserved volume of airspace. APW
was disabled for Military flights.
Conclusion
In debrief sessions, the controllers agreed that the APW was a useful tool - subject
to system reliability and accuracy.
53
EUROCONTROL
7.
To develop and assess Controller Tasking in Warsaw Area Control Centre (ACC)
and for Warsaw Approach (APP) for Planner – Executive; using a new system with
object-oriented Human Machine Interface (HMI), On-line Data Interchange (OLDI)
System Supported Co-ordination (SYSCO), and system supported Civil-Military
co-ordination.
7.1
CONTROLLER TASKS
Each sector was manned by either an executive controller, or an executive and a planning
controller.
For the purposes of the simulation, and to provide a baseline, the EEC provided a generic
PLC and EXC controller task list.
In addition, the PATA working group and the EEC developed a procedure to allow
inter-sector transfer of flights without the need for individual co-ordination.
Details of the task list and the inter-sector transfer procedure are available in the EEC
Poland ’99 Controllers’ handbook.
The tasks were for guidance purposes only and the controllers were encouraged to amend
them as necessary and develop new tasks where appropriate.
7.2
GENERAL COMMENTS
The controllers' stated that the generic task list was useful. But, again due to the short time
available, they did not have sufficient opportunity make a full evaluation of the procedures,
or clearly define new individual controller responsibilities in relation to the use of system
tools. Sometimes both controllers entered data, or took responsibility for interaction with the
list and label data input fields. However, the majority of the controllers stated that this did
not affect their overall ability to work as a team. Only 2% of the controllers stated that they
were rarely able to work as a team, and stated that the suggested definition of the PLC and
EXC roles never allowed them to do so.
Other sector procedures to allow silent co-ordination and transfer of flights were developed. Current Polish operating methods require individual inter-sector co-ordination of
flights. To evaluate the new technique, the PATA working group decided to restrict the
number of sectors that would apply the silent transfer procedure. This provided a comparison between sectors that used the procedure, and those that continued to apply individual co-ordination.
The controllers’ responses to questionnaires regarding tasks appear below.
54
EUROCONTROL
Question:
Did you consider that the PC and EXC were able to work together as a team in the
management of the sector?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
44%
40 %
40%
30%
20%
13%
10%
2%
Always
R egularly
Sometimes
R arely
Fig. 7 - 1
Question:
Were the roles of the PC and EXC sufficiently clear and well defined to permit this teamwork?
90%
80%
70%
60%
51 %
50%
40%
30%
24 %
20%
13%
9%
10%
2%
A lways
Regula rly
Sometimes
Rare ly
Never
Fig. 7 - 2
55
EUROCONTROL
The bar chart below shows the controllers’ replies to the question 'Were you unclear as to
whether certain tasks should be performed by the PC or EXC?' - only 2 percent said that
they were never unclear as to what tasks they should perform. A possible explanation for
this is that prior to each exercise, 88% of the controllers discussed and agreed on whom
should make the system inputs.
Question:
Were you unclear as to whether certain tasks should be performed by the PC or EXC?'
90%
80%
70%
60%
48%
50%
40%
40%
30%
20%
13%
10%
Frequent ly
Sometimes
Rarely
Fig. 7 - 3
Question:
Did the system as simulated contain any specific aspects that reduced the efficiency with
which you were able to work as a team in the PC/EXC partnership?
90%
80%
70%
62%
60%
50%
38 %
40%
30%
20%
10%
Yes
No
Fig. 7 - 4
The current planner tasks in Poland involve strip management and verbal telephone
co-ordination. In the simulation electronic tools for flight data management and electronic
co-ordination were available on both positions, and sometimes tasks were duplicated.
A few planning controllers stated that the EXC performed almost of the tasks, leaving them
with little to do. Other comments were that agreed transfer procedures like those tested
on other sectors should have been applied throughout the airspace. Others stated that the
sector design and the complicated vertical interfaces caused confusion in relation to
co-ordination requirements. Other comments were that the amount of information on the
lists made it difficult to identify input fields.
56
EUROCONTROL
The controllers emphasised that new PLC and EXC roles and tasks must be developed
and defined in detail to operate in a stripless environment: these tasks must be designed
to maximise the efficiency of the system tools and controller teamwork.
Conclusion
The PLC and EXC task list was useful as a baseline for the controllers to assess
how their roles may change in the future. The new ATC inter-sector transfer procedures were successful in reducing co-ordination workload between the sectors
concerned.
Recommendation
Further development and study will be required to define clear PLC and EXC
responsibilities and task allocation. New agreements and procedures to allow
flights to be transferred between sectors under specific conditions should be defined and applied wherever practicable.
7.3
ON-LINE DATA INTERCHANGE (OLDI) SYSTEM SUPPORTED CO-ORDINATION
(SYSCO)
Electronic co-ordination has a direct link with FDP logic. The EEC simulator is equipped
with a “ground” software module that emulates FDP functionality. Flight plans are
navigated within this module to determine the sector sequence. Flights are climbed and
descended by the use of constraints derived from local Letter(s) Of Agreement (LOA’s)
and, in the case of departures, the RFL. This process creates an initial aircraft profile and
sector sequence. Depending on simulation requirements, controller inputs can modify this
profile on-line. Modifications to the flight profile were made via EFL, CFL, XFL and
DIRECT inputs. Each input modified the flight profile, and, in all cases except CFL, could
generate electronic co-ordination.
It is important to note that the simulated electronic co-ordination only ever involved 2
partners. Other sectors affected by the results of co-ordination received highlighted data
revisions.
Electronic co-ordination was displayed to the controllers in “message in” and “message
out” windows and highlighted data in the radar label and lists. Electronic co-ordination was
possible in the horizontal and vertical plane. For arrivals and departures, the profile logic
climbed the flight to RFL, and descended the flight to ground level. The profile logic
climbed or descended flights as “late as possible” to comply with input XFL orders to allow
intermediate CFL orders to be taken into account.
In this simulation, specific levels were added to the profile to comply with the new
inter-sector procedures for silent transfer. Therefore, on those sectors where the silent
transfer procedures were applied, no new XFL input was required.
If the controller made XFL input for a flight not requiring co-ordination, the system treated
the input XFL as a modification and generated co-ordination with any 'new' sector that was
brought into the sequence.
As with the controller orders in the vertical plane, DIRECT orders caused a re-calculation
of trajectory. This could bring sectors into the sector sequence without their consent and
with no option of refusal.
Full details of the FDP and Electronic Co-ordination are contained in the Poland '99
Facility Specification Part 3 (Technical) (Ref. 3).
57
EUROCONTROL
Despite the frustration felt by the controllers when errors occurred they supported the
principle of electronic co-ordination. Invalid inputs caused the system to recalculate the
profile of the flight. This often caused the flight to be removed from the correct sector
sequence and appear as pending or assumed on the wrong sector. This invalidated the
displayed Colour State of the flight, affected the MTCD, and triggered corrupt data display
in flight labels and information windows. There was no possibility for the controller
concerned to correct the error. Moreover, the new sector controller was brought into the
sequence against his or her wishes.
It is crucial that any future electronic system will give the controller the possibility to
correct invalid inputs.
In response to the question, ' Do you consider that the workload incurred in keeping the
system up to date was worthwhile given the resulting information provided by the system
(MTCD, system assisted co-ordination) i.e. did the system provide sufficient ‘return for
your efforts?' 79% of the controllers replied either 'occasionally' or 'always'.
58
7.4
EUROCONTROL
MESSAGE IN/OUT WINDOWS
The message In/Out windows allowed the controllers to access system assisted
co-ordination messages. The windows allowed changes to flight plans to be proposed,
Acceptance, or Rejection of co-ordination proposals, and Entry of counter-proposals.
The Message OUT window displayed messages sent to other sectors, while the Message
IN window displayed messages received from other sectors.
The co-ordination used the following parameters: EFL, XFL, and DCT.
The window auto-resized when messages were added - up to a maximum of 10 Lines.
The messages were sorted by arrival time at the sector and displayed the earliest
message at the top of the list.
The Message-In window showed the time message was sent by originating sector
- Upstream or Downstream Co-ordination partner – the aircraft callsign, subject of the
co-ordination, the original value, proposed value and a RJC/ACK button.
The Message-Out window showed the time message was sent by originating sector
- Upstream or Downstream Co-ordination partner, aircraft callsign, subject of the
co-ordination, the original value and proposed value.
59
EUROCONTROL
The charts below show the controllers’ responses to the questions regarding message
windows.
Question:
did you ever miss the initial posting of a message in the ‘co-ordination in’ window?
90%
80%
70%
60%
52 %
50%
40%
30%
25%
20%
13%
8%
10%
2%
Al ways
Regularly
Somet imes
R arely
Never
Fig. 7 - 5
Question:
Did you experience any problems interpreting or understanding messages?
90%
80%
70%
60%
51%
50%
40%
25%
30%
22%
20%
10%
2%
Regularly
Som et imes
Rarel y
Never
Fig. 7 - 6
60
EUROCONTROL
Question:
Were outgoing messages generated by one controller in the sector team ever confusing for
the other member?
90%
80%
70%
60%
51 %
50%
35%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
10%
4%
Regula rly
Some tim es
Rarely
Never
Fig. 7 - 7
For example as an EXC, did you ever think that an outgoing message generated by the
PC was in fact an incoming message?
In general, the controllers liked the message windows but 52% stated that they
sometimes missed the initial posting in the window. On the whole, they did not have
problems to interpret or understand the messages, but that the sender’s identity was not
always clear.
The controllers suggested that the following would improve electronic system
co-ordination.
!
!
!
!
the ability to co-ordinate with the previous sector and more than one downstream sector,
different colours for In/Out windows;
a pop-up menu to select next sector;
to be able to co-ordinate direct routes to any point in the airspace and to a point
located in an adjacent FIR/UIR.
Fig. 7 - 8 : Co-ordination in Message
Fig. 7 - 9 : Co-ordination out Message
61
EUROCONTROL
7.5
CIVIL AND MILITARY CO-ORDINATION
A specific co-ordination functionality was provided to enable the Military Controllers to
co-ordinate with Civil Control Sectors for airway crossing requests. This functionality was
consistent with the EATCHIP ‘Flexible Use of Airspace ‘concept. The procedure was
simplified to reduce risk in the simulation.
The simplified functionality to be provided for the POL99 simulation was as follows:
i) Co-ordination was provided between a Military Sector and One Civil Sector (at
the point where the crossing originates).
ii) Only one level could be co-ordinated: therefore, aircraft had to be in level flight
(or a telephone co-ordination was needed to co-ordinate the exception).
iii) Only Accept or Reject was possible by the receiving sector. Once more, the
counter proposal required a telephone co-ordination.
iv) A proposed crossing request was cancelled by the Military sector if required.
The controllers were unanimous in stating that this was a useful feature. The controllers'
responses appear below.
Question:
Did you consider the civil/military co-ordination to be a useful feature?
90%
80%
70%
62%
60%
50%
38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
f requently
sometimes
Fig. 7 - 10
The controllers suggested system modifications to improve this co-ordination procedure.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
62
It should be possible to co-ordinate 'block levels' for climbing or descending traffic;
More than two points crossing points;
The civil controllers should be able to make counter-proposals;
An ability to negotiate levels;
An ability to co-ordinate- with more than one civil sector with one co-ordination;
An option to make a Forced-Act to the military controller to transfer civil traffic leaving
outside controlled airspace to land at a military airfield;
Rules that specify how far in advance request should be made;
Use of colour to identify approval or counter-proposal.
EUROCONTROL
Conclusion
This was an exceptionally successful element of Pol’99 simulation. All the civil and
military controllers involved recognised the importance of the operational requirements of both airspace users and stated that it was of great benefit.
Both sides were extremely co-operative in all circumstances and displayed high
levels of professionalism.
Recommendation
Common ATC standards, practices and equipment should be adopted to obtain the
full benefit of civil/military co-ordination.
63
EUROCONTROL
8.
OBJECTIVE 5
“Evaluate the impact of RNAV Arrival Routes (RNAV STARs) for Warsaw, including
their associated ATC procedures, from an operational and cost-benefit viewpoint.
This may include an evaluation of airborne procedures;”
8.1
INTRODUCTION
1. The enhanced accuracy and better performance made possible by the improved
quality of the new generation of navigation and other avionics equipment being fitted to
modern aircraft fleets has prompted EUROCONTROL to initiate studies aimed at evaluating the more efficient and widespread use of these systems throughout all
phases of flight.
2. The first advance came in April 1998 with the implementation throughout ECAC
airspace of Basic Area Navigation (B-RNAV). Previously, routes had to be aligned with
ground-based navigation aids, thereby causing bottlenecks in the En-Route System.
However, by substituting waypoints, the position of which can be located virtually
anywhere, this restriction has been eliminated, as evidenced by the success of Version
3 (V.3) of the EUR-ANP. The flexibility in route planning allowed by B-RNAV has
reduced the number of bottlenecks and improved the delay situation significantly.
3. The body responsible for B-RNAV implementation, the EUROCONTROL Airspace and
Navigation Team (ANT), decided to explore the possibility of extending the potential
benefits of RNAV to Terminal Airspace. It devolved this responsibility to the Terminal Area
RNAV Applications Task Force (TARA) which had as its prime objective the
definition of requirements for a cost-effective application of RNAV in Terminal Airspace.
4. Whilst there was a considerable amount of data which could be used to evaluate the
use of RNAV from an aircraft operator’s perspective, it was recognised that there was
very little quantifiable information relevant to ATS provision. TARA was therefore
pleased to accept the offer of the three States (Bulgaria, Poland and Romania)
participating in the Rombulpo simulations to include RNAV aspects in their scenarios.
Therefore, with the willing co-operation of the Operational Services staff of the
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre at Bretigny, a comprehensive evaluation
programme was developed by the Terminal Airspace specialists of the Airspace
Management and Navigation Unit at EUROCONTROL HQ in Brussels.
8.2
EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT
1. Poland 99 was the second of the Rombulpo series of simulations and, having
previously simulated the Lateral Navigation (L-NAV) or 2-D option, the next step in the
process was to evaluate 3-D operations (i.e. Vertical (V-NAV) as well as Lateral
Navigation).
2. PANS-Ops expertise was used to construct, for simulation purposes only, arrival and
departure RNAV procedures for both runway configurations at Warsaw airport (see
Figure 8 - 1 – if required, more detailed information on these procedures can be
obtained from AMN, EUROCONTROL).
64
EUROCONTROL
DAVID
13500/27000/40500
BIRGA
LISSU
11500/23000/34500
DODEK
EMLAB
WAR
LUMOK
10500/21000/31500
OKE
SIE
KERAM
9500/19000/28500
80
0
GRIFN
WA072
3500/7000/10500
3500/7000/10500
FINLY
3000/6000/9000
LIN
35000/7000/10500
KRN
6000/12000/18000
LDZ
12000/24000/36000
VIMER
65000/13000/19500
MARIA
7000/14000/21000
WARSZAWA/OKECIE
FMS RNAV SIDS
(STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURES)
RUNWAY 15
KOZEN
SCALE 1:650,000
0
5
10
ARDAG
NM
KM
0
5
10
15
10500/21000/31500
20
SIM ISSUE 1 - 8 FEB 99
Fig. 8 - 1 : Standard Instrument Departures
65
EUROCONTROL
8.3
CONDUCT OF THE SIMULATION
1. Several weeks before the simulation commenced, participating controllers were given
an introductory presentation on RNAV operations from an ATC perspective. A Quick
Reference Guide, which included the phraseology to be used when handling RNAV aircraft, and face-to-face briefings were given to the controllers at the EEC before the
commencement of the exercises which included RNAV operations.
2. Traffic samples for the overall simulation organisations were divided between the 11/15
and 29/33 runway configurations. The Polish simulation was split into two
periods, each of 10 days and, overall, there were 20 exercises with a 3-D RNAV
element at 100% and seven at 130% of current traffic levels.
3. All aircraft for the RNAV exercises were 3-D capable and the controllers were asked to
allow them, as far as practicable, to self-navigate on to the ILS along the prescribed
tracks and to fly their own profiles. In addition to the aircraft generated from within the
main platform and handled by the psuedo-pilots, the Multi-Cockpit Simulator (MCS),
flown by line pilots from LOT, was integrated into the exercises.
4. Both RNAV SIDs and STARs were flown and observations on the effect of the
procedures were carried out by air traffic control specialists from AMN and Support to
States (StS). In addition, questionnaires were tailored for the controllers and the line
pilots as appropriate. For the controllers, the questionnaires probed such parameters
as understanding of and confidence in the procedures, ease of use, appropriateness of
phraseology and separation and sequencing issues. Pilots were asked similar questions but were also asked whether they considered that the RNAV tracks and vertical
profiles flown made their flights more efficient, whether self-navigation
enabled better management of the final stages of flight as well as whether they thought
that RNAV operations were worthwhile.
5. In addition, much data has been gathered by the EEC with regard to radio frequency loading, track mileage, fuel burn, controller workload and so on. This data is being
collated and is intended to form the basis of the final RNAV report to be made to TARA
in December 1999. Detailed findings of the questionnaires will also be included in the
final report.
8.4
INTERIM FINDINGS
1. Controllers and pilots alike reported a reasonable understanding of the RNAV
procedures. Nonetheless, uncertainty over the meaning of certain items of phraseology led to some confusion in the instructions given to pilots and psuedo-pilots and the
different ways in which these instructions were interpreted. This became less of a
problem, however, as the participants gained experienced in RNAV operations.
2. The stability of the main platform enabled the non-MCS traffic to fly consistently
accurate tracks, and controllers quickly gained confidence in their predictability. The
technique of using of RNAV waypoints instead of radar vectors was quickly mastered
although controllers were not convinced that their use was more efficient than
vectoring.
3. When handling RNAV traffic without positive intervention, controllers experienced a
reduction in workload, both generally and in RTF usage. However, they felt that, when
they were required to intervene, workload was slightly higher than when
handling traffic conventionally.
4. Overall, the controllers considered that the introduction of RNAV into Terminal Airspace
might give some benefits to the ATS operation, but that much further study was required before this could be proved.
66
EUROCONTROL
5. The MCS functionality was less reliable than the main platform and, although not
affecting the validity of the overall exercise, some MCS runs were abridged. The line
pilots were very enthusiastic about the possibilities afforded by the use of RNAV in this
airspace, in particular commenting that the profiles flown could be better
managed when tracks were predictable. However, they considered that the number of
waypoints should be reduced, especially as the aircraft moved closer to the more critical final approach segment, where pilots have higher priority tasks and would not wish
to be concentrating on this particular navigation function. In fact, these pilots suggested that , should an extended downwind leg be required, then this should be done by
use of the heading select facility, rather than by proceeding to a waypoint.
INTERIM CONCLUSIONS
1. It was very encouraging to note the co-operation of the controllers, the LOT pilots
and the EEC psuedo-pilots in participating in these evaluations. In particular,
their input during debriefing sessions was invaluable.
2. As stated earlier, these findings will be augmented by substantial data now being
collated by the EEC, but results so far indicate that this exercise has
proved very useful in increasing the knowledge and experience of RNAV
operations from the ATS viewpoint.
3. Combined with the output from the other simulations (Bulgaria 99, Bulrom 99 and
Romania 99), it is anticipated that much valuable evidence will have been
gathered for TARA to make its recommendations to ANT about the future use of
RNAV in Terminal Airspace.
67
EUROCONTROL
9.
OBJECTIVE 6
To expose as many controllers as possible to the new system HMI and functionality
A total of 60 controllers participated in the simulation (56 civil, 4 military)
10.
OBJECTIVE 7
Perform an initial evaluation of new Civil/Military Operational Concept /Flexible Use of
Airspace (FUA) concepts.
10.1
INTRODUCTION
The EATCHIP 'Flexible Use of Airspace' concept (FUA) was introduced as a basis for
Airspace Management (ASM) in the time frame 1995-2005, with an aim to increasing the
capacity and efficiency of Air Traffic Management within the ECAC area.
The basis for the concept is that airspace should no longer be designated as either
military or civil airspace, but should be considered as one continuum, used flexibly on a
day-to-day basis.
It is anticipated the application of FUA will lead to:
An increase in ATC capacity and a tangible reduction in GAT (General Air Traffic)
delays;
! More efficient ways to separate OAT (Operational Air Traffic) and GAT (General Air
Traffic);
! Improved real-time civil-military co-ordination and a significant reduction in airspace
segregation needs;
! The use of temporary segregated areas being brought more closely into line with
military operational requirements.
Three levels of ASM are defined 'Strategic', 'Pre-Tactical' and 'Tactical'. At the Tactical
level, the FUA concept allows a maximum joint-use of airspace, through appropriate
tactical Civil/Military co-ordination. Systems support is required to assist controllers in
performing co-ordination in an efficient manner and to reduce the workload of the data
exchange and co-ordination tasks.
!
The procedures designed for the Poland ’99 simulation were a simplified version of some
aspects of the FUA. The PATA military defined two military sectors for the simulation.
These are shown in the map opposite.
68
EUROCONTROL
PO99
Military sectors
TSA and D53
TSA3
OATW
D53
EPOK
EPGD
EPSK
EPCE
EPKO
EPMB
EPSN
4c
TSA2
4e
EPSC
4b
EPSY
1d
4d
4a
TSA4
5a
TSA5
EDDT
EPMI
1b
5b
1a
EPMO
EPPO
EPPW
EPKS
EDDB
OATE
1c
TSA1
EPBY
EPBC
5c
EPMM
EPZG
EPBP
EPLK
EPDE
EPRA
EPWR
EPKT
LKPR
EPRZ
EPKK
VÈro:09.07.99
Fig. 10 - 1 : Military sectors
Six military traffic samples were created for the simulation and these were added into the
civil traffic samples. For simulation purposes only, TSA’s and danger areas were defined.
To imitate the FUA concept of pre-notification of military activity and airspace requirements
to civil users, the TSA and danger area activation was pre-notified and maintained for the
period of the simulation exercise.
The controllers selected each active TSA and danger area from a drop-down menu shown
below, and the video map display for each exercise showed only the active areas or
sections of TSA’s.
69
EUROCONTROL
Fig. 10 - 2 : TSA activity menu
Two military sectors were defined for the simulation. The vertical and geographical boundaries of the military sectors were the same in all organisations and military controllers
controlled OAT traffic only. A map showing the civil sectors and the military sectors
appears below.
10.2
CIVIL AND MILITARY CO-ORDINATION
The simplified functionality provided for the POL99 simulation was as follows:
1. Co-ordination was provided between a Military Sector and One Civil Sector (at the point
where the crossing originated);
2. Only one level could be co-ordinated: therefore, aircraft had to be in level flight (or a
telephone co-ordination was needed to co-ordinate the exception);
3. Only Accept or Reject was possible by the receiving sector. Once more, the counterproposal required a telephone co-ordination;
4. A proposed crossing request was cancelled by the Military sector if required.
70
EUROCONTROL
The figure below shows a radar displayed image of a military crossing flight.
Fig. 10 - 3
Results
This element of the simulation was extremely successful. The civil and military
controllers involved, recognised the importance of the operational requirements of
both airspace users, and stated that the procedures applied were of great benefit.
Their comments and efforts are greatly appreciated. Both sides were extremely
co-operative in understanding the needs and demands of the other, and displayed
high levels of professionalism.
The controllers were unanimous in stating that this was a useful feature. The controllers
responses appear below.
Question:
Did you consider the civil/military co-ordination to be a useful feature?
Did you con sider th e civil/militar y co ord ination to b e a use ful f eatur e?
90%
80%
70%
62 %
60%
50%
38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
f r eque ntly
s omet ime s
Fig. 10 - 4
The controllers suggested system modifications to improve this co-ordination procedure.
It should be possible to co-ordinate 'block levels' for climbing or descending traffic,
More than two points crossing points;
! The civil controllers should be able to make counter-proposals;
! An ability to negotiate levels;
! An ability to co-ordinate- with more than one civil sector with one co-ordination;
! An option to make a Forced-Act to the military controller to transfer civil traffic leaving
! Rules that specify how far in advance request should be made;
! Use of colour to identify approval or counter-proposal.
Many senior military and civil ATC representatives from countries not directly involved,
visited the EEC and the Poland ’99 simulation. The Polish civil and military representatives gave these visitor first-hand experience of what benefits can be achieved when there
is full co-operation between civil and military controllers. We at the EEC offer our congratulations to all involved.
!
!
71
EUROCONTROL
Conclusion
The simulated application of the concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace was an
extremely successful element of this simulation. The FUA concept was further
enhanced by the provision of electronic civil-military co-ordination. The two major
contributory factors to the effectiveness of the civil/military co-ordination and FUA
principles were
!
!
civil and military controllers used common standards and units of measurement flight levels, knots, feet and nautical miles;
all simulated military flights were equipped with transponders and mode C.
Recommendation
To maximise the benefit of FUA and electronic civil/military co-ordination common
standards, equipment and units of measurements should be applied by both civil
and military ATS authorities.
72
11.
EUROCONTROL
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
O b j e c t i v e 1 : To evaluate two new en-route sector plans following a Fast-Time (RAMS)
simulation based on the ATS Route Network Version 3 (ARN3) using increased
levels of traffic.
11.1
CONCLUSIONS FOR OBJECTIVE 1
Neither of the two original airspace organisations, nor the third organisation devised
during the simulation, contained the optimum sector structure for the simulated airspace.
However, the results confirmed the controllers’ opinion that a framework based on 8
en-route sectors was the better overall design.
The interface between adjacent superimposed or vertically spilt en-route sectors and CCF
airspace was unsuccessful.
In addition, the tested vertical division level between upper and lower en-route sectors
(FL315) was unsuitable.
Further tests would be required to establish the optimum division levels for vertically
superimposed en-route sectors.
Recommendations
The en-route airspace framework should contain no less than 8 en-route sectors. Further
testing on individual sectors and sector groups will be required to define the best configuration and combination of individual sectors.
The en-route sectors adjacent to CCF airspace should be designed:
! as single sectors (no vertically superimposed sectors or;
! have a common vertical division level with that in CCF airspace.
11.1.1 Conclusions for JED airspace
Of the 2 options tested for JED airspace, the option to divide the airspace into an Upper
and Lower sector was the better solution.
However, further study will be required to define the optimum division level between the
upper and lower sector.
In addition, the vertical interface between the upper level of CCF airspace and the
adjacent JL JU division level should be re-defined to eliminate the problem caused by the
“slice” above CCF.
11.1.2 Conclusions TZ
A single sector the size of TZ is not optimum for arriving and departing traffic. The basic
sector design could be used in current operating procedures, or for an interim period.
Further study is required to re-examine the sector design and develop associated
inter-sector procedures for any future ATC stripless environment.
Recommendations
Sector TZ alternative options should include dividing the airspace designated as TZ (& LZ)
laterally, testing other vertical division flight levels, and developing procedures including
agreed levels of transfer between vertically superimposed airspace sections. Sector
designs for adjacent CCF and en-route airspace must take account of the requirements of
73
EUROCONTROL
both airspace
types,
and create
seamless
an interface
as possible.
the new
Warsaw
TMA as
including
Standard
Instrument
Departure and
O b j e c t i v e 2 : Evaluate
Arrival Routes (SID's and STAR's) resulting from the DED 4 Airspace Study.
11.2.
The single sector design for CCF airspace was unworkable. The controllers stated that
with certain, modifications, the 2-sector structure could be implemented.
The simulated upper vertical limit of FL285 for CW/CE was too high.
The lateral boundary between CE/CW should be re-aligned further west.
(The en-route controllers also supported these convictions.)
The controllers liked the APC limit of FL105 and stated that this should be the minimum
level for the upper limit of APC airspace.
The controllers agreed with the procedures developed to transfer flights without individual
co-ordination between APC and CW/CE, and between CW/CE and the first en-route
sector.
The transfer procedures reduced co-ordination workload when compared to current
working methods.
All Warsaw departures should ‘skip’ the approach sector and be transferred to CE/CW
sector as appropriate.
The controllers agreed with the principle that SID's and STAR's could be useful, but felt
that they would need more time to become familiar with their application.
They also believed that a greater degree of in-built separation between arrival and
departure routes would be of benefit.
Recommendations for Objecive 2
New agreed transfer procedure should be between all sectors.
the interface with en-route was unsatisfactory and too many en-route sectors converged
above CCF airspace.
The two-sector configuration for CCF airspace was extremely successful and has a good
basic structure, but further study is needed to refine its design.
The boundary between CW/CE should be realigned further west.
The minimum level between approach and CCF airspace should be set at FL245 or below.
The lateral boundary between CW/CE was not optimum and should be re-defined.
74
EUROCONTROL
Transfer procedures between CW/CE/APC and CE/CW and en-route were successful.
The minimum division level between CW/CE and APC should be FL110.
All departures should skip the approach sector and be transferred to CE/CW as appropriate.
Recommendations
The vertical division levels of adjacent vertically superimposed en-route sectors must be
considered when defining the upper level of CW/CE.
If CCF airspace is to retain its circular shape, then the surrounding en-route airspace must
be re-designed to eliminate the simulated scenario where several en-route sectors
converged above CCF airspace.
CCF airspace should comprise 2 sectors.
Additional training, involving cross-skill training between approach and en-route controllers
will be required to achieve the operational realisation of the concept of early sequencing of
arrivals to Warsaw.
There should be agreed transfer procedure between all sectors.
Recommendations
Sector TZ alternative options should include dividing the airspace designated as TZ (& LZ)
laterally, testing other vertical division flight levels, and developing procedures including
agreed levels of transfer between vertically superimposed airspace sections.
Conclusions for LZ airspace
The vertical division level between sectors TZ and LZ was not optimum for Warsaw
arrivals and departures. In addition, the upper limit of LZ and the upper limit of CCF
airspace sectors were incompatible. The principle of agreed transfer levels between CCF
airspace and LZ successful and reduced co-ordination.
Recommendations
If LZ is to remain adjacent to CCF airspace, and retain a vertical boundary with sector TZ,
the shape and upper limit of LZ and CCF sectors should be set at the same level take
account of arrival and departure aircraft flight profiles.
75
EUROCONTROL
O b j e c t i v e 3 : To evaluate the use of the detailed HMI, with specific focus on the following tools
or features;
11.3
Label and Track information
Dynamic Flight Leg
Conflict and Risk Display
Vertical Aid Window
Sector List
Sector Inbound List, Arrival List, Departure List, and other list presentations.
The controllers' responses to the HMI questionnaire were mixed. Some aspects of the
HMI were extremely well received, and others prompted a negative response.
In response to four general HMI questions, controller opinion was divided in relation to the
combination of DFL, conflict information, VAW, interactive labels and lists: 42% of the
controllers agreed that the combination provided a satisfactory system that permitted the
removal of paper strips, 46% were unsure and 12% disagreed.
In response to whether or not the controllers agreed that integration of a multiple
display/input interfaces into a single display and input device is a good idea, 57% agreed
while 41% remained unsure. However, 96% agreed that a windows style environment was
a positive step for future ATC systems.
11.3.1 Label and track information
79% of controllers were happy with the layout of the data fields in the Standard label,
Selected label and Extended radar label.
81% stated that the information provided in the ETL met with operational requirements.
In relation to the general use of colour in the radar label and list display to assist the
controllers to prioritise their tasks, only 16% of controllers stated that it was rarely or never
useful.
Additional data to indicate that colour use comes from controllers’ responses to the question 'were you sufficiently alerted to forthcoming events and urgency situations via the use
of specific colours within the radar label ?'.
80% of the controllers stated that this was the case, while 2% stated that colour never
provided them with an alert.
11.3.2 Dynamic Flight Leg
The controllers stated that the DFL was a useful tool and the results show that only 43%
of the controllers rarely, or never found it useful. In general, they liked the displayed EAT's
but suggested that it should be possible to select/de-select individual flight legs.
The military controllers suggested that it would be an advantage to use separate colours
to differentiate between civil and military flights. The civil controllers supported this view.
76
EUROCONTROL
11.3.3 Conflict Risk Display CRD
In general, 76% of the controller considered that the CRD was useful 'regularly' or 'sometimes'. Thirteen percent replied that it was rarely useful, and 7% said that is was 'never'
useful.
In relation to the validity of presented risks, 41% of the controllers considered that the
CRD 'rarely' or never presented 'real' risks. Of the remaining 59%, 4% stated that the CRD
'always' presented 'real' risks, and 55% stated that that the CRD 'regularly' presented 'real'
risks.
The controllers' comments concentrated on the number of false conflicts that were
generated, remarked that in an operational system only real and not potential conflicts
should be displayed.
They also remarked that in cases where more than 2 pairs of aircraft were displayed, it
was hard to correlate the graphic symbols with the aircraft concerned.
11.3.4 Vertical Aid Window (VAW)
The controllers did not find the VAW a useful tool and commented that the display was not
‘user-friendly’, too large for the screen, and could not be relied upon to display ‘real’
conflicts.
11.3.5 Sector, Arrival, Departure, Military and other list presentations
During de-brief sessions. The controllers stated that they preferred the SIL, and 88%
agreed that, they were able to select the correct format for their requirements.
The results showed that the Departure list was considered more useful than the Arrival list.
The Arrival list displayed all flights that entered CCF airspace. The information displayed
was identical on CW and CE sectors, and therefore included flights that would not necessarily enter the sector.
This caused confusion between CE and CW controllers and the controllers stated that the
arrival list would only be useful if it displayed information specific to CW or CE.
The charts below show that 78% of the military controllers stated that the Military Flight
List was always, or sometimes useful, and 75% stated that the displayed information was
‘always’ sorted according to their requirements.
The military controllers also suggested a suggested a modification to include estimated
landing time.
11.3.6 Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD)
During de-brief sessions the controllers stated that they liked the MTCD tool when it
operated without errors. Sometimes, false conflicts were generated and on other
occasions, genuine conflicts did not appear.
The controllers were unanimous in the opinion that 100% reliability must be guaranteed to
obtain the full potential benefit of the tool. Some felt that they were presented with too
much information.
77
EUROCONTROL
11.3.7 STCA
In common with MTCD, most controllers found the tool useful when no errors were
displayed. Again, they were unanimous that for operational use, 100% reliability must be
achieved.
11.3.8 Area Proximity Warning (APW)
APW provided a visual alert to controllers of an imminent civil aircraft penetration into a
reserved volume of Military airspace.
APW had a 2-minute look-ahead parameter. The assigned CFL above the Restricted Area
suspended the APW warning unless the aircraft descended below the CFL.
The warning was displayed to the controller by the letters APW in Yellow in the track label;
however, if an STCA Alert existed simultaneously, the STCA had priority.
The warning was cancelled when the aircraft left the reserved volume of airspace.
APW was disabled for Military flights.
11.3.9 Conclusion
During debrief sessions, the controllers stated that the APW was a useful tool - subject to
system reliability and accuracy.
O b j e c t i v e 4 : To develop and assess Controller Tasking in Warsaw Area Control Centre (ACC)
and for Warsaw Approach (APP) for Planner – Executive; using a new system with
object-oriented Human Machine Interface (HMI), On-line Data Interchange (OLDI)
System Supported Co-ordination (SYSCO), and system supported Civil-Military
co-ordination.
11.4
11.4.1 Controller tasking
For the purposes of the simulation, and to provide a baseline, the EEC provided a
generic PLC and EXC controller task list.
In addition, the PATA working group and the EEC developed a procedure to allow intersector transfer of flights without the need for individual co-ordination.
Details of the task list and the inter-sector transfer procedure are available in the EEC
Poland ’99 Controllers’ handbook.
The tasks were for guidance purposes only and the controllers were encouraged to amend
them as necessary and develop new tasks where appropriate.
The controllers' stated that the generic task list was useful. But, again due to the short time
available, they did not have sufficient opportunity make a full evaluation of the
procedures, or clearly define new individual controller responsibilities in relation to the use
of system tools. Sometimes both controllers entered data, or took responsibility for
interaction with the list and label data input fields. However, the majority of the controllers
stated that this did not affect their overall ability to work as a team. Only 2% of the
controllers stated that they were rarely able to work as a team, and stated that the suggested definition of the PLC and EXC roles ‘never’ allowed them to do so.
78
EUROCONTROL
Other sector procedures to allow silent co-ordination and transfer of flights were
developed. Current Polish operating methods require individual inter-sector co-ordination
of flights. To evaluate the new technique, the PATA working group decided to restrict the
number of sectors that would apply the silent transfer procedure. This provided a comparison between sectors that used the procedure, and those that continued to apply
individual co-ordination.
In general, (65%) of the controllers felt that they were unclear as what tasks each should
perform, and on occasions this led to am imbalance in task distribution, or in duplication
of tasks.
The PLC and EXC task list was useful as a baseline for the controllers to assess how their
roles may change in the future. The new ATC inter-sector transfer procedures were
successful in reducing co-ordination workload between the sectors concerned.
Recommendation
Further development and study will be required to define clear PLC and EXC responsibilities and task allocation. New agreements and procedures to allow flights to be
transferred between sectors under specific conditions should be defined and applied
wherever practicable.
On-line Data Interchange (OLDI) System Supported Co-ordination (SYSCO).
11.4.2 Conclusions
The controllers stated that electronic co-ordination reduced their workload because it was
faster than conventional verbal communication. This gave them more time to monitor and
control traffic. In response to the question, “did the availability of electronic co-ordination
assist you in your ATC task when compared to the existing Polish system?' 80% of the
controller replied 'always', 'regularly' or sometimes. 79% of controllers considered that the
workload involved to keep the system up to date was worthwhile given the resulting
information.
The message In/Out windows allowed the controllers to access system assisted
co-ordination messages. The windows allowed changes to flight plans to be proposed,
Acceptance, or Rejection of co-ordination proposals, and Entry of counter-proposals.
In general, the controllers liked the message windows but 52% stated that they
sometimes missed the initial posting in the window. On the whole, they did not have
problems to interpret or understand the messages, but that the sender’s identity was not
always clear.
Recommendations
The controllers recommended the following to improve electronic system co-ordination.
! the ability to co-ordinate with the previous sector and more than one downstream sector;
! different colours for In/Out windows;
! a pop-up menu to select next sector;
! to be able to co-ordinate direct routes to any point in the airspace and to a point
located in an adjacent FIR/UIR.
79
EUROCONTROL
11.4.3. Civil and military co-ordination
This was an exceptionally successful element of Pol’99 simulation. All the civil and military
controllers involved recognised the importance of the operational requirements of both
airspace users and stated that it was of great benefit.
Both sides were extremely co-operative in all circumstances and displayed high levels of
professionalism.
The controllers were unanimous in stating that this was a useful feature and commented
that implementation of such a system and working methods in line with the FUA would be
of mutual benefit.
A major factor that allowed the civil and military controllers to operate more efficiently
when compared to current operational procedures was that both applied common
standards, measurements and procedures.
The controllers identified several modifications to improve the civil military co-ordination
feature.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
It should be possible to co-ordinate 'block levels' for climbing or descending traffic;
more than two points crossing points;
the civil controllers should be able to make counter-proposals;
an ability to negotiate levels;
an ability to co-ordinate- with more than one civil sector with one co-ordination;
an option to make a Forced-Act to the military controller to transfer civil traffic leaving
rules that specify how far in advance request should be made;
use of colour to identify approval or counter-proposal.
Recommendations
Common ATC standards, practices and equipment should be adopted to obtain the full
benefit of civil/military co-ordination.
O b j e c t i v e 5 : Evaluate the impact of RNAV Arrival Routes (RNAV STARs) for Warsaw, including
their associated ATC procedures, from an operational and cost-benefit viewpoint.
This may include an evaluation of airborne procedures.
11.5
INTERIM CONCLUSIONS
It was very encouraging to note the co-operation of the controllers, the LOT pilots and the
EEC pseudo-pilots in participating in these evaluations. In particular, their input during
debriefing sessions was invaluable.
As stated earlier, these findings will be augmented by substantial data now being collated
by the EEC, but results so far indicate that this exercise has proved very useful in
increasing the knowledge and experience of RNAV operations from the ATS viewpoint.
80
EUROCONTROL
Combined with the output from the other simulations (Bulgaria 99, Bulrom 99 and
Romania 99), it is anticipated that much valuable evidence will have been gathered for
TARA to make its recommendations to ANT about the future use of RNAV in Terminal
Airspace.
O b j e c t i v e 6 : To expose as many Controllers as possible to the new system HMI and
functionality
11.6
A total of 60 Polish controllers participated in the Pol’99 simulation. This is a significant
number of controllers introduced to new HMI and procedures. The experience, knowledge
gained by the controllers during this period will assist PATA management to define future
ATC systems and procedures.
O b j e c t i v e 7 : To perform an initial evaluation of new Civil/Military Operational Concept -Flexible
Use of Airspace (FUA).
11.7
The simulated application of the concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace was an extremely
successful element of this simulation. The FUA concept was further enhanced by the
provision of electronic civil-military co-ordination. The two major contributory factors to the
effectiveness of the civil/military co-ordination and FUA principles were
!
!
civil and military controllers used common standards and units of measurement flight levels, knots, feet and nautical miles,
all simulated military flights were equipped with transponders and mode C.
Recommendation
To maximise the benefit of FUA and electronic civil/military co-ordination common
standards, equipment and units of measurements should be applied by both civil and
military ATS authorities.
Projet SIM-S-E1 - Rapport CEE n° 352
81
EUROCONTROL
82
Projet SIM-S-E1 - Rapport CEE n°
Pologne 99 Simulation en Temps Réel
EUROCONTROL
TRADUCTION EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE
RÉSUMÉ
La simulation Pologne 99 s'est déroulée au Centre expérimental d'EUROCONTROL, du
17 mai au 11 juin 1999. Il s'agissait de la première simulation en temps réel effectuée au
CEE à la demande des autorités polonaises de la circulation aérienne (PATA). Au total, 3
membres du personnel de gestion des simulations, 56 contrôleurs civils et 4 contrôleurs
militaires ont participé à 56 exercices de simulation.
La simulation faisait suite à une simulation RAMS en temps accéléré (Version réorganisée du modèle mathématique de simulation de l'espace aérien) (cf. note n° 13/99) et aux
évaluations de TMA effectuées par l'Unité AMN ("Gestion de l'espace aérien et navigation") d'EUROCONTROL.
Les contrôleurs de la PATA occupaient des secteurs couvrant l'ensemble de l'espace
aérien en route de la FIR/UIR de Varsovie ainsi que la zone d'approche de Varsovie
(EPWA). Des contrôleurs militaires de la PATA ont été chargés d'assurer le contrôle de
tous les vols COM.
La simulation portait sur deux formules d'organisation de l'espace aérien en route et deux
possibilités de sectorisation de l'espace aérien CCF/TMA. Deux secteurs ont été conçus
de manière à permettre à des contrôleurs COM d'assurer le contrôle de vols COM opérant dans la zone simulée, laquelle incluait des zones, des routes et des TSA militaires
définies pour la simulation. Le partage de l'espace aérien s'est fait selon les procédures
de coordination civile-militaire, en appliquant des principes simplifiés d'utilisation flexible
de l'espace aérien (FUA). Dans ce contexte, le système a assuré la coordination civilemilitaire électronique nécessaire pour permettre à des vols COM de couper des voies
aériennes et des UAR civiles.
La plate-forme de simulation offrait des fonctionnalités ATC évoluées dans un environnement sans bande, ainsi qu'une fonction de détection des conflits à moyen terme et un filet
de sauvegarde –alerte de conflit à court terme (STCA) et avertisseur de proximité de zone
(APW).
La connaissance et l'expérience ainsi acquises d'un système sans bande et des fonctionnalités ATC futures aideront les contrôleurs et la direction de la PATA à spécifier les caractéristiques du nouveau système ATC polonais.
D'autres éléments importants de la simulation étaient les nouveaux SID et STAR conventionnels et RNAV conçus pour Varsovie par l'Unité AMN d'EUROCONTROL. Les essais
portant sur les routes SID et STAR RNAV ont bénéficié de la participation de deux pilotes
de ligne de la compagnie LOT, qui pilotaient un simulateur multihabitacle du CEE, doté
d'une interface directe avec les exercices de simulation.
Les résultats exposés dans le présent rapport ont été compilés à partir des réponses subjectives des contrôleurs aux questionnaires, des séances de débriefing organisées après
la simulation, de l'analyse des données du système enregistrées pendant les exercices et
des observations des membres de l'Équipe de projet du CEE.
83
EUROCONTROL
1.
INTRODUCTION
Les autorités polonaises de la circulation aérienne (PATA) construisent un nouveau
centre de contrôle régional et une nouvelle tour de contrôle à côté de l'aéroport de
Varsovie. Outre ces travaux d'infrastructure, la PATA œuvre à la mise à niveau des
systèmes de gestion de la circulation aérienne (ATM) en service opérationnel au Centre
ATC de Varsovie. Le Service consultatif et l'Unité "Gestion de l'espace aérien et
navigation" d'EUROCONTROL ont apporté une assistance à la Pologne dans le cadre du
Programme d'harmonisation de l'ATC polonais (PATCHWORK).
La simulation en temps réel, Pologne '99, s'est déroulée au Centre expérimental
d'EUROCONTROL, du 17 mai au 11 juin 1999, dans le cadre du programme PATCHWORK.
Cette simulation faisait également partie d'une série de simulations effectuées pour le
compte des administrations nationales roumaine (ROMATSA), bulgare (ATSA) et
polonaise (PATA), au titre du projet ROMBULPO, qui fait appel à une plate-forme de
simulation commune, sur laquelle chacun des trois États a défini ses spécifications
particulières en matière d'interface homme-machine (IHM).
La plate-forme de simulation du CEE est un système en évolution permanente fondé sur
les principes d'EATCHIP III. Le CEE a amélioré et modifié la HMI de base et la logique
du filet de sauvegarde du système développées pendant les simulations DSI (Interface
Suède-Danemark).
Les résultats de la simulation donneront à la direction de la PATA des informations
pratiques sur les fonctionnalités et les limites du futur système sans bande ainsi que sur
les procédures futures de contrôle, ce qui les aidera à mieux répondre, dans l'avenir, aux
exigences de l'ATM.
84
2.
EUROCONTROL
OBJECTIFS
Les objectifs de la simulation Pologne '99 étaient les suivants :
1. évaluer deux nouveaux plans de sectorisation en route résultant d'une simulation en
temps accéléré (RAMS) fondée sur la version 3 du réseau de routes ATS (ARN) et sur
des niveaux accrus de trafic ;
2. évaluer la nouvelle TMA de Varsovie, notamment les itinéraires normalisés de départ et
d'arrivée aux instruments (SID et STAR) définis dans le cadre de l'étude de l'espace
aérien réalisée par la DED 4 ;
3. évaluer l'utilisation de la HMI spécifiée (pour les postes de contrôle (CPW) en route et
d'approche), en accordant une attention particulière aux outils et fonctions ci-après :
! données d'étiquettes et de pistes (y compris leur interaction),
! tronçon de vol dynamique (DFL),
! affichage des conflits et des risques (CRD),
! fenêtre d'assistance verticale,
! liste de secteurs (SEL),
! liste des entrées dans les secteurs (SIL),
! listes des arrivées et des départs et autres types de liste ;
4. développer et évaluer, au centre de contrôle régional (CCR) et de contrôle d'approche
(APP) de Varsovie, une fonction de répartition des tâches entre contrôleurs organique
et radariste, au moyen d'un nouveau système doté d'une HMI orientée objet, d'une
fonction d'échange de données en ligne, de la coordination automatisée (SYSCO) et
de la coordination civile-militaire automatisée ;
5. évaluer, d'un point de vue opérationnel et économique (rapport coût- avantage),
l'incidence des routes d'arrivée RNAV (STAR RNAV) et des procédures ATC y
associées - y compris, le cas échéant, des procédures en vol - sur le centre de
Varsovie ;
6. exposer autant de contrôleurs que possible à la HMI et aux fonctionnalités du nouveau
système ;
7. réaliser une première évaluation du nouveau concept opérationnel civil-militaire et du
concept d'utilisation flexible de l'espace aérien.
85
EUROCONTROL
3.
RÉSUMÉ DES CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS
Objectif 1:
3.1
Évaluer deux nouveaux plans de sectorisation en route résultant d'une simulation
en temps accéléré (RAMS) fondée sur la version 3 du réseau de routes ATS (ARN3)
et sur des niveaux accrus de trafic.
CONCLUSIONS POUR L'OBJECTIF 1
Aucune des deux organisations de l'espace aérien initialement prévues, ni la troisième
organisation élaborée pendant la simulation, ne représente la solution optimale pour
l'espace aérien simulé.
Les résultats obtenus confirment cependant l'avis des contrôleurs selon lequel la structure
fondée sur 8 secteurs en route constitue la meilleure organisation globale.
L'interface entre les secteurs en route adjacents superposés dans le plan vertical et
l'espace aérien CCF n'a pas donné satisfaction.
En outre, le niveau testé (FL 315) pour la démarcation des secteurs en route inférieurs et
supérieurs ne convenait pas.
Il conviendrait de réaliser des essais supplémentaires pour déterminer les niveaux
optimum de démarcation des secteurs en route scindés dans le plan vertical.
Recommandations
Il conviendrait que la structure de l'espace aérien en route comporte au moins 8 secteurs.
Il faudra réaliser des essais supplémentaires pour déterminer les meilleures configuration
et combinaison de secteurs.
Les secteurs en route adjacents à l'espace CCF devraient être conçus comme :
!
!
3.1.1
des secteurs uniques (pas de secteurs scindés dans le plan vertical) ou
avoir le même niveau de démarcation verticale que dans l'espace aérien CCF.
Conclusions pour l'espace aérien JED
La division de l'espace aérien en un secteur supérieur et un secteur inférieur est la
meilleure des deux solutions testées.
Toutefois, un complément d'étude sera nécessaire pour déterminer le niveau optimum de
démarcation entre les secteurs inférieur et supérieur.
En outre, il faudra redéfinir l'interface verticale entre la limite supérieure de l'espace aérien
CCF et le niveau de démarcation JL JU adjacent, afin d'éliminer les problèmes causés par
la "tranche" au-dessus de CCF.
3.1.2
86
Conclusions TZ
Un secteur unique de la taille de TZ ne constitue pas la solution optimale pour les vols au
départ et à l'arrivée. Cette structure de base pourrait être utilisée dans les procédures
d'exploitation courante ou à titre temporaire. Il faudra toutefois réexaminer la sectorisation et développer les procédures intersectorielles connexes qui seront nécessaires dans
tout environnement ATC futur sans bande de progression de vol.
EUROCONTROL
Recommandations
Les autres formules à considérer pour le secteur TZ sont la division latérale de l'espace
aérien appelé TZ (et LZ), l'expérimentation d'autres niveaux de démarcation verticale et
la mise au point de procédures, notamment de niveaux convenus de transfert entre
secteurs superposés dans le plan vertical. La conception des secteurs de l'espace CCF
et de l'espace en route adjacents doit tenir compte des exigences de ces deux types
d'espace aérien et prévoir une interface aussi lisse que possible.
Objectif 2:
3.2
Évaluer la nouvelle TMA de Varsovie, notamment les itinéraires normalisés de
départ et d'arrivée aux instruments (SID et STAR) définis dans le cadre de l'étude
de l'espace aérien réalisée par la DED 4.
La conception de l'espace aérien CCF en tant que secteur unique a posé des problèmes
insurmontables. Selon les contrôleurs, il serait possible, moyennant certaines modifications, de mettre en œuvre la structure à 2 secteurs.
Le niveau de démarcation verticale pour CW et CE, fixé à FL 285, s'est révélé trop élevé.
Il conviendrait de déplacer vers l'ouest la frontière latérale entre CE et CW.
(Tel est également l'avis des contrôleurs de route.)
Les contrôleurs, estimant que le FL 105 convenait bien comme limite APC, ont déclaré
que ce niveau devrait constituer la limite supérieure minimale de l'espace aérien APC.
Les contrôleurs ont approuvé les procédures de transfert des vols sans coordination individuelle entre APC et CW/CE ainsi qu'entre CW/CE et le premier secteur en route.
Ces procédures ont réduit les tâches de coordination par rapport aux méthodes de travail
actuelles.
Il conviendrait que tous les vols au départ de Varsovie "sautent" le secteur d'approche et
soient transférés vers le secteur CE ou CW, selon leur cap.
Les contrôleurs conviennent, en principe, de l'utilité des SID et des STAR, mais disent
avoir besoin de plus de temps pour se familiariser avec leur application.
Ils jugent également préférable de prévoir un plus grand espacement intrinsèque entre les
routes d'arrivée et de départ.
Il y aurait lieu d'indiquer des points fixes de limite de vitesse dans les SID et les STAR.
Recommandations pour l'OBJECTIF 2
Le FL 110 devrait être le niveau de démarcation le plus bas entre les espaces aériens APC
et CCF.
Il ne devrait y avoir qu'un STAR pour chaque porte d'arrivée.
Les secteurs CW et CE devraient avoir chacun un point d'attente unique.
Il conviendrait d'élaborer de nouvelles procédures de transfert pour tous les secteurs.
87
EUROCONTROL
L'interface avec l'espace en route n'est pas satisfaisante et un nombre trop important de
secteurs en route convergent au-dessus de l'espace aérien CCF.
La configuration à deux secteurs convient extrêmement bien pour l'espace aérien CCF et
a une bonne structure de base, mais devrait être affinée.
Il conviendrait de déplacer vers l'ouest la frontière entre CE et CW.
Il conviendrait de fixer le niveau minimal de démarcation entre le secteur d'approche et
l'espace aérien CCF au FL 245 ou au-dessous.
La frontière latérale entre CE et CW n'est pas idéale et devrait être redéfinie.
Les procédures de transfert entre CW/CE/APC ainsi qu'entre CE/CW et en route
fonctionnent bien.
Il conviendrait de fixer le niveau minimum de démarcation entre CW/CE et APC au FL 110.
Il conviendrait que tous les vols au départ de Varsovie "sautent" le secteur d'approche et
soient transférés vers le secteur CE ou CW, selon leur cap.
Il y aurait lieu de fixer au FL 110 le niveau minimum de démarcation entre APC et l'espace
aérien CCF.
Il ne devrait y avoir qu'un STAR pour chaque porte d'arrivée.
Les secteurs CW et CE devraient avoir chacun un point d'attente unique.
Il y aurait lieu d'indiquer des points fixes de limite de vitesse dans les SID et les STAR.
Recommandations
Il y a lieu de tenir compte des niveaux de démarcation verticale des secteurs en route
superposés adjacents lors de la définition de la limite supérieure de CW/CE
Il faut, si l'espace aérien CCF conserve sa forme circulaire, restructurer l'espace aérien en
route environnant afin d'éviter que plusieurs secteurs en route ne convergent au-dessus
de l'espace aérien CCF, comme cela s'est produit dans le scénario simulé.
Il conviendrait de diviser l'espace aérien CCF en deux secteurs.
Il faudra prévoir une formation supplémentaire, et notamment la formation croisée des
contrôleurs d'approche et de route, en vue de l'application opérationnelle du concept de
mise en séquence précoce des vols à destination de Varsovie.
Des procédures de transfert devraient être définies entre tous les secteurs.
Recommandations
Les autres formules à envisager pour le secteur TZ sont la division latérale de l'espace
aérien appelé TZ (et LZ), l'expérimentation d'autres niveaux de démarcation verticale et
la mise au point de procédures, notamment la fixation de niveaux convenus de transfert
entre secteurs scindés dans le plan vertical.
Conclusions pour l'espace aérien LZ
Le niveau de démarcation verticale entre les secteurs TZ et LZ n'était pas idéal pour les
vols au départ et à destination de Varsovie. De plus, la limite supérieure de LZ et la
limite supérieure des secteurs de l'espace aérien CCF étaient incompatibles. Le principe
de niveaux de transfert convenus entre l'espace aérien CCF et LZ a bien fonctionné et
réduit la coordination.
88
EUROCONTROL
Recommandations
Il conviendrait, si LZ reste adjacent à l'espace aérien CCF et conserve une frontière
verticale avec le secteur TZ, de fixer au même niveau la forme et la limite supérieure des
secteurs LZ et CCF et de tenir compte des profils des vols au départ et à l'arrivée.
Objectif 3:
3.3
"Évaluer l'utilisation de la HMI spécifiée, en accordant une attention particulière
aux outils et fonctions ci-après :
A) données d'étiquettes et de pistes (y compris leur interaction)
B) tronçon de vol dynamique (DFL)
C) affichage des conflits et des risques
D) fenêtre d'assistance verticale
E) liste de secteurs (SEL)
F) liste des entrées dans les secteurs, listes des arrivées et des départs et autres types
de liste."
Les réponses des contrôleurs au questionnaire sur la HMI sont mixtes. Certains aspects
de la HMI ont été extrêmement bien reçus, d'autres ont fait l'objet d'une réponse négative.
Les réponses à quatre questions générales sur la HMI divergeaient en ce qui concerne la
combinaison du DFL, des données de conflit , de la VAW, des étiquettes interactives et
des listes : 42 % des contrôleurs ont estimé que la combinaison constituait un système
satisfaisant, qui permet de supprimer les bandes papier, 46 % se sont dits incertains et
12 % jugent la combinaison non satisfaisante.
A la question de savoir si l'intégration de plusieurs interfaces d'affichage/de saisie en une
interface unique était une bonne formule, 57 % ont répondu affirmativement tandis que
41 % se sont dits incertains. Toutefois, 96 % ont affirmé qu'un environnement de style
"fenêtres" était un progrès pour les systèmes ATC futurs.
3.3.1
Données d'étiquettes et de pistes
79 % des contrôleurs se sont dits satisfaits de la présentation des champs de données
dans l'étiquette standard, dans l'étiquette sélectionnée et dans l'étiquette radar élargie.
81 % estiment que les données fournies dans l'ETL sont conformes aux exigences
opérationnelles.
En ce qui concerne les couleurs utilisées dans l'étiquette radar et dans les listes de tâches
classées par ordre de priorité, seulement 16 % des contrôleurs ont déclaré qu'elles étaient
rarement utiles ou ne l'étaient jamais.
L'utilité des couleurs est également confirmée par les réponses des contrôleurs à la
question "Etiez-vous suffisamment averti des événements à venir et des situations
d'urgence par les couleurs utilisées dans l'étiquette radar ?"
80 % des contrôleurs ont répondu par l'affirmative, tandis que 2 % ont déclaré que les
couleurs ne les avaient jamais alertés.
89
EUROCONTROL
3.3.2
Tronçon de vol dynamique (DFL)
Les contrôleurs ont affirmé que le DFL était un outil utile ; 43 % d'entre eux seulement le
jugent rarement ou jamais utile. D'une manière générale, ils apprécient les affichages
EAT, mais estiment qu'il devrait être possible de sélectionner/désélectionner des tronçons
de vol individuels.
Selon les contrôleurs militaires, il conviendrait d'utiliser des couleurs différentes pour faire
la distinction entre les vols civils et militaires. Les contrôleurs civils partagent cette opinion.
3.3.3
Affichage des conflits et des risques (CRD)
D'une manière générale, 76 % des contrôleurs ont estimé que le CRD était "régulièrement" ou "parfois" utile, 13 % "rarement" utile et 7% "jamais" utile.
En ce qui concerne la validité des risques affichés, 41 % des contrôleurs ont répondu que
le CRD n'avait "jamais" ou que "rarement" présenté de risques "réels", 55 % qu'il présentait régulièrement des risques "réels" et 4 % qu'il présentait toujours des risques "réels".
Les contrôleurs ont insisté sur le nombre de faux conflits générés et ont fait observer que,
dans un système opérationnel, seuls les conflits réels, et non les conflits potentiels,
devraient être affichés.
Ils ont également indiqué que, en cas d'affichage de plus de 2 paires d'aéronefs, il était
difficile de corréler les symboles graphiques avec les aéronefs concernés.
3.3.4
Fenêtre d'assistance verticale (VAW)
Selon les contrôleurs, la VAW n'est pas un outil utile, l'affichage étant considéré comme
non convivial, trop grand pour l'écran et peu fiable pour l'indication des conflits réels.
3.3.5
Liste des secteurs, arrivées, départs, vols militaires et autres types de liste.
Pendant les séances de débriefing, les contrôleurs ont déclaré qu'ils préféraient la SIL,
88 % d'entre eux ayant été à même de sélectionner le format dont ils avaient besoin.
La liste des départs est jugée plus utile que la liste des arrivées, laquelle affiche tous les
vols entrant dans l'espace aérien CCF. Les données affichées sont les mêmes dans les
secteurs CW et CE et incluent donc des vols qui ne vont pas nécessairement pénétrer
dans le secteur.
Cet amalgame a été source de confusion pour les contrôleurs CE et CW, selon lesquels
la liste des arrivées ne sera utile que si elle affiche des informations propres au secteur
CW ou CE.
Il ressort du tableau ci-dessous que 78 % des contrôleurs militaires jugent la liste des vols
militaires toujours ou parfois utile, et que, pour 75 % d'entre eux, les informations affichées
sont "toujours" classées conformément à leurs besoins.
Les contrôleurs militaires ont également suggéré d'y inclure l'heure estimée d'atterrissage.
3.3.6
90
Détection des conflits à moyen terme (MTCD)
Pendant les séances de débriefing, les contrôleurs ont déclaré qu'ils appréciaient l'outil
MTCD lorsque celui-ci fonctionnait sans erreur. En effet, il est arrivé que le système génère
de faux conflits ou n'affiche pas les vrais conflits.
EUROCONTROL
Les contrôleurs étaient tous d'accord pour affirmer que l'outil devait être fiable à 100 %
pour être pleinement utile. Certains d'entre eux ont jugé que le volume d'informations
affichées était trop important.
3.3.7
STCA
Comme pour la MTCD, la plupart des contrôleurs ont déclaré que l'outil était utile s'il ne
commettait pas d'erreurs ; tous étaient d'accord pour affirmer qu'il devait être fiable à
100 % avant d'être mis en service opérationnel.
3.3.8
Avertisseur de proximité de zone protégée (APW)
L'APW avertissait les contrôleurs, deux minutes à l'avance, par un signal visuel, de la
pénétration imminente d'un aéronef civil dans un volume réservé de l'espace aérien militaire.
L'assignation d'un CFL au-dessus de la zone réservée suspendait l'alerte APW, sauf
lorsque l'aéronef descendait au-dessous dudit CFL.
L'alerte s'affichait sur l'écran de contrôle au moyen des lettres APW en Jaune dans
l'étiquette de piste ; toutefois, en cas d'alerte STCA simultanée, cette dernière avait la
priorité.
L'alerte disparaissait lorsque l'aéronef quittait le volume réservé d'espace aérien.
L'APW était désactivée pour les vols militaires.
3.3.9
Conclusion
Pendant les séances de débriefing, les contrôleurs ont affirmé que l'APW était un outil
utile, pour autant qu'il soit fiable et précis.
Objectif 4:
Développer et évaluer, au centre de contrôle régional (CCR) et de contrôle
d'approche (APP) de Varsovie, une fonction de répartition des tâches entre contrôleurs organique et radariste, au moyen d'un nouveau système doté d'une HMI
orientée objet, d'une fonction d'échange de données en ligne, de la coordination
automatisée (SYSCO) et de la coordination civile-militaire automatisée.
3.4.
3.4.1
Attribution de tâches aux contrôleurs
Pour les besoins de la simulation et à titre de référence, le CEE a fourni une liste
générique des tâches des contrôleurs PLC et EXC.
En outre, le groupe de travail PATA et le CEE ont mis au point une procédure de transfert
des vols d'un secteur à l'autre, sans coordination individuelle.
On trouvera, dans le Manuel des contrôleurs 'Pologne 99' du CEE, des informations
détaillées sur la liste des tâches et la procédure de transfert entre secteurs.
La liste de tâches a été fournie à titre indicatif uniquement et les contrôleurs ont été
invités à l'amender en tant que de besoin et à indiquer, le cas échéant, de nouvelles
tâches.
91
EUROCONTROL
Les contrôleurs ont déclaré que la liste générique de tâches était utile. Ici encore, toutefois, ils n'ont pu, faute de temps, procéder à une évaluation complète des procédures, ni
définir précisément d'autres attributions des contrôleurs en matière d'utilisation des outils
du système. Parfois les deux contrôleurs ont saisi des données ou se sont chargés
d'interagir avec les champs de saisie de données de la liste et des étiquettes. Toutefois,
la majorité des contrôleurs ont affirmé que cela ne les empêchait pas, d'une manière
générale, de travailler en équipe. Seulement 2% des contrôleurs ont affirmé qu'ils étaient
rarement capables de travailler en équipe et que la définition des rôles PLC et EXC, telle
qu'elle est proposée, ne leur permettait "jamais" de le faire.
D'autres procédures permettant la coordination silencieuse et le transfert de vols d'un
secteur à l'autre ont été développées. Les méthodes d'exploitation actuellement en
vigueur en Pologne sont fondées sur la coordination individuelle des vols. Pour évaluer la
nouvelle technique, le groupe de travail PATA a décidé de limiter le nombre de secteurs
appliquant la procédure de transfert silencieux, ce qui a rendu possible la comparaison
entre les secteurs qui utilisent la nouvelle procédure et ceux qui continuent à appliquer la
coordination individuelle.
D'une manière générale, les contrôleurs (65 %) ont estimé que la répartition des tâches
n'était pas claire, ce qui a conduit, dans certains cas, à un déséquilibre, voire à une
répétition des tâches.
La liste des tâches PLC et EXC a été jugée utile comme référence pour l'évaluation, par
les contrôleurs, des modifications futures éventuelles de leurs attributions. Les nouvelles
procédures ATC de transfert entre secteurs ont permis de réduire la charge de travail de
coordination entre les secteurs concernés.
Recommandation
La définition claire des attributions PLC et EXC et de la répartition des tâches nécessite
un complément d'étude et de développement. Il conviendrait de définir et d'appliquer,
dans toute la mesure possible, de nouveaux accords et de nouvelles procédures de
transfert des vols entre secteurs.
Echange de données en ligne (OLDI) et coordination automatisée (SYSCO)
3.4.2
Conclusions
Les contrôleurs ont indiqué que la coordination électronique, plus rapide que la communication verbale conventionnelle, a réduit leur charge de travail, ce qui leur a laissé plus de
temps pour les tâches de surveillance et de contrôle. En réponse à la question "la co-ordination électronique vous a-t-elle aidé dans vos tâches ATC par rapport au système polonais
existant ?", 80 % des contrôleurs ont répondu "toujours", "régulièrement" ou "parfois". 79 %
d'entre eux considèrent que la charge de travail que leur impose l'actualisation du système
est largement compensée par la qualité des résultats obtenus.
Les fenêtres de messages In/Out permettent aux contrôleurs d'avoir accès aux messages
de coordination automatisée. Les fenêtres permettent de proposer des modifications aux
plans de vol, d'accepter ou de rejeter des propositions de coordination et de saisir des
contre-propositions.
D'une manière générale, les contrôleurs apprécient les fenêtres de messages, 52 %
d'entre eux déclarant toutefois qu'ils ratent parfois l'affichage initial des données dans la
fenêtre. Dans l'ensemble, ils n'ont éprouvé aucune difficulté à interpréter ou à comprendre
les messages, dont l'émetteur n'était cependant pas toujours facile à identifier.
92
EUROCONTROL
Recommandations
Les contrôleurs ont recommandé ce qui suit en vue de l'amélioration de la coordination
automatisée :
!
!
!
!
3.4.3
possibilité de réaliser la coordination avec le secteur en amont et plusieurs secteurs
en aval ;
utilisation de couleurs différentes pour les fenêtres In/Out ;
instauration d'un menu "surgissant" pour sélectionner le secteur suivant ;
possibilité de coordonner des routes directes vers n'importe quel point de l'espace
aérien et vers un point situé dans une FIR/UIR adjacente.
Coordination civile-militaire
Une fonctionnalité spécifique de coordination, compatible avec le concept EATCHIP
d'"utilisation flexible de l'espace aérien", permettait aux contrôleurs militaires d'assurer la
coordination avec les secteurs du contrôle civil pour les demandes de croisement des
voies aériennes. La procédure utilisée dans la simulation a été simplifiée pour limiter les
risques.
La coordination civile-militaire a fonctionné exceptionnellement bien dans la simulation
Pologne 99. Tous les contrôleurs civils et militaires qui ont participé à la simulation étaient
conscients de l'importance de leurs besoins opérationnels respectifs et ont déclaré que la
coordination civile-militaire était très utile.
Les contrôleurs tant civils que militaires se sont montrés extrêmement coopératifs en
toutes circonstances et ont fait preuve d'un degré élevé de professionnalisme.
Ils ont unanimement reconnu l'utilité de la fonction de coordination et déclaré que la mise
en œuvre de ce système et de ces méthodes de travail fondées sur le concept FUA serait
avantageuse pour tous.
L'un des facteurs importants qui a permis aux contrôleurs civils et militaires de fonctionner plus efficacement que dans le système opérationnel actuel était l'application de
normes, de mesures et de procédures communes.
Les contrôleurs ont préconisé plusieurs mesures pour améliorer la coordination
civile-militaire :
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
il devrait être possible de coordonner des "blocs de niveaux" pour les aéronefs en
montée ou descente ;
il faudrait plus de deux points de croisement ;
les contrôleurs civils devraient pouvoir faire des contre-propositions ;
possibilité de négocier les niveaux ;
possibilité d'assurer la coordination avec plus d'un secteur civil en une seule
coordination ;
possibilité de "forcer" les informations sur l'écran du contrôleur militaire qui prend en
charge un aéronef civil quittant l'espace aérien contrôlé pour atterrir sur un aérodrome
militaire ;
dispositions réglementaires précisant dans quel délai la demande doit être introduite ;
utilisation de la couleur pour distinguer les approbations ou contre-propositions.
Recommandations
Il conviendrait d'adopter des normes, pratiques et équipements ATC communs pour tirer
pleinement parti de la coordination civile-militaire.
93
EUROCONTROL
Objectif 5 :
3.5
Évaluer, d'un point de vue opérationnel et économique (rapport coût- avantage),
l'incidence des routes d'arrivée RNAV (STAR RNAV) et des procédures ATC y associées - y compris, le cas échéant des procédures en vol - sur le centre de Varsovie.
CONCLUSIONS PROVISOIRES
On notera avec satisfaction la coopération qui s'est instaurée entre les contrôleurs, les
pilotes de la LOT et les pseudo-pilotes du CEE pendant ces évaluations. Les commentaires
émis lors des séances de débriefing se sont révélés particulièrement précieux.
Comme il a été dit auparavant, ces conclusions seront complétées par un volume important de données que collationne le CEE, mais il ressort des résultats obtenus jusqu'ici que
la simulation a été très utile en ce qu'elle a permis aux services ATS d'augmenter leurs
connaissances et leur expérience en matière d'opérations RNAV.
On escompte que ces résultats, combinés à ceux des autres simulations (Bulgaria 99,
Bulrom 99 et Roumanie 99), constitueront une source précieuse d'informations sur
laquelle l'Équipe de travail TARA pourra se fonder pour formuler ses recommandations
à l'ANT quant à l'utilisation future de la RNAV dans l'espace aérien terminal.
Objectif 6 :
Exposer autant de contrôleurs que possible à la HMI et aux fonctionnalités du
nouveau système
3.6
Un nombre important de contrôleurs polonais – plus de 50 - ont participé à la simulation
Pol'99 et ont pu se familiariser avec la nouvelle HMI et les nouvelles procédures.
L'expérience et les connaissances ainsi acquises aideront la direction de la PATA à
définir les systèmes et procédures ATC futurs.
94
Objectif 7 :
3.7
EUROCONTROL
"Réaliser une première évaluation du nouveau concept opérationnel civil-militaire
et du concept d'utilisation flexible de l'espace aérien (FUA).
L'application simulée du concept d'utilisation flexible de l'espace aérien a constitué un
élément extrêmement réussi de la présente simulation, et ce d'autant plus qu'il était
encore amélioré par la coordination civile-militaire électronique. Les deux principaux
πfacteurs qui ont contribué à l'efficacité de la coordination civile-militaire et des principes
FUA étaient les suivants :
!
!
présence de contrôleurs civils et militaires habitués à utiliser des normes et des
unités de mesures communes (niveaux de vol, nœuds, pieds et milles nautiques) ;
tous les vols militaires simulés étaient équipés de transpondeurs et du mode C.
Recommandation
Pour maximiser les avantages du concept FUA et de la coordination civile-militaire
électronique, les autorités ATS civiles et militaires devraient utiliser des normes, des
équipements et des unités de mesure communes.
95

EUROCONTROL

Transcription

Documents pareils

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 24 au 30 octobre 2011

4228 Holland Dr Des Moines, IA 50310 | Home for Sale | Real

Halton Hills Village, Georgetown - FEB 9-16

master de communication internationale - Univ

“What We Stand to Lose” Poster Lesson Plans

mounto daballo – 2014

January 18, 2007

COUNSELORS IN THE ADOLESCENT DRUG SCENE

Education Outreach Programme – The study of

Jacksonville State University College of Arts and Sciences Updated