Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:17:01.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Air Traffic Control Separation Minima: Part 2 – Transition to a Trajectory-based System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2011

Peter Brooker
Peter Brooker*
Affiliation:
(Aviation Consultant)
*
(Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current strategic plans for Air Traffic Management (ATM) envisage a transition from radar control to a trajectory-based system. Part 1 sketched the historical origins of separation minima and then analysed the safety thinking behind current minima and the issues involved in risk modelling. Part 2 examines the future situation. This focuses on the intermediate steps to the final system – upgraded capabilities in a mixed-equipage system. Future traffic mixes two categories of traffic: V aircraft, i.e. vectored traditional ATC-handled, and 4D aircraft, i.e. flying on 4D trajectories. Conflict probe and other decision support tools will need to be in place, inter alia to prevent controller workload from increasing. Conceptually, future risks in the transition period will be the sum of three types of aircraft encounter risk: V/V, 4D/4D and 4D/V. These pose different kinds of problem for ATC, appropriate conflict alerting systems and risk assessment. The numbers of 4D/V encounters increase rapidly with growth in the proportion of 4D aircraft. With reduced minima, airborne collision avoidance systems would be unlikely to resolve higher relative velocity encounters were the ATC system to fail. It would be a difficult decision to reduce markedly ATC separation minima for any category of aircraft encounters during the transition period.

Keywords

ATMSeparation minima4D trajectories
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 673 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2011

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

REFERENCES

Amalberti, R. (1998). Automation in Aviation : A human factors perspective, in Garland, D., Wise, J. & Hopkin, D. (Eds) Aviation Human Factors, (pp 173–192, chapter 7), Hillsdale- New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Andrews, J. W., Welch, J.D. and Erzberger, H., (2005). Safety analysis for advanced separation concepts. USA/Europe ATM R&D Seminar, Baltimore, MD, 27–30 June, 2005.Google Scholar
Averty, P, Mehadhebi, K., Pirat, J-L. (2009). Evaluation of ATC working practice from a safety and human factor perspective. Eighth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar.Google Scholar
Barr, A. C. (2009). Challenges in Implementing Performance-Based Navigation in the U.S. Air Transportation System. OIG Testimony Number CC-2009-086, July 29, 2009. U.S.A. Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
Beasley, J. E., Howells, H., and Sonander, J. (2002). Improving short-term conflict alert via tabu search. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 53, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, D. M., Thipphavong, D., Rentas, T. L., He, Y., Wang, X., and Pate-Cornell, M. E. (2010). Safety Analysis of the Advanced Airspace Concept using Monte Carlo Simulation,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference and Modeling and Simulation Technologies (MST) Conference, Toronto, Canada, 2–5 Aug. 2010.Google Scholar
Brain, C. (2007). FASTI: Enabling change in en-route ATC. Skyway 46 (Autumn/Winter), 101–103.Google Scholar
Brooker, P. (2008). Air traffic safety: continued evolution or a new paradigm? Aeronautical Journal 112 (1132), 333–344.Google Scholar
Brooker, P. (2009a). SESAR: R&D and Project Portfolios for Airline Business Needs. The Journal of Navigation. 62, 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, P. (2009b). Simple models for airport delays during transition to a trajectory based air traffic system. The Journal of Navigation. 62, 555–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, P. (2010). SESAR Safety Decision-Making: Lessons from Environmental, Nuclear and Defence Modelling. Safety Science. 48(7), 831–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, P. (2011). Air Traffic Control Separation Minima: Part 1 – The Current Stasis. The Journal of Navigation. 64, 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, T. L., Martinez-Guridi, G., Yue, M., Lehner, J. (2006). A Review of Software-Induced Failure Experience. American Nuclear Society 5th International Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation Control and Human Machine Interface Technology. November 2006. http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/32718.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S.E., Ramey-Smith, A.M., Wreathall, G.W., et al. , A Technique for Human Error Analysis (ATHEANA), NUREGiCR-6350, NRC, Washington, D.C. (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corker, K., Gore, B., Flemming, K. and Lane, J. (2000). Free Flight and the Context of Control: Experiments and Modeling to Determine the Impact of Distributed Air-ground Air Traffic Management on Safety and Procedures. 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, ATM-2000, Napoli, Italy, June 2000.Google Scholar
Cramer, M. (2009). On-Board Performance Monitoring and Alerting (OPMA): Airborne System Calculations, Statistical Meaning and Relationships to Separation Standards Development. Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, The MITRE Corporation.Google Scholar
Cuevas, G. et al. (2009). Ifly Deliverable D1.3, Autonomous Aircraft Advanced (A3) Concept of Operations. Version: 4.2. At http://iFLY.nlr.nl.Google Scholar
Davison Reynolds, H. J (2006). Modeling the Air Traffic Controller's Cognitive Projection Process Report No. ICAT-2006-1. MIT International Center for Air Transportation.Google Scholar
Dixon, L E. (2010). Timely Actions Needed to Advance the Next Generation Air Transportation System. U.S.A. Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General. (AV-2010-068),Google Scholar
EPISODE 3 (2008). SESAR Detailed Operational Description: Conflict Management in En-Route High & Medium/Low Density Operations - E6. EC project EPISODE 3 consortium. Document ID E3-D2.2-028. Version 3.0, 28-07-2008.Google Scholar
EPISODE 3 (2009). TMA Expert Group Report. EC project EPISODE 3 consortium D5.3.1-02 Version 2.00.Google Scholar
Eurocontrol (2010). Introducing Performance Based Navigation (PBN) and Advanced RNP (A-RNP).Google Scholar
European Commission (2009). European Air Traffic Management Master Plan – Edition 1, 30 March, 2009.Google Scholar
FAA/Eurocontrol, (2005). Aviation System Safety Principles: Safety Action Plan-15. Version 2.0 June 10, 2005.Google Scholar
Garrett, C., and Apostolakis, G., (1999). Context in the Risk Assessment of Digital Systems. Risk Analysis, 19, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinger, K. V. and Narkus-Kramer, M. (2005). Expediting an Improved Performance Based NAS: The Rationale for Accelerating Avionics Equipage. The MITRE Corporation, December 2005. http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/05_1122/05_1122.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICAO (1998). Manual on Airspace Planning Methodology for the Determination of Separation Minima. ICAO Doc 9689-AN/953, 63–65.Google Scholar
ICAO (2008). Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) Manual. Doc 9613. International Civil Aviation Organization.Google Scholar
ICAO (2010). Draft ICAO PBN Operations Approval Handbook. WP/6. Presented By Australia. Sixth Meeting Of The Performance Based Navigation Task Force. International Civil Aviation Organization.Google Scholar
JPDO [Joint Planning and Development Office, FAA] (2009). Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) Conference Meeting Summary March 24, 2009. http://www.jpdo.gov/library/tbo/20090416_TBO_Conference_Summary.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kopardekar, P., Smith, N., Lee, K., Aweiss, A., Lee, P., Prevot, T., Mercer, J., Homola, J., and Mainini, M., (2009). Feasibility of Mixed Equipage Operations in the Same Airspace,” Eighth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar, Napa, California, June 2009.Google Scholar
Lee, P., Prevot, T., Mercer, J., Smith, N., and Palmer, E. (2005). Ground-side Perspective on Mixed Operations with Self-separating and Controller managed Aircraft. The Sixth International Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar ATM-2005, Baltimore, MD, July 2005.Google Scholar
Macal, C. M. (2005). Model Verification and Validation. Workshop on ‘Threat Anticipation: Social Science Methods and Models’. The University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. April 7–9, 2005. http://jtac.uchicago.edu/conferences/05/resources/V&V_macal_pres.pdfGoogle Scholar
Möller, N. and Hansson, S. O. (2008). Principles of engineering safety: Risk and uncertainty reduction. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 93, 776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondoloni, S. (2009). Use of Linear Aircraft Intent Response for Tactical Trajectory Based Operations. Eighth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2009).Google Scholar
Mozdzanowska, A., Weibel, R., Lester, E., and Hansman, R. J. (2007). The dynamics of air transportation in transition. In 7th Air Traffic Management Conference, July 2007.Google Scholar
Parasuraman, R. and Wickens, C. D. (2008). Humans:Still Vital After All These Years of Automation. Human Factors. 50(3), 511–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petricel, B. and Costelloe, C. (2007). First ATC Support Tools Implementation (FASTI) Operational Concept. Edition 1.1.Google Scholar
Pina, P. E. (2007). Cognitive and operational implications of non-homogeneous aircraft equipage for aviation system transformation. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thesis (S.M.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, September 2007.Google Scholar
Prevot, T., Homola, J. R., Mercer, J. S., Mainini, M. J., and Cabrall, C. D. (2009) Initial Evaluation of Air/Ground Operations with Ground-Based Automated Separation Assurance, Proceedings of the 8th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar, Napa, CA.Google Scholar
Rentas, T., Green, S. M. and Cate, K. (2009). Survey and Method for Determination of Trajectory Predictor Requirements. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center. NASA/TM–2009-215400. http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2009/Rentas_TM_2009-215400_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
RTCA (2008). Future ADS-B / TCAS Relationships. Summary of the Third Meeting, Special Committee 218 RTCA Paper No. 011-09/SC218-008.January 08, 2009Google Scholar
Sheridan, T. B. (2009). Human Factors Research Needs for NextGen-Airportal Safety. NASA/CR–2009-215372. U.S. Department of Transportation, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.Google Scholar
Tobias, L., Erzberger, H., Lee, H. Q., O'Brien, P. J. (1985). Mixing Four-Dimensional Equipped and Unequipped Aircraft in the Terminal Area. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics. 8(3), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willows, R. and Connell, R. (Eds.) (2003). Climate adaptation Risk, uncertainty and decision-making. Oxford (United Kingdom): UK Climate Impacts Programme.Google Scholar