ICAO Worldwide Symposium on Performance of the Air Navigation System The Challenge Montreal March...

ICAO Worldwide Symposium onPerformance of the Air Navigation System

The ChallengeMontreal March 26-30, 2007

Introduction

IFALPA – International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations

• Founded in 1948 with 13 Member Associations

• Today it represents more than 120,000 pilots in near 100 countries globally.

• The Global Voice of Pilots.



Overview

Challenge: The Human FactorChallenge: Flexibility and

Dynamic ReactionChallenge: Buffers and Margins



What is: Future ATM?



Industry ATM TRANSITION ROADMAP

Near Term Medium Term Long Term

FLEXIBLE AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT

ENHANCE TMA MANAGEMENT

INCREASE HORIZONTAL CAPACITY

COLLABORATIVE SPACING

ENHANCE RUNWAY OPERATIONS

DYNAMIC AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT

DYNAMIC TMA MANAGEMENT

INTEGRATED TMA/AIRPORT MANAGEMENT

ENHANCE AIRPORT MAMANGEMENT

ENHANCE ROUTE FLEXIBILITY

INCREASE VERTICAL CAPACITY

ENROUTE EFFICIENCY

TMAEFFICIENCY

AIRPORT EFFICIENCY/CAPACITY

ENROUTE CAPACITY

2005 20082006 2010 2012 20152014 2025

SWIM 1

FOCUS AREA

IMPROVE INFORMATION EXCHANGEINFORMATION MANAGEMENT

ATM

Op

era

tion

al C

on

cep

t

Baseline 01 Jan 2005

Note: Blocks left of the baseline indicate implementation has already begun.



Global Harmonization

Everyone promises it

– The reality is different

An example:

CPDLC procedures & message sets

The only (¿?) truly globalreference: ICAO



ICAO Future ATM

Doc 9854

Global Air Navigation Plan

for CNS/ATM SystemsDoc 9750



Challenge: Human Factor

IFATS – “Innovative Future Air Transport System Concept”

postulates that an “extremely automated” air transport system - without pilots and controllers - would be more efficient and safer at the same time than the current ATM System.




• Is automation “per se” a more efficient and safer “modus operandi” than a system architecture which uses the capabilities of the human to its best?– In reality, to achieve generally accepted low probability

levels for some RNP approach operations, the only solution is: Mitigation by procedures. Mitigation to an extent that some members of certification authorities feel uneasy about it.

• “Extreme automation” will solve everything, “safer”?This type of presumption cannot be accepted from

scientific organisations “per se” it must be proven!




The Human Roll– Mitigate shortcomings in Technology with

Operational Procedures?– Special Purpose Codes in ADS-B (NRA)

RCF:RCF: 7600 7600

Unlawful interference:Unlawful interference: 7500 7500

Emergency:Emergency: 7700 7700

SPI/IDENTSPI/IDENT

Generic Emergency FlagGeneric Emergency FlagADS-BADS-B

BAW012370 M78MAVOREMG




• Our position – your position?Future system development should be based

on identified operational requirements. Consequential system functions should then

be realized by applying the optimum level of automation.

• The pilot community is ready to support the scientific groups in identifying this “optimum level of automation” – but we are not going to accept “extreme automation” without any type of human control as a “white sheet starting point”.



ICAO OCD 2.5.4

“There will be dynamic 4-D trajectory control and negotiated conflict-free trajectories.”

Is the qualification “dynamic” reflected in currently foreseen implementations of 4-D trajectory negotiation and control?



Challenge: Flexibility

Any “future system” must be able to react timely and adequately to disturbances like late passengers / security of luggage / unforecast WX changes!

Adequate dynamic negotiation and control requires appropriate communications and planning tools!



Challenge: Buffers & Margins

An example: Lateral Navigation

The 50ies & 60ies: ATS Route = Air Corridor

The 70ies & 80ies:VOR Route Structures: Adherence to centre line required -ICAO Annex 2 (3.6.2.1.1)

The 90ies and on:GPS input to navigation solution



Challenge: Buffers & Margins

Any accidental loss of vertical separation inevitably results in a critical situation, if not a collision, because of the extreme accuracy of GPS based navigation.



IFALPA POLICY

IFALPA believes that the availability of accurate airborne navigation systems with the capability to navigate automatically along lateral offset tracks should be used so as to reduce the collision risk in the case of possible loss of vertical separation in suitable ATS environments.



IFALPA POLICY

RNAV LATERAL OFFSET TRACKING Aircraft with navigation equipment certified and operated to

P-RNAV standards [at least RNP-1 accuracy] should be allowed and required to navigate offset one nautical mile right of centerline.

Note: This policy is not in opposition to the current ICAO SLOP Guidance. In fact, based on this earlier policy statement IFALPA had supported the development of the ICAO provisions, and calls now for the extension of its applicability to areas other than “oceanic and remote continental”.

On Precision RNAV routes [in RNP-1 en-route airspace], to allow for safe offset tracking, the offset value should be taken into account when establishing such routes.



IFALPA POLICY

GNSS EMBEDDED DEFAULT LATERAL OFFSET Furthermore, because of the high accuracy and increased

risk of head-on collision invoked by GNSS, to mitigate this risk IFALPA requires that GNSS referenced airborne navigation systems have an embedded default lateral offset.

This embedded offset, residing in whichever part of the equipment calculates the tracking, should be – large enough to reduce the risk of head-on GNSS-to-GNSS

collisions, and – yet be small enough to be insignificant to the pilots, and the ATC

system, in en-route and terminal procedures.



The Tragic Truth

There have been mid-air collisions that probably could have been averted if offset tracking had been applied!



62nd IFALPA Conference Statement

IFALPA calls for urgent implementation of Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures;

All States and ICAO Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) to authorize the ICAO SLOP in all appropriate airspaces at the earliest opportunity, and

ICAO to support States and PIRGs in their efforts to implement SLOP, and

ICAO to continue developing advanced offset tracking procedures (such as the embedded lateral offset concept).



Strategy

Relax Annex 2 (3.6.2.1.1), the “on centre line” rule, to allow offset tracking as reasonable in the circumstances

Recognize lateral offset tracking and cater for it in airspace design and air traffic management functions of any future ATM system



4D Trajectories

Remember ICAO OCD 2.5.4:

“There will be dynamic 4-D trajectory control and negotiated conflict-free trajectories.”



4D Trajectories

Can a conflict-free trajectory be calculated over several hours of flight?

“Disturbances” – as mentioned previously in the “flexibility” section - make such an extreme implementation unreasonable from an operational perspective.

For example, it does not make sense to delay the departure of a flight by 30 seconds to resolve a predicted en-route conflict a couple of hours ahead, or to achieve a better arrival sequence.



ATS Committee Position (1)

“4D trajectories” based advanced air traffic management is supported under the following two conditions:

1) It must be recognized and accepted that the accuracy of the trajectory prediction will degrade with the extent of look

ahead.

Some people call this “granularity”, some others rather relate the control mechanisms to appropriate “time horizons”.



ATS Committee Position(2)

2) The 4D clearance it self should always indicate the necessary compliance value, depending on the traffic situation.

This may be called a type of “breathing” 4D definition or spacing requirement (in legacy terms).

Note: It is recognized that to achieve higher capacity in high demand situations, the user-preferred 4D trajectory will be subject to modifications through CDM.



Evolution: “Breathing” Compliance

Adherence to speed in general is subject to a 5% margin (ICAO Annex 2, 3.6.2.2).

To achieve higher capacity, the application of the “Mach number technique” may be required.

Temporary changes of speed, for example, when turbulence is encountered, require amendments to the clearance.

In a future 4D environment, it should be obvious from the “contract” to what extent a deviation from the nominal target value is possible without creating a conflict with other traffic.

It may even be advantageous to base the overall planning on reasonable buffer margins to reduce the communication and coordination workload when short-term deviations are required.



IFATS & 4D Trajectories

A kind of “breathing” compliance is part of the IFATS program 4D trajectory management:



IFATS & 4D Trajectories

The individual aircraft operates within a “freedom bubble”, allowing reasonable trajectory and speed modifications without negotiating a new contract

This allows maintaining variable, optimum Mach numbers, and reaction to unforeseen events to some degree.

Separation from other traffic is effected by conflict-free outer “safety bubbles”



Conclusion

Global Harmonisation - needs to be achieved on System Planning level as well as during local / Regional implementations

Automation not being a value “per se” “Flexibility” and ability for “Dynamic

Reaction” as properties of ATM Recognition of the benefits of appropriate

“buffers and margins” for both:– Safety, and– Stability of Operation



Captain Miguel Marín

IFALPA ATS Committee [email protected]

ICAO Worldwide Symposium on Performance of the Air Navigation System The Challenge Montreal March...

Documents

Transcript of ICAO Worldwide Symposium on Performance of the Air Navigation System The Challenge Montreal March...