1 / 18

AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations

AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations. ASAS-GN Seminar 13 Nov 08, Rome By Ken Carpenter, QinetiQ. AP23 Overview: Deliverables. Five deliverables from AP23: D1 – General data exchange D2 – Methodology to prioritize applications for AP23

Jims
Download Presentation

AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. AP23 briefing on D3: ASAS Concept of operations ASAS-GN Seminar 13 Nov 08, Rome By Ken Carpenter, QinetiQ

  2. AP23 Overview: Deliverables Five deliverables from AP23: • D1 – General data exchange • D2 – Methodology to prioritize applications for AP23 • D3 – Operational Role of Airborne Surveillance in Separating Traffic • D4 – Draft proposal for a second set of ADS-B/ASAS applications • D5 – Draft White Paper on Issues Surrounding Airborne Separation

  3. Background “The operational role of airbornesurveillance in separating traffic” • Work started in 2005 (ASAS SG) • The world was different then • We were trying to avoid saying “ASAS” • Emphasised the use of “airborne surveillance” • The word “separation” in ASAS looked like a mistake • SESAR and NextGen have changed all that • Now discuss the use of ASAS in a TM environment • and emphasise new ASAS-based separation modes

  4. Objective • Overall picture of ASAS in the ATM paradigm • Common sense of direction for ASAS community • Explain ASAS to wider community • The document is conceptual • Tries not to state requirements • Tries not to design equipment nor procedures • Discusses many applicationsbut not in order to propose them • It introduces “application elements” • Discusses airborne separation • = airborne separation & self-separation applications

  5. Application categories • We suggest no change in the PO-ASAS categories • Situational awareness applications:could have been called “traffic information applications” • Airborne spacing applications:the controller continues to provide separation;the flight crew provide a specified spacing from specific reference aircraft • Airborne separation applications: subject aircraft is receiving a separation service;but is cleared to provide airborne separation from specific reference aircraft • Self-separation: subject aircraft is not receiving a separation service

  6. Status of the document • The document is complete • Will deliver imminently • You can all see the document … please! • I would like to tell you where to get it (and now I can!) • It should be circulated as widely as possible • all 100 pages of it • It will be submitted to ASP/1 in December • To be reported by ASP as “Work in progress”, not yet for adoption by ICAO • ASP will do what it determines • Further work by AP23 depends on feedback

  7. Contents • Part I: Concept • Airborne separation • Airborne surveillance applications • The elements of applications • Some minimal technical information • Part II: Operational use • Describes the potential evolution of ATM and use of ASAS • Looks at 2010, 2020 and 2030 (but don’t be too literal) • Discusses: terminal areas, en-route operations, procedural airspace and the surface

  8. Concept: terminology Airborne Separation is used to refer to any separation mode in which the flight crew is the separator • This definition includes airborne separation and airborne self-separation applications • No change proposed (yet?) in PO-ASAS category names • We keep the name “airborne separation applications” • AP23 plans to address this ambiguity (D5) • Alternatives? • NextGen use “delegated separation” for more than the PO-ASAS airborne separation applications • We use the plain language word “delegate” • but the controller cannot be responsible for the pilot’s actions

  9. Concept: airborne separation • Separation: “The tactical process of keeping aircraft away from hazards by at least the appropriate separation minima” • from ICAO Doc 9854, “The Global ATM Operational Concept” • The definition of “separation” applies equally to airborne separation and ground-based separation • Airborne separation is not collision avoidance

  10. Concept: airborne separation • Airborne separation will work well with trajectory management • Self-separation does not need to exclude trajectory management • (Delegated) airborne separation applications are tools for controllers • So they will be used only in controlled airspace • Benefits need to be mutual • Benefits are mutual • Self-separation is a manner of operation • Flexible and efficient for operators • Permitted by ANSPs (or airspace managers)

  11. Concept: application elements • AP23 asked for candidate applications • Over 100 separate suggestions • We grouped them by categoryfound elements common to many applications • Decided to base work on “application elements” • These elements are operational • PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM might need to discuss elements • They do not need to discuss anything else • The functional and performance requirements for each element will depend on context • A later talk will tell you much more about application elements

  12. Identifying designated aircraft

  13. Use: terminal areas • S&M, aka M&S, as a separation application • The use of ASAS is part of a larger story • The big benefits come from airspace reorganisationand good trajectory management, arriving on time • Using ASAS gives predictable and reliable throughput • Task of managing the interval is in the right place • CSPA • Has yet to be developed • A central and demanding application • Climb out • Use ASAS to fan out, or pass aircraft in front

  14. Use: en-route • Trajectory Management dominates • but it is not realistic to expect no conflicts • ASAS will be used to resolve tactical conflicts • Delegated airborne separation • can resolve crossing and passing encounters • minimal deviation from the desired trajectory • Four variants of self-separation: • unmanaged airspace • dedicated airspace, with no TM • dedicated airspace, a/c on agreed trajectories • managed airspace, some a/c self-separating and others not (SESAR scenario) • Flow corridors

  15. Use: “procedural airspace” • Airspace that is not under ground surveillance • Whole family of applications being studiedfor oceanic airspace • Self-separation and cruise climbing • Self-separation on dedicated tracks in the OTS • but • Procedural separation should simply disappear

  16. Use: the surface • The surface is different • There is no accepted concept of “separation” • The surface is important • Runway incursions – big safety issue • ASAS provides knowledge of the offence • Main benefits likely to be at un-towered airports • Operational use at non-towered airports • autonomous runway crossing (safe window of opportunity) • assess take-off times wrt local traffic (integrated with TM)

  17. Conclusion • Airborne separation should be regarded as an embedded part of trajectory management • TM and ASAS are complementary • A concept of use for ASAS is available • Get it from: One Sky Team ICAO: www.icao.int/anb/panels/scrsp/indexp.html(click information/documents) and …. ?

  18. Thank you ken.carpenter@atc.qinetiq.com

More Related