Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T07:16:53.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysing complexity in approach control units of metroplex airspaces: insights from air traffic controllers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2025

E. Kaçar Open the ORCID record for E. Kaçar [Opens in a new window] ,
F. Aybek Çetek Open the ORCID record for F. Aybek Çetek [Opens in a new window]  and
K. Dönmez Open the ORCID record for K. Dönmez [Opens in a new window]
E. Kaçar
Affiliation:
Department of Transport Services, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkiye
F. Aybek Çetek*
Affiliation:
Air Traffic Control Department, Eskişehir Technical University, Eskişehir, Turkiye
K. Dönmez
Affiliation:
Aircraft Maintenance Department, Samsun University, Samsun, Turkiye
*
Corresponding author: F. Aybek Çetek; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Safe and efficient flight operations depend on effective air traffic management and the decision-making skills of air traffic control officers (ATCOs). However, managing air traffic in terminal control areas (TMAs), especially in approach control units, is challenging due to the complexity of the airspace. This is particularly evident in metroplex airspaces like the Istanbul TMA, which features multiple civil and military airports, diverse approach systems, and heavy traffic volumes, all contributing to an exceptionally complex operational environment. This study examines how experienced ATCOs perceive airspace complexity, focusing on approach control units within TMAs. Using Istanbul TMA as a case study, the research combines qualitative and quantitative methods to analyse the factors contributing to complexity. In the first phase, the Content Validity Method (CVM) is used to identify and confirm the key factors influencing airspace complexity. In the second phase, the Best-Worst Method (BWM) is applied to measure the importance of these factors. The study involves two groups of ATCOs: 40 in the first group and 20 in the second. The results reveal that ‘conflicts’ are the most critical factor affecting airspace complexity, highlighting the importance of conflict resolution in air traffic control. Other significant factors include rules and procedures, airspace design and traffic density. This study provides clear insights into the challenges of managing TMA, especially in metroplex airspace. Identifying and analysing the key factors offers valuable guidance for improving air traffic management and supporting ATCOs in making better decisions.

Keywords

air traffic managementairspace complexityterminal control area (TMA)point merge systemContent Validity Method (CVM)Best-Worst Method (BWM)
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , First View , pp. 1 - 18
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Radišić, T., Andraši, P., Novak, D., Juričić, B. and Antulov-Fantulin, B. Air traffic complexity as a source of risk in ATM, in Risk Assessment in Air Traffic Management, 2020, pp 63–89.Google Scholar
Antulov-Fantulin, B., Juričić, B., Radišić, T. and Çetek, C. Determining air traffic complexity: Challenges and future development, Promet Traffic Transp., 2020, 32(4), pp 475–485.Google Scholar
Laudeman, I.V., Shelden, S.G., Branstrom, R. and Brasil, C.L. Dynamic density: An air traffic management metric, NASA TM-1998-112226, 1998.Google Scholar
Pawlak, W.S., Brinton, C.R., Crouch, K. and Lancaster, K. A framework for the evaluation of air traffic control complexity, Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Histon, J.M., Hansman, R.J., Gottlieb, B., Kleinwaks, H., Yenson, S., Delahaye, D. and Puechmorel, S. Structural considerations and cognitive complexity in air traffic control, Proceedings of the 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2002, pp 1C2-1–1C2-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, V., Chatterji, G., Johnson, W., Mogford, R., Kopardekar, P., Sieira, E., Landing, M. and Lawton, G. Pilot perceptions of airspace complexity: Part 2, The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2004, 510-31–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianazza, D. and Guittet, K. Evaluation of air traffic complexity metrics using neural networks and sector status, École Nationale de l’Aviation Civile, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopardekar, P., Bilimoria, K.D. and Sridhar, B. Airspace configuration concepts for the next generation air transportation system, Air Traffic Control Q., 2008, 16, (4), PP 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopardekar, P., Prevot, T. and Jastrzebski, M. Traffic complexity measurement under higher levels of automation and higher traffic densities, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2008, p 7397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brázdilová, S.L., Cásek, P. and Kubalčík, J. Air traffic complexity for a distributed air traffic management system, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerospace Eng., 2011, 225, (6), pp 665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandini, M., Putta, V. and Hu, J. Air traffic complexity in future Air Traffic Management systems, J. Aerospace Oper., 2012, 1, (3), pp 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, M., Zhang, J., Cai, K. and Cao, X. ATCEM: A synthetic model for evaluating air traffic complexity, J. Adv. Transp., 2016, 50, (3), pp 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netjasov, F., Janić, M. and Tošić, V. Developing a generic metric of terminal airspace traffic complexity, Transportmetrica, 2011, 7, (5), pp 369–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurinić, T., Juričić, B., Antulov-Fantulin, B. and Samardžić, K. Defining terminal airspace air traffic complexity indicators based on air traffic controller tasks, Aerospace, 2024, 11, (5), p 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christien, R., Benkouar, A., Chaboud, T. and Loubieres, P. Air traffic complexity indicators & ATC sectors classification, Proceedings of the 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2002, 2D3-1–2D3-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, M.L. and Tsonis, C. Deconstructing complexity in air traffic control, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., 2005, 49, (1), pp 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, C., Neal, A., Loft, S. and Halford, G.S. An analysis of relational complexity in an air traffic control conflict detection task, Ergonomics, 2006, 49, (14), pp 1508–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djokic, J., Lorenz, B. and Fricke, H. Air traffic control complexity as workload driver, Transp. Res. Part C Emerging Technol., 2010, 18, (6), pp 930–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flener, P., Pearson, J., Ågren, M., Garcia-Avello, C., Çeliktin, M. and Dissing, S. Air-traffic complexity resolution in multi-sector planning, J. Air Transp. Manag., 2007, 13, (6), pp 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özdemir, M., Dönmez, K. and Demirel, S. Determining the key factors affecting pseudo-pilot workload based on real-time simulations, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 2023, 2677, (7), pp 718–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DHMİ (Turkish ANSP). Annual report (in Turkish language). General Directorate of State Airports Authority, 2022.Google Scholar
DHMİ (Turkish ANSP). Annual report (in Turkish language). General Directorate of State Airports Authority, 2021.Google Scholar
DHMİ (Turkish ANSP). Türkiye airports aircraft, passenger and freight traffic statistics. General Directorate of State Airports Authority, 2023.Google Scholar
DHMİ (Turkish ANSP). Airspace chart. Aeronautical Information Publications, 2023, November 30.Google Scholar
Lynn, M.R. Determination and quantification of content validity, Nurs. Res., 1986, 35, (6), pp 382–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity, Personnel Psychol., 1975, 28, (4), pp 563–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method, Omega, 2015, 53, pp 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salimi, N. and Rezaei, J. Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method, Eval. Program Plann., 2018, 66, 147–115. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed