4 th workshop, amsterdam, 23 rd -25 th april 2007 asas lc&p applications in radar airspace:...
TRANSCRIPT
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASAS LC&P Applications in Radar Airspace:
Operational Scenario Example and Fast-Time Simulation Results
Thierry Miquel and Philippe Louyot
DSNA, Toulouse, France
John Anderson and Colin GoodchildUniversity of Glasgow, UK
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational Procedure• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational Procedure• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres
• Finite time-horizon (look ahead time 5-10 minutes)
• Lateral manoeuvre requirement only
• Third-party aircraft assumed isolated from ASAS designated pair
• Two well-established resolution manoeuvre classes have been assessed– Turning point manoeuvre– Offset manoeuvre
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres
• Turning point manoeuvre– Minimizes the number of resolution manoeuvre stages– May be achieved through autopilot lateral functionality
Target aircraft Clearance aircraft
Suggested TCP
Clear of Traffic Point
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres
• Offset manoeuvre– May be compatible with Flight Management System (FMS)
functionality
– A track alteration of 30 degrees has been assumed
Target aircraft Clearance aircraft
Suggested TCPs
Clear of Traffic Point
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational Procedure• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Phases
Set-up Phase
Identification Phase
Clearance Phase
Execution Phase
Termination Phase
ControllerFlight crew
Set-up Phase
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
ATCO: CSA6662 For Lateral Crossing, identify Target AF534
ATCO assesses the opportunity of ASAS lateral crossing manoeuvre
Setup phase + Setup phase + Identification phaseIdentification phase
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Pilot: CSA6662 Identify AF534
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Pilot: CSA6662 Target Identified AF534, two o’clock, 38NM
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
ATCO: CSA6662 Pass behind [AF534], report clear of traffic, then proceed to MOKDI
Clearance phaseClearance phase
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Pilot: CSA6662 Pass behind AF534 then proceed to MOKDI (Clearance entered and solution evaluated)
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Flight crew aligns aircraft track by means of the Flight Control Unit.Alternatively, the solution can be coupled to the FMS functionalities.
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
ATCO: AF534BH for information you are under ASAS separation
Execution phaseExecution phase
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Pilot monitors the expected separation (by means of relative ground speed vector)
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Clearance aircraft near the Closest Point of Approach.
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Clearance aircraft passed CPA and close to Clear of Traffic.
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Pilot: CSA6662 clear of traffic, proceeding to MOKDI
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
ATCO: Roger, CSA6662, (instruction)
ATCO assesses that separation at COT is OK and resumes responsibility for separation
Termination phaseTermination phase
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Operational Procedure - Example
Pilot: CSA6662 Proceeding to MOKDI End of ASAS – pilot resumes navigation monitoring.
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational Procedure• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithm assessment
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Fast-Time Simulation Results• Operational scenarios
– Derived from pairwise crossing encounters in radar airspace in two adjacent sectors in southwest France:
Sector T
Sector W
Ac147
Ac41
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Fast-Time Simulation Results
• The selected radar set is modified such that aircraft are flying directly from the entry point to the exit point of the sector.
• Only encounters for which the initial separation is greater than 5 NM are considered (a total of 309 encounters).
• The clearance aircraft (ASAS equipped aircraft) is assumed to be the aircraft with the lowest airspeed
• Pass behind manoeuvres are simulated
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
• Navigation accuracy model:
– The aircraft is assumed to follow a succession of waypoints.
– The aircraft is assumed to be equipped with a track-hold autopilot.
– Lateral positioning errors are included in the track-hold autopilot control to simulate the required 95% accuracy navigation positioning.
Fast-Time Simulation Results
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
• Example of an encounter with 1 NM navigation error for both aircraft
Fast-Time Simulation Results
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Fast-Time Simulation Results
• Simulations were performed for each of the selected encounters for each of nine wind fields and three navigation error categories:
– Wind fields: {0 kts, 30 kts, 60 kts} x {0˚, 90˚, 180˚, 270˚}
– Navigation positioning categories: {0, 0.3, 1} NM
• Focus on the set of uncontrolled encounters for which the separation is lower than 5 NM (1086 encounters)
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational scenario example• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Minimum lateral separation• Maximum cross track deviation
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Fast-Time Simulation Results
• The objective of the ASEP-LC&P algorithms is to achieve a prescribed minimum lateral separation (5 NM in this case)
• Two performance metrics are used to assess the ASEP-LC&P algorithms:– Minimum lateral separation achieved
– Maximum cross-track deviation
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Fast-Time Simulation Results
• For each encounter/wind field/navigation accuracy scenario, each of the performance metrics was assigned to one of the bin sets:
– Bin 1: the metric value is between 0 NM and 2 NM
– Bin 2: the metric value is between 2 NM and 4 NM
– Bin 3: the metric value is between 4 NM and 6 NM
– …
– Bin 7: the metric value is greater than 12 NM
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational scenario example• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Minimum lateral separation• Maximum cross track deviation
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
• Minimum lateral separation– No lateral crossing manoeuvre
No Lateral Crossing Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
Minimum lateral separation
Percentage of encounters per bin category
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
• Minimum lateral separation– No lateral crossing manoeuvre
No Lateral Crossing Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
Minimum lateral separation
Percentage of encounters per bin category
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
• Minimum lateral separation– No lateral crossing manoeuvre
No Lateral Crossing Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
Minimum lateral separation
Percentage of encounters per bin category
No Lateral Crossing Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
Bin 4-4,75 NM Bin 4,75-5,25 NM Bin 5,25-6 NM
Nav. Error 0
Nav. Error 0,3
Nav. Error 1
No Lateral Crossing Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
Bin 4-4,75 NM Bin 4,75-5,25 NM Bin 5,25-6 NM
Nav. Error 0
Nav. Error 0,3
Nav. Error 1
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
Turning Point Maneuver
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Minimum lateral separation
• Minimum lateral separation– Turning point manoeuvre
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
Turning Point Maneuver
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Minimum lateral separation
• Minimum lateral separation– Turning point manoeuvre
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
Turning Point Maneuver
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Minimum lateral separation
• Minimum lateral separation– Turning point manoeuvre
Turning Point Maneuver
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bin 4-4,75 NM Bin 4,75-5,25 NM Bin 5,25-6 NM
Nav. Error 0
Nav. Error 0,3
Nav. Error 1
Turning Point Maneuver
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bin 4-4,75 NM Bin 4,75-5,25 NM Bin 5,25-6 NM
Nav. Error 0
Nav. Error 0,3
Nav. Error 1
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Minimum lateral separation
Offset Maneuver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
• Minimum lateral separation– Offset manoeuvre
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Minimum lateral separation
Offset Maneuver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
• Minimum lateral separation– Offset manoeuvre
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Minimum lateral separation
Offset Maneuver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bin 0-2 NM Bin 2-4 NM Bin 4-6 NM Bin 6-8 NM Bin 8-10NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
• Minimum lateral separation– Offset manoeuvre
Offset Maneuver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Bin 4-4,75 NM Bin 4,75-5,25 NM Bin 5,25-6 NM
Nav. Error 0
Nav. Error 0,3
Nav. Error 1
Offset Maneuver
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Bin 4-4,75 NM Bin 4,75-5,25 NM Bin 5,25-6 NM
Nav. Error 0
Nav. Error 0,3
Nav. Error 1
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
• Example of unresolved conflict:– Despite a separation of 19.4 NM at the beginning of the
encounter, the two aircraft cross at 2.3 NM.
– This example basically shows that if the clearance is issued late, the radius of turn may not be sufficient to enable the clearance aircraft to correctly perform the lateral crossing manoeuvre.
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational scenario example• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Minimum lateral separation• Maximum cross track deviation
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
• Maximum cross-track deviation– Turning point manoeuvre
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Maximum cross-track deviation
Turning Point Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
25
Bin 0-2NM
Bin 2-4NM
Bin 4-6NM
Bin 6-8NM
Bin 8-10NM
Bin 10-12 NM
Bin >12NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
ASEP-LC&P Algorithms Assessment
• Maximum cross-track deviation– Offset manoeuvre
Percentage of encounters per bin category
Maximum cross-track deviation
Offset Maneuver
0
5
10
15
20
25
Bin 0-2NM
Bin 2-4NM
Bin 4-6NM
Bin 6-8NM
Bin 8-10NM
Bin 10-12 NM
Bin >12NM
Nav. Error 0 NM
Nav. Error 0,3 NM
Nav. Error 1 NM
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Contents
• ASAS Resolution Manoeuvres• Operational scenario example• Fast-Time Simulation Results
– Operational scenarios– ASEP-LC&P algorithms assessment
• Conclusions
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Conclusions
• Two well-established resolution manoeuvre classes have been investigated using a state-based geometric resolution algorithm:– Turning point manoeuvre and– Offset manoeuvre
• Only pass behind manoeuvres have been investigated as far as they are perceived by air traffic controllers as safer than pass in-front manoeuvres
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Conclusions
• Assessment, conducted using a set of modified radar encounters, indicates that:– Turning point manoeuvres perform better than
offset manoeuvres but provide a greater maximum cross track deviation.
– In addition, navigation errors (either from the ownship or from the target) significantly increase the percentage of unresolved conflicts by the airborne system.
– Close links should exist between future airborne separation standards and navigation performance.
4th
Workshop, Amsterdam, 23rd
-25th
April 2007
Conclusions
• A static manoeuvre envelope may not be adequate to take advantage of lateral crossing manoeuvre opportunities.
• Depending on the initial position and velocity configuration of the conflicting aircraft, a static envelope may be over- or under-sized.
• Envelope issues could be overcome by means of a dynamic manoeuvre envelope or by broadcasting the intended lateral crossing manoeuvre.