Joint 5 th ASAS TN2 Workshop & 2 nd FLYSAFE Forum Toulouse, 17 - 19 September 2007 Project Manager: José Miguel De Pablo (AENA) Air Navigation System Development

Joint 5th ASAS TN2 Workshop & 2nd FLYSAFE Forum

Toulouse, 17 - 19 September 2007

Project Manager: José Miguel De Pablo

(AENA)Air Navigation System Development Division

C/ Josefa Valcárcel, 30. Building Merrimack IVTel (+34) 91 321 34 73

Fax (+34) 91 321 31 20

[email protected]

Reduced Separation Minima

Presented by: Alan R. GroskreutzRESET Technical Manager+34 91 321 [email protected]



General Information

Project Duration: 30/10/2006 – 30/10/2009

Consortium: Aena INECO AUEB-RC/TRANSLOG

BRTE ISDEFE SENASA

ECORYS LFV SICTA

ERC NERL HONEYWELL

FTTE NLR FAA (non-compensated participant)

Overall Objective: Identify which safe and feasible separation minima reductions help enable a “x2” traffic growth over Europe.



Specific Objectives

• Derive from the “x2 traffic load over Europe”, a set of separation minima targets for the various phases of a gate-to-gate operation.

• Identify gaps in enabling the “x2” in the C-ATM Phase 1, SESAR, OPTIMAL, TBS, and EMMA projects.

• Develop a qualitative (and quantitative where possible) model to capture rationale of existing and future separation minima standards.

• Develop high-level advanced operational concepts which complement existing European initiatives to enable reduced separation minima.



Specific Objectives (cont.)• Identify, in collaboration with ICAO, EUROCONTROL, the FAA,

ANSPS and national regulators how to accomplish the change for the modified separation minima.

• Prioritize and select (at least) three potential separation minima reductions for detailed efficiency, timeline and economic assessment.

• Identify and apply methods to assess safety and cost-effectiveness of (at least) three selected separation minima reductions.

• Feed back the outcome of the safety and economy assessments towards the operational concept designers.

• Disseminate the RESET developed process of change across the ATM community.



Changes, Benefits, and Status• Changes to Current System

– Reduced separation minima in 3 flight phases– Document listing separation minima and associated rationale– Separation Minima Budget Model

• Expected Benefits– Increased Capacity– Facilitate future separation reductions through use of model and

rationale document– Initiate process of changing separation minima

• Current Status of Project– Analyzing required impacts on selected en-route, TMA, and airport– Compiled list of standards used (ICAO and non-ICAO)– Developing Ops. concepts for target year(2020)– Developing prioritization model and safety and economic/efficiency

analysis methodologies



RESET Technical Process• Set Goals and Choose Standards and Locations

• Collate List of Separation Standards

• Document Rationale for Standards

• Create Separation Model

• Prioritize Separation Reductions

• Define Future Operational Scenario and Safety Case

• Economic and Efficiency Analysis



Goal Setting• Set goal of handling twice current traffic

– Original goal of x3 didn’t align with operational/demand forecasts for 2020

– x3 came from 2020 predictions written in 2000– 2x 2005 traffic demand similar to 3x 2000 traffic– Using peak-hour, rather than daily, traffic was also a factor for

choosing x2

• Factors for choice of locations– Cases were selected using latest available forecasted traffic demand

for 2020, resulting in a bit less than x2, and taking into account:• Highest factor increase• Highest absolute resulting traffic demand• Difficulty to increase capacity• Availability of necessary information to develop the required WP1 tasks.



Locations for implementation analysis

• Selected En-route case is Karlsruhe UAC: – Absolute forecasted traffic demand, 6988 ops/day– Traffic increase 2020 (percentage) 76%– Difficulty to increase capacity. Already optimized in size, and

located in one of the most dense traffic flows in Europe

• Selected TMA and Airport cases are Madrid/Barajas: – Absolute forecasted traffic demand, 2537 ops/day– Traffic increase 2020 (percentage) 86%– Difficulty to increase capacity– Not densest TMA, but traffic data available in time allowed– Airport demand predictions surpass current operational

limits



Separation Change Options:

• En-Route– Current 5NM horizontal sep. (ICAO 4444 8.7.4.1) will

accommodate x2 – No change required

• TMA– Between FL165 and FL85, reduce the horizontal separation

minimum to 2.8NM– Between FL85 and FL25, reduce the horizontal separation

minimum to 1.9NM– Possible additions

• ASAS/RNAV based 3NM TMA separation minima (lateral, SID/STAR, and longitudinal)

• 4NM, 5NM and 6NM wake turbulence separation minima



Separation Change Options: Airport

• 1. Wake Turbulence – Arrivals

• 2. Wake Turbulence – Departures

P3 Trailing aircraft

Leading aircraft

Final approach HEAVY LARGE MEDIUM LIGHT

HEAVY 4.0 / 3.0 NM 5.0 / 3.0 NM 5.0 / 3.0 NM 6.0 / 5.0 NM

LARGE 4.0 / 3.0 NM 5.0 / 3.0 NM 5.0 / 3.0 NM 6.0 / 5.0 NM

MEDIUM 3.0 / 2.0 NM 3.0 / 2.0 NM 3.0 / 2.0 NM 5.0 / 4.0 NM

LIGHT 3.0 / 2.0 NM 3.0 / 2.0 NM 3.0 / 2.0 NM 3.0 / 2.0 NM

T2 Preceding aircraft

Following

aircraft

Departures HEAVY LARGE MEDIUM

HEAVY 2.0 / 1.5 min 2.0 / 1.5 min --

LARGE 2.0 / 1.5 min 2.0 / 1.5 min --

MEDIUM 2.0 / 1.5 min 2.0 / 1.5 min --

LIGHT 2.0 / 2.0 min 2.0 / 2.0 min 2.0 / 1.5 min




• 3. Distance between runway centerline for parallel independent approaches:– Operating parallel runways, whose separation is (1310)

between 1035 meters and 915 meters, as independent approaches.

• 4. Distance between alternate approaching aircraft for parallel dependent runways:

2.0 / 1.5 NM



Separation Change Options: Airport• Runway Occupancy

FROM: Except as provided when some reduction of separation minima can be prescribed, a landing aircraft will not normally be permitted to cross the runway threshold on its final approach until the preceding departing aircraft has crossed the end of the runway-in-use, or has started a turn, or until all preceding landing aircraft are clear of the runway-in-use.

To: Except as provided when some reduction of separation minima can be prescribed, a landing aircraft will not normally be permitted to cross the runway threshold on its final approach until the preceding departing aircraft is airborne, or until all preceding landing aircraft are clear of the 2400 meter line of the runway-in-use.

• This change assumes the runway is under favorable conditions (i.e. no snow, rain)




• Various other reductions are under consideration for inclusion to the list of options pending capacity increase analysis– Removal / reduction of 15º separation angle upon departure – Landing and Hold Short Operation (LAHSO) – Simultaneous landings on converging runways– Taxi In Position and Hold (TIPH)

• All options are goals to double capacity and will be analyized later in the project for feasibility and safety



Separation Standards ListICAOICAOEUROCONTROLEUROCONTROL FAAFAA

AUSTRALIAN REGULATION

AUSTRALIAN REGULATION

CANADIAN REGULATION

CANADIAN REGULATION

BRITISH REGULATION

BRITISH REGULATION

622 Separation Minima Standards registered: Aerodrome, Departure, Cruise, Arrival

References to documents with Foundations for SM Values were recorded.

Influencing factors were recorded (aerodynamics, Eqpt. precision, etc)

Auto-filtering, to "play" with the table and sort in several ways.

Assessment carried out to evaluate availability of foundations.

Criteria Check Analysis carried out to identify most relevant SM Standards for future work.



– Looking across different regulations brings out 9 weight classes

– Regulations analyzed do not discern between aircraft 162t to 600t MTOW

– This division amongst regulations allows the determination of the smallest minimum.

Wake Turbulence Separation DifferencesMTOW

Tons Weight Range2001891821751681621541471401361331261191151121051049891847770635649424035282118 17 < W < 18,617141075210

ICAO FAA UK 4 UK 5CARSCASR

Lig

ht

He

av

yM

ed

ium

Sm

all

40 < W < 104

18,6 < W < 40

7 < W < 17

W < 7

162 < W

136 < W < 162

115,7 < W < 136

104 < W < 115,7

He

av

yL

igh

tS

ma

llL

ow

er-

Me

diu

mU

pp

er-

Me

diu

mHe

av

yM

ed

ium

Sm

all

La

rge

He

av

y

Lig

ht



Wake Turbulence Separation Differences

Preceding Following ICAO Canadian Australian FAA UK 4 UK 5Minima of Minimas

162 < W 162 < W 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM162 < W 136 < W < 162 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 5 NM 4 NM162 < W 115,7 < W < 136 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 4 NM 5 NM 5 NM 4 NM162 < W 104 < W < 115,7 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM162 < W 40 < W < 104 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM162 < W 18,6 < W < 40 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 6 NM 5 NM162 < W 17 < W < 18,6 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 5 NM Examples: SM Could be:162 < W 7 < W < 17 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 8 NM 7 NM 5 NM A300-Saab340 5, 6, 7 or 8 NM162 < W W < 7 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 8 NM 7 NM 6 NM

136 < W < 162 162 < W 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM136 < W < 162 136 < W < 162 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 3 NM 3 NM136 < W < 162 115,7 < W < 136 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 4 NM 5 NM 3 NM 3 NM B767-B757 3, 4 or 5 NM136 < W < 162 104 < W < 115,7 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 3 NM 3 NM136 < W < 162 40 < W < 104 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 4 NM 4 NM136 < W < 162 18,6 < W < 40 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 4 NM 4 NM B767-Bae146 4, 5 or 6 NM136 < W < 162 17 < W < 18,6 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 6 NM 4 NM 4 NM136 < W < 162 7 < W < 17 5 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 8 NM 6 NM 5 NM136 < W < 162 W < 7 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 8 NM 6 NM 6 NM

115,7 < W < 136 162 < W 3 NM 4 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 136 < W < 162 3 NM 4 NM 3 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 115,7 < W < 136 3 NM 4 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 104 < W < 115,7 3 NM 5 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 40 < W < 104 3 NM 5 NM 3 NM 4 NM 3 NM B757-A320 3, 4 or 5 NM115,7 < W < 136 18,6 < W < 40 3 NM 5 NM 4 NM 4 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 17 < W < 18,6 3 NM 6 NM 4 NM 4 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 7 < W < 17 3 NM 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 3 NM115,7 < W < 136 W < 7 5 NM 4 NM 5 NM 6 NM 6 NM 6 NM 4 NM104 < W < 115,7 162 < W 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 136 < W < 162 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 115,7 < W < 136 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 104 < W < 115,7 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 40 < W < 104 3 NM 3 NM 3 NM 4 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 18,6 < W < 40 3 NM 3 NM 4 NM 4 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 17 < W < 18,6 3 NM 4 NM 4 NM 4 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 7 < W < 17 3 NM 4 NM 6 NM 6 NM 3 NM104 < W < 115,7 W < 7 5 NM 4 NM 5 NM 4 NM 6 NM 6 NM 4 NM B757-Cessna 4, 5 or 6 NM



Separation Foundations• Used Sep. Standards list and searched for rationale for given

minima

• Task in final stage, results mixed– Small percentage of documented foundations found– Confidentiality of Safety Cases a large factor

• Contributing factors (wind, surveillance, navigation eqpt., etc.) from the rationale will be used to create model

• Contributing factors will be given to developers of the safety case to ensure possible gaps are covered.

• Safety case developers will do the same for the model developers



Separation Minima Model(s)

• Model Form– formalise the relationship between each of the

contributing factors and their influence in the separation minima

– When possible, mathematical relationships between the various factors, and between the factors and separation minima will be established

– Qualitative relationships will be made when quantitative analysis cannot be determined Reynolds & Hansman

budgets•Model should be helpful to determine bottlenecks or priorities that should be addressed to optimize separation minima

•Approach proposed by Reynolds & Hansman considered very interesting as potential way to classify and group factors in different envelopes or separation budgets.



Future Scenarios (OSEDs and DODs)• Preliminary OSEDs have been collected and gaps identified

– Used elements from on-going EC and EUROCONTROL projects. – Considered current and future near-term ATM technologies. – Collected operational concepts identified in previous or current

projects.

• Integration of SESAR Operational Improvements – Recent change to better align with SESAR– RESET will work in conjunction with Episode III project – Will change to Detailed Operational Description (DOD) format

• Refinement– Feedback from the safety and HF assessments and the capacity

and economy assessments will be incorporated– Identify which technological developments are in need of further

development



Safety and HF Case

• Compliance– Safety Case will be fully compliant with ICAO and ESARR4– Will fill gaps not addressed by these requirements (i.e.

SESAR safety requirements)– Incorporate information from rationale and model building

work

• Change from Norm– Will assess Safety of a subset of separations prioritized by

other group– Preliminary assessment will be fed to OSED group for

further operational refinement



Closing Thoughts

• The model’s success is highly dependant upon learning from previous models successes and failures

• Documentation of separation minima rationale is necessary tool for any future assessments

• Implementing change has higher probability of succeeding if projects are coordinated (CREDOS, RESET, SUPERHIGHWAY, etc.)



Backup Slides



Graphical presentation of work packages

Exploitation and Dissemination

Efficiency andEconomy

Assessment

Safety and HF Case

ESSAR and ICAO SafetyAssessment

Results Prioritization

Future Scenario Definition

Separation Foundations

Goal Setting

T34

T34

T19

TBD

T12

T19

T30

T12

T24

T7

T19

T18

Separation Standards

T4 T6

1.1 0100

2.1 0500

1.2 0301

1.3 0301

1.4 0301

1.5 0403

2.2 0500

2.306

04

3.1 0704 3.2 10

07

3.3 1510

3.4 1815

4.1 0400

4.2 0704

4.3 1207

4.4 3428

5.1 1501

5.2 1915

5.3 3413

6.1 0600 6.2 32

07

7.0 3300

7.1 3312

7.228

14

7.3 2314

7.4 2315

7.524

13

7.6 2723

7.7 2827

7.8 3025

7.933

30

8.1 1202

8.2 2412 8.3 30

18

9.1 1609

9.2 3600 9.3 36

24

T4

T15

T30T28

T8.5

T30

11

2

1

3

3

T28 T30



WP 0.1: Co-ordination and Management WP 0.2: Reporting

WP 0Management

WP 1.1 -factor x3 WP 1.4 airport impactWP 1.2 en-route impact WP 1.5 consolidation WP 1.3 TMA impact

WP 2.1 - ICAO sep. st. WP 2.2 - other sep.stWP 2.3 - catalogue

WP 3.1 – foundations WP 3.3 – modelingWP 3.2 – sep. Budget WP 3.4 – sensitivity

WP4.1 - OSED collect. WP4.3.3 OSED TMAWP4.2 - Gap Ident. WP4.3.4 OSED airportWP4.3.1 OSED TBS WP4.4 - OSED refinmtWP4.3.2 OSED en-route

WP5.1 - methodologyWP5.2 – prioritisationWP5.3 – Integration of results from WP7&WP8

WP6.1 – meth. vs req.WP6.2 – gaps

WP7.0 manage WP7 WP7.5 HIL simulationWP7.1 manage case WP7.6 validationWP7.2 HF case WP7.7 mitigationWP7.3 hazard analysis WP7.8 safety&HF caseWP7.4 MC simulation WP7.9 WP7 report

WP 8.1 – methodologyWP 8.2 – effic &environWP 8.3 – economy

WP 9.1 – Pr. of Change WP 9–2 - DisseminationWP 9–3 - Final Reporting

WP 1Goal setting Development

WP2Separation standards

WP 3Separations foundations, budget

and contributing factors

WP 4Future Scenario Definition

WP5Prioritisation

WP 6ESSARR and ICAO Fully

compliant safety assessment

WP 7Safety and human factors case

WP8Efficiency and Economy

assessment

WP 9Exploitation and dissemination

Documents

Joint 5 th ASAS TN2 Workshop & 2 nd FLYSAFE Forum Toulouse, 17 - 19 September 2007 Project Manager: José Miguel De Pablo (AENA) Air Navigation System Development