eurocontrol experimental centre · a diagram showing sid and inbound routing from mirsi along with...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

Manchester IITMA Analysis

EEC Note No. 11/97

EEC Task FS0-03

Issued: May 1997

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should bereproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Note Nº. 11/97

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:EEC - APT(Airport Simulations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreB.P.15F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor: Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B -1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32 2 729 9011

TITLE:

Manchester II TMA Analysis

AuthorGuy Tod

John Watkins

Date

5/97Pages

iv+ 30Figures

22Tables

12Appendix

4References

-

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

ASM.ET1.ST04

EEC Task No.

FS0-03

Task No. Sponsor Period

1/97 - 5/97

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: Head of APT(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):

SIMMOD, TMA Analysis, Terminal Manoeuvring Area, Manchester

Abstract:

Manchester NATS requested a SIMMOD analysis to examine the preferred split between the WEST andIOM sectors at Manchester. This note presents SIMMOD simulation results for two proposedconfigurations, comparing them to the existing sectorisation to determine changes in sector workloadindices, aircraft travel and delay times, and sector traffic profiles.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please reportto:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France


EUROCONTROL

Page - iii

Table of Contents1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 11.2 Project Objective......................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology...................................................................................................................... 22.1 SIMMOD Simulator ................................................................................................... 22.2 Sectorisation Organisations ........................................................................................ 2

2.2.1 Option 1 - Current Organisation (Basecase) .......................................................................22.2.2 Option 2..............................................................................................................................32.2.3 Option 3..............................................................................................................................3

2.3 Data Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 42.3.1 Traffic Samples ...................................................................................................................42.3.2 Separation Standards ..........................................................................................................52.3.3 Airport/TMA Interfaces .......................................................................................................5

2.4 Simulation Scenarios................................................................................................... 62.5 Simulation Design Constraints ................................................................................... 7

2.5.1 SIDs....................................................................................................................................72.5.2 Traffic Flows.......................................................................................................................72.5.3 Holding at MIRSI................................................................................................................7

3. Results ............................................................................................................................... 83.1 Comparison of Sector Workload Indices.................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Workload Indices for Easterly Flow ....................................................................................83.1.2 Workload Indices for Westerly Flow....................................................................................93.1.3 Weighted Average of Workload Indices for Easterly and Westerly Flow............................10

3.2 Comparison of Aircraft Delay Times........................................................................ 113.2.1 Aircraft Delay Times - Easterly Flow ................................................................................113.2.2 Aircraft Delay Times - Westerly Flow................................................................................123.2.3 Aircraft Delay Times - Easterly and Westerly Flow Weighted Average ..............................13

3.3 Comparison of Aircraft Travel Times ...................................................................... 143.3.1 Aircraft Travel Times - Easterly Flow ...............................................................................143.3.2 Aircraft Travel Times - Westerly Flow...............................................................................153.3.3 Aircraft Travel Times - Easterly and Westerly Flow Weighted Average .............................16

3.4 Sector Traffic Profiles................................................................................................ 173.4.1 Sector Traffic Profiles- Easterly Flow ...............................................................................17

3.4.1.1 Sector Traffic Profiles - Easterly Flow 1996 Traffic....................................................173.4.1.2 Sector Traffic Profiles - Easterly Flow 2000 Traffic....................................................183.4.1.3 Sector Traffic Profiles - Easterly Flow 2004 Traffic....................................................18


EUROCONTROL

Page - iv

3.4.2 Sector Traffic Profiles- Westerly Flow...............................................................................193.4.2.1 Sector Traffic Profiles - Westerly Flow 1996 Traffic ...................................................193.4.2.2 Sector Traffic Profiles - Westerly Flow 2000 Traffic ...................................................203.4.2.3 Sector Traffic Profiles - Westerly Flow 2004 Traffic ...................................................20

4. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 215. Future Simulations ......................................................................................................... 226. ANNEX A SIMMOD Description.................................................................................... 23

6.1 How are the end results achieved ?........................................................................... 236.2 Input requirements.................................................................................................... 236.3 Output ....................................................................................................................... 236.4 Simulation Animation ............................................................................................... 246.5 Disadvantages - Limitations...................................................................................... 24

7. ANNEX B Arrival and Departure Routeings................................................................... 258. ANNEX C Workload Calculations .................................................................................. 279. ANNEX D WAL Flight Profiles ...................................................................................... 28


EUROCONTROL

Page - 1

Manchester IITMA Analysis

1. Introduction

1.1 BackgroundNATS Manchester requested that the EEC’s APT Centre of Expertise examine the Manchester terminalmanoeuvring area (TMA) in preparation for real-time simulations. Two real-time simulations areplanned, the first in Autumn 1997 and the second in Autumn 1998. To support these simulations, avariety of issues are being examined:

1. Analysis of the WEST and Isle of Man (IOM) sectors in order to determine a preferred splitbetween them,

2. Detailed analysis of the configuration of Manchester TMA and the enroute interface,including the possible addition of a fourth holding stack,

3. Analysis of final approach spacing requirements for two-runway operations, and

4. Possible mixed-mode operations for two-runway operations.

Only the first issue is examined in this Phase II analysis. The remaining three issues will be examined inPhase III, scheduled to begin in September 1997.

1.2 Project ObjectiveIn order to determine the preferred split between the WEST and IOM sectors at Manchester, SIMMOD1

simulation results for two proposed configurations are compared to the existing sectorisation todetermine the changes in:

• Sector workload index,

• Aircraft delay time,

• Aircraft travel time, and

• Sector traffic profiles.

1 SIMMOD is the US Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport and Airspace Simulation Model. See Section2.1 and Annex A for additional SIMMOD information.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 2

2. Methodology

2.1 SIMMOD SimulatorEUROCONTROL uses SIMMOD software in conjunction with specialised pre- and post-processors toanalyse airspace and airfield systems. SIMMOD models the aircraft flight, both in the air and on theground, gathering statistics for each aircraft. These statistics are processed to provide aircraft flightstatistics, travel and delay times, estimates of sector workload indices, and a graphical animation of thesimulation.

Additional information on SIMMOD can be found in Annex A.

2.2 Sectorisation OrganisationsThree sectorisation options were submitted by Manchester ATCC for evaluation.

2.2.1 Option 1 - Current Organisation (Basecase)The WEST and IOM sectors are laterally split 25 nm West and North West of the navigational aidWAL. Both sectors operate up to FL195.

Figure 1


EUROCONTROL

Page - 3

2.2.2 Option 2Both WEST and IOM sectors have vertical and lateral adjustments. The WEST sector is level capped atFL135 and its Western and North Western boundaries moved from 25nm West of WAL to 18 nm Westof WAL. The IOM sector overlays the capped WEST sector between FL135 and FL195.

Figure 2

2.2.3 Option 3The lateral split between WEST and IOM sectors is eliminated. A vertical split at FL135 is introducedbetween WEST and IOM sectors over the total original combined sector airspace, with WEST sectorbeing the lower sector.

Figure 3


EUROCONTROL

Page - 4

2.3 Data Descriptions

2.3.1 Traffic SamplesThree traffic samples were provided by Manchester ATCC: A baseline traffic sample representing thepeak two-hour period in a typical day in 1996, as well as the estimated peak period trafficcorresponding to the years 2000 and 2004. The table below summarises the traffic levels simulated foreach of these three traffic samples.

As the new second runway for Manchester airport is scheduled for operation after the year 2000,simulation scenarios using the 2004 traffic samples were simulated with both Manchester runways inoperation.

The following two diagrams illustrate the ground environment at Manchester Airport as utilised withinthe simulation. SIMMOD data for the ground layout at Manchester airport was provided by Niall Gunnof Manchester Airport PLC.

Figure 4

Manchester Airport - Single Runway 1996 & 2000 Traffic Samples.

Traffic Sample Year Number of Aircraft1 1996 702 2000 843 2004 97

Table 1


EUROCONTROL

Page - 5

Figure 5

Manchester Airport. - Dual Runway 2004 Traffic Samples

2.3.2 Separation StandardsAircraft were required to maintain the following separations:

TMA: 5 nautical miles (nm)

Final Approach: Standard wake vortex separation requirements

Vertical Separation: 1000 foot vertical separation below FL290 and 2000 foot vertical separationabove FL290.

2.3.3 Airport/TMA InterfacesWithin the Manchester TMA, traffic for both Manchester Airport (EGCC) and Liverpool Airport(EGGP) was simulated. The simulation included, for both airports, the standard arrival and departureprocedures (SIDs and STARs). For Liverpool Airport, the airfield was treated as a source/sink ofaircraft (i.e., the simulation included only the runway interface with the airspace and no groundoperations were simulated). For Manchester Airport, which represents the majority of the traffic in thesimulation, the complete airfield was simulated (i.e., runway, taxiway, and apron area).


EUROCONTROL

Page - 6

2.4 Simulation ScenariosEach simulation scenario, given a three-letter identifier such as C01, corresponds to a combination of:

• Sectorisation Option (such as Baseline Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3),

• Traffic Sample (for the years 1996, 2000, or 2004), and

• Traffic flow orientation (Easterly or Westerly).

The following table summarises each of these characteristics for the simulation scenarios examined inthis analysis.

OPTION 1 (Baseline)

Easterly Departure Traffic Sample Westerly DepartureCode Date Code

C01 1996 C02C03 2000 C04C05 2004 C06

OPTION 2


C07 1996 C08C09 2000 C10C11 2004 C12

OPTION 3


C13 1996 C14C15 2000 C16C17 2004 C18

Table 2

A total of 10 iterations of each scenario were simulated. For each iteration, the initial time for eachaircraft injected into the simulation was allowed to vary randomly over a thirty minute window toaccount for the uncertainty of aircraft times in real-world operations. Results obtained for each of the10 iterations of each simulation scenario were then averaged together for subsequent analysis.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 7

2.5 Simulation Design Constraints

2.5.1 SIDsWhen modelling departure profiles on SID routes it is normal in SIMMOD to chose either the maximumpenalty profile (i.e. all traffic is kept to minimum SID altitude) or to chose the minimum penalty profile(i.e. all traffic uses unrestricted climb profiles). It is not within the capability of the model todynamically adjust SID climb profiles to traffic situations at any one particular time.

Approximately 80-85% of departure traffic from Manchester and Liverpool airfields fly unrestrictedSID departure profiles. As a result, it was decided in conjunction with the client that these unrestricteddeparture profile values should be used in the simulation.

It is recognised that there may be occasions when this is not realistic, i.e. departure traffic may beforced to keep to SID altitude due to traffic conflicts, but for the majority of cases departure traffic isnot restricted and thus the method chosen provides a more accurate representation of traffic flow.

A diagram showing SID and inbound routing from MIRSI along with a table of SID performancevalues used within the simulation are found in Annex B.

2.5.2 Traffic FlowsTraffic on airway B1, B3 and A25 is arranged so that inbound and outbound traffic flows aresegregated by RADAR positioning on opposing sides of the airway in question. For example, on airwayB3 inbound traffic from IOM is RADAR positioned on the South side of the airway to resolve conflictsfrom outbound traffic that is RADAR positioned on the North side of the airway. The simulation runshave been designed to model this method of traffic organisation.

Inbound and outbound traffic flows are segregated on entry and exit from LIFFY on B1, from IOM onB3 and from NITON on A25. This traffic segregation implies that traffic offering from LIFFY, IOMand NITON has already been positioned on the appropriate side of the airway in accordance with aprior agreement with the offering sector/centre.

Both the Inbound and Outbound traffic flows within the simulation converge or diverge at WAL.Conflicts are, therefore, detected by SIMMOD between traffic following the same inbound or outboundtrack and between all traffic converging or diverging at WAL.

2.5.3 Holding at MIRSIAircraft are to be released from the MIRSI holding facility at the maximum rate of one aircraft everyfour minutes.

As the area covered in this simulation corresponds to only a part of the total Manchester airspacesectorisation, the specified release rate from the MIRSI hold is made to account for the interaction witharrival streams from the other two (unmodelled) holdstacks.

SIMMOD data were modified to force all arrivals in the simulation to hold at the holdstack for at leastthe minimum holding time of four minutes.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 8

3. Results

3.1 Comparison of Sector Workload IndicesThe following subsections summarise the results obtained for Easterly and Westerly traffic flows aswell as the weighted average of the two flows. The workload indices are calculated using output of theSIMMOD simulation, assigning sector workload weights to aircraft events obtained from thesimulation. A high index corresponds to a higher level of work for that sector. The methodology usedfor calculating the sector workload indices is described in Annex C.

3.1.1 Workload Indices for Easterly FlowThe figure and table below summarise the sector workload indices, for WEST and IOM sectors, for theEasterly flow.

Sectorisation Options / Easterly Flow

0

50

100

150

200

1996

2000

2004

1996

2000

2004

1996

2000

2004

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

WEST

IOM

Figure 6

Reviewing these results, basecase Option 1 shows asubstantial difference in the estimates of the controllerworkload indices for WEST sector and IOM sector(with WEST sector markedly higher for all threetraffic samples). Both Options 2 and 3 achieve a morebalanced distribution of workload between the twosectors. Option 2 results in the IOM sector havingslightly larger measurements than WEST sector forthe workload indices. Option 3, on the other hand,results in WEST sector having slightly largermeasurements.

As would be expected for all three options, an increasein traffic corresponding to each of the forecast yearsresults in increasing controller workload indexmeasurements.

Easterly FlowWorkload Indices

Option 1Year WEST IOM

Index % Index %1996 129.2 68.4 59.8 31.62000 135.6 65.2 72.2 34.82004 175.2 68.3 81.4 31.7

Option 21996 97.9 47.1 109.9 52.92000 88.5 42.9 117.8 57.12004 145.1 46.4 167.4 53.6

Option 31996 103.3 55.8 81.8 44.22000 105.2 50.0 105.1 50.02004 167.8 52.4 152.3 47.6

Table 3


EUROCONTROL

Page - 9

3.1.2 Workload Indices for Westerly FlowThe figure and table below summarise the sector workload indices, for WEST and IOM sectors, for theWesterly flow.

Sectorisation Options / Westerly Flow

0

50

100

150

200

1996

2000

2004

1996

2000

2004

1996

2000

2004


WEST

IOM

Figure 7

As was seen in the Easterly flow results above, thedisparity between the estimated workload of the IOMand WEST sectors is equally apparent for theWesterly flow case. Again, Options 2 and 3 achieve amore balanced distribution of workload between thetwo sectors.

As would be expected for all three options, theincrease in traffic corresponding to each of theforecast years results in increasing controller workloadindex measurements.

Westerly FlowWorkload Indices


Index % Index %1996 136.7 70.8 56.3 29.12000 146.3 67.0 72.1 33.02004 202.4 71.6 80.2 28.4

Option 21996 104.5 50.3 103.2 49.72000 98.5 45.6 117.3 54.42004 163.9 51.2 156.0 48.8

Option 31996 115.3 58.2 82.8 41.82000 122.6 52.1 112.4 47.92004 186.1 56.5 143.4 43.5

Table 4


EUROCONTROL

Page - 10

3.1.3 Weighted Average of Workload Indices for Easterly and Westerly FlowThe figure and table below summarise the sector workload indices, for WEST and IOM sectors, for theweighted average based upon the annual utilisation of each of the Easterly and Westerly flows (30%Easterly, 70% Westerly).

Sectorisation Options (30% Easterly, 70% Westerly)

0

50

100

150

200

1996

2000

2004

1996

2000

2004

1996

2000

2004


WEST

IOM

Figure 8

As with the previous Easterly and Westerly flowcases, the estimated controller workload indices for theWEST sector are markedly higher than those for IOMin the basecase Option 1. Again, Options 2 and 3achieve a more balanced distribution of workloadbetween the two sectors. On whole, Option 2 yieldsslightly higher values for the IOM sector whereasOption 3 yields slightly higher values for the WESTsector.

Again for all three options, the increase in trafficcorresponding to each of the forecast years results inincreasing controller workload index measurements.

Overall, evaluation of the results of the workloadindices indicates that Option 2 reflects the most evenbalance of sector workload for the WEST and IOMsectors.

Weighted AverageWorkload Indices


Index % Index %1996 134.4 70.7 57.3 59.92000 143.4 66.5 72.1 33.52004 194.2 70.7 80.6 29.3

Option 21996 102.5 49.4 105.2 50.62000 95.5 44.8 117.4 55.22004 158.3 49.8 159.4 50.2

Option 31996 111.7 57.5 82.5 42.52000 117.3 51.6 110.3 48.42004 180.6 55.3 146.0 44.7

Table 5


EUROCONTROL

Page - 11

3.2 Comparison of Aircraft Delay TimesThe following subsections summarise the average, overall aircraft delay times measured for thesimulated airspace. Average aircraft delay times are obtained directly from the SIMMOD simulationoutput for each scenario. They are presented in the subsections below for Easterly flow, Westerly flow,and the weighted annual average.

3.2.1 Aircraft Delay Times - Easterly FlowThe following figure and table summarise the average, overall aircraft delay times measured for thesimulated airspace for aircraft in Easterly flow.

Average Aircraft Delay Time / Easterly Flow

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0

1996 2000 2004

Traffic Sample (Year)

Min

utes

Average DelayOption 1



Figure 9

Examining the average delay results indicates that thesectorisation options have little effect on the average,overall delay times for the aircraft in Easterly flowscenarios. As would be expected, increasing trafficlevels result in increasing delay times in order to assureproper separations between aircraft.

Easterly FlowAverage Delay Time (Minutes)

Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 31996 1.0 1.0 1.02000 1.4 1.4 1.42004 3.4 3.5 3.6

Table 6


EUROCONTROL

Page - 12

3.2.2 Aircraft Delay Times - Westerly FlowThe following figure and table summarise the average aircraft delay times measured for the simulatedairspace for aircraft in Westerly flow.

Average Aircraft Delay Time / Westerly Flow

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0

1996 2000 2004

Traffic Sample (Year)

Min

utes




Figure 10

As was seen in the Easterly flow scenarios above, theWesterly flow scenarios show little change in theaverage, overall delay times for the aircraft in theWesterly flow scenarios resulting from the sectorisationoptions. Delay values do increase, however, as afunction of increased traffic levels.

There is a significant increase in the delay values for theWesterly flow scenarios in comparison with those for Easterly flow. This increase in delay results fromthe difference in the handling of Liverpool airport arrivals. In an Easterly orientation, Liverpool arrivalsare not routed via MIRSI (aircraft inbound to Liverpool from WAL are vectored direct to finalapproach as per current operational practice). In the Westerly flow orientation, the Liverpool arrivalsfrom WAL are routed via MIRSI where they enter the holdstack, incurring delay time themselves aswell as increased delay time on other aircraft in the holdstack (such as arrivals to Manchester Airport).

Westerly FlowAverage Delay Time (Minutes)


Table 7


EUROCONTROL

Page - 13

3.2.3 Aircraft Delay Times - Easterly and Westerly Flow Weighted AverageThe following figure and table summarise the aircraft delay times obtained from the weighted average ofthe measured delay values for Easterly and Westerly flows (30% Easterly and 70% Westerly).

W e i g h te d A v e ra g e A i r c r a ft D e la y T im e

0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .0

1 9 9 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4

T r a f f i c S a m p le ( Y e a r s )

Min

utes

A v e r a g e D e la yO p t i o n 1



Figure 11

This table and figure reflect the weighted results forcombined Easterly and Westerly flow scenarios. Again,the sectorisation option has little effect on the average,overall aircraft delay times. As would be expected,increases in traffic levels result in an increase in delaytime for the aircraft in order to insure proper aircraftseparations.

It is important to note that the delay values presented in this and the previous sections are very sensitiveto the parameters used in modelling the MIRSI holdstack. As only one of the holdstacks was modelledin this study, the release rate for the holdstack in the simulation was set to one aircraft released everyfour minutes (to account for the demand from non-simulated holdstacks). Actual operational delaysmay, indeed, be different from those reported here if different holdstack throughput values are used.

Weighted East/West FlowsAverage Delay Time (Minutes)


Table 8


EUROCONTROL

Page - 14

3.3 Comparison of Aircraft Travel TimesThe following subsections summarise the overall, average aircraft travel times measured for thesimulated airspace. Average aircraft travel times are obtained directly from the SIMMOD simulationoutput for each scenario. These values represent the undelayed average time in flight for the aircraft inthe simulation. They are presented in the subsections below for Easterly flow, Westerly flow, and theweighted annual average.

3.3.1 Aircraft Travel Times - Easterly FlowThe following figure and table summarise the average aircraft travel times measured for the simulatedairspace for aircraft in Easterly flow.

Average Travel Time / Easterly Flow

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

1996 2000 2004

Traffic Sam ple (Year)

Min

utes

Average TravelOption 1



Figure 12

The aircraft travel time through the modelled airspacefor each of the Easterly flow scenarios shows littleeffect arising from change in sectorisation or inincreasing traffic levels. This is to be expected as thebasic aircraft route structure through the simulatedairspace remains unchanged in each of the simulatedscenarios. The small differences seen in the averagetravel times are the result of slight aircraft profiledifferences for each traffic sample.

Easterly FlowAverage Travel Time (Minutes)


Table 9


EUROCONTROL

Page - 15

3.3.2 Aircraft Travel Times - Westerly FlowThe following figure and table summarise the average aircraft travel times measured for the simulatedairspace for aircraft in Westerly flow.

Average Trave l T im e / W e ste rly Flow

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

1996 2000 2004

Traff ic Sam ple (Ye ar )

Min

utes




Figure 13

As was seen for the Easterly flow in Section 3.4.1, theaircraft travel time through the modelled airspace foreach of the Westerly flow scenarios also shows littleeffect arising from change in sectorisation or inincreasing traffic levels. Again, the small differencesseen in the average travel times are the result of slightaircraft profile differences for each traffic sample.

Westerly FlowAverage Travel Time (Minutes)


Table 10


EUROCONTROL

Page - 16

3.3.3 Aircraft Travel Times - Easterly and Westerly Flow Weighted AverageThe following figure and table summarise the aircraft delay times obtained from the weighted average ofthe measured delay values for Easterly and Westerly flows (30% Easterly and 70% Westerly).

W e ighted Average Travel Time

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

1996 2000 2004

Traffic Sam ple (Ye ars )

Min

utes

Average Travel TimeOption 1



Figure 14

As was seen for both the Easterly and Westerly flowcases, the aircraft travel time through the modelledairspace for the weighted average shows little effectarising from change in sectorisation or in increasingtraffic levels. This is to be expected as the basic aircraftroute structure through the simulated airspace remainsunchanged in each of the simulated scenarios. The smalldifferences seen in the average travel times are the resultof slight aircraft profile differences for each trafficsample.

Weighted East/West FlowsAverage Delay Time (Minutes)


Table 11


EUROCONTROL

Page - 17

3.4 Sector Traffic ProfilesThe following subsections summarise the sector flight statistics for each traffic sample of the Easterlyand Westerly flow scenarios. For each traffic sample and each option, the total number of aircraft in thesimulated period for each sector is presented along with the breakdown of aircraft in level, climb, ordescent phases of flight. These figures graphically illustrate the nature of flight profiles within each.

Examining the graphs in the following subsections, it is apparent that both Option 2 and Option 3 resultin a redistribution of some traffic from WEST sector to IOM. It is important to remember, however,that traffic levels themselves do not necessarily reflect the complexity of the airspace. These trafficcounts must be used in conjunction with the measured workload indices (provided in Section 3.1) todetermine the preferred sectorisation.

NATS Manchester requested an additional analysis of flight profiles over the navaid WAL. Results ofthis analysis are presented in Annex D.

3.4.1 Sector Traffic Profiles- Easterly Flow

3.4.1.1 Sector Traffic Profiles - Easterly Flow 1996 TrafficThe graph below summarises the traffic profiles for each of the three sectorisation options for the 1996traffic sample in Easterly flow.

Sector Traffic Profiles1996 Traffic - Easterly Flow

010

2030

405060

7080

90100

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Option 1 Option 2 Option3

AIRCRAFT

WEST

IOM


EUROCONTROL

Page - 18



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent


AIR

CR

AFT

WEST

IOM



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent


WEST

IOM


EUROCONTROL

Page - 19

3.4.2 Sector Traffic Profiles- Westerly Flow

3.4.2.1 Sector Traffic Profiles - Westerly Flow 1996 TrafficThe graph below summarises the traffic profiles for each of the three sectorisation options for the 1996traffic sample in Westerly flow.

Sector Traffic Profiles1996 Traffic - Westerly Flow

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent


WEST

IOM


EUROCONTROL

Page - 20


Sector Traffic Profiles2000 Traffic - W e sterly Flow

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent


WEST

IOM


Sector Traffic Profiles2004 Traffic - Westerly Flow

0

1020

3040

50

6070

8090

100

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent

Tota

l

Leve

l

Clim

b

Des

cent


WEST

IOM


EUROCONTROL

Page - 21

4. ConclusionsIn order to determine the preferred split between the WEST and IOM sectors in the Manchester TMA,SIMMOD simulation results for two proposed sector splits were compared with the results from theexisting sectorisation. The results, as described in Section 3, indicate that both for Option 2 and Option3:

• The workload indices are more evenly balanced between the WEST and IOM sectors,

• Aircraft delay times do not significantly change, and

• Aircraft travel times do not significantly change.

While both Option 2 and Option 3 result in a better balance of controller workload indices incomparison with the basecase Option 1, there are significant operational disadvantages with theimplementation of the Option 3 sectorisation. When considering which option is preferable, severalfactors must be considered:

• The density of traffic and associated conflict points around WAL,

• The traffic associated with the two major airports near WAL (Manchester and Liverpoolairports),

• Impact of traffic arriving and departing Birmingham, East Midlands and Leeds.

In Option 3, the entire airspace is split vertically with IOM responsible for those levels above FL135 toFL195 and WEST sector responsible for FL135 and below. This configuration results in the WESTsector monitoring a much larger geographical area of airspace. The disadvantage of this is that the areaof airspace that would generate the most traffic interaction (and therefore complexity of operation)would still remain within the confines of the existing WEST sector airspace. In addition, there would beincreased external co-ordination tasks as a result of the extension of the sector to the FIR boundaries.

In Option 2, WEST sector closely retains its original geographic boundaries but is capped at FL135(being reduced from FL195). These changes reflected in Option 2 result in a shift of some of theworkload at the higher flight levels to the IOM sector while maintaining the same basic sectorgeography.

These issues combine to make the WEST and IOM sector boundaries proposed by Option 2 to bepreferred over those in Option 3.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 22

5. Future SimulationsTo assist NATS Manchester in the planning for a real-time simulation scheduled for Autumn 1998,additional issues are to be examined with SIMMOD:

1. Detailed analysis of the configuration of Manchester TMA and the enroute interface,including a possible fourth holding stack,

2. Analysis of final approach spacing requirements for two-runway operations, and

3. Possible mixed-mode operations for two-runway operations.

These three issues will be examined in a Phase 3 study, scheduled to begin in September 1997.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 23

6. ANNEX A SIMMOD Description

6.1 How are the end results achieved ?The complete air and ground system is represented by a network of points and connecting segments alongwhich the aircraft “navigate." Along with other point qualities, an altitude is associated with each point.This altitude is usually derived from free profiles but can be modified to represent, for example, heightrestrictions, SIDs, STARs, etc.

The simulation module is the core of the SIMMOD system. The module traces the "steps" through timeand space of each aircraft defined in the traffic sample from one point to the next along its route.Potential violations of any of the modelled separation requirements between two or more aircraft movingtowards a given point are detected and then resolved by adjusting their arrival times at the point.Depending on the importance of this adjustment, the controller action deemed to be causing it isinterpreted as either track adjustment, speed control, holding or re-routeing of aircraft. Such specificoccurrences as overtaking in the air, shuffling aircraft in the departure queue, as well as many other ATCprocedures and actions either on the aerodrome, in the approach/departure environment or in en-routeairspace can be simulated by careful selection of the input parameters.

6.2 Input requirementsThe SIMMOD input is constructed in a number of files. The validityand correctness of the input data is crucial for the accuracy and realism of the simulation. The SIMMODfiles constructed contain detailed information regarding:

• Geographical boundaries of airspace and restrictions,

• Geographical boundaries of sectors and restrictions (capacities),

• Points data and restrictions (separation standards),

• Route data and restrictions (separation standards),

• Airfield data and restrictions (aircraft size limitations),

• Aircraft data and restrictions (wake turbulence),

• Scheduling of events (list of flights), and

• Weather considerations (reduced visibility operations).

6.3 OutputOutput data is produced in a report format which may also be converted into charts andgraphs. The data available from SIMMOD includes:

• Airfields, which includes:Runway utilisation,2. Ground delays at gates, holding points or during taxiing, and3. Average times for completing ground movements.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 24

• Sectors, which includes:4. Total number of aircraft that crossed the sectors within a specified time

period,5. Maximum number of aircraft in each sector's area of responsibility at any one

time within a specified time period,6. Average flight times for the sectors,7. A workload index for the sectors, and8. Number of aircraft in level flight, climbing or descending for each sector

within a specified time period.• Points, which includes:Rate of traffic flow over points,

10. Number of aircraft climbing, descending or in level flight at a point, and11. Number of potential conflicts that require ATC intervention.

• Routes, which includes:Average flight times on each route, and13. Number of aircraft on each route.

6.4 Simulation AnimationIn addition to the output data, the SIMMOD post-processormodule produces an animated high resolution colour display of the simulation. All aircraft can bedisplayed during all stages of flight, or ground movement, following procedures defined in the input data.

During the animation run various items can be analysed:

• Evolution of a traffic situation and traffic flow,

• A visual check of the simulation's realism,

• Verification that procedures defined for the model do not violate the defined separationspecifications, and

• Areas of scheduling congestion can be located.

6.5 Disadvantages - LimitationsSIMMOD is designed as a "quick look" simulation tooland has the following limitations:

• No resolution of conflicts during a simulation by changing an aircraft's level, and

• A global view only, no detail regarding an individual controller or operating position


EUROCONTROL

Page - 25

7. ANNEX B Arrival and Departure Routeings

Figure 15Westerly Departure and Arrival Profile

Figure 16Easterly Departure and Arrival Profile


EUROCONTROL

Page - 26

Aircraft Flight Levels by Fix

Manchester DeparturesFix

Aircraft Type WAL MONTY NOKIN CONGA STOCK POLRunway 24

Jet Short Haul 160 140 140 070 150 120Jet Long Haul 120 120 120 060 120 100Turbo Prop 100 100 100 060 090 090

Runway 06Jet Short Haul 160 160 160 080 090 110Jet Long Haul 120 140 140 070 070 090Turbo Prop 100 130 130 070 070 080

Liverpool DeparturesFix

Aircraft Type WAL REXAM NANTI STOCK POLRunway 27

Jet 060 070 070 190 190Turbo Prop 040 050 050 130 130

Runway 09Jet 070 090 060 150 170Turbo Prop 050 080 040 110 110

Table 12

SID Climb Performance Figures by Airport


EUROCONTROL

Page - 27

8. ANNEX C Workload CalculationsThe Workload Index is an attempt to assess the workload in a sector by attributing different weightings tovarious characteristics of the traffic in the sector. The workload index values produced for this reportoriginate from a partial implementation of the MBB2 system.

The MBB system was based on the R/T load observed in ATC sectors. From these observations, a seriesof 13 parameters were developed to indicate the relative importance of the characteristics of the trafficgiving rise to this load.

In a SIMMOD study it is not possible to determine all the conditions necessary to apply all of the 13parameters defined by the classic method for estimating sector workloads. However it is possible todetermine seven of them:

1. A scheduled flight transiting the sector.

2. A climbing or descending flight.

3. A flight transiting the UIR/FIR.

4. A flight entering or leaving a TMA.

5. A radar vectoring action on a flight.

6. A flight being held at a designated point.

7. A potential conflict detected and resolved.

For the purposes of a SIMMOD study these parameters are implemented as defined below:

1. For each aircraft which at any moment during the specified time period is within the sector’sarea of responsibility: Add 1 work unit.

2. If the flight’s altitude at the sector entry point is not equal to the altitude at the sector exitpoint: Add 0.24 work units.

3. If the flight occurs solely in the UIR or FIR: Add 0.26 work units else 0.38 work unitsrespectively.

4. For each SIMMOD control action (speed up, slow down or radar vectoring): Add 0.3 workunits.

5. For Each SIMMOD hold at a specific point: Add 0.6 work units, and

6. For each potential conflict detected and resolved by a control action (speed up, slow down,vectoring or hold - whether at a specified holding point or not): Add 1.4 units of work.

Whilst the system must necessarily be viewed as an approximation, it does give an indication of thedensity of the traffic in a sector and the complexity of the controllers’ tasks. As such, the values quoted inthis report can reasonably be used for comparing the workload between sectors.

2 MBB as defined in the report “Methods for the Determination of the Control Capacity of ATC Services” byKlaus Brauser. Messerschmitt-Bolkov-Blohm. Gmbh. 14/11/75.


EUROCONTROL

Page - 28

9. ANNEX D WAL Flight ProfilesAt the request of Manchester NATS, an analysis was performed of the aircraft profiles over the navaidWAL for each of the three traffic samples in both the Easterly and Westerly orientations. The followingsix figures show graphically the results of this analysis.

Westerly Flow1996 Traffic Sample - Flight Profiles over WAL

0

2

4

6

8

10

WA

L_04

0

WA

L_07

0

WA

L_08

0

WA

L_10

0

WA

L_11

0

WA

L_12

0

WA

L_13

0

WA

L_13

3

WA

L_14

0

WA

L_14

2

WA

L_14

4

WA

L_14

7

WA

L_15

0

WA

L_16

0

WA

L_17

0

WA

L_18

0

WA

L_19

0

WA

L_20

0

WA

L_21

0

WA

L_22

0

WA

L_23

0

WA

L_23

3

WA

L_24

0

WA

L_25

0

WA

L_32

6

DESCENT

CLIMB

LEVEL

Easterly Flow1996 Traffic Sample - Flight Profiles over WAL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

WA

L_04

0

WA

L_05

0

WA

L_06

0

WA

L_08

0

WA

L_09

0

WA

L_09

1

WA

L_10

0

WA

L_12

0

WA

L_13

0

WA

L_13

3

WA

L_14

0

WA

L_14

2

WA

L_14

4

WA

L_14

7

WA

L_15

0

WA

L_16

0

WA

L_17

0

WA

L_18

0

WA

L_19

0

WA

L_20

0

WA

L_21

0

WA

L_22

0

WA

L_23

0

WA

L_23

3

WA

L_24

0

WA

L_25

0

WA

L_32

6

DESCENT

CLIMB

LEVEL


EUROCONTROL

Page - 29

Westerly Flow2000 Traffic Sample - Flight Profiles over WAL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

WA

L_04

0

WA

L_06

0

WA

L_07

0

WA

L_10

0

WA

L_11

0

WA

L_12

0

WA

L_13

3

WA

L_13

7

WA

L_14

0

WA

L_14

2

WA

L_14

4

WA

L_14

7

WA

L_15

0

WA

L_16

0

WA

L_17

4

WA

L_18

0

WA

L_19

0

WA

L_20

0

WA

L_22

0

WA

L_23

0

WA

L_24

0

WA

L_25

0

WA

L_25

4

WA

L_29

0

DESCENT

CLIMB

LEVEL

Easterly Flow2000 Traffic Sample - Traffic Profiles over WAL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

WA

L_04

0

WA

L_05

0

WA

L_06

0

WA

L_07

0

WA

L_08

0

WA

L_09

0

WA

L_10

0

WA

L_12

0

WA

L_13

0

WA

L_13

7

WA

L_14

0

WA

L_14

2

WA

L_14

4

WA

L_14

7

WA

L_15

0

WA

L_16

0

WA

L_17

4

WA

L_18

0

WA

L_19

0

WA

L_20

0

WA

L_22

0

WA

L_23

0

WA

L_24

0

WA

L_25

0

WA

L_25

4

WA

L_29

0

DESCENT

CLIMB

LEVEL

Westerly Flow2004 Traffic sample - Flight Profiles over WAL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

WA

L_04

0

WA

L_06

0

WA

L_10

0

WA

L_11

0

WA

L_12

0

WA

L_13

1

WA

L_13

2

WA

L_13

3

WA

L_13

7

WA

L_14

0

WA

L_14

2

WA

L_14

4

WA

L_14

7

WA

L_15

0

WA

L_16

0

WA

L_17

0

WA

L_18

0

WA

L_19

0

WA

L_20

0

WA

L_23

0

WA

L_23

3

WA

L_24

0

WA

L_29

0

DESCENT

CLIMB

LEVEL


EUROCONTROL

Page - 30

Easterly Flow2004 Traffic Sample - Flight Profiles over WAL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

WA

L_04

0

WA

L_05

0

WA

L_06

0

WA

L_07

0

WA

L_08

0

WA

L_09

0

WA

L_10

0

WA

L_12

0

WA

L_12

5

WA

L_13

1

WA

L_13

2

WA

L_13

3

WA

L_13

7

WA

L_14

0

WA

L_14

2

WA

L_14

4

WA

L_14

7

WA

L_15

0

WA

L_16

0

WA

L_17

0

WA

L_18

0

WA

L_19

0

WA

L_20

0

WA

L_23

0

WA

L_23

3

WA

L_24

0

WA

L_29

0

DESCENT

CLIMB

LEVEL

eurocontrol experimental centre · a diagram showing sid and inbound routing from mirsi along with...

Documents