![](media/image1.png){width="1.25in" height="1.75in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.2548611111111112in"
height="1.7395833333333333in"}

Mr. Enzo Maria Feliziani

Pilot

ENAV S.p.A Flight Inspection Dept.

Hangar 127 Ciampino Airport

00040 Roma

ITALY mail: <e.feliziani@tin.it>

Mr. Fabrizio Boris Maracich

> Pilot

ENAV S.p.A Flight Inspection Dept.

Hangar 127 Ciampino Airport

00040 Roma

ITALY

mail: <f.marak@infinito.it>

**ADVANTAGES IN EMPLOYING AN OPERATIONAL COORDINATOR**

####### DURING FLIGHT INSPECTION ACTIVITIES {#during-flight-inspection-activities .unnumbered}

**June 2002**

##### ABSTRACT {#abstract .unnumbered}

The Paper presents the results of a study conducted by ENAV Radiomisure,
in 2001, on the advantages resulting from a tighter collaboration
between the Air Traffic Controller unit and the Flight Inspection Crew.
This collaboration is obtained experimenting a new figure, called
Operational Coordinator, working side by side with air traffic
controllers during flight inspection.

With the introduction of the Operational Coordinator the following
advantages have been reached:

1.  A better use of the communication frequency;

2.  A comfortable Air Traffic Controller because of the support of an
    expert at his\\her side;

3.  Reduced delays for commercial flights;

4.  Greater economy for the Flight Inspection Dept.

The paper will provide an overview of the methodology used and the
results of the experimentation.

**[PURPOSE]{.underline}**

To make more efficient the FI activity in the most congested traffic
environment.

#####  {#section .unnumbered}

#####  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

##### BACKGROUND {#background .unnumbered}

It is easy to understand the difficulties of performing FI flights in a
very busy environment.

These are the four main problems encountered during day by day
operations:

1.  Delay -- commercial traffic;

2.  Delay - FI activity;

3.  Air Traffic Controllers providing unnecessary separations between FI
    aircraft and rest of traffic since FI flight profile are not well
    known;

4.  Tendency of Air Traffic Controllers to consider the FI activity as
    "low priority", thus putting the FI aircraft in a sort of "last of
    the line" condition.

As an example, to explain in real world terms the challenge of FI
activity in busy areas, we can look at Milan Malpensa airport ILS RWY
17L.

The geographical location of the airport, close to the Alps, (the
tallest mountains in Europe) is itself a problem, with SIDs and STARs
complicated by other nearby airports: Turin Caselle, Milan Linate,
Bergamo, all of them busy international airports. The commissioning of
ILS RWY 17L was a serious threat to the delicate ATC mechanism, with
severe delays forecasted for commercial traffic.

Flow control was issued to permit FI to take place and the landing rate
was reduced from 30/37 movements/hour (duty RWYs 35R & 35L) to 6/8
movements/hour (RWY 17L -- VOR DME approaches).

Malpensa is one of the European hubs and such delays can have a severe
impact on the whole European ATC system. In our previous experiences as
radar ATCOs we realized the difficulties in managing FI activities in
the most congested traffic areas, but we realized also that to avoid
further complications (every minute of delay assigned to FI aircraft is
a one more minute to manage with traffic restrictions) we need to permit
FI to take place and to be completed in the shortest time possible.

Nowadays, as FI pilots, we have the whole picture. We are better able to
understand the problem from the flight crew's point of view. Combining
this knowledge with our previous experience as air traffic controllers
we decided, in collaboration with our staff, to find a solution in order
to improve the coordination between the air traffic controller and the
flight crew during the FI activity.

#####  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

#####  SUBJECT {#subject .unnumbered}

ENAV S.p.A. FI Dept. during the last year has experimented a new
professional figure, "The Operational Coordinator."

The Operational Coordinator is an expert in the FI sector; possibly a FI
pilot and even better one with experience as air traffic controller
(radar rating clearly an advantage).

The tasks of the Operational Coordinator include:

1.  To Coordinate all relative ATS Units. First step is to get in touch
    with the Unit Supervisor and to explain in general the FI activity.
    A subsequent meeting with FMU supervisor and ARR/DEP supervisor is
    set to start looking at the details such as the needs to issue flow
    control or ARR/DEP special procedures. The two supervisors will then
    instruct their respective teams to take appropriate actions. At this
    point the ARR/DEP supervisor will introduce the OC to the duty
    Controller (FI aircraft ready for departure). A workstation is
    provided for the OC and real time coordination begins. During shift
    changes in the ATC workstations the OC is the "memory" of the
    events, thus making the job of the Controller entering service
    easier.

2.  To assist the controller on duty, giving him all information
    regarding the FI aircraft ( mainly speed vs profile and
    altitude/level vs profile data or lateral position vs profile data)
    in advance.

3.  To answer any doubts which a controller may have regarding the
    present and future flight profile of the aircraft.

**[CONCEPT VALIDATION]{.underline}**

In order to test the validity of the assumption that "the Operational
Coordinator improves the overall efficiency of FI", ENAV S.p.A. issued
duty orders to employ the OC during the regular FI checks on very busy
airports such as Roma Fiumicino, Milano Malpensa, Milano Linate and
Palermo.

**[METHODOLOGY]{.underline}**

To understand the methodology and the advantages better; we will show
one of the test flights in detail: the annual ILS Rwy 34C check at LIRF
(Roma Fiumicino).

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="3.0618055555555554in"
height="4.361805555555556in"}

The test flight was held 28th of march 2001.

Scheduled operations were as follows:

[12:00]{.underline} Crew briefing -- Pilots, FI system operator,
Operational Coordinator (OC)

[13:30]{.underline} The OC moves to the Area Control Center where he
briefs the DEP/ARR Coordinator and the Controller on duty, then he takes
position beside the controller on duty, with provision of every things
he needs to coordinate the activity, including the possibility of
monitoring the GAG frequency

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="3.095833333333333in"
height="3.9069444444444446in"}

[13:50]{.underline} I-AVRM takes off from Roma Ciampino airport

[14:00]{.underline} FI activity starts

[17:50]{.underline} FI activity ends

-   FI flight time: 3 hours, 50 minutes.

-   Normal flight time (that means without the OC) for such a control in
    Fiumicino would range anywhere between 5 and 6 hours (two or three
    flights).

**LIRF traffic environment:**

***Before FI:***

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="3.0965277777777778in"
height="2.8291666666666666in"}

-   *Departures RWY 25*

-   *Arrivals RWYs 16R e 16L*

-   *Normal Missed Approach Procedures*

***During FI With OC :***

In order to check the ILS of runway 34C the controllers should change
the runway in use for the landing of commercial aircraft, to avoid
possible traffic conflicts between commercial aircraft and FI inspecting
the 34C, and therefore use runway 34L.

That day, at the beginning of the flight check, the wind that was
initially coming from the sea unpredictably changed direction and began
coming from the south with a speed of approximately 18 Kts. Due to the
change in wind direction, the controllers weren't able to change the
runway for the commercial aircrafts.

Usually in this situation the flight check would have been aborted. On
this particular day, however, the inspection was made, still using RWY
16R for the commercial aircrafts landings but with special modifications
for the M.A. procedure and giving the flight inspection aircraft special
restrictions especially

regarding the goaround after the RWY overfly.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.095138888888889in" height="3.3in"}

-   *Departures RWY 25*

-   *Arrivals RWY 16R*

-   *Missed Approach Procedures amended to provide separation between FI
    aircraft and commercial traffic in case of missed approach
    (remember: FI aircraft was operating on the opposite RWY).*

This modified procedure not only allows for the making of the flight
inspection without delay but also allows for the delay of commercial
aircraft to be reduced to the minimum.

This solution wasn't really taken into consideration by ATC, because it
was not a common operating procedure, and also because ATC doesn't
usually know exactly what the capabilities of the FI aircraft are or the
crews' possibility of complying with his requests, in order to maintain
the correct separation between the FI aircraft and all other traffic.

The presence of the OC has made all of this possible giving the ATCO all
relevant information in advance and assuring him of to the aircraft and
crew capabilities in complying with his requests.

The OC also functions as a kind of 'hinge pin' in connecting and
coordinating all ATS units involved ( ACC,APP,TWR )

**[RESULTS]{.underline}**

The experimental phase lasted for three months with checks on ten
different ILS on the most busy airports and airspaces in Italy.

The presence of the OC has been instrumental in obtaining such a result
(improved relationship between FI crew and ATCO, reduction in FI flight
time) for a series of reasons. His/her presence is really useful for:

1.  Providing the Controller with all information on the current flight,
    in order to provide safe operations and expedite commercial traffic.
    This is obtained mainly with:

## Precise information on FI aircraft performances and particularly on speeds that the aircraft needs to maintain to perform the intended task;

## Precise information about flight profiles (horizontally and vertically) so the controller can forecast the position of the FI aircraft exactly at the end of the intended manoeuvre

## Precise information about flight profiles (horizontally and vertically) that the aircraft is able to perform if the need to make an emergency manoeuvre arises

2.  Drastically reducing the use of the frequency, since all
    explanations can be obtained from the OC.

3.  Reducing coordination time between sectors of the same ACC

4.  "Reassuring" the controller, thus permitting a more relaxed
    environment (lower stress level).

[Analyses of data highlighted the following points:]{.underline}

A)  Savings in ILS FI flight time 35%

In the details:

I.  ILS 1 -40%

> The ILS 1 is one of the most complex to manage from the ATCO's point
> of view. It implies many crossings of the approach path. Obviously
> changes of speed or trajectory cannot be asked to commercial flights
> during the approach to land final phase and careful evaluation of
> separations is mandatory. Sometime long communications are exchanged
> between Controllers and FI Pilots to exactly explain the nature of
> this flight profile. The OC can visually show on the radar display the
> trajectory of the FI aircraft avoiding communications congestion and
> misunderstandings. Saving precious time on the frequency is in itself
> a great advantage in busy sectors of ATC units

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="3.29375in" height="2.9659722222222222in"}

II. ILS 2 -30%

> The ILS 2 is less demanding but nevertheless difficult to explain on
> the frequency. Again the presence of the OC is important to prevent
> misuse of the frequency. Sometimes departures are unnecessarily
> delayed during ILS 2 check. The OC can explain the profile by pointing
> out that departures are not restricted by this profile during the
> inbound track, because the FI a/c will turn when it reaches the OM,
> thus maintaining the RWY free, and also that due to of the horizontal
> profile of this pattern some delay can be avoided during the run,
> because of the easier separation between the FI aircraft and the
> preceding and following aircrafts.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.091666666666667in"
height="3.009027777777778in"}

III. ILS 3 -25%

> During ILS 3 the saving in time is obtained by coordinating exactly
> the right timing and distance between the preceding aircraft for the
> approach and the FI aircraft, thus preventing delays and wasted runs
> due to interfering aircraft ( preceding or departing aircrafts too
> close especially during LLZ check).

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="3.091666666666667in"
height="2.0722222222222224in"}

B)  Reduction of delays imposed on commercial traffic 25%;

C)  Better working conditions (mainly with regard to stress level) for
    both the flight crew and the controllers on duty;

D)  Relationship between OC and ATCO on a repeated basis will make the
    culture of FI spread among the ATC units, thus facilitating
    understanding of each others needs and providing an even greater
    level of safety

**[THE OPERATIONAL COORDINATOR:]{.underline}**

**[WHO IS HE?]{.underline}**

Providing guidelines for a new professional figure in the FI world might
not seem an easy task.

Notwithstanding the premise it is quite easy to find qualified people to
perform the task. In our FI Unit we are really fortunate since many of
us are former Air Traffic controllers: 7 out of 18 pilots have had
various degrees of experience as ATCO, with ratings from TWR/APP to
RDR/AWY.

Good behavior and a certain level of "diplomatic" ability is required of
an OC, since one of the main tasks is to obtain cooperation from ATC
Units. Air Traffic Controllers' professional ability and willingness to
provide help must not be threatened. OC must remember at all times that
he is a guest of the ATC Unit responsible for the airspace in which FI
is taking place.

This situation could be natural in Italy, where the same provider is in
charge for both ATC and FI, but this might not be the case in other
countries.

What we would like to point out are some general rules, according to our
experience, to select or form a good OC.

In the following table, candidates are placed from the most desirable
(top left) to the least desirable, but sufficient (bottom right). A
different set of considerations could probably lead to different
choices, but in our environment this work out very well.

+-----------------+---------------------+------------+----------------+
| Previous        | ATCO                | ATCO       | Non ATCO       |
|                 |                     |            |                |
| experience or   | AREA or APP         | Non RDR    |                |
|                 |                     |            |                |
| current job     | RDR                 |            |                |
+-----------------+---------------------+------------+----------------+
| F.I. Pilot      | XXXXXXXX            | YYYY       | ZZZZZZZ        |
+-----------------+---------------------+------------+----------------+
| Pilot           | YYYYYYYYYYYYYY      |            |                |
|                 |                     |            |                |
| ATPL or CPL     |                     |            |                |
+-----------------+---------------------+------------+----------------+
| Pilot PPL       | ZZZZZZZ             |            |                |
|                 | ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ |            |                |
+-----------------+---------------------+------------+----------------+
| Non pilot       | ZZZZZZZZZZ          | ?????????? |                |
|                 |                     | ?????????? |                |
+-----------------+---------------------+------------+----------------+

**[TRAINING REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}**

Perfect knowledge of standard aviation phraseology is necessary. The OC
must be able to read, speak and understand English.

At this point let's consider in detail the previous table.

[XXXXXX]{.mark} condition: little self training is required, mainly to
keep up with latest changes in documents and/or local procedures or
development of new flight profiles.

Time: 2/3 working days.

OJT: No

[YYYYYY]{.mark} condition: training is required to cover all the aspects
of FI profiles; another part of the training syllabus must be devoted to
the coordination procedures in a RDR environment should the candidate be
non RDR rated.

Time: 5/10 working days

OJT: 3 FI missions

[]{.mark}

[ZZZZZZ]{.mark} condition: training is required to cover all the aspects
of FI profiles and another part of the training syllabus must be devoted
to the coordination procedures in a RDR and non RDR environment. General
ATC procedures, AIP and MET should be taken into account.

Time: 30 working days

OJT: 10 FI missions

[??????]{.mark} condition: training is required to cover all the aspects
of FI profiles and another part of the training syllabus must be devoted
to the coordination procedures in a RDR and non RDR environment. General
ATC procedures, AIP and MET should be taken into account. General
training on aviation matters should be considered (aircraft performance,
air navigation, planning, specific aviation laws and rules)

Time: 45 working days

OJT: 15 FI missions.

*"Time" means classroom time*

*OJT refers to duty performed under supervision during real FI missions*

**[CONCLUSIONS]{.underline}**

As a conclusion of this paper we would like to point out the most
important results of the ENAV S.p.A.'s experimentation.

The O.C. introduction in the F.I. operational environment has been
instrumental in the achievement of a better quality of work for both
F.I. Crews and Air Traffic Controllers.

As a result of these goals we have obtained a dramatic reduction in a
F.I. flght time (about 35%) and a considerable reduction in commercial
flight delay too (about 25%).

In our opinion the O.C. and his extensive training may seem costly and
time consuming, but compared with the potential savings over time it is
well worth the initial effort.

It is our opinion that OC should be found within the FI unit (pilots),
since training requirements are minimal.

Team composition should take advantage of the double use of the OC as
pilot when needed (on a rotational basis).

From the management point of view this will produce an increased
productivity and reduced overall costs (reduced flight time will
overcompensate the cost addition of another crew member -- the OC).
Furthermore, the saved flight hours will create a pool of hours
available to be sold to other customers.

Finally, ENAV S.p.A. is regularly using OC when needed with great
results.