ATCO TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR A-SMGCS … · EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME Guidance on Training Requirements for Operational Users of ... 4.5 EUROCONTROL EATM Training

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Guidance on Training Requirements for Operational Users of A-SMGCS

Levels 1 & 2

Edition Number : 1.1 Edition Date : 27/11/2006 Status : Released Issue Intended for : General Public

Guidance on Training Requirements for Operational Users of A-SMGCS Levels 1 & 2

Page ii Released Issue Edition Number: 1.1

DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS

TITLE

Guidance on Training Requirements for Operational Us-ers of A-SMGCS Levels 1 & 2

EATMP Infocentre Reference: 06/11/27-17

Document Identifier Edition Number: 1.1

Edition Date: 27/11/2006

Abstract The objective of this report is to provide guidance on the additional training requirements necessary in order to introduce A-SMGCS level 1 and 2 at an airport. These training requirements concern the training of:

ATCOs who already hold an air traffic controller’s licence with valid aerodrome control rat-ing/endorsements

ATCOs who are training towards the grant of a licence with a valid rating and associated unit endorsement(s) for the provision of an aerodrome control service.

Other operational users of A-SMGCS, predominantly Apron Management Service person-nel.

Keywords AIR/GMC/GMSTWR Ratings

ATCO OJT/OJTI UTP

Contact Person(s) Tel Unit Paul ADAMSON (A-SMGCS Project Manager) +32 2729 3308 DAP/AOE

STATUS, AUDIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY

Status Intended for Accessible via Working Draft General Public Intranet Draft EATMP Stakeholders Extranet Proposed Issue Restricted Audience Internet (www.eurocontrol.int) Released Issue Printed & electronic copies of the document can be obtained from

the EATMP Infocentre (see page iii)

ELECTRONIC SOURCE

Path: I:\CND\COE\ATM\Airports\Internal\A-SMGCS\11_Implementation-Package\02_Old\Word

Host System Software Size Windows_NT Microsoft Word 10.0 613 Kb


Edition Number: 1.1 Released Issue Page iii

EATMP Infocentre EUROCONTROL Headquarters 96 Rue de la Fusée B-1130 BRUSSELS Tel: +32 (0)2 729 51 51 Fax: +32 (0)2 729 99 84 E-mail: [email protected] Open on 08:00 - 15:00 UTC from Monday to Thursday, incl.

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

The following table identifies all management authorities who have successively approved the present issue of this document.

AUTHORITY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE

Please make sure that the EATMP Infocentre Reference is present on page ii.

A-SMGCS Project Manager

Paul ADAMSON

APR Programme

Manager

Eric MIART

AOE Head of Unit

Paul WILSON

mailto:[email protected]�


Page iv Released Issue Edition Number: 1.1

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document. EDITION NUMBER

EDITION DATE

INFOCENTRE REFERENCE

REASON FOR CHANGE PAGES

AFFECTED

0.1 23-07-06 Conversion into training requirements report All

0.2 10-08-06 Draft for staffing by working group All

0.3 26-09-06 Final draft, comments by working group have been integrated

All

0.4 04-10-06 Additions and minor edits following project meeting on final draft

1.0 09-10-06 Final comments processed

1.1 27-11-06 Internal review All


Edition Number: 1.1 Released Issue Page v

CONTENTS

DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................ii

DOCUMENT APPROVAL..........................................................................................iii

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD..............................................................................iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................3

1. EXPLANATION OF TERMS .................................................................................5

2. Introduction .........................................................................................................9

2.1 The EUROCONTROL A-SMGCS Project.................................................................................9

2.2 Definition of A-SMGCS implementation levels........................................................................10

2.2.1 Level 1, Improved surveillance function ..........................................................................10

2.2.2 Level 2, added control functionality .................................................................................11

2.2.3 Level 3, improvements in surveillance, control, guidance and route planning................11

2.2.4 Level 4, conflict resolution and transmission of route planning.......................................12

2.3 Goal, method and scope of this report....................................................................................12

2.4 Relevant reference material ....................................................................................................13

2.5 Structure of the remainder of this report .................................................................................14

3. Tasks related to A-SMGCS ...............................................................................15

3.1 General....................................................................................................................................15

3.2 ATCOs.....................................................................................................................................15

3.3 Apron Management Service personnel...................................................................................16

4. Present Training Requirements .......................................................................17

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................17

4.2 ICAO standards.......................................................................................................................17

4.3 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council .......................................................18

4.4 EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement 5..............................................................18

4.5 EUROCONTROL EATM Training Progression and Concepts ...............................................20

4.6 Initial training ...........................................................................................................................20

4.6.1 Common Core Content for Initial Training.......................................................................21

4.7 Unit training .............................................................................................................................22

4.7.1 The Unit Training Plan.....................................................................................................23


Page vi Released Issue Edition Number: 1.1

4.7.2 Competence assessment and unit competence schemes..............................................23

4.8 Continuation training ...............................................................................................................24

4.8.1 Refresher training............................................................................................................24

4.8.2 Emergency training .........................................................................................................25

4.8.3 Conversion/upgrade training ...........................................................................................25

4.9 Development Training .............................................................................................................26

4.10 Implications for the introduction of A-SMGCS ........................................................................26

5. A-SMGCS Training Issues ................................................................................28

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................28

5.2 Visibility, visual attention and head-down time .......................................................................28

5.3 Alert management (A-SMGCS Level 2)..................................................................................30

5.4 Emergencies, system failure...................................................................................................30

5.5 Principles of labelling and problems related to labelling .........................................................31

5.6 Team co-ordination and communication.................................................................................31

5.7 User confidence ......................................................................................................................31

6. A-SMGCS Training Requirements ...................................................................33

6.1 General....................................................................................................................................33

6.2 Common Core Content Initial Training....................................................................................34

6.2.1 Basic training ...................................................................................................................34

6.2.2 Rating training .................................................................................................................34

6.3 Unit training for Student Air Traffic Controllers and Trainee ATCOs ......................................35

6.3.1 Transitional training at the Unit........................................................................................35

6.3.2 Pre-On-the-Job Training at the Unit ................................................................................35

6.3.3 On-the-Job Training at the Unit .......................................................................................35

6.3.4 The Unit Training Plan.....................................................................................................36

6.4 Continuation Training ..............................................................................................................36

6.4.1 Refresher training............................................................................................................36

6.4.2 Conversion/ technology upgrade training........................................................................36

6.4.3 Emergency training .........................................................................................................37

6.5 Unit Competence Schemes ....................................................................................................38

6.6 Licensing .................................................................................................................................38

7. Acknowledgements...........................................................................................39

8. Reference Documents ......................................................................................40


Edition Number: 1.1 Released Issue Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared for the EUROCONTROL Airport Operations and Environment Division as a study and report on additional training requirements for air traffic controllers (ATCOs), to enable the introduction and application of Advanced Surface Movement and Control Systems (A-SMGCS) in the provision of an Aerodrome Control Service. Many Euro-pean airports also provide an Apron Management Service in parts of the movement area. The additional impact on the training requirements for the use of A-SMGCS by other opera-tional users, predominantly Apron Management Service personnel, is also considered.

The implementation of A-SMGCS will improve airport operations, especially during reduced visibility conditions and at night hours and A-SMGCS will be an important enabler in the de-velopment of the Gate-to-Gate concept. The introduction of A-SMGCS will make it possible for ATCOs to provide an aerodrome control service without continuous visual contact by us-ing enhanced surveillance equipment.

This report considers the implications of additional training requirements for working with A-SMGCS with respect to ATCOs who are already holding an air traffic controller licence with a valid aerodrome control rating/endorsement(s). It also considers the implications of additional training requirements with respect to student air traffic controllers and trainee air traffic con-trollers who are training towards the grant of an air traffic controller licence with a valid rating and associated endorsements for the provision of an aerodrome control service.

The following can be concluded:

For the definition of ATCO training requirements for A-SMGCS, a well-defined framework is in place at ICAO, ECAC, EUROCONTROL and EU-level, of which an overview is pro-vided.

The implications of A-SMGCS introduction for ATCO training are fully covered by EU Di-rective 2006/23/EC and ESARR 5 requirements for air traffic controllers.

The existing standards and guidelines for ATCO training enable the definition of addi-tional training requirements to ensure that ATCOs with appropriate license, ratings and endorsements have the skills and knowledge to operate in an A-SMGCS (level 1 & 2) en-vironment. These training requirements can be defined to fit in the existing framework.

With respect to training requirements for initial training, the Common Core Content (CCC) approach has been taken, i.e. the requirements fit into the EUROCONTROL framework for a harmonised core training content among providers of initial training in the ECAC member states. This report proposes extension of the existing CCC-guidelines with the set of A-SMGCS training objectives.

For (site-specific) unit training, refresher training, and emergency training, the CCC ap-proach has not been taken, but rather guidelines for the introduction of A-SMGCS in the Unit Training Plan have been stated, with suggestions for training topics. Also for the in-tegration of A-SMGCS competencies in existing competence assessment and unit com-petence schemes, guidelines have been established.

A system upgrade training shall have to be organised at operational ATC units, since the introduction of A-SMGCS will be accompanied by new operating procedures. The system upgrade training must ensure the ongoing competence of the licensed ATCO at the unit. Depending on the amount and scope of the changes in operating procedures, such up-


Page 2 Released Issue Edition Number: 1.1

grade training could encompass a theory course, simulator training and On-the-Job Training (OJT).

Where Apron Management Service personnel work with A-SMGCS in a way that is com-parable with the way ATCOs work with A-SMGCS, they should have comparable compe-tencies in working with the system. As a consequence, the training requirements for Apron Management Service personnel that operate in an A-SMGCS environment could be (partly) based upon the internationally accepted framework for training of ATCOs. For these purposes, the training requirements for A-SMGCS (level 1 & 2) provided in this re-port can be applied to the training of Apron Management Service personnel, where appli-cable. Where Apron Management Service personnel use A-SMGCS in a different way than ATCOs, training standards may be based on locally agreed operational tasks and responsibilities. This topic is considered to be beyond the scope of this report.

To enable the safe and efficient use of A-SMGCS, all operational users should be com-petent to use the system. A license can be considered as a formal recognition of compe-tencies demonstrated by the operational user. The licensing requirements related to the operational use of A-SMGCS (level 1 & 2) are described in a separate report, entitled ‘ Guidance on licensing and competence requirements for operational users of A-SMGCS levels 1 & 2’ (EATMP, 2006).



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADI Aerodrome Control Instrument (rating)

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast

ADV Aerodrome Control Visual (rating)

AIR Air Control (rating endorsement)

AO Airport Operations (domain)

A-SMGCS Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCO Air Traffic Controller

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Traffic Services

AVOL Aerodrome Visibility Operational Level

CBT Computer Based Training

CCC Common Core Content

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

EMMA European Airport Movement Management by A-SMGCS

ESARR European Safety Regulatory Requirement

EATMP European Air Traffic Management Program

GMC Ground Movement Control (rating endorsement)

GMS Ground Movement Surveillance (rating endorsement)

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

IANS (EUROCONTROL) Institute of Air Navigation Services

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation



LOA Letter of Agreement

MLAT Multilateration

OJT On-the-Job Training

OJTI On-the-Job Training Instructor (license endorsement)

R/T Radiotelephony

SMGCS Surface Movement Guidance and Control System

SMR Surface Movement Radar

SRC Safety Regulation Commission

TIS-B Traffic Information Services – Broadcast

TWR Tower (rating endorsement)

UTP Unit Training Plan



1. EXPLANATION OF TERMS

This section provides the explanation of terms required for a correct understanding of the present document. Most of the following explanations are taken from the A-SMGCS manual (ICAO, 2004), the ICAO Annex 11 (ICAO, 2001b) or the EUROCONTROL EATMP Definition of A-SMGCS Implementation Levels (EATMP, 2005a). The definitions of training terms have been adopted from the EATM Training Progression and Concepts (EATMP, 2004e). Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (A-SMGCS) Systems providing routing, guidance, surveillance and control to aircraft and affected vehi-cles in order to maintain movement rates under all local weather conditions within the Aero-drome Visibility Operational Level (AVOL) whilst maintaining the required level of safety (ICAO, 2004). Aerodrome Control Service. Air traffic control service for aerodrome traffic (ICAO, 2001b). Aerodrome Traffic All traffic on the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome and all aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome (ICAO, 2001b). Air Traffic Control Service A service provided for the purpose of a) preventing collisions between aircraft and on the manoeuvring area between aircraft and obstructions; and b) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic (ICAO, 2001b). Alert An indication of an existing or pending situation during aerodrome operations, or an indica-tion of abnormal A-SMGCS operation, that requires attention/action (ICAO, 2004). Apron A defined area, on a land aerodrome, intended to accommodate aircraft for purposes of load-ing or unloading passengers, mail or cargo, fuelling, parking or maintenance (ICAO, 2001b). Apron Management Service A service provided to regulate the activities and the movement of aircraft and vehicles on an apron (ICAO, 2001b). Conflict A situation when there is a possibility of a collision between aircraft and/or vehicles (ICAO, 2004). Continuation Training Training given to licensed or certificated personnel designed to augment existing knowledge and skills. It includes refresher, emergency and conversion training.



Control Application of measures to prevent collisions, runway incursions and to ensure safe, expedi-tious and efficient movement (ICAO, 2004). Controlled Aerodrome An aerodrome at which air traffic control service is provided to aerodrome traffic (ICAO, 2001b). Conversion Training Type of continuation training designed to provide knowledge and skills appropriate to a change in job category (new rating discipline, rating endorsement or unit endorsement), envi-ronment (new procedures) or system (system upgrade or change) (EATMP, 2004e). Co-operative Mobile Mobile which is equipped with systems capable of automatically and continuously providing information including its Identity to the A-SMGCS (EATMP, 2005a). Co-operative Surveillance The surveillance of mobiles is co-operative when a sensor, named co-operative surveillance sensor, collects information about the mobiles from an active element of the transponder type, with which the mobiles are equipped. This technique allows collecting more mobile pa-rameters than the non-co-operative surveillance, for instance the mobiles identity. The co-operative surveillance may be either: Dependant on the co-operative mobile, when the mobile automatically generates the in-

formation and transmits it to the surveillance sensor, for instance via ADS-B; or Non-dependant on the co-operative mobile, when the mobile is interrogated by the sur-

veillance sensor, for instance Mode-S multilateration (EATMP, 2005a). Emergency Training Type of continuation training that shall be given to all controllers on a regular basis. It in-cludes training in emergencies, in unusual situations and in degraded systems. Most of this training will be site-specific (EATMP, 2004e). False Alert Alert which does not correspond to an actual alert situation (EATMP, 2005a). Guidance Facilities, information and advice necessary to provide continuous, unambiguous and reliable information to pilots of aircraft and drivers of vehicles to keep their aircraft or vehicles on the surfaces and assigned routes intended for their use (ICAO, 2004). Identification The correlation of a known aerodrome movement callsign with the displayed target of that mobile on the display of the surveillance system (ICAO, 2004). Identity A group of letters, figures or a combination thereof which is either identical to, or the coded equivalent of, the mobile call sign to be used in air-ground communications, and which is used to identify the mobile in ground-ground air traffic services communications (EATMP, 2005a).



Incursion The unauthorised entry by an aircraft, vehicle or obstacle into the defined protected areas surrounding an active runway, taxiway or apron (ICAO, 2004). Initial Training Training including technical subjects and ATC theory and simulator practice. The object of initial training is to prepare an ab initio for training at an ATC unit. It includes two phases (ba-sic and rating) leading to a student licence. Rating training might also be provided as training for conversion to another rating (EATMP, 2004e). Manoeuvring Area That part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft, exclud-ing aprons (ICAO, 2001b). Mobile A mobile is either an aircraft or a vehicle (EATMP, 2005a). Movement Area That part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft, consist-ing of the manoeuvring area and the apron(s) (ICAO, 2001b). Non-Co-operative Mobile Mobile which is not equipped with systems capable of automatically and continuously provid-ing information including its identity to the A-SMGCS (EATMP, 2005b). Non-Co-operative Surveillance The surveillance of mobiles is non-co-operative when a sensor, named non-co-operative surveillance sensor, detects the mobiles, without any action on their behalf. This technique allows determining the position of any mobile in the surveillance area and in particular to de-tect intruders. Examples of non-co-operative surveillance sensors are the Primary Surveil-lance Radars (EATMP, 2005a). Normal Visibility Visibility conditions sufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance (corresponding to visibility condition 1 defined by ICAO (ICAO, 2004)) (EATMP, 2005a). Nuisance Alert Alert which is correctly generated according to the rule set but are inappropriate to the de-sired outcome (EATMP, 2005a). Performance Objective A clear and unambiguous statement of what a learner is expected to do (behaviour or Per-formance) with the minimum level of acceptable performance (Standard in terms of quality, quantity and time allowed for completion) and conditions under which the performance is to be carried out (Conditions). The performance objective clearly establishes a link between the training objective and the method to assess if this training objective has been reached.



Rating Training (training in the rating discipline) Specialised ATC training to provide knowledge and skills related to a job category and ap-propriate to the discipline to be pursued in the ATS environment (EATMP, 2004e). Reduced Visibility Visibility conditions insufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance (correspond to visibility conditions 2, 3, and 4 defined by ICAO (ICAO, 2004)) (EATMP, 2005a). Refresher Training A type of continuation training that is designed to review, reinforce or upgrade existing knowledge and skills (including team skills). (EATMP, 2004e). Routing The planning and assignment of a route to individual aircraft and vehicles to provide safe, expeditious and efficient movement from its current position to its intended position (ICAO, 2004). Runway Incursion The unintended presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the runway or runway strip (EATMP, 2005a). Surveillance A function of the system which provides identification and accurate positional information on aircraft, vehicles and obstacles within the required area (ICAO, 2004). Training Objective A clear statement based on a description of the learner performance and the limits of this performance. It always includes an action verb to ensure that the outcome is observable. The performance level is stated according to a EUROCONTROL defined taxonomy (on a scale from 0 to 5) (EATMP 2004e). Unit Competence Scheme An approved scheme indicating the method by which the unit maintains the competence of its licence holders. Unit Training Training comprising transitional training, pre-On-the-Job-Training and On-the-Job-Training leading a learner to obtaining an air traffic controller licence, with appropriate rating and with appropriate rating endorsements and unit endorsements (EATMP, 2004e). Unit Training Plan An approved plan detailing the processes and timing required to allow the unit procedures to be applied to the local area under the supervision of an on-the-job-training instructor.



2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 The EUROCONTROL A-SMGCS Project

One of the main activities of the Airport Operations Programme, which falls within the Airport Operations Domain (AO) of the EUROCONTROL European Air Traffic Management Pro-gramme (EATMP), is support of the gradual implementation of Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (A-SMGCS). A-SMGCS aims to improve airport operations, especially during reduced visibility conditions or at night hours, when traffic may be difficult to detect and identify with the naked eye from the visual control room, particularly at large dis-tances and/or with a restricted view. A-SMGCS is also mentioned as an important enabler in the development of the Gate-to-Gate concept (EATMP, 2003b).

In order to keep up with future demands in traffic throughput and to improve safety, several airports in Europe have now implemented A-SMGCS for monitoring and guidance of traffic in the airport manoeuvring area. A-SMGCS is a further development of the present day Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS) concept. It is described and detailed in the ICAO Doc. 9830 Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Manual.

It has been identified that, in the future, SMGCS will no longer be sufficient to meet the re-quired traffic capacity and/or required safety standards. This applies especially to the major and complex airports and in situations with adverse weather conditions (low visibility).

The major expected operational benefits of the introduction of A-SMGCS are:

Improvement of the aerodrome control service on the manoeuvring area;

Improvement of conflict detection and alert for all traffic on the movement area;

Improvement of planning and routing of traffic on the movement area (A-SMGCS Level 3);

Improvement of guidance and control in the movement area (A-SMGCS Level 4).

Note ICAO Annex 11 defines that an aerodrome control service on the ground is provided to aerodrome traffic in the manoeuvring area, which excludes the aprons.

With the introduction of A-SMGCS, ATCOs will be able to provide an aerodrome control ser-vice and issue air traffic control clearances, instructions and information to aerodrome traffic, without having continuous visual contact by using enhanced surveillance equipment.

A-SMGCS will enable Apron Management Service (see ICAO Annex 14 § 9.5) personnel, at airports where such a service is established, to more accurately monitor the position and movement of aircraft and vehicles within their delegated area of responsibility and use this information to improve the service provided.



To enable the safe and efficient use of the A-SMGCS tools, operational users shall have to be properly trained and licensed (where appropriate). The next paragraphs describe the pre-sent ICAO, EU and EUROCONTROL concepts and requirements for the training of ATCOs, focussing in particular on the aerodrome control service. Thereafter, attention will be given to the implications of the introduction of A-SMGCS for ab initio training of air traffic control stu-dents, as well as for the training of already licensed aerodrome controllers. The possible ap-plication of similar provisions for Apron Management personnel is also highlighted, where appropriate.

Figure 2.1: Visual Display of the A-SMGCS system at Paris-CdG airport

2.2 Definition of A-SMGCS implementation levels

In this section an outline description of A-SMGCS levels 1 to 4 is provided. However, the reader should note that the definitions for level 3 and 4 have yet to be agreed and are be-yond the scope of the current document.

2.2.1 Level 1, Improved surveillance function

At level 1, the ATCO will be assisted by a surveillance service, which complements visual observation by displaying (see figure 2.1):

The airport traffic context (predominantly airport layout); Position of all vehicles in the manoeuvring area; Position of all aircraft in the movement area;



Identity of all aircraft in the movement area; Identity of all co-operative vehicles. Since ATC is responsible for the manoeuvring area, the surveillance service should cover all mobiles in this area. In the same way, the surveillance service should also cover aircraft in the apron area, as controllers deliver push-back clearances when aircraft are located in that area. At level 1, aircraft and vehicles are expected to be co-operative. As a result, the surveil-lance service will automatically provide their identity. However, it should also be possible for ATC to cope with a very limited number of non-co-operative mobiles (grass cutting vehicle, aircraft with transponder out of service). These non-co-operative mobiles will not be labelled.

2.2.2 Level 2, added control functionality

In addition to the level 1 functionality, level 2 entails an initial ‘control function’ dedicated to runway incursion alerting, taking benefit of the harmonisation of local working methods (mul-tiple line-ups, conditional clearances, etc.) in major airports. The function will not detect all runway conflicts, but only the more hazardous ones (runway incursion), and will alert control-lers in due time1.

2.2.3 Level 3, improvements in surveillance, control, guidance and route planning

Surveillance In addition to the previous levels, the surveillance information provided to the controller will be delivered to and shared with pilots and drivers. This function requires the implementation of technologies such as ADS-B / TIS-B to transmit the traffic information. All participating mobiles will be required to be co-operative in order to automatically provide the mobile iden-tity on the user displays. At this level, a non-co-operative sensor will still be necessary in or-der to detect intruders. Control On the basis of the Level 3 surveillance information, described in the previous section, the control function will be able to detect any conflict concerning mobiles in the movement area. The alarms will be provided to the controller as in Level 2 but also to pilots and drivers. The conflict detection information should be customised depending on the users (controllers, ve-hicle drivers, and aircrew). Guidance The guidance function implemented at level 2, may be improved by: Display of the airport map showing taxiways, runways, obstacles and the mobile position

to both aircrew and drivers; providing dynamic map with updates of the runway status for instance, through the use of

technology like TIS-B; automatic triggering of dynamic ground signs (stop bars, centreline lights,…) according

to the route issued by the controller.

1 In level 2, also a guidance service may be provided to vehicle drivers as an option. This service is based on GNSS technology, which consists of a display in the vehicle showing an airport map, taxiways, runways, obsta-cles and the mobile position. With this system, the vehicle driver could visualise his position and his destination on a display. This may reduce navigation mistakes, which may occur in low visibility conditions.



Route planning The route planning function, which is meant for airports with a complex layout, shall deter-mine the best route to users, which is calculated by minimising the delay according to plan-ning, ground rules and potential conflict with other mobiles. This function will be provided only to those controllers, who will issue ATC clearances to pilots and give instructions to drivers.

2.2.4 Level 4, conflict resolution and transmission of route planning

In addition to level 3, the control function will be complemented by a conflict resolution func-tion. The route planning function will be extended to equipped mobiles. This implies that the route proposed by the route planning function and validated by controllers will be transmitted via data-link to pilots and drivers.

2.3 Goal, method and scope of this report

Goal The goal of this report is to describe additional training requirements necessary in order to introduce A-SMGCS level 1 and 2 at an airport. These training requirements concern the training of:

ATCOs who already hold an air traffic controller’s licence with valid aerodrome control rating/endorsements2,

ATCOs who are training towards the grant of a licence with a valid rating and associated unit endorsement(s) for the provision of an aerodrome control service.

Other operational users of A-SMGCS, predominantly Apron Management Service per-sonnel.

The EUROCONTROL APR produced a ‘proposed issue’ report, in 2002, on training and li-censing issues for Air Traffic Controllers related to the implementation of A-SMGCS at ECAC airports (EATMP, 2002). Due to the limited scale of implementation of A-SMGCS within the ECAC region at that time, this older report focussed on potential licensing issues, particularly in relation to ESARR 5 and the European Manual of Personnel Licensing – ATCOs. Following a period of more wide-scale implementation of A-SMGCS at European airports and EUROCONTROL sponsored simulations and operational trials (at London Heathrow, Frank-furt, Vienna, Zurich and Paris CDG), the current report will now add more detail with regard to training issues. Method and scope The EATMP (2002) report into ATCO training and licensing requirements (proposed issue) was reviewed and more detailed requirements for initial, unit and continuation training for A-SMGCS (level 1 and 2) implementation provided. More detail concerning the effects of A-SMGCS (level 1 and 2) implementation on Unit Competence Schemes is also included.

2 In accordance with the “European Manual of Personnel Licensing - Air Traffic Controllers” (EATMP, 2004e) these are the Aerodrome Control Instrument (ADI) rating, and additionally, either the Ground Movement Control (GMC) endorsement or the Tower (TWR) endorsement, and additionally, the Ground Movement Surveillance Control (GMS) endorsement. It is assumed that the use of A-SMGS is covered by these ratings/endorsements. Further information can be found in ‘Licensing and competence requirements for operational users of A-SMGCS levels 1 & 2’ (EATMP, 2006).



A focus on training requirements was achieved through stakeholder workshops held by op-erational and training experts. The aim of these workshops was to support the training re-quirements development by consolidating results obtained from the operational live trials and simulations while addressing impacts and issues highlighted in the EUROCONTROL Human Factors Case for A-SMGCS (EUROCONTROL, 2006). The indication of requirements for levels 3 and 4, as listed in EATMP (2002), is not detailed. The initial conclusions on licensing requirements that were listed in EATMP (2002) was also be reviewed and revised where applicable. The licensing requirements for A-SMGCS (levels 1 & 2) are now detailed in a separate EATMP report entitled ‘Licensing and competence re-quirements for operational users of A-SMGCS levels 1 & 2’ (EATMP, 2006).

2.4 Relevant reference material

Since the ‘proposed issue’ report, in 2002, on training and licensing issues related to the im-plementation of A-SMGCS, a number of internationally significant documents related to A-SMGCS were published, the most relevant being used in this report: In 2003, EUROCONTROL published the A-SMGCS Project Strategy (EATMP, 2003) with

the aim to propose a strategy for A-SMGCS implementation. In 2004, ICAO released the first edition of the A-SMGCS Manual (ICAO, 2004), which

provides operational requirements, performance requirements and interoperability re-quirements that help operators, manufacturers and certifying authorities to develop, intro-duce and implement A-SMGCS.

In 2005, EUROCONTROL issued edition 1.1 of the definition of A-SMGCS Implementa-tion Levels (EATMP, 2005a).

In 2006, EUROCONTROL plans to release the Human Factors Case for A-SMGCS (EUROCONTROL, 2006), which was made available to the project team. This Human Factors Case follows the more general guidance for human factors integration described in EATMP (2004c).

A general framework for ATCO training development is given in EATM Training Progression and Concepts (EATMP, 2004e), while a more specific training plan for aerodrome rating training is laid down in ATCO Rating Training Plans – Aerodrome Training (EATMP, 2004f). For the current purposes of defining training requirements for A-SMGCS, use will be made of general training guidelines outlined by EUROCONTROL, which have been issued in recent years (and after the ‘proposed issue’ report in 2002): Guidelines for Controller Training in the Handling of Unusual/Emergency situations

(EATMP, 2003a); Guidelines for Refresher Training for Air Traffic Controllers (EATMP, 2003c); Guidelines for ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training (EATMP, 2004a,b); Guidelines for the development of Unit Training Plans (EATMP, 2005b); Guidelines for Competence Assessment (EATMP, 2005c); as well as the older guidelines-document: Guidelines for ATS Upgrade Training (EATMP, 1996). In the ‘proposed issue’ report of 2002, reference was made to the Safety Regulatory Re-quirement ESARR 5 (EUROCONTROL, 2002), as well as the European Manual of Personnel Licensing, which is now available in a more recent version (EATMP 2004d). Both documents,



focussing on licensing, will be partly superseded by the EU Directive on a Community air traf-fic controller license (European Union, 2006). Finally, a high-level A-SMGCS training concept has been drafted in the context of the EMMA (European Airport Movement Management by A-SMGCS) R&D project (EMMA, 2006).

2.5 Structure of the remainder of this report

The following chapter (Ch. 3) considers the tasks and working methods implied by A-SMGCS introduction. Thereafter, Ch. 4 considers the present framework of training for aerodrome control and the implications for this framework when introducing A-SMGCS. Having identified the tasks and the current training structure, the training-related issues raised by the introduc-tion of A-SMGCS will be described in Ch. 5, predominantly using the outcomes of simula-tions and operational trials as reported in the A-SMGCS Human Factors Case. Subse-quently, these training-issues must be resolved by changes in training, for which training re-quirements will be determined in Ch. 6. Finally, Ch. 7 provides the list of reference docu-ments.



3. TASKS RELATED TO A-SMGCS

3.1 General

With the implementation of (full) A-SMGCS, task3 changes will take place in four major ar-eas: surveillance, guidance, control and route planning. These changes will affect the tasks of operational users, i.e. ATCOs, Apron Management Service personnel, flight crew and ve-hicle drivers. Since this report is only considering implementation of A-SMGCS levels 1 & 2, which will hardly affect the tasks of vehicle drivers and flight crew, only the tasks of ATCOs and Apron Management Service personnel will be briefly described in the following sections.

3.2 ATCOs

The implementation of A-SMGCS Level 1 and Level 2 concerns ATCO tasks related to sur-veillance and control only. In the current SMGCS situation, the role of the ATCO is to manage aircraft and vehicles in the movement area and in the vicinity of the airport in a safe and efficient way. The main tasks in relation with SMGCS are the following: Identification of aircraft and vehicles and their positions; Monitoring the execution of clearances; Monitoring the traffic situation; Providing weather and traffic information by R/T; Issuance of clearances and instructions to all participating mobiles; Traffic Information of flight crew/ drivers about traffic surrounding their aircraft/ vehicle by

R/T; Alerting the participating mobiles by R/T in case of conflict situations. With the implementation of A-SMGCS Level 1, the tasks of the ATCO will evolve in the sense that, with reduced visibility, the additional source of surveillance information, in the form of an A-SMGCS display, enables the ATCO to perform aforementioned tasks with higher move-ment rates than with SMGCS. The new surveillance service that is implemented at this level of A-SMGCS will provide the ATCO with position and identity of all co-operative mobiles in all visibility conditions. This new source of information will complement existing information. In A-SMGCS Level 2, the ATCO tasks further evolve in the sense that the A-SMGCS control service provides the ATCO with a monitoring and alerting function, which issues warnings and alerts in case of conflict situations, independent of visibility conditions. This monitoring and alert function complements the ATCO in analysing the traffic visually or using surveil-lance information. The ATCO uses the alerts as a safety net to detect a risk of collision be-

3 A task is a set of related human activities, performed for an immediate purpose, i.e. in response to a specified input and yielding a specific output.



tween movements on runways and possibly (depending on the local A-SMGCS implementa-tion) to detect a risk between movements in other areas. .

3.3 Apron Management Service personnel

Services in aerodrome apron areas are known as Apron Management Services. Some States authorise a dedicated unit to exert these services. This unit often is a division of the local Airport Authority, whilst in other States or at specific airports the ATC authority provides Apron Management Service.

Apron Management is not a part of the air traffic services as defined by ICAO. Therefore, in-ternational requirements and regulations for the air traffic services, which include air traffic control, are not applicable to apron management.

On a controlled aerodrome, the air traffic control service is provided to all mobiles in the ma-noeuvring area. As the aprons are excluded from the manoeuvring area, no air traffic control service can be provided on those areas. However, on many airports the movements of air-craft at the aprons are delegated to air traffic control, whereas the movements of service traf-fic (passenger and luggage transport, refuelling vans, etc.) remain the responsibility of an Apron Management Service. Whenever it is required to safeguard apron operations, coordi-native action between Apron Management Service and air traffic control will be taken.



4. PRESENT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the present training requirements, relevant to ground operations at airports and in particular relevant to the introduction of A-SMGCS. It will be based upon, and restricted to, existing international standards, training requirements and guidelines for AT-COs working towards an Aerodrome Control Instrument rating, or already in the possession of such. It will also be investigated whether such standards, requirements and guidelines ex-ist for Apron Management Service personnel.

4.2 ICAO standards

Annex I to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO, 2001a) contains standards and recommended practices for personnel licensing. Chapter 4 details licences and ratings for personnel other than flight crewmembers, i.e. aircraft maintenance personnel, ATCOs, flight operations officers/flight dispatchers, aeronautical station operators and meteorological personnel. No standards or recommended practices concerning Apron Management Service personnel are included.

With respect to ATCOs applying for an aerodrome control rating, the following knowledge, experience and skill requirements are listed in chapter 4, paragraph 4.4: Knowledge: The applicant shall have demonstrated a level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted, in at least the following subjects in so far as they affect the area of responsibility: a. Aerodrome layout; physical characteristics and visual aids; b. Airspace structure; c. Applicable rules, procedures and source of information; d. Air navigation facilities; e. Air traffic control equipment and its use; f. Terrain and prominent landmarks; g. Characteristics of air traffic; h. Weather phenomena; and i. Emergency and search and rescue procedures Experience: For an aerodrome control rating, the applicant shall have: a. satisfactorily completed an approved training course; b. provided, satisfactorily, under the supervision of an appropriately rated air traffic control-

ler an aerodrome control service, for a period of not less than 90 hours or one month, whichever is longer, at the unit for which the rating is sought.

The experience specified above under b. shall have been completed within the 6-month pe-riod immediately preceding application.



Skill: The applicant shall have demonstrated, at a level appropriate to the privileges being granted, the skill, judgement and performance required to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious con-trol service.

4.3 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

On 27 April 2006, Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (European Union, 2006), with the purpose of introducing a Community ATCO license. The introduction of such licence is con-sidered as a means of recognising the specific role that air traffic controllers play in the safe provision of air traffic control. The establishment of Community competence standards will also reduce fragmentation in this field, allowing for more efficient organisation of work in the framework of growing regional collaboration between air navigation service providers. Direc-tive 2006/23/EC is therefore an essential part of the Single European Sky legislation. It is based on paragraph 4.4 of the aforementioned ICAO-document (ICAO, 2001a) as well as those parts of EUROCONTROL’s Safety Regulatory Requirement No 5 (ESARR 5, EUROCONTROL, 2002) that are relevant to ATCOs. Directive 2006/23/EC prescribes a licensing structure that is in accordance with the Euro-pean Manual of Personnel Licensing (EATMP, 2004d), i.e. for the Aerodrome Control In-strument rating (ADI), the following endorsements are possible: (1) Tower Control endorse-ment (TWR), (2) the Ground Movement Control endorsement (GMC), (3) the Ground Movement Surveillance endorsement (GMS), (4) the Air Control endorsement (AIR), and (5) the Aerodrome Radar Control endorsement (RAD). Generally, it is noted that training of air traffic controllers, including related assessment pro-cedures, shall be subject to certification by the national supervisory authorities, and that the requirements for certification shall relate to technical and operational competence and suit-ability of training providers to organise training courses. The suitability of training providers to provide training courses is further detailed in Annex IV of the directive. Certificates may be issued for each type of training or in combination with other air navigation services, whereby the type of training and the type of air navigation service shall be certified as a package of services. It is further noted, that the objectives of initial training are described in the EUROCONTROL guidance material, which are considered the appropriate standards, and that ‘for unit training the lack of generally accepted standards needs to be offset by a range of measures, includ-ing the approval of examiners, which should guarantee high standards of competence. This is all the more important as unit training is very costly and decisive in terms of safety’. The directive lists general (i.e. not specific for aerodrome control) training requirements, which will be cited in the subsequent paragraphs.

4.4 EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement 5

The aforementioned European Union Directive 2006/23/EC notes that ‘In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 this Directive transposes the requirements laid down in EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement No 5 (ESARR 5) relevant to air traffic controllers.’ In other words, the training and licensing requirements for ATCOs listed in



ESARR 5 are have been incorporated into European legislation by regulation (EC) No 550/2004 and Directive 2006/23/EC, of which the relevant parts are listed in the previous paragraph. The Safety Objective statement of ESARR 5 is defined as follows: The overall safety objective is to ensure the competence and, where applicable, the satisfac-tion of medical requirements, of ATM services’ personnel responsible for safety related tasks within the provision of ATM services. ESARR 5 does not contain requirements that specifically apply to Apron Management Ser-vices. However, with reference to the safety objective, when the responsibility for apron management would be assigned to ATM services’ personnel, the General (Safety) Require-ments, which are contained in paragraph 5.1 of ESARR 5, would be applicable: A designated authority shall ensure, through the application of appropriate regulatory

principles and processes, that organisations and personnel responsible for tasks in the provision of air traffic services or supporting the provision of air traffic services, which are considered to be related to safety of air traffic, are competent to carry out those tasks. The designated authority shall assist the ATM provider in identifying those tasks which, in providing or supporting the provision of air traffic services, are considered to be safety re-lated.

Figure 4.1: The training structure for ATCOs, taken from EATMP (2004e)



An air traffic services provider at an ATS unit shall ensure, as part of its overall safety re-sponsibilities, that all ATM services personnel responsible for tasks in the provision of air traffic services or supporting the provision of air traffic services, which are considered to be related to the safety of air traffic, are competent to carry out those tasks and satisfy applicable medical fitness requirements.

Hence, ESARR 5 does not specifically cover the implications of A-SMGCS (level 1, 2) intro-duction. However, where the introduction of A-SMGCS (level 1, 2) assists Apron Manage-ment Service personnel in the provision of services that are considered to be related to the safety of air traffic, then the General (Safety) Requirements of ESARR 5 may be deemed to be applicable.

4.5 EUROCONTROL EATM Training Progression and Concepts

The document ‘Training Progression and Concepts’ (EUROCONTROL 2004e) supersedes the information that was disseminated in several earlier documents. However, it only pro-vides information on training of ATCOs and Air Traffic Safety Electronic Personnel (AT-SEPs), not on training of Apron Management Service personnel. It defines the progression of ATCOs through the several stages or phases of training, as de-picted by the ‘pyramid’ in figure 4.1. These stages (initial-, unit-, continuation- and develop-ment- training) and more detailed guidelines will be described in the subsequent paragraphs. The document further introduces the concept of objective-based training. In earlier EATM training documentation, reference is made to several definitions of training objectives. For the purposes of this document, the definition of training objective is in accordance with one of these definitions, namely: A training objective is a clear statement based on a description of the learner perform-

ance and the limits of this performance. It always includes an action verb to ensure that the outcome is observable. The performance level is stated according to a EUROCONTROL defined taxonomy (on a scale of 0 to 5) (EATMP 2004e).

4.6 Initial training

According to EATMP (2004e), initial training for ATCOs includes theory, part-task practice and simulation. The object of initial training is to prepare an ab initio student for training at an Air Traffic Control (ATC) unit. It includes two phases (basic and rating training, to be ex-plained hereafter) leading to a student licence. Basic training is designed to impart fundamental knowledge and skills to enable an ab

initio student to progress to specialised ATC training. Rating training is specialised ATC training to provide knowledge and skills related to a job

category and appropriate to the discipline to be pursued in the ATS environment. Rating training is not only provided as part of initial training, but might also be provided as train-ing for conversion to another rating.

EU-directive 2006/23/EC requires that initial training ensures that student air traffic control-lers satisfy at least the objectives for basic and rating training, as described in EUROCON-TROL's ‘Guidelines for air traffic controller Common Core Content Initial Training’ (EATMP, 2004g), so that air traffic controllers are capable of handling air traffic in a safe, quick and efficient way. Initial training will cover the following thirteen subjects: (1) aviation law, (2) air traffic management, including procedures for civil-military co-operation, (3) meteorology, (4) navigation, (5) aircraft and principles of flight, including an understanding between air traffic



controller and pilot, (6) human factors, (7) equipment and systems, (8) professional environ-ment, (9) safety and safety culture, (10) safety management systems, (11) un-usual/emergency situations, (12) degraded systems and (13) linguistic knowledge, including radiotelephony phraseology. The subjects will be taught in such a way that they prepare the applicants for the different types of air traffic services and highlight safety aspects. The initial training will consist of theoretical and practical courses, including simulation, and its duration will be determined in the approved initial training plans. Acquired skills must ensure that the candidate can be considered competent to handle complex and dense traffic situations, facilitating the transi-tion to unit training. The competence of the candidate after initial training will be assessed through appropriate examinations or a system of continuous assessment.

4.6.1 Common Core Content for Initial Training

As stated earlier, the EU Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Coun-cil requires that initial training will ensure that student air traffic controllers satisfy at least the objectives for basic and rating training, as described in the aforementioned document (EATMP, 2004g). This document provides guidelines for Common Core Content (CCC) with training objectives for controller initial training (Basic and Rating training). It includes nine modules: one corresponds to the basic training (roughly 20% practice and 80% theory), while the other eight correspond to the ratings and endorsements contained in EATMP (2004d), and consist of roughly 80% practice and 20% theory. The CCC training approach is meant for harmonisation within ECAC, that despite the large historical differences in ATCO training between countries, ensures that a CCC is maintained. The EUROCONTROL Institute of Air Navigation Services (IANS) uses CCC Training for AT-COs who eventually arrive in Maastricht ACC for UAC. Trainees will receive approx. 60 weeks of on-the-job- training. The CCC for Initial Training syllabus should be treated as a list of learning objectives. Only the syllabus may be subject to regulation. It should be avoided that more detailed training plans, training events, and assessment plans become subject to regulation, because such regulation is unnecessary and may obstruct innovations in training and local or personal preferences. It should be noted that only with initial training the CCC approach is taken. The approach is not suitable for unit training, since this type of training is specific to the local conditions, i.e. every unit should further develop common objectives towards its own training objectives. However, unit training might incorporate some CCC elements. For training towards the ADI rating, the following sub-document of EATMP (2004g) is of in-terest: EATMP (2004a). Guidelines for ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training. Part 3:

Rating Training – Module 2: Aerodrome Control Instrument Rating (ADI), Edition 2.0, De-cember 2004.

EATMP (2004a) describes in detail the topics and subtopics. The number of training objec-tives does not indicate/ reflect training time. Currently, A-SMGCS is only very briefly ad-dressed in ADI rating training. A-SMGCS is mentioned as part of subject 3 ‘Air Traffic Man-agement’ (see EATMP, 2004a, p13). The taxonomy level or required level of performance (on a scale of 0 to 5) at which A-SMGCS should be treated in initial training / rating training is currently set at level 3, which means that a thorough knowledge of the subject is required and the ability to apply it with accuracy (see EATMP, 2004e, p14 for definition of perform-



ance levels). In addition, EUROCONTROL has defined a taxonomy of ‘action verbs’ in ac-cordance with the various levels of performance. These action verbs, a large number of which has been defined for each level, are suggested for use in the definition of training ob-jectives. CCC training objectives have not yet been defined for A-SMGCS training.

4.7 Unit training

Unit training consists of transitional training, pre-OJT and OJT, leading a learner to obtaining an air traffic controller licence, with appropriate rating and with appropriate rating endorse-ments and unit endorsements. The following phases can be distinguished in unit training: Transitional Training (Transition to the unit):

This is the phase following initial training during which site-specific theoretical knowledge and understanding will be transferred to the student air traffic controller and/or trainee air traffic controller using a variety of methods and during which skills will be developed through the use of site-specific simulations.

Pre-On-the-Job Training: This is the phase of locally based training during which extensive use of simulation using site-specific facilities will enhance the development of previously acquired routines and abilities to an exceptionally high level of achievement.

On-the-Job Training: This is the integration in practice of previously acquired job-related routines and skills un-der the supervision of a qualified On-the-Job-Training Instructor (OJTI) in a live traffic situation.

EU-directive 2006/23/EC (European Union, 2006) requires that unit training plans will detail the processes and timing required to allow the application of the unit procedures to the local area under the supervision of an on-the-job training instructor. The approved plan will include indications of all elements of the competence assessment system, including work arrange-ments, progress assessment and examination, together with procedures for notifying the na-tional supervisory authority. Unit training may contain certain elements of the initial training which are specific to national conditions. The duration of unit training will be determined in the unit training plan. The required skills will be assessed through appropriate examinations or a system of continuous assessment, by approved competence examiners or assessors who will be neutral and objective in their judgment. To this end, the national supervisory authorities will put in place appeal mecha-nisms to ensure fair treatment of candidates. It was further noted in the EU Directive 2005/23/EC that ‘for unit training the lack of generally accepted standards needs to be offset by a range of measures, including the approval of ex-aminers, which should guarantee high standards of competence. This is all the more impor-tant as unit training is very costly and decisive in terms of safety’. Initial training CCC syllabi and/or objectives must be expanded with the local objectives in the unit training, because this stage of training will be rather specific to local circumstance at the ATS unit. While a common training syllabus may not be suitable for aerodrome control at the unit, guidelines may be provided for (1) the unit training plan, and (2) competence assessment, which will be described hereafter.



4.7.1 The Unit Training Plan

ESARR 5 (EUROCONTROL, 2002), the European Manual of Personnel Licensing (EATMP, 2004d) and the EU Directive 2006/23/EC (European Union, 2006) require operational units to have an approved Unit Training Plan (UTP). EUROCONTROL (EATMP, 2005b) provides guidelines that assist those who have been tasked with (further) developing their unit’s UTP. The EU Directive 2006/23/EC defines a UTP as an approved training plan, which details the training processes and the required timing for training. This training makes it possible for the applicant for an air traffic control license [/rating endorsement / unit endorsement] to exercise the ‘unit procedures’ to the local area under the supervision of an OJT-instructor. The UTP specifies how training at the unit will be provided to fill a training gap, including syl-labi, training events, timing, staff responsibilities and assessment mechanisms. It also in-cludes conversion training for ATCOs (when the trainee is training for a new unit endorse-ment). EATMP (2005b) provides detailed guidelines for the development of Unit Training Plans.

4.7.2 Competence assessment and unit competence schemes

EATMP (2005c) provides guidelines for competence assessment (synonymous with ‘exami-nation’), which is an obligatory element of unit training and continuation training. Moreover, the obligatory Unit Competence Scheme is an approved scheme indicating the method by which the unit maintains the competence of its licence holders, i.e. through unit training and continuation training. ESARR5 requires that Units have competence assessment schemes to satisfy the requirement ‘that controllers must maintain operational competence and experi-ence’. The purpose of competence assessment is to affirm competence and to identify areas in need of improvement as appropriate for either the individual or the system within which the individual works. Competence assessment supports the individual and the system. Competencies describe what people need to do to, in terms of knowledge, skills and atti-tudes, to perform a job well. ESARR 5 describes competence as ‘possession of the required level of knowledge, skills, experience and where required, proficiency in English, to permit the safe and efficient provision of ATM services’. Competence may be assessed by a system of: a) Continuous assessment; or b) Dedicated practical check; or c) Combination of (a) and (b) above; and d) Oral Examination and/or a written or Computer-Based Training (CBT) test of the control-

ler’s knowledge of Unit and national ATC procedures. Competence must be measured against performance objectives. In the harmonised Euro-pean ATM environment there should be common understanding and application of compe-tence assessment procedures. Only two conclusions should be considered when determin-ing operational competence in the ATM environment: ‘competent’ or ‘not competent’. The aforementioned EATMP (2005c) argues that the specific criteria, ‘competent’ or ‘not compe-tent’ appear to be accepted and well understood by operational staff. The introduction of any



expanded scale of competence could cause confusion and become a divisive issue amongst operational staff. With respect to competence assessment during unit training, the EU-directive 2005/23/EC (European Union, 2006) notes: ‘for unit training the lack of generally accepted standards needs to be offset by a range of measures, including the approval of examiners, which should guarantee high standards of competence. ESARR 5 (EUROCONTROL, 2002) sets out the general safety requirements for all ATM ser-vices' personnel responsible for safety related tasks within the provision of ATM services across the ECAC area and the specific safety requirements for ATCOs. ESARR 5 requires that air traffic controllers be subject to an assessment of their continuing competence. In ad-dition, both ESARR 5 and EU-directive 2006/23/EC require that the Designated Authority ap-proves competence assessors to conduct competence assessment.

4.8 Continuation training

According to EATMP (2004e) continuation training is training given to licensed or certified personnel designed to augment existing knowledge and skills. It includes refresher, emer-gency and conversion training. The EU-directive 2006/23/EC requires that rating and unit endorsements on air traffic control-lers' licences will be kept valid through approved continuation training, which consists of training to maintain the skills of air traffic controllers, refresher courses, emergency training and, where appropriate, linguistic training. Continuation training will consist of theoretical and practical courses, together with simulation. For this purpose, the training provider will estab-lish unit competence schemes, detailing the processes, manning and timing necessary to provide for the appropriate continuation training and to demonstrate competence. These schemes will be reviewed and approved at least every three years. The duration of the con-tinuation training will be decided in accordance with the functional needs of the air traffic con-trollers working in the unit, in particular in the light of changes or planned changes in proce-dures or equipment, or in the light of the overall safety management requirements. The com-petence of each air traffic controller will be appropriately assessed at least every three years. The air navigation service provider will ensure that mechanisms are applied to guarantee fair treatment of licence holders where the validity of their endorsements cannot be extended.

4.8.1 Refresher training

Refresher training is designed to review, reinforce or upgrade existing knowledge and skills (including team skills). EATMP (2003c) provides guidelines for refresher training for ATCOs, i.e. guidelines concerning the structure and content of the training course. The document also provides checklists of ‘should do’ (i.e. essential) and ‘suggested’ items to be covered in refresher training. It is recommended that controllers should receive refresher training in the twelve-month pe-riod prior to undertaking their first license competency assessment, and in the initial years of the licensing scheme, ideally annually or at least every other year (EATMP 2003c). Re-fresher training, which ideally should be site/rating specific, should include both theoretical training and, where possible, a small number of simulation exercises. In a well-focused pro-gramme one day should suffice. However, if unusual situations training or emergency train-ing is included, a minimum of a day and a half is considered necessary.



The following twelve ‘essential items’ are relevant to aerodrome control are (1) Significant topics from relevant ICAO Annexes/Docs, AIP, national and unit specific manuals (2) Stan-dard phraseology (3) Standard operating procedures, (4) Co-ordination, (5) Letters of Agreement (LOAs), (6) Factors affecting aircraft performance, (7) Flow control, (8) Items that have changed since the controller last received a training course, (9) Handling of un-usual/emergency situations (if not covered in routine continuation training), (10) ATC clear-ances and instructions, (11) Readbacks, (12) Meteorological phenomena, e.g. windshear. The following eight items are so-called ‘suggested items’: (1) Team Resource Management, (2) Situation Awareness, (3) leadership, (4) stress management, (5) coordination, (6) team-work, (7) checking of display set-up/use of functionalities, (8) European Manual of Personnel Licensing – Air Traffic Controllers (see EATMP, 2004d), ESARR 5: ATM Services’ Personnel (see EUROCONTROL, 2002).

4.8.2 Emergency training

EATMP (2004e) defines emergency training as training that shall be given to all controllers on a regular basis. It includes training in emergencies, in unusual situations and in degraded systems. Most of this training will be site-specific. EATMP (2003a) provides guidelines for controller training in the handling of unusual/emergency situations. It states that many pre-sent day controllers rarely experience unusual/emergency situations and that short training periods of half a day are of benefit. Further, the use of case studies is suggested. Checklists can help to ensure a proper response. Regular pilot-controller briefings are very desirable. An emergency is defined as a serious, unexpected and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action, while an unusual situation is defined as a set of circumstances that are neither habitually nor commonly experienced. The essential difference with an emergency is that the element of danger or serious risk is not necessarily present in an unusual situation. Finally, the unusual situations that are the result of a system failure or malfunction are con-sidered separately under the heading ‘degraded systems’. EATMP (2003c) states the requirement to provide all controllers with unusual/emergency situations training periodically, ideally annually. If controllers receive such training as part of routine continuation training, it need not be included in refresher training. In cases where such training is not provided it is recommended that it is included in refresher training. EUROCONTROL Institute of Air Navigation Services (IANS), Luxembourg, has developed a number of refresher training web-based e-learning modules including an emergency module with sixteen scenarios covering the most common unusual/emergency situations in an inter-active mode. The website can be accessed at: http://www.eurocontrol.int/ians/

4.8.3 Conversion/upgrade training

According to the ATCO training progression and concepts document (EATMP, 2004e), con-version training is training designed to provide knowledge and skills appropriate to a change in either job category (new rating discipline, rating endorsement or unit endorsement), envi-ronment (new procedures) or system (system upgrade or change). For conversion to a new job category, no specific EUROCONTROL guidelines have been found and it is assumed that the guidelines for rating training (which is part of initial training, see EATMP, 2004f/g) and guidelines for the development of unit training plans (EATMP,

http://www.eurocontrol.int/ians/�



2005b) are applicable. Also for the conversion to new procedures, it is assumed that the aforementioned guidelines for the development of unit training plans will apply. However, for the conversion to a new system or a system change, EUROCONTROL has is-sued ‘guidelines for ATS upgrade training’ (EATMP, 1996). This document explains the de-velopment of an upgrade training. The envisioned (general) content of such upgrade training, which for the current purposes (introduction of A-SMGCS), is the most relevant part of the EATMP document, is listed in the various paragraphs of chapter 7 of EATMP (1996). The content is: General Description of the System Human Machine Interface Flight Data Processing Radar Data Processing Using Radar and Flight Data Displays Using the Voice Communication System Co-ordination Procedures Other Equipment Upgrades ATS Procedures

4.9 Development Training

According to the ATCO training progression and concepts document (EATMP, 2004e), de-velopment training is training designed to provide additional knowledge and skills demanded by a change in job profile, e.g. new licence endorsement (OJTI) or any other career devel-opment like assessor, supervisor, safety manager, incident investigator, airspace developer, training manager, traffic flow manager, etc. The definition of training requirements for devel-opment training is considered beyond the current purposes (introduction of A-SMGCS), how-ever, with the additional remark that some of the changes in job-profile (e.g. for the OJTI li-cense endorsement or supervisors) may require deeper knowledge of - and more experience with - A-SMGCS, when compared to controllers with a standard job-profile.

4.10 Implications for the introduction of A-SMGCS

In summary, the implications of present training requirements, as described above, based on internationally accepted standards, for the introduction of A-SMGCS (level 1, 2) are the fol-lowing: For ATCO training, a well-defined framework is in place at ICAO, ECAC,

EUROCONTROL and EU-level. The implications of A-SMGCS introduction for ATCO training are fully covered by the Di-

rective 2006/23/EC and ESARR 5 requirements for air traffic controllers. The existing standards and guidelines for ATCO training clearly enable the definition of

additional training requirements to ensure that ATCOs with appropriate licence, ratings and endorsements have the skills and knowledge to operate in an A-SMGCS (level 1, 2) environment. These training requirements can be defined to fit in the existing framework.

For initial training, the CCC approach should be taken. The existing CCC guideline could be extended towards a set of suggested training objectives for A-SMGCS but only up to the taxonomy levels (of performance) 1 or 2.

For (site specific) unit training, the Initial training CCC objectives must be expanded with the local objectives and guidelines for the introduction of A-SMGCS in the UTP should be



stated. Also for the integration of A-SMGCS competencies in existing competence as-sessment and unit competence schemes, guidelines should be stated.

For refresher training, it should be identified how the training contents (consisting of es-sential items and suggested items) may be affected by the introduction of A-SMGCS.

Also, for emergency training, the implications of introduction of A-SMGCS for the use of checklists, case-studies, pilot-controller briefings and interactive scenarios should be de-fined.

A system upgrade training shall have to be organised at operational ATC units, since the introduction of A-SMGCS will be accompanied by new operating procedures. The system upgrade training must ensure the ongoing competence of the licensed ATCO at the unit. Depending on the amount and scope of the changes in operating procedures, such up-grade training could encompass a theory course, simulator training and OJT.

Neither Directive 2006/23/EC nor ESARR 5 does specifically cover the implications of A-SMGCS introduction, which would also extend to apron management. When the respon-sibility for apron management would be assigned to ATM services’ personnel, the Gen-eral (Safety) Requirements of ESARR 5 would be applicable.

The extent to which apron management is integrated with aerodrome control, in organisa-tion and in operation, may differ between nations and airports. No internationally ac-cepted framework, similar to the framework for ATCO training, exists for the training of Apron Management Service personnel. Rather, the training of Apron Management Ser-vice personnel seems to be regulated at the national level.

Where Apron Management Service personnel work with A-SMGCS in a way that is com-parable with the way in which ATCOs work with A-SMGCS, they should have comparable competencies. As a consequence, the training requirements for Apron Management Ser-vice personnel that operate in an A-SMGCS environment could be (partly) based upon the internationally accepted framework for training of ATCOs. Where Apron Management Service personnel use A-SMGCS in a different way than ATCOs, training standards may be based on locally agreed operational tasks and responsibilities. This is considered be-yond the scope of this report.

In the following chapters, more detailed A-SMGCS (level 1, 2) training requirements for initial training, unit training and continuation training will be proposed, on the basis of these implica-tions.



5. A-SMGCS TRAINING ISSUES

5.1 Introduction

Part of the process of drafting the current report included the consultation of A-SMGCS stakeholders (notably ATCOs and Apron Management Service personnel) during two ‘train-ing and licensing requirements workshops’ held on 26 July and 24 August2006 (NLR, 2006a/b). Furthermore, two airports (Paris-CdG and Frankfurt) were visited to observe work-ing procedures with A-SMGCS. Training issues were identified from the A-SMGCS Human Factors Case, carried out by Sofreavia (see EUROCONTROL, 2006) on the basis of simula-tions and operational trials with A-SMGCS. A number of training issues, filtered from the Human Factors Case, were discussed during the workshops, keeping in mind that this case was based on different airport configurations, different levels of A-SMGCS implementation (level 1 only or both level 1 and 2 implementa-tion) and different responsibilities of apron management at the different airports. Not all is-sues proposed were considered by the operational community to require special attention during training. For example, A-SMGCS specific phraseology or changes in low visibility pro-cedures were not considered. Moreover, the remaining training issues were not considered to be the only training issues related to the introduction of A-SMGCS. However, these six is-sues have a specific human factors aspect for which training is suggested in the Human Fac-tors Case as one of the solutions. These selected training issues are briefly discussed here-after.

5.2 Visibility, visual attention and head-down time

Introduction of A-SMGCS, particularly the introduction of the A-SMGCS display in the visual control room, gives rise to a different (presumably better) distribution of visual attention of the controllers using the system, most notably the ground controller and the tower/runway con-troller. Operational controllers involved in the introduction and operation of A-SMGCS con-sider the system as a support tool, regardless of the level of visibility. They also consider it as a tool that may replace the out-the-window view when either visibility is poor or the controller considers it more beneficial (for example, when aircraft are at a considerable distance from the Tower). Guidelines for attention management should take into account the availability and quality of information provided by the A-SMGCS, including appraisal of the fact that the posi-tion of moving targets on the display is essentially historical information. This means, that there is always a time-difference between what is happening outside and what is presented on the A-SMGCS display, although this time difference is only about 1 second in most systems. This HMI limitation might obstruct the assessment of speed and direction of mobiles. The change in visual attention, due to the introduction of A-SMGCS and due to different lev-els of visibility, has been investigated in a so-called ‘head-up/head-down’ experimental study (Hilburn, 2004) in which visual focus of controllers was measured by means of eye-point-of gaze during sessions in a real-time tower simulator (however, with a head-up view of only 130 degrees and with an HMI that differed from the local HMI, which should be taken into account when considering the results). In line with the notion of aforementioned operational



controllers, it was concluded that A-SMGCS was associated with less head-up time, as well as shorter and less-frequent head-up fixations. A-SMGCS in combination with good visibility already reduced the head-up time by forty percent in this study. However, decreasing the visi-bility level (in the absence of A-SMGCS) had an even larger influence on head-down time than the mere effect of introducing A-SMGCS. With low visibility, controllers abandon the out-the-window view4. This effect is even larger than that of introducing A-SMGCS only. Thus, on the basis of these findings it seems logical, that in the presence of A-SMGCS, and certainly when visibility decreases, controllers will increasingly use the A-SMGCS display rather than the out-the-window view. Hilburn notes, that the tendency for controllers to go head-down under A-SMGCS is more pro-nounced for ground controllers than for tower controllers. Hilburn raises the question, whether training should address this tendency of the ground controllers. However, the results do not indicate whether this tendency is negative or positive. At present, the consequences of de-creased head-up time and decreased head-up fixation frequency in the presence of A-SMGCS are largely unknown. Thus, no guidelines for optimal head-up/head-down times can yet be provided, moreover such guidelines will depend on local specificities and individual prefer-ences. It is, however, obvious that there will be a need to familiarise with the display in a way that visual attention is used most effectively. More specific training objectives that were suggested were to demonstrate to students/trainees that A-SMGCS induces the tendency to go head-down and that some upper limit for head-down time may exist. Moreover, since use of A-SMGCS leads to a different distribution of visual attention, which will develop into a habit for controllers that use it often enough, with A-SMGCS degradation or system failure, these con-trollers should be trained to revert to the ‘old’ visual patterns, without A-SMGCS. This is par-ticularly important for controllers who have no experience at the operational unit without A-SMGCS. A different, though related issue, is the transition between different visibility levels and how controllers that work with A-SMGCS need to deal with these transitions. ICAO defined four levels of visibility conditions in the A-SMGCS manual (ICAO, 2004): VIS1: Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi and to avoid collision with other traffic on taxi-

ways and at intersections by visual reference, and for personnel of control units to exer-cise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance;

VIS2: Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi and to avoid collision with other traffic on taxi-ways and at intersections by visual reference, but insufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance;

VIS3: Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi but insufficient for the pilot to avoid collision with other traffic on taxiways and at intersections by visual reference with other traffic, and insufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the ba-sis of visual surveillance. For taxiing this is normally taken as visibilities equivalent to a RVR less than 400 m but more than 75 m;

VIS4: Visibility insufficient for the pilot to taxi by visual guidance only. This is normally taken as a RVR of 75 m or less.

4 However, Hilburn argues that the large effect of abandoning the out-the-window view with decreasing visibility may be partly due to the imperfect visual of the simulator (since simulators can never perfectly mimic outside vis-ual circumstances, while the remainder of the simulation environment, i.e. displays, flight strips, etc., could be much more similar to reality). This argument should also be used the other way around, i.e. when the simulated HMI and working position differ from the HMI and working position the ATCOs have been rated with.



From a controller’s perspective, the procedures in case of a transition from VIS1 to VIS2 are straightforward. When surveillance on a visual basis is no longer possible, and in the ab-sence of A-SMGCS, the controller should ask the aircraft, through a procedural control or-ganisation, to report at a point which the flight crew is able to detect (and which point is part of the procedural organisation) in order to obtain the position of the aircraft. However, with A-SMGCS, the controller is able to continuously observe the position of the aircraft after transi-tion to VIS2 and there is no need for procedural control. The transition from VIS2 to VIS3 is less straightforward. Obviously, if there is no A-SMGCS available, the controller continues procedural control, as in VIS2. However, if A-SMGCS is available, the controller is able to observe the position of the aircraft, but the controller has no indication from the A-SMGCS system that the flight crew has sufficient vision to apply the clearance to separate their aircraft from a conflicting aircraft (as was the case in VIS2). Therefore, for the transition from VIS2 to VIS3 the controller must have information about the flight crew's capacity to see the environment. The system does not provide this information to the controller. Therefore, the ANSP should provide the controller with a visibility value for the aircrew, which will enable the controller to decide whether to apply ‘traffic information and clearances’ or to apply ‘procedural control clearances’. It should thus be taken into account in training that in theory VIS1, VIS2, VIS3 etc are clearly divided, but in practice, changes in visibility, particularly between VIS2 and VIS3, are gradual transitions, defined by the visibility of the aircrew, and strongly depending on local circum-stances at the airport. In summary, trainees should be aware that the A-SMGCS display provides a historic picture and they should be trained in what the system has to offer, but not without the unawareness of the situation outside. Students should know the limitations and benefits of the system and should use this know-how in order to be able to determine when out-the-window information is needed. Moreover, the occurrence of transitions between different visibility levels (particu-larly the transition from VIS2 to VIS3), and how to act when these transitions occur, should be made clear.

5.3 Alert management (A-SMGCS Level 2)

One of the lessons learned from the Human Factors Case is that the local specificities of A-SMGCS implementation have a great impact on the management of alerts. Reliability of alerts generated (system integrity) is key to ensuring user confidence. During the workshops it was suggested that training could focus on:

1) In-depth understanding of how the system generates the different alerts (alert–-stages);

2) How these alerts are perceived by the user, e.g. the difference in user reaction be-tween alerts that are expected (anticipated) and those that are not, and;

3) A common understanding at the ATC unit of how to use the alert function (philoso-phy of use).

5.4 Emergencies, system failure

At system degradations, usually the capacity has to be decreased. Emergency training should include system degradations in which system components (e.g. both SMR and Multi-



lateration or either of them in separation) are non-functional. Skills of the controllers need to be retained for these circumstances. This is particular important for new controllers who sel-dom experience operations without A-SMGCS. Examples of complications are: (1) On the basis of SMR only, it cannot be decided whether an aircraft has vacated the runway. (2) In these circumstances, some mobiles may also be out of sight of the SMR. (3) If the A-SMGCS system works on the basis of MLAT data only, the non-co-operative mobiles will not be visi-ble on the display. Recurrent training with system degradations will be a necessary require-ment.

5.5 Principles of labelling and problems related to labelling

In the Human Factors Case, a number of issues with labels were highlighted. Confusion be-tween ‘non-secured’ or manual labels and label swaps was mentioned. Such confusions and swaps were thought to be unacceptable. Moreover, the difference between secured labels (with Mode S information) and non-secured labels is not always well shown, depending on local implementations. Also, overlap of labels was mentioned as a potential problem. Most of the issues related to labels depend on local implementation. It is, however, suggested to dedicate specific training objectives to principles of labelling in A-SMGCS, for example con-cerning the topics (1) ‘label information’, (2) ‘automatic and manual labelling’, (3) ‘secured and non-secured labelling’, (4) labelling of vehicles, (5) the possibility of label swapping, and (6) dealing with label-overlap.

5.6 Team co-ordination and communication

Generally spoken, teamwork may be at risk when new automated technologies are intro-duced at the Working Positions of operators. Automated support tools may replace team functions, team structure and changes the composition of the team. Team roles are unavoid-ably redefined and communication patterns are altered. For the introduction of A-SMGCS (level 1 and 2), the changes in teamwork, although probably modest, are evident. The occur-rence of speech communication will decrease, on the one hand because information that was previously asked for is now automatically shared via the A-SMGCS display, and on the other hand, because less position reports of mobiles via R/T will be requested. This is par-ticularly true, when user confidence in the system is high. The Human Factors Case states that a safety loop may be lost, and proposes that training should encourage verification of information (by speech) in case of doubt (which is in fact a basic requirement, not linked to A-SMGCS in particular). Co-ordination procedures related to the use of A-SMGCS (including those between controllers and Apron Management Services) could be trained in a team setting, through OJT or using simulation.

5.7 User confidence

During the workshops and site visits, it was emphasised that user confidence is a key-factor in the success of A-SMGCS implementation, which is also noted in the Human Factors Case. However, user confidence depends on the one hand on the reliability of the A-SMGCS and on the other hand on the controller’s individual adaptation to the system. Obviously, the sys-tem reliability (integrity of the displayed information, the occurrence of false and nuisance alerts) predominantly is a matter of system development and implementation, rather than a matter of training. However, user confidence in a reliable system as a result of individual ad-



aptation is a training issue and of vital importance for acceptance. This adaptation is at-tached to the issue of understanding the system’s limitations (in order to help the controllers understand their job). Obviously, appropriate training towards this goal is required.



6. A-SMGCS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

6.1 General

The implementation of A-SMGCS improves airport operations, especially during reduced visibility conditions and at night hours. A-SMGCS will also be an important enabler in the de-velopment of the Gate-to-Gate concept. The introduction of A-SMGCS will make it possible for ATCOs to provide an aerodrome control service without continuous visual contact by us-ing enhanced surveillance equipment.

To enable the safe and efficient use of A-SMGCS, ATCOs, Apron Management Service per-sonnel and other operational users of A-SMGCS must be properly trained. For the training of ATCOs - related to the use of A-SMGCS - ICAO, EUROCONTROL and the EU provide de-tailed requirements and guidance in the following documents:

ICAO Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing (ICAO, 2001a);

EU directive 2006/23/EC on a Community air traffic controllers license (European Union, 2006);

ESARR 5 – ATM Services’ Personnel (EURCONTROL, 2002);

EATMP European Manual of Personnel Licensing – Air Traffic Controllers (EATMP, 2004d);

In a general sense, ESARR 5, paragraph 5.2, subdivides the training requirements for Air Traffic Controllers in (1) requirements to be applied by the Designated Authority, (2) require-ments to be applied by the provider of air traffic services and (3) requirements to be applied by the individual personnel.

The implications of A-SMGCS introduction for ATCO training are fully covered by the afore-mentioned documents. However, International training requirements for Apron Management Services personnel and other operational users of A-SMGCS do not exist.

In the following paragraphs, training requirements for the different types of training within the aforementioned framework will be proposed. The ‘pyramid’ structure of the ATCO Training Progression and Concepts document will be followed (EATMP, 2004e), although this struc-ture may not fully apply to Apron Management Service personnel. Where Apron Manage-ment Service personnel work with A-SMGCS in a way that is comparable with the way AT-COs work with A-SMGCS, they should have comparable competencies in working with the system. As a consequence, the training requirements for Apron Management Service per-sonnel that operate in an A-SMGCS environment could be (partly) based upon the interna-tionally accepted framework for training of ATCOs. For these purposes, the training require-ments for A-SMGCS (level 1 & 2) provided in the remainder in this section can be applied to the training of Apron Management Service personnel, where applicable. Where Apron Man-agement Service personnel use A-SMGCS in a different way than ATCOs, training standards



may be based on locally agreed operational tasks and responsibilities. This topic is consid-ered to be beyond the scope of this report.

6.2 Common Core Content Initial Training

The object of initial training is to prepare an ab initio student for training at an ATC unit. Initial training is subdivided into basic training and rating training, for which the proposed A-SMGCS training objectives will be stated.

6.2.1 Basic training

After consultation of experts during the workshop it is proposed that a relatively limited train-ing effort needs to be spent during basic training regarding A-SMGCS. The following training objectives are proposed:

State the principles of A-SMGCS (at performance level 1);

Explain the use of A-SMGCS (at performance level 2).

6.2.2 Rating training

Currently, A-SMGCS is only very briefly addressed in ADI rating training guidelines for ATCO CCC initial training (see EATMP, 2004a, p13). A-SMGCS is mentioned as part of subject 3 ‘Air Traffic Management’. The taxonomy level (of performance on a scale of 0 to 5) at which A-SMGCS should be treated in initial training / rating training in aforementioned document is set at level 35, which means that a thorough knowledge of the subject is required and the ability to apply it with accuracy. As a result of the current work, the following, more detailed, objectives are suggested for students studying towards an ADI-rating:

State responsibilities of aerodrome control concerning A-SMGCS (at performance level 1);

Explain A-SMGCS (construction, level 1 & 2 functions and purpose) (at performance level 2);

Describe / appreciate principles of attention management (at performance level 2/3);

Explain alert signals according to procedures, manage alerts (at performance level 2);

Operate A-SMCGS display and identify positions, interpret labels for aircraft and vehicles (at performance level 3);

Operate A-SMCGS equipment according to operating procedures (including procedures for system degradations) (at performance level 3);

Predict conflict situations and instruct involved mobiles to resolve the conflict (at perform-ance level 3);

Explain transponder procedures in relation to A-SMGCS (at performance level 2).

5 In this respect, it is a problematic that all higher objectives (3-5) are usually taught in the simulator and that at this time not many training providers for initial training will have access to such simulators. Where these objec-tives cannot be achieved during rating training, due to a lack of suitable simulation facilities, it is recommended that they should be included in the UTP



6.3 Unit training for Student Air Traffic Controllers and Trainee ATCOs

A common core content training syllabus, such as exists for initial training, may not be suit-able for aerodrome control at the unit, since the training is unit specific, directed towards the application of unit procedures to the local area6. The specification of detailed objectives for unit training related to A-SMGCS is therefore practically impractical. Rather than training ob-jectives, in the following sections guidelines will be provided for the topics that might be ad-dressed in the three stages of unit training, i.e. transitional training, pre-on-the-job training and on-the-job training. In addition to the these topics, it is recommended to consider ad-dressing the training issues listed in Ch. 5 for inclusion in the appropriate stages during unit training.

6.3.1 Transitional training at the Unit

The goal of transitional training at the unit is to introduce site-specific theoretical knowledge and understanding. The following topics are suggested: Local working methods related to A-SMGCS;

Locally available A-SMGCS equipment and the location of equipment at the airport;

Coverage areas of A-SMGCS sensors in relation to aerodrome layout;

Local equipment functionality and limitations

Procedures for labelling of mobiles on A-SMGCS displays (where this functionality is pro-vided);

A-SMGCS related ATC procedures.

6.3.2 Pre-On-the-Job Training at the Unit

Pre-OJT will be locally based training, making use of simulation where available. This re-quires that the implemented levels of A-SMGCS are also implemented in the simulator. The following topics are suggested:

Familiarisation with A-SMGCS equipment and limitations;

Familiarisation with A-SMGCS Procedures

Standard operating procedures for A-SMGCS and local implementation issues, including co-ordination between Tower and Apron Management Service personnel (as applicable) and involvement of vehicle drivers;

Interpret A-SMGCS Level 2 (where implemented) alerts and resolve conflict situations.

6.3.3 On-the-Job Training at the Unit

OJT is directed towards integration of practice of previously acquired job-related routines and skills (under supervision) in live traffic situation. Suggested topics are:

6 However, unit training may contain certain elements of the initial training which are specific to national conditions (European Union, 2006).



Building-up user confidence (see also Ch. 5);

Use of A-SMCGS to optimise control activities.

Where A-SMGCS Level 2 is implemented, resolution of stage 1 and stage 2 alerts

6.3.4 The Unit Training Plan

For student air traffic controllers and trainee ATCOs, the unit training plans shall have to be amended to reflect the competence required to operate the implemented level(s) of A-SMGCS. Unit Training Plans for the validation of Aerodrome Control ratings shall have to be updated to include the A-SMGCS Level 1 & 2 training objectives for unit training and con-tinuation training (possibly based on the topics that have been suggested above). Guidelines for the development of Unit Training Plans are provided in EATMP (2005b).

6.4 Continuation Training

6.4.1 Refresher training

The goal of refresher training is to review, reinforce or upgrade existing knowledge and skills. According to EATMP (2004d), units must have procedures, which include refresher training, to ensure that controllers remain competent to provide the air traffic control services for which their ratings are valid. The same objectives for A-SMGCS training and additional A-SMGCS topics that were mentioned in the previous paragraphs (basic training, rating train-ing, transitional training, pre-OJT and OJT) can be used. These should be brought in balance with the essential items of refresher training, i.e. (1) Significant topics from relevant ICAO Annexes/Docs, AIP, national and unit specific manuals (2) Standard phraseology (3) Stan-dard operating procedures, (4) Coordination, (5) Letters of Agreement (LOAs), (6) Factors affecting aircraft performance, (7) Flow control, (8) Items that have changed since the con-troller last received a training course, (9) Handling of unusual/emergency situations (if not covered in routine continuation training), (10) ATC clearances and instructions, (11) Read-backs, (12) Meteorological phenomena, e.g. windshear. Refresher training with A-SMGCS degradations will be a necessary requirement. In a well-focused programme, the refresher course can have duration of approximately one to one-and-a-half day, depending on whether or not unusual/emergency situations training is included (EATMP, 2003c).

6.4.2 Conversion/ technology upgrade training

For already licensed ATCOs, implementation of A-SMGCS will require upgrade training. The goal of upgrade training is to provide knowledge and skills appropriate to a change in job/environment/procedures. It is recommended to set up the upgrade training in steps asso-ciated with the subsequent levels of A-SMGCS implementation.

Upgrade Training for A-SMGCS Level 1/2 should at least cover the following topics:

General differences between non A-SMCGS procedures and A-SMCGS procedures

Concept and Architecture of A-SMGCS Surveillance and Alerting;

Responsibilities of Aerodrome Control in the use of A-SMGCS Level 1;



Responsibilities of Aerodrome Control and aerodrome traffic in the use of A-SMGCS Level 2;

Operation of Surveillance equipment;

Operational techniques and procedures; including any associated phraseologies, and transition from non-A-SMGCS operations to A-SMGCS and back;

Operational criteria and limitations;

System failures and fall back procedures;

Familiarisation with equipment and procedures; it is advised to make use of simulation with identical equipment;

Team operations;

Assessment of A-SMGCS Level 1/2 competence.

Remarks

1. It may be necessary to set up a special training and driving licence scheme for drivers of vehicles who have to operate in the manoeuvring area. As there are no specific interna-tional requirements for the qualification of drivers of vehicles in the manoeuvring area, national and/or local arrangements for such training and qualification have to be made (or extension made to include A-SMGCS topics).

2. If a guidance function is implemented which requires the switching of dynamic ground signs by a specific operator, local arrangements should be made in consultation with the Designated Authority to ensure appropriate training is given to such operational users.

6.4.3 Emergency training

Emergency training is training of emergency situations, unusual situations and degraded sys-tems and is mostly site specific. At system degradations, usually the capacity has to be de-creased. Emergency training should include system degradations in which system compo-nents (e.g. both SMR and Multilateration or either of them in isolation – if agreed locally) are non-functional. Skills of the controllers need to be retained for these circumstances. An emergency is defined as a serious, unexpected and often dangerous situation requiring im-mediate action, while an unusual situation is defined as a set of circumstances that are nei-ther habitually nor commonly experienced. EATMP (2003c) states the requirement to provide all controllers with unusual/emergency situations training periodically, ideally annually. If con-trollers receive such training as part of routine continuation training, it need not be included in refresher training. In cases where such training is not provided it is recommended that it is included in refresher training.

The following topics concerning A-SMGCS are suggested for emergency training:

A-SMGCS failures and fall back procedures, including the use of checklists as appropri-ate;

A-SMGCS operational criteria and limitations;



A-SMGCS HMI recovery procedures;

A Case study based on A-SMGCS (e.g. based on runway-incursion);

A scenario of an unusual situation involving A-SMGCS, which can be reenacted in an in-teractive mode.

Briefings in which pilots, controllers, and apron-controllers participate.

An important part of the emergency training should take place through simulation sessions in a high-fidelity simulation environment.

6.5 Unit Competence Schemes

In accordance with ESARR-5, designated authorities should implement procedures or re-quire operational ATC units to have approved procedures to ensure the ongoing competence of their air traffic controllers, including a mechanism, based on operational experience or a competence checking system, or a combination of both, whereby controllers are monitored or regularly tested to ensure they maintain their competence. The scheme shall be fully documented indicating:

a. the process by which controllers will be assessed;

b. the operational objectives they will be required to meet;

c. the person/persons who are responsible for formally accepting that the process has been correctly conducted;

d. the formal mechanism by which the designated authority will notify the controller and ser-vice provider organisation of the result of any competence assessment.

Units should have approved competence schemes to satisfy the requirements that control-lers must maintain operational competence and experience. These procedures shall include requirements for controllers to:

a. complete a specified minimum number of controlling hours within a specified period on the sectors or operational positions for which they hold valid ratings;

b. be subject to an assessment of their continuing competence;

c. undertake periodical refresher training;

d. ensure operational competence after returning from extended periods of absence.

For the maintenance of competence in A-SMCGS operations, it is recommended to include objectives for A-SMGCS refresher training and methods for assessment of competence in the unit competence schemes. Particular attention should be given to the handling of unusual incidents, like system failures and emergencies.

6.6 Licensing

To enable the safe and efficient use of A-SMGCS, all operational users should be competent to use the system. A license can be considered as a formal recognition of competencies demonstrated by the operational user. The licensing requirements related to the operational use of A-SMGCS (level 1 & 2) are described in a separate report, entitled ‘Licensing and competence requirements for operational users of A-SMGCS levels 1 & 2’ (EATMP, 2006).



7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the participants of the two A-SMGCS training and licensing requirement workshops for their constructive inputs and comments and for providing access to A-SMGCS training materials.

Also the authors would like to thank the members of the ad-hoc formed working group: Brian Considine, Gary Beaton, Jean-Pierre Lesueur, Thierry Mellina, Vladimir Bubalo, Paul Adamson, and Andrew Taylor (project leader) for their swift and valuable comments on the draft report.

Finally, the authors like to thank David Rayer (DGAC/DSNA), Michael Huhnold and Andreas Schoen (both from FRAPORT) for hosting the very informative visits to Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport and Frankfurt Airport.



8. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

EATMP (2006). Licensing and competence requirements for operational users of A-SMGCS levels 1 & 2. DRAFT report, Edition 1.5, 4 October 2006.

EATMP (2005a). Definition of A-SMGCS Implementation Levels, Edition 1.1, 9 November 2005.

EATMP (2005b). Guidelines for the development of Unit Training Plans, Edition 1.0, 31 August 2005.

EATMP (2005c). Guidelines for Competence Assessment, Edition 2.0, 16 March 2005. EATMP (2004a). Guidelines for ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training. Part 3:

Rating Training – Module 2: Aerodrome Control Instrument Rating (ADI), Edition 2.0, De-cember 2004.

EATMP (2004b). Guidelines for ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training. Part 3: Rating Training – Module 3: Aerodrome Radar Control Endorsement (ADI/RAD), Edition 2.0, December 2004.

EATMP (2004c). The Human Factors Case: Guidance for Human Factors Integration, Edition 1.0, 27 August 2004.

EATMP (2004d). European Manual of Personnel Licensing - Air Traffic Controllers, Edi-tion 2.0, 14 June 2004.

EATMP (2004e). EATM Training Progression and Concepts, Edition 1.0, 26 March 2004. EATMP (2004f). ATCO Rating Training Plans – Aerodrome Training, Edition 1.0, 26

March 2004. EATMP (2004g). Guidelines for ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training. Edition 2.0,

December 2004. EATMP (2003a). Guidelines for Controller Training in the Handling of Un-

usual/Emergency situations, Edition 2.0, 31 July 2003. EATMP (2003b). A-SMGCS Project Strategy, Edition 1.0, 30 September 2003. EATMP (2003c). Guidelines for Refresher Training for Air Traffic Controllers, Edition 1.0,

31 July 2003. EATMP (2002). Implementation of A-SMGCS – ATCO Training and Licensing Require-

ments. Edition 0.1, 30 September 2002, Proposed Issue. EATMP (1996). Guidelines for ATS Upgrade Training, HUM. ET1.ST05.4000 – GUI – 02,

28 June 1996. EMMA (2006). EMMA-I (European Airport Movement Management by A-SMGCS). A-

SMGCS Training Concept (deliverable D1.3.7, version 1.0, 6 June 2006). Project funded by EC-DGTREN under contract number TREN/04/FP6AE/S12.374991/503192.

EUROCONTROL (2006). – Draft Human Factors Case for A-SMGCS, draft 30 May 2006,

not yet released. EUROCONTROL (2002). Safety Regulatory Requirement ESARR 5, ATM Services’ Per-

sonnel, Edition 2.0, 11 April 2002. European Union (2006). European Union Directive 2006/23/EC of the European Parlia-

ment and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on a Community air traffic controller license. Offi-cial Journal of the European Union, 27 April 2006, L 114, pp 22-37.



ICAO (2004). Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (A-SMGCS)

Manual, First Edition, 2004. ICAO (2001a). Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, Ninth Edition, July 2001. ICAO (2001b). Annex 11, Air Traffic Services, Thirteenth Edition – July 2001. ICAO (2001c). Doc.4444 ATM/501, Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Air Traffic

Management, Fourteenth Edition 2001. Hilburn, B. (2004) Head-Down Time in ATC Tower Operations: Real-Time Simulation

Results. Centre for Human Performance Research, The Hague, the Netherlands, No-vember 2004. Available from www.chpr.nl.

NLR (2006a). Minutes of meeting dated 26 July 2006 of the EUROCONTROL A-SMGCS Training Requirements Workshop (first workshop).

NLR (2006b). Minutes of meeting dated 24 August 2006 of the EUROCONTROL A-SMGCS Training & Licensing Requirements Workshop (second workshop).

http://www.chpr.nl/�