EUROCONTROL · VFR Visual Flight Rules XFL Exit Flight Level. Lisboa 98 Real-Time Simulation EUROCONTROL EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333 ix REFERENCES ... the requirements of

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

LISBOA 98 REAL-TIME SIMULATION

EEC Report No. 333

EEC Task S18EATCHIP Task SIM-S-E8

Issued: September 1998

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part shouldbe reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Report No. 333

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:EEC - RTO(Real-Time Operations Simulations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreB.P.15F – 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:EATCHIP Development DirectorateDED.4

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B –1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32 2 729 9011

TITLE:

LISBOA 98 REAL-TIME SIMULATION

AuthorA. BARFF

Date9/98

Pagesx + 72

Figures19

+ 3 maps

Tables-

Appendix-

References5

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

SIM-S-E8

EEC Task No.

S18

Task No. Sponsor Period

March/April 1998

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: Head of RTO(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):

S18 – Real-Time Simulation – GETALIS – ATC tasks – Lisboa FIR/UIR – EATCHIP Development –Electronic Co-ordination – MTCD – Colour Displays – Sectorisation – TMA – Multi-Sector SupportController – Human Machine Interface – RVSM Transition Area – Dynamic Sector Manning

Abstract:

This report describes a EUROCONTROL real-time simulation study of the Lisboa FIR/UIR which wasconducted for ANA on behalf of the EUROCONTROL Advisory Service. The study evaluated a prototypeof the fully electronic GETALIS ATC system and associated manning schemes including the use of asingle Support Controller for two Executive Controllers (the Multi Support Controller or MSS). Thesimulation was designed to complement a previous simulation (S09 – Lisboa 97) which had provided a firstexperience of a stripless electronic environment for Portuguese controllers. The S18 simulation facilitymore closely represented the specified operational GETALIS system and allowed evaluation of additionalfeatures such as MTCD and electronic co-ordination in a vertically split sector environment. Enroute, TMA,Approach and Military sectors were simulated. Traffic samples representing forecast 2003 levels andbeyond were simulated.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

Lisboa 98 Real-Time Simulation EUROCONTROL

EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333 v

SUMMARY

The Lisboa 98 real-time simulation took place at the EUROCONTROL ExperimentalCentre between 16th March and 9th April 1998. 22 Portuguese controllers, 2 Spanishcontrollers and a Moroccan controller participated in 52 simulation exercises.

The entire Lisboa Civil En-route ATC system was evaluated along with the Lisboa TMAand Approach control plus three military sectors which provided a control service to civiland military traffic below FL95 and to military OAT (Operational Air Traffic) traffic aboveFL95. In all, up to 17 sectors were simulated comprising 24 Controller Working Positions.The ATC system simulated was the new Portuguese ATC system, GETALIS, which isforeseen to be totally electronic and will not employ paper strips.

This simulation was designed to compliment a previous real-time simulation, Lisboa 97(EEC Task – S09, EEC Report N°317) and was designed to further evaluate GETALIS, inparticular electronic co-ordination in a vertically split sector environment and MediumTerm Conflict Detection (MTCD). The simulation was also required to evaluate theconcept of the Multi-Support Controller (MSS) in which one support controller providessupport to two or more executive controllers. Other objectives concerned the HMIspecification for Approach control, the management of military traffic in the GETALISenvironment, the evaluation of flexible sector manning depending on traffic loading andthe evaluation of new sectorisation proposals for the Lisboa FIR designed to meetPortuguese needs into the next century.

The results of the simulation highlight many of the difficulties and provide proposedsolutions to the problems of electronic co-ordination and flight plan profile management ina vertically split sector environment. The report explains the advantages anddisadvantages of the simulated MTCD as well as providing much feedback on detaildesign features of the GETALIS system. Specific results also relate to the colour coding ofradar labels and the display of track labels representing flight plan data.

In the previous simulation the management of military OAT flight profiles, which used thesame logic as that applied to General Air Traffic, proved to be insufficiently flexible. Forthe Lisboa 98 simulation a more flexible system of managing the co-ordination andtransfer of military traffic was implemented and successfully evaluated.

Difficulties were identified with the MSS control position in the civil en-route environmentat anything more than light to moderate traffic. The MSS was found to be best adapted tosectors handling overflying traffic, but for sectors with a high proportion of climbing anddescending traffic in rapid evolution a dedicated support controller was considered anecessity. For specific reasons, the MSS was rejected by Approach controllers, but wasfound to be an acceptable concept by the Military controllers.

EUROCONTROLLisboa 98 Real-Time Simulation

vi EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project team would like to thank the experts of ANA-EP (Empresa Pública Aeroportose Navegaçãco Aérea) namely Luis Martins, Pedro Carvalho and Orlando Condeca, fortheir assistance, co-operation and patience during the preparation and testing phases ofthe simulation.

The author would also like to thank all the team of EUROCONTROL staff who worked withhim on the Lisboa 98 simulation. In particular, the technical team led by Janedig Da Costawho were called on to work extremely long hours and to overcome many unforeseenproblems. The success of the simulation is due to their dedication and commitment.

Thanks must also go to the Spanish and Moroccan ATC administrations for the loan of thecontrollers who manned the Madrid, Seville and Casablanca feed sectors. Theirparticipation added an essential element of realism.

Finally, thanks to the Portuguese civil and military controllers who participated in thesimulation. They all displayed a high level of professionalism and enthusiasm and it istheir input that provided the results to be found in this report.


EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................. viiiReferences, list of figures, list of maps .......................................................................................................... ix

1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................12. OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................................................................33. SIMULATION CONDUCT.............................................................................................................................53.1. AIRSPACE...................................................................................................................................................53.2. TRAFFIC .....................................................................................................................................................93.3. ORGANISATION......................................................................................................................................133.4. PROGRAM OF EXERCISES....................................................................................................................143.5. SIMULATED ATC SYSTEM (GETALIS) ...............................................................................................153.6. METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................204. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 1.........................................................................................................................214.1. MEDIUM TERM CONFLICT DETECTION ...........................................................................................214.2. ELECTRONIC CO-ORDINATION ..........................................................................................................244.3. SKIP ...........................................................................................................................................................295. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 2.........................................................................................................................305.1. MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................305.2. LIST DATA AND SORTING ...................................................................................................................315.3. DETAIL HMI CHANGES.........................................................................................................................316. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 3.........................................................................................................................376.1. POP-UP MENUS.......................................................................................................................................396.2. HEADING INPUT.....................................................................................................................................396.3. SECTOR INBOUND LISTS (SIL) ............................................................................................................406.4. PRE-ACT WINDOW.................................................................................................................................406.5. RADAR LABELS......................................................................................................................................406.6. CONCERNED COLOUR CODING..........................................................................................................406.7. HOLD WINDOW ......................................................................................................................................407. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 4.........................................................................................................................417.1. MSS – ENROUTE SECTORS...................................................................................................................437.2. MSS – TMA AND APPROACH ...............................................................................................................447.3. MSS – MILITARY ....................................................................................................................................447.4. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES.............................................................................................................448. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 5.........................................................................................................................468.1. TRANSITION FROM “2 X EXC” TO “2 X EXC + MSS”.......................................................................468.2. TRANSITION FROM “2 X EXC + MSS” TO “2 X EXC + 2 X SUP” ....................................................478.3. TRANSITIONS AS TRAFFIC LEVELS FELL ........................................................................................479. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 6.........................................................................................................................489.1. CIVIL ENROUTE......................................................................................................................................489.2. LISBOA TMA............................................................................................................................................539.3. MILITARY ................................................................................................................................................5410. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 7.........................................................................................................................5511. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................56

Green pages : French translation of the summary, the introduction, objectives, conclusions andrecommendations ................................................................................................................ . 63

Pages vertes : Traduction en langue française du résumé, de l'introduction, des objectifs, des conclusionset recommandations ............................................................................................................ . 63


viii EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation De-Code

ACC Area Control CentreAFL Actual Flight LevelANA Aeroportos e Navegação AéreaAPP Approach ControlAPW Area Proximity WarningATM Air Traffic ManagementCAM Conflict Alert Message WindowCFL Cleared Flight Level

CVSM Conventional Vertical Separation MinimaCWP Controller Working PositionDFS Detailed Functional Specification

EATCHIP European ATC Harmonisation and Integration ProgrammeEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreEFL Entry Flight LevelETA Estimated Time of ArrivalEXC Executive ControllerFDP Flight Data ProcessingFIR Flight Information Region

GETALIS Sistema de Gestão de Tráfego Aéreo de LisboaHMI Human Machine InterfaceISA Instantaneous Self Assessment

MASPS Minimum Aircraft Systems Performance SpecificationMSS Multi-Sector Support Controller

MTCD Medium Term Conflict DetectionOAT Operational Air TrafficODS Operator Display SystemRFL Requested Flight Level

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation MinimaSEL Sector ListSIL Sector Inbound List

STCA Short Term Conflict AlertSUP Support ControllerTMA Terminal Manoeuvring AreaTRA Temporary Reserved AreaUIR Upper Information RegionVFR Visual Flight RulesXFL Exit Flight Level


EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333 ix

REFERENCES

1. Airspace Model Simulation of the Introduction of The GETALIS System within theLisboa FIR/UIR – EEC Note N° 15/98

2. Lisboa 98 Real-time Simulation Facility Specification Part 1 (Conduct)3. Lisboa 98 Real-time Simulation Facility Specification Part 3 (Technical)4. Air Traffic Statistics and Forecasts June 1997 – EUROCONTROL Doc 97.70.115. Lisboa 98 Real-Time Simulation Controller Information Booklet

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page1 General view of the Lisboa 98 Operations Room................................................... 22 Operations Room Layout Organisation A ................................................................ 163 Operations Room Layout Organisation B ................................................................ 174 Lisboa Approach / TMA CWPs............................................................................... 185 MTCD conflict in SL sector ..................................................................................... 226 Profile of Faro departure......................................................................................... 267 Recommended profile management for Faro Departure ........................................ 268 EFL vertical limit problem ....................................................................................... 279 Direct order effect ................................................................................................... 28

10 Vertical view of proposed “buffer zone” ................................................................. 3311 Traffic displayed in concerned colour close to sector lateral boundary .................. 3312 “C” Sector – “Unconcerned” traffic in vicinity of RIVRO.......................................... 3413 Simulated Data Label Format for Flight Plan Track................................................ 3514 GETALIS Data Label format for Flight Plan Track.................................................. 3615 Screen image of Lisboa TMA / Approach............................................................... 3816 Nature of MSS display............................................................................................ 4117 Screen image of WN/WS MSS............................................................................... 4218 Configuration of the Centre/South CWPs............................................................... 4619 Recorded tracks flown above FL250 ...................................................................... 49

LIST OF MAPS

Map Page1 Organisation A........................................................................................................ 42 Organisation B........................................................................................................ 63 Military Sectorisation .............................................................................................. 8


x EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333

Page intentionally left blank


EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Lisboa 98 Real-Time simulation took place at the EUROCONTROL ExperimentalCentre between 16th March and 9th April 1998 and was an EEC project designed to meetthe requirements of the Aeroportos e Navegação Aérea (ANA) Portugal.

In conjunction with the Advisory Services of EUROCONTROL, ANA have instigated aproject, Sistema de Gestão de Tráfego Aéreo de Lisboa (GETALIS), which will providenew Air Traffic Management (ATM) facilities at the Lisboa Area Control Centre (ACC).

A prototype of GETALIS was evaluated during a real-time simulation (S09 – Lisboa 97)which took place at the EEC in March 1997. The results of the Lisboa 97 simulation (EECReport 317) were used in the latter stages of the Detailed Functional Specification (DFS)phase of GETALIS.

This second real-time simulation allowed ANA to further evaluate GETALIS, and wherethe first simulation concentrated on the Human Machine Interface (HMI) aspects of thenew system, this simulation was also designed to evaluate sectorisation and routestructure proposals as well as new working practices for the GETALIS environment.

The simulation studied in particular the concept of the Multi-Sector Support Controller(MSS) in which one controller acted as a support controller for two executives with theirown physical sectors.

It is likely that Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) will be introduced overContinental Europe within the timescale of the forecast traffic samples simulated.However, it was decided to simulate the existing situation in which RVSM is applied onlywithin the RVSM Transition Area in the west of the Lisboa FIR and the simulated portionsof the Santa Maria FIR. Elsewhere Conventional Vertical Separation Minima (CVSM) wasapplied. The reason for this was to provide comparable results between this real-timesimulation and the results of the preceding fast-time simulation (Ref. 1) on which thesimulated sectorisations were based. Additionally it was considered that RVSM willreduce controller workload therefore any sectorisations that prove satisfactory with CVSMare also likely to prove satisfactory with RVSM.


2 EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333

Fig. 1 : General view of the Lisboa 98 Operations Room



2. OBJECTIVES

GENERAL OBJECTIVES

To further evaluate the GETALIS Interface with particular reference to the requirements ofthe Approach positions.

To assess the suitability of the two proposed sectorisations and associated manningschemes, including the concept of the Multi-Sector Support Controller (MSS) and thetransition between different manning schemes.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1. To evaluate the utility of those features of the GETALIS system introduced since theLisboa 97 simulation. These are:• Medium Term Conflict Detection;• Electronic Co-ordination in a vertical sector split environment;• SKIP.

2. To assess the effectiveness of those changes made (or proposed) to the GETALISsystem since the Lisboa 97 simulation. These are:• Military traffic management;• Revisions to list data and associated dynamic sorting;• Detail HMI changes.

3. To produce a firm specification of the HMI requirements for the Approach positions.

4. To compare the various possible manning configurations in order to assess theimpact of MSS on the workload of Enroute, Approach and Military Controllers.

5. To identify any problems associated with the transition between certain manningconfigurations during periods of increasing (decollapse) or decreasing (collapse)traffic load.

6. To test the suitability of each of the 2 sectorisations (A & B) to handle traffic levelsup to 32% higher than 1996 levels.

7. To evaluate in the GETALIS environment the operation of an RVSM Transition Areasituated between continental airspace operating under CVSM and the Santa MariaOceanic Area operating under RVSM.



Map 1 : Organisation A

ARMED

HIDRA

BEGASKORUL

STG

RIFELXERES

AVS

LOTEE

ATLEN

PATEL

BARKOSILOS

NARBO

MALIS

MCAVLADORO ZMR

VILAR

RIVRO BARDI

TACOS

CCSCARMI

ELVARMORAS

EVORA

BEJ SERPAROSAL

OXACA

SVLMINTA

PESAS

PIREN

ORTOPOSLAD

VFASGR

BAROK

LPFR

AKUDA AMSEL

IBALUOSTED

TURONAGADO

DEMOS

PRTPOR

LPPR

DIRMA

MTLFTM

AIREZ

LARLIS

ATECA

TROIA

CPESP

CROCA

ASMAR

PELOS

BEXALBAMBA

VISNVS

TLD

BANAL

DETOX

ERPES

GUNTI

KOMUT

LUTAK

MANOX

VERAM

NARTA

NAVIX

PECKY

RULET

Véro 03/02/98

ORG A

T

135.7

SANTA-MARIA

133.09

SEVILLA

132.92

WN

WS

CASABLANCA

124.5/128.8

MADEIRA

C

S

N

132.25(SM)

(SM) (ST)

(ZC)

(CB)

N (095/460) 133.90C (095/460) 132.15S (095/460) 125.55T (055/245) 120.60AP (SFC/095) 119.10

WN (SFC/460) 128.90WS (SFC/460) 134.85MN (SFC/095) 130.90MC (SFC/095) 123.75MS (SFC/095) 131.05

SANTIAGO/ZAMORA

MEASURED SECTORS

ZC (SFC/UNL) 132.92/128.50CB (SFC/UNL) 124.50/128.80SM (SFC/UNL) 133.09/132.25

FEED SECTORSFA (SFC/245) 119.40/119.20 PO (SFC/245) 121.10ST (SFC/UNL) 135.70

RVS

M T

RAN

SIT

ION

AR

EA



3. SIMULATION CONDUCT

3.1. AIRSPACE

The simulated airspace included the entire Lisboa UIR/FIR, parts of the Santa Maria OCA,parts of the Madrid FIR/UIR and parts of Casablanca FIR/UIR.

The simulated airspace was divided into either “Measured” or “Feed” sectors. Measuredsectors represented the study airspace of the simulation and were simulated asrealistically as possible. Feed sectors provided a realistic interface with the surroundingairspace without representing in full the actual sectorisation.

The Lisboa FIR/UIR, with the exception of the Madeira sector and the Porto and FaroTMAs, was simulated by measured sectors. All other simulated airspace was representedby feed sectors.

3.1.1. Route Structure

Current route structure was simulated including Tango routes T12 and T14 and thefollowing new domestic routes:

FTM - VILARBARDI - BAROKELVAR - SERPA - VFASERPA - BAROK

3.1.2. Terminal Airspace

The Lisboa, Porto and Faro TMAs were revised for the simulation with "corridors" linkingLisboa to Porto and Lisboa to Faro. The upper vertical limit of Porto and Faro TMAs wasextended to FL245 to match that of Lisboa. The aim of these modifications was to reducethe load on the North (N) and South (S) en-route sectors. See Map 1 (opposite page).

The Lisboa TMA dimensions were adjusted to better suit traffic patterns including commondirect routings. In particular a small section of airspace traditionally controlled by theNorth (N) sector was delegated to TMA below FL245 to allow traffic on direct routings tooceanic entry points to be transferred directly to the West North (WN) sector without co-ordination with N.

The Lisboa TMA was divided into TMA and Approach sectors and proved too large to bemanaged by these two sectors alone. Therefore a north/south geographical split wasevaluated during the latter half of the simulation. This is described in section 3.3.



Map 2 : Organisation B

BEGASKORUL

LOTEE

ATLEN

PATEL

AVS

STG

BARKOSILOS

ZMRADOROMCAVL

RIPELXERES TURON NARBO

MALISAGADODEMOS

PORPRT

LPPR

DIRMAVIS

VILAR

RIVRO BARDI

TACOS

CARMICCS

ELVARMORAS

AIREZFTM

MTL

ASMAR

CROCALAR

PELOSESP

CP

LISATECA

EVORA

TROIABEJ SERPA

ROSAL OXACA

SVLMINTASGR

PESAS

PIREN

BAROK OSLAD ORTOP

AKUDA AMSELBAMBA

BEXAL

VFA

LPFR

IBALUOSTED

NVS

TLD

LUTAK

MANOX

NAVIX

NARTA

VERAM

PECKY

RULET

DETOX

ERPES

GUNTI

KOMUT

BANAL

ARMED

HIDRA

Véro 03/02/98

ORG.B

T

135.7

SANTA-MARIA

133.09

SEVILLA

132.92

WN

WS

CASABLANCA

124.5/128.8

(SM)

CSCL

CSSL

N

132.25

N (095/460) 133.90CL (095/335) 132.15SL (095/335) 125.55T (055/245) 120.60AP (SFC/095) 119.10

WN (SFC/460) 128.90WS (SFC/460) 134.85CS (335/460 ) 135.45M (SFC/095) 130.90MC (SFC/095) 123.75

SANTIAGO/ZAMORA

MEASURED SECTORS

ZC (SFC/UNL) 132.92/128.50CB (SFC/UNL) 124.50/128.80SM (SFC/UNL) 133.09/132.25

FEED SECTORSFA (SFC/245) 119.40/119.20 PO (SFC/245) 121.10ST (SFC/UNL) 135.70

RVSM

TR

ANSIT

ION

AR

EA

(SM) (ST)

(ZC)

MADEIRA

(CB)



3.1.3. En-route Sectorisation

The simulated en-route sectorisation was based on existing Portuguese sectorisation butincorporated the results of a EUROCONTROL fast-time study (Ref. 1).

Two versions of sectorisation had been prepared, finally three versions were actuallysimulated. Two of these are represented in maps 1 and 2 on previous pages.

The en-route sectorisation for Organisation A consisted entirely of vertically unlimitedsectors and was closely based on the current Portuguese sectorisation. The maindifference being that the very large West sector was divided into West North (WN) andWest South (WS).

The division of airspace for Organisations B and C was designed to confirm the results ofthe fast-time study which recommended the vertical division of the Centre (C) and South(S) sectors. Sectors C and S were limited to FL335 (Org B) and FL315 (Org C)respectively and renamed CL and SL. Above this airspace a large high level sector (CS)with the combined geographical dimensions of CL and SL was simulated.

The vertical division level of FL315 was the recommendation of the fast-time study; FL335was the option of the project team following the initial analysis of the traffic samples. Itwas decided to evaluated the relative merits of the two division levels by simulation.



3.1.4. Military Sectorisation

Two versions of military sectorisation were simulated. In all organisations except Org Bthree military sectors managed the Portuguese overland airspace below FL95. InOrganisation B the Military North (MN) and Military South (MS) were combined to formsector M.

Map 3 : Military Sectorisation

MILITARY SECTORS

S18 LISBOA 98

Véro:01/09/98

MN

MS



3.1.5. Danger and Restricted Areas

The following Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA) were simulated:

TRA1, TRA13 (upper limit FL275), TRA 45 and TRA 46.

The following Restricted Areas were simulated:

R26A, R38A, R38B, R39A, R42A, R42B, R43C, R44A, R51N, R51S, D10, D28A, andD28B.

3.1.6. RVSM Transition Area

The existing RVSM Transition Area in the western portion of the Lisboa UIR wassimulated.

3.1.7. Surrounding Airspace

The same configuration of feed sectors was retained throughout the simulation. Thesimulated portions of the Santa Maria OCA and the Madeira sector were represented bysector SM. Spanish airspace was divided into Santiago/Zamora (ST) in the north andSevilla (ZC) in the east. Casablanca (CB) completed the simulated airspace.Full details of the simulated airspace can be found in the Lisboa 98 Simulation FacilitySpecification Part 1 - Conduct (Ref. 2).

3.2. TRAFFIC

Four basic traffic samples were used as the basis for the traffic samples simulated. Eachtraffic sample represented a particular (and often difficult) traffic flow for the Lisboa FIR.

The basic traffic samples were as follows:

T1 2 December 1996T2 from Lisboa 97 simulation (1996 traffic)T3 from Lisboa 97 simulation (1996 traffic)T4 21 December 1996

The choice of December may appear unusual but on these days there was either aparticularly heavy oceanic traffic flow or a particularly heavy Northern Europe-Tenerifeflow combined with a busy flow in and out of Lisboa.

Military traffic and civil VFR flights were added to provide adequate traffic to achieve thesimulation objectives.

The basic traffic samples were utilised during the simulation for training purposes.



Traffic forecasts issued by EUROCONTROL (DED-4) (Ref. 4 – Air Traffic Statistics andForecasts June 1997 – EUROCONTROL Doc 97.70.11) indicated that IFR traffic levelswithin Lisboa FIR/UIR were forecast to rise from the 1996 level of 243141 movements to321955 by 2003 which represents an increase of 32%. Therefore the 4 traffic sampleswere augmented by 32% to represent 2003 traffic levels.

The +32% traffic samples provided the traffic for the majority of the simulation exercises.Traffic samples up to 2 hours long were created to achieve Objective 5.

In addition certain samples were augmented to 45% to provide additional traffic loadshould 32% prove too light in certain organisations. This proved useful during the latterdays of the simulation to fully evaluate the vertically split scenarios.

It should be noted that the current runway capacity at Lisboa (30 movements per hour)was exceeded at traffic levels in excess of those forecast for 2003.



3.2.1. Traffic Sample Analysis

The analysis of the traffic samples below shows the load that each sample represented forthe simulated measured sectors.

Lisboa 98 Traffic Samples: 1996 levels + 0 %Org. A Hourly Throughput and Instantaneous Peaks

1 2 3 4Sample

Sector Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak

AP 27 8 25 8 21 5 25 10

T 33 12 34 15 26 10 35 13

C 27 11 32 13 26 9 25 12

N 20 10 34 18 19 9 16 9

S 20 9 23 11 27 10 22 15

WN 12 7 16 11 8 9 15 14

WS 19 9 11 10 21 12 12 7

MC 10 9 14 10 4 9 6 7

MN 3 3 4 3 4 4 6 3

MS 6 3 11 7 5 3 6 8

TOTAL 84 66 80 80 69 69 66 74

Lisboa 98 Traffic Samples: 1996 levels + 32 %Org. A Hourly Throughput and Instantaneous Peaks

1 2 3 4Sample


AP 40 11 38 10 44 12 33 13

T 50 17 48 19 48 17 42 15

C 46 19 45 15 38 13 33 15

N 22 11 49 23 30 13 22 12

S 28 12 38 15 39 15 29 17

WN 14 9 22 14 10 10 26 22

WS 25 14 15 12 32 18 18 11

MC 11 7 15 10 6 7 6 7

MN 4 3 4 3 6 3 6 3

MS 10 8 11 7 6 8 6 8

TOTAL 113 95 110 107 100 99 80 96



Lisboa 98 Traffic Samples : 1996 levels + 32%Org. B Hourly Throughput and Instantaneous Peaks

1 3 4Sample

Sector Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak

AP 40 11 44 11 33 13

T 50 17 48 17 42 15

CL 29 13 28 9 25 11

CS 18 10 18 9 14 9

N 22 11 29 12 22 12

SL 20 9 27 10 17 12

WN 14 9 10 10 26 22

WS 25 14 32 18 18 11

MC 11 7 6 7 6 7

MN 4 3 6 3 6 3

MS 10 8 6 8 6 8

TOTAL 113 95 99 99 80 96

Lisboa 98 Traffic Samples : 1996 levels + 45 %Org. A/B Hourly Throughput and Instantaneous Peaks

1A 1B 3B 4BSample


AP 44 12 44 12 48 11 34 11

T 53 17 53 17 52 18 44 17

C 49 17

CL 31 12 30 11 29 11

CS 21 13 19 9 18 12

N 24 12 24 12 33 16 29 15

S 34 14

SL 22 10 29 11 17 11

WN 15 9 15 9 15 12 37 28

WS 29 15 29 15 35 19 27 16

MC 11 7 11 7 6 7 6 7

MN 4 3 4 3 6 3 6 3

MS 9 7 9 7 6 8 6 8

TOTAL 120 95 120 95 117 118 100 116



3.3. ORGANISATION

Three organisations were foreseen during the preparation phase of the simulation.Organisations A and B provided two basic variations of airspace configuration andOrganisation C (based on Organisation B) varied the vertical division level between SL/CLand CS.

Route structure described in section 3.1.1 was utilised in all organisations, as were theTemporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) which were continuously active in all organisations.

Terminal area airspace was revised during the simulation which led to the newOrganisation D described below.

Organisation A

The purpose of Organisation A was to simulate a restructured sector and route networkfor the Lisboa FIR/UIR in the GETALIS system working environment and to enable theevaluation of the collapse and de-collapse of certain support positions. This organisationincorporated the geographical division of the West Sector into WN and WS.

Organisation B

Organisation B was based on Organisation A but incorporated the vertical division of Cand S sectors. Initial traffic sample evaluation indicated that FL335 would provide areasonably even traffic distribution between upper and lower sectors therefore this wasthe level evaluated in Organisation B. This Organisation was also designed to allowMilitary and Lisboa Approach controllers to evaluate the concept of the Multi-SectorSupport (MSS).

Organisation C

In this organisation the vertical division level between SL/CL and CS was FL315. Thiswas the recommendation of the fast-time study and allowed a direct comparison withFL335 used in Organisation B.

Note: Organisation C was not simulated as planned due to the practicality of OrganisationD. However, Organisation D was simulated first with a vertical division level of FL335 andthen FL315.

Organisation D

Organisation D was created during the simulation at the request of the clients and with thefull agreement of the project team. This organisation incorporated elements ofOrganisation A, B and C in conjunction with new ideas developed during the early part ofthe simulation.

The main features were as follows:• Enroute sectorisation as Organisation B;• Military sectorisation as Organisation A.;• Lisboa TMA split geographically into North and South;• 2 vertical split levels for sector CS: FL315 or FL335.



3.3.1. Variations on the Organisations

The simulation design allowed for various manning configurations to be evaluated withineach organisation. To track and record the manning configurations simulated, a table wasdevised which listed all the possible manning combinations feasible for each organisation.Not all combinations were actually simulated therefore a revised table is reproducedbelow indicating those manning configurations actually simulated. In the table belowsector names are shown in the “details” section accompanied with a number 2 where thesector was manned by EXC + SUP, otherwise a single EXC was allocated. Inclusion ofthe MSS is shown between the concerned sector abbreviations.

Org Variant DetailsA 1 C2 S2 N2 WN2 WS AP2 T MN MC MS

4 C2 S2 N2 WNMSSWS AP2 T MN MC MS

5 C MSS S N2 WNMSSWS AP2 T MN MC MS

6 C S N2 WNMSSWS AP2 T MN MC MS

B 1 CL2 SL CS2 N2 WN2 WS AP MSS T M MSS MC

4 CL2 SL CS2 N2 WNMSSWS AP MSS T M MSS MC

D 1 CL2 SL CS2 N2 WN2 WS AP TN TS MN MC MS

FL335 4 CL2 SL CS2 N2 WNMSSWS AP TN TS MN MC MS

D 1 CL2 SL CS2 N2 WN2 WS AP TN TS MN MC MS

FL315 4 CL2 SL CS2 N2 WNMSSWS AP TN TS MN MC MS

Key:

Org Organisation code letter + level split used

Variant Code number of organisation variant

Details Sector positions manned i.e. “N2” = North manned with EXC and SUP;“C MSS S” = C EXC and S EXC with MSS in between.

For example, when dynamic de-collapse was simulated, the manning sequence was A6 >A5 > A4. (EXC controllers on C and S, then joined by an MSS, finally dedicated SUP foreach sector).

3.4. PROGRAM OF EXERCISES

A simulation program was drawn up in advance which was flexible enough to allow either2 long exercises or up to 4 short exercises per day. Briefing and de-briefing periods werealso fitted in as required.

The table below shows the program of exercises that was eventually completed.

The majority of exercises were of 1hr 15mins duration which started with an initial trafficcharge, which gradually grew during the first 15mins after which the next 1hr wasconducted at the appropriate traffic level. Exercises of up to 1hr 40mins were conductedat times, particularly when dynamic de-collapse and collapse was being simulated.



Week Org No ofExercises

Traffic Level Objective

1 A 14 100% Training

B 3 100%

2 A 15 132% Evaluation of Org A and the MSS

3 A 5 Up to 145% Dynamic de-collapse

B 5 132% Evaluation of Org B

D (FL335) 3

4

132%

145%

Evaluation of Org D withvertical split at FL335

4

D (FL315) 3 145% Evaluation of Org D withvertical split at FL315

Total 52 Representing 76hr 50min of simulation time

The staffing of sectors followed a strict rotation drawn up by the simulation analyst whichtook into account controllers qualifications and which ensured that each controllerexperienced each variation of organisation from as many different control positions aspossible.

3.5. SIMULATED ATC SYSTEM (GETALIS)

The simulation represented as closely as possible the main elements of the GETALISsystem, which is foreseen to be entirely electronic will not employ paper strips.

The system employed an advanced Operator Display System (ODS) including extensiveuse of colour. A 3-button mouse was the sole input and data access device via which thecontrollers interacted with the following facilities:

• Electronic Co-ordination: The controller could negotiate entry and exit level co-ordination and direct routings by electronic means.

• Quick Information Access: The controller had rapid access to a dynamic flight legand additional information windows.

• Electronic List Data: The system provided entry and exit information in list formatallowing entry and exit conditions to be verified, modified or electronically co-ordinated.

• Notebook Functions: The controller could electronically note assigned headings,levels, speeds and direct routings that would normally be written on strips.

• Medium Term Conflict Detection: The system provided En-route controllers with upto 30 minutes warning of potential conflicts.

• Safety Nets: The system provided a 2 minute warning of potential loss of radarseparation (Short Term Conflict Alert - STCA) and infringement of restricted airspace(Area Proximity Warning - APW).



Full details of the simulated system are contained in the Lisboa 98 Facility SpecificationPart 3 (Technical) (Ref. 3).

3.5.1. Operations Room Configuration

The operations room was configured with 24 Controller Working Positions (CWP) asfollows:

Measured Sectors

LISBOA ACC 6 Sectors (12 CWP)

LISBOA APP/TMA 2 Sectors (3 CWP)

LISBOA MILITARY 3 Sectors (3 CWP)

Figure 2 below and Figure 3 on next page show floor plans of the Operations Room.

Fig. 2 : Operations Room Layout Organisation A



Fig. 3 : Operations Room Layout Organisation B



The Measured Controller Working Position consisted of:

• Sony 20 inch square colour display, used to provide a multi-window workingenvironment;

• Hewlett Packard processor and Metheus display driver;• 3 Button Mouse;• A simulation telecommunication system with headset, foot switch and panel-mounted

push to talk facility.

The measured sectors comprised mainly of identical CWPs configured as either Executive(EXC) or Support (SUP). In addition, certain CWPs were configured as Multi-SectorSupport (MSS) positions which featured a composite display allowing the controller to actas SUP to 2 EXCs, one on his right and one on his left. Each CWP provided access tothe same facilities, it was at the discretion of each individual controller to determine thedisplay preferences.

Each CWP included a subjective workload panel (Instantaneous Self-Assessment – ISA)used by the controller for periodic input throughout the measured exercise.

Fig. 4 : Lisboa Approach / TMA CWPs



Adjacent Sectors

Six Hybrid feed sectors equipped with 20” Sony monitors were provided for Faro TMA,Porto TMA, Madrid/Seville, Santiago, Casablanca and Santa Maria/Madeira. Hybrid feedsectors incorporate a piloting function, which interprets controller inputs also as pilotinputs allowing the sector to operate autonomously without the need for a dedicated pilotoperator.

3.5.2. The Multi-Sector Support Position (MSS)

Multi-Sector Support (MSS) was proposed as a method of providing flexible controllersupport by allocating a single SUP controller to two sectors manned by EXC controllers.The need for controller support varies depending on traffic flow and density, therefore amore effective and efficient use of the SUP controller may be possible by a systemcombining or de-combining the support roles for several sectors based on the actual orforecast traffic situation.

The EXC controller retained the control responsibility for the sector. The MSS controllerassisted each of two EXC controllers with their duties and was able to make all systeminputs, except those related to co-ordination and transfer of control on the commonboundaries between the individual sectors within the MSS area. The main responsibilityof the MSS was foreseen to be the co-ordination associated with the outer sectorboundary.

Data Display for the MSS was representative of the aircraft state within the MSS area, notthe individual sectors. Therefore an aircraft was displayed as ‘Pending’ if pending for thefirst sector within the MSS area. An aircraft was displayed as ‘Assumed’ if assumed byeither sector within the MSS area and an aircraft was shown as ‘Concerned’ if concernedfor the last sector in MSS area.

3.5.3. ATC Procedures and controller tasks

The controller tasks and procedures for the GETALIS environment, which were the resultof the previous real-time simulation, were employed throughout the simulation. Althoughthe evaluation of these tasks and procedures was not an objective of the simulation it isinteresting to note that all controllers found the procedures and task allocation fullyacceptable.

Details of these controller tasks and procedures are contained in the Lisboa 98 Real-TimeSimulation “Controller Information Booklet” (Ref. 5).

Sector A Sector B

MSS (A+B)



3.6. METHODOLOGY

The simulation results contained in this report were compiled from the notes taken atsimulation de-briefing sessions, questionnaire responses and the observations of theproject team.

The Instantaneous Self-Assessment (ISA) method was used to assess controllerworkload. Participants were asked to respond to a prompt every 2 minutes by pressing abutton appropriate to their perceived workload at the time; Very High, High, Fair, Low orVery Low.



4. RESULTS - OBJECTIVE 1

To evaluate the utility of those features of the GETALIS system introduced sincethe Lisboa 97 simulation. These are:

• Medium Term Conflict Detection;• Electronic Co-ordination in a vertical sector split environment;• SKIP.

4.1. MEDIUM TERM CONFLICT DETECTION

Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD) was provided to Enroute civil controllers only,and operated only within radar coverage. Extending MTCD outside of the radar coveragearea is obviously desirable for the operational system but was rejected for the simulation,as it would have significantly increased the complexity of the algorithms and may havecompromised the objective of ensuring that the controllers could evaluate a fullyfunctioning MTCD. The MTCD was not provided to Military or the TMA/Approachcontrollers owing to its design (radar headings not taken into account) it would haveprovided many false alerts.

Vertical conflict parameters were in line with standard vertical separation (1000ft belowFL300 and within the RVSM Transition Area; 2000ft elsewhere) whilst the horizontalparameter was set at 16nm to allow for slight errors in the profile computation.

Conflict prediction was based on the flight plan trajectory modified by the followingcontroller orders - EFL, CFL, XFL and DIRECT. MTCD computation occurred when the profilewas re-calculated (beacon overflight or re-profile caused by a controller input order).Additionally, the simulator logic operated in a cyclic manner; each profile was re-checkedfor MTCD conflicts at 5-minute intervals.

Warnings were presented to the controllers up to 30mins in advance of the predicted lossof separation. Two types of alert were specified:

True Conflict: triggered by a loss of lateral separation (<16nm) combined with a loss ofvertical separation between the two profiles. In effect this alert indicated that both aircrafthad the same CFL and that their AFLs were predicted to coincide during the period whenlateral separation was lost. These conflicts were indicated by a red block in the list dataand by a red highlight to the dynamic flight leg.

Risk of Conflict: triggered by a loss of lateral separation (<16nm) combined with anoverlap of the level band EFL to XFL. (AFL replaced EFL after sector entry). Theseconflicts were indicated by a yellow block in the list data and by a yellow highlight to thedynamic flight leg.

The MTCD window provided a list of conflict pairs including the time to loss of separationand the calculated minimum lateral distance. Via the MTCD window and a pop-up menu,controllers could either “Acknowledge” (simply tick), “Refer” (mark for the attention of otherteam members with a ? symbol) or “Cancel” (remove a false or unnecessary “Risk” alert)as required.



MTCD Warnings were presented on the Dynamic Flight Leg as shown in Figure 5 below.The conflict pair is on the southern boundary of SL sector. It can be clearly seen how theMTCD reflected “flight plan” information, the heading and cleared level used byCasablanca to solve the conflict have no effect on the warning displayed to SL controllers.

Fig. 5 : MTCD conflict in SL sector



Simulation Results

The MTCD was well received by the controllers and there was a general agreement that acorrectly functioning MTCD will increase safety. Everyone agreed that it helped to resolveconflicts earlier and reduced the incidence of STCA.

MTCD warnings were always displayed on the dynamic flight leg but the MTCD windowwas provided with an “ON/OFF” selection. This was fully acceptable to the controllers.

The controllers emphasised that 100% reliability must be assured in an operationalsystem, particularly in the calculation of “True Conflicts”. MTCD calculates conflict pairs,complementing the responsibility of the controller for this task. When the controllers hadhad the chance to verify many MTCD pairs and found that the information appearedreliable, they were tempted to no longer check the data and started to rely on the systemto alert them to conflict pairs. Once controllers have started to rely on system calculated“True Conflict” information in this way, 100% reliability must be assured.

MTCD was simulated only within radar coverage as described above. It was noted thatfor the operational system separate parameters must be set for airspace:• Within solid radar cover;• Outside radar cover where full procedural separation must be applied;• At the edge radar coverage where account must be taken of traffic about to enter

coverage;• Within the RVSM transition area (MASPS and non-MASPS parameters).

MTCD proved useful in the West sectors where most aircraft were in stable level flight.The system proved efficient at calculating conflicts on gradually converging tracks. The30min look-ahead was considered a suitable parameter.

The MTCD proved less useful in the overland sectors where much of the traffic was inevolution. In this case many “Risks” were identified by the logic, which weresystematically managed by the EXC controller without reference to the MTCD.

For the operational GETALIS system a filter will be available for the MTCD logic to allowthe controller to view either True conflicts or both True and Risk conflicts. Although hecontrollers did not have the opportunity to evaluate this filter in the simulation theyconsidered that it could be very useful.

The “Highlight” feature simulated (see section 5.3.1) allowed the SUP controller to pointout conflicts to the EXC, this was considered a very useful feature.

The simulated MTCD displayed conflicts that occurred up to 2 minutes outside the sectorboundary. Controllers felt that the MTCD often displayed too many conflicts outside thesector boundaries, therefore extending MTCD search outside sector boundaries should becarefully specified.

The MTCD was used as a conflict probe by the use of the CFL order to modify thetrajectory prior to climbing the aircraft. A true conflict probe was considered as a logicaland useful development of the simulated MTCD.



4.2. ELECTRONIC CO-ORDINATION

Electronic co-ordination has a direct link with FDP logic. The EEC simulator is equippedwith a “ground” software module that emulates FDP functionality. Flight plans arenavigated within this module to determine the sector sequence. Flights are climbed anddescended by the use of constraints derived from LoAs and, in the case of departures, theRFL. This process creates an initial profile and sector sequence. Depending onsimulation requirements, controller inputs can modify this profile on-line. In the case ofLisboa 98 the controller input orders foreseen for the operational GETALIS system wereemulated. EFL, CFL, XFL and DIRECT inputs each modified the flight profile and in all casesexcept CFL could generate electronic co-ordination. It should be noted that electronic co-ordination only ever involved 2 partners, other sectors who were affected by the results ofco-ordination were provided with highlighted data revisions.

Electronic co-ordination was displayed to the controllers by the use of “message in” and“message out” windows and by the use of data highlighting in the radar label and lists.

The planned scope of this section has been enlarged to also include results concerningelectronic co-ordination in the lateral plane concerning the DIRECT order.

4.2.1. Electronic Co-ordination in the Vertical Plane

Two types of vertical transition between sectors were possible which required specificelectronic co-ordination features and procedures:

1. Vertical transition occurring in the initial profile of the aircraft or due to theactions of a “3 rd party” sector.

The FDP logic that climbed the flight profile for departures from Portuguese airfields totheir RFL, and descended profiles to land at Portuguese airfields caused verticaltransitions in the initial profile. This resulted in flight profiles planned to make a verticaltransition but for which a level had to be co-ordinated. This type of co-ordination washandled in a specific way.

In these circumstances XFL and EFL were displayed to the controllers as “XFL?” and“EFL?”, prompting the controller to enter an appropriate value within the downstreamsector’s airspace. The downstream controller could either accept or counter proposean alternative value (within his airspace). Rejection of coordination triggered therestoration of the initial profile which meant the original, unwanted, sector sequencewas retained, therefore to truly reject a flight the downstream controller had totelephone the upstream controller and request that he enter an XFL order within hisown vertical band of levels.

The circumstances or 3rd party inputs are dealt with in the results part of this section.

2. Vertical transition as the result of a specific controller input of an XFL order

Profiles climbed or descended as “late as possible” to comply with input XFL orders toallow intermediate CFL orders to be taken into account. However, when the systemdetected that the input XFL was outside the sector level band and therefore a verticaltransition would occur, the profile was modified “as soon as possible” to generate co-ordination with the correct sector above or below.



Therefore a flight profile that was not planned to make a vertical transition (forexample an overflight) could be offered to the sector immediately above or below whocould accept, counter propose or reject the co-ordination.

Full details of the FDP and Electronic Co-ordination are contained in the Lisboa 98Facility Specification Part 3 (Technical) (Ref. 3).

Simulation Results

Vertical transitions generated by the initial profile computation that could not be rejectedcaused problems for the controllers. A typical situation was generated by a Farodeparture with an RFL within the upper sector (CS). The initial profile included CS in thesector sequence with an EFL shown as “EFL?”. Often CS controllers could not acceptthese flights due to the volume of overflying traffic, in these circumstances a telephonecall was required to the lower sector to reject the flight. This was particularly annoying, aswhen the upper sector was very busy he had the least time available to make a telephonecall. The lower controller then entered a level which avoided the upper sector.

The solution to this problem was for the FDP to climb departures to levels contained withinthe lower sectors and not the RFL. The co-ordination with the upper sector could then beconducted in line with type 2 transition described above in which the upper sector couldelectronically reject if he wished.

The problem of 3rd party co-ordination affecting a sector is illustrated by Figure 6 overleaf.This can occur even if the initial profile is contained within the lower sectors, in this caseFL310.



Fig. 6 : Profile of Faro departure

The Faro departure climbs to an initial level of FL310 with a sector sequence SL > CL.When SL initiates a co-ordination to FL350, he is unsure if the co-ordination will involveCL or CS. In the event, the profile is recalculated and CL is still the next sector, “clipped”by the flight on its way to FL350. CL receives a proposal of EFL FL350, he has no trafficto conflict and accepts the co-ordination. CL then modifies his XFL? to FL350 tocorrespond with his EFL and the result is that CS is presented with a fait accompli. CScannot reject, he can only counter propose or use the telephone. If he does telephone toreject the flight, CL must re-co-ordinate his EFL with SL as well as his XFL with the newdownstream sector.

This situation must be avoided by operational rules. The method proposed is illustratedby Figure 7 below.

Fig. 7 : Recommended profile management for Faro Departure

Sector SL

FL335

FARODEPARTURE

Sector CS

Sector CLXFL350 EFL350

EFL ?

XFL ?

Initial level FL310

Sector SL

FL335

FARODEPARTURE

Sector CS

Sector CLXFL310 EFL310

EFL350

XFL350



SL must negotiate a level with CL within their common vertical level bands. CL then co-ordinates with CS who can accept, counter-propose or reject. When the co-ordination iscomplete CL can then monitor the vertical progress of the flight and can SKIP if he wishes.

EFL Co-ordination

It was realised during the simulation preparation that the values offered for EFL co-ordination must be carefully controlled to avoid the possibility of a sector either taking itselfout of the sector sequence or bringing an additional sector into the sector sequence.Figure 8 below attempts to explain this by showing a typical sector boundary in the verticalplane.

Fig. 8 : EFL vertical limit problem

In Figure 8 above a flight at FL310 is transiting from Sector B to Sector C. If Sector C isallowed to enter an EFL above FL330 he will bring Sector A (a 3rd party) into the sectorsequence and if he enters an EFL below FL250 he will take himself out of the sequence.Therefore sector boundaries should be analysed to ensure that the correct range of levelsare offered by the system or the cases described above are catered for by additionalsystem complexity and detailed operating procedures.

Sector B

Sector A Sector C

Sector D

FL310

FL250

FL330



4.2.2. Electronic Co-ordination in the Horizontal Plane

As with the controller orders in the vertical plane, DIRECT orders caused a re-calculation oftrajectory. This could bring sectors into the sector sequence without their consent andwith no option of refusal.

Figure 9 below shows how this is possible.

Fig. 9 : Direct order effect

The initial trajectory shown in dotted line above has a sector sequence WS > C. By theintroduction of a DIRECT order, sector WS modifies the trajectory and creates a new sectorsequence. The sector sequence is now WS > WN > N > C, therefore electronic co-ordination is generated between WS and WN. As you can see WN has little interest in theflight, as it will just clip the corner of his airspace, so he is likely to quickly accept. Theresult is that N receives a flight that he was not expecting, without consultation, and Creceives the flight arriving from a different direction and from a different upstream sectorwithout any consultation.

Obviously this is an undesirable situation, but one which can easily be generated bycontroller interaction via the DIRECT order. The proposed solution (as would happen in thecurrent Portuguese system) is 3 telephone calls to the concerned sectors prior toelectronic input. A fully electronic solution is hard to imagine.

A further problem was generated by DIRECT inputs less than 10 minutes prior to sectorexit. The system initiated co-ordination in this event, even if the direct routing had noeffect on the down stream sector (i.e. the route modification is contained within the currentsector). This can often happen following radar vectoring when an aircraft is routed directto the sector exit point for example.

In the operational system a further check should be made so that direct routings to pointscontained within the current sector do not generate electronic co-ordination.

Sector WN Sector N

Sector C

Sector WSInitial Trajectory

Trajectory followingDIRECT order



4.3. SKIP

SKIP allowed a sector to remove itself from the sector sequence where flight time withinthe sector was short and there was no need to work the traffic on R/T. The SectorIndicator in the radar label was highlighted so that the aircraft was transferred correctly bythe upstream sector. EFL and XFL for the “skipping” sector were frozen after the skipinput.

The frequency of the use of SKIP reduced as the simulation progressed. The controllerslearnt where to use it and where not to use it. SKIP can be useful where direct routings“clip” the corner of sectors. If SKIP is used to delegate control in a particular area (forexample close to the boundary of a TMA as occurred in the simulation) all traffic should beunder the control of the same sector (the TMA or the Enroute sector). The main result wasthat clear operational rules must be established where a sector is effectively delegatingcontrol to another or “others”. It was agreed that the decision on whether to SKIP shouldalways remain with the controller responsible for the “skipped” airspace.




To assess the effectiveness of HMI changes made since the Lisboa 97 simulation.These are:

• Military traffic management;• Revisions to list data and associated dynamic sorting;• Detail HMI changes.

5.1. MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

During the previous Lisboa 97 simulation difficulties were experienced with themanagement of military OAT (Operational Air Traffic) flight plans. The simulator FDPlogic navigated the flight plan and created a sector sequence. The sector sequence couldonly be modified by the use of SKIP, the controller did not have the ability to add or removesectors from the sequence.

During the preparation phase of the Lisboa 98 simulation these problems were discussedand a solution was sought. It was decided to create a special method for themanagement of military OAT flight plans. The sector sequence was ignored for flightsidentified as “military” and the controller was provided with a menu driven selection of hisdownstream co-ordination partner.

Clicking on the callsign of a military flight opened up a FORCED ACT pop-up window. Thispop-up allowed selection first of “civil” or “military” and following that choice offered all theavailable sectors. This allowed both civil and military controllers to select their “nextsector” at will, carry out electronic co-ordination and then transfer the flight.

This flexibility overcame most of the shortcomings identified during Lisboa 97. Militarysectors could transfer traffic to each other at will with no limitations, this gave the militarythe operational flexibility that they needed. In addition, traffic could be electronically co-ordinated with civil sectors and subsequently transferred as required.

The same system proved useful for VFR traffic on flexible flight plans. This traffic isnormally controlled by the military sectors and by use of the FORCED ACT could betransferred to a TMA or Approach as required.

One drawback in the simulated system was that errors could not be corrected. In anoperational system a FORCED MAC (message of abrogation) order would be required tocorrect errors or to “disconnect” from a co-ordination partner so that another could beselected.

This functionality had an impact on the dynamic flight leg. Military and VFR flights weredeviated far from their original flight plan tracks which meant that dynamic flight leginformation (based on flight plan route modified by DIRECT orders) became completelyinvalid. This did not prove a problem for the military controllers who did not require adynamic flight leg, they worked in the short term with traffic on flexible flight plans whichcould be modified at any time due to operational requirements or weather.

It cannot be overemphasised how important the FORCED ACT functionality was forthe effective management of military OAT traffic.



5.2. LIST DATA AND SORTING

The list data provided to controllers followed as closely as possible the specificationsagreed for the operational GETALIS system. Lists could be manipulated using standardwindow management techniques and could be iconised as required.

The following lists were provided, each used single data line per flight:

Sector List (SEL) Entry and exit conditions plus short flight planSector Inbound List (SIL) Brief data, deleted on assume, 4 or 5 lists per sector (E, W,

N, S and Upper or Lower as appropriate)Pre-ACT Window Brief details of flights for concerned sectors prior to

departureHold List Brief details of flights for which a HOLD order had been

entered

Sort criteria were provided for Entry Point, Entry Time, EFL, Exit Point, Exit Time and XFLas appropriate.

Full details and formats are contained in the Lisboa 98 Simulation Facility SpecificationPart 3 (Technical) (Ref. 3).

The en-route controllers were generally happy with the choice and content of the listinformation provided. The only additional information requested was the squawk for trafficcoming from a non-radar environment (i.e. Santa Maria). Approach controllers hadseveral specific comments about the list data that was (or should be) provided forapproach use; this is reported on in section 6 of this report which deals with the approachHMI.

In general:• En-route controllers were happy with the list data provided and made their own

personal choice of which windows to display and which to iconise;• Approach controllers preferred working with SILs as opposed to the SEL;• Military controllers preferred working with the SEL.

The ability to sort list data as required by variable parameters using the dynamic sortfunctionality was appreciated by all controllers.

5.3. DETAIL HMI CHANGES

This section groups together all the results concerning the GETALIS HMI which do not fallinto the results of other objectives. Again, full specification details can be found in Ref. 3.

5.3.1. Highlight Function

Two highlights were provided, activated via a field in the radar label input window. Onewas designed to highlight traffic within the team (callsign highlighted in yellow). This couldbe used, for example, by a SUP or MSS controller to draw the attention of the EXC to anaircraft or pair of aircraft that warranted his attention (outstanding MTCD alert forinstance).



A second highlight was designed for military flights (callsign in blue) to highlight militarycrossing traffic remaining on military frequency. These were both found to be very useful.

5.3.2. Request Direct

Direct orders were processed downstream only. The controllers requested an upstreamdirect co-ordination logic to allow the receiving sector to propose a direct routing to theprevious sector. This would replicate electronically a common current practice.

5.3.3. Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA)

The STCA simulated was well received but controllers found the 2min warning only justsufficient at high level/high speed with head-on traffic requiring immediate controller/pilotreaction. STCA was not simulated for APP.

5.3.4. Colour Filtering and Traffic Visibility

Extensive use was made of colour in the simulation including indication of traffic status:Pending (pink), Assumed (white), Concerned (mustard) and Unconcerned (grey).

The controllers considered that if colour filtering is to be used it must be 100% reliable asthey relied on the system to filter the traffic for them (a process that a controller normallycarries out mentally with a monochrome display).

On several occasions aircraft changed to “unconcerned” colour when still within thesector, this was due to actual position/flight plan position correlation errors or softwareerror during the simulation. This must never happen in an operational system. A securecheck using current radar data must be applied to ensure that traffic is alwayscorrectly colour-coded. Failure of any colour coding logic should always befailsafe - “concerned” and not “unconcerned”.

Military crossing traffic often appeared as “unconcerned” on the radar display. Thecontrollers used the highlight feature (see above) to clearly identify this traffic. It wassuggested that military crossing traffic should also be always displayed in the “concerned”colour.

Discussion of the use of concerned colour led to the following proposals concerning abuffer zone of “concerned” traffic around each sector.

Figure 10 (opposite page) shows the type of buffer zone envisaged. The thin mustard lineindicates the extent to which traffic could be displayed in concerned mustard colouroutside the normal sector boundary. 2 flight levels in the vertical sense (2000ft or 4000ft)and 6-10nm laterally were suggested.

Simulation Temp s Réel Lisbo a 98 EUROCONTROL

Tâche CEE S18 – Rapport CEE n° 333 33

Fig. 10 : Vertica l view of proposed “ buffer zone”

Fig. 11 : Tra ffic displ ayed in concer ned col our close to sec tor lateral b ounda ry



It was considered that this type of colour display logic could reduce co-ordination, apractical example was cited of the airspace along the northern boundary of Centre (C)sector.

Traffic routing from NVS to VIS flies along the northern boundary of C sector via RIVROand BARDI. This traffic is normally transferred direct from Madrid to North (N) sector butrequires co-ordination with C due to the potential conflicts with north and southboundtraffic. The screen image below shows a typical situation.

Fig. 12 : “C” Sector – “Unconcerned” traffic in vicinity of RIVRO

Display of the westbound traffic close to the boundary of C in concerned colour would bea significant safety feature as the grey unconcerned colour can be easily and inadvertentlyignored.



5.3.5. Presentation of Flight Plan Data on the Radar Display

The GETALIS system will present track data in the “radar window” based on flight planinformation for aircraft outside radar cover. This data will be activated by a manual input ofestimates and will show position, “trail history”, callsign, “last reported flight level” and exitpoint.

Fig. 13 : Simulated Data Label Format for Flight Plan Track

Figure 13 above is a screen image recorded during the simulation. The AEA300 is a non-radar plot representing purely flight plan information whilst the TAP9958 is a correlatedSSR plot within radar cover.

The separation standards which must be applied between flight plan data tracks are“procedural” and therefore extremely large and incompatible with radar separation. TheEEC project team were extremely concerned about the similarity of the two different typesof plot; one requiring only radar separation and the other requiring full proceduralseparation.

Additional highlighting of non-radar tracks is recommended so that it is impossibleto mistake flight plan data tracks with radar tracks.



Figure 14 below shows the same image retouched to accurately represent the GETALISspecification (triangular position symbol and solid line above callsign). The non-radar plotstill appears disconcertingly like a “radar plot”.

Fig. 14 : GETALIS Data Label format for Flight Plan Track

5.3.6. Unconcerned Traffic

Only limited information was presented in the radar label of “unconcerned” tracks.Controllers felt that additional information should be available, perhaps on demand. EFL,XFL and CFL were mentioned as useful additional information.

5.3.7. “Attention Getter”

On receipt of a message from another sector the cursor changed to a “flying envelope”symbol to attract the controllers attention. This was said to be effective.

5.3.8. CAM Window

The CAM window provided a summary of STCA and APW warnings for the controller. Itwas suggested that the concerned sector should be added to the data so that thecontroller could instantly check if the alert concerned his sector or not.




To produce a firm specification of the HMI requirements for the Approach positions.

A specific objective was allocated to the Approach HMI due to difficulties encountered bycontrollers during the Lisboa 97 simulation.

Approach HMI in a stripless environment is critical because of the high level ofcontroller/system interaction. Approach control normally involves many more heading,level and speed orders than en-route control. In addition, a single transmission to anaircraft may contain all three types of instruction and it is a challenge to system specialiststo create an HMI which allows the controller to “input as he speaks” even under high trafficloads.

In addition to the system update problems there may be specific requirements for datadisplay associated with the approach task and the sharing of airspace in theTMA/airspace environment.

Several changes were made to the HMI provided to the Approach Controllers followingthe experience of the Lisboa 97 simulation. Despite these changes, and following theexperience of the Lisboa 98 simulation, the participating approach controllers stillconsidered that several additional changes would have a significant effect on theefficiency of the Approach CWP.



Fig. 15 : Screen image of Lisboa TMA / Approach



6.1. POP-UP MENUS

Pop-up menus were provided for the input of level, speed, rate (of climb/descent), directand heading values. Headings could also be input via an elastic vector accessed thoughthe radar position symbol.

It was found to be extremely important that pop-ups opened with the cursor centered onthe most commonly used value for the particular situation. This value is termed the “focusvalue”. For all sectors of the simulation the following values were used:

Pop-up Focus Value

EFL EFL

CFL XFL

XFL XFL

Speed:

Mach M.70 (AFL above FL250)

Knots 250kt (AFL FL250 and below)

Heading Current track or heading if previous input

For approach use these general values were not always appropriate. The followingspecific focus values were proposed, evaluated and accepted for Lisboa Approach:

Pop-up Focus Value Condition

CFL 4000ft Destination within LPPT TMA

Speed 210kt Destination within LPPT TMA

Otherwise defaults as Enroute sectors were used.

The simulated system did not provide any method of inputting a band of levels. This wasconsidered necessary to replicate the current strip marking. For example, a method ofinput should be provided to allow “operating between FL40 and FL60” to be input.However, no solutions to this problem were devised during the simulation.

6.2. HEADING INPUT

Elastic Vector

The elastic vector bearing read-out was calibrated in single degrees although the inputvalue was always rounded to the nearest 5° step. Controllers considered that the read-out should be calibrated in 5° steps to reflect the input value and to make headingselection more rapid.

Pop-up

It was suggested that the HEADING pop-up should be centred on current track oralternatively feature a range of commonly used headings.



6.3. SECTOR INBOUND LISTS (SIL)

Two SILs each were provided for TMA and Approach. These were designated for the twomain arrival fixes; LIS and CP. Controllers requested additional SILs and also anadditional data field in the SIL list.

4 SILs were requested for TMA and Approach use: LIS, CP, FTM and ESP to provide aclearer indication of the inbound traffic flows. The additional data field in the SIL is theAFL, updated like the radar label by the aircraft SSR mode C information. It was felt thatthis additional information would give an indication of the aircraft’s range from LPPTwithout having to display excessive radar range so as to view the aircraft radar label.

6.4. PRE-ACT WINDOW

Several weaknesses were identified in the Pre-ACT window, which displayed flightinformation prior to departure.

Essential additional fields were considered to be: Airfield of departure, RFL and the “firstwaypoint after departure”. These fields would help especially for departures from airportsother than LPPT.

6.5. RADAR LABELS

It was felt that further refinement of the radar label format was necessary for approachuse. Changes proposed were the omission of unnecessary data fields such as XFL forinbound traffic.

6.6. CONCERNED COLOUR CODING

When controllers are working within shared airspace such as a TMA or an Approach Zoneit is useful for each controller to see the others traffic in “concerned” colour. In thesimulation the TMA controller’s area of responsibility and the Approach controller’s area ofresponsibility were specified as clearly defined “boxes” which controlled the colour codingof radar labels, therefore departing traffic became “unconcerned” for the Approachcontroller as soon as it left the Approach airspace “box”. Likewise arriving traffic became“unconcerned” as soon as it left the TMA area of responsibility and entered the Approacharea. In practice the division of responsibility for the TMA airspace was not so clear cut,and therefore controllers felt that the use of concerned colour for all “concerned” and“unconcerned” traffic within the TMA would aid traffic visibility and the safety of operations.In fact, TMA controllers said that “concerned” colour should be used for all traffic aboveapproximately 3000ft.

6.7. HOLD WINDOW

The controllers felt that the Hold Window data content should be modified. The ETA fieldis not required but a dynamic update of AFL is required.




To compare the various possible manning configurations in order to assess theimpact of the MSS on the workload of En-route, Approach and Military Controllers

The Multi Sector Support Controller was provided with a CWP which featured thecombined displays of the two EXC controllers for which he acted as the combinedsupport. The nature of the MSS display can be seen in Figure 16 below. TheCentre/South MSS display is effectively a combination of South and Centre EXCsdisplays.

Fig. 16 : Nature of MSS display

The MSS functionality is described in section 3.5 “Simulated ATC System”. The MSS wasprimarily conceived for, and evaluated mainly by the En-route controllers. Two specificsector combinations were configured for this purpose; Centre/South and West North/WestSouth. In addition, Organisation B was designed to also give TMA/Approach and theMilitary controllers an experience of working with the MSS.

The MSS concept, as specified for GETALIS, provides full functionality to assist 2 or moreEXCs. The MSS can make all electronic inputs except those relating to co-ordination andtransfer of control along the common boundary between 2 EXCs. On the display providedto the MSS all traffic appears “assumed” if assumed by either EXC.



Fig. 17 : Screen image of WN/WS MSS



7.1. MSS – ENROUTE SECTORS

The MSS was evaluated on the West sectors for the majority of the simulation and on theCentre/South sectors during the Organisation A exercises.

Several practical problems soon became apparent:

Displayed Range

Being a composite picture comprised of the geographical areas of responsibility of twoEXCs, the MSS display had a much larger range scale with many more displayed tracks.Controllers spent much time dealing with radar label overlap problems. In addition, thedisplayed range made it difficult to clearly view the traffic of both of the sectors. It wasconsidered that these display problems became serious at anything more than mediumtraffic levels.

Lack of R/T

The MSS was physically unable to listen to both frequencies at once and therefore he didnot listen to either. This gave the controllers a feeling of detachment and they wereunable to follow a rapidly developing situation.

Data Disparity

The specification stated that the MSS should see an identical data display to that of theEXC. This resulted in the MSS initially having no “exit conditions” for flights that passedthrough both sectors. The table below attempts to explain this with a typical flight throughWN and WS.

MSS

Event WN WS

ACT-in to WN EFL XFL

WN sector entry XFL

ACT-in to WS XFL EFL XFL

WS sector entry XFL

The data displayed to the MSS is shown in the shaded boxes. The XFL/EFL on thecommon boundary is transparent to the MSS. The MSS has data displayed from ACT-into WN but does not see an XFL until ACT-in to WS. This is completely logical but proveddisconcerting to the controllers who were working on XFL data in the SEL which containedblank fields or XFL? for some flights (see Figure 17).

Usability

The controllers considered that the MSS concept was only workable at low to mediumtraffic levels and on sectors where the traffic was relatively stable. Where traffic wasevolving rapidly, such as in the Centre sector, it was considered that the MSS was nosubstitute for a dedicated SUP listening to the R/T. On this type of sector with rapidchanges in traffic pattern there is no substitute for a second pair of eyes and ears forsafety reasons.



This meant that the split West sectors were best adapted to make use of the MSSconcept, although due to the very large displayed radar range the problems of radar labeloverlap were apparent. MSS tasks were realistically restricted to checking MTCD alertsand assisting in co-ordination, both electronically and by telephone.

The MSS in a Vertically Split Environment

It was an intentional decision not to simulate the MSS position where vertically splitsectors were involved. The significant increase in complexity would have been likely tojeopardise the successful completion of the preparation of the MSS CWP functionality.

7.2. MSS – TMA AND APPROACH

The TMA and Approach controllers evaluated the MSS over 5 exercises and discoveredthat he was faced with incompatible tasks. The MSS was required to display a very largerange to enable him to effectively carry out co-ordination with en-route sectors at theextremity of a very large TMA. This was not compatible with his responsibilities towardsthe APP EXC where he could have little “feel” for the situation due to the displayed rangeand would be unable to effectively co-ordinate with close-in airfields.

As a result of this experience the TMA/Approach controllers rejected the MSS assimulated and at short notice the TMA was divided into North and South portionsmanaged by separate controllers. This is dealt with in section 9.2 – results of theAirspace Study.

7.3. MSS – MILITARY

As with the TMA/Approach sectors, the military controllers had the experience of 5exercises with the MSS. For them the concept was more acceptable but the problems ofdisplayed radar range were more serious.

The military MSS was required to monitor an airspace equivalent to the area of Portugal.This inevitably led to radar label clutter and difficulty in “seeing” traffic situations. Themilitary controllers were extremely happy with the “3 sector” concept simulated inOrganisations A and D (see section 9.3 – results of the Airspace Study) and requested tocarry out further exercises with 3 sectors and no MSS when Organisation D was createdfor the benefit of TMA/Approach.

The military participants were convinced that the MSS will have a role to play in theoperational GETALIS system where 4 CWPs will be allocated to military sectors. Underthese circumstances they foresee a 3-sector configuration with the 4th sector being anMSS able to support 2 out of the 3 single manned sectors.

7.4. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

In questionnaires controllers were asked for their opinion of the MSS:

17 out of 21 Felt that the MSS could work in specific situations4 out of 21 Rejected the MSS outright7 out of 21 Felt that it needed major modification0 out of 21 Accepted the MSS outright



The controllers also made several comments in the questionnaires concerning the risksassociated with the use of the MSS:

• MSS had difficulty concentrating on the requirements of 2 EXCs;• Timing of the opening of the MSS position is critical and too difficult to judge;• The EXC can end up helping the MSS rather than vice versa;• The EXC may incorrectly assume that the MSS has performed certain tasks.


46 Tâche CEE S18 – Rapport CEE n° 333


To identify any problems associated with the transition between certain manningconfigurations during periods of increasing (de-collapse) or decreasing (collapse)traffic load.

The evaluation of the transition between manning configurations was conducted on theCentre/South sectors during Organisation A exercises. Five CWPs were configured for thetwo sectors, each sector was provided with EXC and SUP and an MSS position wasprovided between the two EXCs. By dimming the brightness of CWPs not required, andproviding appropriate controllers to man the positions, various configurations of manningand the transition between could be evaluated. Figure 18 below shows how the CWPswere configured.

Fig. 18 : Configuration of the Centre/South CWPs

Several full transitions were simulated. That is to say, South and Centre sectors startedthe exercise single manned with EXC only and a very low traffic level. As the traffic levelgradually increased the supervisor monitored the situation and judged when to introducethe MSS. As the traffic level continued to rise the MSS moved over to become adedicated SUP for one of the sectors and a 4th controller was brought in to man the otherSUP position. At this point the MSS position was closed.

Later in the exercise as the traffic started to diminish, the reverse procedure wasimplemented and manning was gradually reduced.

1.1. TRANSITION FROM “2 X EXC” T O “2 X EXC + MSS”

It was found that the EXC operating as a single sector controller could handle quite a hightraffic load, this was probably due to the reduced amount of telephone co-ordination in theGETALIS environment where level changes and direct routings could be silently andrapidly co-ordinated electronically. The EXC became engrossed in his work and it wasfound that an independent supervisor could play a useful monitoring role and make anindependent judgement as to when additional staffing should be brought in. Neverthelessit was evident that when the EXC controllers started to become overloaded the situationwas extremely complex and the incoming MSS had the greatest difficulty assimilating “thepicture” and beginning to play a useful role. The EXCs were too busy to explain thesituation and also the MSS had to set up a large radar picture to his liking, de-conflict theradar labels and make a careful study of the traffic situations before he could identify howhe could offer assistance to either EXC.



It was therefore concluded that the MSS could only be asked to step in when the trafficwas light in the hope of assisting as the traffic built up. His intervention was not effectiveonce the situation was already busy.

This transition highlighted the problems of Centre sector with much climbing anddescending traffic where it was considered that the MSS was ineffective and a dedicatedSUP was a necessity in busy situations as described in Section 7.

8.2. TRANSITION FROM “2 X EXC + MSS” TO “2 X EXC + 2 X SUP”

This transition posed no serious problems. Again supervisory intervention wasconsidered necessary to choose the correct moment at which to close the MSS and bringin the extra SUP. It was found that the MSS could brief the incoming SUP as long as thesituation had not become too busy.

During several exercises the “MSS phase” was eliminated completely and the transitionfrom “2 x EXC” to “2 x EXC + 2 x SUP” was made without problems. This transition wasrecommended for the Centre sector where a dedicated SUP was found desirable inanything other than light traffic conditions.

8.3. TRANSITIONS AS TRAFFIC LEVELS FELL

No particular problems were experienced during the periods of falling traffic whenmanning was reduced, again the MSS transition was usually missed out due to hisineffectiveness as a support for C and S sectors.




To test the suitability of the two sectorisations (A & B) to handle traffic levels up to32% higher than 1996 levels

Three sectorisations were actually simulated. These are described in section 3.1.3. The3rd sectorisation resulted from the experience gained during Organisation A and Bexercises.

The sectorisation results are in 3 sub-sections: Civil Enroute, Lisboa TMA and Military.

9.1. CIVIL ENROUTE

9.1.1. Sectorisation of Organisation A

This sectorisation featured current Portuguese N (North), C (Centre) and S (South)sectors but with W (West) sector split into WN (West North) and WS (West South).Current sector boundaries were slightly adjusted to better accommodate direct routings.

It should be noted that the corridors linking the TMAs of Porto, Lisboa and Faro reducedthe traffic load on N and S but had a serious impact on the Lisboa TMA, described insection 9.2 below.

Results

The split of the current West Sector into WN and WS proved to be very successful. Trafficsamples had been chosen that represented particularly difficult situations for the Westairspace with either heavy oceanic or Canaries traffic, or both combined. The trafficsample statistics presented in section 3.2 show the forecast load at 1996 + 32% of up to44 aircraft per hour being shared between WN and WS.

The CWP configuration enabled either MSS operations or a dedicated SUP for WN. Mostof the time the west sectors operated with the MSS but it was noted that at certain timesboth WN and WS would have really required a dedicated SUP.

Figure 19 opposite shows the recordings of the flight tracks actually flown above FL250during several simulation exercises.

The boundary between WN and WS may need to be revised to prevent frequently usedroutings running just along the boundary as circled ‘A’ in the recorded track data Figure 19(opposite page).

The extension to the TMA designed to allow traffic to pass directly from APP control toWN without passing through North was welcomed by the controllers who considered thatit reduced co-ordination.

The recorded track data also shows the density of tracks overflying Lisboa, transitingthrough the north eastern corner of WS. This created a zone of interest and responsibilityfor WS circled ‘B’ in Figure 19, well away from the centre of the sector and it was in thisarea that much use was made of the SKIP function. This data may provide indications tothe Portuguese experts of where future simulation studies should concentrate in order tofurther remove the incidence of short sector transits.



Fig. 19 : Recorded Tracks Flown Above FL250

A

B



The northern boundary of C sector was intentionally positioned just south of the track NVS– VIS so that westbound traffic would be handed directly from Spanish airspace to Northsector as occurs in reality. In the simulated GETALIS system this traffic appeared in greyand was not therefore clearly visible to the C controllers. This was a dangerous situationfor which a possible solution is proposed in section 5.3.4 dealing with traffic visibility andthe use of the “concerned” colour.

ISA results below show that during 3 typical Org A4 exercises the only controllers toregister small percentages of “High” or “Very High” responses were C and S EXCs,WN/WS MSS and C SUP. The “Very High” readings were recorded by a single controllerin one exercise and may have been due to specific events.

Average ISA for 3 typical exercises of Org A4

V.High High FairLow V.Low

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EXC MSS SUPC N S WN WS WN/WS C N S



9.1.2. Sectorisation of Organisation B and D

The change from Organisation A was the combining of the geographical limits of C and Ssectors to form a large high level sector. The remaining C and S airspace became CL (CLower) and SL (S Lower). Vertical division levels of FL315 and FL335 were simulated.

As in Organisation A the corridors linking the TMAs had an impact on the workload of Nand SL.

The vertical sector concept highlighted several problems with the electronic co-ordinationand resulted in specific proposals which are explained in section 4.2.

Results

The first comments of the controllers concerned the physical size of the high level sectorCS. The same problems as the MSS were experienced due to the very large area tosurvey and label overlap problems due to scale. It also proved difficult to estimate whereclimbing traffic would enter the upper sector and also where descending traffic wouldleave the upper sector. This required careful judgement so that correct co-ordination couldbe effected with one or both the lower sectors. As electronic co-ordination could modifythe sector sequence for a flight this aspect was more important in the GETALISenvironment than in a conventional system.

Nevertheless, sector CS proved to be workable with acceptable traffic loads regardless ofthe level split used; FL315 or FL335. Controllers felt that the choice of vertical split levelshould depend on the prevailing traffic flow and letters of agreement in force. Neither leveloffered significant advantages over the other but controllers who manned sector CL feltthat FL335 was well adapted to current operations and letters of agreement for thatsector.

The vertical split offered other advantages for Centre airspace where controllers said thatduring busy periods CL was a more manageable sector than C with less radar labelclutter. However, concerns were again raised over the visibility of traffic along the NVS –VIS track plus the problems of visibility “unconcerned” traffic just above the ceiling of theCL sector.

Sector SL was relatively easily managed by a single EXC controller during mostexercises. The controllers felt that restricting the BEJ military area to a maximum of FL95was a significant improvement that it reduced co-ordination with the military sectors.



ISA results below show that during 3 typical Org B1 exercises. The only controllers toregister a small percentage of “High” responses were the CL controllers.

Average ISA for 3 typical exercises of Org B1

Another observation concerning SL airspace was regarding the Faro TMA. In thesimulation the upper limit was set at FL245 to match that of Lisboa, Porto and thecorridors linking the TMAs. The controllers considered that a more appropriate upper levelwould be FL155 taking into account the Faro TMAs lateral dimensions.When asked for their general opinion of the overall concept of vertically split sectors theopinion was equally divided as follows:

1/3rd • in favour of the use of vertically split sectors

1/3rd • opposed to the use of vertically split sectors

1/3rd • undecided

V.High High FairLow V.Low

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EXC SUPCL CS N SL WN WS CL CS N WN



9.2. LISBOA TMA

Two different airspace organisations were simulated within the Lisboa TMA.

During Organisation A and B exercises an extended TMA was simulated featuringcorridors linking Lisboa with Porto and Faro TMAs. An upper limit of FL245 was simulated.The lower limit of the corridors was FL95 to correspond with the upper limit of the militaryarea of responsibility.

Within the TMA the current Lisboa Approach sector was simulated within 25nm of theLisboa Airport with an upper limit of FL85.

During Organisation D exercises the extended TMA was divided into North and Southsections, the division of responsibility being in relation to the runway in use at Lisboa. Asrunway 03 was simulated in all exercises, the TMA North controller handled all arrivingand crossing traffic around FTM and the TMA South handled the rest. The Approachsector remained unchanged throughout.

Results

The extended TMA with the corridors to Porto and Faro proved too large for one controllerto handle effectively. A displayed radar range of 200nm was required to “see” the northernand southern extremities of the area of responsibility. This expanded radar range thencaused the central area of the TMA to be displayed in too smaller scale which causedinsoluble radar label overlap problems and insufficient clarity of the traffic situation for theTMA controller to effectively assist the Approach sector in the management of the arrivingtraffic. Organisation A failed due to the difficulty experienced by the TMA controller tomanage such a large airspace single handed and also the difficulties experienced by theapproach sector which was inefficiently served by the surrounding TMA sector.

The TMA extension to the north-west which allowed traffic to pass directly to and from WNwithout passing through N posed no problems for the approach controllers.

Following the experience of Organisation A (single manned TMA, Approach EXC+SUP)and Organisation B (TMA/MSS/Approach) the controllers developed new ideas for themanagement of the TMA airspace.

It was proposed that the expanded TMA should be divided into North and South portionswhose dimensions should be dependent on the runway in use at Lisboa as describedabove.

This organisation worked adequately during the 10 exercises simulated, once clearoperating procedures had been developed. However, Lisboa Approach was singlemanned in this organisation and the controllers felt that a dedicated SUP would berequired to assist the Approach EXC in co-ordination, especially with local airfields.

The conclusion drawn was that the expanded TMA divided into North and South areas ofresponsibility dependent on runway in use at Lisboa has merit and should be the subjectof further evaluation concerning the correct geographical division and the procedures tobe adopted within the GETALIS environment.



9.3. MILITARY

As described in section 3.1.4. two different military sectorisations were simulated. Themain objective of the military participants was to evaluate the division of Portugueseairspace into 3 sectors; North (MN), Centre (MC) and South (MS). In addition the MSSwas evaluated in association with a two sector organisation.

The two sector organisation including the MSS proved inferior to the three sectororganisation with each sector managed by a single EXC controller as described in thesection 9.3 concerning the MSS.

The military controllers were satisfied with the geographical division of the airspace asshown in Map 3 and they also found acceptable the revised vertical upper limit (FL95) ofthe military area of responsibility. The three sectors coped well with the military trafficsimulated.

It must be reiterated however, that the management of military traffic in the GETALISenvironment is heavily dependant on the FDP logic to be employed as detailed in section5.1.




To evaluate in the GETALIS environment the operation of an RVSM Transition Areasituated between continental airspace operating under CVSM and the Santa MariaOceanic Area operating under RVSM.

No particular problems were encountered with the dimensions of RVSM transition area assimulated in Lisboa 98, which were identical to that of the existing transition area in Lisboaairspace (See Map 1 on page 4 and Map 2 on page 6).

The HMI for the West sectors was adapted to allow the entry of RVSM values via the levelpop-ups and MTCD and STCA parameters were adjusted to take into account thereduced vertical separation applied within the transition area.

Note: All aircraft that transited the RVSM Transition Area during the simulation wereconsidered to be MASPS equipped. Non-MASPS aircraft were not included, as this wouldhave considerably increased the complexity of the algorithms required for MTCD andSTCA. However, this requirement may have to be taken into account for the operationalsystem.

Realistic radar coverage was simulated which allowed the controllers to assess thedifficulty of the transition problem. It was assessed that sufficient radar coverage exists toallow the transition to and from RVSM to be comfortably accomplished even at theaugmented traffic levels simulated.

It should be noted however, that particular care should be taken when operating at theextremity of radar coverage and also outside radar coverage in the GETALISenvironment. This is due to the presentation of flight plan data in the radar window of theGETALIS HMI in the form of a data label closely resembling a radar label. This problem isexplained in section 5.3.5.



11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Lisboa 98 real-time simulation was a successful simulation which achievedits objectives, providing much useful information that will assist in the introductioninto operational service of the GETALIS ATC system.

A very motivated team of controllers participated in the simulation who now havethe valuable experience of working in an electronic stripless environment forseveral weeks. They will prove to be a valuable asset to ANA.

The overall conclusions relative to the simulation objectives are listed below

Objective 1 : To evaluate the utility of those features of the GETALIS systemintroduced since the Lisboa 97 simulation. These are:• Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD);• Electronic Co-ordination in a vertical sector split environment;• SKIP.

Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD)

The MTCD was well received by the controllers who considered that it should beavailable to all en-route controllers as simulated, with an ON/OFF control for theMTCD window but continuous display on the flight leg. All agreed that it helpedto resolve conflicts earlier and reduced the incidence of STCA. There was ageneral agreement that MTCD will increase safety.

During the simulation controllers began to trust MTCD therefore 100% reliabilitymust be assured in the calculation of “True conflict” pairs. (Conflicts in which theCFLs of both aircraft are the same.)

Parameters must be set for: within radar cover, outside radar cover, at the edgeof radar coverage (where account must be taken of aircraft about to enter radarcover) and within the RVSM Transition Area.

MTCD proved most useful in the West sectors where the 30min pre-warningparameter was considered correct. It proved less useful in the overland sectorswhere there was a high proportion of climbing and descending traffic.

Both “Risk” and “True” conflicts were displayed to the controllers, the “risk filter”specified for GETALIS will be useful. Controllers greatly appreciated the displayof conflict information on the dynamic flight leg.

Electronic Co-ordination in a Vertically Split Environment

Several system design problems were identified and solutions proposed.

If “climb to RFL” FDP logic is used for departing traffic, upper sectors could notreject traffic electronically. A telephone call was required to request that thelower sector input a new XFL to retain the traffic in the lower airspace. This canbe solved by climbing departures to standard levels within lower airspace whothen propose co-ordination to upper sectors.



Co-ordination proposals can involve 3rd party sectors who have no input to theinitial co-ordination agreement. System design recommendations are included inthe report which can help to ensure that 3rd party sectors do not have traffic“imposed on them”.

The values offered for EFL co-ordination must be carefully controlled to avoid thepossibility of a sector either taking itself outside of the sector sequence orbringing an additional sector into the sector sequence.

Electronic Co-ordination in the Horizontal Plane

DIRECT orders caused profile re-calculation in the horizontal plane. Careful usemust be made of long direct routings which can bring sectors into the sequencewithout their specific consent.

Following the transmission of the ACT message to the next sector (10 minutesprior to sector exit) all DIRECT orders generated electronic co-ordinationmessages. It was noted that co-ordination should not be triggered if the “targetbeacon” is the Exit Point or prior to the Exit Point of the sector.

SKIP

SKIP was found to be useful especially where direct routings “clip” the corner ofsectors but clear operational rules are required. The decision to skip shouldalways remain with the controller responsible for the “skipped” airspace.

If SKIP is used to delegate control in a particular area (for example close to theboundary of a TMA) all traffic in the vicinity should be clearly under the control ofthe same sector (the TMA or the En-route sector).

Objective 2 : To assess the effectiveness of those changes made (or proposed) tothe GETALIS system since the Lisboa 97 simulation. These are:• Military traffic management;• Revisions to list data and associated dynamic sorting;• Detail HMI changes.

Military Traffic Management

During the Lisboa 97 simulation extreme difficulty had been experienced withmilitary OAT traffic management due to the inflexible fixed sector sequencecreated for each flight plan. It was decided to introduce a new idea in thissimulation and so for military OAT flights the normal calculation of sectorsequence was suspended and a special system of manual FORCED ACT input wasprovided. This system proved extremely effective allowing the controller to selecthis co-ordination/transfer partner depending on the military operational or controlrequirements.

It cannot be over-emphasised how important the FORCED ACT functionality was forthe effective management of military traffic.



It was found that this system could also benefit VFR flights on flexible flight plans.In addition, it was found that a FORCED MAC was required to allow errors to becorrected.

Data Lists

Controllers were generally happy with the data lists provided, suggesting onlyminor modifications to format. Enroute controllers made their own personalchoice of which windows to display and which to iconise. Approach controllerspreferred working with SILs as opposed to the SEL, whereas the Militarypreferred the SEL.

Dynamic sorting of list data allowed flexibility but no specific comments weremade.

Highlight Function

Two highlights were provided. One to highlight a specific aircraft for the benefit ofother controllers within a team and one to indicate military crossing flightsremaining on the military frequency. Both proved very useful. SUP controllersoften used the highlight to draw the EXC’s attention to traffic involved in anMTCD alert.

Request Direct

DIRECT co-ordination was possible only in a downstream direction. An upstreamco-ordination logic was requested to allow a sector to propose a direct routing tothe previous sector.

Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA)

The STCA was well received but the 2 minute warning was considered only justsufficient for head-on high speed traffic.

Colour Filtering and Traffic Visibility

If colour filtering of traffic is used it must be 100% reliable. A secure check usingcurrent radar data must be applied to ensure that traffic is always correctly coded.Failure of any colour coding logic should always be failsafe – “concerned” and not“unconcerned”.

As a result of their experience during the simulation the controllers proposed thatthe “concerned” colour coding should be used for traffic that will pass close to thesector boundary. A buffer zone was suggested of 6-10 nm around the sectorgeographical limits and also 2 cruising levels above and below vertical limitswithin which all traffic that would normally be displayed as “unconcerned” shouldbe displayed as “concerned”. It was considered that this would reduce co-ordination and would be a significant safety feature.



Presentation of Flight Plan data on the Radar Display

There was not enough difference between the appearance of flight plan datadisplayed as tracks on the radar display and true radar data. The project teamwere extremely concerned about the similarity of these two different types of plot,one requiring full procedural separation and one requiring only radar separation.Additional highlighting of non-radar tracks is recommended.

Objective 3 : To produce a firm specification of the HMI requirements for theApproach positions.

Despite changes made to the simulated HMI following the Lisboa 97 simulation,several additional changes were proposed that would have a considerable effecton the efficiency of the Approach CWP.

The importance of the default values for pop-up menus was stressed by theparticipants who provided guidelines for the operational specification.

HEADING input must be quick and efficient in the approach environment. Bothelastic vector and pop-up were used and suggestions were made to improve theefficiency of both these types of input.

Sector Inbound Lists (SIL) were the preferred list data of the TMA/Approachcontrollers. Additional SILs were requested to more accurately reflect the entryroute of the traffic along with additional data fields.

Proposals were made to enhance the data content of the “Pre-ACT Window” andthe “Hold Window”.

Improvements were also suggested for the radar label content and for the use of“concerned” colour with the TMA.

Objective 4 : To compare the various possible manning configurations in order toassess the impact of Multi Sector Support (MSS) on the workload ofEnroute, Approach and Military Controllers.

MSS – Enroute Sectors

The controllers considered that the MSS concept was only workable at low tomedium traffic levels and on sectors where the traffic was relatively stable. Wheretraffic was evolving rapidly, such as in the Centre sector, it was considered thatthe MSS was no substitute for a dedicated support controller listening to the R/T.On this type of sector with rapid changes in traffic pattern there is no substitutefor a second pair of eyes and ears for safety reasons. It was found, therefore, thatthe MSS could be best utilised on the West sectors.

The main problems encountered by the MSS were displayed range, whichaffected label overlap and “traffic visibility”, and data display problems associatedwith the MSS specification.



MSS – TMA and Approach

The MSS was faced with incompatible tasks in the TMA environment. He wasrequired to display a very large radar range to co-ordinate with en-route sectorsat the extremities of a very large TMA. This was not compatible with hisresponsibilities towards the Approach EXC where he could have little “feel” forthe situation due to the displayed range and would be unable to effectively co-ordinate with close-in airfields.

MSS – Military

For the military participants the concept of the MSS was more acceptable butthey were faced with even greater display problems during the simulation due tothe requirement to monitor an airspace equivalent to the land area of Portugal.The military participants were convinced that the MSS will have a role to play inthe operational GETALIS system where the MSS could support 2 out of 3 smallmilitary sectors.

Objective 5 : To identify any problems associated with the transition between certainmanning configurations during periods of increasing (de-collapse) ordecreasing (collapse) traffic load.

Transition from “2 x EXC” to “2 x EXC + MSS”

This transition was found to need the intervention of an independent supervisor.An EXC operating as a single sector controller could handle quite a high trafficload, probably due to the reduced amount of telephone co-ordination in theGETALIS environment. The EXC could become engrossed in his work and itwas found that the supervisor could play a useful monitoring role and make anindependent judgement as to when additional staffing should be brought in.Nevertheless it was evident that when the EXC controllers started to becomeoverloaded the situation was extremely complex and the incoming MSS had thegreatest difficulty in assimilating the picture and starting to play a useful role. Itwas therefore concluded that MSS could only be asked to step in when the trafficwas light in the hope of assisting as the traffic built up.

Transition from “2 x EXC + MSS” to “2 x EXC + 2 x SUP”

This transition posed no serious problems. Again supervisory intervention wasconsidered necessary to choose the correct moment at which to close the MSSand bring in an additional SUP. It was found that the MSS could brief theincoming SUP as long has the situation had not become too busy.

Transitions as traffic levels fell

No particular problems were encountered.



Objective 6 : To test the suitability of each of the 2 sectorisations (A & B) to handletraffic levels up to 32% higher than 1996 levels.

Civil En-route Sectors

All sectorisations simulated were found to be capable of handling the 1996 + 32%traffic samples.

The split of the West sector into WN and WS proved very successful although theexact geographical location of the boundary may need revising.

The high level sector CS which encompassed the upper airspace of Centre andSouth sectors proved workable with acceptable traffic loads regardless of thedivision level chosen; FL315 or FL335. Controllers felt that the choice of verticaldivision level should depend on the prevailing traffic flows and the letters ofagreement in force.

Opinion was equally split on the overall concept of vertically split sectors; onethird of the controllers were in favour, one third opposed and one third undecided.

Lisboa TMA

The extended TMA with corridors linking the Lisboa TMA with the Faro and PortoTMAs proved too large for one controller to handle effectively. During thesimulation, procedures were devised to manage the traffic of the enlarged TMAby dividing the airspace into two areas of responsibility; TMA North and TMASouth. It was proposed that the areas of responsibility should be adapted to therunway in use at Lisboa. During the simulation a suitable airspace division foruse with Runway 03 was simulated.

The TMA extension to the northwest which allowed traffic to pass directly to andfrom WN without passing through N posed no problems for the approachcontrollers.

The conclusion was that the division of the enlarged TMA has merit and shouldbe the subject of further evaluation concerning the correct geographical divisionand the procedures to be adopted in the GETALIS environment.

Military

The military controllers were satisfied with the geographical division of theairspace in to 3 sectors with an upper limit of FL95. These sectors coped wellwith the traffic simulated. However, it must be reiterated that the management ofmilitary traffic in the GETALIS environment is heavily dependent on the FDP logicto be employed.



Objective 7 : To evaluate in the GETALIS environment the operation of an RVSMTransition Area situated between continental airspace operating underCVSM and the Santa Maria Oceanic Area operating under RVSM.

No particular problems were encountered with the dimensions of the RVSMtransition area which were identical to the existing transition area in Lisboaairspace. It should be noted however, that particular care should be taken whenoperating at the extremity of radar coverage and also outside radar coverage inthe GETALIS environment. This is due to the presentation of flight plan data inthe radar window in the form of a data label closely resembling a radar label.(See results of Objective 2).

.

Simulation Temps Réel Lisboa 98 EUROCONTROL


Traduction en langue française du Résumé, de l’Introduction,des Objectifs, des Conclusions et Recommendations

RÉSUMÉ

La simulation en temps réel Lisbonne ‘98 s’est déroulée au Centre ExpérimentalEUROCONTROL du 16 mars au 9 avril 1998. Vingt-deux contrôleurs portugais, deuxcontrôleurs espagnols et un contrôleur marocain ont participé à 52 exercices de simulation.

L’évaluation a porté sur l’ensemble du système ATC en-route civil de Lisbonne, ainsi quesur la TMA et le contrôle d’approche, auxquels se sont ajoutés trois secteurs militairesassurant le contrôle de la circulation aérienne civile et militaire au-dessous du FL 95 et dela COM (circulation opérationnelle militaire) au-dessus du FL 95. Au total, 17 secteurscomprenant 24 postes de travail de contrôleur ont été simulés, dans le cadre du nouveausystème ATC portugais, GETALIS, qui sera entièrement automatisé et n’aura plus recoursaux bandes de progression de vol sur papier.

Cette simulation était conçue pour compléter une précédente simulation en temps réel,intitulée Lisbonne ‘97 (Tâche CEE S09, Rapport CEE n° 317) et poursuivre l’évaluation deGETALIS, en particulier de la coordination automatisée dans un environnement de secteurssuperposés et de la détection des conflits à moyen terme (MTCD). Elle était égalementrequise pour évaluer le concept de contrôleur d’appui multi-secteurs (MSS) en vertu duquelun contrôleur d’appui seconde deux contrôleurs radar ou plus. Les autres objectifs portaientsur la spécification de la HMI pour le contrôle d’approche, la gestion du trafic militaire dansl’environnement GETALIS, l’évaluation de l’affectation d’un nombre flexible de contrôleurspar secteur en fonction de la charge de trafic ainsi que l’évaluation de nouvellespropositions de sectorisation pour la FIR de Lisbonne dans le but de répondre aux besoinsdu Portugal pour le siècle prochain.

Les résultats de la simulation mettent en évidence bon nombre des difficultés rencontréeset permettent de proposer des solutions aux problèmes de coordination automatisée et degestion des profils de plan de vol dans un environnement de secteurs superposés. Lerapport expose les avantages et inconvénients de la MTCD simulée et présente denombreuses informations en retour sur certaines caractéristiques de conception dusystème GETALIS. Des résultats portent spécifiquement sur le codage couleur desétiquettes radar et l’affichage d’étiquettes de données de plan de vol.

Lors de la simulation précédente, la logique de gestion des profils de vol COM, identique àla logique appliquée à la circulation aérienne générale, s’était révélée trop rigide. Pour lasimulation Lisbonne ‘98, un système plus souple de gestion de la coordination et dutransfert des vols militaires a été mis en oeuvre et jugé performant.

La gestion du poste de contrôle MSS s’est révélée difficile dans le contexte de la circulationcivile en route dès que la densité du trafic dépasse la valeur “faible à modéré”. Le MSSsemble être la solution la mieux adaptée pour les secteurs qui contrôlent du trafic en survol,mais la présence d’un contrôleur d’appui spécialisé s’est avérée indispensable pour lessecteurs dans lesquels la proportion de vols en évolution rapide, en phase de montée oude descente, est élevée. Les contrôleurs d’approche ont, pour des motifs particuliers, rejetéle concept de MSS que les contrôleurs militaires ont, par contre, jugé acceptable.

EUROCONTROLSimulation Temps Réel Lisboa 98


INTRODUCTION

La simulation en temps réel Lisbonne ‘98 s’est déroulée au Centre expérimentalEUROCONTROL du 16 mars au 9 avril 1998, à la demande de l’Aeroportos e NavegaçãoAérea (ANA), Direction de l’aviation civile du Portugal.

En coopération avec les Services consultatifs d’EUROCONTROL, l’ANA a lancé un projet,le Sistema de Gestão de Trafégo Aéreo de Lisboa (GETALIS), qui offrira de nouveauxmoyens de gestion de la circulation aérienne (ATM) au Centre de contrôle régional (CCR)de Lisbonne.

Un prototype du système GETALIS avait été évalué dans le cadre d’une simulation entemps réel (S09 - Lisbonne ‘97) qui s’était déroulée au CEE en mars 1997. Les conclusionsde cette simulation (Rapport CEE n° 317) ont été exploitées dans les étapes ultérieures dela phase de définition des spécifications fonctionnelles détaillées (DFS) de GETALIS.

La deuxième simulation en temps réel, dont il est ici question, a permis à l’ANA depoursuivre l’évaluation du système GETALIS. Alors que la première simulation était centréesur les aspects “interface homme-machine (HMI)” du nouveau système, la deuxième avaitégalement été conçue pour évaluer des propositions de sectorisation et de structure deroutes, ainsi que de nouvelles méthodes de travail à mettre en oeuvre dans le contexteGETALIS.

La simulation a porté en particulier sur le concept de contrôleur d’appui multi-secteurs(MSS) selon lequel un contrôleur d’appui seconde deux contrôleurs radar chargés chacunde leur propre secteur.

Il est probable que les minima réduits d’espacement vertical (RVSM) seront mis en oeuvredans l’espace aérien de l’Europe continentale au cours de la période à laquellecorrespondent les échantillons de trafic simulés. La simulation a cependant pris en comptela situation actuelle, où les RVSM ne sont appliqués que dans la zone de transition RVSMà l’ouest de la FIR de Lisbonne et dans les parties simulées de la FIR de Santa Maria.Ailleurs, ce sont les minima conventionnels (CVSM) qui ont été appliqués. Cette décisionse justifiait par le souci que les résultats de cette deuxième simulation puissent êtrecomparés à ceux de la précédente simulation en temps accéléré (Airspace ModelSimulation of the Introducion of The GETALIS System within the Lisboa FIR/UIR – EECNote N° 15/98) sur lesquels était fondée la sectorisation simulée. De plus, on a estimé quela mise en oeuvre des RVSM réduirait la charge de travail des contrôleurs et que, dès lors,toute sectorisation jugée satisfaisante en conditions CVSM le serait probablement aussi enconditions RVSM.



OBJECTIFS

OBJECTIFS GÉNÉRAUX

Poursuivre l’évaluation de l’interface GETALIS, l’accent étant mis plus particulièrement surles besoins des postes de contrôle d’approche.

Évaluer les deux sectorisations proposées et les configurations connexes des équipes decontrôleurs, notamment le concept de contrôleur d’appui multi-secteurs (MSS) et lepassage d’une configuration à l’autre.

OBJECTIFS SPÉCIFIQUES

1. Évaluer l’utilité des fonctions ajoutées au système GETALIS depuis la simulationLisbonne ‘97 :• détection des conflits à moyen terme ;• coordination automatisée dans un environnement de secteurs superposés ;• fonction “SKIP”.

2. Évaluer l’efficacité des changements apportés (ou proposés) au système GETALISdepuis la simulation Lisbonne ‘97 sur les points suivants :• gestion du trafic militaire ;• listes de données et tri dynamique connexe ;• HMI.

3. Arrêter définitivement les spécifications des besoins HMI des postes de contrôled’approche.

4. Comparer les différentes possibilités de configuration des équipes de contrôleurs afind’évaluer l’incidence de la présence d’un MSS sur la charge de travail descontrôleurs en-route, des contrôleurs d’approche et des contrôleurs militaires.

5. Recenser tous les problèmes que peut poser le passage de certaines configurationsd’équipe à d’autres en période d’augmentation (démultiplication des secteurs) ou deréduction (fusion des secteurs) de la charge de trafic.

6. Vérifier que chacune des 2 sectorisations (A & B) permet la prise en charge deniveaux de trafic jusqu’à 32% supérieurs à ceux de 1996.

7. Évaluer, dans l’environnement GETALIS, l’exploitation d’une zone de transitionRVSM entre l’espace aérien continental, où sont appliqués des CVSM, et la régionocéanique de Santa Maria, où sont appliqués des RVSM.



CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMENDATIONS

La simulation en temps réel Lisbonne ‘98 a atteint les objectifs fixés et permis derecueillir de nombreuses informations utiles pour la mise en service opérationneldu système GETALIS de contrôle de la circulation aérienne.

L’équipe de contrôleurs très motivés qui a participé à la simulation a pu ainsiacquérir une expérience précieuse de plusieurs semaines de travail dans unenvironnement automatisé, sans strips, ce qui constituera un atout appréciablepour l’ANA dans les prochains mois.

On trouvera ci-après une récapitulation des conclusions générales de la simulationpar rapport aux objectifs.

Objectif 1 : Évaluer l’utilité des fonctions ajoutées au système GETALIS depuis la simulationLisbonne ‘97 :• détection des conflits à moyen terme (MTCD);• coordination automatisée dans un environnement de secteurs superposés;• fonction “SKIP”.

Détection des conflits à moyen terme (MTCD)

La MTCD a été accueillie favorablement par les contrôleurs, qui estiment que cettefonction devrait être à la disposition de tous les contrôleurs en-route, chacunrestant libre de l’activer ou non. Tous ont reconnu que la MTCD les avait aidés àrésoudre les conflits plus tôt et avait réduit les cas de STCA (avertissement deconflit à court terme). Leur sentiment général était que la MTCD améliorera lasécurité.

Pendant la simulation, les contrôleurs ont commencé à s’en remettre à la MTCD,qui doit, par conséquent, offrir une fiabilité totale.

Des paramètres doivent être fixés pour les situations suivantes : dans les limitesde la couverture radar, hors de la couverture radar, à la limite de la couvertureradar (où il faut tenir compte des aéronefs sur le point d’entrer dans la zone decouverture radar) et dans les limites de la zone de transition RVSM.

La MTCD s’est avérée particulièrement utile dans les secteurs West, où le préavisde 30min a été jugé acceptable. Elle est apparue de moindre utilité dans lessecteurs continentaux où la proportion de trafic ascendant et descendant étaitélevée.

Tant les conflits “Risk” que les conflits “True” ont été affichés sur les écrans descontrôleurs ; le filtre “risque” défini pour le système GETALIS sera donc utile. Lescontrôleurs se sont dits très satisfaits de l’affichage des informations relatives auxconflits sur le tronçon de vol actif.



Coordination automatisée dans un environnement de secteurs superposés.

Plusieurs problèmes ont été relevés dans la conception du système et dessolutions ont été proposées.

Lorsque la logique FDP “climb to RFL” était utilisée pour le trafic en partance, lessecteurs supérieurs se sont trouvés dans l’impossibilité de rejeterautomatiquement ce trafic. Le contrôleur du secteur supérieur devait demanderpar téléphone à celui du secteur inférieur d’introduire un nouvel XFL afin demaintenir le trafic dans l’espace aérien inférieur. Ce problème peut être résolu si lecontrôleur fait monter les départs aux niveaux standard dans l’espace aérieninférieur et propose ensuite une coordination aux secteurs supérieurs.

Les propositions de coordination peuvent impliquer des secteurs tiers qui n’ont pasparticipé à l’accord de coordination initial. Le rapport de simulation contient desrecommandations relatives à la conception du système, dont l’applicationpermettra d’éviter que les secteurs tiers ne se voient “imposer” du trafic.

Les valeurs proposées pour la coordination EFL doivent être vérifiées avec la plusgrande vigilance pour éviter qu’un secteur ne s’extraie de la séquence dessecteurs ou qu’un autre secteur ne vienne s’y ajouter.

Coordination automatisée dans le plan horizontal

Les instructions DIRECT ont entraîné un nouveau calcul des profils dans le planhorizontal. Une attention particulière doit être prêtée aux longs itinéraires directsqui risquent de faire intervenir dans la séquence des secteurs qui n’ont pas donnéleur accord.

Après transmission du message d’activation (ACT) au secteur suivant (10 minutesavant la sortie du secteur), toutes les instructions DIRECT ont engendré desmessages de coordination automatisée. Il convient donc de ne pas activer lacoordination lorsque la “balise cible” est le point de sortie du secteur ou précèdecelui-ci.

SKIP

L’instruction SKIP s’est avérée utile, plus particulièrement lorsque des itinérairesdirects “coupent” le coin d’un secteur, mais des règles opérationnelles précisess’imposent. C’est au contrôleur responsable de l’espace aérien “traversé ensilence” que doit toujours appartenir la décision d’autoriser un vol “silencieux”.

Si l’instruction SKIP est utilisée pour déléguer le contrôle dans une zone spécifique(par exemple à proximité de la limite d’une TMA), tout le trafic environnant doit,sans équivoque, être sous le contrôle du même secteur (le secteur TMA ou lesecteur en-route).



Objectif 2 : Évaluer l’efficacité des changements apportés (ou proposés) au systèmeGETALIS depuis la simulation Lisbonne ‘97 sur les points suivants :• gestion du trafic militaire ;• listes de données et tri dynamique connexe ;• HMI.

Gestion du trafic militaire

Pendant la simulation Lisbonne ‘97, la gestion du trafic COM s’était révéléeextrêmement difficile en raison de la rigidité de la séquence fixe de secteurs crééepour chaque plan de vol. Il a été décidé, pour cette deuxième simulation, desuspendre le calcul habituel de la séquence de secteurs pour les vols COM et dele remplacer par un système spécial d’introduction manuelle de FORCED ACT. Cesystème s’est avéré particulièrement efficace, le contrôleur étant en mesure dechoisir son partenaire de coordination/transfert en fonction des besoinsopérationnels ou de contrôle militaires.

On ne saurait trop insister sur l’importance de la fonction FORCED ACT pour unegestion efficace du trafic militaire.

Il est apparu que ce système pourrait également être utile pour les vols VFRopérant selon des plans de vol souples. En outre, on a constaté qu’un FORCED MACétait requis pour que les erreurs puissent être corrigées.

Listes de données

Les contrôleurs sont généralement satisfaits des listes de données fournies etn’ont suggéré que des modifications mineures dans leur format. Les contrôleursd’approche ont choisi eux-mêmes les fenêtres qu’ils souhaitaient ouvrir et cellesqu’ils souhaitaient minimiser sous forme d’icônes. Les contrôleurs d’approche ontpréféré les SIL aux SEL, tandis que les contrôleurs militaires ont préféré les SEL.

Le tri dynamique des données de liste a permis une certaine souplesse mais n’apas fait l’objet de commentaires spécifiques.

Fonction d’affichage en surbrillance

Deux sortes de mise en évidence étaient proposées : la première pour signaler unaéronef particulier à l’attention d’autres contrôleurs d’une même équipe, l’autrepour indiquer des vols militaires traversiers restant sur la fréquence militaire.Toutes deux se sont révélées très utiles. Les contrôleurs SUP ont souvent utilisé lasurbrillance pour attirer l’attention des contrôleurs exécutifs sur les vols impliquésdans une alerte MTCD.

Demande d’itinéraire direct

La coordination DIRECT n’était possible que vers l’aval. Une logique decoordination en aval a été demandée pour permettre au contrôleur d’un secteur deproposer un itinéraire direct à celui du secteur précédent.



Alerte aux conflits à court terme (STCA)

La STCA a été bien accueillie, mais les contrôleurs ont estimé que l’avertissementde 2 minutes était à peine suffisant dans le cas d’aéronefs arrivant face à face àgrande vitesse.

Filtrage couleur et visibilité du trafic

S’il est utilisé, le filtrage couleur du trafic doit être fiable à 100 %. Une vérificationsûre au moyen des données radar du moment doit être effectuée pour que lecodage du trafic soit toujours correct. Toute défaillance d’une quelconque logiquede codage couleur doit bénéficier d’une sécurité intégrée - “concerné” et non pas“non concerné”.

Forts de l’expérience acquise pendant la simulation, les contrôleurs ont proposéque le codage couleur “concerné” soit appliqué aux vols passant à proximité de lalimite du secteur. Tout vol normalement affiché comme “non concerné” devrait êtrecodé comme “concerné” à l’intérieur d’une zone tampon de 6 à 10 milles nautiquesautour des limites géographiques du secteur, et de deux niveaux de croisière au-dessus et au-dessous des limites verticales. Cette protection permettrait de réduirela coordination et constituerait un facteur important de sécurité.

Présentation des données de plan de vol sur l’écran radar

Les données de plan de vol affichées comme des pistes sur l’écran radar ne sedifférencient pas suffisamment des données radar réelles. L’équipe de projet s’estmontrée très préoccupée par la similitude de ces deux différents types descénarios, dont l’un requiert un espacement aux procédures et l’autre ne demandequ’une séparation radar. Il est recommandé que les pistes non radar soientdavantage mises en évidence.

Objectif 3 : Arrêter définitivement les spécifications des besoins HMI des postes de contrôled’approche.

Bien que la HMI simulée ait été modifiée comme suite à la simulation Lisbonne‘97, plusieurs modifications supplémentaires ont été proposées, qui auront uneincidence considérable sur l’efficacité du poste de travail des contrôleursd’approche.

Les participants ont souligné l’importance des valeurs par défaut des menus “pop-up” et ont donné des indications pour les spécifications opérationnelles.

L’entrée HEADING doit être rapide et efficace dans l’environnement d’approche. Levecteur élastique et le menu pop-up ont tous deux été utilisés ; les contrôleurs ontformulé des suggestions d’amélioration de ces deux types d’entrées.

Pour ce qui est des données de liste, les contrôleurs d’approche/TMA ont marquéleur préférence pour les SIL (Sector Inbound List). Ils ont demandé des SILsupplémentaires pour représenter plus précisément les routes d’entrée des vols,ainsi que des champs de données supplémentaires.



Des propositions ont été faites pour compléter les données qui apparaissent dansles fenêtres “Pre-ACT” et “Hold”.

Des améliorations ont été proposées pour le contenu de l’étiquette radar et pourl’utilisation du code couleur “concerné” pour la TMA.

Objectif 4 : Comparer les différentes possibilités de configuration des équipes de contrôleursafin d’évaluer l’incidence de la présence d’un MSS sur la charge de travail descontrôleurs en-route, des contrôleurs d’approche et des contrôleurs militaires.

MSS - secteurs en-route

Les contrôleurs ont estimé que le concept MSS n’était utilisable qu’en cas dedensité de trafic faible à moyenne et dans les secteurs où le trafic est

relativement stable. Dans les secteurs où le trafic est en évolution rapide, tels quele secteur central, le MSS ne remplace pas le contrôleur d’appui spécialisé àl’écoute du radiotéléphone. Dans ce type de secteur où le schéma de trafic peutchanger rapidement, rien ne peut remplacer la présence attentive d’un deuxièmecontrôleur, pour des motifs de sécurité. C’est donc dans les secteurs West que leMSS a un rôle à jouer.

Les principaux problèmes rencontrés par le MSS tenaient à la portée affichée, quiavait une incidence sur le chevauchement des étiquettes et sur la “visibilité” dutrafic, ainsi qu’à l’affichage des données associées à la spécification du MSS.

MSS - TMA et approche

Le MSS s’est trouvé devant des tâches incompatibles dans l’environnement TMA.Il lui fallait afficher une très longue portée radar pour pouvoir assurer lacoordination avec les secteurs en-route aux confins d’une TMA de grandeampleur, ce qui était incompatible avec ses responsabilités vis-à-vis du contrôleurd’approche : en effet, la portée affichée ne lui permettait pas une connaissancefine de la situation et le mettait dans l’impossibilité d’assurer une coordinationefficace avec les aéroports de proximité.

MSS - militaire

Pour les participants militaires, le concept de MSS s’est révélé plus acceptable,mais ils ont cependant été confrontés à des problèmes d’affichage encore plusimportants pendant la simulation, car l’espace aérien à contrôler équivalait à lasuperficie du Portugal. Les participants militaires sont convaincus que le MSSpourra jouer un rôle utile dans le système GETALIS opérationnel, où il seconderales contrôleurs de deux petits secteurs militaires sur trois.

Objectif 5 : Recenser tous les problèmes que peut poser le passage de certainesconfigurations d’équipe à d’autres en période d’augmentation (démultiplicationdes secteurs) ou de réduction (fusion des secteurs) de la charge de trafic.

Passage de la configuration “2 x EXC” à la configuration “2 x EXC + MSS”



Il est apparu que ce passage nécessitait l’intervention d’un contrôleur indépendant.Un contrôleur seul dans un secteur était à même de prendre en charge un volumede trafic assez important, probablement parce que la coordination téléphonique estréduite dans l’environnement GETALIS, mais il risque de se laisser absorber parson travail et, dans ce cas, le superviseur pourrait jouer un rôle utile desurveillance et se prononcer de manière objective sur l’opportunité d’augmenter lenombre de contrôleurs.

Il était évident cependant que lorsque les contrôleurs ont commencé à êtresurchargés, la situation était extrêmement complexe et le MSS qui prenait sonservice a eu le plus grand mal à assimiler la situation et à commencer à jouer unrôle utile. On en a dès lors conclu que le MSS devait entrer en jeu lorsque ladensité du trafic est faible dans l’espoir de pouvoir jouer un rôle utile à mesurequ’elle augmenterait.

Passage de la configuration “2 x EXC + MSS” à la configuration “2 x EXC + 2 xSUP”

Ce passage n’a pas posé de problème grave. Dans ce cas également,l’intervention d’un superviseur a été jugée nécessaire pour choisir le momentopportun pour fermer le poste de MSS et faire entrer en jeu un superviseursupplémentaire. Il est apparu que le MSS pouvait mettre le chef de superviseurentrant au courant tant que l’activité n’était pas trop importante.

Changement de configuration en cas de baisse de trafic

Aucun problème particulier n’a été enregistré.

Objectif 6 : Vérifier que chacune des 2 sectorisations (A & B) permet la prise en charge deniveaux de trafic jusqu’à 32% supérieurs à ceux de 1996.

Secteurs en-route civils

Toutes les sectorisations simulées permettent la prise en charge des échantillonsde trafic de 1996 + 32 %.

La partition du secteur West en un secteur WN et un secteur WS a donné desrésultats très satisfaisants ; il se pourrait toutefois que l’on doive revoirl’emplacement géographique exact de la limite.

Le secteur haut CS, qui englobe l’espace aérien supérieur des secteurs Centre etSouth, a fonctionné de manière satisfaisante avec des charges de traficraisonnables, quel que soit le niveau de démarcation choisi, FL 315 ou FL 335.Les contrôleurs ont estimé que le choix de ce niveau devrait se faire en fonctiondes flux de trafic dominants et des lettres d’accord en vigueur.

Les avis étaient partagés sur le concept global de sectorisation verticale ; un tiersdes contrôleurs y était favorable, un tiers y était opposé et le dernier tiers étaitindécis.



TMA de Lisbonne

La TMA étendue avec des couloirs reliant la TMA de Lisbonne aux TMA de Faro etde Porto s’est révélée trop grande pour qu’un seul contrôleur puisse la prendre encharge dans de bonnes conditions d’efficacité.

Pendant la simulation, des procédures ont été mises au point afin de gérer le traficde la TMA étendue en divisant l’espace aérien en deux zones de responsabilité :la TMA Nord et la TMA Sud. Les participants ont proposé que ces zones deresponsabilité soient définies en fonction de la piste utilisée à Lisbonne.

La simulation d’une division de l’espace aérien fondée sur l’utilisation de la piste03 a permis de constater qu’une telle formule présentait des avantages et devraitfaire l’objet d’une évaluation approfondie portant sur l’emplacement géographiqueapproprié de la démarcation et sur les procédures à adopter dans l’environnementGETALIS.

Vols militaires

Les contrôleurs militaires se sont dits satisfaits de la division géographique del’espace aérien en trois secteurs avec le FL 95 comme limite supérieure.

Ces secteurs ont pu prendre en charge le trafic simulé, dans de bonnesconditions. Il y a lieu de répéter cependant que la gestion du trafic militaire dansl’environnement GETALIS est fortement tributaire de la logique FDP utilisée.

Objectif 7 : Évaluer, dans l’environnement GETALIS, l’exploitation d’une zone de transitionRVSM entre l’espace aérien continental, où sont appliqués des CVSM et larégion océanique de Santa Maria, où sont appliqués des RVSM.

Aucun problème particulier n’a été constaté concernant les dimensions de la zonede transition RVSM, calquée sur la zone de transition actuelle dans l’espaceaérien de Lisbonne. Il convient cependant de noter que la plus grande vigilanceest requise, dans l’environnement GETALIS, pour les opérations aux confins de lacouverture radar ainsi qu’en dehors de celle-ci. En effet, l’étiquette de données deplan de vol présentée dans la fenêtre radar ressemble de très près à une étiquetteradar. (Voir conclusions de l’Objectif 2).

Documents

EUROCONTROL · VFR Visual Flight Rules XFL Exit Flight Level. Lisboa 98 Real-Time Simulation EUROCONTROL EEC Task S18 – EEC Report n° 333 ix REFERENCES ... the requirements of