EPISODE 3 - Eurocontrol · Episode 3 D4.3.3-02 Gaming Exercise on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management Final Report Version : 1.00 Page 2 of 195 Issued by the Episode 3 consortium

E3-WP4-D4.3.3-02-REP-V1.00-wp433-gaming-final-report

Episode 3

D4.3.3-02 Gaming Exercise on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management Final Report

Version : 1.00

Page 1 of 195

Issued by the Episode 3 consortium for the Episode 3 project co-funded by the European Commission and Episode 3 consortium.

EPISODE 3 Single European Sky Implementation support through Validation

Document information

Programme Sixth framework programme Priority 1.4 Aeronautics and Space

Project title Episode 3

Project N° 037106

Project Coordinator EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

Deliverable Name Gaming Exercise on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management Final Report

Deliverable ID D4.3.3-02

Version 1.00

Owner

Raquel Garcia Isdefe

Contributing partners

ISDEFE, INECO

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 2 of 195


- This page is intentionally blank -

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 3 of 195


DOCUMENT CONTROL

Approval

Role Organisation Name

Document owner Isdefe Raquel Garcia

Technical approver DFS Ralph Leemüller

Quality approver EUROCONTROL Frédérique Sénéchal

Project coordinator EUROCONTROL Philippe Leplae

Version history

Version Date Status Author(s) Justification - Could be a

reference to a review form or a comment sheet

1.00 30/11/2009 Approved A. Garcia, R. Garcia, I.Solano, E. Martín Domínguez, X. Ruiz-Hernández

Approval of the document by the Episode 3 Consortium.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 4 of 195


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 13

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 15 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ..................................................................................... 15 1.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE.................................................................................................. 15 1.3 SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF DOCUMENT ..................................................................... 15 1.4 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT...................................................................................... 16 1.5 CONCEPT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 17

1.5.1 En-Route Complexity Management and Reduction ........................................ 17 1.5.2 En-Route Queue Management........................................................................ 17 1.5.3 En-Route Trajectory and Separation Management ......................................... 18 1.5.4 KPAs addressed .............................................................................................. 18 1.5.5 OIs addressed ................................................................................................. 18

1.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................................ 19 2 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENT AND STRATEGY PLANNING ........ .............................. 21

2.1 EXPECTED EXERCISE OUTCOMES, OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES .............................. 21 2.1.1 Expected Exercise Outputs ............................................................................. 21 2.1.2 Exercise Objectives and Assumptions. ........................................................... 22

2.1.2.1 Objectives. Paper-based Games..................................................................22 2.1.2.2 Assumptions. Paper-based Games..............................................................23 2.1.2.3 Objectives. Web-based Game......................................................................23 2.1.2.4 Assumptions. Web-based Game..................................................................23 2.1.2.5 Objectives. Process simulation.....................................................................23 2.1.2.6 Assumptions. Process simulation.................................................................24

2.1.3 Exercise Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 25 2.2 CHOICE OF METRICS AND MEASUREMENTS ................................................................. 25 2.3 CHOICE OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES ..................................................................... 26

2.3.1 Paper-based Games........................................................................................ 26 2.3.2 Web-based Game............................................................................................ 27 2.3.3 Process simulation........................................................................................... 27

2.4 VALIDATION SCENARIO SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 27 2.4.1 Paper-based Games........................................................................................ 27 2.4.2 Web-based Game............................................................................................ 29 2.4.3 Process simulation........................................................................................... 30

3 CONDUCT OF VALIDATION EXERCISE RUNS ................ ........................................... 33 3.1 EXPERIMENT PREPARATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 33

3.1.1 Paper-based Games........................................................................................ 33 3.1.1.1 Elements of the role-based technique ..........................................................33 3.1.1.2 Design steps of a game................................................................................36 3.1.1.3 Information set distributed ............................................................................37

3.1.2 Web-based Game............................................................................................ 37 3.1.3 Process simulation........................................................................................... 38

3.1.3.1 Elements of the PROMAS tool .....................................................................38 3.1.3.2 Trigger definition ...........................................................................................38 3.1.3.3 Trigger categorization ...................................................................................41

3.2 EXECUTED EXPERIMENT SCHEDULE............................................................................ 42 3.2.1 Paper-Based Game ......................................................................................... 42 3.2.2 Web-based Game............................................................................................ 43 3.2.3 Process simulation........................................................................................... 43

3.3 DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANNING ............................................................................... 43 4 EXPERIMENT RESULTS................................................................................................ 45

4.1 PAPER-BASED GAMES ............................................................................................... 45 4.1.1 General concepts............................................................................................. 45

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 5 of 195


4.1.2 Time line .......................................................................................................... 50 4.1.3 Final Games Diagrams .................................................................................... 52

4.2 MAIN RESULTS. WEB-BASED GAME ............................................................................. 62 4.2.1 Description of the exercise .............................................................................. 62 4.2.2 Results on the web-based technique .............................................................. 63

4.3 MAIN RESULTS. PROCESS SIMULATION ........................................................................ 64 4.3.1 Capacity: CAP.LOCAL.ER.PI 5 ....................................................................... 64 4.3.2 Safety: SAF.LOCAL.ER.PI 1 ........................................................................... 66 4.3.3 Safety: SAF.LOCAL.ER.PI 3 ........................................................................... 69 4.3.4 Efficiency: EFF.LOCAL.ER.PI 7 ...................................................................... 70 4.3.5 Other processes outputs.................................................................................. 71

4.3.5.1 MSP – planning interventions.......................................................................71 4.3.5.2 MSP actions / hour .......................................................................................72

4.3.6 Hypothesis acceptance.................................................................................... 73 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................... ........................................... 74

5.1 KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 74 5.1.1 On the technique ............................................................................................. 74

5.1.1.1 On the paper-based technique .....................................................................74 5.1.1.2 Web-based technique...................................................................................77 5.1.1.3 On the process simulation technique ...........................................................78

5.1.2 On the concept: ............................................................................................... 78 5.2 ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 80 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 82

5.3.1 Concept............................................................................................................ 82 5.3.2 DODs ............................................................................................................... 82 5.3.3 Scenarios ......................................................................................................... 82

6 REFERENCES AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS................ ....................................... 84 6.1 REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 84 6.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................... 84

7 ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...................... ....................................................... 86

8 ANNEX 2: FIRST GAMING SESSION...................... ...................................................... 88 8.1 INITIAL SCENARIO DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 88 8.2 CONCEPT ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................ 88 8.3 RULE SET .................................................................................................................. 88 8.4 GAME MANAGER SCRIPT ............................................................................................ 89

8.4.1 1st Game Initial Diagram .................................................................................. 89 8.4.2 1st Game Scenario ........................................................................................... 90 8.4.3 1st Game Objective .......................................................................................... 90 8.4.4 1st Game. Roles involved................................................................................. 91 8.4.5 1st Game. Information distributed .................................................................... 91 8.4.6 1st Game. Timing of the Events ....................................................................... 92

8.5 PARTICIPANT SCRIPT .................................................................................................. 92 8.6 INFORMATION SET DESCRIPTION, ONE PER INFORMATION ITEM...................................... 94 8.7 RESULTS AND INPUTS FOR THE NEXT SESSION/EXPERT GROUP ................................... 96

8.7.1 Game development ......................................................................................... 96 8.7.2 Analysis of the game ....................................................................................... 96

8.7.2.1 Nominal cases: .............................................................................................98 8.8 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODS.................................................................. 100

9 ANNEX 3: SECOND GAMING SESSION..................... ................................................ 101 9.1 INITIAL SCENARIO DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 101 9.2 CONCEPT ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 101 9.3 RULE SET ................................................................................................................ 101 9.4 GAME MANAGER SCRIPT .......................................................................................... 102

9.4.1 2nd Game Initial Diagram ............................................................................... 102

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 6 of 195


9.4.2 2nd Game Scenario ........................................................................................ 104 9.4.3 2nd Game Objective ....................................................................................... 104 9.4.4 2nd Game. Roles involved .............................................................................. 105 9.4.5 2nd Game. Information distributed .................................................................. 105 9.4.6 2nd Game. Timing of the Events .................................................................... 106

9.5 2ND GAME. PARTICIPANT SCRIPT................................................................................ 107 9.6 INFORMATION SET DESCRIPTION, ONE PER INFORMATION ITEM.................................... 109 9.7 PROCESS DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 110 9.8 RESULTS AND INPUTS FOR THE NEXT SESSION/EXPERT GROUP ................................. 110 9.9 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODS.................................................................. 116

10 ANNEX 4: THIRD GAMING SESSION ...................... ................................................... 117 10.1 INITIAL SCENARIO DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 117 10.2 CONCEPT ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 117 10.3 RULE SET. ............................................................................................................... 117 10.4 GAME MANAGER SCRIPT .......................................................................................... 118

10.4.1 3rd Game Initial Diagram................................................................................ 118 10.4.2 3rd Game Scenario......................................................................................... 120 10.4.3 3rd Game Objective ........................................................................................ 121 10.4.4 3rd Game. Roles involved .............................................................................. 121 10.4.5 3rd Game. Information distributed .................................................................. 121 10.4.6 3rd Game. Timing of the Events ..................................................................... 123

10.5 PARTICIPANT SCRIPT ................................................................................................ 123 10.6 PROCESS DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 125 10.7 INFORMATION SET DESCRIPTION, ONE PER INFORMATION ITEM.................................... 125 10.8 RESULTS AND INPUTS FOR THE NEXT SESSION/EXPERT GROUP ................................. 125 10.9 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE ACTIVITY....................................................... 127 10.10 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODS.............................................................. 127

11 ANNEX 5: FOURTH GAMING SESSION..................... ................................................ 128 11.1 INITIAL SCENARIO DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 128 11.2 CONCEPT ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 128 11.3 RULE SET. ............................................................................................................... 128 11.4 GAME MANAGER SCRIPT .......................................................................................... 129

11.4.1 4th Game Initial Diagram ................................................................................ 129 11.4.2 4th Game Scenario......................................................................................... 131 11.4.3 4th Game Objective ........................................................................................ 133 11.4.4 4th Game. Roles involved............................................................................... 133 11.4.5 4th Game. Information distributed .................................................................. 134 11.4.6 4th Game. Timing of the Events ..................................................................... 136

11.5 PARTICIPANT SCRIPT ................................................................................................ 136 11.6 PROCESS DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 139 11.7 INFORMATION SET DESCRIPTION, ONE PER INFORMATION ITEM.................................... 139 11.8 RESULTS AND INPUTS FOR THE NEXT SESSION/EXPERT GROUP ................................. 143

11.8.1 ASAS ............................................................................................................. 143 11.8.2 AMAN and Time Constraints ......................................................................... 145 11.8.3 Separation Modes.......................................................................................... 145

11.9 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE ACTIVITY....................................................... 145 11.10 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODS.............................................................. 146

12 ANNEX 6: FIFTH GAMING SESSION...................... .................................................... 147 12.1 INITIAL SCENARIO DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 147 12.2 CONCEPT ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 147 12.3 RULE SET. ............................................................................................................... 147 12.4 GAME MANAGER SCRIPT .......................................................................................... 148

12.4.1 5th Game Initial Diagram ................................................................................ 148 12.4.2 5th Game Scenario......................................................................................... 151 12.4.3 5th Game Objective ........................................................................................ 152

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 7 of 195


12.4.4 5th Game. Roles involved............................................................................... 152 12.4.5 5th Game. Information distributed .................................................................. 153 12.4.6 5th Game. Timing of the Events ..................................................................... 157

12.5 PARTICIPANT SCRIPT ................................................................................................ 158 12.6 PROCESS DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 164 12.7 INFORMATION SET DESCRIPTION, ONE PER INFORMATION ITEM.................................... 165 12.8 RESULTS AND INPUTS FOR THE NEXT SESSION/EXPERT GROUP ................................. 172

12.8.1 On the technique ........................................................................................... 172 12.8.2 Roles and Responsibilities............................................................................. 172 12.8.3 Processes ...................................................................................................... 173

12.9 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE ACTIVITY....................................................... 176 12.10 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODS.............................................................. 176

13 ANNEX 7: WEB-BASED GAME FLOW ....................... ................................................ 177

14 ANNEX 8: DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMMENT SHEET ...................... 186

15 ANNEX 9: SPECIFIC GAMES QUESTIONNAIRES ............. ....................................... 189

16 ANNEX 10: DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE WEB-BASED GAME ............ 193

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 8 of 195


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Contribution of WP4.3.3 to different KPAs .............................................. 18

Table 1-2: OIs addressed........................................................................................ 18

Table 2-1: Related EP3 PIs ..................................................................................... 26

Table 3-1: Conflict categorization ............................................................................ 42

Table 3-2: Time Planning Role games..................................................................... 43

Table 3-3: Gaming Exercise milestones .................................................................. 43

Table 3-4: Web-based Game Time Planning........................................................... 43

Table 3-5: Process simulation Time Planning.......................................................... 43

Table 4-1: Capacity increase in 2-sector scenarios ................................................. 65

Table 4-2: Relative capacity increase in 2-sector scenarios .................................... 65

Table 4-3: Capacity increase in 4-sector scenarios ................................................. 66

Table 4-4: Relative capacity increase in 4-sector scenarios .................................... 66

Table 4-5: Number of hours with excessive ATC task demand................................ 69

Table 8-1: 1st Game timeline ................................................................................... 92

Table 8-2: 1st Game – Blue AOC............................................................................. 92

Table 8-3: 1st Game – Red AOC.............................................................................. 93

Table 8-4: 1st Game – Green AOC .......................................................................... 93

Table 8-5: 1st Game – Blue Flight Crew................................................................... 93

Table 8-6: 1st Game – Red Flight Crew ................................................................... 93

Table 8-7: 1st Game – Green Flight Crew ................................................................ 94

Table 8-8: 1st Game – QTSM .................................................................................. 94

Table 8-9: 1st Game – MSP..................................................................................... 94

Table 8-10: Controller Information ........................................................................... 94

Table 8-11: Ground Initiated Revision ..................................................................... 94

Table 8-12: Air Initiated Revision............................................................................. 95

Table 8-13: Airspace User Initiated Revision ........................................................... 95

Table 8-14: Revising the trajectory .......................................................................... 95

Table 8-15: Trajectory Update................................................................................. 95

Table 8-16: Conflict resolution................................................................................. 96

Table 8-17: Notification ........................................................................................... 96

Table 8-18: CDM Negotiation .................................................................................. 96

Table 8-19: Ground identifies conflict ...................................................................... 98

Table 8-20: Ground proposes trajectory change...................................................... 99

Table 8-21: Negotiation/CDM process..................................................................... 99

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 9 of 195


Table 8-22: Implementation..................................................................................... 99

Table 8-23: Air proposes trajectory change ............................................................. 99

Table 8-24: QTSM proposed change .....................................................................100

Table 9-1: Game 1 Timeline ...................................................................................106



Table 9-4: 2nd Game. QTSM Information...............................................................107

Table 9-5: 2nd Game. MSP1 Information ...............................................................107

Table 9-6: 2nd Game. MSP2 Information ...............................................................108

Table 9-7: 2nd Game. Sub-Regional Manager Information.....................................108

Table 9-8: 2nd Game. Flight Crew Information .......................................................109

Table 9-9: 2nd Game. AOC Information .................................................................109

Table 9-10: 2nd Game. MSP Catalogue of Solutions...............................................109

Table 9-11: 2nd Game. QTSM Catalogue of Solutions ............................................110

Table 10-1: Yellow FC information .........................................................................123

Table 10-2: Blue and Grey FCs information............................................................123

Table 10-3: Planning Controller Information ...........................................................124

Table 10-4: Executive Controller Information..........................................................124

Table 10-5: PC Catalogue of Solutions...................................................................125

Table 11-1: EC1 information...................................................................................136

Table 11-2: EC2 information...................................................................................137

Table 11-3: TMA Controller Information..................................................................137

Table 11-4: Flight Crew 1 Information.....................................................................138




Table 11-8: EC1 Catalogue of Solutions.................................................................140

Table 12-1: MET Data Manager Information ..........................................................158

Table 12-2: SRM information..................................................................................160

Table 12-3: ATS (ACC) Supervisor Information......................................................161

Table 12-4: MSP 1 Information...............................................................................162

Table 12-5: MSP 2 Information...............................................................................163

Table 12-6: Adjacent MSPs Information .................................................................164

Table 12-7: Executive Controllers Information ........................................................164

Table 12-8: Meteorological Information. Current Situation......................................165

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 10 of 195


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: DOM and TLU sectors layout for scenarios 1, 3, and 5 ......................... 31

Figure 2-2: DOM, TLU, ZMU and PAU sectors layout for scenarios 2, 4, and 6....... 31

Figure 2-3: Process simulation scenarios ................................................................ 32

Figure 3-1: Trigger A work flow................................................................................ 39

Figure 3-2: Trigger B work flow................................................................................ 40

Figure 3-3: Trigger C work flow ............................................................................... 40

Figure 3-4: Trigger D work flow ............................................................................... 41

Figure 4-1 Timeline / Event line............................................................................... 50

Figure 4-2 Timeline / Event line for all the actors..................................................... 52

Figure 4-3: Storyboard. Key Findings (1)................................................................. 53



Figure 4-6: 3rd Game. Final Storyboard ................................................................... 56

Figure 4-7: 4th Game. Final Storyboard ................................................................... 58

Figure 4-8: 5th Game. Integrated Final Storyboard (I) .............................................. 60

Figure 4-9: 5th Game. Integrated Final Storyboard (II) ............................................. 61

Figure 4-10: Capacity in 2-sector scenarios ............................................................ 65

Figure 4-11: DOM and TLU capacity in 4-sector scenarios...................................... 65

Figure 4-12: PAU and ZMU capacity in 4-sector scenarios...................................... 66

Figure 4-13: Workload in 2-sector scenarios ........................................................... 67

Figure 4-14: DOM Workload in 2-sector scenarios .................................................. 68

Figure 4-15: TLU Workload in 2-sector scenarios.................................................... 68

Figure 4-16: PAU and ZMU Workload in 2-sector scenarios.................................... 69

Figure 4-17: MSP tactical interventions ................................................................... 70

Figure 4-18: Baseline vs. MSP immediate conflicts ................................................. 71

Figure 4-19: MSP vs planning actions ..................................................................... 71

Figure 4-20: Co-existence MSP - planning .............................................................. 72

Figure 4-21: 2-sector scenarios number of MSP and planning actions per hour ...... 72

Figure 4-22: 4-sector scenarios number of MSP and planning actions per hour ...... 73

Figure 8-1: 1st Game. Initial Flow Diagram .............................................................. 90

Figure 8-2: 3rd Game. Information distributed to participants ................................... 91

Figure 9-1: 2nd Game. Initial diagram......................................................................103

Figure 9-2: 2nd Game. Summarised diagram ..........................................................104

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 11 of 195


Figure 9-3: 2nd Game. Information distributed to participants..................................106

Figure 9-4: 2nd Game. Responsibilities timeline ......................................................111

Figure 9-5: Storyboard resulted from 2nd game .....................................................112

Figure 9-6: 2nd Game. Final diagram (1) .................................................................113

Figure 9-7: 2nd Game. Final diagram (2) .................................................................114

Figure 10-1: 3rd Initial Game Diagram.....................................................................119

Figure 10-2: 3rd Game Scenario .............................................................................120

Figure 10-3: 3rd Game. Information distributed to participants ................................122

Figure 10-4: 3rd Game. Catalogue of Solutions example ........................................122

Figure 10-5: 3rd Game. Time Constraints format.....................................................123

Figure 11-1: 4th Initial Game Diagram.....................................................................130

Figure 11-2: 4th Game Scenario .............................................................................132

Figure 11-3: 4th Game. Information distributed to participants.................................134

Figure 11-4: 4th Game. Catalogue of Solutions example.........................................135

Figure 11-5: 4th Game. Process Card .....................................................................135

Figure 11-6: 4th Game Information from Tools ........................................................135

Figure 11-7: MTCD results .....................................................................................140

Figure 11-8: MTCD&R Results...............................................................................141

Figure 11-9: MTCD results (when all flights are within EC2 airspace) ....................141

Figure 11-10: MTCD results (when AMAN assigns CTAs)......................................142

Figure 11-11: Trajectory Management Tool Results ...............................................142

Figure 11-12: Transfer of flights sequence .............................................................143

Figure 12-1: 5th Initial Game Diagram.....................................................................150

Figure 12-2: SRM area of responsibility..................................................................151

Figure 12-3: SRM area of responsibility. Actual Meteorological Information ...........152

Figure 12-4: 5th Game. Information distributed to participants.................................155

Figure 12-5: 5th Game. Solution given when consulting SRM What-if Tool .............156

Figure 12-6: 5th Game. Process Card .....................................................................157

Figure 12-7: 5th Game. Shared Information from through SWIM.............................157

Figure 12-8: Meteorological Information. Forecast within 40min.............................166

Figure 12-9: SRM. Complexity Predictor Tool Results............................................167

Figure 12-10: SRM. What-if Tool Results. ..............................................................168

Figure 12-11: MSP1. What-if Tool Results .............................................................169

Figure 12-12: MSP2. What-if Tool Results .............................................................170

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 12 of 195


Figure 12-13: SRM. Back up solution in case MSPs don’t agree a common solution........................................................................................................................171

Figure 12-14: 5th Game. Final Diagram Group A ....................................................174

Figure 12-15: 5th Game. Final Diagram Group B ....................................................175

Figure 15-1: 4th Game. Specific Debriefing Questionnaire ......................................190

Figure 15-2: 5th Game. Specific Debriefing Questionnaire ......................................192

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 13 of 195


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is the Final Exercise Report of the Gaming Exercise on En-Route Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management, EP3 work package (WP) 4.3.3. This Gaming Exercise is part of the Single European Sky Support through Validation Project Episode 3 (EP3). It belongs to EP3 WP4.3, whose goal was to validate technologies, processes and procedures related to the en-route area of the execution phase.

The main objective of the Gaming Exercise was to give feedback to the concept defining the relevant procedures to:

• Establish the roles and responsibilities of the different actors for identifying, measuring, monitoring, predicting and resolving the proposed “En-Route Queue, Trajectory & Separation Management” processes;

• Establish the interactions between the identified actors;

• Refine the evaluation of complexity and trajectory management techniques, such as dynamic sector configurations, re-routing or alternative levels/time;

• Assess the feasibility of new separation modes and associated procedures;

• Validate the related processes of negotiation;

• Explore the impact of the different processes related to “Dynamic Airspace Reorganisation” in high-density, high-complexity situations;

• Review of the key performance areas (KPAs) and Operational Improvements (OI) Steps required to support the development of the Queue Trajectory and Separation Management procedures.

The other objective of this Gaming Exercise was to explore the use of the gaming technique with different supporting tools in the context of the ATM validation. The Exercise used paper-based games, fast time process simulation and web-based games. This document presents the strategy followed to design games with these techniques and gives feedback on the techniques.

The main conclusions extracted from WP4.3.3 Gaming on En-Route Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management, are about the technique and the concept.

Regarding the technique, three techniques were used: paper-based games, process simulation and web-based games. The paper-based technique is adequate to assess and define information flows, roles and responsibilities and detect gaps. It is a step forward in the development of a concept as it asks how the different actors will perform a function. The use of process simulation strengths the analysis of the processes defined with quantifiable metrics and detection of trends. It also provides a first approach to the processes viability. Finally, the use of a web-based game allows the exposition of the scenario to a broader expert community and presents a scenario closer to real operation.

Regarding the concept, one of the main outputs of the paper-based gaming exercises is that the use of Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) processes that includes users is not always effective and desirable. There are processes that although not tactical, should not trigger these CDM processes, as they may be repeated several times during the normal operation, and the time that the actor, multi sector planner/planning or executive controller, needs to dedicate would prevent him/her from performing the rest of his/her tasks. This does not mean that there will not be CDM processes with users. But it does mean that the period where it is not feasible to perform CDM processes is not limited to tactical interventions.

Catalogue of solutions is another main output of paper-based games. A catalogue of solutions contains scenarios with the Airspace User’s preferences, which should be established during the planning phases. These preferences are taken into account to create and prioritize the

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 14 of 195


scenarios in the catalogue of solutions. Controllers are not limited to the solutions in the catalogue, but they should be used when possible.

Aircraft with different Capability Levels can coexist within the same airspace without problems, but the more capable aircraft will be less constrained if and when constraints are assigned. The mixture of the separation modes may result in airspace not being optimised due to the different equipages and capabilities.

The last main conclusion extracted from WP4.3.3 is about MSP. The Multi Sector Planner role will lead to reduce the number of potential conflicts to be solved by the executive controller and thus will lead to increase the capacity of the en-route sector under its responsibility. In those scenarios where a MSP is involved, the capacity of the sectors increases; the results of the scenarios with only two sectors are not as good as the scenarios with four sectors.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 15 of 195


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

This Gaming Exercise is included in the EP3 WP4.3 that addresses the operability and performance of the processes related to the day of operation when the plan developed through the collaborative planning processes is executed.

This document provides the results of the Validation Exercise of EP3 WP4.3.3 Gaming Exercise on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management related to the en-route area of the execution phase which will contribute to the elaboration of the Integrated Report of EP3 WP4 En-Route and Traffic Management [2].

This Gaming Exercise addresses EP3 DOD on “Conflict Management in En-Route High & Medium/Low Density Operations” E6 [28], DOD on “Network Management in the Execution Phase” E4 [29], and the Operational Scenario “OS-38 Flights in the Execution Phase in a 4D environment” [6].

1.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE

The intended audience includes:

• EP3 WP4 En-Route and Traffic Management:

o EP3 WP4.1 WP4 Management and Co-ordination Leader;

o EP3 WP4.2.2 Operational Concept Refinement Leader;

o EP3 WP4.3 WP4 Validation Activities Leaders:

• EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management Leader;

• EP3 WP4.3.2 FTS on Strategic de-confliction and 4D Precision Trajectory Clearance -PTC Leader;

• EP3 WP4.3.4 Prototyping on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management Leader.

o EP3 WP4.4 En-Route Results’ Analysis and Report.

• EP3 WP2 System Consistency;

• Gaming Exercise partners.

1.3 SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF DOCUMENT

This introduction explains the document purpose and structure. It also provides general background and supportive information. Section 2 summarises the experiment and strategy planning; talking about objectives, assumptions, expected outputs and hypotheses as well as metrics and scenarios used. Section 3 presents the conduct of validation exercise runs where it is explained how was the experiment preparation, the initial schedule and deviations from planning for each type of exercise (paper-based games, web-based game and fast time process simulation). Section 4 presents the main experiment results and Section 5 collects the conclusions and recommendations obtained in the exercise. Section 6 lists the references and applicable documents.

Annex 1 lists the participants of the games. Annex 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 provide details about each of the gamming sessions and Annex 7 and 8 show the debriefing questionnaires (both generic and specific for each game) and comment sheet distributed during the last gaming

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 16 of 195


sessions with the aim of getting a measure of confidence on the technique, the method and the results.

1.4 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Episode 3 is charged with beginning the validation of the operational concept expressed by SESAR Task 2.2.2 and consolidated in SESAR D3. The emphasis is on obtaining a first assessment of the ability of different concept elements to contribute to the defined performance benefits in the 2020 time horizon corresponding to ATM Capability Level 2/3 and the Implementation Package IP 2. The validation process as applied in EP3 is based on version 2 of the E-OCVM [3], which describes an approach to ATM Concept validation.

The SESAR concept will give considerably more say to airspace users in how they use the airspace. With a constrained resource such as airspace, there will be frequent occasions when stakeholders will have to collaborate with each other. Episode 3 uses the gaming technique with the aim to help identify and resolve weaknesses in the collaborate processes at the concept development stage (weaknesses that might manifest as poor efficiency at the network level, or with an individual stakeholder taking advantage of the system to the detriment of others). Gaming should also help provide better mutual understanding between stakeholders that participate in the games.

Based on the corresponding exercise plan, validation exercises were performed to provide evidence (preferably measured) about the ability (of some aspect) of the concept to deliver on (some aspect of) the performance targets.

The document reports on the validation exercise EP3 WP4.3.3 Gaming Exercise on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management which is done within EP3 WP4 En-Route and Traffic Management.

The main SESAR inputs to these gaming exercises are:

• The SESAR Concept of Operations (ConOps): T222 [8];

• SESAR D3 - The ATM Target Concept [9];

• SESAR D5 - SESAR Master Plan [10].

The main EP3 inputs to these gaming exercises are:

• The EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group En-Route Queue, Trajectory, and Separation Management;

• The EP3 Detailed Operational Description on En-Route Support to De-conflict and Separate Traffic E6 [28];

• The EP3 Detailed Operational Description on Network Management in the Execution Phase E4 [29];

• The EP3 Operational Scenario “OS-38 Flights in the Execution Phase in a 4D environment” [6].

The Gaming Exercises used a successive approach with three different tools to achieve their objectives. In the first iteration, paper-based role games were used. Paper based games give a flexible approach that enables the adaptation of the gaming sessions to the circumstances of the game. This is especially useful when the responsibilities are not yet completely defined and the information flow is unclear. The second iteration used a fast time process simulation tool to test the processes and information flow defined with the paper-based games. The third iteration is a web-based game, used for dissemination.

The Gaming Exercises have been used as a tool to assess the viability of the different processes involved in the en-route trajectory management, define the interaction among the different roles, and to support the work and the findings of the EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 17 of 195


The experts of EP3 WP4.3.1 have contributed to the games and to the interpretation of the results.

1.5 CONCEPT OVERVIEW

More precisely the following ATM section of the DODs and OS are addressed:

• Specifically the Expert Group will directly address the DOD on “Conflict Management in En-Route High & Medium/Low Density Operations” E6 [28]:

o DOD E6, section 4.1, “En-Route Support to De-Conflict and Separate Traffic”.

• DOD on “Network Management in the Execution Phase” E4 [29]:

o DOD E4, sections 4.1.4.2 “Assess DCB Complexity”;

o DOD E4, sections 4.2.4.1 “Adjust RBT”.

• Operational Scenario: “OS-38 Flights in the Execution Phase in a 4D Environment” [6].

The ATM concept addressed in this exercise was the en-route management of aircraft during the en-route execution phase. This exercise was centred on three aspects of this management: complexity management and its reduction to maximize the network capacity, the management of en-route queues for their integration into a smooth flow, and trajectory management and separation provision.

Since the EP3 WP4.3.3 Gaming is closely coupled to the results from the EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group, the complete description of the ATM problem and concept is almost the same. Further description of each part can be found in EP3 WP4 En-Route and Traffic Management Expert Group Plan [27], section 2.2 Description of ATM Problem and Concept.

The next sections present the topics that have been discussed in the gaming sessions listed by concept.

1.5.1 En-Route Complexity Management and Reduction

Complexity Management is a process focused on managing overall ATC workload and primarily based on trajectory predictions using all information shared in the SWIM (RBTs, meteorological information, NOP…) with the aim of optimising the network capacity.

The issues under study in this exercise related to this topic are:

• Optimum sectors organisation to ensure the efficiency of the separation provision service. This includes the use of dynamic sector configurations with multi-sector planning;

• Modification of individual trajectories to reduce complexity when the efficiency of separation provision is compromised.

1.5.2 En-Route Queue Management

En-Route Queue Management describes all the activities related to the management of queues for their integration in a smooth flow. This is directly related with the complexity management. Queue management may be triggered by an action of complexity reduction (from EP3 General DOD [17]).

Other related issues that have been addressed through the gaming sessions:

• Dynamic management of constraints;

• Management of constraints through the NOP.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 18 of 195


1.5.3 En-Route Trajectory and Separation Management

The trajectory management concept entails the systematic sharing of aircraft trajectories between various participants in the ATM process to ensure a common view of a flight and access to the most up to date data available to perform their tasks (from SESAR ATM target concept [9]). Separation management relates to the use of the range of separation modes available in SESAR. EP3 addresses ATM levels 2 and 3, that include Precision Trajectory 2D and 3D, TC-SA, and cooperative separation-ASAS.

The games have addressed:

• Trajectory management in an 4D environment;

• Trajectory management in a mixed mode environment;

• ASAS Separation.

1.5.4 KPAs addressed

Key Performance Areas required supporting the development of the Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management procedures are primarily Capacity and Efficiency.

The contributions of this Exercise to each KPA appear in [31] and are summarised in Table 1-1.

EP3 WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Capacity

WP4.3.3 Gaming Exercise on En-Route Complexity Management

Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict management task load through the reduction of complexity.

Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict management task load through the use of new separation modes.

EP3 WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Safety


Number of ATC tactical interventions. Number of times an ATC tactical intervention is needed in order to avoid a potential conflict on air; Number of losses of minimum separation

EP3 WP4 Exercise Title Contribution to Efficiency


Estimation of Efficiency impact estimation of the complexity, trajectory, and separation management measures through the evaluation of the distortion of UPT.

Table 1-1: Contribution of WP4.3.3 to different KPA s

1.5.5 OIs addressed

The following OIs have been addressed in this exercise. These OIs are the ones specified in the exercise plan [26]:

OI Title

AOM-0801 Flexible Sectorisation Management

CM-0103 Automated Support for Traffic Complexity Assessment

CM-0301 Sector Team Operations Adapted to New Roles for Tactical and Planning Controllers

CM-0302 Ground based Automated Support for Managing Traffic Complexity Across Several Sectors

TS-0103 Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) through use of datalink

Table 1-2: OIs addressed

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 19 of 195


1.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Term Definition

a/c aircraft

ACC Air Traffic Control Centre

AMAN Arrival Manager

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

AOC Airlines Operations Centre

ASAS Airborne Separation Assistance Systems

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCO Air Traffic Controller

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Traffic Service

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

ConOps Concept of Operations

CTA Controlled Time of Arrival

DCB Demand Capacity Balance

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung

DOD Detailed Operational Description

DOW Description of Work

DSNA Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne

EC Executive Controller

EG Expert Group

E-OCVM European Operational Concept Validation Methodology

EP3 Single European Sky Support through Validation Project Episode 3

FC Flight Crew

FMS Flight Management System

FTS Fast Time Simulation

GM Game Manager

IAF Initial Approach Fix

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IP SESAR Implementation Package

Isdefe Ingeniería de Sistemas para la Defensa de España

KPA Key Performance Area

MSP Multi-Sector Planner

MTCD&R Medium-Term Conflict Detection and Resolution

NOP Network Operations Plan

OI Operational Improvement

OS Operational Scenario

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 20 of 195


Term Definition

PC Planning Controller

PTC Precision Trajectory Clearance

PROMAS Processes Management Simulator

QTSM Queue, Trajectory and Separation Manager

RBT Reference Business Trajectory

RTS Real Time Simulation

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research and Development Programme

SRM Sub-Regional Manager

SWIM System Wide Information Management

TC-SA Trajectory Control by Ground Based Speed Adjustments

TMA Terminal Area

UPT User Preferred Trajectory

WP Work Package

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 21 of 195


2 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENT AND STRATEGY PLANNING

Three different strategies were designed according to each type of exercise: paper-based games, web-based games and fast time process simulation. Each strategy with its objectives and outcomes, hypotheses or assumptions are described in the following paragraphs.

The activities needed to implement a whole paper-based gaming session follow an iterative sequence composed by the following steps:

• Game preparation;

• Game set-up including briefing;

• Game performance;

• Game debriefing;

• Result analysis.

Each Game took place in a single session. A description of each session is available in the annexes.

For fast time process simulation and web-based game, the sequence is slightly different as it is needed to establish the objective, to first define the scenario and then the methodology to achieve the objectives.

The Gaming Exercise Validation Plan [26] presents the exercise scope.

2.1 EXPECTED EXERCISE OUTCOMES, OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES

2.1.1 Expected Exercise Outputs

The gaming addressed the DOD on “Conflict Management in En-Route High & Medium/Low Density Operations” E6 [28] section 4.1 “En-Route Support to De-conflict and Separate Traffic”, the DOD on “Network Management in the Execution Phase” E4 [29], and the Operational Scenario “OS-38 Flights in the Execution Phase in a 4D environment [6]”.

The Gaming Exercise will produce the following results:

Technical clarifications:

• It is expected to provide a better understanding and description of the gaming technique after all gaming sessions. It is the first time this role-based technique will be used to clarify concepts, processes or procedures in the ATM world, for this reason an expected output will be to establish the usability of this technique to clarify concepts in the ATM field.

Operational clarifications concerning:

• The definition of “En-route Queue, Trajectory & Separation Management”, the part of the 4D trajectory concept that will be available in 2020, that is, explanation of 4D trajectory management, and specifically of the scenario “OS-38 Flights in the Execution Phase in a 4D environment”;

• Operational Hypotheses or/and assumptions identified in the EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group;

• The Timeline associated with the operation of “En-route Queue, Trajectory & Separation Management”;

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 22 of 195


• The Roles, Responsibilities, Strategies, Objectives, Interactions and Procedures involved in “En-route Queue, Trajectory & Separation Management” and Dynamic Airspace Reorganisation.

Validation clarifications concerning:

• Assessment of expected impact in SESAR KPAs, analysing the effects and considering the necessary trade-off between them due to the implementation of Queue & Trajectory Management, Separation Management and Complexity Management;

• The criteria needed to identify and categorise high-complexity operations, zones and/or volumes. The criteria will consist of a list coupled with the conditions needed to use each item;

• The criteria to select a separation mode ensuring the best compromise between foreseen technical feasibility and perceived benefits. This will be identified in WP4.3.1 but WP4.3.3 will help it being more precise.

A secondary low level objective would be a clear definition of the steps that define the Queue & Trajectory Management, Separation Management and Complexity Management procedures with all actors and their responsibilities identified in each step.

2.1.2 Exercise Objectives and Assumptions.

Three different tools have been used to in these Exercises with each one having its own specific objectives and assumptions.

Some general objectives for the three types of exercises (paper-based and web-based games and Process simulation) achieved in Episode 3 Work Package 4.3.3 described in [11] are to:

• Investigate, assess and explore the implications of the EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group;

• Assess the feasibility of the en-route complex operations and procedures at applicable times of the day and airspace.

2.1.2.1 Objectives. Paper-based Games As this technique was the most used in the exercises, most of the objectives are related with it. Thus, the objectives achieved through the five gaming sessions have been:

• Validate the related negotiation processes;

• Reach a high-level of interaction between all the participants involved in the games in order to obtain all the possible points of view for the same topic and develop a useful discussion;

• Explore the use of serious game technique to analyse and describe new operational concepts;

• Estimate potential capacity increases by reducing the controller conflict management task load through the reduction of complexity;

• Assess the feasibility of high-complexity operations and procedures;

• Refine the evaluation of complexity and trajectory management techniques, such as re-routing or alternative levels/time previously explored by the expert group, EP3 WP4.3.1, in a previous iteration;

• Assess the feasibility of new separation modes and associated procedures;

• Explore and support the clarification and refinement of the different processes and roles involved in "Dynamic Airspace Reorganisation" in high-density, high-complexity situations.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 23 of 195


2.1.2.2 Assumptions. Paper-based Games

It is difficult to compile as a whole all the assumptions considered along the different gaming sessions, but in a general way it can be said the most important are:

• It is assumed that the state of maturity of the SESAR Detailed Operational Descriptions for En-Route Execution Phase - i.e. main work document for the players participating in the exercise - at the beginning of the gaming will be sufficient for the achievement of the gaming objectives;

o This assumption only proved to be true regarding some parts of the target concept whereas, in other parts several discussions took place regarding the definition and area of application.

• All Flights have access to NOP via SWIM;

• All Flights have their own RBTs;

• Data link is the main tool for communications in 2020 but it is not used for time critical communications;

• Some of the controllers responsibilities are: ensure safety, identify and address problems, establish coordination, avoid open-loop and 'direct to' instructions and the use D/L for closed-loop instructions;

Furthermore, in each gaming session a different set of assumptions were taken into account. These sets of assumptions varied from one game to another depending upon the objective of the game. The assumptions were always related to SESAR target concept. Also, when participants discussed any topic or process they did it with the SESAR target concept as background. These assumptions can be consulted in the annexes.

2.1.2.3 Objectives. Web-based Game

The web-based game will be used to present and disseminate some of the results obtained by the WP4.3.3 validation exercise. The web-based game has been built on the main outputs of the WP4.3.3 paper-based gaming sessions, related to SESAR concept validation and clarification.

The objective is twofold: to expose more people to the gaming techniques and to the specific outcomes found in the framework of WP4.3.3 validation exercise and secondly, to perform a comparative between paper-based games and web-based games. Paper-based games have great flexibility, allow the exploration of concepts that are quite open and have different possibilities of implementation, but they also have limitations in the interface with the experts, whereas, the web-based games while losing part of this flexibility improve in the interface and presentation aspects.

The dissemination objective will be performed after the delivery of this report; the comparative between gaming techniques has been performed, and its outputs are included in this report.

2.1.2.4 Assumptions. Web-based Game

The assumptions considered in designing the web-based game were implicitly the same as the ones used for the paper-based games, as they identified the main issues to be achieved.

Other assumptions taken into account are:

• Mix equipped traffic can be handled but with significant impact on ATC Workload (automation support);

• Each actor involved in the process, only wants to know the process, events or changes that will affect his/her area of responsibility.

2.1.2.5 Objectives. Process simulation

The Process Simulation exercise had the following objectives:

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 24 of 195


• Clarification of the concept:

o Refine MSP role;

o Analyse usefulness of the current planning controller coexisting with MSP.

• Assessment of process feasibility:

o Measure the number of information exchanges between the different involved actors and the number of triggered processes to detect the main processes and actors that could be supposed to be likely bottlenecks;

o Define an initial conflict resolution process revising RBTs;

o Analyse four events regarding the resolution of conflicts during transfer of control at a sector boundary:

• When no conflict occurs: transfer baseline;

• Immediate conflict;

• Conflict in a sector near the boundary;

• Conflict in a sector far from the boundary.

o Asses the role of the involved actors in each process working in a 2020-traffic situation, developing series of processes and not only individual ones.

• Exploration of new techniques:

o Demonstrate that executive, planning and MSP processes can be linked by Processes Management Simulator, PROMAS, to be used in future studies.

2.1.2.6 Assumptions. Process simulation

Assumptions considered to design the scenarios and to run the process simulation with PROMAS were:

• MSPs may have up to 4 sectors under their responsibility at the same time;

• An immediate conflict (trigger B) may be resolved by a planning and an executive controller (with no MSP) in scenarios 1 to 4;

• An immediate conflict (trigger B) may be resolved by a MSP and an executive controller in scenarios 5 and 6;

• The RBT of the aircraft involved in conflicts may be revised by the flight crew after being agreed and instructed by the executive controller or MSP on behalf of the executive controller;

• A potential conflict that will occur near the entry boundary of a sector where the aircraft has not yet entered with this sector belonging to the MSP Area (Trigger C), may be resolved by the coordination of the MSP, a planning (if any) and an executive controller;

o This type of conflict may be resolved by revising the RBT by the flight crew after being agreed and instructed by the executive controller. This resolution will imply a change in the RBT following the detection of the conflict;

• A potential conflict that will occur far from the entry boundary of a sector where the aircraft has not entered yet belonging to the MSP Area (Trigger D), may be resolved by a MSP;

o This type of conflict may be resolved by the MSP revising the part of RBT lying within the sector where the conflict will occur.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 25 of 195


2.1.3 Exercise Hypotheses

Hypotheses were only considered to carry out the process simulation, as it was the only exercise which provided quantitative results. The hypotheses considered were:

• The MSP role will lead to a decrease in the number of potential conflicts to be solved by the executive controller;

• The MSP role will lead to an increase in the capacity of the en-route sectors under its responsibility.

2.2 CHOICE OF METRICS AND MEASUREMENTS

The paper-based technique used in gaming sessions was not appropriate to obtain quantitative measurements but the technique was useful for providing concept clarification and qualitative results that give an overall idea of the concepts.

The web-based game was designed to compare techniques and as a dissemination tool and therefore no metrics were measured.

The success of each role-based game was measured through the number of issues that experts detected and discussed in the game or the issues detected along the game that were used to fed a WP4.3.1 questionnaire. For the last gaming sessions, a debriefing questionnaire was introduced as a new way to obtain feedback and measure the success of the game.

The identification of issues was done through different ways:

• The participant script distributed to each participant had a place for comments/ amendments/improvements on the processes listed, information description and roles definition. At the end of each game, the Game Manager, GM, collected the scripts and noted any comment written on them;

• The GM assistant took notes during the game development. To facilitate this, the assistant had a copy of the manager script against which he/she supervised the development of the game and the remarks made in each moment of the game. The assistant also had a list with the main issues foreseen to be discussed;

• At the end of the game, there was a debriefing session where the most outstanding issues were summarized for general agreement. Issues which were not solved fed the EG questionnaires;

• At the beginning of the game, a comment sheet was distributed to all partners with the request to record their comments, suggestions or whatever they thought about the game, game design, the development of the game, etc. At the end of the gaming sessions a couple of debriefing questionnaires were distributed to the participants: one was a general questionnaire to evaluate the method and the technique used through the gaming sessions whilst the other one was more specific, related with each game, and the role the player had performed in it.

To obtain feedback from the web-based game, a questionnaire regarding the technique and the differences with the paper-based games was designed and distributed to the experts who played the online session.

However, the process simulation, mainly focused on analysing the processes behaviour, quantified four metrics selected from the ones defined in the WP2 Performance Framework [24]:

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 26 of 195


PI Title

CAP.LOCAL.ER.PI 5 Estimated Airspace Volume Capacity

SAF.LOCAL.ER.PI 1 Number of hours with excessive ATC task demand

SAF.LOCAL.ER.PI 3 Number of ATC tactical interventions

EFF.LOCAL.ER.PI 7 Efficiency of routing service

Table 2-1: Related EP3 PIs

• CAP.LOCAL.ER.PI 5 measures the maximum number of aircraft that can enter an airspace volume in one hour, based on the maximum task demand the tactical controller can deal with in this period of time (threshold);

• SAF.LOCAL.ER.PI 1 measures the number of hours with excessive ATC task demand. Times the controller is saturated with different severities and therefore, there are risky situations and then safety precursors;

• SAF.LOCAL.ER.PI 3 measures the number of ATC tactical interventions. Number of times an ATC tactical intervention is needed in order to avoid a potential conflict on air; Number of losses of minimum separation;

• EFF.LOCAL.ER.PI 7: measures the efficiency of routing service. The number of flights that will change its 4D trajectory due to a conflict resolution.

2.3 CHOICE OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

One of the main objectives of this Gaming Exercise was to explore the use of the gaming technique with different supporting tools in the context of the ATM validation. The Exercise has used paper-based games, fast time process simulation and web-based games in a successive approach. The interaction of the three techniques is another objective of this exercise.

2.3.1 Paper-based Games

Gaming has been used as a technique that promotes non-routine thinking, following the technique of role-based games. Gaming provides an additional insight to the findings of the EP3 WP4.3.1 Expert Group results, whilst validating the principles behind “En-Route Queue, Trajectory & Separation Management”.

The gaming design technique that has been adapted allows improving on the goals that were defined at the initial design of the game (i.e. either by refining them or by changing the processes that lead to them), replacing the goals (if they prove unfeasible) or changing the game altogether (if the approach or the results do not prove to be viable).

The “game fundamental structure” which identifies and describes the components that constitute a particular game are:

• Actors/Roles of the game;

• Inputs and outputs to/from the game;

• Processes involved in the game;

• Information sets or game packages which consist at least on the following information: rule set, Game Manager script, participant script;

• Grids to control the game evolution and collect the information.

The design of the games is explained in Section 3.1.1 and the games themselves are explained in the annexes.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 27 of 195


The main aspects used in designing and constructing each game were:

• It was a group game: it was goal seeking, finite, and cooperative;

• The participants, as described in annexes, had to work together to achieve their objectives; They were expected to cooperate when creating value, and to compete when dividing it up.

A game was over when the goal was reached and it was cooperative if people on the team helped each other to reach the goal. The measure of their quality as a team was how well they cooperated and communicated during the game.

2.3.2 Web-based Game

The web-based game as it has been used here was an evolution from the paper-based, without entering into the development of a complete gaming platform. The web-based game has been implemented through the use of Flash ©1. The use of a web-based game will allow exposing more people to the role-based game. The web-based game was selected as a comparison between this gaming technique and the paper-based: identifying the pros and cons of both techniques.

No data has been collected using the web-based game, nor will any output of it use be analysed. Nevertheless, the possibility of connecting a database to record the development of the actions and processes performed along the game has been studied but not implemented.

2.3.3 Process simulation

Process simulations will be implemented in PROMAS, which is a tool to represent the operation of any type of organisation or system by means of fast time simulations based on discrete events. This software provides a detailed event log referring to the system operations. After processing the simulation output data, the required information is extracted to evaluate relevant outputs.

By using one of the multiple capabilities of this application, it is possible to reproduce a game. The programme performs the role of the components in the scenario and reproduces the system operation activities.

To sum up, PROMAS offers a new Gaming-compatible technique, to assess complex systems by means of Fast-Time Process Simulations.

After analysing the processes used in the gaming sessions, the relevant Gaming part will be modelled, and subsequently the process simulations will be executed. In the framework of this exercise, PROMAS will be supplied with the processes defined by the initial Gaming exercises. It will then model the processes and provide a first assessment of their viability.

2.4 VALIDATION SCENARIO SPECIFICATIONS

2.4.1 Paper-based Games

Scenarios were designed to pursue specific aspects of the stated objectives. The scenarios played each appear in an annex of this report. The objectives were:

• Game 1: The main goals in the game were to provide a clear definition and an assessment the viability of the processes related to an aircraft in the execution phase in a SESAR 2020 environment. The game was designed to:

1 Flash is a multimedia platform property of Adobe Systems Inc.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 28 of 195


o Identify the processes core activities;

o Identify how processes and actors interact;

o Estimate the benefits obtained;

o Identify the information requirements;

o Explore the viability of the proposed processes.

• Game 2: The main goals in this game were to refine the processes defined in the previous game and agree on the planning processes related to an aircraft in the execution phase in a SESAR 2020 environment:

o To define the timeline of the actors involved and their responsibilities, especially the role of the Executive and Planning Controllers in the process (question coming from game 1);

o Answer the question of how an MSP decides if a solution to a potential conflict is negotiable;

o Answer the question of how the catalogue of solutions is delivered E.g. How are solutions to potential conflicts presented?;

o Establish the criteria for evaluating conflicts.

• Game 3: The main goals in this game were to agree on the processes of different flight situations within an initial 4D trajectory management environment and to:

o Clarify how the processes will be developed when a flight is transferred from one sector to the following one without causing any conflict;

o Determine the interactions between the different roles involved when a conflict appears and how they solve the problem;

o Identify what happens when the planning controller needs to transfer a flight to the TMA (because it is going to land), and TMA controllers can not assume any changes in their controlled area.

Initial 4D trajectory management environment is not a SESAR 2020 environment but a 2014 one. Several discussions took place in the WP4 EG regarding the operational constraints of this environment and thus the implications of these discussions were analysed in this game.

• Game 4: This game looked after improving the information regarding what happens in a mixed mode airspace, where aircraft with different equipages (different Capability Levels) are flying at the same time in the same airspace and when they are transferred to a TMA. The scenario of this game takes place in the Execution Phase. The main goals of this game were to agree on:

o Assess and agree on the feasibility of applying the new separation modes, when the executive controller is on charge of the a/c;

o Identify what happens in case of conflict. Is there any priority depending on the separation mode? How are the processes?

o Agree on the interactions between actors involved;

o Identify the kind of communication will be needed when a flight is going to be transferred in both, conflict and conflict free situations?

• Game 5: This game looked after how to implement the “Transition back from non-structured to structured airspace, due to complexity”. To achieve this, the scenario of the game takes place during the Execution Phase, with a previously scheduled military training exercise being performed. As the exercise was scheduled, the RBTs were planned taking it into account.

Episode 3


Version : 1.00

Page 29 of 195


A new role appears in this game, it is the ATS Supervisor for ACCs. He will negotiate among MSPs and the SRM. A complete description of his main tasks, responsibilities and interactions is available at [22]. The main goals this game wants to achieve are the following ones:

o Assess the feasibility of high-complexity operations and procedures at the applicable times;

o Explore the impact of the different processes related to “Dynamic Airspace Reorganization” in high-density, high-complexity situations;

o Interactions between actors involved;

o Validate the processes of negotiation.

2.4.2 Web-based Game

The web-based game objectives were to help disseminate the issues and conclusions obtained from paper-based games and to explore the use of this tool as a gaming technique.

The web-based game developed a single scenario. To describe this scenario the main input has been the interim report [30] that summarises the outputs of the first cycle (Games 1, 2 & 3) of paper-based games. This scenario was later refined with the outputs of the second cycle (games 4 & 5).

The scenario takes place in the execution phase, in a “typical” busy en-route airspace. It follows the evolution of a complex problem, since its detection by the sub-regional manager, until the execution of the solution proposed and refined by the different actors.

The web-based game has been designed into two d

Documents

EPISODE 3 - Eurocontrol · Episode 3 D4.3.3-02 Gaming Exercise on Queue, Trajectory and Separation Management Final Report Version : 1.00 Page 2 of 195 Issued by the Episode 3 consortium