ATC and their view on ROT by Marc Baumgartner
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
0 gostou•777 visualizações
If you are interested in the topic please register to the ALIAS network: http://network.aliasnetwork.eu/ to download other materials and get information about the ALIAS project (www.aliasnetwork.eu).
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais de ALIAS Network
Mais de ALIAS Network (20)
Último
Último (20)
ATC and their view on ROT by Marc Baumgartner
- 1. SESAR ALIAS conference Automation at airport: Remote Tower and i4d session Marc Baumgartner, SESAR coordinator
- 2. New Aerodrome Tower concepts An example: Remote tower operations
- 4. 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.
- 5. ATM expectations/requirements of Aircraft operations • Airport Operations
- 6. IFATCA policies Before any Aerodrome Control Service Concept can 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 full safety 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.
- 7. IFATCA policy “A control tower shall afford an aerodrome controller with visual observation of the manoeuvring area. The use of CCTV equipment is only acceptable in cases where it supplements visual 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.
- 8. 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.”
- 9. I4D ROT
- 10. Trajectory management (4-D) - THE MAGICAL SOLUTION Future A320 Trajectory Know & share the current and planned a/c positions
- 11. 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)
- 12. 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
- 13. 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)
- 14. 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 accident •A 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?
Notas do Editor
- IFATCA has been involved in the establishment of the Global Air traffic management operational concept and we have produced a statement on the future of ATM, which is explaining the Global Air Traffic Management Concept to our membership – but as well to all interested stakeholders in aviation.
- Airport Ops Airport operations reflect what is occurring in terminal and en-route, however there will be much adjustment of sequences due to the greater number and greater consequences of uncontrollable factors. Auto-land and Auto-take-off will be common to achieve predictability of performance and minimisation of environment impacts. (If not auto-land or auto-take-off then increased automation support for the pilot to achieve precise departure and arrival trajectories with minimal environmental impacts.) Use of intersection departures and nominated runway exits on landed will be common to maximise aerodrome capacity. Synthetic visual aids will maintain high movement rates in low visibility operations. Surface vehicles, especially those operating on runways and taxiways, may be subject to their own version of trajectory control.
- Is it really so magic as everybody believes: IFATCA in it's statement on the future of Global ATM is stating in the introduction that “ The proposed solution to addressing the safety, environment, capacity, flexibility and efficiency needs of the future ATM is: 1. The Airspace User shall plan their preferred 4-D trajectory, and, 2. The ATM system will modify that trajectory to the minimum extent possible. The difficulty with the proposed solution is that most of the states and service providers consider this is what they have always done, and are still doing today!”
- Air Navigation (and therefore Air Traffic Control which was designed to support it) has always and will always be about 4-d trajectories. It is inappropriate, especially when dealing with capacity issues, to discuss 2-d or 3-d ATM “solutions” – as the aircraft’s effect on ATM resources is always 4-d. Even today’s ATM system with its problems is a form of advising the airspace user of the current ATM restrictions on available trajectories (via NOTAMs and published routes) and allowing the airspace user to “choose” their preferred trajectory (flight plan) with this level of understanding. Then that preferred trajectory is modified to the minimum extent (for there is no “value” to the service providers in modifying the trajectory any more than they have to – except perhaps to avoid the cost of providing extra capacity).
- The new concept of “freedom of flight” tolerances is intended to allow an aircraft the freedom of movement within a moving volume of airspace, and the precise navigational tolerances allows the certainty of containment within that volume.
- The time element of the 4-d contract seems to have always been a part of air traffic control methods. As described in ICAO PANS_ATM (Doc 4444) “separation may be established by requiring aircraft to depart at a specified time, to arrive over a geographical location at a specified time, …”. The 4-d time element is an important part of strategically managing traffic – even after departure. The ATM system needs to be able to use time precisely for this purpose, for example accuracy to within a second of time, and when required a requirement within 15 seconds of the time.