The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should be 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.
EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
COSPACE 2002 FLIGHT DECK EXPERIMENTS ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF SPACING INSTRUCTIONS FROM CRUISE TO INITIAL APPROACH
EEC Report No. 388
Volume II - Annex
Project AGC-Z-FR
Issued: February 2004
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Reference: EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Security Classification: Unclassified
Originator: EEC – ACS
Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Centre de Bois des Bordes B.P.15 F – 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEX FRANCE Telephone: +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00
Sponsor: EUROCONTROL
Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Agency Rue de la Fusée, 96 B.P.15B – 1130 BRUXELLES Telephone: +32 2 729 90 11
TITLE: COSPACE 2002 FLIGHT DECK EXPERIMENTS
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF SPACING INSTRUCTIONS FROM CRUISE TO INITIAL APPROACH Volume II - Annex
Authors
Carine Hebraud (Sofreavia), Eric Hoffman,
Anne Papin (Pacte Novation) Nayen Pene (Steria),
Laurence Rognin (Steria), Carol Sheehan, Karim Zeghal
Date 02/2004
Pages vi + 172
Figures --
Tables --
Annexes --
References --
Project AGC-Z-FR
Task No. Sponsor -
Period
Distribution Statement: (a) Controlled by: EUROCONTROL Project Manager (b) Special Limitations: None (c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO
Descriptors (keywords):
ADS-B, airborne spacing, ASAS, flight crew activity, eye movement analysis, real-time experiment, sequencing applications.
Abstract: See Report.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SPACING INSTRUCTIONS ..........................................................................................1
2. SCRIPTS MAY'02 .........................................................................................................2 2.1. FLIGHT PLANS.............................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1. Simulated aircraft flight plans ............................................................................2 2.1.2. Target aircraft flight plans ..................................................................................2 2.1.3. Waypoint co-ordinates.......................................................................................2
2.2. SCENARIOS .................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1. Remain Behind ATN..........................................................................................3 2.2.2. Remain Behind OKRIX......................................................................................4 2.2.3. Merge Behind OKRIX (+ Landing ILS26) ..........................................................5 2.2.4. Merge Behind MEL............................................................................................6 2.2.5. Heading then Merge Behind OKRIX (+ Landing ILS26) ....................................7 2.2.6. Heading then Merge Behind MEL .....................................................................8
3. SYSTEM RECORDINGS MAY'02.................................................................................9 3.1. SPECIFIED .................................................................................................................... 9 3.2. IMPLEMENTED ........................................................................................................... 10
4. QUESTIONNAIRES MAY'02 ......................................................................................17 4.1. BLANK ENTRY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................. 17 4.2. BLANK POST-RUN QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................... 19 4.3. BLANK FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................ 24 4.4. FILLED FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................... 40
5. NUMBER AND DURATION OF SPEED ACTIONS MAY'02 ......................................75
6. DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED MAGNITUDE MAY'02....................................................81
7. DISTRIBUTION OF SPACING MAY'02 ......................................................................82
8. SCRIPTS DEC'02 .......................................................................................................83 8.1. FLIGHT PLANS............................................................................................................ 83
8.1.1. Simulated aircraft flight plans ..........................................................................83 8.1.2. Target aircraft flight plans ................................................................................83 8.1.3. Waypoint co-ordinates.....................................................................................84
8.2. SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................ 84 8.2.1. AFR3423 .........................................................................................................85 8.2.2. AF296BG.........................................................................................................85 8.2.3. AZA356............................................................................................................86 8.2.4. LB026MQ ........................................................................................................86
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
vi Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
9. SYSTEM RECORDINGS DEC'02 ...............................................................................88
10. LIST OF MEASUREMENTS DEC’02..........................................................................96
11. PHASES DURATION DEC'02 ....................................................................................97
12. QUESTIONNAIRES DEC'02.......................................................................................98 12.1. BLANK ENTRY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................. 98 12.2. BLANK POST-RUN QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................... 100 12.3. BLANK FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................. 102 12.4. SYNTHESIS OF THE FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................... 113
13. FLIGHT PROFILE (SPEED, CR, SPACING AND ALTITUDE) DEC'02 ...................121
14. INTERVAL ANALYSIS DEC'02 ................................................................................152 14.1. EXAMPLES OF PRELIMINARY RESULTS ............................................................... 152 14.2. DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED INTERVALS.................................................................. 154
15. TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED ADJUSTMENTS DEC’02........................156
16. DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED MAGNITUDE DEC'02..................................................159
17. FIXATIONS PER AREA OF INTEREST DEC'02......................................................163
18. SPACING DEVIATION DEC'02 ................................................................................167
19. LOSSES OF SPACING DEC’02 ...............................................................................169
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 1
1. SPACING INSTRUCTIONS
AFR123 235 ↓ 40
DLH456 250 ↓ 41
D
Behind target, remain (at least) 8Nm/90s behind
Heading then , behind target, remain (at least) 8Nm/90s behind
Behind target, merge to WPT to be (at least)8Nm/90s behind
Heading then , behind target, merge to WPT to be (at least) 8Nm/90s behind
AFR123235 ↓ 40
D WPT
DLH456250 ↓ 41
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, CoSpace
AFR123235 ↓ 40
DLH456250 ↓ 41
WPT
D
AFR123 235 ↓ 40
DLH456250 - 41
D
Applicability
Compatible performances Compatible speeds “Remain” situations: same trajectories“Merge” situations: trajectories converging direct to the merging point Remain & merge: initial spacing at least equal to desired spacing
D
Initial speed instruction may be needed Aircraft should generally be at same altitudeTop of descent should be given at appropriate time
H S C P
H S C P
H S C P H S
C P
H S C P
H SCP
Hdg Sp Controller
Pilot
Action Standard
Distance: 8NmTime: 90s
initial ≥ desired
initial ≥ desired
Yes No
AFR123 235 ↓ 40
DLH456 250 ↓ 41
D
(at least) 8Nm/90s behind
Heading then remain (at least) 8Nm/90s behind
to WPT to be
Heading then , behind target, merge to WPT to be (at least) 8Nm/90s behind
AFR123235 ↓ 40
D WPT
DLH456250 ↓ 41
AFR123235 ↓ 40
DLH456250 ↓ 41
WPT
D
AFR123 235 ↓ 40
DLH456250 - 41
D
Applicability
Compatible performances Compatible speeds “Remain” situations: same trajectories“Merge” situations: trajectories converging direct to the merging point Remain & merge: initial spacing at least equal to desired spacing
D
Initial speed instruction may be needed Aircraft should generally be at same altitudeTop of descent should be given at appropriate time
H S C P
H S C P
H S C P H S
C P
H S C P
H SCP
Hdg Sp Controller
Pilot
Action allowed Standard spacing
Distance: 8NmTime: 90s
initial ≥ desired
initial ≥ desired
Yes No
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
2 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
2. SCRIPTS MAY'02
2.1. FLIGHT PLANS
2.1.1. Simulated aircraft flight plans
Pilots were instructed to fly on the EEC A320 fixed-base simulator and the following flight plans were used for the spacing instructed aircraft:
• LB903KJ: Figari / Paris Orly at FL280 LFKF AJO3M AJO UY268 RUBAS UY268 TINOT UN854 PADKO UN854 MRM UN854 MTL UN854 ETREK UM976 MADOT UM976 ATN ATN3W OKRIX ATN3W OL44 ATN3W MEL ATN3W LFPO.
• AF203CB: Marseille / Paris Orly at FL280. LFML MTL7B MTL UN854 ETREK UM976 MADOT UM976 ATN ATN3W OKRIX ATN3W OL44 ATN3W MEL ATN3W LFPO.
• LB114ZR: Strasbourg / Paris Orly at FL220. LFST EPL6J EPL EPL3W LUVAL EPL3W BOLLY EPL3W OKRIX EPL3W OL44 EPL3W MEL EPL3W LFPO.
The scenarios were designed with arrivals at Paris Orly on runway 26 and ATIS was given in consequence.
2.1.2. Target aircraft flight plans
The target aircraft traffic was generated by PLUME (Pilotage Limité à l’Utilisation des Moyens Existants) and the following flight plans were used:
• AF227PO: Marseille / Paris Orly with A320 at FL280 (SSR 2312). LFML ETREK ATN OKRIX MEL LFPO.
• AF218QR: Lyon / Paris Orly with A320 at FL220 (SSR 2012). LFLL DANBO ATN OKRIX MEL LFPO.
• AF121RT: Bâle Mulhouse / Paris Orly with A320 at FL280. LFSB BLM HR DELOX DIJ CHABY OKRIX MEL LFPO.
2.1.3. Waypoint co-ordinates
Waypoint Co-ordinates Waypoint Co-ordinates
AJO N41 46.2 E008 46.5 ATN N46 48.4 E004 15.5 BOLLY N48 05.5 E004 09.1 EPL N48 19.1 E006 03.6 ETREK N45 11.3 E004 38.3 LFKF N41 30.1 E009 05.8 LFML N43 26.2 E005 12.9 LFPO N48 43.4 E002 22.8 LFST N48 32.4 E007 37.9 LUVAL N48 17.6 E005 07.2
MADOT N45 43.8 E004 30.8 MEL N48 27.3 E002 48.8 MRM N43 22.6 E005 19.6 MTL N44 33.3 E004 46.8
OKRIX N47 58.0 E003 34.1 OL44 N48 13.2 E003 10.8 PADKO N43 13.9 E005 20.0 RUBAS N42 22.6 E006 34.1 TINOT N42 41.9 E005 18.9
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 3
2.2. SCENARIOS
As described in the report, the experiment objectives led to a 3×2 design: type of application (remain, merge, heading then merge) × flight phase (cruise, initial descent). The resulting experimental plan is presented in the table below:
Pilot Runs Conditions
1 2
Run 1 RB Remain Behind ATN (in cruise) PF PNF
Run 2 RB_OK Remain Behind OKRIX (in descent) PNF PF
Run 3 MB_OK Merge Behind OKRIX (in cruise) + Landing ILS 26 PNF PF
Run 4 MB_MEL Merge Behind MEL (in descent) PF PNF
Run 5 HMB_OK Heading then Merge Behind OKRIX (in cruise) + Landing ILS 26 PF PNF
Run 6 HMB_MEL Heading then Merge Behind MEL (in descent) PNF PF
A pseudo-controller gives the instructions on the frequency by R/T and performs the necessary target actions. The detail of the scenarios for each run is given below with expected pilot answers. The reference time of the scenarios is the time indicated on PLUME.
2.2.1. Remain Behind ATN
Cockpit flight plan: Figari (FSC) – Paris Orly (ORY) positioned at MADOT. SSR is 2142 and the radio frequency is set to 133.15.
Target flight plan: AF227PO / Marseille (MRS) - Orly (ORY).
Start of run at: 04:12:58.
04:15:00 Instruction: “LB903KJ, Contact Paris on 118.85” (~50 NM before ATN) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 118.85 LB903KJ” … on 118.85: “Paris bonjour LB903KJ” Instruction: “LB903KJ, Bonjour, proceed to ATN” Pilot: “Proceeding to ATN LB903KJ” 04:19:42 Instruction: “LB903KJ, Select target 2312, 12 o’clock.” (~15 NM before ATN) Pilot: “Selecting target 2312 LB903KJ” … “Target 2312 identified LB903KJ” Instruction: “LB903KJ, Behind target Remain 8 miles behind” (~ 04:20:15) Pilot: “Remaining 8 miles behind target LB903KJ” 04:27:10 Communication: “AF227PO, descend level 70.” (~ target at 25 NM Okrix) And action the target on PLUME to descend FL70 04:27:40 Instruction: “LB903KJ, descend level 70.” ~ 30 NM before OKRIX Pilot: “Descending level 70 LB903KJ” 04:31:25 Action the target on PLUME to reduce speed 250 kt. (~ target at FL150) (Warning: check that PLUME keeps FL70 constraint)
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
4 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
04:37:00 Instruction: “LB903KJ, Contact Orly Approach on 118.75” (~15 NM of MEL) Pilot: “Contacting Orly Approach on 118.75 LB903KJ” … on 118.75: “Orly Approach bonjour LB903KJ” Instruction: “LB903KJ, Bonjour, cancel delegation, reduce 220 kt” Pilot: “Cancelling delegation, reducing 220 kt, LB903KJ”
2.2.2. Remain Behind OKRIX
Cockpit scenario: Marseille (MRS) – Paris Orly (ORY) positioned at MADOT. SSR is 2142 and the radio frequency is set to 133.15.
Target flight plan: AF227PO / Marseille (MRS) - Orly (ORY).
Start of run at: 04:13:04.
04:15:05 Instruction: “AF203CB, Contact Paris on 118.85” (~ 50 NM before ATN) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 118.85 AF203CB” … on 118.85 “Paris bonjour AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB, Bonjour, proceed to ATN” Pilot: “Proceeding to ATN AF203CB” 04:27:15 Communication: “AF227PO, descend level 70.” (target at 25 NM Okrix) And action the target on PLUME to descend FL70 Instruction: “AF203CB, descend level 70.” (~30 NM before OKRIX) Pilot: “Descending level 70 AF203CB” 04:29:40 Instruction: “AF203CB, Select target 2312, position target.” (~15 NM OKRIX) Pilot: “Selecting target 2312, AF203CB” … “Target 2312 identified, 12 o’clock, 9NM, AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB, Behind target Remain 8 miles behind” Pilot: “Remaining 8 miles behind target AF203CB” 04:31:05 Action target to reduce speed 250 kt. (~ target at FL150) 04:37:05 Instruction: “AF203CB, Contact Orly Approach on 118.75” (~15 NM MEL) Pilot: “Contacting Orly Approach on 118.75 AF203CB” … on 118.75 “Orly Approach bonjour AF203CB” Instruction: “Hello AF203CB, cancel delegation and at MEL, take heading 280” Pilot: “Cancelling delegation, and heading 280 at MEL, AF203CB”
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 5
2.2.3. Merge Behind OKRIX (+ Landing ILS26)
Cockpit scenario: Strasbourg (SXB) – Paris Orly (ORY) positioned at 16NM from EPL. SSR is 2142 and the radio frequency is set to 133.15.
Target flight plan: AF218QR / Lyon (LYS) - Orly (ORY).
Start of run at: 04:14:10. 04:22:00 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact Paris on 132.10” (~40 NM before BOLLY) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 132.10 LB114ZR” … on 132.10 “Paris bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR, Bonjour, proceed level 220” Pilot: “Proceeding level 220 LB114ZR” 04:25:40 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact Paris on 118.85” (~15 NM before BOLLY) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 118.85 LB114ZR” … on 118.85 “Paris bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR, Bonjour, Select target 2012, 11 o’clock, FL220” Pilot: “Selecting target 2012 LB114ZR” (Target at ~40NM) … “Target 2012 identified LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR, behind target, merge to OKRIX to be 8 miles behind” Pilot: “Merging to OKRIX to be 8 miles behind target LB114ZR” 04:29:15 Instruction: “AF218QR, descend level 70.” (~15 NM before OKRIX) And action the target on PLUME to descend FL70 04:30:00 Instruction: “LB114ZR, descend level 70.” (~ 10 NM before OKRIX) Pilot: “Descending level 70 LB114ZR” 04:31:00 Action target to reduce speed 250 kt. (~ target at FL160) 04:36:00 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact Orly Approach on 118.75” (~15 NM MEL) Pilot: “Contacting Orly Approach on 118.75 LB114ZR” … on 118.75 “Orly Approach bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR, bonjour, cancel delegation, speed 240kt” Pilot: “Cancelling delegation, speed 240kt LB114ZR” 04:39:05 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Heading North, Descend 3000 ft QNH 1015” (~MEL) Pilot: “Heading North, descending 3000 ft QNH 1015, LB114ZR” 04:42:00 Instruction: “LB114ZR, reduce speed 210kt” Pilot: “Reducing speed 210kt LB114ZR” 04:43:10 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Heading 300 to intercept ILS26, report established” Pilot: “Heading 300 to intercept ILS26, LB114ZR” … “ LB114ZR, Established on ILS26” Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact tower on 120.5, Goodbye” Pilot: “Contacting Tower on 120.5 LB114ZR” … on 120.5 “Tower bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR Bonjour, clear to land ILS approach rwy 26,
wind Calm.”
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
6 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
2.2.4. Merge Behind MEL
Cockpit scenario: Strasbourg (SXB) – Paris Orly (ORY) positioned at 16NM from EPL. SSR is 2142 and the radio frequency is set to 133.15.
Target flight plan: AF218QR / Lyon (LYS) - Orly (ORY).
Start of run at: 04:15:15.
04:19:20 Action target Direct to MEL on Plume (~ target at ATN) 04:23:05 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact Paris on 132.10” (~40 NM before BOLLY) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 132.10 LB114ZR” … on 132.10 “Paris bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR, Bonjour, maintain flight level 220” Pilot: “Maintaining level 220 LB114ZR” 04:27:15 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact Paris on 118.85” (~10 NM before BOLLY) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 118.85 LB114ZR” … on 118.85 “Paris bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “LB114ZR, Bonjour, proceed direct to MEL” Pilot: “Proceeding direct MEL LB114ZR” 04:29:00 Communication: “AF218QR, descend level 70.” (~55 NM before MEL) And action target on Plume to descend FL70 04:29:40 Instruction: “LB114ZR, descend level 70.” (~50 NM before MEL) Pilot: “Descending level 70 LB114ZR” 04:30:25 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Select target 2012, position target.” (~45 NM of MEL) Pilot: “Selecting target 2012 LB114ZR” … “Target 2012 identified LB114ZR, __ o’clock | __ NM” Instruction: “LB114ZR, behind target, merge to MEL to be 8 miles behind” Pilot: “Merging to MEL to be 8 miles behind target LB114ZR” 04:31:00 Action target on Plume to reduce speed 250 kt. (~ target at FL170) 04:36:00 Instruction: “LB114ZR, Contact Orly Approach on 118.75” (~15 NM MEL) Pilot: “Contacting Orly Approach on 118.75 LB114ZR” … “Orly Approach bonjour LB114ZR” Instruction: “Hello LB114ZR, cancel delegation. Descend FL 60, speed 250kt.” Pilot: “Cancelling delegation, descending FL60, Speed 250 LB114ZR”
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 7
2.2.5. Heading then Merge Behind OKRIX (+ Landing ILS26)
Cockpit scenario: Marseille (MRS) – Paris Orly (ORY) positioned at MADOT. SSR is 2142 and the radio frequency is set to 133.15.
Target flight plan: AF121RT / Basle Mulhouse (MLH) - Orly (ORY).
Start of run at: 04:19:32.
04:21:35 Instruction: “AF203CB, Contact Paris on 118.85” (~50 NM before ATN) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 118.85 AF203CB” … on 118.85 “Paris bonjour AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB, Bonjour, proceed to ATN” Pilot: “Proceeding to ATN AF203CB” 04:28:55 Instruction: “AF203CB, Select target 2512, 3 o’clock.” (~5 NM after ATN) Pilot: “Selecting target 2512 AF203CB” … “Target 2512 identified AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB, Heading 020 then behind target merge to OKRIX to be 8
miles behind” Pilot: “Heading 020 then will merge to OKRIX to be 8 miles behind target
AF203CB” … “ AF203CB, merging to OKRIX ” 04:34:20 Communication: “AF121RT, descend level 70.” (~target at 30 NM Okrix) And action target on PLUME to descend FL70 Instruction: “AF203CB, descend level 70.” (~30 NM before OKRIX) Pilot: “Descending level 70 AF203CB” 04:38:15 Action target on PLUME to reduce speed 250 kt. 04:45:00 Instruction: “AF203CB, Contact Orly Approach on 118.75” (~15 NM MEL) Pilot: “Contacting Orly Approach on 118.75 AF203CB” … on 118.75 “Orly Approach bonjour AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB, Bonjour, cancel delegation speed 240 kt.” Pilot: “Cancelling delegation, speed 240kt, AF203CB” 04:47:20 Instruction: “AF203CB, Heading North, Descend 3000 ft QNH 1007” (~MEL) Pilot: “Heading North, descending 3000 ft QNH 1007, AF203CB” 04:50:00 Instruction: “AF203CB, Reduce speed 210 kt.” Pilot: “Reducing speed 210kt, AF203CB” 04:51:10 Instruction: “AF203CB, Heading 300 to intercept ILS26, report established” Pilot: “Heading 300 to intercept ILS26, AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB, Contact tower on 120.5” (~ at FAF) Pilot: “Contacting Tower on 120.5 AF203CB” … on 120.5 “Tower bonjour AF203CB” Instruction: “AF203CB Bonjour, clear to land ILS approach runway 26, wind 220
degrees / 18 knots.”
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
8 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
2.2.6. Heading then Merge Behind MEL
Cockpit scenario: Figari (FSC) – Paris Orly (ORY) positioned at MADOT. SSR is 2142 and the radio frequency is set to 133.15.
Target flight plan: AF121RT / Basle Mulhouse (MLH) - Orly (ORY).
Start of run at: 04:19:59.
04:22:05 Instruction: “LB903KJ, Contact Paris on 118.85” (~50 NM before ATN) Pilot: “Contacting Paris on 118.85 LB903KJ” … on 118.85 “Paris bonjour LB903KJ” Instruction: “LB903KJ, Bonjour, proceed to ATN” Pilot: “Proceeding to ATN LB903KJ” 04:28:45 Instruction: “LB903KJ, proceed direct to MEL” (~ at ATN) Pilot: “Proceeding direct MEL LB903KJ” Communication: “AF121RT, proceed direct to MEL” (~ soon after) And action target on PLUME direct to MEL 04:34:30 Communication: “AF121RT, descend level 70.” (~ 80 NM before MEL) And action target on PLUME to descend FL70 Instruction: “LB903KJ, descend level 70, speed 300 knots.” (~at 75 NM MEL) Pilot: “Descending level 70 LB903KJ, speed 300kt” 04:35:30 Instruction: “LB903KJ, Select target 2512, position target.” (~65 NM of MEL) Pilot: “Selecting target 2512 LB903KJ” … “Target 2512 identified LB903KJ, __ o’clock | __ NM” Instruction: “LB903KJ, Heading 030 then behind target merge to MEL to be 8 miles
behind” “Pilot: Heading 030 then will merge to MEL to be 8 miles behind LB903KJ” … “ LB903KJ, merging to MEL ” Instruction: “Roger” 04:38:45 Action target on PLUME to reduce speed 250 kt. (~ target at FL160) 04:45:55 Instruction: “LB903KJ, Contact Orly Approach on 118.75” (~15 NM MEL) Pilot “Contacting Orly Approach on 118.75 LB903KJ” … on 118.75 “Orly Approach bonjour LB903KJ” Instruction: “LB903KJ, Bonjour, cancel delegation, and proceed MEL FL 60, speed
250 kt” Pilot “Cancelling delegation, proceeding MEL FL 60, speed 250 kt,LB903KJ”
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 9
3. SYSTEM RECORDINGS MAY'02
3.1. SPECIFIED
System Function concerned Information Continuous
or Discrete
ASAS Page concerned (mode selected: remain, merge), data input (e.g. 12) and LSK selected
Initial time (when selection starts) Duration (if page left open)
D C
- target selected Time of selection D
- delta between constraint distance and current separation
C
- unable status and phase concerned (set up
spacing instruction versus maintain separation)
time D C
- loss of separation (two cases <2NM and
>2NM) avec time associe time D
C
MCDU
Other Information that function other than ASAS is selected
Initial time Duration
D C
ND Range Range selected Time D
ND Mode (ARC, ROSE) Mode selected Time D
FCU
Auto-pilot Parameter and value entered (speed, heading, vertical rate) and value
Initial time D
Comm. R/T PTT Pilot concerned (PF or PNF)
Time Duration
D
PFD Flight parameters (current speed, heading, V/S)
Time C
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
10 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
3.2. IMPLEMENTED
The MCS produces 2 files: Data file: datalogJJ-MM-AAA-HH-MM.data Action file: actionLogJJ-MM-AAA-HH-MM.data In dataLog file, every second the following data, related to the MCS aircraft are recorded:
Label Meaning
RealTime Real time
SimulationTime Simulation time
CodeSSR MCS SSR Code
Callsign MCS Callsign
dLatitude Latitude of the aircraft, in minutes
dLongitude Longitude of the aircraft, in minutes
dAltitude Altitude of the aircraft from sea level, in feet
dRadioAltitude Altitude of the aircraft from the ground, in feet
dBaroAltitude Barometric Altitude of the aircraft, in feet
dHeading True Heading (cap) of the aircraft, in degrees
dTrack True Track (route) of the aircraft, in degrees
dBank Bank Angle (roulis) of the aircraft, in degrees
dDerive Drift Angle of the aircraft, in degrees (dTrack = dHeading + dDerive)
dAlpha Angle of attack of the aircraft, in degrees
dFpa Flight Path Angle of the aircraft, in degrees
lFlightTime Elapsed time from lift-off, in seconds
dSpeed Speed of the aircraft, expressed in Knots
dMach Speed of the aircraft, expressed in MACH
dVs Vertical Speed of the aircraft, in feet/Minute
dGs Ground Speed of the aircraft, in Knots
dTAS True Air Speed of the aircraft, in Knots
dTrend Speed trend, in Knots
dTurnRadius Current turn radius, in NM
dTurnRate Angular Speed of the change in heading, in degrees/second
dPoussee Thrust
dFreqCOM Communication frequency
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 11
In ActionLog file, the following data are recorded: Continuous data, every 300ms:
Label Meaning
RealTime Real time
SimulationTime Simulation time
IAS Indicated Air Speed of the aircraft expressed in Knots
GS Ground Speed of the aircraft expressed in Knots
TAS True Air Speed of the aircraft expressed in Knots
Heading True heading of the aircraft, in degrees
V/S Vertical Speed of the aircraft, in feet/Minute
CURR_SEP Distance between own aircraft and the target
ATD Along Track distance between own aircraft and the target
REQ_SEP Required spacing Distance
Delta distance Difference between dDistance and REQ_SEP
CR Closure Rate
target GS Ground speed of the target expressed in Knots
target Hdg True heading of the target in degrees
target level Altitude of the target in feet
Discrete data: FCU
Simul Time Label Value
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Pull Pressure Pressure = 1013
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Turn Pressure Pressure = 1014
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Pressure Pressure Capt= 1023 F/O = 1013
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Turn Pressure Pressure = 1015
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Push Pressure Pressure = 1015
00:12:12 FCU: Unit Baro Capt =1
00:12:12 FCU: Unit Baro Capt =0
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS CAPT OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS CAPT ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director CAPT ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director CAPT OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = ADF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = VOR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = ADF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = VOR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = PLAN
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = ARC
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = NAV
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = VOR
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
12 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Simul Time Label Value
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = ILS
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = CSTR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = WPT
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = NDB
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = VORD
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = ARPT
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 10
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 20
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 40
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 80
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 160
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Speed IAS speed = 254 Knot
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Turn Speed IAS speed = 257 Knot
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Heading HEADING = 351 degres
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Heading HEADING = 351degres
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton LOCalizer OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton LOCalizer ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto THRust ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto THRust OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 2 OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 2 ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Altitude level = 28000 feet
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Altitude level = 30000 feet
00:12:12 FCU: Incr Alt = 100
00:12:12 FCU: Incr Alt = 1000
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton EXPEDite OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton EXPEDite ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton APPRoach OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton APPRoach ON
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Vertical Speed V/S = -900 feet/minutes
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Vertical Speed V/S = 0 feet/minutes
00:14:43 Action = FCU: Pull Vertical Speed PFA = 4 degres
00:14:43 Action = FCU: Push Vertical Speed PFA = 0 degres
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = ADF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = VOR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 10
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 20
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 13
Simul Time Label Value
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 40
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 80
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 160
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = ARPT
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = VORD
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = NDB
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = WPT
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = CSTR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = ADF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = VOR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = OFF
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = NAV
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = VOR
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = ILS
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = ARC
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = PLAN
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O OFF
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director F/O ON
00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director F/O OFF
00:12:12 FCU: TURN HEADING = 352
Frequency:
Simul Time Action Label
00:12:12 Turns frequency knob on selector 2 Select frequency 119.00 from COM 2
00:12:12 Turns frequency knob on selector 2 Select frequency 120.00 from COM 2
00:12:12 Turns frequency knob on selector 1 Select frequency 118.00 from COM 1
MCDU:
Simul Time
Action Label
00:12:12 Chooses ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Target
00:12:12 Inputs an SSR code for the target Action MCDU CAPT Select Target = 2037 00:12:12 Following a target selection, the ASAS mode page is
displayed after « Insert » Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2037
00:12:12 Merge LSK is pressed Action MCDU CAPT Press Key MERGE
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
14 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Simul Time
Action Label
00:12:12 Merge page is displayed Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Merge Behind page 1⁄2 for Target 2037
00:12:12 Input of the wpt Action MCDU CAPT Select Waypoint = ATN for Target 2037
00:12:12 Input of the distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = 38 for Target 2037
00:12:12 Display of the page de merge avec les valeurs saisies Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Merge Behind page 2/2 distance and waypoint selected for Target 2037
00:12:12 Display of the message Action MCDU UNABLE DELEGATION for Target 2037
00:12:12 Input of the distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = 24 00:12:12 Display of the Merge page with selected values: the merge
is possible Action MCDU Display for CAPT req speed = 455 to Merge to ATN 24 Nm behind target 2037, AO645DP , 28004 feet,452 knot
00:12:12 Presses insert Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Merge Behind Active for Target 2037
00:12:12 Spacing error becomes greater than 1 Action MCDU LOSING SEPARATION for Target 2037
00:12:12 Spacing error becomes greater than 2 Action MCDU UNABLE DELEGATION for Target 2037
00:12:12 Presses End deleg Action MCDU CAPT End Delegation for Target 2037
00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS Mode with “end deleg” accessible
Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2037
00:12:12 Presses End deleg Action MCDU CAPT Confirm End Delegation for Target 2037
00:12:12 Display of the main menu Action MCDU CAPT Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Presses ASAS Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Target 00:12:12 Input of the target Action MCDU CAPT Select Target = 1234 00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 1234 00:12:12 Presses ASAS depuis MCDU du FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU
= ASAS Mode for Target 1234 00:12:12 Chooses Remain mode Action MCDU CAPT Press Key REMAIN 00:12:12 Display of the page Remain Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = Remain Behind page 1⁄2 distance to select for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display of the page Remain pour FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 1⁄2 distance to select for Target 1234
00:12:12 Input of a distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = 38 for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display page Remain behind possible for CAPT Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 2/2 distance selected for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display page Remain behind possible for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 2/2 distance selected for Target 1234
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 15
Simul Time
Action Label
00:12:12 Presses insert Action MCDU Display for CAPT req speed = 454 to Remain 38 Nm behind target 1234,AF001BL , 24006 feet,425 knot
00:12:12 Display Remain active page for CAPT Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Remain Behind Active for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display Remain active page for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = Remain Behind Active for Target 1234
00:12:12 Presses End deleg Action MCDU CAPT End Delegation for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode with end deleg active Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 1234
00:12:12 Idem for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 1234
00:12:12 Presses End deleg Action MCDU CAPT Confirm End Delegation for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display of the main menu Action MCDU CAPT Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Display of the main menu for FO Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Chooses ASAS Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Target 00:12:12 Inputs an SSR code for the target Action MCDU CAPT Select Target = 2210 00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2210 00:12:12 Chooses Cross behind Action MCDU CAPT Press Key CROSS
BEHIND 00:12:12 Display of the page Cross Behind Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = Cross Behind for Target 2210 00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from
Cross Behind 00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2210 00:12:12 Chooses Pass behind Action MCDU CAPT Press Key PASS
BEHIND 00:12:12 Display of the page Pass Behind Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = Pass Behind for Target 2210 00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from
Pass Behind 00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2210 00:12:12 Chooses Cross Above Action MCDU CAPT Press Key CROSS
ABOVE 00:12:12 Display of the page Cross Above Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = Cross Above for Target 2210 00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from
Cross Above 00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2210 00:12:12 Chooses Pass Above Action MCDU CAPT Press Key PASS
Above 00:12:12 Display of the page Pass Above Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page
MCDU = Pass Above for Target 2210
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
16 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Simul Time
Action Label
00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from Pass Above
00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2210
00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from ASAS Mode
00:12:12 Display of the page target Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Target
00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from ASAS Target
00:12:12 Display of the main menu Action MCDU CAPT Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Presses on « Dir To » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page DIR TO 00:12:12 Presses on « PROG » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page PROG 00:12:12 Presses on « PERF » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page PERF CRUISE 00:12:12 Presses on « DATA » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page DATA 00:12:12 Presses on « F-PLAN » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page FLIGHT PLAN 00:12:12 Presses on « RAD NAV » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page RADIO NAV 00:12:12 Presses on « FUEL PRED » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page FUEL PREDICTION 00:12:12 Presses on « SEC F-PLN » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page SEC INDEX 00:12:12 Presses on « AIRPORT » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for
page FLIGHT PLAN 00:12:12 Input of an erroneous distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance
= -56 for Target 1234 00:12:12 Message displayed Action MCDU CAPT FORMAT ERROR
= -56 00:12:12 Input of an erroneous waypoint Action MCDU CAPT Select Waypoint
= KLM for Target 2037 00:12:12 Message displayed Action MCDU CAPT INVALID WAYPOINT
= KLM 00:12:12 Input of an erroneous SSR code Action MCDU CAPT INVALID SSR CODE
= 20
Speed brakes position
Simul Time Action Label 00:12:12 Selection of RET Speed brake position = 0 00:12:12 Selection of 1/4 Speed brake position = 1 00:12:12 Selection of 1/2 Speed brake position = 2 00:12:12 Selection of 3/4 Speed brake position = 3 00:12:12 Selection of FULL Speed brake position = 4
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 17
4. QUESTIONNAIRES MAY'02
4.1. BLANK ENTRY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: Date: ___/___/___
When making your ratings, please consider all levels of the scale. You are encouraged to write any additional comments you feel important.
Background
1. What is your age in years? ____ years
2. How long have you been a pilot _________flight hours ____ years
3. What types of aircraft are you rated in?
4. How long have you been flying A 320? _________flight hours ____ years
5. What is your current function? Captain Co-pilot Other:
Please briefly describe your pilot experience:
6. Please circle the number that best describes your motivation to participate in this study.
notmotivated 1 2 3 4 extremely
motivated
7. Had you ever heard before about "delegation of separation"?
Yes No
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
18 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Please, indicate how much you agree/disagree with the following statements
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 strongly agree
Delegating separation assurance to aircraft might be dangerous 1 2 3 4
There are some benefits of delegation 1 2 3 4
Air traffic should always remain under controllers' responsibility 1 2 3 4
Delegation can reduce the pilot workload 1 2 3 4
Delegation can increase my monitoring effort 1 2 3 4
Delegating spacing task to aircrew will increase safety 1 2 3 4
Delegating spacing task to aircrew will impair capacity and efficiency 1 2 3 4
Additional comments: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 19
4.2. BLANK POST-RUN QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: Date: Run #
Exercise: Function: PF /PNF
Assess the relevance of the following items, in each phase of delegation.
Please rate from 0 to 5 (none to very relevant), and provide comments when necessary.
Maintain spacing Understand
situation Acquire initial
spacing Monitor Detect Recover Comments
ND Link
ND
Arc of circle
ND Constraints
ND
Arc & arrow
ND
MCDU
Distance
MCDU
Time to sep
ND Closure rate
Colour coding
Cyan (C)
White (W)
Amber (A)
Both
Red (R)
ND
Target GS
MCDU
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
20 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Maintain spacing Understand
situation Acquire initial
spacing Monitor Detect Recover Comments
MCDU
Own GS
MCDU
Textual data
Other
Please rate how much you agree / disagree with the following statements (circle answer). Do not hesitate to comments whenever needed.
The new tasks induced by delegation (e.g. set up, monitor) are less demanding than the ones removed (e.g. execute successive instructions).
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Maintaining the separation disturbs conventional flight tasks.
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
When monitoring the target, I tend to question controllers' decisions.
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 21
Understanding the situation is more demanding with delegation.
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Despite the new errors introduced, the level of safety is maintained thanks to the supports for error detection and recovery provided by delegation.
Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Compared to today situation, with delegation I feel in a position, that is more
Reactive Anticipative (please circle answer)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
The precision of spacing I felt I could maintain with delegation was (in nm):
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1+
Please circle desired value.
Additional comments: _____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
22 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Subject: Date: Run #
Exercise: Function: PF / PNF Time:
NASA TLX RATING SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: On each scale, place a mark that represents the magnitude of that factor in the task you just performed. MENTAL DEMAND
Description
Please indicate, with a cross on the vertical line, how much mental effort it cost to do your work in the run.
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
costing lots and lots of effort
costing very much effort
costing much effort
fairly effortful
rather effortful
costing some effort
costing a little effort
hardly effortful
costing no effort
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 23
PHYSICAL DEMAND Description How much physical activity was required (e.g., pushing, pulling, turning, controlling, activating, etc.)? Was the task easy or demanding, slow or brisk, slack or strenuous, restful or laborious?
LOW HIGH TEMPORAL DEMAND Description How much time pressure did you feel due to the rate or pace at which the tasks or task elements occurred? Was the pace slow and leisurely or rapid and frantic?
LOW HIGH PERFORMANCE Description How successful do you think you were in accomplishing the goals of the task set by the experimenter (or yourself)? How satisfied were you with your performance in accomplishing these goals?
FAILURE PERFECT EFFORT Description How hard did you have to work (mentally and physically) to accomplish you level of performance?
LOW HIGH FRUSTRATION Description How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed and annoyed versus secure, gratified, content, relaxed and complacent did you feel during the task?
LOW HIGH
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
24 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
4.3. BLANK FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Name1: _________ Date: ___ / 05 / 02 You have taken part in a 1 day simulation, investigating the issue of task delegation from controllers to pilots. The objective of the present questionnaire is to collect your final feedback on the simulation and on the concept itself. The following items tend to cover most of the issues that we identified as important. Please answer the following questions, providing as much comments as possible. Do not hesitate to add additional comments if you feel some items are still missing. Thank you for your collaboration.
Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements. Space is provided after each question for additional comments.
Simulation Characteristics
Flight
Are you familiar with the type of flight simulated? Yes / No
If no, did this impact on your evaluation? No / Slightly / Highly _____________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
How complex did you find the scenarios Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
Comments: ______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Working environment
How would you rate the quality of the working environment? Very low / Low / High / Very high (displays, R/T communications)
Comments: ______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Did you experience problems with the human-machine interface? Yes / No (please list) ________ _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
If yes, did this impact on your evaluation? No / Slightly / Highly __________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
1 Results of this experiment (data collected, answers to questionnaires) will be published either as Eurocontrol technical papers, academic journal or conference articles. Your identity will be kept confidential. Neither your employer nor any regulatory agency shall have access to your identity as it appears in any of the data collected from this questionnaire or any other sources for the purpose of this study. Once this occurs your identity will be deleted.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 25
Communication with controllers
How would you rate the realism of pseudo-Controllers' Very low / Low/ High / Very high instructions ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Target aircraft behaviour
Did you experience problems with the target aircraft behaviour? Yes / No (please list) __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
If yes, did this impact on your evaluation? No / Slightly / Highly ____________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Realism of simulation
How would you qualify the overall realism of?
- Flight plan Realistic / Unrealistic - Flight tasks Realistic / Unrealistic - Own aircraft behaviour Realistic / Unrealistic - Overall cockpit Realistic / Unrealistic Comments: _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Delegation-related tools Instructions and procedures
Did you feel the delegation procedures were:
- Easy to understand Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally - Logical Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally - Easy to learn and remember Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally - Adapted to flight crews Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally
Comments _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
How would you rate the ease of use of each application:
- Remain Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Merge Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Heading then merge Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Did you identify some applications more difficult to implement than other? Yes / No
If yes, which ones and why?__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
26 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Did the phase of flight (cruise, descent, initial approach) make some applications more appropriate? Yes / No
If yes, please explain _______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Could the feasibility of delegation be influenced by the Never / Sometimes / Often / Always phase of flight?
Please explain_____________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Phraseology
The phraseology was Very clear / Generally understandable / Slightly ambiguous / Very ambiguous
Why? ___________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Was the phraseology difficult to learn? Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very Which – if any – did you find difficult? __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
How much time did it take you to learn this new phraseology? A very little / A little / A lot Why? ___________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
How operational did the phraseology sound? Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very Were there parts of the phraseology less operational? Yes / No
If yes, which ones? _________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Were you able to comply with this phraseology during exercises? Never / Occasionally / Often / Always
Why? ___________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
General comments and suggestions about phraseology: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Usability of Information Displays
Understandability
In general, minimum effort was required to understand displayed information.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 27
In the following table, please describe for each indication, its relevance (what for, when) and its limits.
Relevance and limits
ND Link
ND Arc of circle
ND
Constraints
ND Arc & arrow
ND
M C D U
Distance
M C D U Time
ND
Closure Rate
Colour coding Cyan (C) White (W) Amber (A)
ND & M C D U
Red (R) ND
Target GS
M C D U
MC D U
Own GS
MC D U
Textual data
Other
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
28 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
MCDU
Terms and acronyms used were difficult to understand (if agreement, please list problematic terms)
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The arrangement of information on MCDU pages made them easy to understand
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
The display of information provided me with enough information to identifiy which entries were permitted
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Colors used to highlight information (target features, required distance) were sometimes difficult to interpret
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The information provided on time to separation was easy to understand
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
ND
I had problems understanding the target flight information (FL and vertical trend)
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
I had problems understanding the additional target flight information (GS, Closure Rate, Distance)
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The symbols used (e.g. triangle for target, arc of circle for required spacing position) were easy to understand
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 29
It was difficult to understand the meaning of the arc of circle (required spacing position)
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
I never confused the predicted spacing position symbol with the top of descent
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
It required minimal effort to understand color codes associated with spacing status (white, amber, red)
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Ease of use Inputing and displaying information seemed natural
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Using the MCDU and ND to maintain spacing was very complex
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
MCDU
Minimal effort was required to select target
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Interactions with the MCDU pages were intuitive
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Going through the MCDU pages was a problem
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Too much information was displayed
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
30 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
I encountered problems when trying to recover from an error
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
ND
Minimal effort was required to get target displayed on ND
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The size of information was too small to be easily read and used
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Display clutter was a problem
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Consistency
In general, information displayed and interaction with devices (MCDU, ND) are consistent with current flight deck standards
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The colours used on the ND are consistent with Airbus flight deck displays
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree ______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
The colours used on the MCDU are consistent with Airbus flight deck displays
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The sequence of actions required by delegation is different from usual navigation-related actions
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
It was difficult to recognise information related to the ASAS mode
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 31
Confusion
I noticed confusing functions and terms
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
I could easily make the distinction between the various information displayed
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
I noticed contradictions between various information displayed
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
In some cases I confused color codes
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Usefulness
The color changes interfered with identification of the spacing status
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The information display was appropriate to determine spacing from target aircraft
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The loss of spacing was unsuitably highlighted
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The information displayed on ND was relevant and useful
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
32 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Learnability
The similarity with existing supports makes the interfaces easy to learn
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
I encountered problems in learning how to use and how to interact with the MCDU pages
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
It was easy to remember how to cancel actions
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
Delegation Task Analysis
How would you rate the effort to:
- Select target Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex - Identify target Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex - Assess feasibility of delegation Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex - Implement solution Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex - Maintain spacing Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex - Monitor situation Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex - Recover losses of spacing Very easy / Easy / Complex / Highly complex
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
How compatible with flying tasks was it to:
- Select target Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Identify target Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Assess feasibility of delegation Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Implement solution Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Maintain spacing Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Monitor situation Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Recover losses of spacing Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
The way in which data is entered on MCDU respect the logic of the delegation task
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The way in which data is output on ND is not suited to my needs
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 33
The important information and functions required to maintain the spacing are easy to find
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
The actions suggested (required speed, resume indicator) by the system were:
- Useful Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Easy to understand Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Sufficient Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ The monitoring cues were:
- Intuitive Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Relevant Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Too numerous Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ Did the delegation modify your monitoring when:
- PF Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - PNF Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very Comments: _____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ Did delegation require more interactions and co-operation in the cockpit? Yes / No
Please explain: __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
34 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Impact Analysis Workload
Compared to today situations, how would you rate:
- The mental effort in the cockpit as a PF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher - The mental effort in the cockpit as a PNF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher Comments _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Did some applications (remain, merge, heading then…) lead to higher workload? Yes / No
If yes, which ones, and why? _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
The workload (including speed/heading changes) to achieve spacing was acceptable
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
The workload (including speed/heading changes) to maintain spacing was too heavy
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Situation awareness Compared to today situations, how would you rate:
- Your situation awareness as a PF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher - Your situation awareness as a PNF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher Comments _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Compared to situation without delegation, how was your awareness of:
- Your flight parameters in general Better / Same / Worst - Your position in traffic Better / Same / Worst - Surrounding traffic Better / Same / Worst - Possible forthcoming problems Better / Same / Worst Please comment_________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
I was never surprised by the type of instruction given, thanks to the information on the target
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 35
Compared to situations without delegation, do you feel your communication were:
- Less frequent / Same / More frequent - Shorter / Same / Longer Please comment_________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
As a consequence, how was your communication load with delegation?
Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher Please comment_________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Monitoring tasks
Do you feel delegation modified your scanning pattern in the cockpit,
As a PF? Yes / No As a PNF? Yes / No If yes, is it in terms of: Scan content / Scan rate / Both As a PF, was your scanning pattern:
- Less frequent Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - Gathering more information Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - Focused on a specific item (which one? ___________) Never / Sometimes / Often / Always As a PNF, was your scanning pattern:
- Less frequent Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - Gathering more information Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - Focused on a specific item (which one? ___________) Never / Sometimes / Often / Always As a consequence, do you feel your monitoring effort with delegation was
As a PF ? Less / Same / MoreAs a PNF ? Less / Same / More Please comment_________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
36 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Flight activity
Delegation forces me to perform tasks, which should not be part of my work
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
The use of the ND for spacing monitoring interferes with other tasks
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Did the delegation influence your planning and management of the flight? Yes / No
If yes: Positively / Negatively / Neutral
Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Did delegation modify the number of speed changes? Yes / No
If yes: Decrease / Increase / Same
Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Did delegation modify your head down time? Yes / No
If yes: Decrease / Increase / Same
Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
According to you, did the delegation lead to:
- Better anticipation and planning of actions Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - More complex tasks Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - Smoother flight profiles Never / Sometimes / Often / Always - Reduced intervals between aircraft Never / Sometimes / Often / Always
Please comment_________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Safety
Has delegation an impact on the overall error rate? Yes / No
If yes: Decrease / Increase / Same Errors induced by delegation could be:
- Frequent Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Hazardous Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Easy to detect Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Easy to recover Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 37
With delegation, does safety require additional support tools for:
- Error detection (e.g. loss of spacing)? Yes / No - Error recovery? Yes / No
If yes, which ones? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Concept Assessment
How would you rate your understanding of this new concept?
Completely understood / Mostly understood / Slightly understood / Not understood Did any aspect bother you? ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Was the delegation compatible with your normal working method? Yes / No
Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Is the use of delegation compatible with:
- Flying tasks Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very - Monitoring tasks Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
Comments _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Which aspect - if any - do you consider the most difficult to handle? (please order if more than 1 choice):
Identification of target / feasibility assessment / implementation / monitoring Other: ____________________________
Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Do you think the delegation is usable in cruise? Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What could make it more usable in cruise? ____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
38 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Do you thing the delegation is usable in descent? Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What could make it more usable in descent? __________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Do you think the delegation is usable in initial approach? Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What could make it more usable in initial approach? ____________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Did you identify flight phases possibly leading to refuse delegation? Yes / No Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
How did you consider the way you worked with delegation? Satisfying / Frustrating / Other Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Do you think the delegation would be acceptable? Yes / No
Please explain and give example(s) if possible _________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What could make it more acceptable? ________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Do you think delegation:
- Could benefit from additional tools (e.g. data link) Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally
Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 39
Would you describe delegation as: A workload reduction / A stimulant / A concern Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Do you think that having different types (remain, merge, heading then):
- Is relevant Not at all / Sometimes / Often / Absolutely - Introduces unnecessary complexity Not at all / Sometimes / Often / Absolutely Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Is the concept of delegation useful? Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Is the concept of delegation effective? Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally Please explain __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Could this method increase: - Safety Not at all / Quite / Significantly / Very significantly - Capacity Not at all / Quite / Significantly / Very significantly - Efficiency Not at all / Quite / Significantly / Very significantly
Please explain __________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
What is your overall feeling about the method and the simulation? _________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
40 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
4.4. FILLED FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Note:
• Unanswered questions carry a ‘0’ value; • For internal use, participant identity can be referred to from the following table; • Total sums may exceed the max total number of ‘10’ where participants provided
multiple answers.
Simulation Characteristics
Flight
Are you familiar with the type of flight simulated
Yes No
TOTAL 8 2
If no, did this impact on your evaluation
No Slightly Highly
TOTAL 0 2 0
How complex did you find the scenarios
Not at all Not really Quite Very
TOTAL 4 6 0 0
PP Scenarii realistic but on the flight side. Maybe time could be saved (especially in the beginning of each, when nothing happens for 3-5 mins).
GB Les scénarios doivent inclure à l'avenir d'autres trafics pour augmenter la charge de travail et rendre plus réaliste le comportement de l'avion target (on peut entendre les clairances de vitesses du contrôle).
Working Environment
How would you rate the quality of the working environment?
Very Low Low High Very High TOTAL 1 2 8 0
DS I expect a more sophisticated simulation environment (communication, instructor having scenarios on his screen).
GD Pas de communications ATC/avions. Pas interférence avec d'autres membres d'équipage (PNC) …
MJ Some problems with this typical phraseology.
PP Displays ok R/T com => environment is too quiet. Need for information of preceding a/c starting descent for instance. (This would come from a normal environment).
RB Simu très réaliste - peut-être rajouter + de communications avec d'autres avions pour augmenter la réalité.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 41
Did you experience problems with the HMI
Yes No TOTAL 2 7
PP Screen of MCDU is not aligned with the window. Difficulty to see the scratchpad.
RM The scratch pad line of the MCDU is not visible when normally seated.
If yes, did this impact on your evaluation
No Slightly Highly TOTAL 0 2 0
DS The interface needs to be slightly redesigned in order to reduce workload and to enhance operational efficiency.
PP Some alerts would have been seen earlier if the scratchpad had been visible.
Communications with Controllers
How would you rate the realism of pseudo-Controllers' instructions.
Very Low Low High Very High Total 0 0 6 4
RM As no other traffic was simulated, the environment was very calm.
GB Très bon comportement des pseudo contrôleurs.
OT Il manque le traffic réel des autres avions pour augmenter la charge de travail d'écoute.
Target aircraft behaviour
Did you experience problems with out the target aircraft behaviour.
Yes No Total 4 6
RM High turn rat!
PP The target seemed to be quick to turn, descend or reduce speed.
GB l'avion target n'as pas un comportement d'avions de ligne standard, il réduit trop tôt pour atteindre 250 kts au FL100 (approx FL180 au lieu du FL120-180), ce qui impose une réduction plus tôt.
DS We get no information on the action taken (intended action) of the leading a/c (speed reduction…).
RB Delta Vitesse >40kts.
If yes, did this impact on your evaluation.
No Slightly Highly Total 2 3 0
PP Some spacing losses were maybe due to this behaviour.
RB Incompréhension de notre part surtout si ensuite le target augmente sa vitesse.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
42 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Realism of simulation
How would you qualify the overall realism of:
• Flight Plan
Realistic Unrealistic Total 10 0
• Fight tasks
Realistic Unrealistic Total 10 0
• Own aircraft behaviour
Realistic Unrealistic Total 10 0
• Overall Cockpit
Realistic Unrealistic Total 9 1
RB Simulation commence à "ATN" le suivi du log de vol (point tournant, fuel etc …) se fait en croisière mais pas en début de descente.
Delegation-Related Tools Instructions and Procedures
Did you feel the delegation procedures were:
• Easy to understand.
Not at all Not really Quite Totally Total 0 0 6 4
• Logical
Not at all Not really Quite Totally Total 0 0 5 4
• Easy to learn and remember
Not at all Not really Quite Totally Total 0 4 2 4
• Adapted to flight crews
Not at all Not really Quite Totally Total 0 0 6 3
PP Simple delegation (remain behind) are easy to remember and acknowledge. Heading merge to wpt/remain behind are not easy at all to remember = the PNF must write it to be able to acknowledge and then comply with.
GB Les tâches de délégation sont dans l'ensemble facile à intégrer mais demandent un apprentissage certain.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 43
RB Ne connaissant pas le but du contrôleur, il est difficile de critiquer sa logique.
GD Le heading then merge peut apparaître quelque fois comme une phase assez lourde ; tout dépend de la phase de vol et de la charge de travail.
How would you rate the ease of each application:
• Remain
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 4 6
PP See above (Simple delegation (remain behind) are easy to remember and acknowledge. Heading merge to wpt/remain behind are not easy at all to remember = the PNF must write it to be able to acknowledge and then comply with).
GB En heading then merge, il est plus difficile d'interpréter la distance prévue avec l'autre avion.
• Merge
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 7 3
• Heading then Merge
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 2 8 1
RM Very easy when in level flight, difficult at TOD.
RB Ce dernier car il peut-être facile d’oublier de faire "DIR TO" le way-point au 'broken arrow'.
GD Le heading thn merge peut apparaître quelque fois comme une phase assez lourde; tout dépend de la phase de vol et de la charge de travail.
Did you identify some applications more difficult to implement than other:
Yes No Total 3 7
RN As soon as they were understood, no problem.
GD Pas de difficulté de mise en oeuvre avec l'interface MCDU.
If yes, which ones and why.
RM Heading then merge due to number of parameters to manage at the same time.
RB Le Heading then merge demande evidemment plus d'action et de controle que les 2 autres.
OT Merge then resume due to the phraseology.
Did the phase of Flight (cruise, descent, initial approach) make some applications more appropriate.
Yes No Total 4 5
RN Cruise & descent are probably more appropriate to the 3 applications.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
44 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
If yes, please explain
GB Heading then merge demand un attention certaine qu'il me semble difficile d'intégrer sans couplage au P.A. en approche.
RB D'un point de vue régulation pour l'arrivée "l'initial approach".
OT In initial approach I think maintaining separation is the only action we can do (due to workload).
Could the feasibility of delegation be influenced by the phase of flight.
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 1 4 4 1
RM Not the flight phase itself but the flight phase change.
PP The initial phase (acquiring separation) or SK when target a/c starts descent are very demanding in terms of time/attention => should be avoided at critical times.
GB En croisière la délégation est très facile, en descente plus délicate pour respecter les contraintes à l'arrivée (plan de descente, niveaux à certains points).
DS Depending on the phase of flight the workload is more or less important. The HMI needs to be reviewed and advantage taken from 4th generation cockpit layout.
RB Entre les FL200 et FL100 on trouve les orages les + violents au niveau turbulence et c'est dans cette tranche d'altitude qu'il y aura le + de délégation.
OT It is due to the workload.
PG La charge de tarvail n'est pas la même suivant la position dans l'approche.
GD Charge de travail dans le poste/conditions météo (orages) déviation pour évitement orages / panne à gérer …
Phraseology
The phraseology was …
Very Clear Generally Understandable
Slightly Ambiguous Very Ambiguous
Total 5 5 0 0
Why?
PP See comment below (After ATC request to remain behind (for instance), this is a lack in the phraseology = if unable, the ATC will be informed, if able h is not => there should be something to inform ATC that delegation is possible and accepted by the crew.)
GB Quelques difficultés au changement de contrôle pour être sûr que le contrôleur suivant est au courant de la délégation.
PG Phraseo claire and logique.
Was the phraseology difficult to learn? Which, if any did you find difficult?
Not at all Not Really Quite Very Total 3 5 2 0
OT Merge then maintain. PG Les instructions en cases de MERGE sont difficile à restituer.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 45
How much time did you take to learn the new phraseology, Why?
A very little A little A lot Total 5 5 0
DS It was very strict and theoretical and the pilot controller communication like at school.
PG Le temps que "l'oreille se fasse à la musique" de cette nouvelle phraséo.
MJ I'm not familiar.
How operational did the phraseology sound?
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 1 6 2
Were there parts of the phraseology less operational?
Yes No Total 2 7
OT Target identification is not so clear. Its preferable to give distance and position.
GD Heading then merge, (cf plus haut, " Le heading then merge peut apparaître quelque fois comme une phase assez lourde ; tout dépend de la phase de vol et de la charge de travail".
Were you able to comply with this phraseology during exercises?
Never Occasionally Often Always Total 0 0 5 5
RB Phraseologie simple.
General Comments about phraseology.
RM I just forgot to advise ATC when merging was completed.
PP After ATC request to remain behind (for instance), this is a lack in the phraseology = if unable, the ATC will be informed, if able h is not => there should be something to inform ATC that delegation is possible and accepted by the crew.
RN After completing simulator sessions, it appeared that just appropriate "word" were really needed. Phraseology remaining and "standard".
RB R.A.S.
PG Claire et logique, je pense qu'elle est adaptée aux exercices et ne nécessite pas de modifications.
GD La consigne de délégation donnée par l'ATC doit faire l'objet d'un message durant lequel encore autre info ne doit être communiquée afin de ne pas "sur charger le charge de compréhension" Surtout avec le heading then merge qui est la plus longue délégation.
MJ These are new terms of phraseology and for me I wasn't familiar.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
46 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Usability of information Displays
Understandability
In general minimum effort was required to understand the displayed information
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 1 8 1 0
PP Small letters but understandable.
GB Il faudrait trouver un système qui nous permette d'obtenir des vitesses indiquées et que l'on pourrait coupler au PA * Donner un vitesse à la fin de la délégation, car on est en correction pour se rapprocher ou s'éloigner du précédent.
DS See comments on top of this page" Depending on the phase of flight the workload is more or less important. The HMI needs to be reviewed and advantage taken from 4th generation cockpit layout".
In the following table, please describe for each indication, its relevance (what for, when) and its limits.
Relevance and limits
ND
Link
RM Identification of link between a/c and target PP good in general but a little "heavy" in acquisition of HDG then merge GB Les couleurs des traits pointillés sont utiles RB Facilite la représentation mais prend beaucoup de place sur le ND (manque info TCAS OT Relevance to know where the target is but just one line seems to be better PG pas de remarques GD Identification. Suivi de trajectoire MJ Heading, Merge
ND
Arc of circle
PP Good GB Très utile mais que à petite échelle RB Bien lisible. Si ce n'est l'apparition de l'écart que ves 0.2/0.3NM Définition des ND trop faible OT To know where you've got good distance to target and to manage speed at this moment PG pas de remarques GD Position. Détection MJ Remain
ND
Constraints
GB Bon Rappel RB Trop Petit. Un des éléments primordial pour la délégation PG pas de remarques GD ? MJ Speed spacing
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 47
Relevance and limits
ND
Arc & arrow
PP Erratic behaviour sometimes but nice Disappearance when within 1 Nm is surprising the first time but OK GB Utile pour le PF pour le virage en hdg then merge RB OK, son apparition par le haut du ND attire bien le regard OT I never use it PG Un petit temp d'adaptation est nécessaire GD Faisabilité MJ Aircraft position when spacing will reach
ND
RM Interesting at beginning of merging procedure, after, we don't use it very much PP Not quite easy at the beginning = OK after a while.Could be indicated with a 0.2Nm pace to limit reactivity of the new (cruise phase) GB Très utile pour bien comprende le sens de correction RB Accompagné de l'info CR permet de voir le temps nécessaire pour corriger l'écart. Info aussi importante que CR. OT Very imporant. One of the most useful data PG Très pratique GD Indispensable. Elément sur lequel on revient en permanence MJ spacing with target
M C D U
Distance
PP Useful when inserting the separation / delegation No use after. GB Utile au début , on ne le regarde plus après RB Peu utilisé sauf au début de la délégation double emploi avec ND OT This data is not necessary. You've got it the same on ND GB Peu utilisé GD Peu utilisé. Lecture sur le ND MJ Distance to the target
M C D U
Time
RM Interesting at beginning of merging procedure, after, we don't use it very much PP Very useful. Nice to have at all times GB Très utile au PNF pour anticiper le virage en hdg then merge RB Très peu utilisé OT This data is not necessary. You've got it the same on ND PG Pas évident à comprendre de prime abord GD Peu utilisé MJ Spacing, time to remain
ND
Closure Rate
RM Difficulty to use GS especially during descent PP Very useful. CAS instead of GS could be easier to use => desired speed to maintain separation would be (present speed - CR) GB Utile pour le surveillance RB Un des éléments très important pour respecter la délégation (correction) + gras que les autres info autour OT Very important to manage speed PG Peu utilisé GD Elément du circuit visuel indispensable faute d'information VI à prendre MJ speed difference with the target
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
48 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Relevance and limits
Colour coding RM OK PP OK RB Respecte les regles d'utilisation d'airbus, pas de surprise OT We never see the different colours during training PG Les couleurs me conviennent parfaitement
Cyan (C) RM OK PP OK RB Respecte les règles d'utilisation d'airbus, pas de surprise OT We never see the different colours during training PG Les couleurs me conviennent parfaitement GD Adapté à la simulation MJ Between own aircraft and target
White (W) RM OK PP OK RB Respecte les règles d'utilisation d'airbus, pas de surprise OT We never see the different colours during training PG Les couleurs me conviennent parfaitement GD Adapté à la simulation MJ Details about target
Amber (A) RM OK PP OK RB Respecte les regles d'utilisation d'airbus, pas de surprise OT We never see the different colours during training PG Les couleurs me conviennent parfaitement GD Adapté à la simulation MJ Try to recover
ND & M C D U
Red (R) RM OK PP OK RB Respecte les règles d'utilisation d'airbus, pas de surprise OT We never see the different colours during training PG Les couleurs me conviennent parfaitement GD Adapté à la simulation MJ Report to controller unable delegation
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 49
Relevance and limits
ND
Target GS
RM Same as above (Difficulty to use GS especially during descent) GS is not a primary parameter PP Useful all the time GB Utile pour corriger sa vitesse et surveiller celle de l'autre RB Infor nécessaire sur ND pour valider le CR. Non nécessité d'aller la chercher sur la page "Mode ASAS" OT No interest PG Les couleurs me conviennent parfaitement PG Très utile GD Identification Correction de vitesse à adapter pour maintien de l'espacement . Le CR prend le dessus MJ Target GS
M C D U
RM Information parameters only PP Same as MCDU Dist (Useful when inserting the separation / delegation No use after) GB Util au début pour comprendre la correction au départ de la délégation RB Répétiteur de l'info du ND peu utilisé OT No interest PG J'ai plutôt utilisé l'info du ND GD Peu utilisé MJ Target GS
Own GS
RM information parameters only PP Redundant with ND indication, which is used by the pilot more frequently. Useful at initiation GB Très utilse pour le début RB 2 infos très importantes surtout à l'initiation de la délégation mais ensuite peu utilisé, le suivi du target s'effectuant (pour moi) via CR OT No interest PG J'ai plutôt utilisé l'info du ND MJ Actual GS M
C D U
RM Interesting at beginning of merging, not used after PP Very useful but should remain available during acquisition GB Très utile pour le début RB 2 infos très importantes surtout à l'initiation de la délégation mais ensuite peu utilisé, le suivi du target s'effectuant (pour moi) via CR OT No interest PG J'ai plutôt utilisé l'info du ND GD Passage furtif sur le MCDU pendant une phase ou notre attention est sur autre chose (délégation à prendre en compte) MJ Requested speed to maintain spacing
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
50 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Relevance and limits
M C D U
Textual data
PP not easily perceived (because of bad positoning of the screen) RM OK GB Il faudrait un message "Merge to XXX" au moment ou l'avion doit reprendre sa navigation pour respecter la délégation RB pas utilisé ou très peu OT May be useful PG --- MJ Report to controller unable delegation
Other
RM The use of CAS instead of GS has to be studies to ease the pilot task PP In general, indications on ND re too small. Bigger fonts would help "experiences pilots" to better see OT You always look at your ND but not your MCDU. For the 1st step MCDU is interesting but after in a normal flight it will be on "PROG" page PG Il faudrait peut-être coupler une info sonore pour alerter le pilote s'il est trop près ou trop loin
MCDU
Terms and acronyms used were difficult to understand (if agreement please list problematic terms).
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 1 1 5 3
The arrangement of information on MCDU pages made them easy to understand.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 7 1 0
GB Le MCDU est utile au début de la délégation, les pages de sélection de la target sont bien faites.
The display of information provided me with enough information to identify which entries were permitted.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 3 7 0 0
Colours used to highlight information (target features, required distance) were sometimes difficult to interpret.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 2 5 3
GB Le MCDU ne sert pas trop en surveillance de la délégation.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 51
The information provided on time to separation was easy to understand.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 3 5 2 0
PP The only problem is the non availability after insertion of delegation.
GB C'est la seule information qui sert en surveillance de la délégation.
ND
I had problems understanding the flight information (FL & vertical trend).
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 1 2 7
GB Les infos sont claires, vont elles l'être autant dans un environnement chargé d'informations TCAS.
RB Idem TCAS.
PG Je pense qu'une info de FL target en temps réel sur le ND ne serait pas superflu.
I had problems understanding the additional target flight information (GS, Closure Rate, Distance).
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 0 5 5
RM I had problems to read them, whole they are too small.
PP Distance indication made me uncomfortable in the beginning but ok after a while.
GB Les infos sont claires.
DS Could be better integrated on the PFD.
RB Sauf distance entre nous et target imposé par controle ecrit trop petit.
The symbols used (e.g. triangle for target, arc of circle for required spacing position) were easy to understand.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 5 4 0 0
PP Position of the target should be the center of the triangle and not its corner.
GB Même remarque que dans un environnement chargé.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
52 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
It was difficult to understand the meaning of the arc of circle (required spacing position).
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 1 2 5 2
GB L'arc de cercle est très clair mais n'est utilisable qu'à petite échelle de ND.
I never confused the predicted spacing position symbol with the top of descent.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 6 3 1 0
PG Il serait de ce point de vue peut-être utile de changer ce symbole.
It required minimal effort to understand color codes associated with spacing status (white, amber, red).
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 4 3 1 2
GB Malheureusement, lors de la simu, nous n'avons pas eu à utiliser les codes ambres et rouges.
Ease of Use
Inputting and displaying information seemed natural.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 4 5 1 0
RN on the ND.
Using the MCDU and ND to maintain spacing was very complex.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 2 8 0
RM The difficulty to maintain spacing was not related to display.
PP Actually, once acquired, only information on the ND used.
GB La charge de travail est relativement importante. Il faudrait trouver des tendances en VI à afficher sur le speed tape.
PG Le ND est beaucoup plus utile au PF pour maintenir l'espacement.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 53
MCDU
Minimal effort was required to select target.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 5 3 2 0
GB Très efficace.
Interactions with the MCDU pages were intuitive.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 8 0 0
GB Les pages MCDU se manipulaient comme celles déjà connues.
Going through the MCDU pages was a problem.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 1 1 6 2
Too much information was displayed.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 4 6 0
GB Les informations sur ma target sont un peu petites.
RN "Requested Speed" was missing.
DS If we redesign the ND/PFD display we can reduce information displayed and better undertand the situation.
I encountered problems when trying to recover from an error.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 0 8 2
GB Néanmoins, quelquefois des vitesses trop faibles étaient nécessaires.
ND
Minimal effort was required to get target displayed on ND.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 3 5 2 0
RB Même principe que le TCAS si avion à 3 heures ou + nécessité de passer en mode NAV, mode ARC avions plus visible.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
54 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
The size of information was too small to be easily read and used.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 5 3 0
PP Need to see a screen with TCAS targets and maybe weather radar or terrain info below.
GB Voir plus haut.
RN "a little bit" too small.
RB Tout OK sauf distance de séparation imposé/target.
Display clutter was a problem.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 0 6 0
RM To be verified when displaying TCAS CSTR. Anyway to be efficient you have to use rather short range.
Consistency
In general, information displayed and interaction with devices (MCDU, ND) are consistent with current flight deck standards.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 7 1 0
RB Le pb est si compagnie impose de conserver sur MCDU "Mode ASAS" , reste qu'un seul MCDU disponible. Répartition PF/PNF non respectée.
The colours used on the ND are consistent with Airbus flight deck displays.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 3 7 0 0
The colours used on the MCDU are consistent with Airbus flight deck displays.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 8 0 0
The sequence of actions required by delegation is different from usual navigation related actions.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 3 5 0
RB Un % important de manipulation concerne la vitesse uniquement.
It was difficult to recognise information related to the ASAS mode.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 0 10 0
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 55
Confusion I noticed confusing functions and terms.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 1 7 1
RN "Required speed" is confusing. "Optimum speed" or just "Best speed".
I could easily make the distinction between the various information displayed.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 8 0 0
I noticed contradictions between the various information displayed.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 0 7 2
RM Baro altitudes and radio altitudes are not consistent when QNH is different from 1013.
In some cases I confused colour codes.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 0 5 5
Usefulness The color changes interfered with identification of the spacing statu.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 1 6 3
PP Colour changes are indications and are not interfering, but helping.
RB Voir avec info TCAS?
The information display was appropriate to determine spacing from target aircraft.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 7 1 0
PP But not big enough though.
GB Une aide en VI est nécessaire. Durant les phases chargées, il faut que le système puisse être couplé au PA.
The loss of spacing was unsuitably highlighted.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 0 4 3 1
RN Never occurred.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
56 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
The information displayed on ND was relevant and useful.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 4 6 0 0
DS If we redesign the interface we can reduce the information displayed.
Learnability
The similarity with existing supports makes the interface easy to learn.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 5 5 0 0
GB Le temps d'adaptation existe néanmoins.
RB Personnellement airbus 320, voir si ce n'est pas même pareil avec autres types d'avions.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 1 0 4 5
GB C'est très instructif.
It was easy to remember how to cancel actions.
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Stongly Disagree
Total 2 6 2 0
PP I would like to have the second prompt "Cancel/end Delegation" in Amber.
GB Le fait de devoir utiliser 2 fois "end délégation" n'était pas clair.
Delegation Task Analysis
How would you rate the effort to:
Select Target
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 7 3 0 0
Identify target
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 6 4 0 0
Assess feasibility of delegation
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 3 6 1 0
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 57
Implement solution:
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 1 7 1 0
Maintain spacing
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 2 5 3 1
Monitor situation
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 0 8 2 0
Recover losses of spacing
Very easy Easy Complex Highly complex Total 1 5 3 1
General Comments:
GB Les phases jugées 'complexes" doivent pouvoir être couplées au PA ou plus simplement matérialisées par des VI à afficher.
DS An automatic mode should be implemented keeping the spacing without pilots interaction, just by selecting target, mode and spacing.
RB Maintien spacing demande beaucoup de disponibilité facile à faire et à interpréter mais très "chronophage".
GD En mode sélecté la gestion de la vitesse est très lourde et occupante.
PP Too small fonts but ok.
PG Le maintien de l'espacement pourrait être couplé aux ATHR.
RM Complex when changing flight phase to maintain and recover spacing.
PP Nice to have "required speed" when losing separation.
How compatible with flying was it to:
Select Target
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 0 5 4
Identify target
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 1 4 5
Assess feasibility of delegation
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 2 7 2
Implement solution
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
58 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 2 7 0
Maintain spacing
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 2 4 5 0
Monitor situation
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 3 5 1
Recover losses of spacing
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 5 4 0
RM Complex when changing flight phase to maintain and recover spacing.
General Comments
PP In general, some phases of delegation (acquisition, loss, changing parameters) involve more workload than monitoring. When the task the crew is performing is already remaining. It is not easy to cope with them.
GB J'ai le sentiment que lorsqu'on accompli une tâche de pilotage on doit pourvoir se dire qu'elle est terminée pour faire autre chose ; or, la délégation demande une attention constante.
DS It takes too much attention to focus on spacing and leaves for the pilot less time for the rest of flying tasks.
RB Même pb qu'auparavant, on ne fait plus que ça.
PG Il est plus facile de gérer l'ensemble des tâches en approche initiale.
GD cf ci dessus "En mode sélecté la gestion de la vitesse est très lourde et occupante" Ajouter à cela la gestion d'une panne même mineure …
The way in which data is entered on MCDU respect the logic of the delegation task:
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 4 6 1 0
PP Interface is same for merging to WPT or merging, which is not desirable. Maybe a prompt for WPT could avoid that: LSK>WAYPOINT instead of [LSK] WPT [] [] [] [].
RB Le Pb est la répartition PF/PNF. PF= à la trajectoire ; or, c'est le PNF qui insert dans le MCDU et si PF veut vérifier info sur MCDU doit regarder celui du PNF : pas logique.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 59
The way in which data is output on the ND is not suited to my needs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 0 2 7 1
PP Except font size.
RB Sauf D imposé entre nous et target sur ND.
The important information and functions required to maintain the spacing are easy to find.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 2 8 0 0
RM The parameters font is too small.
RN on the ND.
The actions suggested (req speed, resume indicator) by the system were:
Useful
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 1 8 1
Easy to understand
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 1 7 2
Sufficient
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 3 4 3
General Comments:
PP Indication of required speed on the PFD would be a great help. Time for a Dir To when merge to WPT is easily missable.
GB Une VI serait utile.
RB Pb info sur MCDU du PNF et non celui du PF.
PG La notion de TIME SEP n'est pas évidente à saisir au début de mon point de vue.
The monitoring cues were ...
Intuitive
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 8 2
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
60 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Relevant
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 9 0
Too numerous
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 3 4 1 2
Did the delegation modify your monitoring when PF.
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 1 5 3
PP PFNeeds to spend a lot of time to acquire separation then monitor. PNF can perform ordinary (?) tasks after initiation of delegation.
RB PF: Je ne fais que ou pratiquement que suivre le target.
MJ PF Must monitor spacing.
Did the delegation modify your monitoring when PNF.
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 5 3 1
RB PNF : Pb de la page MCDU "Mode ASAS apparente en permanence ou libre?
OT On PNF you need to be more focus on displays (PFD, ND) and normally you have to look outside.
Did delegation require more interactions and cooperation in the cockpit.
YES NO Total 5 5
RM It only adds a new task.
GB La charge de travail existe.
DS Similar to CDPLC, increased workload.
RB Tout action du PF doit être vérifiée par PNF.
PG une tâche supplémentaire est requise dans des phases de vol déjà changées.
GD Beaucoup avec la gestion de la vitesse en sélecté.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 61
Impact Analysis
Workload
Compared to today situations, how would you rate:
The mental effort in the cockpit as a PF
much lower lower higher much higher Total 0 1 8 1
RB PF : inchangé
The mental effort in the cockpit as a PNF
much lower lower higher much higher Total 0 4 6 1
PP Almost no change for PNF.
RN No big change.
RB PNF : en mode délégation suivre en permanence le target. Variation de vitesse.
PG cf. au-dessus (une tâche supplémentaire est requise dans des phases de vol déjà changées).
Did some applications (remain, merge, heading then…) lead to higher workload?If yes, which ones and why?
YES NO Total 8 2
PP (If yes) Hdg then … was undoubtedly the most demanding.
GB La charge de travail est supérieure dans tous les cas mais conduit à une meilleure représentation de la situation.
RN Remain. Reason is changes of velocity of the target are not displayed (aimed speed!). Thus big changes in R and D may occur …
DS All.
RB Tant que délégation manuelle et non couplée au pilote automatique risque d'oubli important.
"Heading then merge": passer le point broken arrow (phase hybride).
"Remain": variation de vitesse ou corriger et maintenir distance/target.
OT Merge and Remain you've to be very attentive until the resume navigation.
PG Merge est plus contraignant en termes de charge de travail.
MJ Heading then.
The workload (including speed/heading changes) achieve spacing was acceptable.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 0 9 0 1
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
62 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
GB Sauf ou phases déjà chargées par nature (paumes ..).
MJ But for the PF its absolutely necessary to anticipate the action for exemple during speed reduction.
The workload (including speed/heading changes) achieve spacing was too heavy.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 1 2 7 0
RM Depends on flight phase.
PP Thought it was not "transparent".
RN Only when target velocity changes were unforeseen.
Situation Awareness
Compared to today situations, how would you rate:
Your situation awareness as a PF
Much Lower Lower Higher Much Higher Total 0 2 6 1
PP Given TCAS information still available.
GB La représentation de la situation est bien meilleure.
RB En situation de délégation disponibilité diminue si PNC nous informe d'un pb en cabine, surveillance diminue. Si une alarme intervient un choix doit être fait entre délégation pour résolution de la panne mais pas les 2 en même temps.
PG le système donne effectivement une meilleure vue d'ensemble de l'environnement de l'avion.
Your situation awareness as a PNF
Much Lower Lower Higher Much Higher Total 0 2 5 1
RN No changes.
Compared to situation without delegation, how was your awareness of …
Your flight parameters in general
Better Same Worse Total 3 5 2
Your position in traffic
Better Same Worse Total 7 2 1
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 63
Surrounding traffic
Better Same Worse Total 2 4 1
PP not comparable without TCAS.
RN N/A.
Possible forthcoming problems
Better Same Worse Total 1 6 2
RM You are focused on the speed.
GB En sera t-il le même avec tous les autres trafics?
General Comments:
RB Faire une simulation avec / sans délégation avec petite panne type baisse pression d'huile et sur 1 moteur (cf. Temps de réaction) voir réaction/délégation, position in trafic cf. Avec TCAS.
PG cf. ci-dessus.
I was never surprised by the type o f instruction given, thanks to the information on the target.
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 0 8 2 0
PG Il faudrait être averti des modifications de vitesse du target afin de les anticiper.
Compared to situations without delegation, do you feel your communication were:
Less Frequent Same More Frequent Total 9 1 0
Shorter Same Longer Total 6 2 2
PP Information to be remembered by crew is more numerous (up to 4).
GB La fréquence sera certainement moins encombrée.
RN Once target is acquired, no communication is needed.
RB Ici le but recherché est bien atteint. Avan un contrôleur nous donnait plusieurs caps avec régulation de vitesse ici un seul message.
PG Moins de communication radio avec le contrôleur.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
64 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
As a consequence, how was your communication load with delegation.
Much Lower Lower Higher Much Higher Total 1 7 2 0
PP The PNF might need to write down the information he has to acknowledge.
GB C'est un atout.
RB Idem question précédente " Ici le but recherché est bien atteint. Avant un contrôleur nous donnait plusieurs caps avec régulation de vitesse ici un seul message".
Monitoring Tasks
Do you feel delegation modified your scanning pattern in the cockpit?
As a PF
YES NO Total 10 0
As a PNF
YES NO Total 7 3
If yes, is it in terms of
Scan Content Scan Rate Both Total 1 2 6
As a PF, was your scanning pattern…
Less frequent
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 6 3 1 0
Gathering more information
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 1 4 4 1
Focused on a specific item
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 0 1 7 2
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 65
General Comments:
PP CR/Distance/GS.
GB Delegation.
RN Target D + CR.
RN No big changes.
DS Spacing.
RB Ici le but recherché est bien atteint. Avant un contrôleur nous donnait plusieurs caps avec régulation de vitesse ici un seul message.
OT Distance To Target.
PG Target speed on ND.
GD CR Distance.
MJ ND.
As a PNF, was your scanning pattern.
Less frequent
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 8 2 0 0
Gathering more information
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 3 4 3 0
Focused on a specific item
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 1 4 4 1
PP CR/Distance/GS
GB Delegation
RN Target
DS Spacing
RB Ici le but recherché est bien atteint. Avant un contrôleur nous donnait plusieurs caps avec régulation de vitesse ici un seul message.
OT Distance To Target
GD CR Distance
MJ ND/MCDU
As a consequence, do you feel your monitoring effort with delegation was…
As a PF
Less Same More Total 1 0 9
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
66 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
As a PNF
Less Same More Total 0 4 6
General Comments:
PP The crew has to include more info in the scanning and this brings more workload. RM you have one supplementary task to perform with a given precision.
GB La charge de travail serait inférieure si la délégation était couplée au PA. On demandait des VI.
RB Vérifier en permanence le maintien de distance avec target.
PG La charge de travail augmentant il est possible de focaliser sur un item et d'en négliger un ou plusieurs autres.
GD Pour le maintien de la distance.
Flight Activity
Delegation forces me to perform tasks which should not be part of my work.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 2 2 5 0
PP Nevertheless, automation is highly desirable.
RM This is a political point.
DS Keeping spacing manually. Once delegated a/c should keep separation automatically and only display amber or red in case pilot action is needed.
The use of the ND for spacing monitoring interferes with other tasks.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 3 5 1 0
RM It might be easier if you had a kind of "flight director" to help you on the speed scale of PFD.
RN Monitoring and maintaining spacing during descent is quite demanding.
DS Depending on the range selected TACAS information could interfere with distances.
Did the delegation influence your planning and management of the flight.
YES NO
If yes, Positively Negatively Neutral Total 8 2 3 3 3
RM In the particular cases of simulation, the delegation is given just on time you perform the approach briefing.
PP I had to change my strategy in terms of timing=delay or advance the briefing for approach for instance.
GB La descente est influencée de marnière négative car on descend souvent trop tôt.
RN During descent, to integrate target's values and variables may change our descent profile.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 67
RB Réduction messages radio baisse disponibilité pour autres taches Repartition PF/PNF.
PG La gestion vitesse, FL est optimisée en fonction du target. GD Augmente le charge de travail du PF & gestion des vitesses => les annonces sont plus fréquentes dans le poste , moins avec le contrôle.
Did delegation modify the number of speed changes.
YES NO
If yes Decrease Increase Same Total 9 1 3 7 1
RM You are always adapting your speed, especially in descent with very important delta V.
PP Almost the same as far as acquiring or maintaining, as long as the target does not move. As soon as the target starts descent, a big decrease is needed.
GB La surveillance de la délégation impose des changements.
DS Due to speed adjustments when in trail and error more when following a/c reducing speed and not knowing to which value.
RB Seule moyen pour maintenir séparation.
PG Trop d'action sur le bouton "Speed". Focalisation du suivi target.
GD Beaucoup.
MJ The speed change decrease because all the distance to follow the same trajectory and speeds are identical.
Did delegation modify your head down time:
YES NO
If yes, Decrease Increase Same Total 5 3 0 4 2
RM In our own planes you are mainly head down.
PP Definitely more scanning and more information to gather from the ND to maintain spacing.
GB Pour suivre les paramètres de délégation.
DS MCDU.
RB Plus de surveillance du ND mais en réalité la différence ne doit pas être significative.
According to you, did the delegation lead to …
Better anticipation and planning of actions
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 1 5 3 1
More complex tasks
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 0 10 0 0
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
68 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Smoother flight profiles
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 3 3 3 1
Reduced intervals between aircraft
Never Sometimes Often Always Total 0 2 6 2
RN Descent profiles become complex when target speed changes.
GD Oui, avec la vitesse managée, non avec la vitesse sélectée ou les régimes moteurs changent.
General Comments:
PP Tasks involved need more concentration from the crew.
GB Les avions sont mieux espacés.
RB Si les avions sont les uns après les autres le risque de conflits diminue énormément.
Safety
Has delegation an impact on the overall error rate:
YES NO
If yes, Decrease Increase Same Total 7 2 1 4 2
RB (If yes)Moins de demande de variations de cap et d'altitude mais on change souvent de sélection de vitesse (principe des vases communicant).
RM Don’t Know.
Errors induced by delegation could be…
Frequent
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 6 1 0
RM Don’t Know.
GD Peut-être ?
Hazardous
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 1 6 1 0
RM Don’t Know.
GD Peut-être ?
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 69
Easy to detect
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 6 2
RM Don’t Know.
GD Peut-être ?
Easy to recover
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 7 1
RM Don’t Know.
GD Peut-être ?
With delegation, does safety require additional support tools for…
Error detection (e.g. loss of spacing)?
YES NO Total 5 5
GD Voyant + son sur un P/B ATC (déjà installé sur certains avions).
Error recovery?
YES NO Total 3 6
General Comments:
GB Les VI! Et couplage au P.A.
RN As we talked about, "boxed" changes or whatever but highlighted changes.
DS Automatic mode when in trial.
PG Couplage sonore pour les alarmes actuellement uniquement visuelles.
Concept Assessment
How would you rate your understanding of this new concept?
Completely Understood
Mostly Understood
Slightly Understood Not Understood
Total 8 2 0 0
Did any aspect bother you?
DS No. PP Phraseology to initiate/continue delegation. GB La complexité de la tâche en phases d'approche et lors des situations délicates.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
70 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Was the delegation compatible with your normal working method?
YES NO Total 10 0
PP It can be introduced in the normal environment but requires some training/method.
RB Quelques répartitions des tâches à améliorer et approfondir - manipulation du mode ASAS par PNF uniquement.
GD Interface MDCU OK, symbologie ND OK, Je pense simplement que c'est au PF d'insérer au MCDU la délégation ou au PNF sur demande du PF.
Is the use of delegation compatible with…
Flying tasks
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 0 7 3
GD Very si en travaillant en mode managé.
Monitoring tasks
Not at all Not really Quite Very Total 0 1 7 2
RM It is an additional task, increasing the workload.
GD Very si en travaillant en mode managé.
Which aspect if any do you consider the most difficult to handle
Identification of Target
Feasibility assessment Implementation Monitoring
Total 0 2 1 6
PP I rely on the system info to tell me about feasibility. Implementation of HDG then Merge is sometimes tricky (remember delegation first then take good heading and perform Dir To).
RM The main task is to maintain the target in the good range.
GB Cela demande une attention certaine.
RN Monitoring with level/speed changes -> no anticipation!
DS Other: Spacing.
RB Rien de difficile si ce n'est un bon cross-check PF/PNF pour éviter tout erreur d'insertion ex: SSR qui entraînerait tout le processus de délégation en erreur.
GD Gestion de la vitesse très lourde qui implique annonces en poste et fait perdre l'avantage de la baisse de communications avec sol.
Do you think the delegation is usable in cruise?
Not at all Partially Generally Totally Total 0 0 0 10
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 71
RM This is the easiest phase to use it.
GB En croisière la charge de travail permet entièrement la délégation.
DS To increase #of a/c on airway.
PG Le système serait d'autant plus efficace en croisière mais il faudrait dans ce cas absolument un couplage ATHR.
GD Niveaux donnés, vitesse établie ->+ facile.
RB Si 2 avions volent vers la même destination mais vitesse différente dès le début de croisière imposer une distance à respecter.
What could make it more usable in cruise?
DS Automatic mode from cruise until final.
RB Phase de travail peu importante avions stable en vitesse et altitude.
OT Normally aircraft follow the same routing so it's just a spacing problem.
PG Pas de modification de niveau.
Do you think the delegation is usable in descent?
Not at all Partially Generally Totally Total 0 4 3 3
RM Due to difference in the GS between the aircraft at different altitudes with the same CAS? The following a/c has to reduce drastically its CAS reaching very low speeds.
PP Requires a lot of attention because of speed difference in evolution. Requires a lower speed for descent than the preceding aircraft, due to altitude difference.
GB Les changements de vitesses fréquents sont un peu gênants pour avoir des bas taux de descente et peuvent être désagréables pour les passagers.
DS Allows earlier spacing and merging of traffic.
RB Le problème sera quand un des avions aura de la turbulence et qu'il devra réduire sa vitesse.
PG A condition d'avoir une info de FL target.
GD Vitesse évolutive qui nécessite d'incessantes corrections, sinon tout à fait faisable.
What could make it more usable in descent.
PP (1) Use of CAS instead of GS for CR (2) Reduce spacing at initiation of target descent.
GB Toujours la même chose, une vitesse VI cible!
RN The target "speed intentions".
DS Automatic spacing.
RB Avions commencent leur descente au même endroit avec même vitesse et même vario. Sinon le second avion peut être bien plus bas que le target et si 5 à 6 avions se suivent avec différents profils de descente le contrôle peut-être perturbé.
PG Cf. ci-dessus (a condition d'avoir une info de FL target).
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
72 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Do you think the delegation is usable in initial approach?
Not at all Partially Generally Totally Total 1 4 1 4
RM Not further than FAF, the difficulty as already stated is to maintain a distance between two a/c at different altitudes; it perhaps will be better and easier to maintain a time separation . In that case, the pilot needs to be helped by the system.
RM What Could make it more usable in initial approach? Time Separation.
PP The problem is speed reduction of the target = if the spacing is reduced when target reduces speed, it can make things easier.
GB En approche il y a des éléments vitaux (passage au QNH, matérialisation des altitudes de sécurité …) que la délégation peut faire oublier.
RB Le pb risque de se poser s'il y a différents types d'avions avec des masses différentes, un B747 derrière un A320 avec un B747. Obliger de sortir des volets pour réduire sa vitesse tout en étant à 50 Nm du seuil de piste =Illogique MAIS si les vitesses restent compatibles avec les différents types d'avions. Je ne vois pas de problèmes.
OT We haven't got the same speed problems due to differents (flight controls).
PG Mêmes remarques que pour la descente (à condition d'avoir une info de FL target).
GD Suivi des trajectoires d'arrivées, vitesses établies (cf qui ne changent pas).
What could make it more usable in initial approach.
PP See above (The problem is speed reduction of the target = if the spacing is reduced when target reduces speed, it can make things easier).
GB Des VI! Et le couplage au PA.
DS Automatic mode.
PG Mêmes remarques que pour la descente (à condition d'avoir une info de FL target).
Did you identify flight phases possibly leading to refuse delegation?
YES NO Total 8 2
RM If the descent problem is solved.
PP Close to start of descent when time has come for the briefing.
GB En approche.
RN Descent with speed changes.
RB Orages sur la route de la délégation. Problème mécanique.
OT Initial approach.
PG L'approche ne me parait pas une bonne idée.
GD Toute phase où la charge de travail en poste augmenterait notablement et ne permettrait plus une si constante attention sur la gestion de la vitesse.
MJ During low visibility operation for example: during approach with CAT III minimums.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 73
How did you consider the way you worked with delegation?
Satisfying Frustrating Other Total 10 0 0
GB La délégation rend plus actif et plus conscient de la situation.
RB Suivre 1 délégation ou suivre plusieurs changements de cap/niveau/vitesse est équivalent.
Do you think the delegation would be acceptable?
YES NO Total 10 0
RB La délégation ne change pas fondamentalement notre façon de travailler. Réduit la fréquence des contacts radio qui est intense dans les zones terminales. Donc augmente la disponibilité.
What could make it more acceptable?
GB Des VI et le couplage au VI.
RN cf: Debriefing.
DS Different HMI and automatic mode.
RB Couplé au pilote automatique avec possibilité de le débrayer à tout moment.
PG Couplage ATHR + Alarmes sonores.
GD Vitesse managée -> plus de disponibilité surtout en phase descente/approche.
Do you think the delegation.
• Could benefit from additional tools (e.g. data link).
Not at all Partially Generally Totally Total 0 0 4 5
RM Something in the computer to help the crew to choose the CAS.
PP Link to AP is a "must have", Indication of speed to achieve on PFD to acquire separation would be useful as well.
GB La délégation pourrait être via datalink.
DS For a/c not equipped with appropriate airborne equipment or re. Failure case.
RB Diminution des contacts radio. Par mauvais temps sur le terrain (brouillard) permet un meilleur séquencement et d'éviter de faire des tours d'attente :
• Would you describe delegation as
A workload reduction A stimulant A concern
Total 2 6 2
RN Ease of use and quite good understanding of the situation.
DS With new interface YES.
RB Si système couplé au pilote automatique.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
74 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Do you think that having different types (remain, merge, heading then) …
Is relevant
Not at all Sometimes Often Absolutely Total 0 0 1 7
Introduces unnecessary complexity:
Not at all Sometimes Often Absolutely Total 9 1 0 0
General Comments:
RM Please do not introduce too much delegation types, or they will have to be automatic.
GB Ces types sont liés aux situations de contrôle et donc nécessaires.
RB Ces 3 possibilitiés suffisent et ne sont pas difficiles à utiliser.
Is the concept of delegation useful?
Not at all Partially Generally Totally Total 0 0 5 4
Is the concept of delegation effective?
Not at all Partially Generally Totally Total 0 0 6 2
Could this method increase.
Safety
Not at all Quite Significantly Very significantly
Total 2 4 2 2
Capacity
Not at all Quite Significantly Very significantly
Total 0 3 3 4
Efficiency
Not at all Quite Significantly Very significantly
Total 0 2 6 2
PP I am not sure capacity will be increased because failure cases have to be covered, or maybe the a/c will not accept the delegation.
GB La charge de travail du contrôleur est très réduite et peut empiler les avions plus efficacement.
RB Couplé au TCAS cela n'améliore pas la sécurité de plus dans une même zone plusieurs avions peuvent être en heading/merge avec les risques de conflits que cela implique.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 75
PG La méthode va permettre certainement d'augmenter les flux de trafic au détriment d'une charge de travail supérieure pour l'équipage.
What is your overall feeling about this method and simulation.
RM I appreciate the way used for this study. Begin with few and simple delegations Then assess the problems. I was quite impressed by this study simulator representative of our products. A lot of work has been done to have a good as possible environment for these trials. Go ahead ...
GB L'idée de délégation est bonne et permettre d'accroître significativement la capacité de tous les secteurs de contrôle. Du côté du pilote il faut, à mon avis, encore trouver les aides significatives pour la rendre plus facile à vivre, notamment, comme je l'ai dit tout au long du questionnaire, des cibles au VI sur le speed tape et des phases ou le couplage au PA serait possible.
RN Very well integrated in the "airbus philosophy". Tasks PF/PNF correctly shared. General impression is very good.
DS Great tool, need some fine tuning and a larger scale simulation. (Bon courage.)
RB SIMULATION : Assez realiste manque (info TCAS ND, + de message radio) cockpit type glass-cockpit très realiste (type A320) façon de travailler respectée (Air France. Rajouter 1 second caque avec ATIS via Radio (et demande des changements de délégation au moment de l'écoute de l'ATIS par PF cf. Erreurs !). Demander de remplir le log de vol en arrivant dans zone terminal pas très réaliste mais pour la simulation sur la délégation peu d'importance. DELEGATION : Ce système de délégation me semble très intéressant pour réduire les problèmes de régulation à l'arrivée des grands aéroports - ainsi que régulation en route. Comme tout nouveau système en élaboration, il mérite des améliorations ; voici une liste non exhaustive.
• répartition PF/PNF qui insert le SSR target ?
• page "mode ASAS" doit elle rester en permanence au MCDU. Si oui, 1 seul MCDU disponible normalement les 2,
• prise d'ATIS par PF normalement PNF (Air France).
* système couplé au pilote automatique, avec reprise en manuel n'importe quand serait le mieux (disponibilité équipage).
PG Le système me paraît très au point moyennant quelques petites modifications. La simulation était très réaliste et les différents intervenants d'Eurocontrol très professionnels.
GD Journée très enrichissante avec un bon timing concernant les briefings/simulations. Questionnaire parfois un peu subtils en anglais dans leur formulation. Il serait bien que la prochaine fois la simulation soit intégrée dans un flux d'avions que de légères perturbations interviennent en poste pour plus de réalisme. La méthode de délégation semble être bien en place, reste à adapter en cockpit avec peut-être un autre répartition des tâches et un mode de vitesse différent. A la prochaine fois.
MJ I appreciate the method of simuation who gave you this impression of real flight. Maybe necessary to include more radio communication in this environment.
5. NUMBER AND DURATION OF SPEED ACTIONS MAY'02
In the graphs below, the number of actions is compared to the duration of the actions over 60 seconds time intervals. For a given speed action, the duration of the action is defined as the time between the first movement and the last movement of the speed knob for that action. On the graphs, the figures shown are the sum of the durations of actions over the 60 seconds time intervals.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
76 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Remain Behind ATN - Temporal distribution of actions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Num
ber o
f act
ions
Target descent Speed reduc. 250 kt Max
MinMean
Remain Behind ATN - Temporal distribution of actions
0
5
10
15
20
25
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Dur
atio
n of
act
ions
Target descent Speed reduc. 250 kt
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Mea
n du
ratio
n of
an
actio
n
Target descent Speed reduc. 250 kt
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 77
Merge Behind OKRIX - Temporal distribution of actions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Num
ber o
f act
ions
Target descent Speed reduc. 250 kt Max
MinMean
Merge Behind OKRIX - Temporal distribution of actions
0
5
10
15
20
25
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Dur
atio
n of
act
ions
Target descent Speed reduc. 250 kt
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Mea
n du
ratio
n of
an
actio
n
Target descent Speed reduc. 250 kt
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
78 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Merge Behind MEL - Temporal distribution of actions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Num
ber o
f act
ions
Speed reduc. 250 kt Max
MinMean
Merge Behind MEL - Temporal distribution of actions
0
5
10
15
20
25
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Dur
atio
n of
act
ions
Speed reduc. 250 kt
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Mea
n du
ratio
n of
an
actio
n
Speed reduc. 250 kt
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 79
Heading then Merge OKRIX - Temporal distribution of actions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6]0
;60]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Num
ber o
f act
ions
Target descent Speed reduc.DIR TO 250 kt Max
MinMean
Heading then Merge OKRIX - Temporal distribution of actions
0
5
10
15
20
25
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Dur
atio
n of
act
ions
Target descent Speed reduc.DIR TO 250 kt
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Mea
n du
ratio
n of
an
actio
n
Target descent Speed reduc.DIR TO 250 kt
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
80 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Heading then Merge MEL - Temporal distribution of actions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Num
ber o
f act
ions
Speed reduc. 250 kt
DIR TO
Max
MinMean
Heading then Merge MEL - Temporal distribution of actions
0
5
10
15
20
25
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Dur
atio
n of
act
ions
Speed reduc. 250 kt
DIR TO
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
]0;6
0]
]60;
120]
]120
;180
]
]180
;240
]
]240
;300
]
]300
;360
]
]360
;420
]
]420
;480
]
]480
;540
]
]540
;600
]
]600
;660
]
]660
;720
]
]720
;780
]
]780
;840
]
]840
;900
]
]900
;960
]
]960
;102
0]
]102
0;…
]
Time (60 seconds intervals)
Mea
n du
ratio
n of
an
actio
n
Speed reduc. 250 kt
DIR TO
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 81
6. DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED MAGNITUDE MAY'02
Remain Behind ATN - Distribution of Speed variations
012345678
[...;-
60]
]-60;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[ ^
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
60[
[60;
80[
[80;
…]
Distribution of magnitude of speed variations. Remain scenario.
Merge Behind OKRIX - Distribution of Speed variations
0123
4567
[...;-
60]
]-60;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[ ^
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
60[
[60;
80[
[80;
…]
Distribution of magnitude of speed variations. Merge in cruise scenario.
Merge Behind MEL - Distribution of Speed variations
0
1
2
3
4
5
[...;-
60]
]-60;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[ ^
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
60[
[60;
80[
[80;
…]
Distribution of magnitude of speed variations. Merge in descent scenario.
Heading then Merge OKRIX - Distribution of Speed variations
0
12
3
4
56
7
[...;-
60]
]-60;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[ ^
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
60[
[60;
80[
[80;
…]
Distribution of magnitude of speed variations. Heading then merge in cruise scenario.
Heading then Merge MEL - Distribution of Speed variations
0123456789
[...;-
60]
]-60;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[ ^
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
60[
[60;
80[
[80;
…]
Distribution of magnitude of speed variations. Heading then merge in descent scenario.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
82 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
7. DISTRIBUTION OF SPACING MAY'02
Spacing value 120 seconds after "Insert"
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
RB ATN MB OKR MB MEL HMB OKR HMB MEL GLOBAL
value (in NM
)
Spacing deviation at Merge point (or after 2 min)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
RB ATN MB OKR MB MEL HMB OKR HMB MEL GLOBAL
valu
e (in
NM
)
Spacing value at the end of delegation
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
RB ATN MB OKR MB MEL HMB OKR HMB MEL GLOBAL
valu
e (in
NM
)
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 83
8. SCRIPTS DEC'02
8.1. FLIGHT PLANS
8.1.1. Simulated aircraft flight plans
Pilots were instructed to fly on the EEC A320 fixed-base simulator and the following flight plans were used:
• AFR3423 : Milan Linate / Paris CDG at FL300 LIML OME8C OMETO UL615 TERSI UL615 AOSTA UM729 MOLUS UM729 GALBI UR13 ROMTA UR13 DERAK UR13 TINIL TIN4W NANOP TIN4W IPLAN TIN4W INKAK TIN4W OMAKO TIN4W PG512 TIN4W LFPG.
• LB026MQ : Nice / Paris Orly at FL280 LFMN OKTE9 OKTET UM733 GIPNO UM733 BULOL UZ12 ATN ATN4W OKRIX ATN4W MOLEK ATN4W MLN ATN4W LFPO.
• AF296BG : Marseille / Paris Orly at FL280 LFML MTL7B MTL UM976 ETREK UM976 MADOT UM976 ATN ATN4W OKRIX ATN4W MOLEK ATN4W MLN ATN4W LFPO.
• AZA356 : Milan Linate / Paris CDG at FL300 LIML OME8C OMETO UL615 TERSI UL615 AOSTA UM729 MOLUS UM729 GALBI UR13 ROMTA UR13 DERAK UR13 TINIL TIN4W NANOP TIN4W IPLAN TIN4W INKAK TIN4W OMAKO TIN4W PG512 TIN4W LFPG.
The scenarios were designed with arrivals at Paris Orly on runway 26 and at Paris CDG on runway 26L. ATIS was given in consequence.
8.1.2. Target aircraft flight plans
The surrounding traffic was generated on the ESCAPE (Eurocontrol Simulation Capabiklity And Platform for Experimentation) platform by MASS (Multi Aircraft Simplified Simulator). The traffic used was 6PM00H1. Among this traffic, the following flight plans were used as target aircraft:
• LIB118 : Zurich / Paris Orly with B737 at FL280 (SSR 1457) LSZH MOROK DJL CHABY OKRIX MOLEK LFPO.
• CRX455 : Zurich / Paris CDG with A320 at FL280 (SSR 5123) LSZH MOROK DERAK TINIL IPLAN INKAK OMAKO LFPG.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
84 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
8.1.3. Waypoint co-ordinates
Waypoint Co-ordinates Waypoint Co-ordinates
AOSTA N45 47.9 E007 20.0 ATN N46 48.4 E004 15.5
BULOL N46 02.8 E005 05.5 CHABY N47 47.8 E003 56.9
DERAK N47 17.8 E005 27.9 DJL N47 16.2 E005 05.8
ETREK N45 11.3 E004 38.3 GALBI N46 43.7 E006 08.6
GIPNO N45 33.6 E005 31.8 INKAK N48 24.0 E003 43.7
IPLAN N48 23.8 E004 01.6 LFML N43 26.2 E005 12.9
LFMN N43 39.9 E007 12.9 LFPG N49 00.6 E002 32.9
LFPO N48 43.4 E002 22.8 LIML N45 27.0 E009 16.8
LSZH N47 27.5 E008 32.9 MADOT N45 43.8 E004 30.8
MLN N48 27.4 E002 48.8 MOLEK N48 17.6 E003 03.9
MOLUS N46 26.6 E006 40.8 MOROK N47 23.8 E006 39.3
MTL N44 33.3 E004 46.8 NANOP N48 15.7 E004 14.4
OKRIX N47 58.0 E003 34.1 OKTET N44 29.1 E006 34.2
OMAKO N48 35.7 E003 25.1 OMETO N45 44.2 E008 02.6
PG512 N48 45.3 E003 14.1 ROMTA N46 58.3 E005 51.5
TERSI N45 47.2 E007 27.6 TINIL N47 35.8 E005 05.9
8.2. SCENARIOS
As described in the report, the experiment objectives led to a 3×2 design: (1, 0.5, 0.25NM) × function (flying, not flying pilot). In addition, for baseline purpose, each pilot flew once as PF without spacing instruction. The resulting experimental plan is presented in the table below.
Pilot Runs Flight Airport Conditions
1 2
Run1 AFR3423 LFPG Baseline PF PNF
Run2 AF296BG LFPO Margin = 1 PNF PF
Run3 AZA356 LFPG Margin = 0.5 PNF PF
Run4 AF296BG LFPO Margin = 0.25 PF PNF
Run5 LB026MQ LFPO Baseline PNF PF
Run6 AF296BG LFPO Margin = 0.5 PF PNF
Run7 AZA356 LFPG Margin = 1 PF PNF
Run8 AZA356 LFPG Margin = 0.25 PNF PF
The scenarios are derived from a small experiment performed on the ESCAPE platform with one controller and two pseudo-pilots. Both the traffic (traffic file with aircraft identification and position) and the radio-communications (audio file with controller instructions and pilot replies) were recorded.
For each scenario of the flight deck simulation, the aircraft data of the simulated aircraft was taken out from the traffic file. Also, the pseudo-pilot replies concerning the simulated aircraft were taken out from the audio file.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 85
A pseudo-controller was used to:
• confirm the target positioning performed by the crew, • give an instruction again if it was missed by the crew, • answer eventual queries (e.g. message confirmation or descent request), • turn down the volume of the audio replay during crew messages to avoid scrambled
messages. The detail of the scenarios for each run is given below (with expected pilot answers). The reference time to supervise the scenarios is the time of the audio file.
8.2.1. AFR3423
This flight is a baseline flight without any spacing instruction given.
Cockpit flight plan: Milan Linate (LIN) – Paris CDG (CDG) at FL300 with SSR 2425 and the radio frequency set to 132.10.
Synchronisation at the start of the run:
• Simulation time = 14h04’10, • DIS history time = 12h30’50, • Ref. time on the audio file = 20’41.
Callsign: “Air France Three Four Two Three”.
28’11 MASS action [ Mach .75 ]
32’26 MASS action [ Heading 280 Left ]
35’05 Instruction “AF3423, Descend level 100 speed 250kt.”
35’16 MASS action [ Flight Level 100 ]
MASS action [ IAS 250 ]
36’51 MASS action [ Direct to INKAK ]
41’46 MASS action [ Heading 020 ]
43’46 MASS action [ Direct to INKAK ]
The run is ended at an approximate time of 44’10.
8.2.2. AF296BG
This flight has spacing instruction given (Merge) and was performed with three values of tolerance margins: 1NM, 0.5NM and 0.25NM.
Cockpit flight plan: Marseille (MRS) – Paris Orly (ORY) at FL280 with SSR 5301 and the radio frequency set to 118.85.
Target flight plan: LIB118 / Zurich (ZRH) - Orly (ORY).
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
86 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Synchronisation at the start of the run:
• DIS history time = 11h22’40 • Ref. time on the audio file = 1h13’00
Callsign: “Air France Bravo Golf”
1:16:50 Instruction “AF BG select target 1457 (Lib118 – id110)”
1:20:13 Instruction “AF BG behind target merge to Okryx to be 8 Nm behind”
1:28:40 Instruction “AF BG descend level 90”
1:36:32 Instruction “AF BG contact approach 124.45 au revoir”
The run is ended at an approximate time of 1h36’40.
8.2.3. AZA356
This flight has spacing instruction given (Merge) and was performed with three values of tolerance margins: 1NM, 0.5NM and 0.25NM.
Cockpit flight plan: Milan Linate (LIN) – Paris CDG (CDG) at FL300 with SSR 0430 and the radio frequency set to 132.10.
Target flight plan: CRX455 / Zurich (ZRH) – Paris Charles De Gaulle (CDG).
Synchronisation at the start of the run:
• DIS history time = 11h27’40 • Ref. time on the audio file = 1h18’00
Callsign: “Alitalia Three Five Six”
1:22:41 Instruction “AZA356 behind target merge to Inkak to be 8 Nm behind”
1:22:48 Instruction “sorry, AZA356 select target 5123”
1:24:55 Instruction “AZA356 behind target merge to Inkak to be 8 Nm behind”
1:29:51 Instruction “AZA356 descend level 100”
1:34:39 Instruction “AZA356 contact approach 121.15 au revoir”
The run is ended at an approximate time of 1h40’30.
8.2.4. LB026MQ
This flight is a baseline flight without any spacing instruction given.
Cockpit flight plan: Nice (NCE) – Paris Orly (ORY) at FL280 with SSR 0342 and the radio frequency set to 118.85.
Synchronisation at the start of the run:
• Simulation time = 14h21’37 • DIS history time = 12h48’17 • Ref. time on the audio file = 38’08
Callsign: “Liberté Mike Quebec”
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 87
50’25 MASS action [ Heading 010 Right ]
53’24 Instruction “LibMQ proceed OKRIX, descend level 90 speed 290kt.”
53’31 MASS action [ Flight Level 90 ]
53’31 MASS action [ IAS 290 ]
53’36 MASS action [ Direct to OKRIX ]
The run is ended at an approximate time of 59’20.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
88 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
9. SYSTEM RECORDINGS DEC'02
The MCS produces 2 files: Data file: datalogJJ-MM-AAA-HH-MM.data Action file: actionLogJJ-MM-AAA-HH-MM.data In dataLog file, every second the following data, related to the MCS aircraft are recorded:
Label Meaning
RealTime Real time
SimulationTime Simulation time
CodeSSR MCS SSR code
Callsign Callsign du MCS
dLatitude Latitude of the aircraft, in minutes
dLongitude Longitude of the aircraft, in minutes
dAltitude Altitude of the aircraft from sea level, in feet
dRadioAltitude Altitude of the aircraft from the ground, in feet
dBaroAltitude Barometric Altitude of the aircraft, in feet
dHeading True Heading of the aircraft, in degrees
dTrack True Track of the aircraft, in degrees
dBank Bank Angle of the aircraft, in degrees
dDerive Drift Angle of the aircraft, in degrees (dTrack = dHeading + dDerive)
dAlpha Angle of attack of the aircraft, in degrees
dFpa Flight Path Angle of the aircraft, in degrees
lFlightTime Elapsed time from lift-off, in seconds
dSpeed Speed of the aircraft, expressed in Knots
dMach Speed of the aircraft, expressed in MACH
dVs Vertical Speed of the aircraft, in feet/Minute
dGs Ground Speed of the aircraft, in Knots
dTAS TRUE AIR SPEED of the aircraft, in Knots
dTrend Speed trend, in Knots
dTurnRadius Current turn radius, in NM
dTurnRate Angular Speed of the change in heading, in degrees/second
dPoussee Thrust
dFreqCOM Communication frequency
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 89
In ActionLog file, the following data are recorded: Continuous data, every 300ms:
Label Meaning
RealTime Real time
SimulationTime Simulation time
IAS Indicated Air Speed of the aircraft expressed in Knots
GS Ground Speed of the aircraft expressed in Knots
TAS True Air Speed of the aircraft expressed in Knots
Heading True heading of the aircraft, in degrees
V/S Vertical Speed of the aircraft, in feet/Minute
Altitude Altitude of the aircraft from sea level, in feet
CURR_SEP Direct Distance between own aircraft and the target
ATD Along Track distance between own aircraft and the target
REQ_SEP Required spacing Distance
Delta distance Difference between dDistance and REQ_SEP
CR Closure Rate
SUG IAS Suggested IAS expressed in Knots
target GS Ground speed of the target expressed in Knots
target Hdg True heading of the target in degrees
target Lat Latitude of the target
target Long Longitude of the target
target level Altitude of the target in feet
Discrete data: FCU
Simul Time Label Value
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Pull Pressure Pressure = 1013 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Turn Pressure Pressure = 1014 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Pressure Pressure Capt= 1023 F/O = 101300:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Turn Pressure Pressure = 1015 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Push Pressure Pressure = 1015 00:12:12 FCU: Unit Baro Capt =1 00:12:12 FCU: Unit Baro Capt =0 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS CAPT OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS CAPT ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director CAPT ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director CAPT OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU:Capt Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = ADF 00:12:12 Action = FCU:Capt Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU:Capt Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = VOR 00:12:12 Action = FCU:Capt Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = ADF
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
90 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Simul Time Label Value
00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = VOR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = PLAN 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = ARC 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = NAV 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = VOR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Mode ND mode ND = ILS 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = CSTR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = WPT 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = NDB 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = VORD 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Defines ND contents Mode display ND = ARPT 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 10 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 20 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 40 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 80 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Capt Select Range ND range ND = 160 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Speed IAS speed = 254 Knot 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Turn Speed IAS speed = 257 Knot 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Heading HEADING = 351 degres 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Heading HEADING = 351degres 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton LOCalizer OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton LOCalizer ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto THRust ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto THRust OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 2 OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 2 ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Auto Pilot 1 OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Altitude level = 28000 feet 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Altitude level = 30000 feet 00:12:12 FCU: Incr Alt = 100 00:12:12 FCU: Incr Alt = 1000 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton EXPEDite OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton EXPEDite ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton APPRoach OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton APPRoach ON 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Pull Vertical Speed V/S = -900 feet/minutes 00:12:12 Action = FCU: Push Vertical Speed V/S = 0 feet/minutes 00:14:43 Action = FCU: Pull Vertical Speed PFA = 4 degres 00:14:43 Action = FCU: Push Vertical Speed PFA = 0 degres
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 91
Simul Time Label Value
00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = ADF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = VOR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 1 Canal Radio 1 = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 10 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 20 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 40 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 80 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Range ND Range ND = 160 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = ARPT 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = VORD 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = NDB 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = WPT 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = CSTR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Defines ND contents Mode display ND = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = ADF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = VOR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Action on Canal Radio 2 Canal Radio 2 = OFF 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = NAV 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = VOR 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = ILS 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = ARC 00:12:12 Action = FCU: F/O Select Mode ND Mode ND = PLAN 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O OFF 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton ILS F/O ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director F/O ON 00:12:12 FCU: Pushbutton Flight Director F/O OFF 00:12:12 FCU: TURN HEADING = 352
Frequency:
Simul Time Action Label
00:12:12 Turns frequency knob on selector 2 Select frequency 119.00 from COM 2
00:12:12 Turns frequency knob on selector 2 Select frequency 120.00 from COM 2
00:12:12 Turns frequency knob on selector 1 Select frequency 118.00 from COM 1
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
92 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
MCDU:
Simul Time Action Label
00:12:12 Chooses mode ASAS Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Target 1/2
00:12:12 Inputs an SSR code for the target Action MCDU CAPT Select Target = 2037 00:12:12 Following a target selection, Asas Target 2/2 page is
displayed Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Target 2/2
00:12:12 Presses INSERT Action MCDU CAPT Press key INSERT 00:12:12 Display of the page Asas Mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Mode for Target 2037 00:12:12 Presses Merge Action MCDU CAPT Press Key MERGE 00:12:12 Display of the Merge page Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
Merge Behind page 1⁄2 for Target 2037 00:12:12 Input of the wpt Action MCDU CAPT Select Waypoint = ATN for
Target 2037 00:12:12 Input of the distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = 38 for Target
2037 00:12:12 Display of the Merge page with the selected values Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
Merge Behind page 2/2 distance and waypoint selected for Target 2037
00:12:12 Display of the message Action MCDU UNABLE DELEGATION for Target 2037
00:12:12 Input of the distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = 24 00:12:12 Display of the Merge page with the selected values:
the merge is possible Action MCDU Display for CAPT req speed = 455 to Merge to ATN 24 Nm behind target 2037,AO645DP, 28004 feet, 452 knot
00:12:12 Presses insert Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Merge Behind Active for Target 2037
00:12:12 The spacing error is greater than Tolerance_Caution Action MCDU LOSING SEPARATION for Target 2037
00:12:12 The spacing error is greater than à Tolerance_Warning
Action MCDU UNABLE DELEGATION for Target 2037
00:12:12 Presses End deleg Action MCDU CAPT End Delegation for Target 203700:12:12 Display of the page ASAS Mode with deselect
accessible Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Mode for Target 2037
00:12:12 Presses Deselect Action MCDU CAPT Deselect Target Target 2037 00:12:12 Display of the main menu Action MCDU CAPT Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Presses ASAS Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Target 1/2 00:12:12 Inputs an SSR code for the target Action MCDU CAPT Select Target = 1234 00:12:12 Following a target selection, Asas Target 2/2 page is
displayed Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Target 2/2
00:12:12 Presses INSERT Action MCDU CAPT Press key INSERT 00:12:12 Display of the page mode ASAS Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Mode for Target 1234 00:12:12 Presses ASAS on FO MCDU Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = ASAS
Mode for Target 1234 00:12:12 Chooses mode remain Action MCDU CAPT Press Key REMAIN
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 93
Simul Time Action Label
00:12:12 Display of the page Remain for Captain Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 1⁄2 distance to select for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display of the page Remain for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 1⁄2 distance to select for Target 1234
00:12:12 Inputs a distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = 38 for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display when Remain behind possible for CAPT Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 2/2 distance selected for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display when Remain behind possible for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = Remain Behind page 2/2 distance selected for Target 1234
00:12:12 Presses insert Action MCDU Display for CAPT req speed = 454 to Remain 38 Nm behind target 1234,AF001BL , 24006 feet,425 knot
00:12:12 Display Remain active page for CAPT Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = Remain Behind Active for Target 1234
00:12:12 Display Remain active page for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = Remain Behind Active for Target 1234
00:12:12 Presses End deleg Action MCDU CAPT End Delegation for Target 123400:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode with active deselect Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Mode for Target 1234 00:12:12 Idem for FO Action MCDU Display for F/O Page MCDU = ASAS
Mode for Target 1234 00:12:12 Presses Deselect Action MCDU CAPT Deselect Target 1234 00:12:12 Display of the main menu Action MCDU CAPT Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Display of the main menu for FO Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Chooses ASAS Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Target 1/2 00:12:12 Inputs an SSR code for the target Action MCDU CAPT Select Target = 2210 00:12:12 Following a target selection, Asas Target 2/2 page is
displayed Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU = ASAS Target 2/2
00:12:12 Presses INSERT Action MCDU CAPT Press key INSERT 00:12:12 Display of the page ASAS mode Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Mode for Target 2210 00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from ASAS
Mode 00:12:12 Display of the target page Action MCDU Display for CAPT Page MCDU =
ASAS Target 00:12:12 Presses return Action MCDU CAPT Press RETURN from ASAS
Target 00:12:12 Display of the main menu Action MCDU CAPT Quit mode ASAS 00:12:12 Presses on « Dir To » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page DIR TO00:12:12 Presses on « PROG » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page PROG 00:12:12 Presses on « PERF » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page PERF
CRUISE 00:12:12 Presses on « DATA » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page DATA 00:12:12 Presses on « F-PLAN » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page FLIGHT
PLAN 00:12:12 Presses on « RAD NAV » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page RADIO
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
94 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Simul Time Action Label
NAV 00:12:12 Presses on « FUEL PRED » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page FUEL
PREDICTION 00:12:12 Presses on « SEC F-PLN » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page SEC
INDEX 00:12:12 Presses on « AIRPORT » key during mode ASAS Action MCDU F/O Quit mode ASAS for page
FLIGHT PLAN 00:12:12 Input of an erroneous distance Action MCDU CAPT Select Distance = -56 for Target
1234 00:12:12 Message displayed Action MCDU CAPT FORMAT ERROR = -56 00:12:12 Input of an erroneous waypoint Action MCDU CAPT Select Waypoint = KLM for
Target 2037 00:12:12 Message displayed Action MCDU CAPT INVALID WAYPOINT = KLM 00:12:12 Input of an erroneous SSR code Action MCDU CAPT INVALID SSR CODE = 20 00:12:12 Message displayed Action MCDU message prepare DIRECT TO 00:12:12 Message displayed Action MCDU message DIRECT TO
00 :12 :12 Message displayed Action MCDU message STABILISE SPEED 00 :12 :12 Message displayed Action MCDU message LOSING TARGET
Speed break position:
Simul Time Action Label 00:12:12 Selection of Ret Speed Break position = 0 00:12:12 Selection of 1/4 Speed Break position = 1 00:12:12 Selection of 1/2 Speed Break position = 2 00:12:12 Selection of 3/4 Speed Break position = 3 00:12:12 Selection of FULL Speed Break position =4
Throttle:
Simul Time Action Label 00:12:12 Selection of IDDLE Throttle position = 0 00:12:13 Selection of CLIMB Throttle position = 1 00:12:14 Selection of FLEX MGT Throttle position = 2 00:12:15 Selection of TO GA Throttle position = 3
Flaps:
Simul Time Action Label 00:12:12 Selection of 0 Slats Flaps position = 0 00:12:13 Selection of 1 Slats Flaps position = 1 00:12:14 Selection of 2 Slats Flaps position = 2 00:12:15 Selection of 3 Slats Flaps position = 3 00:12:16 Selection of 4, 5, or FULL Slats Flaps position =4
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 95
Engines:
Simul Time Action Label 00:12:12 OFF Engine main position = 0 00:12:13 ON Engine main position = 1
Landing gear:
Simul Time Action Label 00:12:12 UP Landing gear position = 0 00:12:13 DOWN Landing gear position = 1
Specific data, recorded every 300ms have been added to support the eye tracker data collection:
Target information:
Label Meaning
Real Time Time of the computer system
Simul Time Simulation time
Side CAPT ou F/0 Side CAPT = left side; side F/O = right side
Intruder lat Latitude of the target in minute
Intruder longitude Longitude of the target in minute
X X Coordinate of the target
Y Y Coordinate of the target
TCAS traffic:
Label Meaning
Real Time Time of the computer system
Simul Time Simulation time
CAPT ou F/0 Side CAPT = left side; side F/O = right side
X X Coordinate of the TCAS aircraft
Y Y Coordinate of the TCAS aircraft
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
96 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
10. LIST OF MEASUREMENTS DEC’02
Day Actual run nb Condition PF PNF Eye
tracker Nasa (S, L) EntryQ FinalQ Logs
1 No G R S 2 1 R G S 3 0.5 G R X S 4 0.25 G R X S 5 0.25 R G S
05/12/02
6 No R G S
2 2 6
1 1 G C S 2 0.5 G C S 3 No C G S 4 0.25 C G X S 5 0.5 C G S
06/12/02
6 No G C X S
2 2 6
1 No Y M S 2 1 M Y L 3 0.5 M Y S 4 0.25 Y M L 5 No M Y S 6 0.5 Y M L 7 1 Y M S
09/02/02
8 0.25 M Y L
2 2 8
1 No O R S 2 0.5 R O S 3 0.25 O R S 4 0.25 R O S 5 0.5 O R S
10/12/02
6 No R O S
2 2 6
1 No B K S 2 1 K B L 3 0.5 K B S 4 0.25 B K L 5 No K B S 6 0.5 B K L 7 1 B K S
12/12/02
8 0.25 K B L
2 2 8
1 No I D S 2 1 D I L 3 0.5 D I S 4 0.25 I D L 5 0.5 I D S 6 1 I D L 7 No D I S
18/12/02
8 0.25 D I L
2 2 7
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 97
11. PHASES DURATION DEC'02 Phases duration
Scenario Tolerance margins (NM) Run Merge phase
(sec.) Remain phase
(sec.) Both phases
(sec.)
09/12/02 12:22 595 390 985
12/12/02 12:35 603 397 1000
18/12/02 12:20 624 407 1031 0.25
13/01/03 14:11 613 413 1026
06/12/02 14:48 616 369 985
09/12/02 14:32 613 413 1026
10/12/02 14:26 623 400 1023
12/12/02 14:38 600 399 999
18/12/02 13:58 610 483 1093
0.5
13/01/03 12:16 604 441 1045
05/12/02 12:37 618 425 1043
06/12/02 10:42 620 346 966
09/12/02 11:05 531 367 898
12/12/02 11:21 593 388 981
LFPO
1
18/12/02 11:09 615 383 998
05/12/02 16:33 679 243 922
06/12/02 14:19 689 201 890
09/12/02 15:29 658 215 873
12/12/02 13:48 689 216 905
0.25
12/12/02 15:21 676 232 908
05/12/02 14:34 679 229 908
06/12/02 11:26 679 199 878
09/12/02 11:36 662 211 873
10/12/02 12:50 666 211 877
12/12/02 11:50 668 249 917
0.5
18/12/02 11:42 669 338 1007
09/12/02 15:01 653 217 870
12/12/02 15:10 672 232 904
18/12/02 14:36 679 247 926
LFPG
1
13/01/03 13:41 666 208 874
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
98 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
12. QUESTIONNAIRES DEC'02
12.1. BLANK ENTRY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: Date: ___/___/___
When making your ratings, please consider all levels of the scale. You are encouraged to write any additional comments you feel important.
Background
8. What is your age in years? ____ years
9. How long have you been a pilot _________flight hours ____ years
10. What types of aircraft are you rated in?
11. How long have you been flying A 320? _________flight hours ____ years
12. What is your current function? Captain Co-pilot Other:
Please briefly describe your pilot experience:
13. Please circle the number that best describes your motivation to participate in this study.
notmotivated 1 2 3 4 extremely
motivated
14. Had you ever heard before about "delegation of separation"?
Yes No
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 99
Please, indicate how much you agree/disagree with the following statements
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 strongly
agree
Delegating separation assurance to aircraft might be dangerous 1 2 3 4
There are some benefits of delegation 1 2 3 4
Air traffic should always remain under controllers' responsibility 1 2 3 4
Delegation can reduce the pilot workload 1 2 3 4
Delegation can increase my monitoring effort 1 2 3 4
Delegating spacing task to aircrew will increase safety 1 2 3 4
Delegating spacing task to aircrew will impair capacity and efficiency 1 2 3 4
Additional comments: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
100 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
12.2. BLANK POST-RUN QUESTIONNAIRE
Subject: Date: Run #
Exercise: Function: PF / PNF Time:
NASA TLX RATING SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: On each scale, place a mark that represents the magnitude of that factor in the task you just performed.
MENTAL DEMAND
Description
Please indicate, with a cross on the vertical line, how much mental effort it cost to do your work in the run.
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
costing lots and lots of effort
costing very much effort
costing much effort
fairly effortful
rather effortful
costing some effort
costing a little effort
hardly effortful
costing no effort
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 101
PHYSICAL DEMAND
Description How much physical activity was required (e.g., pushing, pulling, turning, controlling, activating, etc.)? Was the task easy or demanding, slow or brisk, slack or strenuous, restful or laborious?
LOW HIGH
TEMPORAL DEMAND
Description How much time pressure did you feel due to the rate or pace at which the tasks or task elements occurred? Was the pace slow and leisurely or rapid and frantic?
LOW HIGH
PERFORMANCE
Description How successful do you think you were in accomplishing the goals of the task set by the experimenter (or yourself)? How satisfied were you with your performance in accomplishing these goals?
FAILURE PERFECT
EFFORT
Description How hard did you have to work (mentally and physically) to accomplish you level of performance?
LOW HIGH
FRUSTRATION
Description How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed and annoyed versus secure, gratified, content, relaxed and complacent did you feel during the task?
LOW HIGH
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
102 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
12.3. BLANK FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: _________ Date: ___ / 12 / 02
You have taken part in a 1 day simulation, investigating the issue of delegating the spacing task from controllers to pilots. The objective of the present questionnaire is to collect your final feedback on the simulation and on the concept itself. The following items tend to cover most of the issues that we identified as important. Please answer the following questions, providing as much comments as possible. Do not hesitate to add additional comments if you feel some items are still missing.
Thank you for your collaboration.
Simulation Characteristics
1. How would you rate the quality of the working environment? Very low / Low / High / Very high (devices, displays, R/T communications)
2. How would you qualify the overall simulation realism? Realistic / Unrealistic
Comments and suggestions: _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Concept acceptability
3. The phraseology was Very clear / Generally understandable / Slightly ambiguous / Very ambiguous
General comments and suggestions about phraseology:__________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
4. Did you feel the delegation procedures were:
a) Easy to understand Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally
b) Logical Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally
c) Easy to learn and remember Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally
d) Easy to implement Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally
e) Adapted to flight crews Not at all / Not really / Quite / Totally
Comments and suggestion: ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 103
Delegation Task Analysis
5. What support did you use to perform the following tasks (multiple choice possible)?
Task Actions Support used
(e.g. ND, MCDU,…)
Comments
Target selection
Target visualisation
Target identification
Situation understanding
Delegation mode selection
Constraint input
Situation understanding
Feasibility assessment
Spacing adjustment
Delegation instruction
Spacing monitoring
Comments and suggestion: ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
104 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Usability of Information Displays
6. In general, minimum effort was required to understand displayed information Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
7. The important information and functions required to maintain the spacing are easy to find
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
8. Display clutter was a problem Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree 9. Information displayed and interaction
with devices (MCDU, ND) are consistent with current flight deck standards
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
10. I encountered problems in learning how to use and how to interact with the MCDU pages
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
11. The cues provided by the system (required speed, spacing trend, …) were:
A - Useful B - Easy to understand C - Sufficient
Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
12. Some terms and acronyms were difficult to understand Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Comments and suggestions: _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
13. What are the most essential information on
ND: __________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
MCDU: ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
14. What information / support are you missing? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 105
15. Assess the relevance of each item displayed on the ND.
Suggested IAS, advises and warnings
Spacing scale (spacing current/required/ trend, closure rate, caution/warning zones)
Target
Predicted spacing acquisition
Comments and suggestions: _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
106 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Impact Analysis
Workload
16. Compared to today situations, how would you rate your overall mental effort in the cockpit:
PF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher
PNF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher
17. The workload (including speed/heading changes)
PF Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree a) to acquire spacing was acceptable
PNF Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
PF Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree b) to maintain spacing was acceptable
PNF Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Comments and suggestions: _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Communications and interactions
18. Compared to situations without delegation, how would you describe your communications:
Less frequent / Same / More frequent a) with controllers Shorter / Same / Longer
Less frequent / Same / More frequent b) in the cockpit Shorter / Same / Longer
19. As a consequence, how was your communication load with delegation?
PF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher
PNF Much lower / Lower / Higher / Much higher
Comments and suggestions: _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 107
Monitoring tasks
PF Yes / No 20. Do you feel delegation modified your scanning pattern in the cockpit PNF Yes / No
PF Scan content / Scan frequency / Both 21. If yes, is it in terms of PNF Scan content / Scan frequency / Both
PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always a) Less frequent
PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always
PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always b) Used to gather more information
PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always
PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always
22. Was your scanning
c) Focused on specific items Which ones? ___________ PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always
23. As a consequence, do you feel your monitoring effort with delegation was
PF Reduced / Similar / Increased
PNF Reduced / Similar / Increased
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Situation awareness
24. Compared to today situations, how would you rate your situation awareness:
PF Better / Same / Worst
PNF Better / Same / Worst
Comments and suggestions: _______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
108 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
25. Compared to situations without delegation, how was your awareness of:
PF Better / Same / Worst a) Your flight parameters in general PNF Better / Same / Worst PF Better / Same / Worst b) Your position in traffic PNF Better / Same / Worst PF Better / Same / Worst c) The surrounding traffic PNF Better / Same / Worst PF Better / Same / Worst d) Evolution of the situation PNF Better / Same / Worst
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Flight activity
26. Was the delegation compatible with:
a) Normal working method Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
PF Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very b) Usual tasks in general PNF Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
PF Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very c) Monitoring tasks
PNF Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
27. Does delegation modify
a) The planning and the management of the flight Yes / No
b) The number of actions Yes / No
PF Yes / No c) The head down time
PNF Yes / No
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 109
Efficiency
28. According to you, did the delegation lead to:
PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always a) Better anticipation and planning of actions PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always b) More complex tasks PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always c) Smoother flight profiles PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always PF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always d) Reduced intervals between aircraft PNF Never / Sometimes / Often / Always
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
29. Is the flight crew in a position to maintain accurate spacing? Yes / No
30. How would you rate the ability to respect the following tolerance margins?
a) 1NM Very difficult / Difficult / Easy / Very easy b) 0.5NM Very difficult / Difficult / Easy / Very easy c) 0.25NM Very difficult / Difficult / Easy / Very easy
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Safety
31. Did you identify possible benefits of delegation in terms of safety? Yes / No
If yes, which ones? _______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
110 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
32. With delegation, would you say the risks of errors Decrease / Increase / Do not change
33. Does delegation introduce new risks? Yes / No
If yes, which ones? _______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
34. Errors induced by delegation could be:
a) Frequent Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
b) Hazardous Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
c) Easy to detect Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
d) Easy to recover Not at all / Not really / Quite / Very
35. With delegation, do you need additional support for:
• Error detection (e.g. loss of spacing)? Yes / No
• Error recovery? Yes / No
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Concept Assessment
36. How would you rate your understanding of this new concept?
Completely understood / Mostly understood / Slightly understood / Not understood
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 111
37. Did any aspect bother you?____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
38. Which aspect - if any - do you consider the most difficult to handle? (please order if more than 1 choice):
Identification of target / feasibility assessment / implementation / monitoring / other Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
39. Would you describe delegation as: A workload reduction / A stimulant / A concern
40. How did you consider the way you worked with delegation? Satisfying / Frustrating / Other
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
41. Is the concept of delegation
A. usable Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally B. useful Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally
C. acceptable Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
42. Do you think delegation could benefit from additional tools
(e.g. data link) Not at all / Partially / Generally / Totally Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
112 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
43. Could this method increase:
a) Safety Not at all / Quite / Significantly / Very significantly b) Capacity Not at all / Quite / Significantly / Very significantly c) Efficiency Not at all / Quite / Significantly / Very significantly
Comments and suggestions: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
44. What is your overall feeling about the method and the simulation?
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
45. If you were to come back, what evolutions would you like to see?
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 113
12.4. SYNTHESIS OF THE FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Note: Comments made by a Boeing test pilot have not been taken into account.
Simulation Characteristics
The working environment (devices, displays, R/T communications) is highly rated by pilots (only 2 pilots out of 14 gave a low rate).
The overall simulation realism is highly rated by pilots as well (only 3 pilots out of 14 gave a low rate). The positive points are:
• the realism of R/T communications,
• the realism of sound environment.
The main reason why the simulation realism is rated poorly by 3 pilots is the fact that there is no full flight simulator (sound, force). Other aspects of the simulation are also mentioned:
• The fact that there is no interphone for realistic crew communication so that PNF receives ATIS without disturbing PF.
• The fact that the R/T environment is not heavy enough (at least, in some runs).
• The use of callsigns different from those pilots are familiar with.
Concept acceptability:
The phraseology is considered either « very clear » (8 pilots) or « generally understandable » (6 pilots). Two changes are proposed:
• the use of « Correct » instead of « Roger » by controllers after the target identification by pilots for it is stronger and more positive;
• the removal of the « behind target » phrase in the « Merge » instruction because it conveys no information and the instruction would become more coherent with the pilot’s readback.
For all pilots, the delegation procedures are totally or quite easy to understand, implement, learn and remember. They are also totally or quite logical and adapted to flight crews (except for 2 pilots).
Six pilots highly recommend the automation of speed monitoring during the delegation tasks or once the required spacing has been achieved.
Delegation Task Analysis (supports used to perform delegation tasks)
Target identification
To select target, the supports used are the MCDU (13 pilots) and the ND (5 pilots).
To visualise target, the support used is the ND (all pilots).
To understand the situation, the supports used are the ND (all pilots) and the MCDU (2 pilots).
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
114 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Delegation instruction
To select delegation mode, the supports used are the MCDU (13 pilots) and the ND (1 pilot).
To input constraint, the supports used are the MCDU (13 pilots) and the ND (2 pilots).
To understand the situation, the supports used are the ND (all pilots) the MCDU (5 pilots).
To assess feasibility, the supports used are the ND (all pilots), the MCDU (2 pilots) and the PFD (1 pilot).
To adjust spacing, the supports used are the ND (all pilots), the MCDU (2 pilots), the PFD (1 pilot) and the FCU (1 pilot).
To monitor spacing, the supports used are the ND (all pilots) and the PFD (1 pilot).
Usability of Information Displays
In general, minimum effort is required to understand displayed information (except for 2 pilots).
The important information and functions required to maintain the spacing are easy to find for all pilots.
Display clutter is not a problem (except for 1 pilot).
Information displayed and interaction with devices (MCDU, ND) are consistent with current flight deck standards (except for 3 pilots including 1 pilot who thinks that the cancellation of delegation procedure on the MCDU is not consistent with current flight deck standards).
No problem is encountered in learning how to use and how to interact with the MCDU pages.
The cues provided by the system (required speed, spacing trend,…) are quite or very useful, easy to understand and sufficient. Terms and acronyms are easy to understand as well.
The most essential information on the ND
1. Suggested IAS
2. Spacing value
3. Spacing scale
4. Spacing trend
5. Representation of the target
6. Closure rate
Contradictory comments are made about the suggested IAS. On the one hand, it is an important information as it prevents from too frequent manipulation of the speed knob on the FCU and, on the other hand, it is too sensitive as the pilot had to constantly play with the speed.
3 pilots (out of 14) encounter problems with the spacing scale and spacing trend (not very intuitive, symbology not appropriate, not easy to understand).
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 115
The most essential information on the MCDU
1. Target callsign, Target G/S
2. SUG_IAS
3. Target SSR Code, Target selection, Target position, Spacing value, Required spacing, Required speed before engaging the mode, Time to obtain spacing for SUG_IAS, Time to obtain spacing for current speed, Feasibility of the merge, Validation of mode changes, Application mode selection.
The missing information / support:
• Messages for speed monitoring (accelerate, decelerate) or at least the display of these messages after « caution losing spacing ».
• Aural signal when out of spacing or when the spacing changes significantly. • Warning of a significant change in target speed. • Target speed on the ND. • Display of the selected speed of the target. • Display of the time separation. • Simplification of the « Merge » procedure (DIR TO followed by MERGE) : a shortcut from
LATERAL REVISION page to MERGE page or vice versa. • Automation of spacing keeping.
Relevance of each item displayed on the ND
Suggested IAS: Very useful information but it should be located at another place because advisories may be easily missed and this line is used a lot by other systems. One pilot thinks its value is too sensitive.
Spacing scale: Important, necessary, well located information but some design details should be reviewed such as representation of the red zone, flickering of the closure rate at low values, font size positionning, utility of the closure rate value, color of the trend arrow.
Target: Important, good definition but the target altitude interferes with the target symbol and the target representation should be different from the TCAS traffic.
Predicted spacing: No clear trend among pilots:
• 8 pilots think that that symbol is very useful (useful to evaluate the feasibility of the delegation, nice to see the position where the spacing will be acquired when the IAS has changed).
• 5 pilots do not use this symbol (not very steady).
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
116 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Impact Analysis:
Workload
Compared to today situations, the overall mental effort in the cockpit is rated “higher” (“much higher” for 2 pilots) at the PF position. At the PNF, it is rated “higher” by 12 pilots and “lower” by 3 pilots.
Nevertheless, the workload (including speed/heading changes) to acquire and maintain spacing is acceptable at both PF and PNF positions (at the most, only 3 pilots disagreed).
In general, too much time is spent monitoring the spacing especially when the target reduces to 250kts. One pilot suggested that delegation may be too demanding at the end of cruise and during the descent.
Communications and interactions
Compared to situation without delegation, communications with controllers are less frequent and either shorter or as long as.
There is no conscensus about communications in the cockpit: less frequent for 3 pilots, as frequent as for 5 pilots, more frequent for 6 pilots. The longer was the same for 8 pilots and 4 pilots thought the communications were shorter.
Generally, the communication load is lower at both PF and PNF position (higher for 3 pilots only).
Monitoring tasks
For most pilots, the scanning pattern is modified in terms of frequency and content at both PF and PNF positions:
• It was always as or more frequent at the PF position (for 7 pilots) and at the PNF position (for 5 pilots).
• It was sometimes as or more frequent at the PF position (for 6 pilots) and at the PNF position (for 8 pilots).
• It was often used to gather more information and to focus on specific items:
1. SUG_IAS 2. Spacing scale, Spacing value 3. Spacing, IAS 4. Closure rate
As a consequence, the monitoring effort with delegation is increased at both PF and PNF position (reduced for 2 pilots).
The reasons given by the pilots are:
• Novelty of the delegation task (with more training, workload will decrease). • Too much attention paid to the target especially during the recovery of a loss of spacing
(0.25NM Tolerance margin). • Monitoring spacing task too « important ».
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 117
Situation awareness
Compared to today situations, the situation awareness is better for the majority of pilots (8 out of 14) at both PF and PNF positions. The remaining pilots rate the situation awareness as the same as without delegation.
Compared to situations without delegation, the awareness of:
• Position in traffic is better at both PF and PNF positions, • Evolution of the situation is better for 9 pilots or the same for 4 pilots.
Pilots do not agree to each other on the awareness of the flight parameters:
• Better for 6 pilots at PF position and 7 pilots at the PNF position, • Same for 6 pilots at PF position and 5 pilots at the PNF position, • Worse for 4 pilots at PF position and 3 pilots at the PNF position.
They do not agree either on the awareness of the surrounding traffic (better for 7 pilots, same for 5 and worse for 3 at both positions).
The overall feeling is that too much attention was paid to the target to the detriment of other traffics.
Flight activity
The delegation was quite compatible with:
• Normal working method, • Usual PF and PNF tasks, • PF and PNF monitoring tasks.
According to pilots, delegation modifies:
• The planning and management of flight, • The number of actions, • PF and PNF head down time.
More particularly, delegation modifies the use of the FCU (increase), the descent strategy, the head down time (increase) to monitor the ND scale.
Efficiency
The delegation leads to:
• Better anticipation and planning of actions for both positions (sometimes for 8 pilots, often for 4 pilots).
• More complex tasks for the majority of pilots at both positions (sometimes or often).
• Smoother flight profiles for the majority of pilots (except for 3 pilots, 1 pilot suggests that the descent phase may not be as smooth).
• Reduced intervals between aircraft (except for 1 pilot).
• All pilots think that they are in a position to maintain accurate spacing:
• Very easily (10 pilots) or easily (4 pilots) for 1NM tolerance margins.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
118 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
• Easily (8 pilots) or very easily (6 pilots) for 0,5NM Tolerance margin.
• Easily (8 pilots) or with some difficulties (4 pilots) for 0,25 Tolerance margin.
One pilot adds that the difficulty increases with significant speed changes of the target.
Safety
The majority of pilots (9 against 5) identifies possible benefits of delegation in terms of safety such as:
• Better ability to watch the traffic (better space awareness), • Increase of availability due to the decrease of communications, • A more regular spacing on ILS, • In case of communication failure, the following of the target until landing is safe and
simple. The main drawbacks are the increase in attention, and a poor scanning due to manual speed adjustments to achieve spacing.
With delegation, the risk of errors does not change (for 6 pilots) or decreases (for 4 pilots). But half of the pilots thinks that it introduces new risks:
• Too much focus on the spacing task may lead to forget important flying tasks during busy approach phase or to decrease the monitoring of standard flight parameters.
• To forget the spacing tasks if a long time is spent before speed adjustments.
Errors induced by delegation are not likely to be neither frequent nor hazardous and could be quite easy to detect and recover.
A small majority needs additional support for error detection (8 pilots) and half of the pilots needs additional support for error recovery.
• Detection: Aural signal to detect loss of spacing, • Recovery: Messages indicating the type of actions to do to recover (e.g. « increase
speed » and « decrease speed » on the ND, PFD or scratch pad of the MCDU).
Concept Assessment
All pilots understand the concept of spacing delegation (“completely” for 8 pilots and “mostly” for 3).
Nevertheless, 6 pilots are bothered by the following points:
• The symbology of the spacing scale.
• The fact that there is no time-based spacing (it may be better to increase the traffic flow).
• The fact that there is no suggested IAS on the PFD (it could improve scan flow during feasibility assessment as there is no need for frequent scan between ND and PFD).
• Too much time spent monitoring spacing rather than performing flying tasks (especially when the target reduces speed to 250kts, the spacing is easily lost if it is not constantly monitored).
• The inappropriate delegation validation message given between the delegation instruction and the delegation feasibility assessment: the pilot may not be able to achieve delegation and to inform controller because of dense traffic.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 119
• The fact that « Merge To » does not always imply a previous « Dir To » (e.g., merge on an arrival trajectory).
• The inappropriate advised strategy: « acquire faster as possible then maintain » is better since it demands less resources.
Monitoring is the part of the spacing delegation task the most difficult to handle because it is not automated.
Delegation is described as a satisfying stimulant because it is motivating and it offers interesting possibility.
The concept of delegation is considered “generally” or “totally” usable (respectively 9 and 4 pilots), useful (respectively 10 and 4 pilots) and acceptable (respectively 7 and 5 pilots) but:
• Speed adjustments increase a lot PF workload, • It should be linked to the automatic pilot, • It should be tested in higher workload situations, • One should assess whether transitions from one phase to the other are acceptable.
Delegation could “generally” or “totally” (respectively 5 and 6 pilots) benefit from additional tools (e.g. data link).
Pilots think that this method could “quite” increase safety (7 against 5 “significantly”) and significantly improve capacity and efficiency.
Overall feeling about simulation:
• Much more realistic than in May 2002. (why not adding a failure ?), • One pilot does not understand why there were runs without delegation, • Very good to understand and estimate the impact of this new concept in a standard
environment, • Traffic radio very similar to a real flight, • Use of the own call sign, • Run always finished before FAF so easy to perform the job.
Overall feeling about method:
• Task allocation: MCDU used by PF instead of PNF.
• Target speed maintained during the descent below FL100 (prevents from a loss of spacing when the target slows down unannounced - if its speed is dictated by the STAR then speed reductions could be anticipated better, however, these are often cancelled at less busy times - indeed maintaining high speed can assist ATC in separation).
• Issue of the transition from one phase to another.
• From cruise to descent, one should think about introducing vertical spacing to allow aircraft to be closer that X NM behind (he might be 2 or 3 thousand feet higher). This would allow smoother transition to the next phase, when spacing would be lower.
If they were to come back, the evolutions they would like to see are:
Expected evolutions of the experimental setting
• Increase of wages (2 pilots), • Ponctuality, • Fiability.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
120 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Expected evolutions of the simulation
• Full flight simulator Full flight simulator.
Expected evolutions of the method
• Automation of speed adjustments, • Assessment in high workload situations, • Assessment with bad weather, • Assessment from cruise to approach, • Provision of time-based separation.
Expected evolutions of the Human-Machine Interface
• Copy of MCDU messages on PFD, • Aural signal when loss of spacing, • Attention getter, • SUG_IAS taller.
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 121
13. FLIGHT PROFILE (SPEED, CR, SPACING AND ALTITUDE) DEC'02
Flight profile is presented for each measured run in the delegation condition (0.25NM, 0.5NM and 1NM Tolerance Margins).
A flight profile shows the temporal distribution of 4 dependent variables: speed, closure rate, spacing and altitude. It starts at the validation of the spacing instruction (INSERT key pressed) and ends at the stabilisation of the situation. It is divided into three phases: acquisition, maintain and remain. The x-axis represents time in second with the origin at the beginning of the remain phase.
First graph: Spacing instructed aircraft IAS (suggested IAS, selected IAS and current IAS).
Second graph: Closure rate.
Third graph: Spacing
Fourth graph: Spacing instructed aircraft and target altitude.
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
122 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
18-5
91-5
59
-527
-494
-464
-432
-400
-366
-333
-303
-271
-239
-207
-176
-144
-110 -77
-44
-10 23 55 88 120
153
185
218
250
282
313
344
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-618
-591
-558
-526
-493
-462
-430
-397
-363
-330
-300
-267
-235
-203
-172
-140
-105 -7
1
-38 -4 29 62 95 128
160
193
227
259
291
321
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-618
-591
-559
-527
-494
-464
-432
-400
-366
-333
-303
-271
-239
-207
-176
-144
-110 -77
-44
-10 23 55 88 120
153
185
218
250
282
313
344
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-618
-591
-559
-527
-494
-464
-432
-400
-366
-333
-303
-271
-239
-207
-176
-144
-110 -77
-44
-10 23 55 88 120
153
185
218
250
282
313
344
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
05-12-2002-12:37 1NM LFPO (20 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
18-5
91-5
59
-527
-494
-464
-432
-400
-366
-333
-303
-271
-239
-207
-176
-144
-110 -77
-44
-10 23 55 88 120
153
185
218
250
282
313
344
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-618
-591
-558
-526
-493
-462
-430
-397
-363
-330
-300
-267
-235
-203
-172
-140
-105 -7
1
-38 -4 29 62 95 128
160
193
227
259
291
321
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-618
-591
-559
-527
-494
-464
-432
-400
-366
-333
-303
-271
-239
-207
-176
-144
-110 -77
-44
-10 23 55 88 120
153
185
218
250
282
313
344
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-618
-591
-559
-527
-494
-464
-432
-400
-366
-333
-303
-271
-239
-207
-176
-144
-110 -77
-44
-10 23 55 88 120
153
185
218
250
282
313
344
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
05-12-2002-12:37 1NM LFPO (20 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 123
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -70
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -70
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -7
0
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -7
0
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
05-12-2002-14:34 0.5NM LFPG (23 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -70
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -70
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -7
0
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-653
-623
-595
-564
-534
-503
-473
-442
-410
-379
-348
-316
-284
-253
-222
-192
-162
-131
-100 -7
0
-40
-12 19 49 80 110
136
166
197
228
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
05-12-2002-14:34 0.5NM LFPG (23 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
124 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-652
-623
-593
-562
-532
-500
-471
-441
-411
-380
-349
-317
-285
-253
-222
-192
-161
-130 -98
-67
-36 -5 25 57 88 120
149
182
213
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-652
-623
-593
-562
-532
-500
-471
-441
-411
-380
-349
-317
-285
-253
-222
-192
-161
-130 -9
8
-67
-36 -5 25 57 88 120
149
182
213
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-652
-624
-594
-563
-533
-502
-473
-444
-414
-383
-352
-321
-289
-258
-227
-197
-166
-135
-105 -73
-43
-12 18 49 80 112
141
172
204
236
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-652
-623
-593
-562
-532
-500
-471
-441
-411
-380
-349
-317
-285
-253
-222
-192
-161
-130 -98
-67
-36 -5 25 57 88 120
149
182
213
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain RemainAcquisition
05-12-2002-16:33 0.25NM LFPG (28 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-652
-623
-593
-562
-532
-500
-471
-441
-411
-380
-349
-317
-285
-253
-222
-192
-161
-130 -98
-67
-36 -5 25 57 88 120
149
182
213
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-652
-623
-593
-562
-532
-500
-471
-441
-411
-380
-349
-317
-285
-253
-222
-192
-161
-130 -9
8
-67
-36 -5 25 57 88 120
149
182
213
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-652
-624
-594
-563
-533
-502
-473
-444
-414
-383
-352
-321
-289
-258
-227
-197
-166
-135
-105 -73
-43
-12 18 49 80 112
141
172
204
236
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-652
-623
-593
-562
-532
-500
-471
-441
-411
-380
-349
-317
-285
-253
-222
-192
-161
-130 -98
-67
-36 -5 25 57 88 120
149
182
213
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain RemainAcquisition
05-12-2002-16:33 0.25NM LFPG (28 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 125
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -6
7
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -67
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -67
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -67
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain RemainAcquisition
06-12-2002-10:42 1NM LFPO (4 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -6
7
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -67
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -67
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-620
-588
-553
-518
-483
-448
-413
-378
-343
-308
-274
-239
-205
-170
-139
-103 -67
-30 6 42 78 114
151
185
220
255
285
319
353
388
422
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain RemainAcquisition
06-12-2002-10:42 1NM LFPO (4 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
126 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -9
1
-61
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -9
1-6
1
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -91
-61
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -91
-61
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
06-12-2002-11:26 0.5NM LFPG (7 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -9
1
-61
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -9
1-6
1
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -91
-61
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-652
-622
-593
-564
-535
-505
-476
-446
-417
-388
-360
-331
-304
-273
-243
-212
-182
-152
-121 -91
-61
-32 -1 28 56 85 114
143
171
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
06-12-2002-11:26 0.5NM LFPG (7 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 127
7.0
8.0
9.0
-689
-656
-622
-589
-557
-524
-490
-457
-423
-388
-353
-318
-282
-246
-212
-177
-143
-109 -76
-42 -9 23 57 91 124
150
184
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-689
-656
-622
-589
-557
-524
-490
-457
-423
-388
-353
-318
-282
-246
-212
-177
-143
-109 -76
-42 -9 23 57 91 124
150
184
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-689
-655
-622
-588
-555
-523
-489
-455
-421
-385
-349
-314
-278
-242
-207
-172
-138
-104 -70
-36 -3 30 64 97 128
158
193
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-689
-655
-622
-588
-555
-523
-489
-455
-421
-385
-349
-314
-278
-242
-207
-172
-138
-104 -70
-36 -3 30 64 97 128
158
193
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
06-12-2002-14:19 0.25NM LFPG (14 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
7.0
8.0
9.0
-689
-656
-622
-589
-557
-524
-490
-457
-423
-388
-353
-318
-282
-246
-212
-177
-143
-109 -76
-42 -9 23 57 91 124
150
184
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-689
-656
-622
-589
-557
-524
-490
-457
-423
-388
-353
-318
-282
-246
-212
-177
-143
-109 -76
-42 -9 23 57 91 124
150
184
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-689
-655
-622
-588
-555
-523
-489
-455
-421
-385
-349
-314
-278
-242
-207
-172
-138
-104 -70
-36 -3 30 64 97 128
158
193
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-689
-655
-622
-588
-555
-523
-489
-455
-421
-385
-349
-314
-278
-242
-207
-172
-138
-104 -70
-36 -3 30 64 97 128
158
193
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
06-12-2002-14:19 0.25NM LFPG (14 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
128 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
7.0
8.0
9.0
-616
-581
-543
-505
-468
-431
-393
-356
-318
-281
-244
-206
-169
-135 -95
-56
-17 18 57 96 135
172
210
248
284
320
358
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-616
-581
-544
-506
-469
-432
-395
-358
-321
-284
-247
-210
-173
-139
-100 -61
-22 12 51 90 128
166
203
241
276
312
350
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-616
-581
-543
-505
-468
-431
-393
-356
-318
-281
-244
-206
-169
-135 -95
-56
-17 18 57 96 135
172
210
248
284
320
358
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-616
-581
-543
-505
-468
-431
-393
-356
-318
-281
-244
-206
-169
-135 -95
-56
-17 18 57 96 135
172
210
248
284
320
358
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
06-12-2002-14:48 0.5NM LFPO (12 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
7.0
8.0
9.0
-616
-581
-543
-505
-468
-431
-393
-356
-318
-281
-244
-206
-169
-135 -95
-56
-17 18 57 96 135
172
210
248
284
320
358
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-616
-581
-544
-506
-469
-432
-395
-358
-321
-284
-247
-210
-173
-139
-100 -61
-22 12 51 90 128
166
203
241
276
312
350
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-616
-581
-543
-505
-468
-431
-393
-356
-318
-281
-244
-206
-169
-135 -95
-56
-17 18 57 96 135
172
210
248
284
320
358
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-616
-581
-543
-505
-468
-431
-393
-356
-318
-281
-244
-206
-169
-135 -95
-56
-17 18 57 96 135
172
210
248
284
320
358
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
06-12-2002-14:48 0.5NM LFPO (12 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 129
7.0
8.0
9.0
-531
-498
-465
-431
-397
-363
-329
-297
-262
-227
-193
-158
-123 -9
0
-55
-20 15 51 86 121
156
190
226
259
294
328
361
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-531
-498
-465
-432
-399
-365
-331
-299
-264
-230
-196
-162
-127 -9
4
-60
-25 9 45 80 115
149
184
219
254
287
321
353
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-531
-498
-465
-432
-399
-365
-331
-299
-264
-230
-196
-162
-127 -9
4
-60
-25 9 45 80 115
149
184
219
254
287
321
353
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-531
-498
-465
-431
-397
-363
-329
-297
-262
-227
-193
-158
-123 -9
0
-55
-20 15 51 86 121
156
190
226
259
294
328
361
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
09-12-2002-11:05 1NM LFPO (21 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
7.0
8.0
9.0
-531
-498
-465
-431
-397
-363
-329
-297
-262
-227
-193
-158
-123 -9
0
-55
-20 15 51 86 121
156
190
226
259
294
328
361
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-531
-498
-465
-432
-399
-365
-331
-299
-264
-230
-196
-162
-127 -9
4
-60
-25 9 45 80 115
149
184
219
254
287
321
353
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-531
-498
-465
-432
-399
-365
-331
-299
-264
-230
-196
-162
-127 -9
4
-60
-25 9 45 80 115
149
184
219
254
287
321
353
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-531
-498
-465
-431
-397
-363
-329
-297
-262
-227
-193
-158
-123 -9
0
-55
-20 15 51 86 121
156
190
226
259
294
328
361
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
09-12-2002-11:05 1NM LFPO (21 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
130 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
7.0
8.0
9.0
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
09-12-2002-11:36 0. 5NM LFPG (20 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
7.0
8.0
9.0
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-662
-630
-603
-572
-538
-504
-470
-436
-403
-369
-334
-299
-264
-229
-194
-159
-125 -91
-58
-24 6 40 73 107
135
168
201
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
09-12-2002-11:36 0. 5NM LFPG (20 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 131
7.0
8.0
9.0
-595
-560
-522
-484
-446
-409
-371
-333
-296
-259
-223
-185
-148
-111 -72
-33 6 45 83 121
159
197
235
271
308
345
381
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-595
-560
-522
-485
-447
-410
-373
-336
-298
-262
-226
-189
-152
-115 -77
-38 1 40 77 115
153
191
228
264
300
337
372
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-595
-560
-522
-484
-446
-409
-371
-333
-296
-259
-223
-185
-148
-111 -72
-33 6 45 83 121
159
197
235
271
308
345
381
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-595
-560
-522
-484
-446
-409
-371
-333
-296
-259
-223
-185
-148
-111 -72
-33 6 45 83 121
159
197
235
271
308
345
381
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
09-12-2002-12:22 0.25NM LFPO (23 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
7.0
8.0
9.0
-595
-560
-522
-484
-446
-409
-371
-333
-296
-259
-223
-185
-148
-111 -72
-33 6 45 83 121
159
197
235
271
308
345
381
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-595
-560
-522
-485
-447
-410
-373
-336
-298
-262
-226
-189
-152
-115 -77
-38 1 40 77 115
153
191
228
264
300
337
372
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-595
-560
-522
-484
-446
-409
-371
-333
-296
-259
-223
-185
-148
-111 -72
-33 6 45 83 121
159
197
235
271
308
345
381
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-595
-560
-522
-484
-446
-409
-371
-333
-296
-259
-223
-185
-148
-111 -72
-33 6 45 83 121
159
197
235
271
308
345
381
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
Maintain RemainAcquisition
09-12-2002-12:22 0.25NM LFPO (23 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
132 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
09-12-2002-14:32 0.5NM LFPO (35 speed adjustments)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-613
-577
-540
-501
-462
-422
-382
-342
-302
-261
-222
-183
-144
-103 -62
-20 16 56 95 136
178
219
257
295
330
367
407
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
09-12-2002-14:32 0.5NM LFPO (35 speed adjustments)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-613
-577
-540
-501
-462
-422
-382
-342
-302
-261
-222
-183
-144
-103 -62
-20 16 56 95 136
178
219
257
295
330
367
407
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7,0
8,0
9,0
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-613
-577
-540
-501
-462
-422
-382
-342
-302
-261
-222
-183
-144
-103 -62
-20 16 56 95 136
178
219
257
295
330
367
407
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-613
-577
-540
-501
-462
-422
-382
-342
-302
-261
-222
-183
-144
-103 -62
-20 16 56 95 136
178
219
257
295
330
367
407
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-613
-577
-541
-502
-463
-424
-384
-344
-304
-264
-225
-187
-148
-107 -66
-26 12 51 91 130
171
212
250
287
323
360
399
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 133
09-12-2002-15:01 1NM LFPG (18 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-653
-622
-589
-556
-522
-489
-456
-422
-389
-355
-321
-287
-252
-218
-184
-149
-115 -83
-49
-15 19 52 84 116
142
173
204
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-653
-621
-589
-555
-521
-487
-454
-420
-386
-352
-318
-283
-248
-214
-179
-144
-110 -78
-43 -8 25 58 91 121
149
180
212
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-653
-621
-589
-555
-521
-487
-454
-420
-386
-352
-318
-283
-248
-214
-179
-144
-110 -78
-43 -8 25 58 91 121
149
180
212
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-653
-622
-589
-556
-522
-489
-456
-422
-389
-355
-321
-287
-252
-218
-184
-149
-115 -83
-49
-15 19 52 84 116
142
173
204
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
09-12-2002-15:01 1NM LFPG (18 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-653
-622
-589
-556
-522
-489
-456
-422
-389
-355
-321
-287
-252
-218
-184
-149
-115 -83
-49
-15 19 52 84 116
142
173
204
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-653
-621
-589
-555
-521
-487
-454
-420
-386
-352
-318
-283
-248
-214
-179
-144
-110 -78
-43 -8 25 58 91 121
149
180
212
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-653
-621
-589
-555
-521
-487
-454
-420
-386
-352
-318
-283
-248
-214
-179
-144
-110 -78
-43 -8 25 58 91 121
149
180
212
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-653
-622
-589
-556
-522
-489
-456
-422
-389
-355
-321
-287
-252
-218
-184
-149
-115 -83
-49
-15 19 52 84 116
142
173
204
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-653
-622
-589
-556
-522
-489
-456
-422
-389
-355
-321
-287
-252
-218
-184
-149
-115 -83
-49
-15 19 52 84 116
142
173
204
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-653
-621
-589
-555
-521
-487
-454
-420
-386
-352
-318
-283
-248
-214
-179
-144
-110 -78
-43 -8 25 58 91 121
149
180
212
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-653
-621
-589
-555
-521
-487
-454
-420
-386
-352
-318
-283
-248
-214
-179
-144
-110 -78
-43 -8 25 58 91 121
149
180
212
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-653
-622
-589
-556
-522
-489
-456
-422
-389
-355
-321
-287
-252
-218
-184
-149
-115 -83
-49
-15 19 52 84 116
142
173
204
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
134 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
09-12-2002-15:29 0.25NM LFPG (33 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-658
-626
-598
-572
-539
-507
-474
-440
-406
-372
-337
-302
-267
-232
-197
-162
-127 -93
-59
-24 8 41 75 108
139
170
202
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-658
-626
-597
-570
-538
-506
-472
-438
-404
-369
-334
-298
-263
-228
-192
-156
-121 -87
-53
-18 14 48 82 116
146
177
210
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-658
-626
-597
-570
-538
-506
-472
-438
-404
-369
-334
-298
-263
-228
-192
-156
-121 -87
-53
-18 14 48 82 116
146
177
210
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-658
-626
-598
-572
-539
-507
-474
-440
-406
-372
-337
-302
-267
-232
-197
-162
-127 -93
-59
-24 8 41 75 108
139
170
202
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Acquisition
09-12-2002-15:29 0.25NM LFPG (33 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-658
-626
-598
-572
-539
-507
-474
-440
-406
-372
-337
-302
-267
-232
-197
-162
-127 -93
-59
-24 8 41 75 108
139
170
202
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-658
-626
-597
-570
-538
-506
-472
-438
-404
-369
-334
-298
-263
-228
-192
-156
-121 -87
-53
-18 14 48 82 116
146
177
210
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-658
-626
-597
-570
-538
-506
-472
-438
-404
-369
-334
-298
-263
-228
-192
-156
-121 -87
-53
-18 14 48 82 116
146
177
210
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-658
-626
-598
-572
-539
-507
-474
-440
-406
-372
-337
-302
-267
-232
-197
-162
-127 -93
-59
-24 8 41 75 108
139
170
202
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-658
-626
-598
-572
-539
-507
-474
-440
-406
-372
-337
-302
-267
-232
-197
-162
-127 -93
-59
-24 8 41 75 108
139
170
202
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-658
-626
-597
-570
-538
-506
-472
-438
-404
-369
-334
-298
-263
-228
-192
-156
-121 -87
-53
-18 14 48 82 116
146
177
210
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-658
-626
-597
-570
-538
-506
-472
-438
-404
-369
-334
-298
-263
-228
-192
-156
-121 -87
-53
-18 14 48 82 116
146
177
210
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-658
-626
-598
-572
-539
-507
-474
-440
-406
-372
-337
-302
-267
-232
-197
-162
-127 -93
-59
-24 8 41 75 108
139
170
202
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Acquisition
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 135
10-12-2002-12:50 0.5NM LFPG (20 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-666
-635
-602
-569
-536
-503
-470
-437
-404
-370
-335
-300
-265
-230
-196
-160
-126 -92
-60
-27 6 40 72 106
133
162
194
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-666
-634
-601
-568
-535
-501
-468
-435
-401
-367
-332
-297
-261
-226
-191
-155
-120 -87
-55
-21 13 46 79 112
141
168
202
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-666
-634
-601
-568
-535
-501
-468
-435
-401
-367
-332
-297
-261
-226
-191
-155
-120 -87
-55
-21 13 46 79 112
141
168
202
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-666
-634
-601
-568
-535
-501
-468
-435
-401
-367
-332
-297
-261
-226
-191
-155
-120 -87
-55
-21 13 46 79 112
141
168
202
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Acquisition
10-12-2002-12:50 0.5NM LFPG (20 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-666
-635
-602
-569
-536
-503
-470
-437
-404
-370
-335
-300
-265
-230
-196
-160
-126 -92
-60
-27 6 40 72 106
133
162
194
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-666
-634
-601
-568
-535
-501
-468
-435
-401
-367
-332
-297
-261
-226
-191
-155
-120 -87
-55
-21 13 46 79 112
141
168
202
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-666
-634
-601
-568
-535
-501
-468
-435
-401
-367
-332
-297
-261
-226
-191
-155
-120 -87
-55
-21 13 46 79 112
141
168
202
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-666
-634
-601
-568
-535
-501
-468
-435
-401
-367
-332
-297
-261
-226
-191
-155
-120 -87
-55
-21 13 46 79 112
141
168
202
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Acquisition
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
136 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
10-12-2002-13:48 0.25NM LFPG (18 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Acquisition
10-12-2002-13:48 0.25NM LFPG (18 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-689
-656
-622
-587
-552
-517
-483
-448
-413
-376
-344
-308
-272
-235
-200
-165
-130 -96
-62
-28 3 36 71 106
139
170
204
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Acquisition
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 137
10-12-2002-14:26 0.5NM LFPO (19 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-623
-586
-548
-509
-471
-435
-396
-358
-319
-280
-242
-203
-165
-125 -88
-47 -6 35 75 116
155
194
234
269
307
344
382
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
10-12-2002-14:26 0.5NM LFPO (19 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-623
-586
-548
-509
-471
-435
-396
-358
-319
-280
-242
-203
-165
-125 -88
-47 -6 35 75 116
155
194
234
269
307
344
382
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-623
-585
-547
-509
-470
-433
-394
-356
-316
-277
-239
-199
-162
-123 -83
-42 0 40 81 122
162
201
241
276
315
352
389
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-623
-586
-548
-509
-471
-435
-396
-358
-319
-280
-242
-203
-165
-125 -88
-47 -6 35 75 116
155
194
234
269
307
344
382
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
138 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
12-12-2002-11:21 1NM LFPO (16 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
12-12-2002-11:21 1NM LFPO (16 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-593
-557
-520
-482
-445
-408
-370
-332
-295
-257
-219
-184
-148
-110 -73
-36 2 40 77 115
152
190
227
265
300
338
376
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 139
12-12-2002-11:50 0.5NM LFPG (18 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-668
-635
-600
-565
-530
-493
-457
-422
-386
-351
-316
-281
-246
-210
-174
-137
-101 -66
-31 6 41 77 111
142
172
204
238
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-668
-635
-599
-564
-528
-492
-455
-419
-384
-348
-313
-278
-242
-205
-169
-132 -96
-61
-24 12 48 83 118
146
178
211
245
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-668
-635
-599
-564
-528
-492
-455
-419
-384
-348
-313
-278
-242
-205
-169
-132 -96
-61
-24 12 48 83 118
146
178
211
245
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-668
-635
-600
-565
-530
-493
-457
-422
-386
-351
-316
-281
-246
-210
-174
-137
-101 -66
-31 6 41 77 111
142
172
204
238
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
12-12-2002-11:50 0.5NM LFPG (18 speed adjustments)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-668
-635
-600
-565
-530
-493
-457
-422
-386
-351
-316
-281
-246
-210
-174
-137
-101 -66
-31 6 41 77 111
142
172
204
238
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-668
-635
-599
-564
-528
-492
-455
-419
-384
-348
-313
-278
-242
-205
-169
-132 -96
-61
-24 12 48 83 118
146
178
211
245
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-668
-635
-599
-564
-528
-492
-455
-419
-384
-348
-313
-278
-242
-205
-169
-132 -96
-61
-24 12 48 83 118
146
178
211
245
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-668
-635
-600
-565
-530
-493
-457
-422
-386
-351
-316
-281
-246
-210
-174
-137
-101 -66
-31 6 41 77 111
142
172
204
238
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-668
-635
-600
-565
-530
-493
-457
-422
-386
-351
-316
-281
-246
-210
-174
-137
-101 -66
-31 6 41 77 111
142
172
204
238
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-668
-635
-599
-564
-528
-492
-455
-419
-384
-348
-313
-278
-242
-205
-169
-132 -96
-61
-24 12 48 83 118
146
178
211
245
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-668
-635
-599
-564
-528
-492
-455
-419
-384
-348
-313
-278
-242
-205
-169
-132 -96
-61
-24 12 48 83 118
146
178
211
245
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-668
-635
-600
-565
-530
-493
-457
-422
-386
-351
-316
-281
-246
-210
-174
-137
-101 -66
-31 6 41 77 111
142
172
204
238
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
Maintain Remain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
140 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
12-12-2002-12:35 0.25NM LFPO (18 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-603
-564
-527
-488
-450
-412
-375
-337
-299
-261
-223
-185
-147
-108 -69
-32 4 41 80 119
157
196
235
270
307
344
381
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-603
-564
-526
-487
-449
-410
-373
-335
-296
-258
-220
-182
-143
-104 -64
-27 7 47 86 125
164
203
242
277
315
352
390
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-603
-563
-524
-484
-445
-406
-367
-328
-288
-249
-211
-171
-131 -91
-51
-12 23 64 104
144
184
224
262
299
338
376
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-603
-564
-527
-488
-450
-412
-375
-337
-299
-261
-223
-185
-147
-108 -69
-32 4 41 80 119
157
196
235
270
307
344
381
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
12-12-2002-12:35 0.25NM LFPO (18 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-603
-564
-527
-488
-450
-412
-375
-337
-299
-261
-223
-185
-147
-108 -69
-32 4 41 80 119
157
196
235
270
307
344
381
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-603
-564
-526
-487
-449
-410
-373
-335
-296
-258
-220
-182
-143
-104 -64
-27 7 47 86 125
164
203
242
277
315
352
390
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-603
-563
-524
-484
-445
-406
-367
-328
-288
-249
-211
-171
-131 -91
-51
-12 23 64 104
144
184
224
262
299
338
376
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-603
-564
-527
-488
-450
-412
-375
-337
-299
-261
-223
-185
-147
-108 -69
-32 4 41 80 119
157
196
235
270
307
344
381
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-603
-564
-527
-488
-450
-412
-375
-337
-299
-261
-223
-185
-147
-108 -69
-32 4 41 80 119
157
196
235
270
307
344
381
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-603
-564
-526
-487
-449
-410
-373
-335
-296
-258
-220
-182
-143
-104 -64
-27 7 47 86 125
164
203
242
277
315
352
390
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-603
-563
-524
-484
-445
-406
-367
-328
-288
-249
-211
-171
-131 -91
-51
-12 23 64 104
144
184
224
262
299
338
376
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-603
-564
-527
-488
-450
-412
-375
-337
-299
-261
-223
-185
-147
-108 -69
-32 4 41 80 119
157
196
235
270
307
344
381
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 141
12-12-2002-14:38 0.5NM LFPO (14 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-600
-562
-522
-483
-444
-405
-366
-327
-291
-251
-212
-174
-138 -98
-59
-20 17 56 96 136
175
215
252
289
327
367
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-600
-562
-524
-485
-447
-408
-370
-332
-296
-257
-219
-182
-145
-107 -69
-30 7 45 84 123
162
201
240
274
311
350
389
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-600
-562
-524
-485
-447
-408
-370
-332
-296
-257
-219
-182
-145
-107 -69
-30 7 45 84 123
162
201
240
274
311
350
389
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-600
-563
-524
-486
-448
-410
-372
-334
-299
-260
-222
-185
-149
-111 -73
-35 2 39 78 117
155
194
232
266
303
342
380
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
12-12-2002-14:38 0.5NM LFPO (14 speed adjustments)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-600
-562
-522
-483
-444
-405
-366
-327
-291
-251
-212
-174
-138 -98
-59
-20 17 56 96 136
175
215
252
289
327
367
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-600
-562
-524
-485
-447
-408
-370
-332
-296
-257
-219
-182
-145
-107 -69
-30 7 45 84 123
162
201
240
274
311
350
389
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-600
-562
-524
-485
-447
-408
-370
-332
-296
-257
-219
-182
-145
-107 -69
-30 7 45 84 123
162
201
240
274
311
350
389
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-600
-563
-524
-486
-448
-410
-372
-334
-299
-260
-222
-185
-149
-111 -73
-35 2 39 78 117
155
194
232
266
303
342
380
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-600
-562
-522
-483
-444
-405
-366
-327
-291
-251
-212
-174
-138 -98
-59
-20 17 56 96 136
175
215
252
289
327
367
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-600
-562
-524
-485
-447
-408
-370
-332
-296
-257
-219
-182
-145
-107 -69
-30 7 45 84 123
162
201
240
274
311
350
389
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7,0
8,0
9,0
-600
-562
-524
-485
-447
-408
-370
-332
-296
-257
-219
-182
-145
-107 -69
-30 7 45 84 123
162
201
240
274
311
350
389
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-600
-563
-524
-486
-448
-410
-372
-334
-299
-260
-222
-185
-149
-111 -73
-35 2 39 78 117
155
194
232
266
303
342
380
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
142 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
12-12-2002-15:10 1NM LFPG (10 speed adjustments)
RemainMaintain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
7.0
8.0
9.0
-672
-640
-606
-571
-536
-501
-466
-430
-395
-359
-324
-289
-254
-219
-183
-148
-112 -76
-41 -5 30 66 101
132
164
194
225
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
12-12-2002-15:10 1NM LFPG (10 speed adjustments)
RemainMaintainMaintain
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 143
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-675
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-675
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
75
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-675
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
12-12-2002-15:41 0.25NM LFPG (26 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-675
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rat
e (N
M)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-675
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
75
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-675
-639
-608
-575
-539
-502
-466
-430
-393
-357
-323
-286
-250
-213
-176
-138
-103 -66
-29 8 44 77 101
133
163
190
225
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
12-12-2002-15:41 0.25NM LFPG (26 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition Maintain RemainAcquisition
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
144 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
13-01-2003-12:16 0.5NM LFPO(14 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-604
-565
-526
-486
-446
-406
-365
-325
-284
-244
-204
-163
-125 -85
-46 -6 34 74 114
154
195
235
270
310
351
391
431
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
13-01-2003-12:16 0.5NM LFPO(14 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 145
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain Remain
13-01-2003-13:41 1NM LFPG (11 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-666
-633
-601
-568
-534
-501
-467
-433
-400
-367
-333
-299
-266
-232
-198
-164
-130 -96
-62
-29 5 39 73 104
136
166
198
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Maintain Remain
13-01-2003-13:41 1NM LFPG (11 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
146 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
13-01-2003-14:11 0.25NM LFPO (20 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-613
-576
-538
-499
-461
-422
-384
-346
-307
-268
-230
-192
-155
-115 -76
-35 4 45 85 125
166
207
245
285
325
364
404
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
13-01-2003-14:11 0.25NM LFPO (20 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition Maintain RemainAcquisition
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 147
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
15
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-615
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-615
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-615
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-11:09 1NM LFPO (19 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
15
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-615
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-615
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-615
-579
-542
-506
-470
-433
-396
-359
-322
-283
-244
-204
-167
-129 -90
-51
-12 26 66 104
143
182
221
258
296
334
373
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-11:09 1NM LFPO (19 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition Maintain RemainAcquisition
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
148 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-11:42 0.5NM LFPG(12 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain Remain
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
Clos
ure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-669
-633
-596
-560
-522
-486
-448
-410
-372
-332
-294
-254
-215
-176
-137 -98
-59
-20 20 59 98 137
174
212
252
289
325
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-11:42 0.5NM LFPG(12 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain Remain
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 149
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-12:20 0.25NM LFPO (35 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-624
-586
-548
-510
-472
-433
-396
-357
-317
-279
-242
-202
-164
-124 -85
-45 -5 34 74 113
154
194
234
272
312
352
392
Time (sec.)
Alti
tude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-12:20 0.25NM LFPO (35 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition Maintain RemainAcquisition
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
150 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
10
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-610
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-610
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-610
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-13:58 0.5NM LFPO (25 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340-6
10
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-610
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-610
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-610
-570
-529
-489
-448
-407
-367
-329
-289
-246
-205
-164
-122 -79
-37 5 48 91 133
175
218
258
301
342
384
426
468
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
18-12-2002-13:58 0.5NM LFPO (25 speed adjustments)
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainAcquisition
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 151
18-12-2002-14:36 1NM LFPG
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain Remain
18-12-2002-14:36 1NM LFPG
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain Remain
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS Current IAS Suggested IAS
-60-50-40-30-20-10
010203040506070
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Clo
sure
rate
(NM
)
7.0
8.0
9.0
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Spa
cing
(NM
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
-679
-645
-609
-573
-537
-501
-465
-429
-394
-359
-325
-289
-254
-219
-183
-147
-112 -76
-40 -5 31 67 97 128
164
199
233
Time (sec.)
Altit
ude
(ft)
Spacing instructed aircraft Target aircraft
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Targetdescent
Owndescent
Target speedreduction
Maintain RemainMaintain Remain
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
152 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
14. INTERVAL ANALYSIS DEC'02
14.1. EXAMPLES OF PRELIMINARY RESULTS
• Run 05/12/2002 12:37 1NM LFPO
Distribution of speed increments
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-618
-588
-553
-518
-483
-450
-414
-379
-343
-310
-275
-240
-205
-171
-137
-100 -63
-27 9 45 80 116
151
186
222
257
291
324
Time (sec.)
Sele
cted
IAS
(kts
)
Increments intervals
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
Intervals (sec.)
Num
ber
of in
crem
ents
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 153
• Run 06/12/2002 10:32 1NM LFPO
Distribution of speed increments
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-620
-584
-546
-508
-470
-432
-394
-356
-317
-280
-242
-204
-167
-133 -93
-53
-13 26 65 105
145
183
221
258
292
329
366
404
Time (sec.)
Sele
cted
IAS
(kts
)
Increments intervals
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 18 35 52 69 86 103
120
137
154
171
188
205
222
239
256
273
290
307
324
341
358
375
392
409
426
443
460
Intervals (sec.)
Num
ber o
f inc
rem
ents
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
154 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
14.2. DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED INTERVALS
Distribution of speed intervalsLFPO - 0.25NM
14.75
4.75
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.250
5
10
15
20
25
30
[5;3
0]
]30;
60]
]60;
90]
]90;
120]
]120
;150
]
]150
;180
]
]180
;210
]
]210
;240
]
]240
;270
]
]270
;300
]
]300
;330
]
]330
;360
]
]360
;390
]
]390
;420
]
]420
;450
]
]450
;480
]
]480
;510
]
Interval duration (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
inte
rval
s
Distribution of speed intervalsLFPO - 0.50NM
11.50
3.83
1.33 1.17 0.50 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.170
5
10
15
20
25
30
[5;3
0]
]30;
60]
]60;
90]
]90;
120]
]120
;150
]
]150
;180
]
]180
;210
]
]210
;240
]
]240
;270
]
]270
;300
]
]300
;330
]
]330
;360
]
]360
;390
]
]390
;420
]
]420
;450
]
]450
;480
]
]480
;510
]
Interval duration (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed in
terv
als
Distribution of speed intervalsLFPO - 1NM
6.60
3.60 2.801.00 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.200
5
10
15
20
25
30
[5;3
0]
]30;
60]
]60;
90]
]90;
120]
]120
;150
]
]150
;180
]
]180
;210
]
]210
;240
]
]240
;270
]
]270
;300
]
]300
;330
]
]330
;360
]
]360
;390
]
]390
;420
]
]420
;450
]
]450
;480
]
]480
;510
]
Interval duration (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
inte
rval
s
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 155
Distribution of speed intervalsLFPG - 0.25NM
15.00
4.40
0.80 1.40 0.80 0.20 0.200
5
10
15
20
25
30[5
;30]
]30;
60]
]60;
90]
]90;
120]
]120
;150
]
]150
;180
]
]180
;210
]
]210
;240
]
]240
;270
]
]270
;300
]
]300
;330
]
]330
;360
]
]360
;390
]
]390
;420
]
]420
;450
]
]450
;480
]
]480
;510
]
Interval duration (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed in
terv
als
Distribution of speed intervalsLFPO - 0.50NM
11.50
3.83
1.33 1.17 0.50 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.170
5
10
15
20
25
30
[5;3
0]
]30;
60]
]60;
90]
]90;
120]
]120
;150
]
]150
;180
]
]180
;210
]
]210
;240
]
]240
;270
]
]270
;300
]
]300
;330
]
]330
;360
]
]360
;390
]
]390
;420
]
]420
;450
]
]450
;480
]
]480
;510
]
Interval duration (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed in
terv
als
Distribution of speed intervalsLFPO - 1NM
6.60
3.60 2.801.00 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.200
5
10
15
20
25
30
[5;3
0]
]30;
60]
]60;
90]
]90;
120]
]120
;150
]
]150
;180
]
]180
;210
]
]210
;240
]
]240
;270
]
]270
;300
]
]300
;330
]
]330
;360
]
]360
;390
]
]390
;420
]
]420
;450
]
]450
;480
]
]480
;510
]
Interval duration (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
inte
rval
s
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
156 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
15. TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED ADJUSTMENTS DEC’02
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario
1.50.8
1.3
3.2 2.9 2.6
1.6
4.5
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario
1.4
0.4 0.30.7 0.7
1.7 1.71.3
1.61.3 1.5
0.9 0.7
2.9
1.60.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario
3.9
1.3
2.7
1.72.1
2.9
3.8
0.2 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent Target speed reduction
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario
3.9
0.50.9
1.71.0
0.71.1 0.9 1.1 1.0
1.9
2.7
1.1
0.1 0.1 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 157
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
1.51.0
1.5
4.8
3.0 3.0
1.8
6.0
1.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Target descent
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
1.5
0.5 0.5 0.3
1.3
2.5 2.3
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
0.5
1.3
4.3
1.8 1.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
1.5
0.51.2
3.03.7
3.0
1.5
4.3
1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
1.5
0.2 0.30.7 0.5
1.21.8 1.7
2.01.5 1.5
1.00.5
2.7
1.71.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
1.20.8
1.6
2.8
2.0 2.21.6
3.6
0.20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
1.20.6
0.2
1.2
0.4
1.8
1.0 0.81.2
0.81.4
1.00.6
2.2
1.4
0.20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
158 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
5.0
2.0
4.0
2.02.6
3.6
4.6
0.0 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
5.0
0.4
1.6
2.8
1.20.6
1.40.8
1 .8
1.0
2.6
3.4
1.2
0.0 0.0 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
4.0
1.21.5 1.5
2.3 2.2
3.5
0.50.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
4.0
0.5 0.71.0
0.5 0.7 0.81.2 1.2 1.2 1.0
2.5
1.00.3 0.2 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f sp
eed
adju
stm
ents
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
2.5
0.8
3.0
1.8
1.0
3.0 3.3
0.0 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-360
]
]-360
;-240
]
]-240
;-120
]
]-120
;0[
[0;1
20[
[120
;240
[
[240
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent Target speed reduction
Time distribution of speed adjustmentsLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
2.5
0.5 0.3
1.5 1.5
0.8 1.0 0.80.3
0.8
2.3 2.0
1.3
0.0 0.0 0 .00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]…;-4
80]
]-480
;-420
]
]-420
;-360
]
]-360
;-300
]
]-300
;-240
]
]-240
;-180
]
]-180
;-120
]
]-120
;60]
]-60;
0[
[0;6
0[
[60;
120[
[120
;180
[
[180
;240
[
[240
;300
[
[300
;360
[
[360
;…[
Time (sec.)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Remain phaseAcquisition phase
Target descent
Target speed reduction
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 159
16. DISTRIBUTION OF SPEED MAGNITUDE DEC'02
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.31.1
3.8
2.3
0.3 0.2 0.0 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
0.20.9
1.42.3
1.8
0.60.0
0.30
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4
1.3
2.8
1.3
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
0.21.1 1.2
1.6
0.6 0.70.0 0.30
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
0.0 0.2 0.10.5 0.7
1.9 1.7
0.2 0.0 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
0.20.5 0.8 1.1 1.1
0.60.0 0.20
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
160 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.30.9
2.33.1
0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
[-80;
-70]
]-70;
-60]
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
[50;
60[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.25 NM
0.3 0.71.1 1.1
1.91.2
0.0 0.40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4
1.3
2.8
1.3
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Tolerance Margin 0.50 NM
0.21.1 1.2
1.6
0.6 0.70.0 0.30
2
4
6
8
10
12]-2
0;-1
5]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.5
1.92.4
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
[-80;
-70]
]-70;
-60]
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
[50;
60[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPG scenario - Tolerance Margin 1 NM
0.00.5 0.4
1.5 1.3 1.10.0 0.40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 161
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Acquisition phase
0.0 0.1 0.10.4
1.2 1.00.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Acquisition phase
0.1
1.10.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.30
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Maintain phase
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.10.9
3.7
1.8
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Maintain phase
0.10.9
1.62.1
1.10.6
0.0 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12]-2
0;-1
5]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPO scenario - Remain phase
0.0 0.1 0.20.6
1.1
3.22.6
0.6 0.3 0.0 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPO scenario - Remain phase
0.40.7
1.41.9 1.6
0.9
0.00.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
162 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPG scenario - Acquisition phase
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.00.5 0.4 0.6
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber
of s
peed
adj
ustm
ents
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPG scenario - Acquisition phase
0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.50.0 0.10
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPG scenario - Maintain phase
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.10.9
2.6
5.6
1.3
0.1 0.0 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPG scenario - Maintain phase
0.20.7
1.3 1.4
3.12.4
0.0
1.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16]-2
0;-1
5]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes LFPG scenario - Remain phase
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.51.0
1.90.8
0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
[-80;
-70]
]-70;
-60]
]-60;
-50]
]-50;
-40]
]-40;
-30]
]-30;
-20]
]-20;
-10]
]-10;
0[
[0;1
0[
[10;
20[
[20;
30[
[30;
40[
[40;
50[
[50;
60[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
Distribution of speed magnitudes - zoomLFPG scenario - Remain phase
0.3 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.20
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
]-20;
-15]
]-15;
-10]
]-10;
-5]
]-5;0
[
[0;5
[
[5;1
0[
[10;
15[
[15;
20[
Speed magnitudes (knots)
Num
ber o
f spe
ed a
djus
tmen
ts
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 163
17. FIXATIONS PER AREA OF INTEREST DEC'02
Navigation Display
Areas of interest for the ND are:
1: Spacing scale 2: Speed 3: Next waypoint 4: Suggested IAS
5: Warning messages (stabilize speed, losing spacing, unable delegation)
6: ADF-VOR1 7: ADF-VOR2 8: Wind
9: Rest of the display (possibly including target)
4
32
1
56 7
8
9
Example of fixations per areas on ND, PNF, TM 0.5 NM:
ND fixations distribution
7.7% 3.9% 1.1% 0.7% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.4%
83.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Spacingscale
Speed Nextw aypoint
SuggestedIAS
Warningmessages
ADF-VOR1
ASF-VOR2
Wind ND center
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
164 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Primary Flight Display
Areas of interest for the PFD are:
1: FMA 2: Speed 3: Artificial horizon 4: Vertical deviation scale
5: Level 6: Vertical speed rate 7: Mach speed 8: Lateral deviation scale
9: Heading 10: Altimeter setting
Example of fixations per areas on PFD, PNF, TM 0.5 NM:
PFD fixations distribution
19.6%23.9%
28.2%
5.8%
17.1%
1.1% 1.0% 0.4% 1.4% 1.3%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
FMA Speed AH VDScale
Level VS Rate Machspeed
LD Scale Heading Altimetersetting
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 165
The FMA area (1) was divided into 7 sub-areas:
1A: AutoThrust mode 1B: Vertical mode 1C: Lateral mode 1D: Approach capacities 1E: Engagement AP/FD - A/THR 1F: Alert messages LVR (Lever) 1G: Special messages
Example of fixations per areas on FMA, PNF, TM 0.5 NM:
FMA fixations distribution
4.3%
6.7%
2.1% 2.1%1.0% 1.2%
2.2%
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
AutoThrustmode
Vertical mode Lateral mode Approachcapacities
AP/FD -A/THR
LVR Specialmessages
Flight Control Unit Areas of interest for the MCDU are: 1: Captain altimeter settings 2: Captain ND settings 3: Speed 4: Heading 5: Active auto pilot 6: Level 7: Vertical rate 8: First officer altimeter settings 9: First officer ND settings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Example of fixations per areas on FCU, PNF, TM 0.5 NM:
FCU fixations distribution
3.1% 1.8% 3.6% 6.3%10.3% 12.9%
6.7%
39.7%
15.6%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Capt.altimetersettings
Capt. NDsettings
Speed Heading Activeauto pilot
Level Verticalrate
First off.altimetersettings
First off.ND
settings
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
166 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Multi Control and Display Unit
Areas of interest for the MCDU arelimited to the spacing task performance. They cannot be applied to other phases. Areas are:
1: Information about delegation 2: Suggested speed 3: Messages
1
2
3
Example of fixations per areas on MCDU, PNF, TM 0.5 NM:
MCDU fixations distribution
32.4%
18.0%
7.6%
42.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Delegationinformation
Suggestedspeed
Messages Other
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 167
18. SPACING DEVIATION DEC'02
Spacing deviation - AverageLFPO
0.060.07
0.100.07
0.130.16
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.25 0.5 1
Tolerance Margins (NM)
Spac
ing
devi
atio
n va
lue
(NM
)MaintainRemain
Spacing deviation - MaxLFPO
0.07 0.09 0.150.20
0.34
0.44
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8
0.25 0.5 1
Tolerance Margins (NM)
Spac
ing
devi
atio
n va
lue
(NM
)
MaintainRemain
Spacing deviation - AverageLFPG
0.04 0.050.08
0.05
0.11
0.07
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.25 0.5 1
Tolerance Margins (NM)
Spa
cing
dev
iatio
n va
lue
(NM
)
MaintainRemain
Spacing deviation - MaxLFPG
0.180.14 0.130.13
0.33
0.19
00.10.2
0.30.40.50.6
0.70.8
0.25 0.5 1
Tolerance Margins (NM)
Spac
ing
devi
atio
n va
lue
(NM
)
MaintainRemain
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
168 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Distribution of max spacing deviationsLFPO
0123456789
101112
[0;0.1[ [0.1;0.2[ [0.2;0.3[ [0.3;0.4[ [0.4;0.5[ [0.5;0.6[ [0.6;0.7[ [0.7;0.8[ [0.8;0.9[
Spacing deviation values (NM)
Num
ber o
f run
s Maintain 0.25Maintain 0.50Maintain 1Remain 0.25Remain 0.50Remain 1
Distribution of average spacing deviationsLFPG
0123456789
101112
[0;0.1[ [0.1;0.2[ [0.2;0.3[ [0.3;0.4[ [0.4;0.5[ [0.5;0.6[ [0.6;0.7[ [0.7;0.8[ [0.8;0.9[
Spacing deviation values (NM)
Num
ber
of r
uns
Maintain 0.25Maintain 0.50Maintain 1Remain 0.25Remain 0.50Remain 1
Distribution of max spacing deviationsLFPG
0123456789
101112
[0;0.1[ [0.1;0.2[ [0.2;0.3[ [0.3;0.4[ [0.4;0.5[ [0.5;0.6[ [0.6;0.7[ [0.7;0.8[ [0.8;0.9[
Spacing deviation values (NM)
Num
ber o
f run
s Maintain 0.25Maintain 0.50Maintain 1Remain 0.25Remain 0.50Remain 1
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 169
19. LOSSES OF SPACING DEC’02
Correction duration: Time between the “LOSING SPACING” message display and the closure rate reaching 0. It is an indicator of the reaction time of the pilot plus the reaction time of the aircraft.
Spacing task phase
Losing spacing duration
Correction duration
Max spacing value
Max spacing deviation
Start End
Time 286 sec. 379 sec.
Own aircraft Altitude 16616 ft 14349 ft
Target Altitude 9238 ft 9000 ft
Closure Rate 24 kt -11 kt
Current IAS 244 kt 223 kt
Sug IAS 213 kt 219 kt
Selected IAS 194 kt 209 kt
Target IAS 248 kt 248 kt
Comments
Note:In the "Managed descent" mode, selected speed is managed with a lower priority than descent profile.
Run 09/12/03 14h32 0.5NM LFPO
Losing spacing characteristics
93 sec.
7.36NM
Remain
33 sec.
0.14NM
Following target speed reduction, PF selected 205 kt then 194 kt (at 166 sec.). Despite the fact thatthe suggested speed was higher (235 kt then 214 kt), the spacing instructed aircraft was too fast tokeep the required spacing. In fact, the commanded deceleration was not effective because ofthe use by PF of "Managed descent" mode (DES on the FMA).
Moreover, speed brakes were opened too late : position 3 from 268 to 275 sec. (before "LOSINGSPACING" message), position 3 from 295 to 328 sec. (after "LOSING SPACING" message) andposition 3 from 350 to 382 sec.
PF behaved with speed as if he was in "Open descent" mode (OP DES on the FMA).
PF made a mode awareness error. The non detection of the mode error delayed the problem correction.
IAS
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
94 109
125
141
157
173
189
205
222
238
250
265
280
294
310
322
335
350
365
380
395
411
IAS (k
t) Selected IAS
Current IAS
Suggested IAS
Spacing
7.0
8.0
9.0
94 109
125
141
157
173
189
205
222
238
250
265
280
294
310
322
335
350
365
380
395
411
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing (N
M)
target speed reduction start losing spacing
SS
S
Use of speed brakesS
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
170 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Spacing task phase
Losing spacing duration
Correction duration
Max spacing value
Max spacing deviation
Start End
Time -533 sec. -492 sec.
Own aircraft Altitude 30000 ft 28000 ft
Target Altitude 28000 ft 9000 ft
Closure Rate -24 kt -11 kt
Current IAS 275 kt 223 kt
Sug IAS 291 kt 219 kt
Selected IAS 299 kt 209 kt
Target IAS 299 kt 248 kt
Comments
Run 09/12/03 15h29 0.25NM LFPG
Acquisition
41 sec.
20 sec.
Because of its initial conditions, this run requires an early deceleration to 287 kt to be at 8NM behindthe target when it passes the waypoint.
The crew started the briefing early in the run. It was interrupted by target selection and resumed afterthe merge instruction.Possibly because of the on-going briefing, PF delayed the deceleration and got a first "LOSINGSPACING" message during the acquisition phase. Consequently, crew's reaction was to decelerate(PNF: "We must reduce speed!").
Although the suggested IAS was 287 kt, 260 kt was first selected (at -628 sec.) then 252 kt (at -584 sec.) right after current IAS reached 260 kt (at -592 sec.) and the "STABILIZE SPEED" messagewas displayed (at -582 sec.).
Speed brakes were opened between the speed selections (position 3 from -611 to -586 sec. thenposition 2 to -549 sec.).
PF tried to straighten out the situation with the selection of 290 kt (following the suggested IAS at -576 sec.) but the aircraft kept on decelerating first (aircraft inertia) and lost the spacing.
Too late and too large deceleration corrected by too late acceleration led to infringe the spacing. We assume crew did not react before the "losing spacing" message for it was not monitoring spacing during briefing. In that particular case, briefing was too demanding to
the detriment of the spacing task.
8.32NM
0.07NM
Losing spacing characteristics
IAS
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
-658
-645
-631
-622
-610
-596
-583
-573
-563
-549
-536
-524
-510
-497
-483
-469
-456
-442
-428
-414
-400
IAS
(kt)
Selected IAS
Current IAS
Suggested IAS
Spacing
7.0
8.0
9.0
-658
-645
-632
-623
-611
-598
-584
-575
-566
-552
-539
-527
-514
-501
-488
-474
-461
-447
-433
-420
-406
-393
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM)
losing spacingstart of the
acquisition phase
S
S
SUse of speed brakes
COSPACE 2002 EUROCONTROL
Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II 171
Spacing task phase
Losing spacing duration
Correction duration
Max spacing value
Max spacing deviation
Start End
Time 164 sec. 181 sec.
Own aircraft Altitude 10000 ft 10000 ft
Target Altitude 10000 ft 10000 ft
Closure Rate 24 kt -10 kt
Current IAS 278 kt 247 kt
Sug IAS 243 kt 247 kt
Selected IAS 251 kt 242 ktTarget IAS 248 kt 248 ktCommentsFrom 58 sec., suggested IAS advised to decelerate slowly but was not followed by PF whomaintained 317 kt (target at 298 kt decelarating slowly).
Target speed reduction to 250 kt started at 118 sec. whereas the spacing instructed aircraft stabilizedat FL100 which is a quite stable situation.
PF started speed reduction at 137 sec. (from 317 kt to 251 kt selected) when the closure rate reached+36 kt, that is to say 19 seconds after target speed reduction start. The crew reacted too late tomaintain spacing without the use of speed brakes.
Speed brakes were first opened before the "LOSING SPACING" message in position 2 from 154 to 172sec. that is to say 17 seconds after spacing instructed aircraft speed reduction. Then they wereopened in position 3 to 197 sec. and position 2 to 213 sec.
Considering that the situation was deteriorating, the crew opened the speed brakes too late tomaintain the spacing within the tolerance margin.
Initial suggested deceleration not followed and late reaction (use of speed brakes) resulted in the loss of spacing.
7.45NM
0.05NM
Losing spacing characteristics
Run 12/12/03 11h50 0.5NM LFPG
Remain
17 sec.
12 sec.
IAS
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
90 98 107
115
124
133
139
144
151
159
167
176
183
192
201
208
216
225
233
242
247
IAS (
kt)
Selected IASCurrent IASSuggested IAS
Spacing
7.0
8.0
9.0
90 98 107
115
124
133
139
144
151
159
167
176
183
192
201
208
216
225
233
242
247
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing (
NM)
losing spacingtarget speed reduction start
S SS
SUse of speed brakes
EUROCONTROL COSPACE 2002
172 Project AGC-Z-FR - EEC Report No. 388 – Volume II
Spacing task phase
Losing spacing duration
Correction duration
Max spacing value
Max spacing deviation
Start End
Time 262 sec. 339 sec.
Own aircraft Altitude 13752ft 12790 ft
Target Altitude 10225 ft 9000 ft
Closure Rate 20 kt -21 kt
Current IAS 255 kt 219 kt
Sug IAS 232 kt 230 kt
Selected IAS 235 kt 216 ktTarget IAS 249 kt 248 ktCommentsMaintaining the spacing within a 0.25NM tolerance margin without speed brakes was possible butrequired the spacing instructed aircraft to react rapidly and start deceleration right after the target.
PF started speed reduction at 242 sec. (from 265 to 240 kt selected) when the closure rate reached+16 kt, that is to say 15 seconds after target speed reduction start. The crew reacted too late tomaintain spacing without the use of speed brakes.
However, the crew did not open speed brakes and thus lost the spacing.
Note:Time-lag between target speed reduction and spacing instructed aircraft speed reduction was similaracross runs in the same condition (LFPO, 0.25NM) but speed brakes were opened in the three otherruns and no losing spacing occurred.
Reactions occurring too late and not intense enough resulted in the loss of spacing.
7.64NM
0.11NM
Losing spacing characteristics
Run 12/12/03 12h35 0.25NM LFPO
Remain
77 sec.
40 sec.IAS
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
82 98 114
130
146
162
178
194
210
226
242
256
271
285
301
316
333
347
363
378
394
IAS
(kt)
Selected IASCurrent IASSuggested IAS
Spacing
7.0
8.0
9.0
82 98 114
130
146
162
178
194
210
226
242
256
271
285
301
316
333
347
363
378
394
Time (sec.)
Spac
ing
(NM)
losing spacingtarget speed
reduction start
Top Related