Report on
7th EUROCONTROL
Innovative Research Workshop
Dr. Colin Meckiff
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brétigny sur Orge, France

Presented at

ENRI International Workshop on ATM/CNS
March 2009, Tokyo, Japan

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

Brief history of the workshop

 Held each year in December at EUROCONTROL

Experimental Centre, France Now on 7th in the series
 Started as a forum for PhD students with around 40
participants 2008 saw: 230 participants
 >40 papers
 a dozen exhibits

Highlighted papers

 This presentation introduces a handful of papers that

(arguably) represent the state of the art in their subjects1:

 Man-machine interaction, collaboration and automation
 ASAS Economics
 + environment and future communications

 There are some recurrent themes
1to be discussed ... over a cocktail!

References All full papers and presentations available on thewebsite:inoworkshop.eurocontrol.fr

 Also a couple of videos
 All slides in this presentation used with agreement

Man-machine interaction, collaboration and automation

Highlighted paper: Concept, Content, Containers andControls for 3D in 2D Planar Displays for ATC (Wong et al,Interaction Design Centre, Middlesex University) New display and interaction techniques

 Used readily available devices used to explore new possibilities Rather than using 3D for a spatial-perspective view,support perception of important invariant functional
relationships or key dimensions of cognitive work

 Example: energy management

D3.1 Review: Alternate Display
Technologies
 To consider how alternative and advance display technologies could
could
influence how the ATC task is performed under SESAR Any future display should assist controllers, pilots …
 Recognise deceptive situations and compensate for human limitations in perception,
attention and memory
 Discover conflicts and better SA

 Goggles - projected, shutters Glasses - blue/red anaglyph Lenticular,
Lenticular, autostereoscopic displays
 GazeGaze-Contingent Displays MultiMulti-touch interaction, iPhone - Mitsuibishi MERL Gestural interaction ‘Imagineer’
Imagineer’ future interface => UnUn-tethered, and unun-encumberedspatial and proprioceptive displays, interaction with chorded
gestures At the moment, this may still be too far ahead.

Wong©2005
6

3D3D-inin-2D Display Project History:
ARToolkit Prototypes

ReachReach-inin-andand-grab

Stack manager

Wong©2005
7

Operational Concepts 1:
Exploit 3D as MultiMulti-dimensional Inforather than SpatialSpatial-Perspective Views
 Often 3D used in aviation domain refers to spatial perspective
views (e.g. the use of VR)
 This is a limiting concept as we try to mimic the real world airspace and its
limitations, rather than creating powerful new affordances Instead, displays should support perception of importantinvariant functional relationships or key dimensions ofcognitive work
 Off-load intensive mental computations onto the visual representations that apilot or controller can use to plan, execute and adapt
 E.g. Energy profiles rather than a flight pathWong©2005
8

PinchPinch-andand-Pull supported byMalleable 3D Tubes, Rings for 4DET, andthe Energy Profile display

Wong©2005
9

4DT => 4DET
4D4D-Energy Trajectory (4DET) ReRe-planning:
An Example of how ControllerController-Pilot coordination might occur

Flightnavigationand control
display“Green arcs”
COCKPIT

7. Cycle may repeat as
the traffic and tacticalsituation changes
3a. Pilots adjust the 4DET
given their knowledge withthe aircraft specific info atthat time, and sends 4DET
back to ATC
1. ATC controller planschange in route by pinchand-pull of Authorised andAgreed RBT, to “see”
what it might look like, e.g.
vis-à-vis other aircraft in
the area.

1a. Pinch-and-pull allows
controller to see both new
trajectory as well as
energy profile andenergy deviations given
the track miles at the a/ccurrent location in
relation to the target
destination.

CWP

4. ATC controller receives
updated 4DT&E. Checks
and APPROVES. Sends
the approved 4DET back toaircraft as INSTRUCTED(Authorised RBT?) track tofly.

2. Once ATC controller isfirm on his plans, hesends the 4D trajectory
to the aircraft via data linkthrough SWIM network.

COCKPIT

6. Pilot now flies
the 4DT andenergy profile,using for example
the Amelink andFlach ‘tunnel in thesky + energy’ HUD

5. Pilot on receiving new
INSTRUCTED 4DET
track, will accept. On
acceptance, it
automatically updates
flight navigation systems
and FMS, and displays
the “green arcs” or the“tunnel in sky withenergy” (re: Amerlink
and Flach design)

3. Pilots receive the
4DET and study energy
profile arising from the
new trajectory - “am I
likely to come in ‘too highand too fast’? given mycurrent location and new
track miles to new target
destination.

Wong©200510

Man-machine interaction, collaboration and automation

Highlighted paper: MAMMI: Exploring Collaborative
Workspaces for Air Traffic Controllers in the Scope of
SESAR (Vales et al, Intuilab, Thales, Intactile, ENAC)

 Collaboration is a word that tends to be over-used
 MAMMI looked at both workflow and physical interaction
 Focussed on roles of multi/meta sector planner andtactical controller

 Object of the collaboration is Reference Business Trajectory Key enabler is SWIM

MAMMI Workspace
Global situation awarenessReal-time collaboration

Vertical screen
For the Dispatcher andthe Experts

Large horizontal surface
Mainly for the dispatcher

Mobile interactive surface
For experts

Mobility

Direct voice communication

Informal collaboration

12

HMI solution overview for the dispatcher

13

Example of multitouch interaction

14

MAMMI: a study in collaboration

 Collaborative workflow and interfaces need to be
designed hand-in-hand Scenarios have been developed for cabin emergencies,
weather, deviations, conflicts

 Linked into SESAR operational concepts

Autonomous Separation Assistance Systems(ASAS)

Highlighted paper: Airborne System for Self-Separation in a
Trajectory-Based Airspace (Casek et al, iFly/Honeywell) Important since it engages a major avionics manufacturer
 iFly avionics architecture integrates:
 SWIM mid-term conflict detection
 long-term zone avoidanceSituation Awareness

Areas of interest: Long Term Awareness
Zone(LTAZ) – relevant for
Trajectory Management(optimization)
 Mid Term Awareness Zone(MTAZ)– used for Separation
Management
 Air–Air Data link Range –additional state-based Conflict
Detection

A3 Airborne System Architecture Overview

Information Management
 Shields communications details
 Collect and process required data

Separation & Trajectory Management
 Situation Assessment
 Resolution Advisories

Human Machine Interface
 Situation Awareness Flight changes advisories

Autonomous Separation Assistance Systems(ASAS)
Highlighted paper: Simulated Collision Risk of an
Uncoordinated Airborne Self-Separation Concept ofOperation (Blom et al, iFly/NLR)

 Safety is a prime concern, particularly if there is no
coordination e.g. exchange of intent data.

 Priority rules do apply

 Collision risk modelled using TOPAZ methodology

Multi Agent model
Aircraft i

Aircraft j

Aircraft

Aircraft

GNC

ASAS

GNC

ASAS

PF

PNF

PF

PNF

GlobalCNS

Environment20

Two-aircraft vs. eight-aircraft
encounter.

21

Conclusions
 We identified novel behaviour, which emerges fromthe combined dynamical interactions of Joint
Cognitive Systems (or Multi Agent System), andwhich has not shown before for AMFF
 Solving conflicts one by one in free flight, falls shortin safely accommodating high en route traffic
demand.
 Follow-up work on risk assessment:– Include ACAS, etc. in simulation model– Consider other free flight/ASAS based operations– Improve modeling and novel simulation speed-up– Validation of assessed risk level

22Autonomous Separation Assistance Systems(ASAS)
Highlighted paper: A Socio-Cognitive Descriptive Modelling
Approach to Represent Authority Distribution(Straussberger et al, Eurisco, LORIA, Dassault) Who is responsible between ground and air has long
been an issue for ASAS

 The PAUSA project developed a model specifically tolook at authority sharing in ATM including human andmachine actors

Changing authority concepts

Still increased traffic© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document..

→Increased human-machine collaboration

TOMORROW•Human remains in theloop, but future
operational concepts
contain a new dimensionof « Who does what andwhen »•ATCO is no longer
single point of cognition
to ensure stability,
flexibility, andconsistency•Dynamic variations of
distributions andstructures of a given
authority
3 December 2008

Page 24

The organizational modelingService/
Customer satisfaction➯Identify goals© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document..

Group➯Identify agents➯Identify roles

Airside Agents (A380, A321,
Falcon9000)
Human
Machine• Pilot Flying (in • FMS
role of First • Navigation
Officer)
Display• Pilot
Non(+CDTI),
Flying (in role • ACAS/TCAS
of Captain)(AP- TCAS),• Flight• ECAM,
Dispatcher• RMP,• PFD,• FCU

Abbreviations
IP
IG
IA
R
M
FO
CmI
CmE
CI
CN
SO

Groundside Agents

•
•
•
•
•

Human
MachinePlanning• STCA(ShortController
Term Conflict
Alert)
Executive
Controller• ERATO
Approach• AMAN
Controller(Approach(EXE)
Manager)ApproachController (PLE)
Sequencer

Role
Information Provider
Information Gatherer
Information Analyzer
Relayer
MonitorFlying Operator
Command Initiator
Command Executer
Clearance Initiator
Clearance Negotiator
Spacing Operator

3 December 2008

Page 25

An ASAS Example
Separation today

1

S&M Target selection

3© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document..

2

1 EC(IG) uses information provided by RADAR and by conflicts detected by MTCD or STCA.
To solve conflicts, EC issues clearances to aircraft, aircraft executes clearances.
2 PNF(CN) communicates with ground and relays to PF(Cml) who transforms clearance in command by
FCU(CmE).
3 PF monitors through ND(IP) and PFD(IP).
3 December 2008

Page 26

An ASAS Example
Separation today

S&M Target selection

1
2© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document..

3
1 EC(IG) issues clearance to PNF(CN) that indicates target aircraft and confirms action on Specific
HMI(IG)
2 PF (CN) operates autopilpt to follow target and sends command to FMGS.
3 FMGS manages separation with other aircraft using the information on target’s transponder, PNF
monitors execution of maneuver.
3 December 2008

Page 27

An ASAS Example
Separation today

S&M Target selection© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document..

authority delegation function

3 December 2008

Page 28

A practical support: The PAUSA - Tool (Prototype)
Scenario Context

Goal

Internal/external Ressources

Function
Scenario Events
Role Function© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document..

Role Function

3 December 2008

Page 29

Economics
Highlighted paper: Dynamic Cost Indexing (Cook et al,
University of Westminster) Calculating delays in terms of value rather than time
(ATFM delays cost > 1.3bn Euros)

 Passenger costs of delay to the airline
 Aircraft crewing
 Aircraft maintenance Reactionary effects (‘knock-on’ network costs)
 Emissions – charging and impacts
 Crew cost example ...

Crew – marginal delay costsConsidered cross-section of AO payment schemes, pilot &cabin crew salaries (2008)



Pilots’ salaries increase by size of aircraft

Cabin crew salaries vary less– numbers driven by maximum number of seats available– used ICAO 2006 fleet data, over 4000 aircraft, unusual

configurations excluded

Annual block/flight duty hours, sectors flown and overnight
stopovers used to derive time-based rates

On-costs (e.g. pension contributions) included– since calculating cost to airline; these averaged 20-40%

Crew – marginal delay costs








Low cost scenario– for certain delays, e.g. under ‘flying/block pay’ or ‘sector
pay’ mechanisms, it is possible that no extra payment will
be made as a result of a delay (value thus set at zero)
Base cost scenario– ‘proxy’ payment rates calculated, taking into accounttypical working hours, plus constraints of 28-day andannual flight & duty hours limited by Regulation (EC) 1899
High cost scenario– overtime rates & a/c configuration for full-service carrier
In the prototype tool (TDD 8.0)
– user can mix and match, e.g. allocate low cost scenario for
at-gate phase, and base cost scenario for airborne phaseTotal, marginal crew costs by scenario
Aircraft

Low

Base

High

B737-300

0

8.1

16.9

B737-400

0

7.8

17.0

B737-500

0

7.6

16.5

B737-800

0

8.6

18.6

B757-200

0

8.6

17.2

B767-300ER

0

12.2

33.0

B747-400

0

15.9

43.0

A319

0

7.0

14.5

A320

0

7.4

15.4

A321

0

7.4

15.4

ATR42-300

0

5.4

11.0

ATR72-200

0

5.8

12.4

(Per-aircraft, per-minute costs in Euros. On-costs included. At-gate/airborne.)

Reactionary multipliersXA

causal,primary

B
CY
rotational
reactionary

non-rotational
reactionary

Emissions – charging and impacts
CO2 (please see dedicated report)•warming effect; proportional to fuel burn; altitude-independent•Kyoto Protocol (domestic aviation in national emission targets)•EU ETS: extending to aviation 2012; gate-to-gate fuel burn•legislation currently: all AOs operating to/from EU surrender permits

NOX (NO & NO2: please see dedicated report)•warming effect (O3); cooling effect (CH4)•current regulation: certif new aircraft engines; limits LTO emissions•unregulated above 3000 ft; Commission developing policy by 2009
•probably to operate parallel to inclusion aviation CO2 in EU ETS•lower cruise can increase NOx but reduce climate impact …

Default

ExternalLIS–HEL, B738 (22 minutes delay)
1000

Net benefit (€)

800
600
400
200
0
-200 0
-400

5

10
15
Recovered minutes

20with emissions costs, fuel at € 0.7 / kg
no emissions costs, fuel at € 0.7 / kg
no emissions costs, fuel at € 0.5 / kg

Economics
Highlighted paper: A Market-Based Mechanism to Assign
Priorities Amongst Flights (Ranieri et al, University of Trieste) Where resources (airspace, airports) are capacity-

constrained (planned demand > available capacity)
delay is generally imposed without regard to the natureof different flights

 SESAR requires that airspace users will be fully involvedin the process of demand and capacity balancing

 UDPP, User-Driven Prioritisation Process, works at tactical levelto manage unforeseen shortfalls

UDPP?

Market-based mechanisms

 This mechanism shows several positive features: it is distributed
 it starts from the well accepted FCFS solution
 it looks for an improved solution to the FCFS allocation
 everybody is better-off it is incentive compatible

 ... At least it’s a start!

A brief mention of environment

Mentioned in my overview: A couple of papers that describe storm tracking andforecasting techniques that appear especially interesting
for application to 4D trajectory planning Atmospherics, including a paper on computation andeffects of dust ingestion, potentially of increasing
concern due to changing desert configurations

Future communications

 A breakout workshop was held to discuss futurecommunication strategies and options

 Based on work done between Europe and the US Good convergence in some areas (airport surface) Work ongoing in other (continental datalink: L-Band non-interfering solution)
 New work on design for next generation satellite systems tomeet ATM requirements

Conclusion

 This has been a rapid and incomplete overview of the 7th
INO Workshop held last December The workshop exposed many new ideas, often

specifically targeted at new concepts such as SESAR

 Proceedings and presentations are available atinoworkshop.eurocontrol.fr