EUROCONTROL · european organisation for the safety of air navigation eurocontrol experimental...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTREAIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATION

OF THE LUXEMBOURG TMA

EEC Note No. 8/97

EEC Task F12EATCHIP Task ASM.ET1.ST04

Issued: June 1997

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should be reproduced in anyform 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 Note No. 8/97

Security Classification:Unclassified

OriginatorEEC - AMS(ATC Model Simulations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP1591222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

SponsorEATCHIP DevelopmentDirectorate DED.4

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B-1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32 (0)2 729 90 11

TITLE:

AIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATION OF THE LUXEMBOURG TMA

AuthorsRay Dowdall

Leif Lundqvist

Date6/97

Pagesviii + 27

Figures9 charts4 figures1 map

Tables6

Appendix1

References

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

ASM.ET1.ST04

EEC Task No.

F12

Task No. Sponsor Period

1996 to 1997

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: L. Sillard(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):ACT - Airspace Model Simulation - ATC Tasks - Brussels FIR - CANAC - CFMU Data - ControllerLoadings - Controller Task Specifications - Controller Workload - Forecast Traffic Samples -Luxembourg TMA - Sectorisation - TMA Upper Limits - Traffic Samples

Abstract:This report describes a EUROCONTROL Airspace Model simulation study which was conducted onthe airspace of the Luxembourg TMA on behalf of the Luxembourg Ministry of Transport.

The purpose of the simulation was to determine the optimum upper level of the Luxembourg TMAwhich would allow direct coordination with adjacent centres, thereby eliminating the need to coordinatethrough the Brussels CANAC sectors.

A secondary objective was to study the impact on controller workload in the Luxembourg TMA andrelevant CANAC sectors as a result of the higher limit proposed, the anticipated growth in traffic to theyear 2000 (in line with EUROCONTROL forecasts), and the introduction in Luxembourg of ACT with itsadjacent centres.

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

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

Airspace Model Simulation Of The Luxembourg TMA EECAMS

EEC Task No. F12 page iii Final Report - June 1997EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04

EUROCONTROL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. vSummary .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vii

1 INTRODUCTION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SIMULATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

3 AIRSPACE SIMULATED AND ORGANISATIONS TESTED .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 1

4 INPUT DATA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24.1 Actual Traffic Samples .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2

4.1.1 Future Traffic Samples.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 34.2 Airspace and Sectorisation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 44.3 Separation Standards .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 44.4 ATC Tasks .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4

4.4.1 Workload Measurement .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 54.4.2 Controller Percentage Loadings .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 54.4.3 Controller Positions Simulated .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5

5 SIMULATION RESULTS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 65.1 Reference Organisation A (LXTMA FL075 - 1995 Traffic) .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 65.2 Organisation B (LXTMA FL115, 135, 155, 195 - 1995 Traffic) .. .. .. .. ... .. 75.3 Future Organisation C (LXTMA FL075, 115, 135, 155, 195 - 2000 Traffic) .. .. 95.4 Selection of the Optimum Upper Level Limit of the Luxembourg TMA .. .. .... .. 115.5 Organisation D (Simulation of ACT) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 125.6 Hourly Evolution of Traffic in the Luxembourg TMA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. 145.6 Workload Generated by Transit Traffic in the Luxembourg TMA.. .. .. .... .. .. 15

6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16

Appendix A - Controller Task Specification .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17


EEC Task No. F12 page v Final Report - June 1997EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04

EUROCONTROL

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED

A/C AircraftAC Assistant Controller (CANAC)ACC Area Control CentreACT Activation Message Designator (OLDI)ARR(S) Arrival(s)ATC Air Traffic ControlBHLS Combined Brussels High and Low South SectorsCANAC Computer Assisted National ATC Centre (Belgium)CC Coordinator (planning controller)CFMU Central Flow Management Unit (Eurocontrol)CTR Control ZoneDEP(S) Departure(s)EAM EUROCONTROL Airspace ModelEATCHIP European ATC Harmonisation and Integration ProgrammeEBBR Brussels AirportEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreELLX Luxembourg AirportFDM Flight Data ManagementFIR Flight Information RegionFL Flight LevelINC IncreaseLXTMA Luxembourg TMANM Nautical mile(s)OLDI On-Line Data InterchangeORG OrganisationRC Radar ControllerREF ReferenceR/T Radio telephonySTATFOR Statistics and Forecast Section (Eurocontrol)TMA Terminal Control Area


EEC Task No. F12 page vi Final Report - June 1997EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04

EUROCONTROL

INTENTIONALLY BLANK


EEC Task No. F12 page vii Final Report - June 1997EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04

EUROCONTROL

EEC Note No. 8/97EEC Task No. F12

EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04Issued: June 1997

Airspace Model Simulation Of The Luxembourg TMA

by

Ray Dowdall and Leif Lundqvist (EEC/AMS)

SUMMARY

The purpose of this simulation was to determine the optimum upper level of theLuxembourg TMA which would allow direct coordination with adjacent centres, therebyeliminating the need to coordinate through the Brussels CANAC sectors.

A secondary objective was to study the impact on controller workload in the LuxembourgTMA and relevant CANAC sectors as a result of the higher limit proposed, the anticipatedgrowth in traffic to the year 2000 (in line with EUROCONTROL forecasts), and theintroduction of ACT in Luxembourg with adjacent centres.

Four principal organisations, actual and proposed, were simulated using traffic levels duringJune 1995 or year 2000, depending on the organisation. In all, 24 exercises weresimulated with two 24-hour traffic samples. The organisations tested were as follows:

Reference Organisation A (LXTMA FL075 - 1995 Traffic)This organisation simulated the airspace sectorisation, working methods and equipment inoperation during June 1995 (the date of the traffic samples).

Organisation B (LXTMA FL115, 135, 155, 195 - 1995 Traffic)Various proposed changes to the upper limits of the TMA were tested using the same 1995traffic samples, working methods and equipment. This allowed an assessment of what canbe expected when introducing the new upper limit at the end of 1998.

Future Organisation C (LXTMA FL075, 115, 135, 155, 195 - Year 2000 Traffic)This organisation simulated all TMA upper limits from organisations A and B but with trafficlevels increased to year 2000. Organisation C provided a measure of how future trafficwould affect the proposed airspace changes. The 1995 working methods and equipmentwere retained for this organisation.

Organisation D (Simulation of ACT)Organisation D assessed the introduction of ACT between Luxembourg and its adjacentcentres at 2000 traffic levels. This was simulated with FL075 and FL135 as theLuxembourg upper TMA limits. The controller task specification was redefined to allow forthe new technology.


EEC Task No. F12 page viii Final Report - June 1997EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04

EUROCONTROL

Summary of Results and Conclusions

r With an upper limit of FL075, the three-hour loadings on the LXTMA controllers weremoderate - even with year 2000 traffic simulated. The LXTMA radar controller did,however, record a heavy peak hour loading with the future traffic on day 2.

r FL 135 was considered to be the optimum upper level limit for the Luxembourg TMA.

r Raising the upper limit to FL135 resulted in three-hour loadings on the LXTMA radarcontroller that were just above the heavy workload threshold on day 2 with both 1995and 2000 traffic, and on day 1 with 2000 traffic only. Again on day 2, a heavy peak hourloading was recorded for the LXTMA radar controller with 1995 traffic and a severe peakhour loading with 2000 traffic. Similar high peak hour loadings were not found with theday 1 sample.

r Heavy peak and three-hour loadings were found for the BHLS radar controller on day 2when simulating an upper limit of FL075 for the LXTMA. These loadings were reducedto moderate, in fact almost halved, when FL135 was simulated. The day 1 trafficproduced no workload problems for BHLS.

r Accommodating the extra transit traffic with the raising of the upper limit to FL135 wasaccomplished without giving rise to major workload problems. However, it needs to bepointed out that this traffic, mostly general aviation items, can be expected to vary in itsdaily volume.

r The introduction of ACT for Luxembourg at 2000 traffic levels led to a 25% reduction inthe total sector workload for LXTMA and 13% for BHLS. Although this did not benefitthe radar controllers directly (in terms of measured workload), the indirect benefits arethe potential saving of workload due to less errors in the coordinated data, and, forLXTMA in particular, the freeing of the coordinator to assist the radar controller duringperiods of peak traffic.

The results of the simulation showed that the Luxembourg TMA can accommodate theextra aircraft involved with year 2000 traffic plus a raised upper level limit of FL135 withoutan excessive increase in controller workload. The introduction of ACT betweenLuxembourg and its adjacent centres will improve the reliability and efficiency of inter-centre coordination and, in so doing, contribute to a higher level of safety.


EEC Task No. F12 page 1 Final Report - June 1997EATCHIP Task No. ASM.ET1.ST04

EUROCONTROL

1. INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of 1996, the Luxembourg Ministry of Transport requested a fast-timesimulation study using the EUROCONTROL Airspace Model from the EATCHIPDevelopment Directorate DED4. The purpose of the simulation was to evaluate the impacton controller workload in raising the upper level of the Luxembourg TMA. The EATCHIPtask number ASM.ET1.ST04 and the EEC task number F12 were assigned to this project.

The initial meeting between representatives from Luxembourg and Eurocontrol DED4/EECtook place in April 1996.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SIMULATION

The primary objective of the simulation was to determine the optimum upper level limit ofthe Luxembourg TMA which would allow direct coordination with adjacent centres, therebyeliminating the need to coordinate through the Brussels CANAC sectors.

A secondary objective was to study the impact on controller workload in the LuxembourgTMA and relevant CANAC sectors as a result of the higher limit proposed, the anticipatedgrowth in traffic to the year 2000 (in line with EUROCONTROL forecasts), and theintroduction of ACT with adjacent centres.

3. AIRSPACE SIMULATED AND ORGANISATIONS TESTED

The airspace simulated was the Luxembourg TMA and that part of the Belgian CANACaffected by the proposed changes to the upper limit of the Luxembourg TMA.

Four principal organisations, actual and proposed, were simulated using traffic levels duringJune 1995 or year 2000, depending on the organisation. In all, 24 exercises weresimulated. The following figure describes the organisation of the study:

ORGANISATION A ORGANISATION B

ORGANISATION C ORGANISATION D

June 1995 trafficTwo 24-hour samples

1995 sectorisationLXTMA FL075

1995 working methods & equipment

June 1995 trafficTwo 24-hour samples

Proposed sectorisationLXTMA FL115/135/155/195


2000 trafficTwo 24-hour samples

1995 + proposed sectorisationLXTMA FL075/115/135/155/195


2000 trafficTwo 24-hour samples

1995 + selected proposed sectorisationLXTMA FL075, FL135

Introduction of ACTwith adjacent centres

Figure 1



EUROCONTROL

3.1 Reference Organisation A (LXTMA FL075 - 1995 Traffic)

The purpose of this organisation was to simulate the current operational conditions of theLuxembourg TMA and CANAC sectors in order to validate the performance of the AirspaceModel and to provide a baseline against which proposed changes and future traffic can bemeasured. Reference organisation A simulated the airspace sectorisation, workingmethods and equipment in operation during June 1995 (the date of the traffic samples).

3.2 Organisation B (LXTMA FLs 115, 135, 155, 195 - 1995 Traffic)

Various proposed changes to the upper limits of the TMA were simulated here using thesame 1995 traffic samples, working methods and equipment. This allowed an assessmentof what can be expected when introducing the new upper limit at the end of 1998.

3.3 Future Organisation C (LXTMA FLs 075 115, 135, 155, 195 - 2000 Traffic)

This organisation simulated all TMA upper limits from organisations A and B but with trafficlevels increased to year 2000. Organisation C provided a measure of how future trafficwould impact on the proposed airspace changes. The 1995 working methods andequipment were retained for this organisation.

3.4 Organisation D (Simulation of ACT)

Organisation D assessed the introduction of ACT with adjacent centres at 2000 trafficlevels. This was simulated with FL075 and FL135 (the preferred option from organisationC) as the upper Luxembourg TMA limits. The controller task specification was redefined toallow for the new technology.

4. INPUT DATA

In order to carry out a simulation study using the EAM, various data items are needed:r Traffic samples.r Airspace environment and sectorisation details.r Separation standards.r ATC task specifications and working positions to be simulated.

4.1 Actual Traffic Samples

Two 24-hour traffic samples were supplied to the EEC by DED4, compiled fromLuxembourg and CFMU records. The first sample was for Monday 19/Jun/95 and thesecond for Thursday 29/Jun/95. Normally, two busy three-hour samples, one from eachday, would be selected for simulation from these full-day samples, but, as it was necessaryto study the adequacy of manning levels during the night-time period due to extra transittraffic in the higher TMA configuration, the full 24 hours were simulated for both days.The traffic samples proved to be problematic. At the second data preparation meeting, theCANAC representative modified roughly two-thirds of the routeings found in the CFMUdata. He also felt that the numbers of aircraft for the CANAC sectors were too low. Onobtaining CANAC traffic data for the two days concerned, it was found that approximately20% of each day’s traffic was not in the CFMU data provided (assuming that the CANACrecords are correct). After the amendments had been made the result was:

r Monday 19th June 1995 811 aircraft.r Thursday 29th June 1995 896 aircraft.



EUROCONTROL

4.1.1 Future Traffic Samples

For the forecast traffic samples, statistics were provided by the STATFOR section of DED4giving annual growth rates for a selected group of ELLX arrival and departure flows. Nostatistics were provided for growth in CANAC airspace but, as the simulation wouldmeasure a decrease in workload for the CANAC sector adjoining the Luxembourg TMAwhen ACT was introduced, this was not really significant. The 1995 traffic and theincreases applied are summarised below:

LUXEMBOURG ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLOWS - 1995 AND 2000

FLOW Annual % Increase DAY1 - Sample = 811 aircraft DAY2 - Sample = 896 aircraft

to/from increase 1995-2000 Deps Arrs Total Deps Arrs Total

EBBR 5% 28% 6

+ 2 = 8

5

+ 2 = 7

11

+ 4 = 15

5

+ 2 = 7

7

+ 2 = 9

12

+ 4 = 16

EDDF 1% 5% 4

+ 0 = 4

4

+ 0 = 4

8

+ 0 = 8

4

+ 0 = 4

4

+ 1 = 5

8

+ 1 = 9

EDDH 6% 34% 1

+ 0 = 1

1

+ 1 = 2

2

+ 1 = 3

1

+ 0 = 1

1

+ 1 = 2

2

+ 1 = 3

EDDI 6% 34% 2

+ 1 = 3

2

+ 1 = 3

4

+ 2 = 6

1

+ 0 = 1

1

+ 0 = 1

2

+ 0 = 2

EDDR 6% 34% 6

+ 2 = 8

5

+ 2 = 7

11

+ 4 = 15

4

+ 2 = 6

7

+ 2 = 9

11

+ 4 = 15

EGLL 4% 22% 3

+ 1 = 4

3

+ 1 = 4

6

+ 2 = 8

3

+ 1 = 4

3

+ 1 = 4

6

+ 2 = 8

EHAM 4% 22% 3

+ 1 = 4

3

+ 1 = 4

6

+ 2 = 8

3

+ 1 = 4

3

+ 1 = 4

6

+ 2 = 8

EKCH 4% 22% 2

+ 0 = 2

2

+ 1 = 3

4

+ 1 = 5

2

+ 0 = 2

2

+ 1 = 3

4

+ 1 = 5

LEPA 8% 47% 2

+ 1 = 3

2

+ 1 = 3

4

+ 2 = 6

0

+ 0 = 0

0

+ 0 = 0

0

+ 0 = 0

LFPG 4% 22% 5

+ 1 = 6

4

+ 1 = 5

9

+ 2 = 11

4

+ 1 = 5

5

+ 1 = 6

9

+ 2 = 11

LFST 9% 54% 2

+ 1 = 3

3

+ 1 = 4

5

+ 2 = 7

2

+ 1 = 3

2

+ 1 = 3

4

+ 2 = 6

LIME 5% 28% 1

+ 0 = 1

1

+ 1 = 2

2

+ 1 = 3

2

+ 1 = 3

2

+ 0 = 2

4

+ 1 = 5

LSGG 4% 22% 4

+ 1 = 5

4

+ 1 = 5

8

+ 2 = 10

4

+ 1 = 5

5

+ 1 = 6

9

+ 2 = 11

LSZH 4% 22% 4

+ 1 = 5

4

+ 1 = 5

8

+ 2 = 10

4

+ 1 = 5

4

+ 1 = 5

8

+ 2 = 10

UUEE 12% 76% 3

+ 2 = 5

2

+ 3 = 5

5

+ 5 = 10

3

+ 2 = 5

3

+ 2 = 5

5

+ 5 = 10

TOTAL 48

+ 14 = 62

45

+ 18 = 63

93

+32 = 125

42

+ 13 = 55

49

+ 15 = 64

91

+28 = 119

% INC 29% 40% 34% 31% 31% 31%

Table 1

As applied to the selected flows of traffic, the increase represented a growth rate of 6% perannum. Taking all ELLX flows into account, the total ELLX traffic increased by 17% andthe complete traffic samples by 4% - 843 aircraft on day 1 and 924 aircraft on day 2.



EUROCONTROL

4.2 Airspace and Sectorisation

The airspace simulated and the associated sectorisation is shown in the map, below.

The scope of the simulated airspace was widened considerably from the geographicalboundaries of Luxembourg to ensure correct aircraft profiles into the sectors under study.For the simulation, the Brussels High South and Low South sectors were combined, as theyare in practice. Additionally, an FIR sector was simulated up to FL55 underneath all of theCANAC low en route sectors.

4.3 Separation Standards

The following radar separation standards were simulated:r Within the Luxembourg TMA 5nm.r Traffic to/from Metz and Saarbrücken 5nm.r Traffic to/from and within CANAC 8nm.

4.4 ATC Tasks

The Airspace Model analyses the progress of each flight as it transits the simulated area inorder to detect the ATC actions necessary to process the flight. In determining these ATCactions, the model is capable of identifying and recording up to 110 different ATC tasks.These tasks are grouped into five main categories, as shown overleaf.



EUROCONTROL

The Five Categories of ATC Tasksn Flight Data Management.

– includes tasks of loading, preparing and discarding flight progressstrips, etc., and also includes computer updates.

n Coordinations.– records coordinations between centres (external) and between sectors

of the same centre (internal).

n Conflict Search.– before issuing clearances, the controller searches his/her data to

ensure that the action does not jeopardize separation.

n Routine R/T.– includes first and last calls on frequency, position reports, etc.

n Radar Tasks.– records tactical conflict resolution by the controller - radar supervision

and intervention tasks belong in this group.

Figure 2

During the study the task specification was defined for both Luxembourg and CANAC.

4.4.1 Workload Measurement

Each task is allocated to different positions in accordance with the sector manning anddistribution of duties specified for each sector. In this way the model is able to calculate notonly the actual workload on each working position but also the percentage loading on eachposition, either over the entire simulation period or over certain peak periods.

4.4.2 Controller Percentage Loadings

Two values are used in the interpretation of controller loadings for this simulation: the peakhour percentage loading and the peak 3-hour percentage loading. These 60-minuteand 180-minute loadings are “snapshots” of the busiest one- and three-hour periodsidentified for each working position during the 24-hour simulation period. The times of each60’ and 180’ period will vary for each position and each sector. To help in interpretingthese loadings, the following guidelines are used:

Severe 1-hour loading: in excess of 70% Heavy 1-hour loading: in excess of 55%.Severe 3-hour loading: in excess of 50% Heavy 3-hour loading: in excess of 40%.

There are no guidelines for interpreting 24-hour loadings as the three-hour simulationperiod is normally the longest period simulated.

Note: These guidelines are not scientific values; they have been developed over manyyears of simulation and are widely regarded as being an accurate description of controllerworkload, allowing for the fact that controller thinking time or recovery time cannot besimulated.

4.4.3 Controller Positions SimulatedThe radar controller and coordinator positions were simulated for all sectors. In addition, anassistant controller position was allocated to all CANAC sectors.



EUROCONTROL

5 SIMULATION RESULTS

In almost all instances Day 2 was busier than Day 1. Charts and figures will, therefore,concentrate for the most part on the results for Day 2.

5.1 Reference Organisation A (LXTMA FL075 - 1995 Traffic)

Two sectors will be referred to in abbreviated form: Luxembourg TMA as LXTMA and thecombined CANAC High and Low South sectors as BHLS. A brief summary of the resultswill be given in table format, as below, for each of the organisations simulated. Theabbreviations used in the tables are:

CONT A/C Controlled aircraftSKIP A/C Coordinated aircraft that do not work the sector frequencyTOT A/C Total aircraft, controlled plus coordinatedAVG TIME Average time (minutes) spent by the aircraft in the sectorFDM Flight Data Management (minutes)CRD Coordination (minutes)CFS Conflict Search (minutes)R/T Routine R/T (minutes)RDR Radar (minutes)TOT WRK Total time for all five task categoriesWRK/ACFT Average work (minutes) spent on each aircraft [TOT WRK ÷ TOT A/C]RC 1HR Radar Controller (executive controller) peak hour percentage loadingRC 3HR Radar Controller three-hour average percentage loadingCC 1HR Coordinator (planning controller) peak hour percentage loadingCC 3HR Coordinator three-hour average percentage loading

The work expressed in minutes is for the sector team as a whole (LXTMA - RC and CC;BHLS - RC, CC and Assistant Controller), except the R/T and radar tasks which apply tothe RC only. Sectors in red indicate a heavy (3 hours 40%+, 1 hour 55%+) or severeloading (3 hours 50%+, 1 hour 70%+) was recorded for the RC or CC for that sector.

DAY 1 REFERENCE (Mon 19/06/1995) - LXTMA FL075 - 811 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME

FDM CRD CFS R/T RDR TOTWRK

WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 181 0 181 3.8’ 46.6’ 120.4’ 34.8’ 102.6’ 60.6’ 365.0’ 2.02’ 38% 26% 37% 27%

BHLS 403 1 404 7.3’ 92.4’ 74.6’ 88.1’ 101.9’ 69.4’ 426.4’ 1.06’ 39% 30% 10% 9%

DAY 2 REFERENCE (Thu 29/06/1995) - LXTMA FL075 - 896 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 185 0 185 3.8’ 48.2’ 121.9’ 34.8’ 105.5’ 55.8’ 366.2’ 1.98’ 45% 27% 41% 30%

BHLS 441 1 442 7.2’ 97.9’ 74.9’ 96.1’ 111.1’ 88.8’ 468.8’ 1.06’ 63% 38% 14% 10%

Table 2

Analysis of both traffic samples showed that 20% of the flights were arriving/departingELLX and 40% arriving/departing EBBR. With the vertical limit of FL075 only 5 aircraft (day1) and 4 aircraft (day 2) transited the LXTMA, entering between 06h00 and 15h30.



EUROCONTROL

Aircraft Workload

185

442

366

469

0

100

200

300

400

500

Aircraft Workload

LXTMA BHLS

Aircraft and Workload (minutes) for LXTMAand BHLS sectors - Ref Org A (Day 2)

Chart 1

Translated into controller loadings, this resulted in moderate 3-hour percentage loadings(i.e. less than 40%) on all of the sector working positions in LXTMA and BHLS.

Over the 24-hour period, the amount of work devoted to each aircraft by each sector team(workload divided by aircraft) was 2.0’ for LXTMA and 1.1’ for BHLS. This figure forLXTMA, compared to BHLS, is not unusual given that it is a TMA sector with the expectedhigh amount of work associated with arriving and departing aircraft.

5.2 Organisation B (LXTMA FLs 115,135,155,195 - 1995 traffic)

In this organisation, four different upper level limits were tried for the LXTMA with 1995traffic. The results were as follows:

DAY 1 - PROPOSAL 1 - LXTMA FL115 (Mon 19/06/1995) - 811 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 195 0 195 6.5’ 51.5’ 134.5’ 37.2’ 115.0’ 72.9’ 411.1’ 2.11’ 43% 27% 38% 28%

BHLS 304 1 305 7.9’ 64.5’ 32.0’ 66.7’ 76.3’ 47.7’ 287.2’ 0.94’ 31% 24% 9% 7%


SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 198 0 198 6.9’ 52.6’ 137.7’ 37.8’ 117.3’ 78.8’ 424.2’ 2.14’ 45% 29% 37% 28%

BHLS 298 1 299 7.8’ 62.4’ 29.7’ 65.2’ 74.5’ 40.9’ 272.7’ 0.91’ 30% 21% 9% 6%


SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 202 0 202 7.4’ 54.0’ 142.0’ 38.5’ 121.1’ 81.4’ 437.0’ 2.16’ 45% 31% 37% 29%

BHLS 281 1 282 7.8’ 56.1’ 25.6’ 61.5’ 68.9’ 39.2’ 251.3’ 0.89’ 30% 21% 9% 6%



EUROCONTROL


SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 288 0 288 8.1’ 85.7’ 236.9’ 54.5’ 183.5’ 92.5’ 653.1’ 2.27’ 48% 41% 52% 45%

BHLS 194 1 195 7.0’ 35.9’ 26.0’ 42.5’ 47.7’ 26.0’ 178.1’ 0.91’ 22% 16% 6% 4%

DAY 2 - PROPOSAL 1 - LXTMA FL115 (Thu 29/06/1995) - 896 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 203 0 203 6.5’ 54.8’ 142.0’ 38.2’ 120.9’ 86.1’ 442.0’ 2.18’ 60% 37% 47% 34%

BHLS 341 1 342 7.6’ 70.6’ 29.6’ 74.5’ 84.4’ 52.2’ 311.3’ 0.91’ 41% 26% 9% 7%


SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 209 0 209 7.0’ 57.0’ 148.5’ 39.3’ 125.2’ 93.0’ 463.0’ 2.22’ 67% 40% 48% 36%

BHLS 329 1 330 7.5’ 67.0’ 28.0’ 71.9’ 81.5’ 42.4’ 290.8’ 0.88’ 34% 22% 8% 7%


SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 211 0 211 7.4’ 57.7’ 150.7’ 39.7’ 127.4’ 95.2’ 470.7’ 2.23’ 67% 40% 47% 36%

BHLS 311 1 312 7.6’ 60.1’ 20.4’ 67.8’ 75.6’ 41.5’ 265.4’ 0.85’ 33% 21% 8% 6%


SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 305 0 305 8.0’ 92.2’ 252.5’ 56.9’ 195.3’ 105.5’ 702.4’ 2.30’ 80% 49% 68% 51%

BHLS 225 1 226 6.7’ 40.6’ 27.6’ 49.1’ 53.8’ 32.7’ 203.8’ 0.90’ 28% 17% 6% 5%

Table 3

How these results compared in terms of additional traffic and workload for LXTMA can bestbe described in the following figure for day 2:



EUROCONTROL

The increase in traffic and workload was reasonable until FL195 was simulated. This levelsplit gave rise to significant increases in both aircraft numbers and workload - even beforefuture traffic was simulated. The noticeable jump in aircraft and workload from FL155 toFL195 was due to the “city-pair” traffic operating between FL170 and FL190. This flow isquite clear from the next chart which deals with the LXTMA transit aircraft. Increases dueto the future traffic will be dealt with in the next section.

FL075

FL115

FL135

FL155

FL195

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

FL075

FL115

FL135

FL155

FL195

Day 1 Day 2

Number of Transit Aircraft through LXTMADays 1 & 2

Chart 2Number of Aircraft

Raising the upper limit of the LXTMA had a consequent effect on the workload of BHLS.How both sectors were affected by an upper limit of FL135 on Day 2 is shown below:

Percentage Change in Raising the Upper Limit of LXTMA from FL075 to FL135 on Day 2 1995 Traffic

Sector Aircraft Flight Data Coord. Conf. Srch. Routine R/T Radar Total Work

LXTMA + 13% + 18% + 22% + 13% + 19% + 66% + 26%BHLS - 25% - 32% - 63% - 25% - 27% - 52% - 38%

Table 4

5.3 Future Organisation C (LXTMA FLs 075,115,135,155,195 - year 2000 traffic)

To recall, a 33% increase was applied to selected flows of ELLX arrivals and departuresfrom figures supplied by the STATFOR section of DED4. No increase was applied toCANAC traffic, i.e. the number of LXTMA transit flights remained the same. The total ELLXtraffic was increased by 17% and the entire traffic samples by 4%. In addition, minor routechanges were made to reflect modifications in operation since June 1995. They proved tohave little effect on the simulation results.

The following tables summarise the results for the FL075 and FL135 splits.

FUTURE DAY 1 - LXTMA FL075 (Mon 19/06/2000) - 843 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 213 0 213 3.6’ 55.5’ 142.8’ 40.8’ 121.7’ 83.4’ 444.2’ 2.09’ 47% 37% 43% 35%

BHLS 432 1 433 7.1’ 100.8’ 91.2’ 94.4’ 109.6’ 87.3’ 483.3’ 1.12’ 43% 35% 11% 9%



EUROCONTROL

FUTURE DAY 1 PROPOSAL 2 - LXTMA FL135 (Mon 19/06/2000) - 843 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 230 0 230 6.5’ 61.5’ 160.2’ 45.0’ 136.7’ 110.7’ 514.1’ 2.24’ 51% 41% 43% 36%

BHLS 309 1 310 7.7’ 65.4’ 36.2’ 67.6’ 77.3’ 43.7’ 290.2’ 0.94’ 30% 22% 9% 7%

FUTURE DAY 2 - LXTMA FL075 (Thu 29/06/2000) -924 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 213 0 213 3.7’ 55.8’ 141.5’ 39.9’ 122.0’ 79.0’ 438.2’ 2.06’ 60% 36% 45% 34%

BHLS 465 1 466 7.1’ 105.5’ 89.0’ 101.3’ 117.2’ 103.6’ 516.6’ 1.11’ 68% 40% 15% 10%

FUTURE DAY 2 PROPOSAL 2 - LXTMA FL135 (Thu 29/06/2000) - 924 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 237 0 237 6.8’ 64.6’ 168.1’ 46.2’ 142.0’ 119.3’ 540.2’ 2.28’ 75% 42% 51% 39%

BHLS 338 1 339 7.4’ 69.8’ 33.5’ 73.8’ 83.8’ 48.0’ 308.9’ 0.91’ 34% 24% 9% 7%

Table 5

The changes brought about by simulating a raised upper limit of the LXTMA of FL135 plusa year 2000 sample are illustrated in the following chart for LXTMA and BHLS:

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600Aircraft Workload

1995 FL075 ===> 1995 FL135, 2000 FL075, 2000 FL135 - DAY 2Percentage Changes from 1995 FL075 Base

LXTMA

1995 FL075 1995 FL135

2000 FL075 2000 FL135

BHLS

+15%

+20%

+5%

+10%

+13%

+26%

+28%

+48%

-25%

-38%

-23%

-34%

Chart 3

2000 FL075 2000 FL135

1995 FL075 1995 FL135

Compared to FL075 with 1995 traffic levels, simulating the upper limit of the TMA at FL135with 2000 traffic produced significant increases in the controller workload for LXTMA - 41%on day 1 and 48% on day 2. However, these increases did not lead to excessive three-hour loadings on the controllers, both RC loadings were just above the heavy workloadthreshold.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that with 2000 traffic a heavy peak hour loading of 60%(FL075) and a severe peak hour loading of 75% (FL135) were recorded for the LXTMA RCon day 2. In both cases the wide percentage differences between the one- and three-hourloadings suggests an element of aircraft “bunching” in the 2000 traffic samples for day 2,i.e. large numbers of aircraft entering the sector with little time separation between them.



EUROCONTROL

For BHLS, the raising of the upper limit of the LXTMA to FL135 resulted in a significantdecrease in aircraft numbers and workload from a baseline of 1995 and a split at FL075:

r Day 1 1995 aircraft down 26% workload down 36%2000 aircraft down 23% workload down 32%

r Day 2 1995 aircraft down 25% workload down 38%2000 aircraft down 23% workload down 34%

The five different upper limits tried for LXTMA with the year 2000 traffic sample Day 2resulted in aircraft and workload increases as shown in figure 4:

5.4 Selection of the Optimum Upper Level Limit of the Luxembourg TMA

After reviewing the results, the working group felt that FL135 was the most appropriateupper level limit for the LXTMA. In deciding against the other proposed upper limits, thefollowing points were taken into consideration:

r FL 115 At this upper limit almost 40% of the ELLX departures to MMD (Montmédy)were exiting the TMA vertically, not horizontally, thereby necessitating an additionalcoordination with the BHLS sector. Also, some low-performance departures to the northwere entering BHLS just before entering the Brussels Low East sector, again generatingan extra coordination.

r FL 155 Although there was little difference in the amount of extra transit traffic in thisorganisation compared to the FL135 organisation, this could well change in the future.In addition, Brussels ACC was not in favour of this TMA upper limit as they need FL140and FL150 for operational reasons.

r FL 195 Due to the large amount of “city-pair” aircraft operating between FL170 andFL190 that would have to be accommodated with a FL195 upper limit, an additional enroute sector would be required for Luxembourg because of the extra workload involved.



EUROCONTROL

5.5 Organisation D (Simulation of ACT)

The simulation of ACT for Luxembourg with adjacent centres was done for the FL075 andFL135 organisations using the year 2000 traffic samples. As with today, the approvalrequests sought from Frankfurt for ELLX departures were retained.

WITH ACT FUTURE DAY 1 - LXTMA FL075 (Mon 19/06/2000) - 843 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 213 0 213 3.6’ 37.1’ 35.6’ 40.8’ 121.7’ 83.0’ 318.2’ 1.49’ 47% 37% 18% 14%

BHLS 433 1 434 7.1’ 75.8’ 14.9’ 94.6’ 109.8’ 88.5’ 383.6’ 0.88’ 43% 35% 11% 9%

WITH ACT FUTURE DAY 1 PROPOSAL 2 - LXTMA FL135 (Mon 19/06/2000) - 843 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 230 0 230 6.5’ 44.5’ 47.1’ 45.0’ 136.7’ 110.3’ 383.6’ 1.67’ 51% 41% 19% 16%

BHLS 309 1 310 7.7’ 53.4’ 10.9’ 67.6’ 77.3’ 44.3’ 253.5’ 0.82’ 30% 22% 9% 7%

WITH ACT FUTURE DAY 2 - LXTMA FL075 (Thu 29/06/2000) - 924 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 213 0 213 3.7’ 37.8’ 37.6’ 39.9’ 122.0’ 78.0’ 315.3’ 1.48’ 60% 36% 17% 14%

BHLS 465 1 466 7.1’ 81.2’ 15.1’ 101.3’ 117.2’ 103.6’ 418.4’ 0.90’ 68% 40% 15% 10%

WITH ACT FUTURE DAY 1 PROPOSAL 2 - LXTMA FL135 (Thu 29/06/2000) - 924 a/c

SECTOR CONTA/C

SKIPA/C

TOTA/C

AVGTIME


WRK/ACFT

RC1HR

RC3HR

CC1HR

CC3HR

LXTMA 237 0 237 6.8’ 47.6’ 52.7’ 46.2’ 142.0’ 119.3’ 407.8’ 1.72’ 75% 42% 23% 16%

BHLS 338 1 339 7.4’ 58.7’ 8.5’ 73.8’ 83.8’ 48.0’ 272.8’ 0.80’ 34% 24% 9% 7%

Table 6The results showed that the introduction of ACT messages reduced significantly thecoordination workload for both LXTMA and BHLS. However, it is important to note that thereduction in workload did not apply to the radar controllers, whose loadings remainedexactly the same as for the non-ACT scenario. That said, it is just as important to point outthat ACT contributes to safety by ensuring that the correct coordination data is transferredand, therefore, helps to reduce the radar controller’s workload by increasing the certainty ofthe data, i.e. less errors. Charts 4 (LXTMA) and 5 (BHLS) show, from a 1995 base, thepercentage changes in the total sector team workload for 2000 traffic without and with ACT.

1995 ==> Year 2000 % Changes in WorkloadLXTMA FL075 & FL135 Organisations - Day 2

+20%

- 14%

+17%

- 12%

1995FL135

1995FL075

463’

366’

2000 - No ACT 2000 - With ACT Chart 4



EUROCONTROL

1995 ==> Year 2000 % Changes in WorkloadBHLS FL075 & FL135 Organisations - Day 2

+10%

- 11%

+6%

- 6%1995

FL135

1995FL075

291’

469’

2000 - No ACT 2000 - With ACT Chart 5

Expressed another way, the average percentage fall in total sector workload over the twodays when simulating 2000 traffic without ACT to 2000 traffic with ACT was 28% at FL075and 25% at FL135 for LXTMA. For BHLS the percentage fall was 20% at FL075 and 13%at FL135.

Chart 6 shows the distribution of each task category (flight data management [FDM],coordination [COORD], conflict search [CFS], routine R/T and radar) as a percentage of thetotal workload for the LXTMA sector when simulating 2000 traffic with a FL135 split, firstwithout and then with ACT. The percentage distribution of the task categories was almostidentical for both day 1 and day 2, so the chart applies to both simulated samples.

LXTMA: NO ACTCoordinations require 31%of the total working time.

Chart 6

31%

FDM12%

Radar22%

R/T26%

CFS9%

LXTMA: WITH ACTCoordinations require 13%of the total working time.

13%

FDM12%

Radar29%

R/T35%

CFS11%

COORDCOORD

This result illustrates an important hidden benefit from the installation of ACT facilities atLuxembourg. Although the saving on coordination work in the ACT environment onlybenefits the coordinator directly, the effect it has is to permit more time for the coordinatorto assist the radar controller to a greater degree than previously. This will be of mostbenefit during peak periods of traffic.



EUROCONTROL

5.6 Hourly Evolution of Traffic in the Luxembourg TMA

The next two figures take the 24-hour period for year 2000 days 1 and 2 and show how thetraffic evolves in numbers of aircraft during each hour through the LXTMA for the FL075and FL135 splits. The bars for the FL135 split are hidden, as it were, behind the bars ofthe FL075 split, only showing where the total for that hour exceeds that of the FL075 split.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28FL135 FL075

LXTMA - Evolution of Flights - 2000 Day 1Level Splits FL075 and FL135 - Monday 19th June 2000

00-

01

01-

02

02-

03

03-

04

04-

05

05-

06

06-

07

07-

08

08-

09

09-

10

10-

11

11-

12

12-

13

13-

14

14-

15

15-

16

16-

17

17-

18

18-

19

19-

20

20-

21

21-

22

22-

23

23-

24Time Period

A/C

Chart 7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28FL135 FL075

LXTMA - Evolution of Flights - 2000 Day 2Level Splits FL075 and FL135 - Thursday 29th June 2000

00-

01

01-

02

02-

03

03-

04

04-

05

05-

06

06-

07

07-

08

08-

09

09-

10

10-

11

11-

12

12-

13

13-

14

14-

15

15-

16

16-

17

17-

18

18-

19

19-

20

20-

21

21-

22

22-

23

23-

24Time Period

A/C

Chart 8

The maximum number of extra aircraft (all transiting) that needed to be accommodated inany hourly period as a direct result of raising the TMA to FL135 is 5 on day 2, but during aperiod when it was not particularly busy (06h00 - 07h00). There were four occasions when4 extra aircraft had to be absorbed at busy times, again all on day 2. On day 1, a maximumof 3 extra aircraft needed to be accepted during three different hourly periods.

The problem here, however, is that these extra transit aircraft were mostly general aviationitems and, therefore, very difficult to pin down as far as regularity is concerned. In otherwords, their numbers can be expected to vary from day to day.



EUROCONTROL

5.7 Workload Generated by Transit Traffic in the Luxembourg TMA

The next chart shows the amount of work generated by the LXTMA transit traffic over the24 hours of day 2. The FL075 and FL135 splits are shown for the scenarios of 1995, year2000 without ACT and year 2000 with ACT.

FL 075 FL 135

11 11 6

72 72

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FL 075 FL 135

1995 2000 2000/ACT

Workload for LXTMA Generated by Transit TrafficDay 2

Indicates minutes workload per 24-hour period. Chart 9

At FL075 the work concerned was negligible. At FL135 the work generated by this transittraffic represented 15% of the total workload at 1995 traffic levels, 13% at 2000 levels withno ACT and 11% at 2000 levels with ACT.



EUROCONTROL

6. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

r With an upper limit of FL075, the three-hour loadings on the LXTMA controllers weremoderate, even with year 2000 traffic simulated. The LXTMA radar controller did,however, record a heavy peak hour loading with the future traffic on day 2.

r FL 135 was considered to be the optimum upper level limit for the Luxembourg TMA.

r Raising the upper limit to FL135 resulted in three-hour loadings on the LXTMA radarcontroller that were just above the heavy workload threshold on day 2 with both 1995and 2000 traffic, and on day 1 with 2000 traffic only. Again on day 2, a heavy peak hourloading was recorded for the LXTMA radar controller with 1995 traffic and a severe peakhour loading with 2000 traffic. Similar high peak hour loadings were not found with theday 1 sample.

r Heavy peak and three-hour loadings were found for the BHLS radar controller on day 2when simulating an upper limit of FL075 for the LXTMA. These loadings were reducedto moderate, in fact almost halved, when FL135 was simulated. The day 1 trafficproduced no workload problems for BHLS.

r Accommodating the extra transit traffic with the raising of the upper limit to FL135 wasaccomplished without giving rise to major workload problems. However, it needs to bepointed out that this traffic, mostly general aviation items, can be expected to vary in itsdaily volume.

r The introduction of ACT for Luxembourg at 2000 traffic levels led to a 25% reduction inthe total sector workload for LXTMA and 13% for BHLS. Although this did not benefitthe radar controllers directly (in terms of measured workload), the indirect benefits arethe potential saving of workload due to less errors in the coordinated data and forLXTMA, particularly, the freeing of the coordinator to assist the radar controller duringperiods of peak traffic.

The results of the simulation showed that the Luxembourg TMA can accommodate theextra aircraft involved with year 2000 traffic plus a raised upper limit of FL135 without anexcessive increase in controller workload. The introduction of ACT between Luxembourgand its adjacent centres will improve the reliability and efficiency of inter-centre coordinationand, in so doing, contribute to a higher level of safety.



EUROCONTROL

Airspace Model Simulation Of The Luxembourg TMA

APPENDIX A

CONTROLLER TASK SPECIFICATION

The Airspace Model analyses the progress of each flight as it transits the simulated area inorder to detect the ATC actions necessary to process the flight. In determining these ATCactions, the model is capable of identifying and recording up to 110 different ATC tasks.

The tasks are grouped into five main categories, two of which are further sub-divided:

r Coordination tasks consisting of:⇒ External coordinations with other ATC units, including radar handovers.⇒ Internal coordinations within the simulated ATC unit, including radar handovers.

r Flight data management tasks.r Conflict search tasks to determine ATC clearances.r Routine R/T communications.r Radar tasks consisting of:

⇒ Radar supervisions.⇒ Radar interventions.

When specifying the execution time for a task the following principles are followed:

r The execution time for each task is allocated in seconds.r The time specified is the average duration of time spent on the tasks by a trained

controller, ignoring extreme situations which could favourably or unfavourably affect theexecution time.

r The execution time is not intended to represent the actual duration of the task, but theamount of time for which the controller is considered to be totally committed to the taskto the exclusion of all other tasks.

r In some cases a task may involve more than one control position and different executiontimes may be allocated to each position.

r Different execution times may be assigned to the same task occurring in differentsectors.

EXTERNAL COORDINATIONS



EUROCONTROL

Task 2 Receipt of a request for an airways clearance from a specified airport.

CENTRE SEC POSITION AND TIME REMARKS

EC RA CC AC

CANAC 18” All Belgian FIR airports except EBBR

LXTMA Not required

Task 3 Receipt of a request for permission to take off from a specified airport.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 10” EBLG, ELLX, EBCI

LXTMA Not required

Task 4 Receipt of an airborne time from a specified airport.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” ELLX,EBLG

LXTMA Not required

Task 5 Receipt of an estimate from the previous ATC unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 18”

LXTMA 30”

Task 6 Receipt of an estimate from the previous ATC unit with a request for a level for an aircraft in climb/descent.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 18”

LXTMA 30”

Task 7 Receipt of request for a sector entry clearance from a non simulated unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 15” Traffic from EHEH joining at LNO

LXTMA Not required

Task 9 Receipt of a revision from a previous ATC unit of a time or level update.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 10” 10% of traffic ex Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, GTQ areas.

LXTMA 1” 10% of traffic - time =10”. Average all a/c = 1”



EUROCONTROL

Task 10 Receipt of request from next ATC unit for reclearance of an aircraft before transfer of control.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” 10”

LXTMA Not required

Task 11 ELLX requests level approval from BHLS. Applies to flights ELLX-MMD/GTQ and FFM/KRH/PERIX.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 25” In ACT orgs applies only to routes to Germany

LXTMA 25” In ACT orgs applies only to routes to Germany

Task 12 Receipt of a request for a flight level release .


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 8” Approval request EBBB/EDFF for ELLX departures

LXTMA 5” CANAC contacts LXTMA for Reims/Frankfurt a/c.

Task 13 BHLS gives approval to ELLX for routes ELLX-MMD/GTQ and FFM/KRH/PERIX. Follows task 11.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 25” In ACT orgs applies only to routes to Germany

LXTMA 25” In ACT orgs applies only to routes to Germany

Task 15 Transmission of 'time and level' estimate to another ACC for traffic in level flight.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 26” Only for ELLX and other unconnected airports.

LXTMA 35”

Task 16 Transmission of an estimate to next ATCC with a request for initial level for aircraft in climb or descent.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 36” Only for ELLX and other unconnected airports.

LXTMA 35”

Task 19 Transmission of a revision to the next ATC unit of a time or level update.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 20” 10% of traffic as routine.

LXTMA Not required

Task 20 Transmission of a request to the previous ATC unit for a reclearance of an aircraft before transfer ofcontrol.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 20”

LXTMA 5” 25”



EUROCONTROL

Task 79 Radar handover of an aircraft subject to an intervention between two ACC's.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 12” 12”

LXTMA Not required

INTERNAL COORDINATIONS

Task 24 Receipt of a request for an airways clearance from another sector of same unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC Not required

LXTMA 10” Clearance sought by Tower as aircraft is taxiing.

Task 25 Receipt of a coordination for a flight in cruise from a previous sector of the same ATC unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” 12” For skipped sectors

LXTMA Not required

Task 26 Receipt of a coordination for a flight in climb or descent from a previous sector of the same ATC unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3 12

LXTMA 4” Applies to IFR departures from ELLX

Task 30 Receipt of a request from the next sector of the same ATC unit for reclearance of an aircraft beforetransfer of control to that sector.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 6” 3” Includes required input.

LXTMA Not required

Task 35 Transmission of a coordination to the next sector of the same ATC unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” 12” Only for flights which are to skip next sector

LXTMA 12”

Task 36 Transmission of a request to the next sector of the same ATC unit for an initial level clearance for anaircraft in climb or descent.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” 12” Only for flights which are to skip next sector

LXTMA 12”



EUROCONTROL

Task 37 Request for a visual approach.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC Not required

LXTMA 3” Recorded on all ELLX inbounds (15% of 15” = 3”)

Task 60 Updating of flight information and notification of planning reclearance to the EC.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 7”

LXTMA 5”

Task 61 Updating of flight information and notification of reclearance for a flight not contacting the sector.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 7”

LXTMA Not required

Task 62 Receipt and acknowledgement by executive controller of a planning reclearance.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3”

LXTMA 1”

Task 76 Radar handover of an aircraft subject to an intervention to a sector of same unit.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 12”

LXTMA Not required

FLIGHT DATA MANAGEMENT TASKS

Task 8 Input of estimate or SSR code into computer or manual preparation of strips by first sector of an ATCC.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 18”

LXTMA 12”

Task 43 Loading and distribution of warning or non-active strips.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 4” Deps from EBBR/MB, EBLG, EBCI, EHBK, ELLX.

LXTMA Not required



EUROCONTROL

Task 44 Loading and distribution of flight progress strips.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 4”

LXTMA 7”

Task 45 Removal of flight progress strips from the sector console and associated tasks.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 2” 4”

LXTMA 1” 2”

Task 63 Input of a level reclearance into computer for transmission to other sectors.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” Refers to all level change inputs made.

LXTMA Not required

CONFLICT SEARCH TASKS

Task 49 Conflict search for an initial clearance on a flight entering a sector in climb or descent.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 10” Occurs when there is no silent handover.

LXTMA 5” arrs

3” deps

6” arrs

4” deps

Task 50 Conflict search by a controlling sector to establish a sector planning clearance.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 5” 8”

LXTMA 5” 6”

Task 51 Conflict search by controlling sector for a clearance on a coordinated flight.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 1” 1”

LXTMA Not required

Task 52 Conflict search for a planning clearance on a flight that will not contact the sector.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 8”

LXTMA Not required



EUROCONTROL

Task 53 Conflict search to establish a sector exit clearance.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 8”

LXTMA Not required

Task 55 Conflict search to establish a new sector planning clearance.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3” 7”

LXTMA 5”

Task 57 Conflict search to establish a new sector planning clearance by a skipped sector.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 5”

LXTMA Not required

Task 58 Resolution of a potential conflict at sector exit point by selection of a new level.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 7”

LXTMA Not required

Task 59 Conflict search to establish a initial level for a flight approaching a holding stack.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 3”

LXTMA Not required

Task 87 Radar conflict search in a TMA sector for inbound and outbound traffic.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 10” Required only for ELLX flights.

LXTMA 5” Radar identification.

Task 88 Radar conflict search before issuing a clearance for climb or descent.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 5”

LXTMA 5”

Task 89 Radar monitoring of proximate routes with insufficient lateral separation.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 5”

LXTMA 6” MOSET - GTQ and MOSET - DISKI



EUROCONTROL

ROUTINE R/T COMMUNICATIONS

Task 65 First call from an aircraft departing from a specified airport.


EC RA CC AC All local airports except EBBR/EBMB

CANAC 16” Includes identify aircraft.

LXTMA Not required

Task 66 First call from an aircraft entering the first sector of an ACC.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 11” Includes assume control

LXTMA 37” ELLX arrivals

Task 67 First call from an aircraft entering another sector of the same ACC.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 7” Includes assume control

LXTMA 20” IFR

12” VFR

ELLX departures

Task 69 Report from an aircraft on passing or reaching a specified level.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 5” Reaching level only.

LXTMA 5” Reaching level only.

Task 70 Extra R/T task.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC Not required

LXTMA 5” Extra R/T task for vectoring of IFR arrivals

Task 71 Instruction to aircraft to comply with new planning clearance (level change, start of climb/descent, orreallocation of stack level to inbound aircraft).


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 6” Inputting new clearance (3”) a separate task (T63).

LXTMA 6”

Task 72 Last message to an aircraft leaving an ATC sector.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 5”

LXTMA 6”



EUROCONTROL

LIST OF RADAR CONFLICT TYPES IDENTIFIED BY THE AIRSPACE MODEL

Type 1 : Two aircraft on the same track, at the same flight level and in cruise.Type 2 : Two aircraft on the same track, one in cruise and the other in climb or descent.Type 3 : Two aircraft on the same track, both in climb or descent.Type 4 : Two aircraft on crossing tracks, at the same flight level and in cruise.Type 5 : Two aircraft on crossing tracks, one in cruise and the other in climb or descent.Type 6 : Two aircraft on crossing tracks, both in climb or descent.Type 7 : Two aircraft on opposite tracks, at the same flight level and in cruise.Type 8 : Two aircraft on opposite tracks, one in cruise and the other in climb or descent.Type 9 : Two aircraft on opposite tracks, both in climb or descent.

RADAR SUPERVISIONS

A radar supervision task occurs when a radar controller identifies a potential conflictbetween two aircraft and keeps a close surveillance on both aircraft to determine whether aradar intervention is necessary or not.

Basically, the execution times for radar supervisions have been obtained by estimating theduration of the period of surveillance (expressed as a number of radar display updates orturns of the antenna), and the time devoted by the radar controller to the surveillance of agiven conflict situation at each update of the display. The table below shows the executiontimes for the various radar supervisions that have been used in a number of en routesimulations. For certain types of conflict, it is considered that close surveillance by theradar controller would be required, on average, once every two display updates.

Conflict Type Duration of Surveillance Number of Display Updates Execution time

1 2” 10 20”

2 2” 12 24”

3 2” 12 24”

4 2” 15 30”

5 3” 12 36”

6 4” 9 36”

7 2” 9 18”

8 3” 9 27”

9 4” 9 36”

RADAR SUPERVISION TASKS

Task 91 Executive supervision for conflict type 1.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 20”

LXTMA 20”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 24”

LXTMA 24”



EUROCONTROL



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 24”

LXTMA 24”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 30”

LXTMA 30”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 36”

LXTMA 36”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 36”

LXTMA 36”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 18”

LXTMA 18”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 27”

LXTMA 27”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 36”

LXTMA 36”

RADAR INTERVENTION TASKS

Task 101 Executive intervention for conflict type 1.


EC RA CC AC

CANAC 59”

LXTMA 59”



EUROCONTROL



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 59”

LXTMA 59”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 59”

LXTMA 59”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 56”

LXTMA 56”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 56”

LXTMA 56”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 56”

LXTMA 56”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 56”

LXTMA 56”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 56”

LXTMA 56”



EC RA CC AC

CANAC 56”

LXTMA 56”

EUROCONTROL · european organisation for the safety of air navigation eurocontrol experimental...

Documents

Transcript of EUROCONTROL · european organisation for the safety of air navigation eurocontrol experimental...