PHARE Operational Scenarios
J-P. Nicolaon,
Operational Task Force Chairman
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
1
Overview of the work on
PHARE scenarios
JULY 1990
PHARE Medium Term Scenario
(Research Programme) :
Initial operational organisation based on :
Human in the loop
4D Navigation
Automated ATC Tools
Data-Link Communication
with the aim to increase ATC productivity
2
PHARE medium term
scenario 2000-2015

Envisaged changes in en-route controllers’ working
methods
Extended planning horizon
 Multi-Sector Planning Controller
 Redistribution of workload from Tactical to Planning
Controller


Assisted runway management
Assisted Arrival and Departure sequencing management
 Computer-based merging and final approach spacing
advisories

3
Scenarios for PD/1, PD/2
and PD/3
1990
1994
PHARE
PD/1:
Enroute
Medium
Term
Scenario
1995
1997
PD/2:
Arrivals
PD/3:
Gate to
gate
4
lateral planning screen
lateral route points unchanged
vertical planning screen
predicted altitude profile
prediction uses
ground radius turns
predicted time / allt
at route points
request downlink of prediction to ATC
altitude constraint windows
guide to this prediction locally
5
Scenario for PD/1
PC Role
• Planning up to 20/25 minutes ahead of
time
• Conflict-free sector transit plan (4D and
3D)
• Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4D
aircraft
• Information and directives to his TC
• Co-ordination of entry/exit conditions
• Update ground system
6
Scenario for PD/1
TC Role
•
•
•
•
R/T
Conflict-free passage
Monitoring 4D aircraft
Data-Link trajectory negotiation with 4D
aircraft if current “contract” was to be
modified
• R/T transmissions to 3D aircraft of
instructions as proposed by the ground system
• Handling of exceptions
7
HIPS
8
Scenario for PD/1
PD/1 highlighted the need to look at task
sharing between Planning Controller and
Tactical Controller
 Results were taken into account when designing
scenarios for PD/2 and PD/3

9
PD/2 Frankfurt TMA
10
PD/2 ground tracks
Without PHARE tools
With PHARE tools
Identical traffic samples in both cases
11
Scenario for PD/2
The main PD/2 objectives became:
 to experiment / demonstrate the performance of
the Arrival Management software and the
feasibility of real flight according to automatic
trajectory uplink
 to assess the controllers behaviour and
acceptability versus automation
 to evaluate landing rate improvement
12
Scenario for PD/2
Controller’s roles changed as follows:
PC
Observer
TC
 Monitoring of 4D aircraft
 R/T transmission of Arrival Manager advisories
to 3D aircraft
 Deconflicting remaining conflicts (if existing)
13
Lessons learned from PD/2
Automated Arrival Manager interactivity
required
 The definition of STARs, Holds and Stacks
needs to be reconsidered
 Results were taken into account when designing
scenarios for PD/3

14
Scenario for PD/3
Main concept elements :
• Timely work sharing
• Complementary tasks remaining consistent and
relevant with time

Layered Planning
Multi-Sector Planner
Planning Controller
Tactical Controller
30'
10'
Assume Control
15
4D TRAJECTORY
MANAGEMENT
Sector n-1
Sector n
Sector n+1
sector contract approval = clearance
aircraft position
Sector n+2
PC modification via
trajectory negotiation
assume control
by sector n
TC trajectory modification via:
• formalize clearance
• trajectory negotiation
•or R/T communication
MSP modification via uplink
previous sector
contract approval
MF
Objectives : to differentiate clearance from planning to pilot
to update ground system (planning and negotiation authority)
16
Multi-Sector Planner (30' =>10')
(En-route)
 To
equilibrate traffic between sectors
 To
reduce local complexity
 to
optimize trajectory
17
Tactical
Load
Smoother
18
19
En-route Planning Controller
:(10' =>Assume Control)

To manage Problem Situations
to resolve 4D conflicts
 to prepare and transfer solutions for 3D aircraft to the
Tactical Controller
 To transfer problems to the Tactical Controller if he was
in a better position to resolve them

To negotiate trajectory with 4D aircraft
 To assist the Tactical Controller after assume
control

20
En-route Tactical Controller
(Assume Control => Sector Exit)
To resolve conflicts unresolved by the Planning
Controller and new conflicts
 To monitor aircraft trajectories
 To negotiate short-term trajectory modification
 To uplink formalized clearances
 To manage R/T

21
Arrival TMA Controllers

Arrival Sequence Planning Controller (ARR- SP)
Interaction with the Arrival Manager (AM)
 Conflict-free passage
 Trajectory Negotiation
 Co-ordination


Tactical Controller
R/T
 Final responsibility for real-time separation and final
runway spacing

22
Departure TMA Controllers

Departure Planning Controller (DEP-PC)
Interaction with the Departure Manager (DM)
 Initial conflict-free SIDs (before departure)
 Trajectory Negotiation / Co-ordination

 Departure Tactical
Controller (DEP-TC)
R/T
 Ultimate responsibility for real-time separation and final
runway sequencing

23
Conclusions drawn from the
scenario work.
The co-operation between the PHARE partners:
 highlighted:
divergence in approaching concept design
 necessity of compromises (Done !)

Demonstrated enrichment of ideas
 Made possible common understanding

24
Conclusions drawn from the
scenario work.

It addressed:



all phases of flight
transition for 2000-2015 period
long-term applications
was partly technology driven
 showed difficulties to balance functional requirements
for advanced tools with controller roles
 showed need for further research into progressive and
pragmatic adaptation of scenarios for short and mediumterm implementation

25
PHARE Operational Scenarios
J-P. Nicolaon,
Operational Task Force Chairman
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
next
26