EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
RVSM6 CYPRUS
REAL TIME SIMULATION
EEC Report No. 359
Project RVS-5-E3
Issued: February 2001
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.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Reference: Security Classification: EEC Report No.359 Unclassified Originator: Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EEC - OPS EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (ATM Operational & Simulation Centre de Bois des Bordes B.P.15 Expertise) F91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEX FRANCE Telephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00 Sponsor: Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location: EUR RVSM PROGRAMME EUROCONTROL HEADQUARTERS - BRUSSELS TITLE: RVSM6 CYPRUS REAL TIME SIMULATION
Authors Date Pages Figures Tables Appendix References Roger LANE, 02/00 x + 58 33 5 4 4 Steven BANCROFT, Robin DERANSY and Kevin HARVEY
EATMP Task Project Task No. Sponsor Period Specification RVS-5-E3 September 2000 - - Distribution Statement: (a) Controlled by: Simulation Service Manager (b) Special Limitations: None (c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO Descriptors (keywords):
Real Time Simulation – RVSM – Non-RVSM – Transition - FLAS –Sectorisation – Co-ordination – Controller workload – Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft – Radio Communication Failure (RCF)
Abstract: The RVSM6 Cyprus simulation studied the transition from RVSM to non-RVSM airspace and vice-versa in the Nicosia and Southern Greek FIRs. The simulation also continued the validation of RVSM procedures which included the handling of non-RVSM approved aircraft, R/T phraseology, Radio Communication Failure and the changeover to RVSM which will take place on the 24 January 2002. This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Publications Office Centre de Bois des Bordes B.P. 15 F91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX France RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
SUMMARY
The RVSM6 CYPRUS Real Time Simulation (the sixth EUROCONTROL sponsored RVSM continental simulation) was held at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), Brétigny, France during September and October 2000.
The simulation studied the introduction of RVSM in the Cypriot and Southern Greek airspace and involved the participation of the neighbouring countries Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
Controllers from the Area Control Centres at Nicosia and Athens demonstrated that they could successfully handle up to a 20% increase in traffic and perform the transition task from RVSM to non-RVSM airspace and vice-versa using a modified route structure involving uni-directional routes.
The controllers felt confident and positive using RVSM and continued the validation of RVSM ATC procedures. Changes to current ATC systems and ATC procedures were identified as requirements for successful RVSM implementation.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 v RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank all the members of the RVSM6 project team for their work and assistance during the preparation and execution of the simulation. There have been larger RVSM simulations than RVSM6 but few have been so important with regards to the timing and political sensitivity of the project. The professionalism and dedication of the EUROCONTROL staff once again ensured that an RVSM simulation was successfully completed.
However, the main ingredient in a Real Time Simulation is the participation of operational staff. My gratitude goes to the Cyprus CAA, Egyptian CAA and Hellenic CAA for supplying dedicated teams of controllers for 4 weeks during the end of a busy summer period.
Finally to all the controllers who participated, especially Savvas and George, thank you for your patience, enthusiasm and feedback, without which, the project would not have been possible. Roger Lane
The EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre at Brétigny.
vi Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES /REFERENCES ...... ix ABBREVIATIONS ...... x
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS...... 1 1.1.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)...... 1 1.1.2 Transition Task...... 1 1.1.3 Flight Level Allocation Scheme (FLAS) ...... 1 1.1.4 STATE Aircraft...... 1 1.2 RVSM BACKGROUND...... 2 1.3 SCOPE OF THE RVSM6 SIMULATION ...... 2 2. SIMULATION OBJECTIVES ...... 3 2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE...... 3 2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ...... 3 3. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT...... 4 3.1 SIMULATION AREA...... 4 3.2 ROUTE STRUCTURE...... 4 3.3 RESTRICTED AND DANGER AREAS...... 4 3.4 PARTICIPANTS ...... 5 3.5 OPERATIONS ROOM...... 5 3.5.1 Layout...... 5 3.5.2 Measured Sectors...... 5 3.5.3 Feed Sectors ...... 6 3.5.4 Equipment ...... 6 3.5.5 Radar Functions ...... 7 3.5.6 Flight Strips...... 7 3.5.7 Telecommunications (AUDIOLAN)...... 7 3.5.8 Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA)...... 7 3.5.9 Meteorological Conditions...... 7 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS ...... 8 4.1 SCENARIO 1 – NON-RVSM (REFERENCE)...... 8 4.2 SCENARIO 2 – RVSM...... 9 4.3 SCENARIO 3 – RVSM WITH A FLAS AND MINOR ROUTE MODIFICATION...... 9 4.4 SCENARIO 4 – RVSM WITH A MAJOR ROUTE MODIFICATION ...... 12 5. TRAFFIC SAMPLES...... 14 5.1 CREATION...... 14 5.2 CHANGES MADE FOR THE REAL TIME SIMULATION ...... 14 5.3 CONVERSION FROM NON-RVSM TO RVSM ...... 15 5.3.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft ...... 15 5.4 SECTOR CAPACITIES...... 15 5.5 EXERCISE SCHEDULE ...... 15 6. ATC PROCEDURES...... 16 6.1 GENERAL ...... 16 6.2 RVSM PROCEDURES ...... 16 6.2.1 RVSM General Procedures...... 16 6.2.2 RVSM Transition Procedures...... 16 6.2.3 Non-RVSM approved aircraft ...... 17 6.2.4 Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft...... 17 6.2.5 R/T procedures – General...... 17 6.2.6 Revised RCF Procedures ...... 18
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 vii RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7. RESULTS...... 19 7.1 ANALYSIS...... 19 7.1.1 Subjective analysis ...... 19 7.1.2 Objective analysis...... 20 7.2 CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIMULATOR ...... 20 7.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 ...... 21 7.3.1 Scenario 1 - Non-RVSM ...... 21 7.3.2 Scenario 2 – RVSM (for definition see Para 4.2)...... 21 7.3.3 Scenario 3 – RVSM with a FLAS (for definition see Para 1.1.3) ...... 23 7.3.4 Scenario 4 – RVSM with a modified route system (for definition see Para 4.4) ...... 26 7.3.5 Scenario 4B – RVSM with a MAJOR route modification in ES1 sector...... 28 7.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 ...... 30 7.4.1 Sector Workload ...... 30 7.4.2 Sector throughput ...... 35 7.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 ...... 36 7.5.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft (for description see para 6.2.3) ...... 36 7.5.2 R/T Phraseology ...... 42 7.5.3 Radio Communications Failure (RCF) Procedure...... 43 7.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 ...... 46 7.7 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 ...... 48 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 50 8.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 ...... 50 8.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 ...... 50 8.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 ...... 51 8.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 ...... 51 8.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 ...... 51
Green pages : French translation of the summary, the introduction, objectives, conclusions and recommendations ...... 53 Pages vertes : Traduction en langue française du résumé, de l’introduction, des objectifs, des conclusions et recommandations ...... 53
ANNEX A: AIRSPACE MAP ANNEX B: THE OPERATIONS ROOM ANNEX C: SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS ANNEX D: SIMULATION SCHEDULE.
viii Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1 : Transition between RVSM and NON-RVSM flight levels...... 1 Figure 2 : The RVSM6 simulated area...... 4 Figure 3 : Cyprus -SS sector with AUDIOLAN telecom panel...... 5 Figure 4 : The Cairo feed sector ...... 6 Figure 5 : Rhodes airport (LGRP) arrival and departure routes ...... 8 Figure 6 : Tel Aviv airport (LLBG) modified departure route ...... 8 Figure 7 : Scenario 3 - Route modification in ES1 sector ...... 9 Figure 8 : Scenario 3 - FLAS at SIT in STH sector...... 10 Figure 9 : Scenario 3, the FLAS at EVORA ...... 11 Figure 10 : Scenario 4 – Route modification in ES1 sector...... 12 Figure 11 : Scenario 4 - Route modification in STH Sector...... 13 Figure 12 : Point of transition-Scenario 2 (Lunch Traffic)...... 23 Figure 13 : Scenario 3 - ES1 VESAR-NIKAS routeings ...... 24 Figure 14 : Point of transition-Scenario 3 (Lunch Traffic)...... 25 Figure 15 : Transition map Scenario 4 (Lunch Traffic) ...... 27 Figure 16 : Scenario 4B – Route modification in ES1 sector ...... 28 Figure 17 : Scenario 4B - Route modification in STH sector...... 29 Figure 18 : Tracks flown in Scenario 4 (Afternoon traffic) ...... 31 Figure 19 : Workload comparison between the Afternoon traffic samples ...... 32 Figure 20 : Workload comparison between the Morning traffic samples...... 32 Figure 21 : R/T loading - Lunch traffic sample...... 33 Figure 22 : Cyprus Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft...... 37 Figure 23 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft ...... 37 Figure 24 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft ...... 37 Figure 25 : Greek Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved aircraft...... 38 Figure 26 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft...... 38 Figure 27 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft...... 38 Figure 28 : Non-RVSM traffic in clutter (Cyprus and Greek display) ...... 39 Figure 29 : RCF – SSR Code 7603 ...... 44 Figure 30 : The Pilots’ room ...... 63 Figure 31 : Greek Controllers on the SE Sector ...... 63 Figure 32 : The Operations room layout...... 64 Figure 33 : The Operations room during the RVSM6 Simulation ...... 65
REFERENCES
1) RVSM6 Project Management Plan –EEC Bretigny – Author: R. LANE. 2) RVSM6 Facility Specification – EEC Bretigny Authors: S. BANCROFT and C. CHEVALIER 3) EATMP ATC Manual for RVSM in Europe – EUROCONTROL HQ 4) EEC Report 341 – RVSM4 (Turkey) RTS.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 ix RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
ABBREVIATIONS
ACC Area Control Centre AIP Aeronautical Information Publication AMN Airspace Management and Navigation ANT Airspace and Navigation Team ARN ATS Route Network ATC Air Traffic Control ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Services CFL Cleared Flight Level CWP Controller Working Position EATMP European Air Traffic Management Programme ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference EEC EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre EUR RVSM EURopean RVSM EUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation EXC Executive Controller FIR Flight Information Region FL Flight Level FLAS Flight Level Allocation Scheme FPL Flight Plan Ft Feet FTS Fast Time Simulation HMI Human Machine Interface HQ Headquarters ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation ISA Instantaneous Self Assessment LoA Letter of Agreement N/A Non Applicable NAT North ATlantic Nm Nautical miles OLDI On Line Data Interchange PLC PLanner Controller R/T Radio Telephony RCF Radio Communication Failure RFL Request Flight Level RTS Real Time Simulation RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum STCA Short Term Conflict Alert VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions VSM Vertical Separation Minimum
x Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS 1.1.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)
RVSM is an approved International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) concept to reduce aircraft vertical separation from 2000’ (600M) to 1000’ (300M), between Flight Levels (FLs) 290-410 inclusive. RVSM introduces 6 additional flight levels (FL300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400) and as a general principle the levels up to FL410 are allocated as ‘even levels – west/north bound and odd levels – east/south bound’.
Note that FL310 / 350 / 390 change parity from even to odd flight levels with RVSM.
RVSM Transition NON-RVSM
410 410
400 400
390 390
380 380
370 370
360 360
350 350
340 340
330 330
320 320
310 310
300 300
290 290
Figure 1 : Transition between RVSM and NON-RVSM flight levels.
1.1.2 Transition Task
The changing of an aircraft’s flight level either from an RVSM to Non-RVSM level or from a Non-RVSM to an RVSM level based on the Flight Level Orientation Scheme (FLOS) shown in Figure 1.
1.1.3 Flight Level Allocation Scheme (FLAS)
A scheme whereby specific flight levels may be assigned to specific route segments within the route network on a strategic basis.
1.1.4 STATE Aircraft
A flight operated by the Military, Police or Customs.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 1 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
1.2 RVSM BACKGROUND
Early 1960s The present vertical separation minimum (VSM) of 2000ft above FL290 was established mainly due to the inaccuracy of altitude measuring equipment on early jet aircraft (e.g. Comet and Boeing 707). In 1966 this VSM was globally adopted.
Late 1970s Civil aviation faced rising fuel costs and fast growing demand. Consequently, ICAO initiated an extensive programme of studies to investigate the feasibility of reducing the 2000ft VSM to 1000ft above FL290.
Late 1980s Studies indicated that RVSM between FL290-410 was feasible, safe and cost- beneficial without imposing massive technical requirements.
27th March 1997 RVSM (between FL330-370) became operational in the North Atlantic region (NAT).
8th October 1998 The flight level band was increased to FL310-390 in the NAT region. Also on this day, the EUR RVSM Programme was officially established by EUROCONTROL in Brussels.
24th January 2002 Full RVSM implementation within European and NAT airspace will take place, and is expected to provide considerable benefits. However, due to the complex nature of the European ATS route structure and the fact that some 40 countries are participating in the project, European implementation will be more complicated compared with the NAT region.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE RVSM6 SIMULATION
As part of the EUR RVSM programme, the administrations of Cyprus and Greece identified that the position of their FIRs in the southeast corner of the EUR RVSM airspace posed potential difficulties in the handling of traffic operating between EUR RVSM airspace and the neighbouring non-RVSM airspace.
A request was made to EUROCONTROL to help to identify these problems and to find a useable solution. It was agreed that a simulation would study the whole of the Nicosia airspace and part of the Athens airspace and neighbouring non- RVSM countries were invited to either participate in, or observe, the simulation.
2 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
2. SIMULATION OBJECTIVES
2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To recommend the most suitable airspace organisation for the introduction of RVSM in the airspace of the Nicosia and Southern Athens FIRs.
2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. To compare the following organisations, in the airspace of the Nicosia and Southern Athens FIRs using varying levels of traffic:
• The current route network with non-RVSM (REFERENCE) • The current route network with RVSM • A slightly modified route structure, with RVSM and the application of a FLAS to effect the transition from non-RVSM to RVSM and vice versa • A revised route structure with RVSM, incorporating uni-directional routes at the RVSM/non-RVSM interface
with the aim of identifying the most suitable organisation for handling traffic making the transition from an RVSM to a non-RVSM procedural environment and vice versa.
2. To examine the effect of the introduction of RVSM in the sectors of the Nicosia and Southern Athens FIRs by measuring:
• the sector workload • the sector throughput
in the RVSM organisations, and to compare them with the reference scenario.
3. To examine the following procedural aspects:
• further validate the procedures developed by the ATM Procedures Development Sub-group (APDSG) for handling non-RVSM approved flights • R/T (Radio Telephony) phraseology • test a revised Radio Communications Failure Procedure (RCF).
4. To gain controller confidence in the viability of introducing RVSM in the Nicosia and Athens FIRs
Additional Objective agreed during the simulation
5. To simulate the changeover scheduled for 24 January 2002, from non- RVSM to RVSM. Controllers’ subjective feedback was used to identify any potential operational aspects arising from the changeover.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 3 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
3. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT
3.1 SIMULATION AREA
The area chosen for the simulation covered the whole of the Nicosia FIR (3 control sectors) and the south-easterly portion of the Athens FIR (2 control sectors). Three (ES1, SS and STH) of the five sectors had an interface between non-RVSM and RVSM airspace and were considered to be the transition sectors. The remaining two sectors were of interest as they played an important role in transferring and receiving traffic from the transition sectors.
Figure 2 : The RVSM6 simulated area
3.2 ROUTE STRUCTURE
The ATS Route Network (ARN) Version 3 route structure was used during the simulation (see Annex A). However, additional route proposals as identified in ARN Version 4 were tested during the simulation to study their effect on the transition task.
3.3 RESTRICTED AND DANGER AREAS
The following Restricted and Danger Areas were considered as active.
ATHENS ACC NICOSIA ACC D 101 C –UNL D 3 – FL 200 D 87 – UNL
4 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
3.4 PARTICIPANTS
The following staff participated in the simulation (see also Annex C):
• 9 controllers from Nicosia (Cyprus) ACC • 7 controllers from Athens (Greece) ACC • 2 controllers from Egypt participated as the Cairo ACC Feed sector.
Figure 3 : Cyprus -SS sector with AUDIOLAN telecom panel
3.5 OPERATIONS ROOM 3.5.1 Layout
The RVSM6 simulation was the first to be held in the refurbished Operations Room BC34 at the EEC. The room layout and photographs of the simulation are shown at Annex B.
3.5.2 Measured Sectors
The five sectors shown in Figure 2 were considered to be measured (recordings made for analysis purposes). Each of these sectors operated with a radar controller and a planning controller, who both had a 28inch Sony radar screen. Details of these sectors appear below,
SECTOR NAME VERTICAL FREQUENCY LIMITS NICOSIA –ES1 075 - 460 126.3 NICOSIA –SS 075 - 460 124.2 NICOSIA –WS 075 - 460 125.5 ATHENS –SE (RDS) 285 - 460 124.47 ATHENS –STH (SIT) 065 - 460 134.07
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 5 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
3.5.3 Feed Sectors
To realistically simulate aircraft entering and exiting a measured sector, five feed sectors were created around the measured airspace. Controllers from Athens and Cyprus took turns in controlling on the feed sectors with the exception of the Cairo feed (see Figure 4) which was manned by ATC experts from Cairo ACC.
Figure 4 : The Cairo feed sector
3.5.4 Equipment
The Human Machine Interface (HMI) used in the simulation, closely resembled the equipment currently in use in the Nicosia and Athens ACCs. This meant that the time required by the controllers to become familiar with the simulation environment was reduced to a minimum, allowing the controllers more time to concentrate on the simulation objectives.
6 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
3.5.5 Radar Functions
The Simulation was run using the EUROCONTROL ESCAPE platform version 4.6. The following functionality was available to all sectors:
• Sony 28 inch colour radar screen for the radar and planning controller, showing full radar cover from FL000-FL460 • Range and bearing • Height filtering • Off-centring and range zoom.
3.5.6 Flight Strips
Paper flight strips were used on the Cypriot measured sectors. The Greek sectors used electronic strips displayed on the Executive and Planner radar screens (see Figure 23 and Figure 26).
3.5.7 Telecommunications (AUDIOLAN)
All positions used AUDIOLAN telecommunications equipment. This comprised of a headset and touch input panel (see Figure 3) with pre-defined frequencies and landlines according to the sector.
3.5.8 Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA)
STCA was available only on the Greek sectors SE and STH. For the RVSM exercises the STCA was modified to take into account the reduction of separation up to FL410. This involved defining 2 volumes as detailed below, and in each case the look ahead time remained at 2 minutes:
Volume 1 between FL 000 to FL 410: The minimum horizontal separation = 4.9 Nm. The minimum vertical separation = 1000 ft.
Volume 2 FL 410 to FL 460: The minimum horizontal separation =4.9 Nm. The minimum vertical separation = 2000 ft.
3.5.9 Meteorological Conditions
The direction and strength of the wind was changed frequently throughout the simulation by the project team, in order to vary the traffic situations and reduce controller familiarity which is often experienced when exercises are regularly repeated.
The temperature set in the traffic samples was 30ºC, which is typical in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the summer.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 7 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS 4.1 SCENARIO 1 – NON-RVSM (REFERENCE)
Scenario 1 acted as a non-RVSM reference. It simulated the current airspace organisation and included:
• the new arrival route for inbound traffic to Rhodes airport (LGRP) which was established MES-KOPAR-ASIMI-RDS (see Figure 5)
• The existing departure route RDS-ASIMI-KOPAR-LARKI-MES.
Figure 5 : Rhodes airport (LGRP) arrival and departure routes
• Departures from Tel Aviv airport (LLBG) routed BGN-PURLA-PASOS- KAROL-EVORA or APLON (see Figure 6).
Figure 6 : Tel Aviv airport (LLBG) modified departure route
8 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
4.2 SCENARIO 2 – RVSM
The aim of this scenario was to introduce the controllers to RVSM for the first time using the same sectorisation and route network as Scenario 1, with the aim of showing the controllers the effect of using RVSM Procedures on today’s airspace.
The only pre-defined procedure was that the transition task from/to non- RVSM/RVSM should be carried out within RVSM airspace and that it should be done when it was considered necessary/safe to do so within the appropriate sector adjacent to non-RVSM airspace.
4.3 SCENARIO 3 – RVSM WITH A FLAS AND MINOR ROUTE MODIFICATION
This scenario was the first to examine specific procedures aimed at resolving the possible operational difficulties caused by the transition task. The differences from Scenario 2 are as follows:
Nicosia Airspace (see Figure 7)
• A one-way route system was established in Nicosia sector ES1. UL619 was declared uni-directional NIKAS–VESAR in order to effect transition from non-RVSM to RVSM before the Ankara FIR boundary at VESAR
• Eastbound traffic coming from the Ankara FIR which normally routes VESAR-NIKAS-BAN-KTN was routed VESAR–ALSUS–NIKAS-BAN-KTN and the transition from RVSM to non-RVSM was effected on this route before transfer to Damascus FIR at NIKAS
Figure 7 : Scenario 3 - Route modification in ES1 sector
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 9 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
• UM978 remained bi-directional to permit the occasional flights NIKAS- ALSUS-LCA
• In order to allow transition from RVSM to non-RVSM to take place, with no opposite direction traffic on the segment VESAR–ALSUS, traffic departing LLBG via VELOX routed VELOX-direct VESAR, instead of via ALSUS
• Traffic departing LCLK/RA/PH exiting via VESAR routed RUDER-direct VESAR instead of via ALSUS.
Athens Airspace (see Figure 8)
• Southbound traffic on route MIL–ATLAN–SIT (UL613) was restricted from using FL310
• Traffic on PLH-OTREX-SIT-KAVOS was restricted from using FL350.
The restricting of these levels was the responsibility of the sectors before STH (the Greek Feed sector in the simulation). This ‘SOFT FLAS’ meant that 2 of the main routes where traffic enters sector STH still had 5 out of 6 odd FLs available.
• It was considered that there were 6 FL possibilities that required transition from RVSM to non-RVSM (FL310/350/390 on UL613 and FL310/350/390 on UM872). Blocking 2 of these levels was expected to be beneficial to the STH sector’s workload, as it meant that only 4 levels remained which required transition to non-RVSM levels.
Figure 8 : Scenario 3 - FLAS at SIT in STH sector.
10 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Nicosia and Athens Airspace
When preparation commenced for the simulation, traffic inbound to Tel Aviv LLBG from SIT routed KAVOS-EVORA-KAROL at non-RVSM ‘eastbound FLs’ e.g FL290/330/370. The introduction of RVSM will mean that traffic on this route will be able to use FL310/350/390 in addition to those FLs currently in use.
Northbound traffic coming from Cairo FIR at ‘westbound non-RVSM FLs’ e.g. FL310/350/390 was required to make the transition to a westbound RVSM FL e.g. FL320/340/360/380. EVORA became a potential conflict point “A” (see Figure 9), as it was felt that there was not sufficient time/distance between RASDA and EVORA for the transition to take place safely in order to avoid confliction.
However, several months before the simulation started, a new routeing KAVOS- direct APLON-SOLIN was introduced by Nicosia for southeast bound traffic. This in effect created a new conflict point “B” to the north of EVORA (see Figure 9 below).
• Despite the fact that the conflict point had moved further away, it was agreed that a FLAS would still be simulated to see if it had any bearing on the 2 traffic flows
• FL350 was restricted for the south-east bound traffic via KAVOS, so that traffic (with the exception of departures from Alexandria-HEAX and Cairo- HECA which are restricted to FL280) entering Nicosia FIR at RASDA would use, where possible, FL350 for automatic de-confliction North of EVORA
• When the northbound traffic on UM855 was clear of traffic between KAVOS- APLON, transition from non-RVSM to RVSM could be effected
Figure 9 : Scenario 3, the FLAS at EVORA
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 11 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
4.4 SCENARIO 4 – RVSM WITH A MAJOR ROUTE MODIFICATION
This scenario tested a revised route structure in order to effect transition. Where possible, existing routes and points were used, however some bi-directional routes were changed to uni-directional to allow the controller to effect transition with no opposite direction traffic. The differences from Scenario 3 are as follows:
Nicosia Airspace
Traffic coming from the Ankara FIR which normally routes VESAR-NIKAS–BAN- KTN were routed VESAR–ALSUS–BALMA–CAK-KTN (see Figure 10) and the transition from RVSM to non-RVSM was effected on this route before transfer to Beirut FIR at BALMA (this proposal assumed the future agreement of Syria and Lebanon).
Figure 10 : Scenario 4 – Route modification in ES1 sector
Nicosia and Athens Airspace
UM872 became uni-directional from GITLA-KAROL-KAVOS-SIT. This route accommodated traffic from Jordan, and LLBG departures routed BGN-PURLA- PASOS-KAROL-EVORA or APLON depending on destination (this proposal assumed the agreement of Israel). A new route (see Figure 11) was established SIT-BENIN (Athens/Nicosia FIR boundary at 030 00E) - APLON to accommodate Tel Aviv-LLBG arrivals and traffic destination Jordan (this proposal assumed the agreement of Athens, Nicosia and Israel).
12 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Athens airspace
The aim of this scenario was to create a one way system of uni-directional routes between the Cairo FIR and the STH sector, and a similar system between the STH sector and the Nicosia SS sector. The following route modifications were made:
• SIT-KUMBI-BLT = Southbound traffic exiting the Athens FIR (overflights FL 290 and above, and Alexandria and Cairo (HEAX/CA) inbound traffic • DBA/AXD-SOKAL-TANSA-IRA = Northbound traffic (FL280 or above) entering Athens FIR overflights and Alexandria and Cairo (HEAX/CA) departures • All traffic (above FL280) that currently routes via ANTAR and PAXIS was re- routed via KUMBI or TANSA depending on direction of flight • SIT-TANSA-SOKAL and SIT-PAXIS-GESAD remained bi-directional FL270 and below.
Note: This proposal assumed the agreement of Cairo. Traffic, which originally routed from SIT to the point DBA on the Egyptian coastline, would now have to route via KUMBI. This would mean that after KUMBI the traffic would need to route either KUMBI direct to DBA or LABNA-OTIKO-DBA in order to get back to the original FPL route. These routeings are shown in grey in Figure 11.
Figure 11 : Scenario 4 - Route modification in STH Sector
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 13 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
5. TRAFFIC SAMPLES
5.1 CREATION
Four traffic samples covering the simulation area were downloaded from the CFMU database by the Airspace Management and Navigation (AMN) department at EUROCONTROL Brussels. The traffic samples were chosen as they represented busy periods during the week and weekend. The following details applied:
Date of traffic samples: 28-31 July 1999 Time period: 0000-2359 Vertical limits: FL000-Unlimited Days: Wednesday –Saturday Routes: The route flown within the declared measured area, including the beacon before the first sector and the first beacon after the last sector
The traffic samples were then analysed by the EEC to determine the following:
• the busiest days • the busiest 2 hour period during the day • the arrival/departure rate for LCLK/LCPH/LCRA • the number of different route segments flown • the number of aircraft using each different route segment
Experience has shown that controllers quickly become familiar with traffic samples which are regularly repeated, so instead of using the normal mix of a morning and an afternoon sample it was decided to create an additional sample based around the lunchtime period.
The 3 base traffic samples created were:
1. Morning (AM)– 0200-0400Z (predominantly Westbound flow of traffic) 2. Afternoon (PM) – 1400-1600Z (predominantly Eastbound flow of traffic) 3. Lunchtime (L) – 1000-1200Z (an even mix of East and Westbound traffic)
5.2 CHANGES MADE FOR THE REAL TIME SIMULATION
The traffic was adjusted to simulate different but realistic situations (this included conflictions at major crossing points). The traffic was also increased in accordance with sector capacities (declared and increased) as defined in Para 5.2 -Sector Capacities.
The ‘PM’ sample simulated a traffic increase of 20% and the ‘AM’ an increase of 30%. The aim of the ‘L’ sample was to simulate a steady mixed flow of traffic through the sector, with not more than 10 aircraft on frequency at any one time. Although no specific percentage was planned, recordings show that sectors handled an increase of between 20-45% with the ‘L’ sample. Experts from Athens and Nicosia ACCs then validated the non-RVSM samples, after which, they were duplicated and the flight levels adjusted to RVSM values.
14 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
5.3 CONVERSION FROM NON-RVSM TO RVSM
The adjustments to RVSM flight levels were made using operational experience instead of following a specific rule. For the concerned flights, an appropriate RVSM FL was allocated taking into account the route, departure/destination airport and aircraft performance. Examples of this are:
• A long haul B744 at FL350, entering at NIKAS going to the UK or Germany requiring an ‘even FL’, would probably be light enough to climb to FL360
• A flight entering the STH sector at TANSA at FL350 inbound to Athens, would be expecting descent within the Athens FIR, therefore FL340 was deemed to be the first stage of the descent
• Some flights entering at FL390 were already at their maximum ceiling level (according to the EEC aircraft performance database-BADA); therefore the logical RVSM FL was FL380 instead of the unreachable FL400.
For the different scenarios involving a change to the route network the RVSM samples were duplicated and the routes changed on the flights concerned.
5.3.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft
Non-RVSM approved aircraft (STATE and non-STATE) were included in the RVSM traffic samples (see Para 6.1 ATC Procedures). The exact number of non-RVSM approved aircraft likely to be in operation when RVSM is implemented is unknown. However, based on the information received from operators it was decided to have one non-RVSM STATE flight passing through each sector per exercise, and 1-2 non-RVSM flights entering RVSM airspace per transition sector per exercise, which required descent below FL290.
5.4 SECTOR CAPACITIES
The following table identifies all target sector capacities per hour.
SECTOR 2000 DECLARED 20% INCREASE 30% INCREASE ES1 26 31 34 SE 24 29 31 SS 26 31 34 STH 26 31 34 WS 26 31 34
5.5 EXERCISE SCHEDULE
Generally, three 70 minute measured exercises were played each day. During the last 2 weeks, the shorter Radio Communication Failure (RCF) and Changeover TO RVSM (CTOR) exercises were included in the exercise schedule.
The simulation schedule can be found at Annex D.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 15 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
6. ATC PROCEDURES 6.1 GENERAL The ATC working procedures used during the simulation were in accordance with current Letters of Agreement (LoA) and/or particular Operational Instructions.
SSR codes were automatically converted to show the callsign in the radar label with the exception of traffic starting within the region of the points MUT, AYT and KTN.
Due to the unique ATC procedures between the Nicosia and Ankara ACCs, the following assumptions were made:
• There was no co-ordination or passing of estimates between the feed sector north of Cyprus (CY1) and Nicosia ACC (Sectors WS/ES1). This procedure is unique to traffic originating at AYT, MUT and KTN
• The feed controller transferred aircraft that started in the region of MUT to the pilot of the ES1 sector. The pilot called in 10 minutes prior to sector entry and passed the flight level and squawk. The pilot changed to the newly assigned squawk upon entering the Nicosia FIR
• No aircraft entered the Nicosia FIR without following the normal ATC procedures or as identified above.
6.2 RVSM PROCEDURES
6.2.1 RVSM General Procedures
• A separation of 1000ft (300m) was applied from FL290 up to FL410 between RVSM approved aircraft operating as GAT within the measured sectors
• Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft operating as GAT (General Air Traffic) within RVSM airspace were provided with a minimum vertical separation of 2000ft from other IFR traffic.
6.2.2 RVSM Transition Procedures
• RVSM approved and non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft entering RVSM Airspace were established at the appropriate RVSM FL (see Transition Levels diagram Figure 1)
• Non-RVSM approved civil aircraft proceeding from non-RVSM airspace into RVSM airspace were accommodated for the purpose of clearing such aircraft to an appropriate non-RVSM FL. During this transition task these aircraft were provided with a minimum vertical separation of 2000ft from other traffic
• Aircraft leaving EUR RVSM airspace were given a VSM of 2000ft and established at the appropriate non-RVSM levels by the EUR RVSM exit point.
16 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
6.2.3 Non-RVSM approved aircraft
The following aircraft types were considered to be non-RVSM approved:
B703, B701, BA11, IL76, T134, T154, YK42, LR35, DC8.
Aircraft types (e.g. DH8 max RFL of FL250) with a maximum operating RFL below FL290 were also flight planned as non-RVSM approved. This allowed a realistic representation on the controllers’ radar screens of all non-RVSM approved traffic.
Note: At the time of traffic preparation some of the above types had achieved an RVSM approval on an individual basis, as no group approval was available. However, these were generally privately owned executive aircraft (e.g. American registered DC8/B703), and for simulation purposes it was deemed that most operators using these aircraft as part of a fleet would probably not go to the expense of conversion to meet RVSM approval.
6.2.4 Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft
The following aircraft types were considered to be non-RVSM approved STATE AIRCRAFT (see definitions Para 1.1.4):
E3TF, K35R, K35E, VC10, C9.
6.2.5 R/T procedures – General
The following R/T specific to RVSM procedures, was used during the simulation.
CIRCUMSTANCE PHRASEOLOGY ATC wishes to know RVSM status of (callsign) CONFIRM RVSM flight. APPROVED? Pilot indication that flight is RVSM AFFIRM RVSM approved.
Pilot indication that the flight is non- NEGATIVE RVSM RVSM approved. (Used on initial contact, request for FL change within RVSM airspace and all read backs pertaining to FL clearances within RVSM airspace). Pilot of STATE aircraft indicating that NEGATIVE RVSM STATE flight is non-RVSM approved AIRCRAFT
ATC denial of clearance into RVSM UNABLE CLEARANCE INTO RVSM airspace AIRSPACE, MAINTAIN [or DESCEND TO, or CLIMB TO ] FL……
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 17 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
6.2.6 Revised RCF Procedures
Due to the interface between non-RVSM and RVSM airspace, and the problems associated with FLs 310, 350 and 390 being opposite direction it was considered to be an opportunity to modify the existing RCF procedure for the implementation of RVSM.
A full description of revised procedure and the results of the test can be found at Para 7.6.
18 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7. RESULTS
The description of the methods (Subjective and Objective analysis) used to collate the results follows this paragraph. The results are then detailed according to the Specific Objectives (see section 2.2). The Conclusions of the results appear at section 8.
7.1 ANALYSIS 7.1.1 Subjective analysis
The subjective analysis is based on two different sources of information. The first source is the questionnaires given to the controllers before, during, and after the simulation. The second source is the Instantaneous Self Assessment method or ISA. Where appropriate, questions asked on the questionnaires (indicated by a ‘ Q.’ followed by the text in bold italic letters) have been inserted. The answers appear below the question in normal text.
Questionnaires
The following questionnaires were used during the simulation:
• Pre-simulation (sent out one month before start of simulation) • Post exercise (short questionnaire after each exercise) • Non-RVSM (given at the end of the Scenario 1) • RVSM (given at the end of the Scenario 2) • RVSM with a FLAS plus a slightly modified route structure (given at the end of the Scenario 3) • RVSM with a modified route structure (given at the end of the Scenario 4) • Post Simulation -Final questionnaire (given at the end of the Simulation).
The Post exercise questionnaire included subjective evaluations on a scale from 1 to 10 of the following elements:
• the controller overall workload • the R/T loading • the degree of realism of the simulated traffic sample • the difficulty in maintaining situational awareness.
For each of these elements, the value 1 was considered to be Very Low, 5 as Moderate, and 10 as Very High. If a controller answered with a value of 6 or higher they were asked to give a brief reason why (i.e. traffic density, R/T loading, procedures). The value of 6 indicates the point at which the effort/demand was considered to be higher than moderate. The workload results on the questionnaires were used as a crosscheck with the ISA and data recordings, and also as a back up in case of a recording failure.
Instantaneous Self Assessment (ISA)
The ISA method allowed the controller to assess his/her workload during the
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 19 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
course of a simulated exercise. The controller was provided with a warning (Flashing light) every three minutes and had 30 seconds to register their perceived workload on a five button box (see Figure 3, ISA box situated bottom left hand corner of photograph) according to the following point scale:
1 - Under-utilised, 2 - Relaxed, 3 - Comfortable, 4 - High, 5 - Excessive.
Experience shows that selection of either button 4 or 5 for more than 40% of an exercise means that the participant is likely to reject the organisation.
7.1.2 Objective analysis
The Objective analysis is taken from data recordings made for each exercise. From these recordings the following factors are studied:
• Analysis of the R/T occupancy • Analysis of RFL • Analysis of pilot orders • Level Changes to Solve Conflicts • Analysis of the loss of separation.
Most of the objective analysis concerned the controllers’ workload and is therefore directed mainly towards Specific Objective 2.
7.2 CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIMULATOR
In a simulation it is impossible to replicate exactly the conditions which exist in real life. The controllers identified the following operational factors that should be taken into account when reviewing the results:
• The R/T loading on ES1 sector was considered to be lower than normal, as it was difficult to simulate exactly the normal R/T co-ordination procedures used between the pilot, Nicosia ACC and the adjacent ACCs
• The Greek STH sector often experiences poor/intermittent R/T reception in certain areas. It was not possible to reproduce this effect, therefore, normal R/T reception was assumed during the simulation
• The STH sector also experiences poor radar cover at the southern boundary of the sector, which often means that a procedural service is given until radar contact is achieved. This problem will be resolved with the introduction of a new radar head on the island of Karpathos in the near future. Solid radar cover was simulated during RVSM6
• The three Cypriot sectors had a Sony 28-inch radar screen on the radar and planning controller positions. The ACC currently operates with only one radar screen (similar in size to the Sony) per sector, in front of the radar controller. The extra screen was seen as an advantage to the planner as he could set it to his own parameters and did not need to constantly lean over his colleague to see the radar picture.
20 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1
To compare the following organisations, in the airspace of the Nicosia and Southern Athens FIRs using varying levels of traffic:
1. The current route network with non-RVSM (REFERENCE) 2. The current route network with RVSM 3. A slightly modified route structure, with RVSM and the application of a FLAS to effect the transition from non-RVSM to RVSM and vice versa 4. A revised route structure with RVSM, incorporating uni-directional routes at the RVSM/non-RVSM interface.
with the aim of identifying the most suitable organisation for handling traffic making the transition from an RVSM to a non-RVSM procedural environment and vice versa.
7.3.1 Scenario 1 - Non-RVSM
The project team visited the Nicosia and Athens ACCs prior to the simulation to observe controllers working under current non-RVSM conditions. It was noted that certain operational practices would be difficult to simulate (see constraints Para 7.2), and any direct comparison with RVSM simulation exercises would be unrealistic.
Therefore, in order to make a reasonable comparison between the differences in workload and control methods under simulation conditions, it was decided that a non-RVSM scenario would be created to act as a reference scenario. This could then be directly compared to the RVSM scenarios, which would be based on the same airspace environment and traffic samples.
The non-RVSM exercises were handled with no major problems. The traffic samples and co-ordination procedures were considered to be realistic, and the 9 exercises played helped the controllers to become familiar with the simulation environment prior to commencing the new RVSM procedures.
7.3.2 Scenario 2 – RVSM (for definition see Para 4.2)
A general briefing on RVSM was given before the Scenario 2 exercises commenced at the end of the first week, however, no specific methods were proposed to the controllers for handling the transition task.
Nine exercises (scenario 2) were completed and during this period the controllers’ confidence quickly grew using the additional flight levels and the existing route network. Many of the controllers reported using tactical flight level allocation (climb/descent of 1000ft) to resolve conflicts instead of radar vectoring.
It was reported that the transition task created additional workload and it took time for the controllers to understand the concept and adapt their individual controlling styles to manage it. In Figure 12 it can be seen that generally, transition was carried out shortly after entering the transition sectors.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 21 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Non-RVSM approved traffic did not really cause problems except the occasional high level flight (e.g. FL430) which had to descend to a FL below FL290, and therefore had to pass all the RVSM FLs in the process. However, it was felt that the non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft greatly increased the controllers’ workload.
The 6 extra FLs increased the monitoring tasks for the EXC and PLC controllers, and at this stage of the simulation the reversal in parity of FL310, 350 and 390 did cause some confusion for about a quarter of the Greek controllers and a third of the Cyprus controllers. This confusion was reported to affect not only the PLC, but also the EXC controller.
The most important issue for this scenario was,
Q. Did you have enough time and space to carry out the transition tasks on the current route structure?
yes
no
42,86% 87,50%
12,50%
57,14%
Nicosia Athens
Q. If no, please specify in which sector and on which route:
• Most of the Nicosia controllers clearly felt that ES1 was the sector with the most problems. The route segment NIKAS-VESAR was considered to be too short to safely handle the bi-directional transition task.
• Some of the Athens controllers thought that the bi-directional routes (SIT and PAXIS/TANSA) in the STH sector were unacceptable to carry out transition. The problem of many routes converging on the point SIT contributed to the difficulties the controllers faced when carrying out the transition task.
22 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
From the above responses it was apparent that the current operating practices/route network required some modification in order for the controllers to safely and confidently manage the transition tasks.
LMOS RVSM6 KFK KULAR TR2L OLIDA KERMA VEXOLHOS IMR MES
PIPENSITRU KRS REDRA ATH IKARO TOROS CRD LGSM KEA DDM LGSO LARKI KAVAK RIPLI OZYAK KFKSE AKINA AYT ADA KOPAR MUT LGKO MIL SOKNO DAL ASTIS ASIMIBANRO LGSR LGRP LGRDRDS LGKC SOKRI
TOMBI LINRO DOREN VESAR ATLAN EVENO
DASNI LGSASUD LGKSLGKPKRC LGIRIRA LGKJ PLH LGST BAN OTREX LGTL ALKIS NIKAS SIT TELRI DAROS ALSUS TOSKA TOBAL LUBES SOBOS RUBIK LCLKLCA LCPH LOSOS REXAL ARLOS MAROS LCRA BOSIS LINGI DESPO BALMA
CAK LEBOR KUKLA KTN
METRU TANSA PAXIS APLON ANTAR VELOX SILKO KAD KUMBI KAVOS
EVORA TIROS LEDRA RASDA GESAD KANAR KAROL MERVA
SOKAL LAKTO SOLIN
LABNA GITLA PASOS KATEX MILAD PURLA LLBGBGN
OTIKO BLT
HEAR DBA AXD MENKU ARH
Figure 12 : Point of transition-Scenario 2 (Lunch Traffic)
7.3.3 Scenario 3 – RVSM with a FLAS (for definition see Para 1.1.3)
NICOSIA FIR
Route modification in ES1 – The re-routeing of south-east bound traffic via ALSUS provided the controller with an increased sense of security to be able to perform the transition task safely for traffic routeing between VESAR and NIKAS and vice versa. The ‘dog leg’ via ALSUS increased the route between VESAR and KTN by 22nm (about 2.8 minutes flying time for a B744).
It was noticeable that during the 7 exercises, 89% of the all the traffic planned to route VESAR-ALSUS-NIKAS was turned before ALSUS direct to NIKAS (see Figure 13 which shows the recording from one traffic sample). The direct routeing was generally given just south of VESAR when the aircraft had been established at the required non-RVSM exit flight level.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 23 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
RVSM6 TR3P20 051000C
ADA MUT
DOREN VESAR
BAN NIKAS
ALSUS DAROS
SOBOS RUDER RUBIK LCLKLCA
LOSOS REXAL
BOSIS DEPOL
BALMA DESPO
CAK LEBOR KUKLA KTN
KAD VELOX SILKO
Figure 13 : Scenario 3 - ES1 VESAR-NIKAS routeings
The following operational considerations were noted:
• The controllers felt they had enough time to do the transition from RVSM to non-RVSM between VESAR and ALSUS, and that the new routeing increased sector capacity whilst reducing the potential for confliction during the transition phase. Although not many flights were routed over ALSUS, the controllers considered that the fact that the aircraft were flight planned on this route gave them more options (the extra distance was useful for establishing traffic at 10 minutes longitudinal separation) and additional planning time
• The direct routeing VELOX-VESAR for traffic from Tel Aviv-LLBG caused no problems and the controllers reported that they frequently use this direct routeing in everyday operations. It was therefore felt that a new route should be established as it offered a more direct route for the aircraft and caused no difficulties for the sector
• This route modification only directly effects the ES1 sector and would therefore require no changes to current LoAs with adjacent ACCs
• The controllers thought that this scenario was an improvement on scenario 2, however, it was believed that further improvement was still needed. STATE aircraft still caused problems and opposite direction traffic still converged over VESAR (where co-ordination procedures are difficult) and NIKAS.
FLAS at RASDA – The FLAS was seen to have little effect on the transition task at RASDA. The number of flights operating at FL350 in this area was minimal, and as the conflict point (previously EVORA) had recently been relocated further to the north, the controllers saw little benefit in flight level restrictions in this area. This feeling was reinforced with the introduction of the new routeing via BENIN in scenario 4 which moved the conflict point even further away from RASDA and was considered to be the most suitable option. Note: the current restriction for departures from Alexandria (HEAX) and Cairo (HECA), to be not above FL280 at RASDA still applied in all scenarios.
24 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
ATHENS FIR
FLAS at SIT – The blocking of a flight level on 2 of the routes converging to SIT did not appear to have a noticeable effect on the controllers workload. This can be attributed to the fact that the aircraft originally at the blocked levels were simply moved to another FL and still had to be controlled by the sector (R/T, co- ordination etc remained the same). It was felt that a FLAS was not required because the transition problem still existed with the remaining FLs.
In Figure 14 the point at which transition took place can be seen in red for RVSM to non-RVSM, and in orange for non-RVSM to RVSM. This graphic shows the Lunch traffic sample, where the flights requiring transition from RVSM to non-RVSM were mostly changed to their exit FL before SIT, with the exception of some flights inbound to Cairo-HECA or Alexandria-HEAX, which routed on the uni-directional segment SIT-KUMBI.
In the simulation the flight levels applicable to the FLAS were pre-arranged in the traffic sample and this meant that the Feed sector FGR1 had very little input to make. However, in reality a FLAS like this would mean that the adjacent sectors would be faced with the addition task of delivering the traffic at the correct levels. Although these tasks were not simulated it was felt that it would be unacceptable to the 2 adjacent sectors concerned, one of which will also handle transition tasks in the METRU area and the other which is a busy sector handling traffic converging at MIL.
LMOS RVSM6 KFK KULAR
TR3L OLIDA KERMA VEXOLHOS IMR MES
PIPENSITRU KRS REDRA ATH IKARO TOROS CRD LGSM KEA DDM LGSO LARKI KAVAK RIPLI OZYAK KFKSE AKINA AYT ADA KOPAR MUT LGKO MIL SOKNO DAL ASTIS ASIMIBANRO LGSR LGRP LGRDRDS LGKC SOKRI
TOMBI LINRO DOREN VESAR ATLAN EVENO
DASNI LGSASUD LGKSLGKPKRC LGIRIRA LGKJ PLH LGST ALKIS BAN OTREX LGTL NIKAS SIT TELRI DAROS ALSUS TOSKA TOBAL LUBES SOBOSRUDER RUBIK LCLKLCA
LCPH LOSOS REXAL ARLOS MAROS LCRA BOSISDEPOL LINGI DESPO BALMA
CAK LEBOR KUKLA KTN
METRU TANSA PAXIS APLON ANTAR VELOX SILKO KAD KUMBI KAVOS
EVORA TIROS LEDRA RASDA GESAD KANAR KAROL MERVA
SOKAL LAKTO SOLIN
LABNA GITLA PASOS KATEX MILAD PURLA LLBGBGN
OTIKO BLT
HEAR DBA AXDMENKU ARH
Figure 14 : Point of transition-Scenario 3 (Lunch Traffic)
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 25 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.3.4 Scenario 4 – RVSM with a modified route system (for definition see Para 4.4)
NICOSIA FIR
Route modification in ES1 – The re-routeing of south-east bound traffic via BALMA meant that traffic no longer converged at NIKAS (but did still converge at VESAR). The controllers felt that this scenario was better than scenario 3 as the uni-directional flow of traffic to and from Syria was separated making the transition task easier to plan and handle.
The modified routeing increased the total distance between VESAR and KTN by 18nm (about 2.5 minutes flying time for a B74F) which was slightly less than scenario 3.
Another advantage of the routeing via BALMA-CAK was that traffic had to pass through the Beirut FIR before going on to KTN in the Damascus FIR. Beirut ACC is equipped with radar which helped to improve co-ordination (Damascus ACC currently provides a procedural service only).
Route modification in SS Sector – The combination of the new uni-directional route SIT-BENIN-APLON and the modification of the route KAROL-EVORA- KAVOS-SIT to uni-directional was considered to be a big improvement on the current situation, and the FLAS option at RASDA seen in scenario 3. It was felt that safety and capacity were increased and it was easier to separate traffic performing transition from the Tel Aviv-LLBG traffic that was established on uni- directional routes.
Departures from Tel Aviv (LLBG) via PASOS
The proposed new Tel Aviv departure route via PASOS (see Figure 6) was generally considered to be inappropriate, as it routed the traffic too far to the south and could potentially conflict with departures from Gaza which enter Nicosia FIR via PASOS. Out of the 133 aircraft planned to depart via PASOS only 9 aircraft (7%) actually routed to PASOS, instead most of the traffic routed from PURLA direct to either ALKIS or TOMBI or on a radar vector of about 300°.
Some controllers felt that the old routeing via GITLA was adequate, whilst others thought that if departures had to be separated from inbound traffic, then moving the departure route south was a good idea, but to use PURLA-KAROL instead of via PASOS.
26 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
ATHENS FIR
Route Modification in STH Sector – The proposed routeing system was liked by the Athens controllers because it had only one entry and one exit point to and from the Cairo FIR. This facilitated the transition task as traffic was not directly opposed and from Figure 15 it can be seen that transition for many southbound flights was left until after passing SIT. However, the scenario did have the following drawbacks:
1) The routeing of all traffic above FL280 through KUMBI was a reasonable solution for Athens ACC to separate the Southbound flow from the Northbound through TANSA. However, it would mean that traffic going to the point DBA in Egypt would be having to route an additional 5-15 minutes (depending on the route in Cairo FIR) from the desired track. It is unlikely that the Aircraft Operators would accept this option
2) The Egyptian experts felt that this route proposal was not an acceptable solution, as it would effect their flows of traffic too much (particularly concentrating northbound traffic through the point SOKAL)
3) Some of the Greek controllers felt that despite all the uni-directional routes, there was still too much traffic converging towards the point SIT, causing garbling and making it difficult to monitor the progress of the traffic.
LMOS RVSM6 KFK KULAR
TR4L OLIDA KERMA VEXOLHOS IMR MES SITRU PIPEN KRS REDRA ATH IKARO TOROS CRD LGSM KEA DDM LGSO LARKI KAVAK RIPLI OZYAK KFKSE AKINA AYT ADA KOPAR MUT LGKO MIL SOKNO DAL ASTIS ASIMIBANRO LGSR LGRPLGRD RDS LGKC SOKRI
TOMBI LINRO DOREN VESAR ATLAN EVENO
DASNI LGSASUD LGKSLGKPKRC LGIRIRA LGKJ PLH LGST ALKIS BAN OTREX LGTL NIKAS SIT TELRI DAROS ALSUS TOSKA TOBAL LUBES SOBOSRUDER RUBIK LCLKLCA LCPH LOSOS REXAL ARLOS BOSISDEPOL MAROS LCRA LINGI DESPO BALMA
BENIN CAK LEBOR KUKLA KTN
METRU TANSA PAXIS APLON SILKO ANTAR VELOX KAD KUMBI KAVOS
EVORA TIROS LEDRA RASDA GESAD KANAR KAROL MERVA
SOKAL LAKTO SOLIN
LABNA GITLA PASOS KATEX MILAD PURLA LLBGBGN
OTIKO BLT
HEAR DBA AXD MENKU ARH
Figure 15 : Transition map Scenario 4 (Lunch Traffic)
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 27 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.3.5 Scenario 4B – RVSM with a MAJOR route modification in ES1 sector
Having completed the four scenarios the simulation participants discussed the different options and Cyprus and Greece requested a modification based on Scenario 4. This request was accepted by the project team as it was could be easily prepared and it was seen as a good opportunity to incorporate it into an existing simulation. However, the request did contain new route segments, which would effect neighbouring airspace and it was agreed that the scenario would be simulated on the understanding that no prior negotiation or agreement had taken place with the neighbouring FIRs. The modifications requested were as follows:
NICOSIA FIR
• A new route was created from KFK direct to BALMA-CAK-KTN. Where this route crossed the Nicosia FIR boundary to the north, a new point was created called CORAL (see Figure 16). This route was uni-directional (southbound) for the traffic which currently routes KFK-MUT-VESAR-NIKAS- BAN-KTN
• The reason for this modification was to establish 2 independent uni- directional routes within ES1 sector. This meant that the traffic would not have to pass each other at any point within ES1 sector, which would facilitate the transition task
• Inbound traffic to Cyprus from CORAL was routed CORAL-RUDER-LCA and traffic to Tel Aviv was routed CORAL-VELOX.
Figure 16 : Scenario 4B – Route modification in ES1 sector
28 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
ATHENS FIR
• The most suitable solution for Athens was to have the northerly flow of traffic through TANSA and the southerly through PAXIS. The opposite applied for Cairo as they would prefer to separate the converging northerly flows DBA- SOKAL and AXD-SOKAL
• After discussions between the Athens supervisor and the Egyptian participants, it was suggested to try a scheme where 2 new route segments would be created between GESAD-TANSA and PAXIS-SOKAL (see Figure 17). These routes would be used by Cairo ACC to
½ send northbound traffic routeing AXD-GESAD across to TANSA ½ send southbound traffic coming through PAXIS requiring to route to DBA across to SOKAL.
In reality these new route segments could be potentially difficult to implement and were therefore created on the understanding that they were a simulation proposal and no formal agreement had been made between the Athens and Cairo ACCs. However, the participation of the Egyptian experts was much appreciated and greatly assisted the development of this scenario.
Figure 17 : Scenario 4B - Route modification in STH sector
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 29 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2
To examine the effect of the introduction of RVSM in the sectors of the Nicosia and Southern Athens FIRs by measuring
• the sector workload • the sector throughput
in the RVSM organisations, and comparing them with the reference scenario.
7.4.1 Sector Workload
Due to the complexity and variance of the tasks that a Radar controller and Planner undertake, it is impossible to put a single figure on the overall workload that is done by a sector during a simulation. The workload is normally directly linked with the number of aircraft passing through a sector, the more aircraft - the more calls on the radio, more co-ordination required and more monitoring required.
It was clear that the controllers found a difference between the 20% and 30% traffic samples. Some of the more important tasks have been selected below to indicate at what levels the controllers were performing during the various scenarios, but due to the fact the same number of aircraft were present during each scenario, there appears to be very little difference in the recordings between scenarios.
Headings and Direct Orders – A comparison of the different scenarios showed no clear trend on the number of headings or direct routeings given. It was noticeable that the SS and WS sectors were consistently high, and when this is compared with the replays of the exercises it can be seen that many flights routeing between Tel Aviv-LLBG and the point TOMBI were given direct tracks (see Figure 18). The track TOMBI direct to either APLON, LEDRA or SOLIN is not available as a route due to the Danger Area D3 south of Cyprus, however, during the simulation, D3 was deemed to be only active up to FL200. Although this direct routeing benefits the operators, it should be considered in future airspace restructuring, as it was widely used by the controllers but at the same time an aircraft off-route normally requires extra R/T, coordination and monitoring.
30 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
LMOS RVSM6 KFK KULAR
TR4P20 OLIDA KERMA VEXOLHOS IMR 121000B MES SITRU PIPEN KRS REDRA ATH IKARO TOROS CRD LGSM KEA DDM LGSO LARKI KAVAK RIPLI OZYAK KFKSE AKINA AYT ADA KOPAR MUT LGKO MIL SOKNO DAL ASTIS ASIMIBANRO LGSR LGRPLGRD RDS LGKC SOKRI
TOMBI LINRO DOREN VESAR ATLAN EVENO
DASNI LGSASUD LGKSLGKPKRC LGIRIRA LGKJ PLH LGST ALKIS BAN OTREX LGTL NIKAS SIT TELRI DAROS ALSUS TOSKA TOBAL LUBES SOBOSRUDER RUBIK LCLKLCA
LCPH LOSOS REXAL ARLOS DEPOL MAROS LCRA BOSIS LINGI DESPO BALMA
BENIN CAK LEBOR KUKLA KTN
METRU TANSA PAXIS APLON SILKO ANTAR VELOX KAD KUMBI KAVOS
EVORA TIROS LEDRA RASDA GESAD KANAR KAROL MERVA
SOKAL LAKTO SOLIN
LABNA GITLA PASOS KATEX MILAD PURLA LLBGBGN
OTIKO BLT
HEAR DBA AXD MENKU ARH
Figure 18 : Tracks flown in Scenario 4 (Afternoon traffic)
ISA – The ISA graphs shown in Figure 19 show the comparison of EXC controllers’ positions in the afternoon traffic sample (20% increase in traffic). The fairly even spread in all scenarios of medium and dark blue shows a busy but controlled environment, the flashes of orange are when the situation was becoming too busy for the controller to keep up with all the required tasks. The 2 cases of red scores are when the sector was overloaded, but it was only very briefly.
The horizontal line shown at the 40% mark indicates the point where, from experience, the scenario will normally be rejected. When compared with the recordings from the 30% traffic sample (Figure 20) an increase in the orange and red scores supports the controllers’ feelings that the 30% traffic sample was at times too busy on some sectors (especially those dealing with transition or co- ordination via the R/T).
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 31 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Estimated Workload (ISA)
% 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T C R R R C R R R C R R R C R R R C R R R 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ES1/EXC SE/EXC SS/EXC STH/EXC WS/EXC Very High Norma Low Very No
Figure 19 : Workload comparison between the Afternoon traffic samples
Estimated Workload (ISA)
% 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T C R R R C R R R C R R R C R R R C R R R 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ES1/EXC SE/EXC SS/EXC STH/EXC WS/EXC Very High Norma Low Very No
Figure 20 : Workload comparison between the Morning traffic samples
32 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
R/T – The R/T recordings also supported the ISA results showing that the Afternoon traffic (20% increase) was marginally below the 40% marker line, however, the sectors dealing with coordination via the radio (ES1 and WS) were close enough to the 40% line to cause concern. In all the traffic samples the Greek sectors STH and SE remained below 30% usage, but in the Lunch traffic samples it can be seen in Figure 21 that ES1 and WS were unacceptably high in all scenarios except 4B. In the morning samples (30% increase) all 3 Cypriot sectors averaged around the 40% mark, which is considered to be unacceptable. RADIO USAGE % LUNCH Traffic samples 75 70 65 60 55 50 46 45 43 40 39 36 34 34 34 34 35 32 30 30 28 29 29 30 26 25 25 23 22 21 23 20 17 16 17 17 15 14 10 5 0 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T C R R R R C R R R R C R R R R C R R R R C R R R R 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L B B B B B ES1/EXE SE/EXE SS/EXE STH/EXE WS/EXE
Figure 21 : R/T loading - Lunch traffic sample
Flight Level Orders – Due to the transition task it was foreseen that the number of flight level orders would slightly increase on the sectors handling transition. In general this was the case for each scenario, but there was no clear trend between scenarios, however, the benefit of the additional flight levels can be seen in 2 situations.
1. Long haul traffic is often transferred to Nicosia on the route KTN-BAN- NIKAS-VESAR at medium levels due to the fact that Damascus had not been able to climb the traffic under the procedural service. Nicosia controllers only have a short time to handle this traffic and are currently fairly restricted to due to only having the westbound upper FLs 310, 350, 390 available.
This was simulated by one flight, which arrived at NIKAS at FL240 requesting FL350 in the non-RVSM exercises and FL360 in the RVSM exercises. In the 7 non-RVSM exercises the flight was only climbed to its RFL on 3 occasions (about 50% success rate), whereas in the 22 RVSM exercises, where
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 33 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
additional flight levels were available, the flight was climbed to its RFL on 20 occasions (about 90% success rate).
2. Traffic departing from Beirut via VESAR is normally restricted to FL280 due to the climb profile and lack of FLs available at VESAR due to overflying traffic.
In the non-RVSM exercises, of the 21 flights departing Beirut via VESAR only 2 were climbed to their RFL (about 10% success rate), whereas in the RVSM exercises, where additional flight levels were available, of the 54 departing flights, 25 were climbed to their RFL (about 46% success rate).
Controller opinion – The main elements affecting the controllers’ workload were:
• the non-RVSM STATE flights (see Para 7.5.1) • the co-ordination procedures on WS and ES1 sector • the transition task in sectors STH, SS and ES1.
The amount of workload these 3 elements generated can not be directly quantified, as a scenario was not simulated where the procedures were modified. However, it should be noted that the ES1 sector had all 3 elements to contend with and this made handling traffic very difficult.
The controllers felt that RVSM would provide extra capacity and flexibility, however, in areas such as the transition airspace, changes are required to enable the controllers to safely carry out the transition tasks. The use of uni- directional routes and restricting non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft to below FL290 were considered to be the factors that would reduce the controllers’ workload the most in the short term. A fully automated Flight Plan Data Processing (FDP) system with On line Data Interchange (OLDI) link would also reduce the workload of the EXC and PLC controllers, however, this is seen as a more medium to long term goal due to the complexity of the project.
34 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.4.2 Sector throughput
The traffic samples were created with the aim of having each sector working as close to the declared sector capacity as possible. The table below shows the number of aircraft per hour, and the figures are the average of the exercises played during each of the 4 scenarios.
For all the sectors, except the SE sector, the target figure for the morning traffic was 34 aircraft per hour (30% increase on 2000 capacity) and the afternoon traffic was 31 per hour (20% increase on 2000 capacity). The SE sector was slightly less, 31 and 29 respectively.
The Lunch traffic sample was created to represent a constant flow of traffic without specific peaks. Sector capacity was not taken into account, however, it can be seen that it ranged between 20-45%, dependent on the sector.
Results
The analysis was based on an aircraft being on frequency during the measured period. There are no major differences between the 4 scenarios, this is mainly due to the fact that the sectors handling transition were not vertically split and any profile changes caused by transition affected the same sector.
The minor discrepancies between scenarios can be attributed to the late transfer of traffic between sectors at the start of the exercise or early transfer at the end of the exercise.
SECTOR MORNING (AM) LUNCH (L) TRAFFIC AFTERNOON (PM) TRAFFIC TRAFFIC S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 ES1 36 36 36 36 37 37 36 36 33 33 32 32 SE 33 32 33 34 30 32 32 30 32 32 32 30 SS 36 35 35 35 36 36 33 36 31 31 33 32 STH 36 36 36 36 28 28 29 28 32 32 33 32 WS 35 36 35 36 38 36 36 38 33 33 33 32
The controllers considered that the flow and loading of traffic was realistic, and the workload figures show that the sectors were working close to, and in some cases, at the limit of capacity. This point was reinforced by many of the controllers who felt that in the future an increase in traffic levels and the extra transition task would require a reassessment of the current sectorisation and procedures.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 35 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3
To examine the following procedural aspects:
• further validate the procedures developed by the ATM Procedures Development Sub-group (APDSG) for handling non-RVSM approved flights • R/T phraseology • Test a revised RCF Procedure.
7.5.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft (for description see para 6.2.3)
Identification of non-RVSM approved flights was done by the following three methods:
1. Indication in the radar label (by colour or symbol) 2. Indication on the flight progress strips 3. Specific R/T phraseology.
The RVSM6 simulation simulated two different HMI systems (unique to Cyprus and Greece), each required different marking and identification methods. The Cyprus system could be considered a basic system, where as the Greek system is a more modern system incorporating the use of colour, therefore allowing differentiation by the use of colour alone.
As most of the sectors simulated were geographical sectors (i.e. ground to unlimited based on a geographical area), all non-RVSM approved traffic were displayed. This included aircraft whose operational service ceiling limits precluded them from ever reaching RVSM airspace (an example of this situation is shown in Figure 25, LOV001 a Jetstream 31, is displayed as a non-RVSM approved aircraft despite having a maximum service ceiling of FL250.
Note: Under certain conditions, it is possible for an ACC using vertically split sectors above FL280 to filter out the non-RVSM approved traffic operating permanently below FL280. See the “ATC manual for a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) in Europe, article 8.6 ATS systems overview” for further information on displaying distinguishing features.
THE CYPRUS HMI
Radar Label - The identification of a non-RVSM approved flight in the Cyprus system was made by displaying an asterix (*) next to the aircraft type on the third line of the radar label (see Figure 22). Normally the controller can deselect line 3, however, in cases where the symbol was displayed line 3 remained permanently displayed.
36 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Figure 22 : Cyprus Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft
Flight progress strips
Non-RVSM - Figure 23 shows an example of a Cyprus westbound flight progress strip. As this particular aircraft is a Boeing 707 (non-RVSM approved) the label ‘NONRVSM’ appeared on the far right hand side of the strip. In this example, the entry level from non-RVSM airspace was FL350; the RVSM requested flight level (RFL) is FL280 (non-RVSM traffic is required to descend below FL290).
N6092M VES NIK 350 A0263 B703 23 OEDR EDDF 07 NONRVSM R280
Figure 23 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft
Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft - Figure 24 shows an example of a Cyprus westbound flight progress strip. As this particular aircraft is a military operated non-RVSM approved aircraft operating on GAT routes the label ‘NONRVSM’ and ‘STATE’ appeared on the far right hand side of the strip (see Figure 24). STATE aircraft will be permitted to operate within RVSM airspace provided that 2000’ vertical separation is maintained from all other traffic.
RRR4071 VES VEL GIT STATE 300 A0263 VC10 23 LLBG EGVN 07 NONRVSM
Figure 24 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 37 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
THE GREEK HMI
Radar label - In the Greek system, regardless of the flight status e.g. pending, assumed or transferred, non-RVSM approved aircraft were differentiated by displaying the callsign in the colour mustard (see Figure 25).
Figure 25 : Greek Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved aircraft
Flight progress strips (electronic) – In addition to the mustard coloured callsign, the border of the entire electronic strip was also highlighted with the colour mustard, which helped to differentiate non-RVSM flight progress from the RVSM strips (see Figure 26).
.
Figure 26 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft
A further differentiation was made between non-RVSM approved and non-RVSM approved STATE flights by the text ‘STA’ shown in red, adjacent to the callsign (see Figure 27).
Figure 27 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft
38 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Results
Q. With regard to non-RVSM aircraft, do you consider that the information on the radar label was adequate?
42,86%
100,00%
28,57%
28,57% yes
partially
no
Nicosia Athens
All Nicosia controllers experienced difficulty visualising the non-RVSM indications on a cluttered radar display. Due to the present sectorisation and ATC system, Nicosia controllers operate with their radar screen set on a wide range. This combination of wide range displays, lack of differentiating colour and overlapping labels sometimes made the task of visually separating non- RVSM aircraft difficult.
Figure 28 illustrates 2 cases of traffic clutter. On the left the Cyprus radar is showing a non-RVSM VC10 and the asterix to the right of the word VC10 could easily be confused with either trail dots or an aircraft position symbol.
The Greek system on the right shows that despite the target clutter, the callsign of the non-RVSM flight RCH505 still stands out clearly, reminding the controller of the existence of the flight and hence, the requirement for 2000’ separation.
Figure 28 : Non-RVSM traffic in clutter (Cyprus and Greek display)
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 39 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
The Cypriot controllers had the chance to see the Greek system, which clearly demonstrated the benefits gained by the use of different colours within the radar label. It was felt that colour would be the only practical solution for Nicosia. However, the proposed new Nicosia ACC and HMI will not be complete before RVSM implementation, therefore, other suitable methods of visually identifying non-RVSM aircraft on a cluttered radar display should be considered. As the present system has limited potential for modification the following options are suggested in addition to the asterisk:
• Focus on controller awareness of the problem by encouraging the use of a red flight strip in the strip bay for non-RVSM traffic and rotating the radar label in advance to reduce clutter
• Modify the system so that the radar label of non-RVSM traffic flashes frequently (every 2-5 minutes) so that the flashing can be acknowledged or cancelled by the controller
• Make the * symbol larger and/or a different brightness
• An additional screen for the PLC (especially on the ES1 sector) would enable a reduction in the range setting of the EXC radar providing the controller with a less cluttered picture, whilst maintaining the extended range on the PLC position for planning purposes.
Q. With regard to non-RVSM aircraft, do you consider that the information on the flight strip was adequate?
12,50%
25,00%
100,00%
yes
partially
62,50% no Nicosia Athens
Comments
Red paper strip holders - To help further differentiate non-RVSM aircraft, Nicosia controllers utilised a red strip holder as opposed to the normal yellow and blue (relative to direction of flight). Controllers appreciated this suggestion as this clearly identified the aircraft as a non-RVSM or non-RVSM STATE aircraft.
Printing of Requested Flight Level (RFL) - The addition of the RFL on the paper strip was only simulated in Scenario 3 and 4. All controllers felt that this was a requirement for RVSM operations as by knowing the flight’s intentions it resulted in a decrease in R/T time required per aircraft, and also had the added advantage of being able to plan the allocation of flight levels in advance.
40 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Non-RVSM approved aircraft
It was considered that the task of transitioning of non-RVSM traffic entering RVSM airspace to below FL290 only slightly increased the workload on a controller. However, all the aircraft requiring descent below FL290 did achieve the new FL within the transition sector (notably – traffic entering at NIKAS at FL430 was able to descend through all the RVSM levels to FL280, and level off before VESAR). A couple of the controllers found that the highlighting of all non- RVSM approved aircraft (e.g. the traffic unable to climb above FL280 like a DH8 as well as the traffic which had to be descended from RVSM airspace) could be a little distracting at times.
Non-RVSM STATE Aircraft (see also Paras 6.2.1 and 6.2.4)
All the sectors reported that the non-RVSM STATE flights greatly increased controller workload. The ES1 sector had the most difficulties with the STATE flights. It was clear that the required separation of 2000ft on the busy route segment NIKAS-VESAR was very difficult to incorporate. Many flights were vectored off-route to avoid the problem of opposite direction traffic (Note: This solution was easily achieved in the simulation, but due to difficult co-ordination procedures could not be guaranteed in actual operations) or given a descent below FL290.
The controllers did not have much time or space to carry out the normal transition tasks and the addition of a STATE flight meant that either the FL of the STATE flight was frequently modified, or the other conflicting flights had to be modified. The potential for late FL allocation linked with the uncertainty of the existing co-ordination procedures with Ankara and Damascus were considered to be factors which raised safety concerns on this route.
For example: A STATE flight entering at NIKAS FL350 requesting FL360. The Nicosia ACC will have had prior notification of the flight from Damascus and should be able to plan which Even westbound FL to allocate. They will also need to block/vacate the eastbound FL above and below the new westbound FL in order to provide the required 2000ft separation. As soon as the pilots are aware of the new planned FL they will have to contact Ankara ACC and pass an estimate for VESAR plus the FL. If for some reason his RFL FL360 is not available and Nicosia allocate FL340, then all the opposite traffic at FL330/350 is a potential loss of separation. Until the flight confirms its cruising FL, Ankara ACC will not be able to plan to keep the opposite FLs clear. A situation could exist where there may well be traffic coming in the opposite direction at FL330/350 who have already passed their estimates for VESAR to Nicosia, which could mean that further co-ordination would be required.
Due to the problems mentioned above, the controllers believed that in the future during RVSM operations, any STATE flight arriving during a busy period in the ES1 sector would cause severe disruption. In the interest of safety, it was recommended that due to the unique and complex procedures on the route UL619 and short flying distances involved, STATE flights should be restricted from transiting through the points VESAR and /or NIKAS above FL280.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 41 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.5.2 R/T Phraseology
The phraseology as described in Para 6.2.5 caused few problems for the controllers or the pilots.
Q .Was the R/T phraseology considered to be appropriate?
Cyprus = 5-Yes, 1-No, 2-Don’t know Greece = 7-Yes.
42 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.5.3 Radio Communications Failure (RCF) Procedure
Description
It has been identified that RVSM has implications regarding air ground communications failure procedures, especially regarding aircraft that are transitioning from adjacent non-RVSM airspace to the European RVSM airspace and vice-versa. As such, the communication failure procedures applicable within the European Region (EUR ICAO Region as reflected in ICAO Doc 7030) are presently under review. The inclusion of this objective within the RVSM6 simulation was requested on behalf of the EUROCONTROL ATM Procedures Development Sub-Group (APDSG).
Three important “communication failure” considerations were:
1. The difference between the cruising levels appropriate to direction of flight within RVSM airspace, to those applicable within adjacent non-RVSM airspace
2. The potential time / distance that a “lost communication” aircraft could be operating at a cruising level not appropriate to direction of flight, when transitioning from non-RVSM airspace to RVSM airspace, and vice-versa
3. The existing ICAO Doc 4444 requirement to “maintain the last assigned speed and altitude if higher, for a period of 20 minutes following the aircraft’s failure to report its position over a compulsory reporting point and thereafter adjust level and speed in accordance with the filed flight plan.”
The Draft RCF Procedures included the following amendments:
Procedure – 7 minute rule:
“Maintain last assigned level or minimum flight altitude, whichever is higher, for 20 minutes (proposal to change to 7 minutes) after”,
-The time such level is reached, Or -The time that the aircraft sets the transponder to Code 7600, whichever is later.
Procedure – SSR selection of code 7600
The use of Emergency SSR Code 7600 to indicate a communication failure remained the same. The draft proposal includes the addition of the following codes to identify pilot intentions after the initial declaration of lost communication i.e. 7600.
7601 – Continue to fly in VMC
7602 – Continuing flight to the aerodrome of destination
7603 – two minutes prior to commencement of climb (in accordance with filed
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 43 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
flight plan). This code would be used until the flight-planned level is reached, then the SSR code would revert to 7602.
7604 - two minutes prior to commencement of descent (in accordance with filed flight plan). This code would be used until the flight-planned level is reached, then the SSR code would revert to 7602.
Figure 29 : RCF – SSR Code 7603
Figure 29 illustrates the Greek HMI and lost communication emergency squawk 7603 indicating a climb. In this example, KHO3671, a southbound (non-RVSM approved) flight is climbing to its RFL FL370 (after passing the RVSM exit point).
Results
All controllers received a briefing on the amended procedures. Three, 30 minute exercises were specially created incorporating all of the new RCF proposals.
Q. Did the application of the proposed RCF procedures cause any ATC problems?
YES – 2 NO – 11 Comment- see notes 1 and 2 below.
Q. Did the use of dedicated SSR codes contribute to controller comprehension of pilot intentions?
YES – 13 NO – 0 Comment- see note 5 below.
Q. In general, did you consider that the proposed procedures are an improvement on the existing procedures?
YES – 13 NO – 0
44 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Comments:
1) During the RCF exercises several controllers had concerns about the RCF procedure in general. This is probably due to the fact that in reality it is seldom experienced.
2) Some controllers felt they were never exactly sure of pilot actions. As RCF incidents are so rare, both pilots and controllers have limited practice and experience with these emergency procedures. Confusion could also be created by additional “time and or level restrictions” as often-found in published standard instrument departures (SID).
3) Some controllers also felt that they were not sure when to apply the two- minute rule (with change of squawk prior to climb or descent) and if that was in addition to, or part of the seven-minute rule.
4) Confusion existed as to whether an RCF aircraft leaving RVSM airspace should climb or descend to reach the non-RVSM flight planned level before the RVSM airspace exit point or whether the action should be started at the RVSM airspace exit point, thus climbing or descending in non-RVSM airspace.
The ATC Manual for RVSM in Europe states under RVSM TRANSITION PROCEDURES that, ATC units on the interface of EUR RVSM airspace shall establish a minimum 2,000ft VSM between aircraft exiting EUR RVSM airspace before they pass the transfer of control point and establish them at the appropriate non-RVSM levels.
By following standard ICAO RCF procedures, any required climb or descent should be started once the aircraft has reached the point specified in the flight plan.
As the flight plan will include an appropriate non-RVSM flight level at the exit point of RVSM airspace, an RCF aircraft (leaving RVSM airspace) would actually carry out the transition between RVSM and non-RVSM flight levels after leaving RVSM airspace. Therefore, this procedure has possible implications when considering the flight levels FL310, 350 and 390, which change parity at the transition interface.
It was identified that as a safety benefit, one way routes were preferable in this particular situation. If one way routes were not possible on the RVSM airspace boundary, the separation of RVSM entry and exit points should be investigated. This would allow aircraft to be level at their non-RVSM flight level prior to physical entry of non-RVSM airspace.
5) Several controllers had difficulty remembering the meaning of the 7603 and 7604 squawks. They proposed that as the number 3 is lower than the number 4, it is only logical that 7603 would represent a descent and 7604 represent a climb.
6) The RCF information displayed in the radar label during the RCF exercises was considered to be adequate for the Cypriot and Greek controllers.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 45 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4
To gain controller confidence in the viability of introducing RVSM in the Nicosia and Athens FIRs.
Pre-simulation
Prior to the simulation the controllers were given a questionnaire which asked:
• What they hoped to gain from the simulation • What are the advantages/disadvantages of using RVSM with the ECAC area • What effect will transition have on their controlling task within their airspace?
The replies can be summarised as follows, most of the controllers hoped to gain experience and knowledge of RVSM operations and to find solutions to potential problems with routeings and equipment.
The main advantage foreseen was an increase in capacity coupled with a decrease in workload. The controllers believed that a better ATC service would be possible, as the extra RVSM flight levels would give the operators more chance of achieving their optimum cruising level.
However, transition was seen as a task that could affect safety and would require additional workload, and was complicated by the handling of non- RVSM approved STATE aircraft and an increase in co-ordination.
Results
At the end of the three-week simulation the controllers had seen about 30 RVSM exercises and had received several presentations and briefings on RVSM ATC procedures. The following questions were asked on the post simulation questionnaire,
Q. Has your perception of RVSM been changed by the simulation?
no 12,50%
yes 87,50%
46 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Q. In Non-RVSM, FL310, FL350 and FL390 are Westbound levels. With RVSM, these levels become Eastbound. By the end of the simulation, did the reversal of these flight levels cause you any problems?
Cyprus 5 = No 4 = Yes Greece 7 = No
Half way through the simulation the controllers were asked the same question and at that time more controllers were finding that the reversal of the 3 flight levels was causing some difficulties or confusion.
By the end of the simulation all of the Athens controllers had adapted to the change in orientation and only 4 of the Nicosia controllers (who were all senior controllers with many years experience) indicated that the reversal still caused problems. These problems can be attributed to a combination of the complex transition task faced by the Nicosia ES1 sector, and the controller who has become familiar working with one rule over many years (i.e. FL350 is a westbound level), who then has to accept a complete reversal of that rule.
Q. What is your overall impression of RVSM? (A summary of the replies follows)
With the traffic levels increasing yearly, RVSM was seen by many as a potential solution to capacity and safety issues.
Non-RVSM approved traffic, especially STATE aircraft increased controller workload, as did the reallocation of flight levels required for transition during peak periods.
The majority of the controllers felt very positive and confident using RVSM. Some apprehension remained about whether ATC procedures and equipment modifications would be finalised in time for RVSM implementation, however, the advantages of the 6 extra flight levels were clearly seen, and were considered to give more flexibility and capacity to ATC and better optimum level allocation to operators.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 47 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
7.7 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5
Additional Objective agreed during the simulation
To simulate the changeover scheduled for 24 January 2002, from non-RVSM to RVSM. Controllers’ subjective feedback was used to identify any potential operational aspects arising from the changeover.
Exercise preparation
Traffic operating between the period 2300-0100 hours was studied from CFMU recordings from January 2000 and July 2000. It showed that the 5 simulated sectors presently handle low levels of traffic at midnight, especially in January. In order to give each sector in the simulation the opportunity to experience the changeover to RVSM, a traffic sample was created specifically with 4-5 aircraft in each sector (representing more than reality).
The exercise was programmed assuming that the moment of changeover would be midnight, and the traffic was positioned to be in as many different situations as possible, these included:
• climbing and descending traffic • east and west bound traffic • traffic at the transfer point between internal sectors • traffic at the transfer point between ACCs • Non-RVSM approved traffic, which would require descent.
The traffic sample was 30 minutes long, this allowed a 20 minute build up to midnight and 10 minutes after midnight. Two exercises were run in the third week, which ensured that the controllers were familiar with RVSM procedures prior to the exercises. The exercises were assessed using subjective opinion only, and the controllers were rotated between feed and measured sectors for the second run so that everyone had the opportunity to experience an exercise on one of the simulated sectors.
Results
No major difficulties were reported during the 2 exercises. In theory traffic already established at an odd/eastbound flight level (FL330/370) did not require any action unless it wanted to climb a couple of thousand feet for better fuel economy (this was not simulated). During both exercises all westbound traffic and non-RVSM approved traffic were established at the correct flight level by 5 minutes past midnight. The following operational questions were raised either before or during the runs,
Can a controller allocate an aircraft an RVSM level before midnight?
Example: An aircraft climbing out of LLBG (Tel Aviv) going westbound being controlled by sector SS. Just before midnight the aircraft will climb to FL350 for example, but his requested RVSM FL just after midnight will be FL360. To save the aircraft levelling at FL350 and then a couple of minutes later being re-cleared to FL360, could a controller clear the aircraft directly to FL360?
48 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
For the simulation controllers were briefed that an RVSM FL could be allocated before midnight, provided that the aircraft was in and would remain within that sector during the period just before and at midnight, and that 1000’ separation (above FL290) was not used against another aircraft until after midnight.
Does the controller have to make a general broadcast to traffic on his frequency that RVSM operations will commence from midnight?
This comment was considered to be a sensible safeguard that could be used just in case any aircrew are unaware or have forgotten. During the simulation traffic was advised either by general broadcast or on an individual basis, to expect a FL change after midnight.
What safeguards exist to ensure correct flight planning procedures are carried out prior to RVSM?
This question was raised as a result of an error in the simulation traffic sample where a non-RVSM approved aircraft was indicated as RVSM approved in the radar label and on the flight strip, but the pilot correctly transmitted on first contact that he was non-RVSM approved.
From November 2000 operators of aircraft that are RVSM approved will be required to add the letter ‘W’ in Field 10 of their FPL (Flight Plan). Closer to RVSM implementation any operator filing a FPL which omits the letter ‘W’, but is requesting an RVSM FL will receive a warning message from the IFPS stating that from 24 January 2002 this FPL will be rejected.
During RVSM operations, if a controller has eastbound bunching at FL370, FL350, FL330 and FL310, which aircraft has priority when it comes to allocate eastbound non-RVSM levels (i.e. FL370, FL330 and FL290)?
This question is related more with eastbound transition from RVSM to non- RVSM than the changeover to RVSM. It would be impossible to state a procedure that could cover every eventuality, therefore, each controller will need to assess each situation at the time, and using his/her experience, judgement and knowledge of local procedures, resolve the situation in the most safe and efficient way possible.
The following question was asked in the post simulation questionnaire,
Q: Do you consider that the changeover to RVSM on 24 January 2002 will cause any operational difficulties?
No = 68.75% Don’t know = 12.5% Yes= 18.75%
The comments received from controllers answering yes, can be summarised as follows,
The physical changeover of flight levels from non-RVSM to RVSM should not be difficult provided that the correct pre-implementation preparation (includes- changes to Letters of Agreement, ATS systems and route network) has been carried out by the ACCs and controllers have received sufficient RVSM training.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 49 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1
The use of uni-directional routes was considered to be the most appropriate method to handle the transition within the simulated airspace.
For the Nicosia controllers scenario 4B was clearly the most suitable but would be the most difficult to implement in the short term. Scenarios 3 and 4 were both seen to be workable in ES1 sector, with 4 being the preferred choice as it reduced the problem of traffic passing at NIKAS. The new route via BENIN for Tel Aviv-LLBG arrivals was preferred to the FLAS at RASDA by both Nicosia and Athens controllers.
For the Athens FIR, the most suitable scenario was also 4B. The introduction of the new routes in the Cairo FIR remains the responsibility of the Egyptian CAA. Should the creation of the new routes not be possible in time for RVSM implementation then an alternative solution will be required. Scenario 4 was considered to be unsuitable due to the extra distance that aircraft were required to travel via KUMBI. Scenario 2 was considered to be workable by more than half of the controllers, however, the heavy flow of traffic through SIT was the factor which was considered to make transition difficult when using the current bi-directional routes.
A good working relationship was established between the EUROCONTROL member states and neighbouring ACCs. This accord will hopefully continue in the near future and facilitate any proposed changes to LoAs, which maybe required for the implementation of RVSM within the simulated airspace.
RECOMMENDATION
Short term – In view of the time constraint for RVSM implementation (24 January 2002), Nicosia and Athens should use the existing route network to create uni-directional routeings to handle the transition task required between their FIRs and adjacent non-RVSM FIRs.
Long term – In order for the Nicosia ACC to manage future traffic levels (equivalent to 30% increase on 2000 capacity) a re-organistion of the current sectorisation, route network and ATC procedures is required.
8.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2
The controllers were seen to successfully handle the transition task with a traffic increase of 20%. However, the workload figures for the 30% traffic were unacceptably high in some cases, and show that in the future, changes are required to ATC procedures, airspace design and the Nicosia ATC system in order to handle increased levels of traffic.
50 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
8.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3
Non-RVSM approved aircraft created additional workload, especially STATE flights operating within the 3 sectors handling the transition task.
The addition of the RFL on the Cyprus paper strips was required to reduce the R/T, and allow the controller to plan ahead. It also acted as a reminder of which aircraft were non-RVSM approved by showing an RFL of below FL290 when appropriate.
The proposed SSR codes used during the new RCF procedure provided useful additional information to the controller about the aircraft’s intentions. However, some confusion existed over the timings and points at which these SSR codes would be set. The controllers accepted the change to the ‘7 minute’ parameter, and experienced no problems with any of the R/T phraseology.
RECOMMENDATION
Non-RVSM approved STATE Aircraft (ES1 Sector) – due to the unique and difficult co-ordination procedures and short flying distance involved on the route UL619, STATE aircraft should be restricted below FL290 when routeing via the points NIKAS or VESAR.
Printing of RFL – In transition airspace, the RVSM/non-RVSM RFL should be included on the paper or electronic flight strip.
RCF procedure – The current 20 minute ICAO parameter is changed to 7 minutes, and the use of dedicated SSR codes to indicate pilot intentions during an RCF could be an additional benefit to a controller during an RCF.
Editorial Note: The use of dedicated codes was subsequently removed from the proposed provisions for the ICAO Doc 7030. The EUROCONTROL AMN Unit reviewed the RCF questionnaires completed by the staff participating in the simulation.
8.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4
The majority of the controllers felt positive and confident using RVSM. Although some apprehension remained about finalising ATC procedures for the non- RVSM approved traffic and transition tasks, the advantages of the 6 extra flight levels were clearly seen, giving more flexibility and capacity to ATC and better optimum level allocation to the operators.
8.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5
The changeover of flight levels from non-RVSM to RVSM planned for 24th January 2002 should not be difficult provided that the correct pre-implementation preparation has been carried out by the ACCs. It will be important that the controllers have received sufficient RVSM training and there are enough controllers available at the time of changeover to handle the forecast traffic levels.
Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 51 RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL
Intentionally left blank
52 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359 RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL
Traduction en langue française du Résumé, de l’Introduction, des Objectifs, des Conclusions et Recommandations
RESUME
La simulation temps réel RVSM6 CHYPRE (la sixième simulation RVSM continentale sponsorisée par EUROCONTROL) s’est déroulée au Centre Expérimental EUROCONTROL, Brétigny, France en septembre 2000.
La simulation a étudié l’introduction de la RVSM dans les espaces aériens de Chypre et du sud de la Grèce. Elle a impliqué aussi la participation des états voisins suivants : Egypte, Liban et Syrie.
Les contrôleurs des centres de contrôle de Nicosie et d’Athènes ont démontré, avec succès, qu’ils pouvaient absorber une augmentation de 20% du trafic tout en effectuant les tâches de transition de l’espace RVSM vers l’espace non-RVSM, et vice-versa, en utilisant une structure de routes modifiée impliquant des routes unidirectionnelles.
Les contrôleurs, positifs et confiants dans l’utilisation de la RVSM, ont poursuivi la validation des procédures ATC pour la RVSM. Des changements au niveau des systèmes et des procédures ATC actuels ont été identifiés comme nécessaires à une mise en place réussie de la RVSM.
HISTORIQUE de la RVSM
Début des années 60
L’actuelle séparation verticale minimale (VSM) de 2000 ft au-dessus du FL290 a été établie principalement à cause du manque de précision des altimètres des avions à réaction (i.e. Comet et Boeing 707). En 1966, la VSM est globalement adoptée.
Fin des années 70
L’aviation civile fait face à l’augmentation des coûts des carburants et à l’explosion de la demande. En conséquence, l’Organisation de l’Aviation Civile Internationale (OACI) initie un programme extensif d’études pour examiner la faisabilité de la réduction de la VSM (Séparation Verticale Minimale) de 2000ft à 1000ft au-dessus du niveau 290.
Fin des années 80
Des études indiquent que la RVSM entre les niveaux FL290-410 est faisable, sûre et offre un rapport coût/bénéfice avantageux sans imposer des besoins techniques massifs.
Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 53 RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL
27 mars 1997
La RVSM (entre les niveaux 290-370) devient opérationnelle sur la région NAT (Atlantique Nord).
8 octobre 1998
La RVSM est étendue aux niveaux 310 à 390 dans la région NAT. Ce même jour, le programme EUR RVSM est officiellement mis en vigueur par EUROCONTROL Brussel.
24 janvier 2002
Implémentation intégrale de la RVSM dans l’espace Européen et NAT. Des bénéfices considérables sont attendus. Cependant, à cause de la complexité du réseau de route ATS Européen et du fait que quelques 40 états participent au projet, la mise en œuvre à l’échelle européenne sera plus complexe que pour la région NAT.
CHAMPS D’ACTION DE LA SIMULATION RVSM6
Dans le cadre du programme EUR RVSM, les administrations chypriotes et grecques ont identifié que la position de leurs FIR dans le coin sud-est de l’espace aérien EUR RVSM pouvait créer des difficultés dans la prise en charge du trafic opérant entre l’espace aérien EUR RVSM et les espaces aériens voisins non-RVSM.
Une requête a été faite à EUROCONTROL pour aider à l’identification des problèmes et trouver une solution acceptable. Il a été convenu que la simulation étudierait l’ensemble de l’espace aérien de Nicosie et une partie de l’espace aérien d’Athènes. Des états voisins, non-RVSM, ont été invité à participer ou à observer la simulation.
54 Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL
OBJECTIFS DE LA SIMULATION
Objectif général
Recommander l’organisation la plus adaptée à l’introduction de la RVSM dans l’espace aérien de Nicosie et du sud d’Athènes.
Objectifs spécifiques
1. De comparer les organisation suivantes, dans l’espace aérien de Nicosie et du sud d’Athènes avec différents niveaux de trafic:
• Le réseau de route actuel sans RVSM (non-RVSM) : Organisation de référence • Le réseau de route actuel avec la RVSM • Une structure de route légèrement modifiée, avec la RVSM et l’application d’un FLAS pour effectuer la transition de l’espace non- RVSM à l’espace RVSM et vice-versa • Une structure de route révisée, RVSM, avec des routes uni- directionnelles à l’interface RVSM/non-RVSM.
avec pour objectif d’identifier l’organisation la plus adaptée pour effectuer la transition d’un environnement procédural RVSM à non-RVSM et vice-versa.
2. Examiner l’effet de l’introduction de la RVSM dans les secteurs de Nicosie et du sud d’Athènes en mesurant :
• La charge de travail secteur • Le trafic secteur
dans les organisations RVSM, et de les comparer avec le scénario de référence.
3. Examiner les aspects procéduraux suivants :
• poursuivre la validation des procédures développées par le sous-groupe Développement de Procédures ATM ou APDSG (ATM Procedures Development Sub-Group) pour d’avions non-RVSM approuvés • les communications R/T. • Tester une révision des procédures RCF (Radio Communications Failure).
4. Assurer la confiance des contrôleurs quant à la viabilité de l’introduction de la RVSM dans les FIR de Nicosie et d’Athènes.
Autres objectifs définis durant la simulation
5. Simuler le passage prévue pour le 24 janvier 2002, de non-RVSM à RVSM. Les remarques des contrôleurs ont permis d’identifier les problèmes opérationnels pouvant survenir lors de ce passage.
Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 55 RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL
ESPACE SIMULE
L’espace choisi pour la simulation couvrait l’ensemble de la FIR de Nicosie (3 secteurs contrôlés) et la partie sud-est de la FIR d’Athènes (2 secteurs contrôlés). 3 secteurs (ES1, SS et STH) des 5 secteurs avaient une interface avec des espaces non-RVSM et RVSM. Ces 3 secteurs ont été considérés comme des secteurs de transition. Les 2 autres secteurs ont eu pour rôle important d’effectuer le transfert et la réception du trafic venant des secteurs de transition.
PROCEDURES RVSM GENERALES
Une séparation de 1000ft (300m) a été appliqué, entre les niveaux de vols 290 et 410, aux avions approuvés RVSM opérant comme GAT (General Air Traffic) dans les secteurs mesurés. Les avions d’ETAT (STATE aircraft) non-RVSM approuvés opérants comme GAT dans l’espace RVSM étaient séparés de 2000ft des autres trafics IFR.
PROCEDURES de TRANSITION de/vers RVSM
Les avions approuvés RVSM et avions d’ETAT non-RVSM approuvés entrant dans un espace RVSM ont été établi aux niveaux RVSM appropriés (voir le diagramme des Transitions entre niveaux Figure 1). Les avions civils non-RVSM approuvés allant d’un espace non-RVSM vers un espace RVSM ont reçu dans un premier temps l’autorisation de continuer à leur niveau d’entrée, puis étaient descendus le plus rapidement possible vers un niveau non-RVSM approprié. Durant cette tâche de transition ces avions ont été séparés d’au moins 2000ft du reste du trafic. Les avions quittant l’espace EUR RVSM ont reçu une séparation verticale de 2000ft et ont été établi à un niveau non-RVSM approprié à leur point de sortie (Exit Point).
56 Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL
CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS
Objectif spécifique n° 1
L’utilisation de routes uni-directionnelles a été considérée comme étant la meilleure méthode pour gérer la transition dans l’espace simulé.
Pour les contrôleurs de Nicosie le scénario 4B était clairement le meilleur mais serait le plus difficile à mettre en œuvre à court terme. Les scénario 3 et 4 ont été jugés comme acceptables dans le secteur ES1, le scénario 4 étant préféré car il réduit le problème du trafic passant à NIKAS. La nouvelle route via BENIN pour les arrivées sur Tel-Aviv a été préférée au FLAS à RASDA à la fois par les contrôleurs de Nicosie et d’Athènes.
Pour la FIR d’Athènes, le scénario le plus adapté était aussi le scénario 4B. L’introduction de nouvelles routes dans la FIR du Caire reste de la responsabilité des égyptiens. Si la création de nouvelles routes se révélait impossible dans le temps impartie pour la mise en œuvre de la RVSM alors une solution alternative devrait être trouvée. Le scénario 4 a été jugé comme étant non approprié à cause de l’allongement des trajectoires des avions passant par KUMBI. Le scénario 2 a été jugé comme étant acceptable par plus de la moitié des contrôleurs. Cependant, l’important flux de trafic passant par SIT a été jugé comme rendant la transition difficile lors de l’utilisation de routes bi- directionnelles.
Une bonne relation de travail a été établie entre les états membres d’EUROCONTROL et les centres de contrôle voisins. Cette entente, qui se prolongera dans le futur, facilitera toute proposition de modification des actuelles Lettres d’Accord qui pourrait être nécessaire dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de la RVSM.
RECOMMANDATION
Court Terme – Etant donné les contraintes de temps pour la mise en œuvre de la RVSM (24 janvier 2002), nous proposons que Nicosie et Athènes utilisent le réseau de routes existant pour créer des routes uni- directionnelles pour gérer les tâches de transition nécessaires entre leurs FIR et les FIR non-RVSM voisines.
Long Terme – Pour permettre au centre de Nicosie de gérer les volumes de trafic futurs (+ de 30% par rapport au trafic 2000) une réorganisation de la sectorisation actuelle, du réseau de route et des procédures ATC est recommandée.
Objectif Spécifique n°2
Les contrôleurs ont géré avec succès les tâches de transition avec le trafic augmenté de 20%. Cependant, avec le trafic augmenté de 30%, la charge de travail est dans certains cas particulièrement élevée. Cela tend à démontrer que, dans le futur, des changements au niveau des procédures ATC, de la conception de l’espace et du système ATC de Nicosie seront nécessaires pour permettre d’absorber l’augmentation du trafic.
Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 57 RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL
Objectif Spécifique n°3
Les avions approuvés non-RVSM ont créé une charge de travail supplémentaire (En particulier, les avions d’ETAT opérant dans les 3 secteurs effectuant les tâches de transition).
L’ajout du RFL sur les strips papier de Chypre a été exigé pour réduire la charge R/T, et a permis aux contrôleurs de planifier à l’avance. Cela a aussi servi d’indicateur pour les avions non-RVSM approuvés en affichant un RFL en dessous du niveau 290 quand approprié.
Les codes SSR dédiés utilisés durant la nouvelle procédure RCF ont fourni une information utile aux contrôleurs à propos de l’intention des avions. Cependant, il y avait une certaine confusion sur le « timing » et la localisation des points où ces codes SSR devaient être appliqués.
RECOMMANDATION
Les avions d’ETAT non-RVSM approuvés (dans le secteur ES1) – dû à la difficulté et au caractère particulier des procédures de coordination et à la courte distance de vol sur la route UL619, les avions d’ETAT doivent être restreints sous le niveau FL290 quand ils sont routés par les points NIKAS ou VESAR.
Impression du RFL – Dans les espaces de transition, le RFL RVSM/non- RVSM devrait être inscrit sur le strip papier ou électronique.
Procédure RCF – L’actuel paramètre de 20 minutes défini par l’OACI est ramené à 7 minutes. L’utilisation de codes SSR dédiés, pour indiquer les intentions du pilote pendant un RCF, peuvent être une aide supplémentaire pour le contrôleur. Note éditoriale : L’utilisation de codes SSR dédiés a été par la suite retirée du document OACI Doc 7030. Les EUROCONTROL AMN unit ont passé en revue les questionnaires RCF complétés par les personnels participant à la simulation.
Objectif Spécifique n° 4
La majorité des contrôleurs a été positive et confiante dans l’utilisation de la RVSM. Bien qu’une certaine appréhension demeure, à propos de la finalisation des procédures ATC pour le trafic non-RVSM approuvé et les tâches de transition, le bénéfice des 6 niveaux de vol supplémentaires est clairement perçu : Plus de flexibilité et de capacité pour l’ATC et une meilleure optimisation de l’allocation des niveaux de vol par les opérateurs.
Objectif Spécifique n°5
Planifié pour le 24 janvier 2002, le passage des niveaux non-RVSM aux niveaux RVSM, ne devrait pas poser de difficulté à la condition qu’une préparation à cette mise en œuvre soit conduite par les centres de contrôle. Il sera primordial que les contrôleurs aient reçu une formation adéquate à la RVSM et qu’un nombre suffisant de contrôleurs soient disponibles lors de ce passage de façon à pouvoir gérer le niveau de trafic prévu.
58 Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 Annex A: AIRSPACE MAP
RVSM6 - CYPRUS
LMOS KINIK KFK FGR1 (000/unl) : 125.20 KULAR TUMER FGR2 (000/unl) : 120.60 OLIDA KERMA HOS FGR2 SE (285/unl) : 124.47 VEXOL IMR STH (065/unl) : 134.07 GERMI MES SITRU CAIRO (000/unl) : 130.90 KOR ATH KRS PIPEN REDRA LGAT SEL CY1 (000/unl) : 131.05 IKARO CLD CRD KVR SMO CY2 (000/unl) : 124.30 EGN OKESA KEA CY1 ES1 (075/unl) : 126.30 SYR MKN LARKI KUMRU DDM MKO ARR SS (075/unl) : 124.20 RIPLI LGRP KAVAK KFKSE MILAS BRONZ DAMLA WS (075/unl) : 125.50 FALCO DEP OZYAK LGRP LTAI AYT KONAK AKINA LGKO MARIS ALPAY MIL SOKNO KOPAR KOS MUT ADA ALTIN TOPUZ FGR1 MLO MLS BANRO DAL MANAV LGSR ASTIS ASIMI ROS SNI LGRP KIT PAR DERYA SOKRI RDS FR TOMBI DILMO KZO PINAR VESAR EVENO DOREN ATLAN LINRO WS SE DASNI LGSA CY1 SUD LGIR IRA LGKP FGR2 KRC HER BAN PLH ALKIS ALSUS NIKAS OTREX TELRI DAROS SIT LCA TOSKA ES1 PHA LCLK LCPH CY1 STH MAROS LOSOS ARLOS AKR LINGI FGR1 LCRA BALMA CAK KUKLA KTN SALUN ARR METRU TANSA PAXIS LLBG APLON VELOX SILKO KAVOS KAD ANTAR KUMBI OLBA LITAN SS CY2 EVORA CY2 TIROS LEDRA DAVAR RASDA LLHA KANAR GESAD KAROL MERVA HFA ATLIT SOKAL CAIRO LAKTO MEGID DEP SOLIN LLBG LABNA GITLA RIMON SIRON INTRO MILAD PASOS RASLO KATEX PURLA DEENA BGN OJAM LLBG SHIRA BRN OJAI OTIKO ARHN BLT PSD
MERSA HEAX GOR DBA AXD MENKU ARH Véro : 28.06.2000
Annex B: THE OPERATIONS ROOM
Figure 30 : The Pilots’ room
Figure 31 : Greek Controllers on the SE Sector 40 41 42 43 44
28" 28" 28" 28" 28" 28"
Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
FCA FGR1 FGR2 FCY1 FCY2 130.9 125.2 120.6 131.05 124.3
28" 28"
28" RVSM 6 28" 28" 28"
28" 28"
1 28" ASMT 28" 4 WS EXC 11 28" DEMO 125.5 PLC 28" 14 Strp.pr. Strp.pr. N I EXC 28" 5 SS C 124.2 O PLC S 28" 15 I A Strp.pr. 2 28" EXC STH 28" 6 134.07 EXC 12 28" PLC ES1 A 126.3 T PLC 28" 16 H Strp.pr. E Strp.pr. N 3 28" EXC S SE 124.47 13 28" PLC
Strp.pr. SUPERVISION
23.08.00/SLI
Figure 32 : The Operations room layout
Annex C: SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS
RVSM6 SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS
EUROCONTROL – Airspace Management and Navigation Division
Kevin HARVEY Headquarters Representative Robert SANT Headquarters Representative
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre - Bretigny
Roger LANE RTS Project Manager Steven BANCROFT Assistant Project Manager Herve Bechtel Video Production Veronique BEGAULT Map Preparation Josee BRALET Pilot Supervisor Christine CHEVALIER Simulation Technical Coordinator Robin DERANSY Data Analysis Sandrine GUIBERT Data Analysis Pierrick PASSUTO EONS Programmer Elisabeth PLACHINSKI Mission Office Marie Claude RAGOT Data Preparation Francoise ROTH Administration Peter SLINGERLAND OPS Room Supervisor
CYPRUS Savvas THEOPHANOUS Supervisor – Cyprus RVSM PM John LOUCAS Christos THOMA Panaretos GEORGHIADES Andreas PAPANICOLAOU Petros MICHAEL George SAVVIDES Nikos PAPANICOLAOU Andreas XENOPHONTOS
GREECE George GEORGAKAS Supervisor – Greek RVSM PM Angelos SOTIROPOULOS Nikos VARVERIS Ioannis PETROU Stavriani RAPTI Costas MANDRAGOS George ANTONOPOULOS
EGYPT Cairo Feed Sector Mohamed Ismail EL KADY Mahmoud FAWZY Mohamed METWALLY
LEBANON Observers Khaled CHAMIEH Daniel EL-HAIBY
SYRIA Observer Suheil IBRAHIM
Annex D: SIMULATION SCHEDULE
Date SCENARIO/ACTIVITY TRAFFIC CODE WEEK 1 MON 25 Sep INTRODUCTION TO RVSM6 AND THE EEC Training exercise TC1A Training exercise TC1P Training exercise TC1A
TUE 26 Sep Training exercise TC1A Exercise 1 TC1P Exercise 2 TC1L
WED 27 Sep Exercise 1 TC1P20 Exercise 2 TC1P Exercise 3 TC1A30 RVSM Training exercise TR2P20
THU 28 Sep Exercise 1 TC1P20 Exercise 2 TC1L Exercise 3 TC1A30
FRI 29 Sep EEC INAUGURATION Exercise 1 TR2P20 Exercise 2 TR2L Exercise 3 TR2A30
WEEK 2 MON 2 Oct Exercise 1 TC1P20 Exercise 2 Lost due to tech problem Exercise 3 Moved to 3 Oct
TUE 3 Oct Exercise 1 TC1A30 Exercise 2 TR2P20 Exercise 3 TR2L Exercise 4 TR2A30
WED 4 Oct Exercise 1 TR2P20 Exercise 2 TR2L Exercise 3 TR2A30
THU 5 Oct Exercise 1 TR3L Exercise 2 TR3A30 Exercise 3 RCF Exercise 4 TR3P20
FRI 6 Oct Exercise 1 TR4P20 Exercise 2 TR4L Exercise 3 TR4A30 WEEK 3 MON 9 Oct Exercise 1 TR3L Exercise 2 TR3P20 Exercise 3 RCF Exercise 4 TR3A30
TUE 10 Oct Exercise 1 TR4L Exercise 2 TR4P20 Exercise 3 RCF Exercise 4 TR4LB
WED 11 Oct Exercise 1 TR3P20 Exercise 2 TR4L Exercise 3 CTOR Exercise 4 TR4LB
THU 12 Oct Exercise 1 TR4LB Exercise 2 TR4P20 Exercise 3 CTOR Exercise 4 TR4A30
FRI 13 Oct Presentation of Initial Results
Traffic sample data decode
T = Traffic C= Non-RVSM 1-4 Indicates Scenario A = AM, Morning Sample L = Lunch time Sample LB = Lunch time Sample adjusted to scenario 4B. P = Pm, Afternoon Sample 20 = 20 % increase on current capacity 30 = 30% increase on current capacity CTOR = Change To RVSM (30 mins) RCF = Radio Communication Failure Exercise (30 mins)