RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018, Brussels

RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018, Brussels RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018, Brussels - Start

2018-12-20 3K 3 0 0

Description

CFSP’s view on the current RAD. 12th December 2018. NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view. 2. 01. Current handling of the RAD. 03. Some proposals for the. way. forward. 02. Issues with the current. ID: 744409 Download Presentation

Embed code:
Download Presentation

RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018, Brussels




Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018,..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.



Presentations text content in RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018, Brussels

Slide1

RAD evolutions workshop, 12/13 Dec 2018, Brussels

CFSP’s view on the current RAD

Slide2

12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

2

01

Current handling of the RAD

03

Some proposals for the

way

forward

02

Issues with the current

RAD

Slide3

Current handling

of

the RAD

LSY is currently still inserting the restrictions published in the RAD in a mainly manual process

Automatic insert is highly preferred and worked on but still discrepancies are regularly detected between data in RAD vs. IFPS

Discrepancies between AIPs and data in CACD revealed during SESAR 4D FPL exchange trials are discouraging

Manual adjustments required to tweak certain restrictions for better processing by the optimizer as the restrictions usually are prepared for human usage and not machines.

12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

3

Slide4

Issues with

the

current RAD12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

4

With

the amount of restrictions in

the

RAD today

it is

no longer suited for pure human usage but

it is also not

optimized for machine usage

yet.

The interaction between different restrictions published across the network are causing side-effects like yoyo-profiles, inefficient trajectories and unexpected turns.

Many restrictions aren’t actually restricting the availability of routes (not available or only available) but aim for an enforcement of specific routes or behaviors (compulsory).

The intention for Free Route was to provide operators more efficient routing options but due to the lack of a fixed route network a lot of RAD restrictions are introduced to often just enforce the previous streams.

A compulsory restriction enforcing a combination of waypoints in theory

isn’t different

than a published route but causes potentially more efforts for computation not only for the flights using this segment before but also others.

Slide5

Issues with

the

current RAD12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

5

Forcing flights through specific sectors is very problematic – for a human being a restriction like

looks easy to understand at first glance but for a system trying to fulfill the restriction it can be very hard to achieve as it has to find the “no-go areas” itself if the optimum is not via the prescribed sector. Here it looks like the “busy sectors” could be easily closed with “not available” but this might be hard for the publisher to define.

PTRs

are currently considered prior to the actual validation of the FPL which will not lead to direct REJ due to these PTRs but

they can

push the profile into other restrictions which then cause REJs

.

Slide6

Issues with

the

current RAD12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

6

Multiple or single dependent applicability restrictions are often problematic if the reference to check the dependency is unclear or unbalanced. This can lead to situations where estimations of abeam positions are required to decide if an object not directly on the trajectory is open or closed and therefore the trajectory is valid or not. This is specifically a problem if the restriction is of an enforcing nature – so either “compulsory” or “not available except”.

Such restrictions should be challenged to be broken into smaller pieces with less dependencies.

Slide7

Flight planning

challenges considering

the RAD

12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

7

With Free Route, flexible use of airspaces, full rolling ASM etc. all stakeholders expect to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible. This in turn will lead to an increase of or even to constant re-optimizations

also horizontally.

This needs to be taken into consideration for the future RAD as otherwise the discrepancy between planning and execution will just increase.

RAD restrictions are designed for the flight planning phase but planning and execution are closely connected (“file it – fly it”).

Already before the usage of airspaces got more flexible cases like re-clearance or inflight re-calculations brought up the question of how to deal with RAD restrictions for these cases:

Totally ignoring them usually results in an much better routing which wouldn’t be acceptable by ATC

Full application on the other hand often leads to ridiculous results as the restrictions don’t fit to the route in case of deviations.

Therefore today most re-optimizations are intentionally limited to vertical options.

Slide8

Some proposals for the way forward

12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

8

We need to find a way forward that suits all sides and recognizes the fact that flight planning without computer assistance isn’t feasible anymore in a dense IFR environment like we have in Europe.

We need blueprints for restriction publication on how to address common use-cases to get rid of as many compulsory type restrictions as possible - ideally completely removing the need for this type.

ERNIP Part 1, 8.3.2 could then even be changed to only support “not available” type restrictions as any “only available” restriction can be converted into “not available”.

Slide9

Some proposals for the way forward

12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

9

RAD restrictions not to be adhered to during flight execution should be removed.

Last minute changes to the RAD via increment shall be kept to an absolute minimum only for safety related cases.

RAD data for large scale changes as well as

neighboring countries

should also be provided with double AIRAC procedure to allow extensive testing for detection of side-effects.

If PTRs are optional for the AOs to be considered they shall only be applied after validation of the trajectory.

The RAD evolution workshop should be followed up by a series of smaller workshops to develop best-practices and blue prints between RAD experts from ANSPs and algorithm specialists from CFSPs under facilitation of NM

.

Slide10

12th December 2018

NM RAD evolution workshop - CFSP's view

10

Questions

?

Thank

you

for

your

attention

Michael Krause

Product

Owner

Optimizer – Lido/FlightLufthansa Systems GmbH & Co. KG


About DocSlides
DocSlides allows users to easily upload and share presentations, PDF documents, and images.Share your documents with the world , watch,share and upload any time you want. How can you benefit from using DocSlides? DocSlides consists documents from individuals and organizations on topics ranging from technology and business to travel, health, and education. Find and search for what interests you, and learn from people and more. You can also download DocSlides to read or reference later.