06.08.02 Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised ... · Chap.5 Outlines the operational...

06.08.02 Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems Operational Services and Environment Description (OSED)

Document information

Project title Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems

Project N° 06.08.02

Project Manager EUROCONTROL

Deliverable Name Operational Service and Environment Definition (OSED)

Deliverable ID D09

Edition 00.00.03

Template Version 02.00.00

Task contributors

EUROCONTROL, ETF

Please complete the advanced properties of the document

Abstract

This Project will validate the benefit to Air Traffic Management (ATM) of Enhanced Braking Systems (EBS). EBS offer potential reduction in Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) and predictable runway exiting. The Project will build on earlier research to model the impact of differing equipage levels at specific airports, develop and validate procedures for use in the short and longer term and identify ATC requirements for the Human Machine Interface (HMI)

Project ID 06.08.02 D09 – 06.08.02 Operational Service and Environment Definition (OSED) Template Edition: 00.00.02

1 of 39

Authoring & Approval

Prepared By

Name & company Position / Title Date

Kevin HARVEY EUROCONTROL 6.8.2 Project leader 14/12/11

Paul HUMPHREYS, EUROCONTROL 6.8.2 Project member 06/01/12

Reviewed By


Ulrika ZIVERTS, Airspace Users 6.8.2 Project member 06/01/12

Helena JOHANSSON, ETF 6.8.2 Project member 06/01/12

Martijn SCHUTTE, Airspace Users 6.8.2 Project member 06/01/12

Jérôme JOURNADE, AIRBUS 6.8.2 Project member 06/01/12

Frank Sandeløv, Airspace users 6.2 Project member 14/02/12

Rosalind Eveleigh, EUROCONTROL 6.2 Project member 14/02/12

SELEX 6.2 Project member 14/02/12

Approved By


Kevin HARVEY EUROCONTROL 6.8.2 Project leader 14/12/11

Document History

Edition Date Status Author Justification

00.00.01 2011-11-10 Draft EUROCONTROL Creation

00.00.02 2012-01-06 Updated EUROCONTROL Comments from AU, ETF, Airbus

00.00.03 2012-01-20 Updated EUROCONTROL Additional comments from AU. Use cases and requirements updated

00.01.00 2012-02-22 Updated EUROCONTROL Review comments from 6.2

Intellectual Property Rights (foreground)

This deliverable consists of SJU foreground


2 of 39

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 4

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................ 6 1.5 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.7 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 7

2 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL CONCEPT FROM DOD .................................................................. 10

2.1 MAPPING TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Equipage Levels ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Airport Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 12

2.2 OPERATIONAL CONCEPT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 14 2.3 PROCESSES AND SERVICES (P&S) ..................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1 List of Application Services, Information services and Systems ......................................... 16

3 DETAILED OPERATING METHOD ....................................................................................................... 17

3.1 PREVIOUS OPERATING METHOD .......................................................................................................... 17 3.2 NEW SESAR OPERATING METHOD .................................................................................................... 18 3.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEW AND PREVIOUS OPERATING METHODS ................................................ 20

4 DETAILED OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 22

4.1 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................... 22 4.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................. 23 4.3 HUMAN FACTORS ................................................................................................................................. 24 4.4 CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................................................................... 25

5 DETAILED OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS / USE CASES 6.8.2 – V2 STEP1 ................................ 26

5.1.1 Use Case 1: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with voice procedure before IAF .. 26 5.1.2 Use Case 2: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with voice procedure after IAF ..... 28 5.1.3 Use Case 3: Failure Flow with voice communication ........................................................... 29 5.1.4 Use Case 3: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data triggered by uplink of Taxi-In ........ 30 5.1.5 Use Case 4: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with datalink triggered by Flight Crew 32 5.1.6 Use Case 6: Failure Flow with datalink application ............................................................... 35

6 REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 36

7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 38

7.1 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 38 7.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 38


3 of 39

List of tables

Table 1: List of relevant OIs within the OFA ......................................................................................... 11 Table 2: List of relevant DOD Scenarios and Use Cases ..................................................................... 11 Table 3: Aircraft Equipage rates ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Mapping of operational categories .......................................................................................... 12 Table 5:Network function versus layout & basic operational criteria .................................................... 12 Table 6: Network function versus capacity utilisation ........................................................................... 12 Table 7: Capacity utilisation versus layout and basic operational criteria ............................................ 13 Table 8: External influences versus layout and basic operational criteria ............................................ 13 Table 9: External influences versus capacity ultilisation ....................................................................... 13 Table 10: List of the relevant DOD Processes ...................................................................................... 13 Table 11: List of the relevant DOD Requirements ................................................................................ 14 Table 12: Proposed modelling Scenarios ............................................................................................. 23 Table 13: Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................... 24 Table 14: REQuirement Trace layout ................................................................................................... 37

List of figures

Figure 1: The 4 types of SESAR Operational Concept documents ........................................................ 5 Figure 2: Operational Focus Area ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Surface-In high level Process ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 4 Transfer of accurate ROT and confirmation of exit triggered by Taxi-In route ....................... 19 Figure 5: Transfer of ROT and runway exit triggered by EBS calculation ............................................ 20


4 of 39

Executive summary

This project will help increase runway throughput at congested airports by reducing the Runway occupancy time of individual flights equipped with Enhanced Braking Systems (EBS) technology. Coupled with an accurate prediction of the runway exit and confidence that the exit will be achieved, the ground system will be in a better position to develop accurate time based trajectories.

Aircraft Enhanced Braking Systems will decelerate an aircraft, once on the runway, to a speed which is in line with the exit speed given in the airlines Standard Operating Procedures. The consistency with which the deceleration profile is achieved and that it can be predicted in advance of the landing, are the key elements exploited within the concept

The airborne system will downlink the expected Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) for each landing together with the intended runway exit. The runway exit and time at that exit will allow the ground Air Traffic Management (ATM) system to compute accurate time-based ground trajectories from runway exit to parking stand and to share this information with the airport Collaborative Decision making (CDM) processes. An interim step using voice communication to relay the ROT and runway exit will be developed to allow ATM to better plan separation on final approach and surface movement for EBS equipped aircraft. Project 6.8.2 will address:

Definition of operational concepts, procedures and roles and responsibilities associated with the predictable and reliable ROT and exit.

Validation of the concept through fast time modeling and analysis of selected airports, cockpit flight simulator sessions, an ATCO HMI workshop, HITL simulations and live trials. Results will be measured against the appropriate SESAR KPAs (Capacity and Predictability)

Definition and testing of an appropriate voice procedure for communicating the EBS data between the Flight Crew and ATC. Prior to the introduction of datalink capabilities the voice procedure will permit transfer of ROT and runway exit information from the Flight Crew to ATC.


5 of 39

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the document

The Operational Service and Environment Definition (OSED) document describes the operational concept defined in the Detailed Operational Description (DOD) in the scope of its Operational Focus Area (OFA).

It defines the operational services, their environment, scenarios and use cases and requirements.

The OSED is used as the basis for assessing and establishing operational, safety, performance and interoperability requirements for the related systems further detailed in the Safety and Performance Requirements (SPR) document. The OSED identifies the operational services supported by several entities within the ATM community and includes the operational expectations of the related systems.

This OSED is a top-down refinement of the 6.2 Airport DOD produced by the federating OPS 6.2 project. It also contains additional information which should be consolidated back into the higher level SESAR concepts using a “bottom up” approach.

The figure below presents the location of the OSED within the hierarchy of SESAR concept documents, together with the SESAR Work Package or Project responsible for their maintenance.

Figure 1: The 4 types of SESAR Operational Concept documents

It is expected that two updates to this OSED will be produced during the lifecycle of the 6.8.2 project execution phase.

1.2 Scope

This OSED details the operational concept for the Operational Focus Area (OFA) Brake to Vacate

Figure 1 represents the appropriate OFA sitting within PAC 01, Increased Runway and Airport Throughput. It should be noted that P6.8.2 has been renamed (ERMTOBS instead of BTV) since the initial definition of the OFA. In addition, the title and composition of projects with the Brake to Vacate OFA is subject to discussion and likely to change. Any agreed changes will be reflected in future updates of this OSED.


6 of 39

Op

era

tio

na

l

Pa

ck

ag

e

Su

b P

ac

ka

ge

Op

era

tio

na

l F

oc

us

Pro

jec

t N

am

e

PA

C0

1 I

nc

reas

ed

Ru

nw

ay

an

d

Air

po

rt

Th

rou

gh

pu

t

Enhanced Runway

Throughput

Brake to Vacate1

06.08.02 Brake to vacate2

12.05.04 Integrated Tower Working Position (iCWP) Design, Specification Prototyping and Test/Validation

09.31 Aeronautical databases

10.07.01 Enhanced Datalink Features for all phase of flight

Figure 2: Operational Focus Area

1.3 Intended audience

This document supports the Time Based Spacing (TBS) operational concept activities with the operational stakeholder representatives from the Airspace Users and ANSPs.

The document supports the system development projects, P12.2.1 Runway Management Tools, P12.5.4 Integrated Tower Working Position (iCWP) Design, Specification Prototyping and Test/Validation and P6.9.2 Advanced Integrated CWP (A-iCWP).

This document supports the consolidation activities within SWP6.8 and in particular with P6.8.3 concepts reducing the separation and spacing constraints impacting final approach operations (through reduced runway occupancy and predictable exiting), P6.7.3 A-SMGCS Guidance function (reliable start point for ground trajectory), P6.8.4 Coupled AMAN/DMAN (ROT that can be considered when determining separation of final and AMAN sequencing) and P6.8.7 Improved weather resilience – re-classify criteria for Low Visibility Procedures (LVP) (accurate ROT and exit in LVC)

At a higher project level Ops P06.02 and WPB are expected to use this document as an input into their consolidation activities and the architecture and performance modelling.

1.4 Structure of the document

The Structure of the document is the following:

Chap.1 Introduces the document

Chap.2 Description of the concepts

Chap.3 Description of the current operating method related to the management of runway occupancy. In the second part of the chapter there is the difference between the previous operating method and the new separation method.

Chap.4 Defines the characteristics of the operational environment in which enhanced braking systems are foreseen and describes the roles, responsibilities and the constraints.

Chap.5 Outlines the operational scenarios and use cases

Chap.6 Details the operational requirements

Chap.7 Lists the reference documents and the bibliography used for this document

1 OFA title likely to change 2 Project title has changed to Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems


7 of 39

1.5 Background

The 6.8.2 project is a follow on from previous operational and technical research conducted within FP6 European Commission, in the Episode 3 project [11].

The objective of Episode 3 was to test a number of Operational Improvements which could lead to increased runway capacity. This was achieved through reduced runway occupancy time and maximising runway throughput in all weather conditions.

1.6 Glossary of terms

Term Definition

Airborne Intended exit The term used to describe the runway exit selected by the Airborne System/Flight Crew

Ground Preferred exit The term used to describe the runway exit selected by the Ground System

Agreed Exit The term used to describe the runway exit agreed between the Flight Crew and the Ground System or ATCO.

EBS

The term Enhanced Braking Systems (EBS) refers to new generation braking systems that apply predetermined braking to the aircraft such that the aircraft reaches a defined speed at a selected point on the runway. EBS provides a calculated ROT which is guaranteed by adapting braking regardless of dynamic atmospheric conditions.

Airborne System

For the purposes of this OSED the term Airborne System refers to the onboard system (airborne) required to incorporate an Enhanced Braking System. This includes:

o a control display unit with the ability to display ROT and pilot selected exit o the ability to determine the aircraft actual position along the runway (e.g. GPS) o the ability to apply a control signal to the aircraft’s braking system o the ability to calculate, in advance, a maximum incurred ROT to reach a defined speed during the runway roll out phase o the ability to communicate exit and ROT by datalink to the Ground system

This section identifies terms not covered in one or more referenced documents.

1.7 Acronyms and Terminology

Term Definition

A-SMGCS Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems

A/C Aircraft

AMAN Arrival Manager

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

AOC Airline Operational Control (Airline Operations Centre)

ARR Arrivals


8 of 39

Term Definition

AS Airborne System

AMM Airport Moving Map

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATIS Airport Terminal Information Service

ATM Air Traffic Management

BTV Brake to Vacate

BTV-ATM Brake To Vacate – Air Traffic Management

CFMU Central Flow Management Unit

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CPDLC Controller Pilot Datalink Communications

DEP Departures

DL Data Link

DMAN Departure Manager

DOD Detailed Operational Description

EBS Enhanced Braking System

EFB Electronic Flightbag Computer

ERMTOBS Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems

FG Flight Guidance

FM Flight Management

FMS Flight Management System

FMGS Flight Management and Guidance System

GS Ground System

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

ILS CSA Instrument Landing System Critical and Sensitive Area

INTEROP Interoperability Requirements

LFV Luftfartsverket (Swedish ANSP)

LVC Low Visibility Conditions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_control


9 of 39

Term Definition

LVO Low Visibility Operations

LVP Low Visibility Procedures

NOP Network Operational Plan

NATS National Air Traffic Services LTD

OANS Onboard Airport Navigation System

OCD Operational Concept Description

OFA Operational Focus Area

OFZ Obstacle Free Zone

OSED Operational Service and Environment Definition

RBT Reference Business Trajectory

ROW Runway Overrun Warning

ROP Runway Overrun Protection/Prevention

RBT Reference Business Trajectory

ROT Runway Occupancy Time

RWY Runway

SBT Shared Business Trajectory

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SESAR Programme The programme which defines the Research and Development activities and Projects for the SJU.

SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission)

SJU Work Programme The programme which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint Undertaking Agency.

SWIM System Wide Information Management

TBS Time Based Spacing

TOD Top Of Descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Sky_ATM_Research


10 of 39

2 Summary of Operational Concept from DOD

The scenarios relevant to 6.8.2 are derived from the WP6.2 DoD – Surface In Operational Scenario. They are listed below as Parent and Exception Case scenarios. The text is copied from the 6.8.2 DOD. At time of writing there are no Scenarios of relevance to 06.08.02 in the 5.2 DoD.

Parent Scenario The Flight Crew lands the aircraft. The Ground System detects touchdown, records the information and makes this information available to other users [AUO-0303-A]. The ATM System identifies and displays the aircraft on all HMIs displaying the airport surface traffic situation [AO-0208-A]. On roll-out the aircraft systems reduce speed to achieve the planned runway exit, using BTV-System when available [AUO-0702] [AUO-0703].

The Flight Crew reports to the Tower Runway Controller that their aircraft has vacated the runway. The Tower Runway Controller verifies, either by using the ATM System [AO-0208-A], or visually, that the aircraft has vacated the runway and instructs the Flight Crew to contact Tower Ground Controller, transferring control of the aircraft. The ATM System records the runway exit taken by the aircraft and that it has vacated the runway [AUO-0303-A]. It also archives the flight plan and terminates ATM alerting services.

Exception Case Scenarios and Use Case References Listed below are additional scenarios based upon the exception cases identified within the WP6.2 DoD – Surface In Operational Scenario. These also have an associated use case listed, details of which are given in the same document. These will be included within the use cases in the OSED and detailed in the V3 Validation Plan. Go Around (UC 6 18) If, for whatever reason, the aircraft has to perform a go around, the general landing procedure starts again

Aircraft not leaving the runway as expected (UC 6 18)

The aircraft did not leave the runway at the planned exit for technical reasons, e.g. speed too high (not intended), a new route has to be recalculated and distributed. [AO-0205]

Unplanned blockage of assigned exit (UC 6 22) For whatever reason, an assigned exit might be blocked on short notice (on purpose), a new route has to be planned and distributed [AO-0205]

The ERMTOBS Project sits within SESAR Operational Step 1 (ATM Service Level 2). Step 1 of the SESAR storyboard provides many of the building blocks for the SESAR 2020 target concept and initial operating capability is expected from 2013.

This OSED addresses the V2 development related to the OI step AUO-0702 Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by voice and AUO-0703 Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by datalink..

P6.8.2 will develop procedures to allow the coordination of the ROT and exit information with ATC, will test the procedure through live trials and will make an initial assessment of the benefit that will accrue from accurate and reliable ROT and exit data to ATM.


11 of 39

2.1 Mapping tables

The mapping tables 1 through to 10 indicate the relevant Step 1 OI steps (taken from the Integrated Road Map v1.03b) and the links to the OFA, DOD Scenarios, Validation Strategy and Use Cases. Tables 2 to 10 are taken

from the 6.2 DOD.

Relevant OI Steps ref. (coming from the definition phase)

Any new / changed OI step (textual form)

Operational Focus Area name

Story Board Step

Master or Contributing

(M or C)

Contribution to the OIs short description

AUO-0702 No new OI steps

BTV

(Runway Occupancy Time management3)

1 M Enhanced braking to a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with ground ATC by voice.

OSED preparation in cooperation with other primary projects and OI validation

AUO-0703 No new OI steps

BTV

(Runway Occupancy Time management)

1 M Optimised braking to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit coordinated with Ground ATC by Datalink OSED

preparation in cooperation with other primary projects and OI validation

Table 1: List of relevant OIs within the OFA as detailed in the Validation Strategy

Scenario identification

Use Case Identification

Reference to DOD section where it is described

Surface-In UC6 15, UC 6 16 and UC 6 17

Airport DOD Section 4.2.3.1

Table 2: List of relevant DOD Scenarios and Use Cases

2.1.1 Equipage Levels

The benefits to ATM from EBS will be dependent upon the number of flights suitably equipped. In the table below an indication is given of the predicted on-board implementation. It is taken from the Step 1 DOD where predicted equipage rate is based on 6.2 expert judgement.

Aircraft Equipage 2013 2017 2020 Optimised Braking (e.g. BTV) < 10% ± 25% ± 50%

Table 3: Aircraft Equipage rates

3 Proposed change of OFA title


12 of 39

Note: During co-ordination with B5 on assessing the performance benefits expectations, the 6.8.2 project representatives considered that the 6.2 predicted equipage levels were unrealistically optimistic and suggested that the figures given in the table above should be reduced by a factor of 10. This has been communicated to 6.2.

2.1.2 Airport Characteristics

In principle, thousands of influencing factors on airport operations exist, both internal and external. This makes every airport unique however there are several key features / factors that shape the mental image of an airport. Those key features can be used as means to classify airports in Europe.

The key airport features identified are:

the function of the airport within the European Network (“Network Function” – coverage and importance),

the physical layout of the airport (“Layout and Basic Operational Criteria”),

the utilisation of available capacity (“Capacity Utilisation”), and

the impact of external influences (“External Influencing Factors”). The airports considered within 06.08.02 are London Heathrow (EGLL or LHR) London Gatwick (EGKK or LGW) Stockholm Arlanda (ESSA or ARN) and Brussels (EBBR or BRU) Runway occupancy and runway exiting will be modelled at least three of the airports and a live trial will be conducted at London Heathrow. The features identified in the DOD and relevant to the ERMTOBS airports are shown in the tables below. They map the operational categories and detail the 6.2 categorisation of the airports in terms of their layout, utilisation and operational criteria.

OFA OFA description Network function

Layout & Basic

Operational Criteria

Capacity Utilisation

External influences

01.03.03 Brake to Vacate - Yes Yes -

Table 4: Mapping of operational categories

The following tables show the matrices for the two categories. Within these matrices the airports relevant to this OSED are given for each combination of parameter value / classes. These are the initial recommendations made in the DOD and may be revised.

Parameter Values Intercontinental Hub

European Hub

Primary Node

Secondary Node

Tertiary Node

General / Business Aviation

Military Aerodrome

Multiple Dep. Runways, Complex Surface Layout

LHR BRU, ARN,

Single Runway, Complex Surface Layout

LGW

Table 5:Network function versus layout & basic operational criteria

Parameter Values Intercontinental Hub

European Hub

Primary Node

Secondary Node

Tertiary Node

General / Business Aviation

Military Aerodrome

Highly Utilised Apt, traffic mix of H,M&L

LHR, LGW,

Highly Utilised Apt. dominant traffic mix of H,M or L

ARN, BRU,

Table 6: Network function versus capacity utilisation


13 of 39

Parameter Values Highly Utilised Apt,

traffic mix of H,M&L Highly Utilised Apt. dominant traffic mix of H,M or L

Normally Utilised Apt Low Utilised Apt.


LHR, ARN, BRU,


LGW

Table 7: Capacity utilisation versus layout and basic operational criteria

Table 8: External influences versus layout and basic operational criteria

Parameter Values Highly constrained

Moderately constrained Lightly constrained

Highly Utilised Apt, traffic mix of H,M&L

LHR, LGW

Highly Utilised Apt. dominant traffic mix of H,M or L

ARN, BRU

Table 9: External influences versus capacity ultilisation

The next tables, also taken from the DOD, indicate the processes and requirements relevant to the ERMTOBS project.

DOD Process / Service Title

Process/ Service identification

Process/ Service short description

Reference to DOD section where it is described

Surface In process One line per Operational process

all recurrent activities that are performed by involved stakeholders during Surface In operation

5.2.5

Table 10: List of the relevant DOD Processes

DOD Requirement Identification

DOD requirement title Reference to DOD section where it is described

REQ-06.02-DOD-

6200.0046

Airport operations design shall take into account not only braking distance or runway/taxiway design but also pilot's awareness of ROT requirements, pilot's reaction times to line-up/departure clearances, pre-departure actions in order to reduce the Runway Occupancy Time (ROT).

6.1

Parameter Values Highly constrained

Moderately constrained Lightly constrained


LHR, ARN, BRU,


LGW,


14 of 39

DOD Requirement Identification

DOD requirement title Reference to DOD section where it is described

REQ-06.02-DOD-

6200.0014

The situational awareness of The Tower Runway Controller / Ground/Apron Manager and of the flight crew shall be improved with the integration and exploitation of new ATC functions with current elements into an Advanced Integrated Controller Working Position (A-ICWP):

6.1

REQ-06.02-DOD-

6200.0041

The Tower Runway/Ground/delivery controllers shall be informed through datalink by pilot about the aircraft preferences in terms of STAR, ETA, ETA min/max, runway exit in case proposed revision of Reference Business / Mission Trajectory (RBT).

6.1

REQ-06.02-DOD- 6200.0045 The Tower Ground Controller shall be able to

coordinate automated brake to vacate at a pre-selected runway exit through datalink, based on avionic BTV.

6.1

Table 11: List of the relevant DOD Requirements

The requirements shown in Table 11 are taken from the 6.2 Step 1 DoD. At time of writing there are no requirements in the 5.2 DoD that are relevant to 06.08.02.

2.2 Operational Concept Description At present, the lack of capacity at airports is the major constraint to growth [7] and one of the factors limiting capacity growth at airports is runway throughput.

Previous studies [6] suggest that, under the most optimistic of circumstances, existing airport capacity in Europe is capable of absorbing a maximum of twice the traffic demand of 2003. Other studies [8] suggest a traffic growth between 4 & 5% per annum through to 2025 can be expected. [7]

A third study [9] determined that to increase runway throughput up to four individual separations would need to be reduced. These are:

1) Longitudinal arrival separation 2) Arrival runway occupancy 3) Departure runway occupancy 4) Longitudinal departure separation

A number of projects within the SESAR roadmap address solutions such as separation resiliency to meteorological conditions, arrival and departure Wake Vortex separation reductions, Time Based separations for arrivals, and Separation minima reductions across flight phases. Project 6.8.2 is primarily targeted at Arrival runway occupancy. It will focus on the utilisation of accurate runway occupancy times available in advance together with predictable, reliable runway exiting information.

It is imperative that the predicted and actual ROT be consistent. The predicted ROT should represent the maximum time that the aircraft will be on the runway and the actual should be as close to this figure as possible. A tolerance margin of 10% below the maximum time would be acceptable.

Enhanced Braking Systems will provide an aircraft automatic braking system which controls aircraft braking to smoothly decelerate the aircraft to a predetermined point on a runway. Previously, traditional aircraft auto brake systems controlled aircraft deceleration to one of several aircraft deceleration settings. Therefore it is unlikely that the selected deceleration setting (e.g. low, med, high) will match the stopping distance to the desired runway exit. By slowing or even stopping at locations along the runway (regardless of runway exit location) runway occupancy time was often extended.


15 of 39

Enhanced Braking Systems will achieve lower and more consistent Runway Occupancy Times (ROT) for a given selected exit. The concept foresees that the airborne system will downlink the expected ROT for each landing together with the intended runway exit. This will enable the ground ATM system to compute accurate time-based ground trajectories from runway to parking stand and to share this information with the airport CDM processes. As an interim step, before the full availability of datalink, a procedure for transferring the ROT and exit by voice communication, thereby making this information available to ATM, will be developed.

Refinement of the ‘BTV-ATM Cooperative Procedure’ developed during the P6.8.2 early project will integrate the selection of runway exit with the planning process from before top of descent to touchdown and during the execution phase from touchdown to parking stand. The accurate ROT predicted by the aircraft system will be one component of time-based separation applied between aircraft pairs on final approach. This is designed to support TMA queue management while providing input to AMAN.

Reduced runway occupancy times translate into more available free runway time. This free runway time could be used for extra landing or take-off slots. Further investigation will be required to quantify the benefits of Enhanced Braking Systems on airport capacity as other factors could negate gains brought about by reduced ROT. This may be the case at airports operating in mixed mode where wake vortex or the Instrument Landing System Critical and Sensitive Area (ILS CSA) criteria could be the limiting factor in applying reduced separation minima on final approach. In these circumstances the benefit of the reduced runway occupancy could be restricted to an increase in departures.

It is expected that significant benefit may be gained through better runway utilisation in low visibility conditions (CATII/III) Enhanced Braking Systems will decelerate aircraft to reach the optimum speed for exiting the runway. This will enable a similar runway throughput to that achieved in VMC.

Sharing of information between the Airborne and Ground systems will enhance the CDM process. However, some investment may be required on the part of ATM and Airport stakeholders in order to process Enhanced Braking Systems data.

There are two possibilities for the trigger and subsequent transfer of data between the Airborne and Ground Systems. The 6.8.2 project will investigate both to determine which is the most feasible. The two options are described in detail in Section 3.2. In the first instance the trigger for the EBS calculation will be the uplink of the taxi in route from the Ground System. The proposed Ground Preferred runway exit, contained within that taxi in message, will be calculated by the Ground System using stored data on aircraft type, available exits and past experience. The Flight Crew will arm the EBS and trigger the calculation to enable the system to downlink the ROT and confirm the exit. The Flight Crew will retain the right to reject a proposed runway exit at all times and in this circumstance the Ground System will re-calculate the taxi-In route using a different runway exit and uplink the new proposal. This process will reduce workload in the cockpit as the Flight Crew will either accept or reject the options presented by the Ground System.

The second possibility would be triggered by the Flight Crew arming the EBS and the EBS calculation of the ROT and exit. This calculation will be made when convenient for the Flight Crew, ideally before TOD. The Airborne System will downlink the ROT and runway exit calculated by the EBS and in reply the Ground System will uplink the Taxi-in message. Should the Ground System determine that a different runway exit could be taken (e.g. for safety reasons, better traffic management on the surface etc.) this will be uplinked and a negotiation process will begin until agreement is reached.

On landing the EBS delays braking as far as possible, applying the maximum braking at the latest possible time while reaching the runway exit at a suitable speed. The maximum level of deceleration and variation of deceleration during the landing roll is fixed to ensure passenger comfort.

2.3 Processes and Services (P&S)

Of relevance to 06.08.02 is the "Surface In" scenario described in the 6.2 DOD. The first phase of agreeing the runway exit to use takes place while the aircraft is still in flight. There is no modelling provided in the 62 DOD that can be used as a hook for the Optimised Braking processes. The model diagram for the Surface In process taken from the 6.2 DOD is shown in Figure 3:


16 of 39

Figure 3: Surface-In high level Process

At a lower level the processes required to implement EBS include:

Agree Runway exit to be used Arm EBS Execute Automated Braking Exit runway

2.3.1 List of Application Services, Information services and Systems

N/A.


17 of 39

3 Detailed Operating Method

3.1 Previous Operating Method

The accuracy of planning and execution of runway and surface movements is constrained by the degree of uncertainty of aircraft behaviour in the landing, roll-out and taxi phases. Controllers apply additional margins to take account of aircraft behaviour during these phases, in terms of predictability of performance. Margins to absorb the uncertainty over the runway occupancy time are factored into the separation minima applied.

Observations at congested airports indicate that depending on runway and taxiway layout and airline operating procedures, an excess of time can be spent on the runway by individual aircraft as the current aircraft auto-brake systems apply predetermined braking to the aircraft. If braking is left to the autobrake system the aircraft will stop on the runway. However, in practise, the Flight Crew disconnect the autobrake on the roll out and use pedal braking to arrive at the runway exit at the correct speed. Existing autobrake systems reduce pilot workload by providing deceleration at a set rate. Some airlines use tables, or if equipped, the ‘electronic flightbag computer’ (EFB) to determine the optimum autobrake setting for a given exit (based on distance from touchdown) at a given weight for a given runway condition (wet/dry) in combination with a pre-determined reverse setting. The autobrake setting will guarantee that the aircraft stops at or before the pre selected distance (adjacent to the selected exit) The deceleration rate is pre determined and as the selected exit approaches and the aircraft reaches taxi speed, the flight crew will deselect the autobrake system, cancel reverse and continue with manual braking.[10] With a limited number of autobrake settings available the deceleration is not necessarily customised to the specific runway exit. In theory this can lead to the runway occupancy time being extended.

The flight segment from the moment of touchdown to arrival at the parking stand is influenced by many variables:

i) variation in the braking performance and rate of deceleration of an aircraft on the runway;

ii) variation in the time an aircraft spends on the runway (this time can be different from one landing to the next, for aircraft of the same type and with all other conditions being the same);

iii) runway exit taken;

iv) taxi route and taxi speed;

v) conflicting traffic on the surface.

These factors make it impossible to predict an accurate ROT or guarantee the runway exit. Dependant on runway and taxiway layout and airline operating procedures, an excess of time can be spent on the runway by individual aircraft. This is recognised by airports which manage awareness campaigns, encouraging flight crew to be conscious of specific runway exits which they should attempt to use during the landing and roll-out phase. Nevertheless, even at airports where such campaigns are carried out, controllers cannot presume that any aircraft will leave the runway at a specific exit, therefore making it difficult to translate efficient flight crew runway operations into increased runway throughput.

The situation is worsened in low visibility conditions when CAT II/III operations are in force and after landing, the auto-brake decelerates the aircraft according to the predetermined setting until the Flight Crew disconnect the autobrake system. Flight Crew have to cope with reduced visibility and must locate the runway exit in constrained visibility conditions and this may take considerably longer than would be the case in better visibility conditions (CAT I or better). As a result reductions in runway capacity are declared during CAT II/III operations which can lead to significant delays.

The above mentioned problems occur on a large scale within the European ATM/airports system. Growing demand and increasing environmental and operational (capacity) restrictions will increasingly affect more airports within the next decade. The need for increased runway capacity and accurate surface trajectories in the planning and execution phase will increase as traffic grows.


18 of 39

Some airports are already capacity constrained. The number of such airports can only increase given the predicted growth in traffic. Airports which today are not necessarily capacity constrained, risk becoming so, as air traffic demand is absorbed by regional airports.

The total airport is also a constrained resource, and airport operators and airlines will require accurate information on individual aircraft movements in order to allocate resources such as parking stands, re-fuelling and catering support in the most efficient way possible.

3.2 New SESAR Operating Method

In the SESAR operational concept, capacity and efficiency is achieved by improving planning, moving through time-based to trajectory-based operations to performance-based operations. This calls for fundamental changes in runway management through the implementation of an operational concept supported by the required technical enablers which will connect the airborne trajectory of the arriving flight with the ground trajectory. A key to improved surface management is advance knowledge of the aircraft’s precise ground trajectory including time over the threshold and time and position of runway exit. The ‘Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised Braking Systems Concept’ will contribute to the SESAR operational concept by delivering a validated runway management operation based on the following improvements: Use of the Enhanced Braking Systems to deliver an optimised profile More accurate prediction of the Runway Occupancy Time Reduced Runway Occupancy Time Prior notification of the planned runway exit Communication of applicable data to the wider ATM system This project will address the exchange of information between air and ground providing information to the arrival and departure planning process and supporting the execution of the runway operation. The concept aims at maintaining a high runway throughput by providing additional information to the Flight Crew through onboard or ground based systems. When communicated to ATM this information will help to minimise the number of go-arounds through optimised spacing, and will facilitate mixed mode operations through the provision of up to date, accurate data to the Flight Crew and controllers. Situational awareness on the ground and in the cockpit will be enhanced. This benefit of the improved awareness is likely to be of most significance during Low Visibility Operations (LVO) Where datalink is available it will be used for communication between the Airborne and Ground Systems. However, a procedure will be developed within 6.8.2 based on voice communication. The provision of the accurate ROT and the point at which the runway is exited will be available to AMAN/DMAN for sequence optimisation and to A-SMGCS for planning the surface routing (addressed within SESAR Projects, P6.7.2, P6.7.3, P6.8.3 and P6.8.4).

In general terms the concept envisages that prior to TOD a CPDLC connection is established, the ROT and exit is calculated and is then downlinked by the Airborne System. The ROT and runway exit information is received by the Ground System and integrated into AMAN and A-SMGCS. The ROT and runway exit will be displayed to the relevant controllers for planning of sequencing and/or surface movement. In specific circumstances negotiation of a different runway exit will be possible.

The 06.08.02 project will investigate the trigger and subsequent sequence of events affecting the Flight Crew and ATC. The development and testing of a voice procedure will allow EBS (standalone Airborne System) data to be used by ATC prior to the introduction of datalink capabilities. With datalink available, two procedures will be tested to ascertain which is the most efficient. The two options are described below.

Option 1: A CPDLC connection is established and the Planned Taxi-in route (commencing from the Ground preferred exit) is automatically uplinked and loaded into the aircraft systems. The Taxi-In route will commence at the runway exit calculated by the Ground System. The Flight Crew arm the Enhanced Braking System and confirm that the exit proposed by the Ground System meets the braking system and company requirements. Confirmation of the runway exit and the ROT will then be


19 of 39

downlinked. Should the Flight Crew determine that the runway exit does not meet their requirements they may reject it. In these circumstances the Ground System will recalculate the taxi route from a different runway exit and will propose that option.

The link between the airborne and ground trajectory will be established with the Airborne and Ground Systems sharing a common view. The accurate and reliable ROT value will assist in the provision of separation on final approach (time based) and will be integrated into AMAN.

Figure 4 Transfer of accurate ROT and confirmation of exit triggered by Taxi-In route

Option 2: The flight crew will activate the EBS and a calculation of the first available and Airborne Intended exit will be made. Once the CPDLC connection is established this information together with the ROT will be downlinked to the Ground System. The Ground System will check the intended exit against any constraints (e.g. unplanned maintenance) Once the check has been completed the Ground System uplinks an acknowledgement of the exit and ROT data.

The ROT and runway exit information will be accessible via SWIM and will be of particular interest to AMAN/DMAN, and ASMGCS. The ground trajectory will be calculated and uplinked to the aircraft (D-TAXI) and the link between the airborne and ground trajectory will be established with the cockpit and ground systems sharing a common view. The accurate and reliable ROT value will assist in the provision of separation on final approach (time based) and will be integrated into AMAN.

Pre-determined accurate ROT and confirmed exit shared by Ground and Airborne Systems

changes unlikely after TOD, unless triggered by incident (e.g. change to runway, runway condition, exit blocked etc)

Accurate, predicted ROT and exit now available for use by

NOP, AMAN/DMAN and ASMGCS

Uplinks exit within Taxi-In message

2

Receive Taxi-In (with proposed exit) Arm Enhanced Braking System Calculate ROT

GS calculates taxi route

1

Downlink ROT

4

3


20 of 39

Figure 5: Transfer of ROT and runway exit triggered by EBS calculation

On landing, the auto-brake system optimises the braking on the runway, decelerating the aircraft smoothly to vacate at the pre determined exit whilst minimising runway occupancy. ATC are able to plan the surface routeing from runway exit.

Significantly, the Enhanced Braking Systems will ensure the accurate and reliable ROT and exit irrespective of the visibility. Enhanced Braking Systems will decelerate the aircraft to reach the optimum speed to exit the runway. Aircraft may exit the runway earlier (in terms if time) than is the case today. The accurate predicted ROT will be available to AMAN and factored into the planned separation on final approach. Therefore, separation on final approach in LVC could be similar to the VMC standard, unless where the ILS CSA remains the main limiting factor in defining LVP separations. This will also reduce the number of go-arounds.

At present only one Enhanced Braking System is available on the market, BTV (Brake To Vacate) developed by Airbus. It is expected that other, similar products will be available in the future, for example Boeing’s ORE system. It is therefore likely that BTV will be used to validate the concept in the 2012 to 2014 timeframe.

BTV is currently available as an option on the A380 and it will be included as standard on the A350. The plan is to offer to retro-fit older Airbus aircraft; however, the timeframe is presently not clear. BTV gives the Flight Crew information about first possible exit and optimum exit (most suitable for that particular landing). It allows the flight crew to pre-select a preferred runway exit while the BTV decelerates the aircraft on the runway to achieve the most efficient Runway Occupancy Time (ROT). BTV also provides a runway overrun prevention system which actively protects against runway overrun situation/risks through the optimised application of the following means; alerts to induce a missed approach, and maximum braking and recommendation by audio warning to use thrust reversers.

3.3 Differences between new and previous Operating Methods

Today, airports are not always able to maximise runway use for arriving flights due to uncertainty over the time each aircraft will remain on the runway and uncertainty over the exit point. This results in

Pre-determined accurate ROT and confirmed exit shared by Ground and Airborne Systems

changes unlikely after TOD, unless triggered by incident (e.g. change to runway, runway condition, exit blocked etc)

Uplinks Taxi-In message

4

Flight Crew arm Enhanced Braking System Calculate ROT

GS calculates taxi route

1

Downlink ROT

2

3


21 of 39

inefficient use of the runway with ATCOs forced to estimate occupancy times which can lead to periods of ‘wastage’ or go-arounds. The latter has a subsequent impact on the Approach ATCO, increasing workload and complicating arrival planning. The widespread use of Enhanced Braking Systems will remove the uncertainty over the ROT and runway exit by providing accurate, reliable data in advance. This will allow systems to better plan runway occupancy and ATCOs to make more efficient use of the runway. The availability of a precise ROT and runway exit will link the airborne and ground trajectories and will provide an occupancy time for AMAN that is not available in current operations. EBS will also reduce the time spent on the runway for arriving flights leading to an accumulated reduction in total runway occupancy per hour. This will allow additional flights to be accommodated, either departures, where the ILS CSA and or wake vortex criteria limit the arrival stream, or additional arrivals where the criteria is not a limiting factor.


22 of 39

4 Detailed Operational Environment

4.1 Operational Characteristics

A number of airports will be modelled to assess the potential benefit of EBS and live trials will be carried out at least one of them.

The airports considered in this OSED are all surrounded by a Terminal Control Area (TMA) equipped with surveillance systems. The surveillance systems are based on primary and secondary radars today, a mix of radar and possibly other surveillance means in the future.

Approach Control Service will be provided by an ATC unit to one or more airports as appropriate.

The airspace is classified so that all traffic (IFR and VFR) is controlled

The runways may be configured in segregated mode, landings on specific runway(s) take-off on specific runway(s), or in mixed mode (interlaced landings and take-offs on the same runway). The project will model both in the fast time modelling phase.

Parallel runways may be dependent with regard to Wake Vortex separation if they are separated by 1035 metres.

There may be crossing runways, or the final approach and/or departure tracks may cross.

In the case of mixed mode operation, it is expected that AMAN will be integrated with DMAN. The Tower Runway Controller will assure that departing flights are correctly inserted into the runway sequence.

The planning of traffic entering into the TMA will be supported by an AMAN. The AMAN information will be updated automatically by the system as well as manually by the Executive Controller TMA to assure that the landing sequence and expected Landing Time at any time is up to date. The AMAN will be fed with ROT data supplied by EBS equipped aircraft.

The Airports will be datalink equipped with CPDLC capabilities.

The Executive Controller TMA will manage speed and provide heading instructions to arriving aircraft in order to get the aircraft aligned on the final approach path at the correct distance or time behind the preceding aircraft. This will be supported by a separation tool if traffic density and complexity require. This could be the use of TBS or other dynamic separation standards. In doing so, the Executive controller will respect the Radar and Wake Vortex separation standards

Live trials, initially using voice procedure will be conducted at London Heathrow (EGLL) Once validated the voice procedure can be used at other airports with arriving A380 aircraft. During the modelling exercises the final approach phase, the runway and the runway exits and associated taxiway will be simulated. Arriving aircraft will enter the simulation at a location to ensure correct separation on final approach. Arriving aircraft will leave the simulation environment once established on runway exits. Departures will be simulated only in mixed mode environments and will include diverging SIDs. These departing aircraft will immediately depart the simulation environment.

For the modeling, traffic samples will be obtained from the CFMU. Recorded traffic samples of all IFR flights for 24 hours will be selected as representative of busy days during the summer period (EBBR 06 May 2011, EGKK/EGLL 25 July 2011, ESSA 30 Jun 2011). With the inclusion of observed or recorded ROT and exit data, this will provide the reference or baseline scenarios against which the ROT for future traffic equipage levels will be measured.

‘Future’ traffic samples will be developed using observed ROT, Airbus BTV values obtained from an Excel macro and by expert judgement.

The table below shows the intended airport corresponding to the operational scenario


23 of 39

Table 12: Proposed Scenarios

4.2 Roles and Responsibilities

Air Navigation Service Provider

Airport Tower Supervisor

The Airport Tower Supervisor is responsible for the safe and efficient provision of air traffic services by the Tower crew. He decides on staffing and manning of controller working positions in accordance with expected traffic demand. He represents the Tower when coordinating with the Airport Operator on operational issues.

Tower Runway Controller

The Tower Runway Controller is responsible for the provision of air traffic services to aircraft within the control zone, or otherwise operating in the vicinity of controlled aerodromes (unless transferred to Approach Control/ACC, or to the Tower Ground Controller), by issuing clearances, instructions and permission to aircraft, vehicles and persons as required for the safe and efficient flow of traffic. The Tower Runway Controller will be assisted by arrival (AMAN), departure (DMAN) and surface (A-SMGCS) management systems, where available.

Tower Ground Controller

The Tower Ground Controller is part of the controller team responsible for providing an Air Traffic Service (ATS) at controlled aerodromes. His main task is the provision of ATS to aircraft and vehicles on the manoeuvring area. He must also ensure that airport maintenance vehicles carrying out necessary improvements on an active manoeuvring area do not interfere with the movement of aircraft. He will be assisted by an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (A-SMGCS).

ACC/Approach Supervisor

The ACC/Approach Supervisor is responsible for the general management of all activities in the Operations Room. He decides on staffing and manning of controller working positions in accordance with expected traffic demand. Supported by simulations of traffic load and of traffic complexity he decides about the adaptation of sector configurations to balance capacity to forecast demand. Based on the results of simulations required flow control measures may be implemented by ATFCM through a CDM process.

Planning Controller The Planning Controller (PC) is part of the sector team responsible for a designated area (e.g. control sector). His principal task is to check the planned trajectory of aircraft intending to enter his control

4 The final decision on which airport is modelled will be based on the availability of data

Operational Scenario

Modelling Indicators

Candidate airports Expected outcome

Mixed mode Reduced total ROT, Capacity / runway throughput

EBBR/EGKK4, Reduced runway occupancy, throughput/capacity increase

Segregated mode Reduced total ROT, Capacity / runway throughput

ESSA Reduced runway occupancy

A380 ops (VMC + LVP)

Reduced ROT/ reduced number go arounds, increased capacity / runway throughput

EGLL Reduced runway occupancy, throughput/capacity increase, fewer go arounds, reduced separation on final

A380 ops (Live trial) N/A EGLL Verify reduced runway occupancy


24 of 39

sector for potential separation risk, and to co-ordinate entry/exit conditions leading to conflict-free trajectories. The role of the PC will remain in sectors other than MSP areas.

Executive Controller

The Executive Controller is part of the sector team responsible for a designated area (e.g. control sector, multi sector area). He is responsible for the safe and expeditious flow of all flights operating within his area of responsibility. His principal tasks are to separate and sequence known flights operating within his area of responsibility and to issue instructions to pilots for conflict resolution and segregated airspace circumnavigation. Additionally, he monitors the trajectory (4D and 3D) of aircraft according to the clearance they have received. He is assisted in these tasks by automated tools for conflict detection and resolution, trajectory monitoring and area proximity warning (APW).. The responsibilities of the Executive Controller are focused on the traffic situation, as displayed at the Controller Working Position (CWP), and are very much related to task sharing arrangements within the sector team.

Airspace Users Operations

Flight Crew

The Flight Crew remains ultimately responsible for the safe and orderly operation of the flight in compliance with the ICAO Rules of the Air, other relevant ICAO and CAA/EASA provisions, and within airline standard operating procedures. It ensures that the aircraft operates in accordance with ATC clearances and with the agreed Reference Business Trajectory

Table 13: Roles and Responsibilities

4.3 Human Factors

There are a number of Human factor issues that will need to be investigated through simulation and live trials that impact both the Controller and the Flight Crew. This is particularly true with the use of the voice procedure where a balance needs to be struck between the Flight Crew requirement to calculate and transmit the EBS information at a time that is best in terms of cockpit workload (TOD or in preparation for the approach briefing) and the ATC requirement to ensure the controller who can make use of that information receives it in time, without increasing the workload on his/her colleagues. The TOD point for many European arrivals can be in a different ACC or country from the one containing the arrival airport, so it is likely that at the time the Flight Crew would prefer to transmit the ROT and runway exit information, the aircraft will be in communication with a controller who would not welcome the extra call and does not have the means and/or knowledge to pass the data on.

Procedures and working methods will need to be developed at a local level to ensure that the voice procedure is satisfactory for both ATC and the Flight Crews.

For ATC the extra radio transmission and subsequent transfer of the ROT and runway exit information represents an increase in workload that needs to be carefully assessed. Workload will also increase in the cockpit especially for short haul flights where Flight Crew may fly 4-6 sectors in a day each of which involves a brief time in cruise and does not allow the opportunity to plan far ahead. Flight simulators will be used to provide an initial assessment of the impact on Flight Crew workload.

With datalink in place the workload on the Flight Crew and controllers will be reduced as communication between the Airborne System and the Ground System will replace the radio transmissions. Nevertheless, action will be required by the Flight Crew in initiating the EBS calculation and, in the case of a negotiated runway exit, monitoring and agreeing the solution. A standard procedure will need to be developed for both ATC and the Flight Crews.

Using EBS as a standard for all landings might degrade pilot skills and currency and could impact on flight safety.

The provision of ROT and runway exit data, not available today, has implications on the HMI design and presentation in both the cockpit and on the ground. Within 06.08.02 an initial assessment of the


25 of 39

HMI requirements for the ATCO will be made though the ATCO HMI workshop and subsequent real time simulation.

4.4 Constraints

The following technical constraints that might impact the concept have been identified:

1. A sufficient number of aircraft need to be EBS capable.

2. HMI indications of ROT and/or exit may be required for both TWR controllers and APP controllers.

3. Availability of CPDLC/Datalink


26 of 39

5 Detailed Operational Scenarios / Use Cases 6.8.2 – V2 Step1

List of use cases

1. Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with voice procedure before IAF

2. Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with voice procedure after the flight has passed the IAF

3. Voice communication, failure flow when EBS fails, degrades or is disconnected.

4. Standard transfer of data triggered by uplink of taxi-in route

5. Standard transfer of ROT and exit data triggered by Flight Crew

6. Failure Flow with datalink applications when EBS fails, degrades or is disconnected

The following definitions apply to the use cases

Ground System5: The ground part of the ATM System (also termed ground-based system(s)) opposite to the Aircraft system

Airborne System: For the purposes of this OSED the term Airborne System refers to the onboard system (airborne) required to incorporate an Enhanced Braking System. This includes:

o a control display unit with the ability to display ROT and pilot selected exit o the ability to determine the aircraft actual position along the runway (e.g. GPS) o the ability to apply a control signal to the aircraft’s braking system o the ability to calculate, in advance, a maximum incurred ROT to reach a defined speed during the runway roll out phase o the ability to communicate exit and ROT by datalink to the Ground system

5.1.1 Use Case 1: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with voice procedure before IAF

Note:

In the following use cases, ATC is used in a generic sense. Unless specified, ATC can refer to the controller performing the Tower, Approach, or en route function. The controller involved may vary from site to site depending on the local airspace organisation and the local procedures.

General conditions (Scope and Summary)

This Use Case describes the process of the transfer of ROT and exit data from the Flight crew triggering the calculation (EBS) and communicating via voice procedure to landing.

At a specified time before TOD (10-15 minutes) the Flight Crew receives landing data through ATIS (landing RWY and RWY conditions). The flight crew arm the EBS and a calculation of the ROT and Airborne Intended exit is made.

The Flight Crew use voice communication to relay ROT and Airborne Intended exit to ATC. This should be made before the flight passes the IAF according to standard procedures (i.e depending upon airport/ATC specific requirement this could be made to the TMA, APP or Tower controller)

On receipt of this information ATC check the Airborne Intended exit against any constraints (e.g) exit closure or taxiway maintenance and make the information available to interested parties (e.g App, Tower supervisor, Ground controller).

Pre-conditions

5 Definition taken from 6.2 DoD


27 of 39

● PreC1 - Aircraft is in descent at some point between TOD and the IAF

● PreC2 - Aircraft within ATIS range for latest information including runway in use and runway conditions

Post-conditions

● PostC1 - Flight exits the runway at Airborne Intended exit.

Actors

Flight Crew, Ground System, ATCOs (Tower, Ground or Approach)

Trigger

Flight Crew briefing on receipt of ATIS

5.1.1.1 Nominal Flow

1 Flight Crew receive landing data (through ATIS), including runway conditions

2 Flight Crew arm Enhanced Braking System

3 The Flight Crew verify the EBS calculation

4 The Flight Crew transmit to ATC:

• Estimated ROT

• Airborne Intended exit for aircraft

5 ATC acknowledge the transmission.

6 ATC record the ROT and runway exit

7 The ROT and exit data is presented to the ATCOs on their strip/label

8 Flight Crew land and exit runway at Airborne Intended exit

9 The Use Case ends

5.1.1.2 Alternative Flow ATC counter propose a different runway exit, accepted by Flight Crew (starts at step 5)


11 ATC record the ROT and exit

12 ATC determine an alternate exit would be operationally advantageous to ATM

13 ATC request, via voice communication, that the aircraft takes a different runway exit (Ground Preferred exit)

14 The Flight Crew acknowledge the request

15 The Flight Crew enter the Ground Preferred exit into the EBS


28 of 39


17 The Flight Crew transmit to ATC by R/T:

• Estimated ROT

• Confirmation of Agreed runway exit

18 Use Case continues at Step 5

ATC counter propose a different runway exit, rejected by Flight Crew starts at step 4)


20 ATC record the ROT and Airborne Intended exit

21 ATC determine an alternate exit would be operationally advantageous to ATM

22 ATC request, via voice communication, that the aircraft take a different runway exit (Ground Preferred exit)

23 The Flight Crew acknowledge the request

24 The Flight Crew enter the Ground Preferred exit into the EBS

25 EBS determines Ground Preferred exit is not acceptable

26 The flight crew verify the EBS calculation

27 The Flight Crew transmit to ATC:

• Rejection of Ground Preferred exit

• Confirmation of Airborne Preferred exit (original or another)

• ROT

28 Use case continues at Step 5

A change to the runway or runway exit triggers a recalculation of the ROT and exit

29 ATC inform the Flight Crew via voice communication that the runway or runway exit has changed.

30 The Flight Crew acknowledge the change (R/T)

31 Flight Crew arm Enhanced Braking System and input new runway or exit information


On landing the Flight Crew are aware that the runway exit will be missed

33. The Airborne System informs the Flight Crew that the runway exit previously confirmed will be missed (e.g. as a result of a long landing)

34. The Flight Crew inform ATC

35. ATC acknowledge the change

36. Use Case ends

5.1.2 Use Case 2: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with voice procedure after IAF



29 of 39

This Use Case describes the process of the transfer of ROT and exit data from the Flight crew triggering the calculation (EBS) and communicating by voice communication until landing.

Before TOD the Flight Crew receives landing data through ATIS (landing RWY and RWY conditions). The flight crew arm the EBS and a calculation of the ROT and Airborne Intended exit is made.

Due to local requirements the Flight Crew wait until the flight is beyond the IAF before using voice communication to relay ROT and Airborne Intended runway exit to the Tower Runway Controller. On receipt this information is made available to interested parties.

Pre-conditions

● PreC1 - Data delivered by voice communication can be made available for AMAN/DMAN

● PreC2 - Aircraft is in descent and has passed the IAF

Post-conditions

● PostC2 - Aircraft exits the runway at Airborne Intended exit.

Actors

Flight Crew, ATCOs (Tower, Ground)

Trigger



1 Flight Crew receive landing data (through ATIS), including runway conditions

2 Flight Crew arm Enhanced Braking System


4 After (determined by local needs) the IAF the Flight Crew transmit to Tower Runway Controller:

• Estimated ROT

• Intended Airborne Intended runway exit for aircraft

5 The Tower Runway Controller acknowledges the transmission.

6 Flight Crew land and exit runway at Airborne Intended runway exit

7 The Use Case ends

5.1.3 Use Case 3: Failure Flow with voice communication


30 of 39


This Use Case describes the process when the EBS fails, degrades in performance below acceptable limits or is disconnected. The use case is applicable after the initial EBS calculation is made and communicated to ATC via voice.

Pre-conditions

● PreC1 - EBS fails, degrades or is disconnected

● PreC2 - Aircraft is in descent at some point between TOD and the runway threshold

Post-conditions

● PostC1 - Flight exits the runway.

Actors


Trigger

Flight Crew detect degradation in EBS health status


1 The flight crew notifies ATC via R/T that the EBS has failed 2 ATC acknowledge the R/T call 3 ATC update the ROT and runway exit status on the strip/label 4 The Use Case ends

5.1.4 Use Case 3: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data triggered by uplink of Taxi-In


The Ground Preferred exit is based on historic aircraft performance data and is stored within the NOP/ground system.

The airport is equipped with AMAN, A-CDM, A-SMGCS (at least level 1&2)

This Use Case describes the process of the transfer of the ROT, after the Flight Crew receive the taxi-in route and trigger the calculation of the ROT by the EBS.

Before TOD (10-15 minutes) the Flight Crew receive the taxi-in route (automatic uplink after CPDLC connection is established). The flight crew arm the EBS and a calculation of the ROT is made.

The Airborne System downlinks the ROT and confirms the Airborne Intended runway exit.

The ROT and runway exit information will be available to SWIM. Actors in the CDM-process can therefore access the ROT and runway exit data if required.

Pre-conditions


31 of 39

● PreC1 - Datalink to permit transfer of ROT and exit data.

● PreC2 - CPDLC to enable negotiation of exit

● PreC3 - Downlinked data is made available to ATCOs (Approach and Tower)

● PreC4 - Downlinked data is available for AMAN/DMAN and D_Taxi services

● PreC5 - Flight approaches TOD

● PreC6 - Flight Crew uplink ATIS and have latest information including runway in use and runway conditions

Post-conditions

● PostC1 - Aircraft exits the runway at Airborne Intended exit.

Actors

Flight Crew, Ground System, ATCO (en-route or APP)

Trigger

Taxi-in route uplink


1 The CPDLC connection is established by the Flight Crew and the Planned Taxi-in route is automatically uplinked and loaded into the aircraft systems.

2 The planned taxi in route commencing from the Ground Preferred runway exit is displayed to the flight Crew on the Airport Moving Map (AMM) display and/or as text information.

3 The Flight Crew uploads landing data (through digital ATIS), including runway conditions

4 Flight crew arm Enhanced Braking System and input the Ground Preferred exit

5 Flight Crew verify the EBS calculation

6 The Airborne System down links:

Estimated ROT

Confirmation of Ground Preferred exit

Verification of planned taxi-in route

7 Ground System receives data and uplinks acknowledgement.

8 ROT/exit data integrated into AMAN, A-SMGCS and NOP

9 Flight Crew land and exit runway at the Ground Preferred runway exit

10 The use case ends

5.1.4.2 Alternative Flow

The flight crew negotiate a different exit, accepted (starts at step 5)


32 of 39

11 The Airborne System suggests another, more optimal exit

12 The Flight Crew verify the Airborne system’s choice

13 The Flight Crew reject the Ground System proposal

14 The Airborne System down links

Rejection of Ground Preferred exit

15 Ground System receives data and uplinks acknowledgement

16 Ground System recalculates planned taxi in route with alternative exit (considering any constraints (e.g. exit closure or taxiway maintenance and historic aircraft performance data stored within the NOP/ground system)

17 Ground System uplinks the Planned Taxi-In route and it is loaded into the aircraft systems

18 The flow continues at Step 4

A change to the runway or runway exit triggers a recalculation of the ROT and exit

19 The Ground System is notified of a change to the runway, runway exit or runway condition that will require a re-calculation of the ROT and exit.

20 The Ground System uplinks a cancellation of the original ROT and exit and a new Taxi-In route

21 The AS alerts the Flight Crew to the change

22 The Flight Crew acknowledge the uplinked information

23 The Flight Crew re-arm the EBS


On landing the Flight Crew are aware that the runway exit will be missed

25. The Airborne System informs the Flight Crew that the runway exit previously confirmed will be missed (e.g. as a result of a long landing)

26. The Airborne System informs the Ground System via downlink

27. The Ground System alerts the Tower and Ground controllers via the electronic strip or radar label

28. The Flight Crew inform ATC (Tower and Ground controllers ) via voice communication that the Agreed exit will be missed

29. ATC acknowledge

30. ATC edit the system generated route

31. The Ground System recalculates the taxi time, and if necessary updates the EIBT.

32. The use Case ends

5.1.5 Use Case 4: Standard transfer of ROT and exit data with datalink triggered by Flight Crew



33 of 39

This Use Case describes the process of the Flight crew triggering the calculation (EBS) and the Ground System responses to the receipt of the ROT and exit data.

At a specified time before TOD (10-15 minutes) the Flight Crew initiate (manually) the upload of landing data through digital ATIS (landing RWY and RWY conditions). The flight crew arm the EBS and a calculation of the ROT and Airborne Intended exit is made.

The CPDLC connection is established and the Airborne System downlinks the ROT and Airborne Intended runway exit. On receipt of this information the Ground System checks the intended exit against any constraints (e.g.) exit closure or taxiway maintenance and the ATC preferred exit.

The Ground System then acknowledges the ROT and exit.

The airport is equipped with AMAN, A-CDM, A-SMGCS (at least level 1&2)

The ROT and runway exit information will be available to SWIM. Actors in the CDM-process can therefore access the ROT and exit data if required.

Pre-conditions

● PreC1 - Datalink to permit transfer of ROT and exit data.

● PreC2 - CPDLC to enable negotiation of exit

● PreC3 - Downlinked data is made available to ATSUs (Approach and Tower)

● PreC4 - Downlinked data is available for AMAN/DMAN and D-Taxi services

● PreC5 - Flight approaches TOD

● PreC6 - Flight Crew uplink ATIS for latest information including runway in use and runway conditions

Post-conditions

● PostC1 - Flight exits the runway at Airborne Intended exit.

Actors

Flight Crew, Ground System, ATCOs (En route, Tower or Approach)

Trigger



1 Flight Crew uploads landing data (through digital ATIS), including runway conditions

2 Flight crew arm Enhanced Braking System

3 The CPDLC connection is established by the Flight Crew. The Airborne System automatically down links:

• Estimated ROT

• First available exit

• Airborne Intended exit for aircraft

4 Ground System receives data and uplinks:

• Acknowledge ROT and Airborne Intended exit (confirms Airborne system choice)

5 Ground System uplinks D-TAXI information (includes Ground trajectory and stand starting from Airborne Intended exit and with a time calculated from the ROT))


34 of 39

6 Airborne system down links:

• Acceptance of D-TAXI

7 The planned taxi in route is displayed to the Flight Crew on the Airport Moving Map (AMM) display and/or as text information.

8 ROT/exit data integrated into AMAN, ASMGCS and DMAN

9 The ROT and exit data is presented to the ATCOs on their strip/label

10 Flight Crew land and exit runway at planned exit

11 The Use Case ends

5.1.5.2 Alternative Flow

Ground System counter proposes a different runway exit, accepted by Flight Crew (starts at step 3)

12 Ground System receives data and uplinks:

• Acknowledgement

13 Ground System calculates ground trajectory and determines the Airborne Intended exit is not optimal for ATM

14 Ground System uplinks counterproposal imminent

15 Ground System uplinks D-TAXI information (includes Ground trajectory and stand starting from an alternative Ground preferred exit.)

16 Airborne system down links:

• Acknowledge D-TAXI

17 The planned taxi in route is displayed to the Flight Crew on the Airport Moving Map (AMM) display and/or as text information.

18 Flight crew re-arm Enhanced Braking System with Ground change proposal

19 EBS re calculates ROT and presents the information to the Flight Crew

20 Flight Crew confirm and accept EBS calculation

21 The Airborne System automatically down links:

• Acceptance (Agreed exit)

• Estimated ROT


Ground System request different runway exit rejected by Flight Crew (starts at step 16)

23 Flight crew re-arm Enhanced Braking System with Ground change proposal

24 EBS re calculates and suggests rejection of Ground Preferred exit as a more optimal exit is availableFlight Crew confirm EBS calculation

25 The Airborne System automatically down links:

• Rejection of Ground Preferred exit

26 Ground System Acknowledges AS rejection

27 Ground System calculates Taxi-In route based on original Airborne proposal

28 Flow continues at step 5


35 of 39

5.1.6 Use Case 6: Failure Flow with datalink application


This Use Case describes the process when datalink applications are in use and the EBS fails, degrades in performance or is disconnected. The use case is applicable after the initial EBS calculation is made and downlinked to the Ground System. The Airborne system on detecting ae failure, degrade or disconnect of the EBS will immediately alert the Ground System to the fact. The Ground System will alert ATC to the EBS health status. Controllers and AMAN will know that the aircraft can no longer be treated as an EBS arrival and the aircraft will be considered in the same manner as non-EBS equipped aircraft.

Pre-conditions

● PreC1 - EBS fails, degrades or is disconnected

Post-conditions

● PostC1 - Flight exits the runway.

Actors


Trigger

Airborne System detects degradation in EBS health status


1 The Airborne System detects that the health status of the EBS has dropped below acceptable limits

2 The Airborne System alerts the Flight Crew to the EBS status

3 The Airborne System downlinks the health status to the Ground System

4 The Ground System acknowledges the status update

5 The Ground System alerts the Controllers via the HMI

6 The Ground System alerts AMAN to the unreliability of the EBS data for that aircraft.

7 The use case ends

Project ID 06.08.02 D09 - Operational Service and Environment Definition (OSED) TemplateEdition: 00.00.02

36 of 39

6 Requirements

Identifier REQ-06.08.02-OSED-PEBS.0001

Requirement The HMI shall allow the ATCO to input the ROT when informed by the pilot


Requirement The HMI shall allow the ATCO to input the runway exit when informed by the pilot


Requirement The Airborne System shall present the pilot with the option to select the runway exit when arming the EBS


Requirement The Airborne System shall present the pilot with the option to confirm the runway exit status after the EBS calculation is made


Requirement The Flight Crew shall confirm the Taxi-In routeing on the control display unit when alerted to the uplink.


Requirement The Airborne System shall downlink the ROT when the Flight Crew confirm Taxi-In routeing


Requirement The Ground System shall uplink acknowledgement of ROT in response to the downlink of ROT


Requirement The Flight Crew shall select a reject proposed runway exit option in the Airborne System under the following conditions: When the proposed exit is not achievable When the proposed exit is not in accordance with the Airborne Intended exit calculated by the EBS


Requirement The Airborne System shall send a Taxi-in rejection message to the Ground System when the Flight Crew select the reject proposed runway exit option in the Airborne System


Requirement The Ground System shall send a runway exit rejection acknowledgment on receipt of a Taxi-in reject message


Requirement The Ground System shall send a revised Taxi-In route to the Airborne System in response to a runway exit rejection message



37 of 39

Requirement The Ground System shall send a Taxi-In routeing cancellation message to the Airborne System under the following condition: The Taxi-in route is changed by the Ground System


Requirement The Airborne System shall alert the Flight Crew to Taxi-In cancellation messages


Requirement The Airborne System shall send a EBS health message to the Ground System under the following conditions: Failed, disconnected, degraded below specified limits.


Requirement The ATCO shall be informed of a EBS calculated ROT via the HMI


Requirement The ATCO shall be informed of the EBS calculated runway exit via the HMI


Requirement The ATCO shall be informed of a change in the EBS status under the following conditions: when the EBS has failed, is disconnected or has degraded below specified limits.

Table 14: REQuirement Trace layout


38 of 39

7 References

7.1 Applicable Documents

This OSED complies with the requirements set out in the following documents:

[1] SESAR SEMP v2.0

[2] B4.2 Initial Service Taxonomy document

[3] Template Toolbox 02.00.00

[4] Requirements and V&V Guidelines 02.00.00

[5] Toolbox User Manual 02.00.00

7.2 Reference Documents

The following documents were used to provide input/guidance/further information/other:

[6] EUROCONTROL “Challenges to Growth” Study Report – 2004

[7] SESAR D1 “Air Transport Framework - The Current Situation”, Version 3.0, July 2006

[8] SESAR Task Deliverable: DLT-0507-111-00-13_T111_D1 - Analysis of the air transport value chain

[9] RESET “RST-WP1-INE-002-D1.1 WP1 Separation goals settings. WP1 final report-V1.01”, 28/02/2007

[10] EUROCONTROL Enhancing Airspace Capacity report (Edition 2)

[11] EP3 deliverable D5.3.3-02


39 of 39

- END OF DOCUMENT -

06.08.02 Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised ... · Chap.5 Outlines the operational...

Documents

Transcript of 06.08.02 Enhanced Runway Management Through Optimised ... · Chap.5 Outlines the operational...