RESET

1
Reduced Separation Minima
Project Manager José Miguel De Pablo (AENA) Air
Navigation System Development Division C/ Josefa
Valcárcel, 30. Building Merrimack IV Tel (34)
91 321 34 73 Fax [phone]
20 Webmaster-reset_at_aena.es
Presented by Alan R. Groskreutz RESET
Technical Manager 34 91 321 3470 argroskreutz
_at_e-externas.aena.es
2
General Information
Overall Objective Identify which safe and
feasible separation minima reductions help enable
a x2 traffic growth over Europe.
Project Duration 30/10/2006 30/10/2009 Consort
ium
3
Specific Objectives

• Derive from the x2 traffic load over Europe, a
  set of separation minima targets for the various
  phases of a gate-to-gate operation.
• Identify gaps in enabling the x2 in the C-ATM
  Phase 1, SESAR, OPTIMAL, TBS, and EMMA projects.
• Develop a qualitative (and quantitative where
  possible) model to capture rationale of existing
  and future separation minima standards.
• Develop high-level advanced operational concepts
  which complement existing European initiatives to
  enable reduced separation minima.

4
Specific Objectives (cont.)

• Identify, in collaboration with ICAO,
  EUROCONTROL, the FAA, ANSPS and national
  regulators how to accomplish the change for the
  modified separation minima.
• Prioritize and select (at least) three potential
  separation minima reductions for detailed
  efficiency, timeline and economic assessment.
• Identify and apply methods to assess safety and
  cost-effectiveness of (at least) three selected
  separation minima reductions.
• Feed back the outcome of the safety and economy
  assessments towards the operational concept
  designers.
• Disseminate the RESET developed process of
  change across the ATM community.

5
Changes, Benefits, and Status

• Changes to Current System
• Reduced separation minima in 3 flight phases
• Document listing separation minima and associated
  rationale
• Separation Minima Budget Model
• Expected Benefits
• Increased Capacity
• Facilitate future separation reductions through
  use of model and rationale document
• Initiate process of changing separation minima
• Current Status of Project
• Analyzing required impacts on selected en-route,
  TMA, and airport
• Compiled list of standards used (ICAO and
  non-ICAO)
• Developing Ops. concepts for target year(2020)
• Developing prioritization model and safety and
  economic/efficiency analysis methodologies

6
RESET Technical Process

• Set Goals and Choose Standards and Locations
• Collate List of Separation Standards
• Document Rationale for Standards
• Create Separation Model
• Prioritize Separation Reductions
• Define Future Operational Scenario and Safety
  Case
• Economic and Efficiency Analysis

7
Goal Setting

• Set goal of handling twice current traffic
• Original goal of x3 didnt align with
  operational/demand forecasts for 2020
• x3 came from 2020 predictions written in 2000
• 2x 2005 traffic demand similar to 3x 2000 traffic
• Using peak-hour, rather than daily, traffic was
  also a factor for choosing x2
• Factors for choice of locations
• Cases were selected using latest available
  forecasted traffic demand for 2020, resulting in
  a bit less than x2, and taking into account
• Highest factor increase
• Highest absolute resulting traffic demand
• Difficulty to increase capacity
• Availability of necessary information to develop
  the required WP1 tasks.

8
Locations for implementation analysis

• Selected En-route case is Karlsruhe UAC
• Absolute forecasted traffic demand, 6988 ops/day
• Traffic increase 2020 (percentage) 76
• Difficulty to increase capacity. Already
  optimized in size, and located in one of the most
  dense traffic flows in Europe
• Selected TMA and Airport cases are
  Madrid/Barajas
• Absolute forecasted traffic demand, 2537 ops/day
• Traffic increase 2020 (percentage) 86
• Difficulty to increase capacity
• Not densest TMA, but traffic data available in
  time allowed
• Airport demand predictions surpass current
  operational limits

9
Separation Change Options

• En-Route
• Current 5NM horizontal sep. (ICAO 4444 8.7.4.1)
  will accommodate x2 No change required
• TMA
• Between FL165 and FL85, reduce the horizontal
  separation minimum to 2.8NM
• Between FL85 and FL25, reduce the horizontal
  separation minimum to 1.9NM
• Possible additions
• ASAS/RNAV based 3NM TMA separation minima
  (lateral, SID/STAR, and longitudinal)
• 4NM, 5NM and 6NM wake turbulence separation
  minima

10
Separation Change Options Airport

• 1. Wake Turbulence Arrivals
• 2. Wake Turbulence Departures

11
Separation Change Options Airport

• 3. Distance between runway centerline for
  parallel independent approaches
• Operating parallel runways, whose separation is
  (1310) between 1035 meters and 915 meters, as
  independent approaches.
• 4. Distance between alternate approaching
  aircraft for parallel dependent runways

2.0 / 1.5 NM
12
Separation Change Options Airport

• Runway Occupancy
• FROM Except as provided when some reduction of
  separation minima can be prescribed, a landing
  aircraft will not normally be permitted to cross
  the runway threshold on its final approach until
  the preceding departing aircraft has crossed the
  end of the runway-in-use, or has started a turn,
  or until all preceding landing aircraft are clear
  of the runway-in-use.
• To Except as provided when some reduction of
  separation minima can be prescribed, a landing
  aircraft will not normally be permitted to cross
  the runway threshold on its final approach until
  the preceding departing aircraft is airborne, or
  until all preceding landing aircraft are clear of
  the 2400 meter line of the runway-in-use.
• This change assumes the runway is under favorable
  conditions (i.e. no snow, rain)

13
Separation Change Options Airport

• Various other reductions are under consideration
  for inclusion to the list of options pending
  capacity increase analysis
• Removal / reduction of 15º separation angle upon
  departure
• Landing and Hold Short Operation (LAHSO)
• Simultaneous landings on converging runways
• Taxi In Position and Hold (TIPH)
• All options are goals to double capacity and will
  be analyized later in the project for feasibility
  and safety

14
Separation Standards List
ICAO
EUROCONTROL
FAA
BRITISH REGULATION
AUSTRALIAN REGULATION
CANADIAN REGULATION

• 622 Separation Minima Standards registered
  Aerodrome, Departure, Cruise, Arrival
• References to documents with Foundations for SM
  Values were recorded.
• Influencing factors were recorded (aerodynamics,
  Eqpt. precision, etc)
• Auto-filtering, to "play" with the table and sort
  in several ways.
• Assessment carried out to evaluate availability
  of foundations.
• Criteria Check Analysis carried out to identify
  most relevant SM Standards for future work.

15
Wake Turbulence Separation Differences

• Looking across different regulations brings out 9
  weight classes
• Regulations analyzed do not discern between
  aircraft 162t to 600t MTOW
• This division amongst regulations allows the
  determination of the smallest minimum.

16
Wake Turbulence Separation Differences
17
Separation Foundations

• Used Sep. Standards list and searched for
  rationale for given minima
• Task in final stage, results mixed
• Small percentage of documented foundations found
• Confidentiality of Safety Cases a large factor
• Contributing factors (wind, surveillance,
  navigation eqpt., etc.) from the rationale will
  be used to create model
• Contributing factors will be given to developers
  of the safety case to ensure possible gaps are
  covered.
• Safety case developers will do the same for the
  model developers

18
Separation Minima Model(s)

• Model Form
• formalise the relationship between each of the
  contributing factors and their influence in the
  separation minima
• When possible, mathematical relationships between
  the various factors, and between the factors and
  separation minima will be established
• Qualitative relationships will be made when
  quantitative analysis cannot be determined

Reynolds Hansman budgets

• Model should be helpful to determine bottlenecks
  or priorities that should be addressed to
  optimize separation minima
• Approach proposed by Reynolds Hansman
  considered very interesting as potential way to
  classify and group factors in different envelopes
  or separation budgets.

19
Future Scenarios (OSEDs and DODs)

• Preliminary OSEDs have been collected and gaps
  identified
• Used elements from on-going EC and EUROCONTROL
  projects.
• Considered current and future near-term ATM
  technologies.
• Collected operational concepts identified in
  previous or current projects.
• Integration of SESAR Operational Improvements
• Recent change to better align with SESAR
• RESET will work in conjunction with Episode III
  project
• Will change to Detailed Operational Description
  (DOD) format
• Refinement
• Feedback from the safety and HF assessments and
  the capacity and economy assessments will be
  incorporated
• Identify which technological developments are in
  need of further development

20
Safety and HF Case

• Compliance
• Safety Case will be fully compliant with ICAO and
  ESARR4
• Will fill gaps not addressed by these
  requirements (i.e. SESAR safety requirements)
• Incorporate information from rationale and model
  building work
• Change from Norm
• Will assess Safety of a subset of separations
  prioritized by other group
• Preliminary assessment will be fed to OSED group
  for further operational refinement

21
Closing Thoughts

• The models success is highly dependant upon
  learning from previous models successes and
  failures
• Documentation of separation minima rationale is
  necessary tool for any future assessments
• Implementing change has higher probability of
  succeeding if projects are coordinated (CREDOS,
  RESET, SUPERHIGHWAY, etc.)

22
Backup Slides
23
Graphical presentation of work packages
24
WP 1 Goal setting Development
WP 1.1 -factor x3 WP 1.4 airport impact WP
1.2 en-route impact WP 1.5 consolidation WP 1.3
TMA impact
WP2 Separation standards
WP 2.1 - ICAO sep. st. WP 2.2 - other
sep.st WP 2.3 - catalogue
WP 3 Separations foundations, budget and
contributing factors
WP 3.1 foundations WP 3.3 modeling WP
3.2 sep. Budget WP 3.4 sensitivity
WP4.1 - OSED collect. WP4.3.3 OSED TMA WP4.2
- Gap Ident. WP4.3.4 OSED airport WP4.3.1
OSED TBS WP4.4 - OSED refinmt WP4.3.2 OSED
en-route
WP 4 Future Scenario Definition
WP 0 Management
WP5 Prioritisation
WP5.1 - methodology WP5.2 prioritisation WP5.3
Integration of results from WP7WP8
WP 0.1 Co-ordination and Management WP 0.2
Reporting
WP 6 ESSARR and ICAO Fully compliant safety
assessment
WP6.1 meth. vs req. WP6.2 gaps
WP 7 Safety and human factors case
WP7.0 manage WP7 WP7.5 HIL
simulation WP7.1 manage case WP7.6
validation WP7.2 HF case WP7.7
mitigation WP7.3 hazard analysis WP7.8
safetyHF case WP7.4 MC simulation WP7.9 WP7
report
WP8 Efficiency and Economy assessment
WP 8.1 methodology WP 8.2 effic environ WP
8.3 economy
WP 9 Exploitation and dissemination
WP 9.1 Pr. of Change WP 92 - Dissemination WP
93 - Final Reporting