DIS/ATD ASA Programme/ [email protected] Conflict Detection and Resolution Automated Support To ATS Programme FAA/EUROCONTROL TIM 6 Memphis,

DIS/ATDASA Programme/ [email protected]

Conflict Detection and Resolution

Automated Support To ATS ProgrammeFAA/EUROCONTROL TIM 6 Memphis, 19-21.10.1999

FAA/EUROCONTROL TIM 6; 19-21.10. 1999

ASA PROGRAMME; E-MAIL: [email protected] DIS/ATD

Today

Short introduction to Automated Support to ATS Programme (ASA)

Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD) Conflict Resolution Assistant



Automated Support to ATSProgramme

ASA



Operational improvement

Expected improvements: use of automated tools to assist the controller in planning and

tactical decision making redistribution of control tasks within sector teams or a control

centre transfer of some separation tasks to cockpit



Implementation

Implementation dates do not always need to be identical throughout ECAC area

Two types of implementation must be exploited in the Strategy: Initial Operation Capability (IOC) - to provide early benefits for

the stakeholders. (perhaps in 2004-2006) Full Operational Capability (FOC) - achieved when all of the

ATM units expected to implement an improvement are able to do so. (around 2007-2015)



Automation levels

Initial automation controllers’ routine tasks that provide information for decision

making

Enhanced automation improves controllers’ problem detection and resolution

activities integration of information management to support decision

making



Automated Support to ATS

ASA Programme 1999 - 2008 Operational Requirements and Functional Specifications Feasibility and Cost-Benefits Algorithms, Demonstrators



ASA Functionality

Arrival and Departure Management Medium Term Conflict Detection Conflict Resolution Assistant Safety Nets

Short Term Conflict Alert Minimum Safe Altitude Warning Area Proximity Warning

Improved information management Multi-Sector Planning

e.g. Traffic Load Smoother, Trajectory Editing



Conflict detection and resolution

Is the core task of ATC Facilitated now by strictly constraint procedures (e.g. fixed-

route networks) This will change with free routes/free flights concepts



Medium Term Conflict Detection

MTCD

“I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.”



EATCHIP Phase III MTCD

Is a planning tool and does not lend itself easily to tactical controller use although modification is possible

detection is only done on the planned trajectory (and all updates), tactical trajectory as a separate entity from the planned trajectory, was not considered

algorithms are based on geometric detection, uncertainty is modelled separately and taken into account within the MTCD

detection is done based on segments that are derived from the trajectory data

Amsterdam ACOD as a basis



Some problems with trajectory

How to close an open trajectory? intermediary Cleared Flight Level (climb and descent) heading instructions speed instructions

How to ensure that ATC clearances are in the system? How to model uncertainty and transfer

Perhaps there is a need for two separate trajectories; planning trajectory and tactical trajectory?



MTCD tools

{Compilation of Pictures of

MTCD simulation tools here

Talk to Bob}



EATCHIP 3 simulationsPhase 1

Create HMI baseline

Phase 2SYSCO&Civil/Mil

Phase 3MONAMTCDSNET

Phase 4AMAN

EATCHIP IIIDemonstrator

STD

FS

OR/FS

OR

Results

Results

Results

Review

Review

Spring 97

ReviewWinter 1998/99



EATCHIP-3 MTCD context

MTCD

ControllerWorkingPosition

Ground FDP

Air FDP

Human/MachineInterface

Conflict data

Conflict dataController settings

Conflict detectionengine

Uncertaintyengine

Trajectory

State Vector

Flight data

CORBAwrapper



MTCD Simulations in Brétigny

November 1998 Problems with trajectory prediction and clarity of concept of

operation Controllers had some problems in accepting MTCD tools

December 1999 New trajectory predictor New concept of operations Display of context aircraft New/updated HMI tools



Conflict Resolution Assistant

CORA



CORA Project

One of ASA activities Addresses all three levels of CORA functionality Project Organisation

Operational Requirements and Data Processing Team (strategy)

ASA Programme Steering Group (action plans) CORA Advisory Task Force(work plans and technical

consultation)

Project runs from now until about 2008

“Whenever things sound easy, it turns out there's one part you didn't hear.” -Donald E. Westlake ...



Conflict resolution phases

CORA tools will have to provide assistance to controllers resolution of the following tasks: Planning Resolution implementation Conflict monitoring and re-assessment Conflict situation review



Resolution phases

Plan

Implement

Monitor

Review

Co-ordinate

Communicate



CORA Performance levels

CORA-1 display of detailed and filtered conflict data, provide what-if-probing and input of the resolution as a new basis for the system trajectory

CORA-2 filtered resolution advisories in addition to the basic capability

CORA-3 use of trajectory negotiation capabilities (ground-ground and

air-ground) for optimum resolutions and implementation of the resolutions, decisions in the cockpit



what-if-probing for the controller resolutions CORA 1 :

controller creates resolutions CORA provides data filtering on controller request, what-if-

tools, trajectory manipulation and automatic system updates

CORA 2 CORA provides ranked advisories controller selects form a list OR creates own resolutions

CORA 3: automatic implementation of some resolutions ground-ground and air-ground trajectory negotiation

Man/Machine task sharing



Resolution context

Trajectory

Uncertainty

Conflict detection

Separation standards

Flight plan

Controller orders

Weather

Aircraft performance

Flow restrictions

CORA constraints

Resolution advisories



CORA-2 advisory generation

Analyses the predicted conflict situations for a planned or tactical trajectory

Decides on the resolution strategy who to move how to move when to move

Provides solutions for a conflict Ranks the solutions based on their quality Generates an advisory to the operator

appropriate centre/sector



Solutions

Ranked in descending order based on their “goodness” “Goodness” is based on criteria e.g. such as:

least track miles least cost least relative inconvenience, etc

Say 0-3 solutions per conflict All solutions are based on minimum manoeuvre principle



Planning Horizons

0-5 min 5-20 min 20-x min

•Balance traffic load between the sectors•Reduce traffic complexity to:

–reduce number of potential conflicts, –reduce the number of required unplanned subsequent actions or –simplify subsequent actions

•Optimise individual trajectories

•Implement control actions planned for this horizon•Plan actions to resolve those conflicts considered worth solving or that can be solved without ATC involvement later (4D aircraft, co-ordination)•Prepare resolutions for some conflicts (e.g. within high complexity situations)•Negotiate trajectory modifications with concerned flights and adjacent MSP areas through data-link

•Implement resolutions planned and indicated by other actors •Resolve unresolved or new (i.e. unforeseen) conflicts•Monitor traffic situation•Manage the R/T communications

•Tools:•Conflict Probe / Linear prediction•Tactical conflict resolution•Context filtering•STCA, MSAW, APW •Tools:

•Conflict Probe / Trajectory prediction•Trajectory editing•Conflict resolution

•Tools:•Trajectory prediction•Traffic Load Smoother•Trajectory editing•Conflict resolution



Possible levels of automation

No assistance from the computer

Complete set of advisories (action alternatives)

A ‘filtered’ set of alternatives offered

Only one advisory is offered

Computer executes the suggestion if the controller approves it

Allows a restricted time (countdown) for the controller to veto before executing automatically

Computer executes automatically and always informs the controller

Computer executes automatically and informs controller if asked

Computer executes automatically and decides to inform controller

Computer decides and executes automatically ignoring the controller



Possible levels of automation

– No assistance from the computer

– Complete set of advisories (action alternatives)

– A ‘filtered’ set of alternatives offered

– Only one advisory is offered

– Computer executes the suggestion if the controller approves it

– Allows a restricted time (countdown) for the controller to veto before executing automatically

– Computer executes automatically and always informs the controller

– Computer executes automatically and informs controller if asked

– Computer executes automatically and decides to inform controller

– Computer decides and executes automatically ignoring the controller

WorkloadAwareness

Faith



Some open questions (1)

How far will we go and with what time-frame? Level of automation Implementation dates

Enhanced planning process – How to transfer responsibility between tactical and planing controllers?

Provide CORA assistance also to tactical controller (VERA, same tool)?

What makes up the complexity of a conflict? Number of aircraft? Context or resolution options? Or difficulty in

delivery of solution?




How does the AOC/aircraft interact with CORA? Or do they? Feedback aircraft capability, route preference and company/aircraft

operating procedures to controller when taking problem/optimisation resolution decisions?

Is there a need for a core algorithm to assure fairness to all operators and service providers?

Or are individual flights monitored to ensure that they are fairly treated?

Gate to gate considerations? CORA should ideally work from the departure planning phase providing,

if possible, a basis for a conflict free trajectory that does not need holding in the air?




Is CORA Sector, Centre (I.e. multi-sector) or multi-Centre function? System-wide optimisation – CORA without sector or centre constraints?

Impact of automated co-ordination between ground / ground and air / ground with the controller out of the loop?

How to take account of TP uncertainty? Use the output of conflict algorithm to propose a default behaviour

based on what a controller is doing (could be used to closed the trajectory e.g. radar heading with anticipation of return to navigation)?

System failure - what does this mean and how is it handled? Safeguards to cater for fallback - beware that we cannot limit the system to procedural fallback.




Controller needs to understand the system processes. Skills will need to evolve or be modified

Define situation awareness

Modifying the controller’s skill-set is an issue to be addressed

Evolution towards single controller sectors (mixed planning and tactical tasks) with move towards supporting multi sector planning concept?

Airspace sector concept - a mix of actors operating in the same volume? Is the one-controller one-airspace concept outlived its usefulness?

Issues in moving CORA to the cockpit - responsibility and certification?

Documents

DIS/ATD ASA Programme/ [email protected] Conflict Detection and Resolution Automated Support To ATS Programme FAA/EUROCONTROL TIM 6 Memphis,