Title: The ONESKY (Single-Sky) project and what it means for ASAS
1The ONESKY (Single-Sky) project and what it
means for ASAS
- A view on the results of the ONESKY project
- By
- R. Van Gent
2ONESKY Project objectives
- propose new EU airspace structure (Single Sky)
- support an efficient traffic flow.
- based on needs.
- regardless of national frontiers.
- acknowledging the geopolitical realities.
- demonstrate that the proposals
- will increase airspace capacity.
- will decrease delays.
3ONESKY Approach to the work
- Fast time simulation study
- TAAM, RAMS
- Two lines of action
- Optimise current airspace locally.
- Redesign total EU airspace from scratch.
- Two phases
- Small scale partial designs.
- Integration optimisation in overall model.
4ONESKYConsortium
- NLR (NL - Lead)
- AENA (E)
- DNA/(CENA - F)
- QinetiQ (UK)
- DFS (D)
- Isdefe (E)
- NATS (UK)
- NEI (NL)
- SICTA (I)
- Skyguide (CH)
5ONESKY - current linePadua Baseline Analysis
- Traffic Density
- Traffic Density Plot for LIPPN3 - 23/07/99
5
6 ONESKY Current line Padua Iteration 1
- Re-direct southbound traffic west of BZO
- Use existing route network
- Original Routes
- PITAR-BZO-SUMIR-ALBET
- PITAR-BZO-ALESE-VIC
- New Routes
- PITAR-RENTA-ADOSA-ALBET
- PITAR-RENTA-ADOSA-VIC
7ONESKYPadua - Iteration 2
- Re-directing northbound traffic west of BZO
- Navigate via existing waypoints
- Original Routes
- VIC-ALESE-BZO-ENOGO
- ALBET-SUMIR-BZO-ENOGO
- New Routes
- VIC-RENTA-ENOGO
- ALBET-RENTA-ENOGO
- Converging traffic at ENOGO
8ONESKYPadua Iteration 3
- Northbound traffic via ADOSA re-directed west of
BZO - Original Routes
- ADOSA-BORMI-BZO-MATAR
- ADOSA-BORMI-BZO-BRENO
- New Routes
- ADOSA-BORMI-ENOGO-MATAR
- ADOSA-BORMI-ENOGO-BRENO
- Remaining Munich airspace allocated to Padova
North
9ONESKYPadua Results - Conflict Count
- Decrease of 41 between the baseline and
iteration 3 - Decrease of 11 between optimisation1 and
iteration3
10ONESKYCurrent line Summary
- Problem areas selected
- Baseline 1999
- Changes made to airspace since 1999
- Iterations/designs based on TOSCAII
- Comparative results obtained
- Max gain in terms of delay-reduction is expected
to be between 2 - 6
11ONESKY Clean sheet study Redesign total EU
airspace from scratch.
11
12ONESKY Clean sheet study Workloadings Initial
PSB 35 compared to 1999
12
13ONESKY Clean sheet study Workload optimised PSB
design
13
14ONESKYClean Sheet WP3 (optimised PSB)
15ONESKYClean Sheet WP3 (IT 2 -direct routing)
16ONESKYMilitary sectors in core area!
16
17ONESKYClean Sheet compared to Current
18ONESKY conclusions
- Single Sky initiative necessary for Europe
(grid-lock imminent if not started soon) - 35 capacity increase can be expected!
- But
- Not much more!!
19ONESKY study showsATCo workload is bottleneck
- ATC function
- Collision prevention
- Expedite and Maintain traffic flow
- Sector limit is around 35 aircraft an hour
- Validated by a number of studies
- Supported by Air Traffic Controllers
- Sector size cannot be made too small
- Transition time becomes too short
- With increasing traffic more emphasis will go to
Collision Prevention and less to Expedite and
Maintain traffic flow resulting in higher charges
for less service
20The promise of ASAS (self separation)
- Studies show crew workload hardly increases with
densities up to 9 times present core European
densities (due to the distributed nature)
21ATM Paradigm Shift increased Efficiency and
more Capacity, with INCREASED SAFETY, by. . .
- Delegation of responsibilities
- Separation Assurance based on the best available
aircraft position intent data (using ASAS
technologies) - Co-operative Flight Planning . . .
- all ATM participants share the same data,
processed in closed loops - replace routine voice communication by data link
- Weather independent TMA and Landing throughput .
. . - with ASAS in combination with enhanced future
landing systems - Enhanced airport surface movement . . .
- ASAS will enhance safety (e.g. runway incursion)
and efficiency of airport ground operation
22But. Where/how to progress?
- Real benefits are expected from delegated
responsibilities/ self-separation - Core Europe too complex for self separation as
first step - Package 1 applications are a good first step (for
Core Europe) - However, there is more than Core Europe (ASAS
initially seen as application for sparse density
areas)
23Conclusions / Suggestion
- ATCo workload is the problem of present ATM
paradigm - Delegate / transfer of responsibilities is needed
(fast) to counter grid-lock - Start implementation of self-separation in sparse
density regions parallel to Package 1 to also
gain experience with autonomous operations