Automation at airport: Remote Tower and i4d session

Marc Baumgartner, SESAR coordinator

SESAR ALIAS conference

New Aerodrome Tower concepts

An example: Remote tower operations

Future ATM • The whole ATM system will be performance based, and changes based on

performance cases (which includes safety cases).

• A high level of automation will be required in meeting the highest ATM performance requirements.

• Air Traffic control (reactive, tactical) will be replaced by Air Traffic Management (proactive, strategic).

• Management by Trajectory will form the basis of all controllers’ activities.

• Airspace will be dynamic (move around).

• UAV in non-segregated airspace.

• Less controllers needed

• Local/Regional Implementation– Airports will be controlled from a remote facility (virtual towers). – Completely automated separation provision.

ATM expectations/requirements of Aircraft operations

• Airport Operations

Before any Aerodrome Control Service Conceptcan be endorsed by IFATCA, the following requirements shall be met:

• The controller shall be provided with at least the same level of surveillance as currently provided by visual observation;

• The introduction of Aerodrome Control Service Concepts shall be subject to a fullsafety analysis and relevant safety levels shall be met;

• Contingency procedures shall be in place;• Controllers shall be involved in the development • of Aerodrome Control Service Concepts.

IFATCA policies

“A control tower shall afford an aerodrome controller with visual observation of the manoeuvring area. The use of CCTV equipment is onlyacceptable in cases where it supplementsvisual observation of limited portions of the manoeuvering area where:It provides the controller with at least the same level of surveillance;•Safety is demonstrated•Contingency procedures are in place;•The use of CCTV equipment is not used to mitigate airport expansion that will affect current visual observation of the manoeuvring area.

IFATCA policy

The layout of runways and taxiways and the provision of visual aids, should be such, as to enable simple and easily understood instructions to be issued and complied with. Where a separate apron management service is established, personnel engaged in issuing specific ground clearances, instructions and clearance delivery should be trained and licensed to exercise these functions.Surface Movement Surveillance Systems should be installed at all airfields where low visibility operations take place and its operation should be mandatory while these operations are in progress.Safeguards should be imposed to prohibit the development of any structure that would impede the direct visual observation from the tower.”

ROT I4D

TrajectoryKnow & share the

current and planned a/c positions

A320

Future

Trajectory management (4-D) - THE MAGICAL SOLUTION

Trajectory management 1/3

• Background – Always been 4-d – Free flight

• As free as the other community member can cope with it

– Long – haul flights

• User-preferred strategy and user separation– In place for years (restricted by separation

needs)

• Fix – flex – no tracks (routes)

Trajectory management 2/3

• ATM trajectory – FMS "trajectory" not the same as ATM

• ATM based on airspace user trajectory + tolerance (freedom of flight tolerance)

• Freedom of flight tolerance – Moving airspace

• oceanic flight in low density operations. The ATM trajectory will provide a large volume around that aircraft, for example allowing the aircraft to change levels or reduce speed due un-forecast turbulence, divert left or right of track around weather, etc. without reference to ATM – provided that the aircraft remains within the “freedom of flight tolerances”.

– Limited in time due crossing – Continental airspace

• Continuous Descent or Climb Operations• Circumnavigate CB – weather

Trajectory management 3/3 • Trajectory contract

-Agreement for airspace users - time and location (within freedom-of tolerance)

-Allows strategic conflict management -Modifiable

-Demand and capacity balance -Weather -Operators request

-Time was always there - PREDICT – CONTRACT (including weather)

QUESTIONS: •Who is responsible for the decisions of automation •Who is responsible in case of failure (redundancy), taking into account that impact of failure is/might be more damaging •COTS (commercial off the shelf) and certification? •ATCOs will decide on scenarios proposed by WHAT IF tools

what happens if ATCO will override the machine or machine overrides ATCO •Delegation of separation

Can the system be held liable? What if an aircraft looses it's precision functions What if something is not working according to scenario brake and vacate does not work, longer runway occupancy

•Which state will be responsible in case of an accidentA German ATCO controlling the flow of traffic (scenario based) from Scandinavia to Spain (accident happens over France)

•Who controls the system (fully automated/remote tower) of system •Who looks out of the tower? •There is a lot of prospective work from a legal point of view needed already now in the development phase of SESAR and NEXTGEN

Safety will become an inherent property of the system Delegation of separation Automation of separation No more sovereign airspace in the ATM management Failure will have a bigger destruction power (network effect)Design will have to cater for the end result ARE WE (as Aviation community) ready for it?

Grazie

www.ifatca.orgSesar.coord@ifatca.org