Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP TT Reykjavik “NUP -- ITP”

MalmöSeptember. 27th 20055


NUP ITP

TT ReykjavikTT Reykjavik

““NUP -- ITP”NUP -- ITP”

TT ReykjavikTT Reykjavik

““NUP -- ITP”NUP -- ITP”



NUP ITP

NUP – 1, ITP

• Objectives» ASAS in Oceanic Procedural Airspace» Non Iceland Specific» No increase in HF communication load» Short duration

• Situation» 1999» Before P.O. ASAS definition

» No ASAS Spacing / Separation definitions» No Package 1 definition



NUP ITP

NUP – 1, ITP• Definition Team

» ATC Controller, Iceland CAA & Nav-Canada

» Pilots, SAS & Air Canada

• Applications» Pilot Delegated – Track Crossing Procedure

» Pilot Delegated – In-Trail Climb (ITC) & In-Trail Descent (ITD)

» Pilot Delegated Station Keeping In Oceanic Non-Radar Airspace.

» Pilot Delegated Movement between OTS Tracks.

» Pilot Delegated Lateral Passing Manoeuvres On OTS Tracks.



NUP ITP

NUP – 1, Application Selection• ITC / ITD (Later renamed ITP)

» Most significant benefit expected

» Simple to implement

» Short ASAS Duration

» In principle Level 3 / Separation Application



NUP ITP

The TrafficThe TrafficThe TrafficThe Traffic

Daily Traffic Daily Traffic Pattern highly Pattern highly cyclic:cyclic:

Approx. 12 Approx. 12 hour period hour period mostly west mostly west bound.bound.

Approx. 12 Approx. 12 hour period hour period mostly east mostly east bound.bound.

Daily Traffic Daily Traffic Pattern highly Pattern highly cyclic:cyclic:

Approx. 12 Approx. 12 hour period hour period mostly west mostly west bound.bound.

Approx. 12 Approx. 12 hour period hour period mostly east mostly east bound.bound.



NUP ITP



NUP ITP

NAT Frequency of Daily Flight Level Change

93,12%

6,48%

0,39% 0,02%

0,00%

0 - No Flight Changes

1 - One Flight Change

2 - Two FlightChanges

3 - Three FlightChanges

4 - Four FlightChanges



NUP ITP

This information is from the “Report of the NICE Task Force, The NAT/IMG Cost Effectiveness Program” from October 1999, in This information is from the “Report of the NICE Task Force, The NAT/IMG Cost Effectiveness Program” from October 1999, in which LIDO GmbH provided the above diagram, in it’s section on “LIDO Flight Planning”which LIDO GmbH provided the above diagram, in it’s section on “LIDO Flight Planning”

This information is from the “Report of the NICE Task Force, The NAT/IMG Cost Effectiveness Program” from October 1999, in This information is from the “Report of the NICE Task Force, The NAT/IMG Cost Effectiveness Program” from October 1999, in which LIDO GmbH provided the above diagram, in it’s section on “LIDO Flight Planning”which LIDO GmbH provided the above diagram, in it’s section on “LIDO Flight Planning”



NUP ITP

NUP – 2, ITP

• Objectives» Validation

» Pilot / Controller usability of application

» Controller workload issues

» Cost Benefit Issues» Benefit assessment

» Fast time simulation

• ITP sole solution to Operational Problem?» Ground automation



NUP ITP

PO-ASAS

• Need to align ITP to PO-ASAS Definitions» ATSAW, benefits

» RFG type, ATSAW type considered» Concerns with passing safety case

» Changes in separation criteria

» Need for Level 2 application» Not to be pushed to Package 2



NUP ITP

density at 47/30, NATG

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

12:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:00

time

FL

Air Space Utilization ?Air Space Utilization ?Air Space Utilization ?Air Space Utilization ?



NUP ITP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0:00 1:12 2:24 3:36 4:48 6:00 7:12 8:24 9:36

time

sepe

ratio

n in

min NATV

NATW

NATX

NATY

NATZ

NAT TRACKS EAST BOUND TRAFFIC



NUP ITP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

11:00 12:12 13:24 14:36 15:48 17:00 18:12 19:24 20:36 21:48

time

se

pe

ratio

n in

min

NATA

NATB

NATC

NATD

NATE

NATF

NATG

NATH

NAT TRACKS WEST BOUND TRAFFIC



NUP ITP



NUP ITP

OTS Aircraft Climb Possibility



NUP ITP



NUP ITP

A three day simulation december 2004A three day simulation december 2004A three day simulation december 2004A three day simulation december 2004

Day 1: base line scenarioDay 1: base line scenario Day 2: ITP, all aircraft equippedDay 2: ITP, all aircraft equipped Day 3: ITP, 80% equippedDay 3: ITP, 80% equipped

Day 1: base line scenarioDay 1: base line scenario Day 2: ITP, all aircraft equippedDay 2: ITP, all aircraft equipped Day 3: ITP, 80% equippedDay 3: ITP, 80% equipped



NUP ITP

Traffic: • real traffic from december 2002• 3 NAT tracks, A, B and C• No crossing traffic• Time of entering the airspace:

» From 11:30 to 18:00• Number of aircraft per track:

» A: 9» B: 49» C: 45



NUP ITP

Participants:• 4 controllers

» 1 female, 3 males

» Age: 28 – 38

» ATC experience: 2 – 8 years

• 2 pilots» Requesting clearances and accepting messages.



NUP ITP

The process:• Pilots asked for FL changes, both

standard and ITP requests• The controller accepted or rejected the

request• If clearance was issued the pilot would

accept through CPDLC if ITP or via voice if standard clearance.

• For ITP clearances, regular level reports throuch ADS-C



NUP ITP



NUP ITP



NUP ITP



NUP ITP



NUP ITP

Briefing and trainingBriefing and trainingBriefing and trainingBriefing and training

Performed by an air traffic controllerPerformed by an air traffic controller An easy adjustment to new proceduresAn easy adjustment to new procedures The working environment, FDPS and The working environment, FDPS and

situation display the same as used in the situation display the same as used in the Oceanic Area Control CenterOceanic Area Control Center

Performed by an air traffic controllerPerformed by an air traffic controller An easy adjustment to new proceduresAn easy adjustment to new procedures The working environment, FDPS and The working environment, FDPS and

situation display the same as used in the situation display the same as used in the Oceanic Area Control CenterOceanic Area Control Center



NUP ITP

Measurements:• ISA, during the simulation• NASA-TLX• Post run questionnaires• Work shop environment at the end of

each day• Data on when the sectors were splitted



NUP ITP

Main results:• Responsibility the main issue• Workload increases with ITP but not

significantly• Number of simultaneous ITP contracts for a

controller: 1 – 3• Easy adjustment to new procedures• Phraseology needs adjustment• Performance of ITP applicable within the

simulation environment• The controllers positive towards ITP



NUP ITP

NASA-TLX:

Scale Value WeightMental Demand 57.5 0.30Physical Demand 8.75 0Temporal Demand 41.25 0.28Performance 38.75 0.10Effort 46.25 0.17Frustration 42.5 0.15

Total Workload: 49.25



NUP ITP

Reykjavik SPACING In Trail ClimbReykjavik ITP

» HMI design and mockup evaluation

» Early safety considerations

Concept : The aircraft is responsible for ensuring spacing with designated traffic

=> Spacing application



NUP ITPSpacing In Trail Climb HMI

V E R T P A S S I N G

T G T F L M I N I M A S E P

F L 3 3 0 2 4 N M / 1 8 0 S EC

A A L 1 1 5 5

< 4 0 N M / F L 3 1 0 / 3 0 0 S E C

A F R 6 5 1 2

< 6 0 N M / F L 3 2 0 / 4 5 0 S E C

A Z A 5 5 7

< 8 5 N M / F L 3 3 0 / 6 3 7 S E C

F R O M / U P T O F U E L T I M E

1 0 3 5 / 1 0 5 0 - 3 . 4 - 2 2

R E T U R N A T C

< A S A S M E N U R EQ D I S P L *

AAL1255B767 H305 -10

AAL1255B767 H305 -10

AZA557 0.80 +30

AFR6512 0.80 +20

AAL11550.80 +10

MSG +

MSG -

DIM

BRT

PGE +

PGE -

PRINT

1 4 5 3 Z T O K Z A K C T L O P E N

R E Q U E S T C L I M B T O F L 3 3 0

F R O M / U P T O 1 0 3 5 / 1 0 5 0

V E R T P A S S I N G A / C

A A L 1 1 5 5

A F R 6 5 1 2

* C A N C E L M O D I F Y *

P G E

< O T H E R 1 / 2 S E N D *



NUP ITP

Spacing In Trail Climb : Conclusions

Results :» Automatic altitude changes rejected

» Pilot manual action on FCU is preferred (safety aspects)

» Phase of flight not heavy

» Computation by FMS of point of crossing with Flight Level» Would require significant FMS change

» Time opportunity window considered useful» Requires significant FMS change

» Alerts needed when spacing infringedSignificant changes required not justified by

Spacing ITC alone

Airbus push for In Trail Procedures based on ATSAW

ATSA-ITP developed at RFG



NUP ITP

NUP – 2, ITP Conclusions

• ITP» Simulation shows acceptable by controllers

• Spacing Application» Historical reasons for selecting

» Stepping stone into level 3 application

» No specific separation change required

» Spacing role not realistic

» 80% equipage - > acceptable nuisance



NUP ITP

NUP – 2, ITP Conclusions

• RFG Level 0,5 & 1,5 Application» Logical simplification of the NUP ITP

» Passing safety case

• ITP not sole means of solving problem» 30 / 30 affects (RVSM results)

» CPDLC usage already enabling an increase in actual climbs

Documents

Malmö 5 September. 27 th 2005 NUP ITP TT Reykjavik “NUP -- ITP”