spain 97 - Eurocontrol
Transcription
spain 97 - Eurocontrol
EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE SPAIN 97 REAL-TIME SIMULATION EEC Report No. 328 EEC Task: S16 EATCHIP Task: SIM-S-E1 Issued: March 1998 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: EEC Report No. 328 Security Classification: Unclassified Originator: EEC - RTO (Real-Time Simulations Operations) Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre B.P.15 F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEX FRANCE Telephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00 Sponsor: Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location: Jefe Departamento Espacio Aérea Juan Ignacio Luca de Tena, 14 28027 Madrid Tel : +34 (9)1 321 3324 TITLE: SPAIN 97 REAL-TIME SIMULATION Authors : Roger Lane Andy Harvey EATCHIP Task Specification SIM-S-E1 Date Pages Figures Tables Appendix References 03/98 x + 40 24 4 4 2 EEC Task No. S16 Task No. Sponsor - Period 1997 Distribution Statement: (a) Controlled by: Head of RTO (b) Special Limitations: None (c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO Descriptors (keywords): Air Traffic Control Centre (ACC), Route inversion, UN869 and UN871, helice, sectorisation, and Controller workload. Abstract: The SPAIN97 (S16) Real Time Simulation examined new traffic flows within Madrid and Sevilla airspace (in particular the inversion of the Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes UN869/UN871), and studied new sectorisation and co-ordination procedures for the Madrid Air traffic Control Centre (ACC) and Sevilla ACC. This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Publications Office B.P. 15 91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX France SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ SUMM ARY The SPAIN97 Simulation was requested by AENA to study the effects of inverting the routes UN869 and UN871. The Simulation was run for three weeks at the Eurocontrol Experimental Centre at Brétigny, France. Controllers from Madrid, Sevilla, Bordeaux and Barcelona were involved in the Simulation. The routes UN869 and UN871 currently span from the Canary Islands to Poland and the proposed inversion is part of the ARN plan to improve the flow of traffic in central Europe. A section of the routes crosses the Casablanca FIR, however, the simulation assumed that the inversion would not apply in Casablanca airspace. Therefore, the routes needed to crossover before the Casablanca FIR so that the traffic used the existing entry/exit points. The results of the simulation showed that the route inversion generally improved the flow of traffic in the Sevilla FIR. However, the crossover of traffic (the preferred crossover point was via ‘MGA’) did cause several problems and the introduction of an additional sector was necessary in order to handle the forecast traffic flow. In Madrid airspace the inversion caused no major problems using the sectorisation planned for 1998. A vertical sector split was tested in the Castejon sector, and the most suitable division was FL305. It is recommended that co-ordination procedures are published between the Castejon upper/lower and adjacent sectors, prior to the operational introduction of the sector split. Tests were made using SOVAR as the only exit point to the northeast into Bordeaux airspace, with the traffic levels at +30%. Despite varying the Madrid departure routes, it was agreed that integrating three busy routes into one exit point caused severe difficulties, and further studies should be carried out to resolve the problem at the Madrid /Bordeaux interface. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age v SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all the people at the EEC, AENA and CRNA Sud-Ouest who were involved with the SPAIN 97 project, for their help and professionalism during the preparation and execution of the Simulation. Several new software changes were introduced for the Simulation, and I would like to commend the work done by Jose Seixo and Anthony Inard and their respective teams, who spent many additional hours working on the system to ensure the success of the Simulation. Finally, I would like to pass on my thanks to Peter Eriksen for his assistance during the project, which included much of the initial planning, and preparation work. Roger Lane S16 Project Manager Figure 1. The S16 Simulation Operations Room P age v i EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................viii REFERENCES .............................................................................................................viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................ix EXPLANATION OF TERMS ..........................................................................................ix 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1 2. SIMULATION OBJECTIVES........................................................1 2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................1 2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................1 3. THE SPAIN 97 (S16) REAL-TIME SIMULATION ........................2 3.1 THE SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................2 3.2 SECTOR TYPES.......................................................................................................3 3.2.1 Measured Sectors ................................................................................................3 3.2.2 Feed Sectors ........................................................................................................4 3.3 ORGANISATIONS ....................................................................................................5 3.3.1 Organisation 1 ......................................................................................................5 3.3.2 Organisation 2 ......................................................................................................5 3.3.3 Organisation 3 ......................................................................................................5 3.3.4 Organisation 4 ......................................................................................................5 3.3.5 Organisation 5 ......................................................................................................6 3.3.6 Organisation 6 ......................................................................................................6 3.4 TRAFFIC SAMPLES.................................................................................................6 3.4.1 Creation of traffic samples....................................................................................6 3.4.2 Sector capacities ..................................................................................................6 3.4.3 Traffic distribution .................................................................................................7 3.5 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ..............................................................................9 3.5.1 Radar Display.......................................................................................................9 3.5.2 Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) .......................................................................10 3.6 CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIMULATOR .................................................................10 4. RESULTS ..................................................................................11 4.1 ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................11 4.1.1 Subjective Results..............................................................................................11 4.1.2 Objective Results ...............................................................................................11 4.1.3 Analysis of the loss of separation .......................................................................11 4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1........................................................................................13 4.2.1 Madrid ................................................................................................................13 4.2.2 Sevilla.................................................................................................................15 4.2.3 Conflicts and STCA ............................................................................................16 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 Page vii SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2........................................................................................17 4.3.1 Madrid ................................................................................................................17 4.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3........................................................................................20 4.4.1 Controllers choice of helice ................................................................................20 4.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4........................................................................................22 4.5.1 Madrid ................................................................................................................22 4.5.2 Sevilla.................................................................................................................24 4.5.3 Modification to the BALN/MART sector boundary ..............................................28 4.5.4 Study of vertically split sectorisation in Sevilla airspace (Organisation 6) ..........29 4.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5........................................................................................31 4.6.1 Madrid ................................................................................................................31 4.6.2 Sevilla.................................................................................................................31 5. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................32 5.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1........................................................................................32 5.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2........................................................................................32 5.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3........................................................................................32 5.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4........................................................................................33 5.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5........................................................................................33 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................34 TRADUCTION EN LANGUE FRANçAISE...................................................................35 ANNEXES ANNEX A MAPS OF SIMULATION AIRSPACE ANNEX B SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS ANNEX C EXERCISE TIMETABLE ANNEX D OPERATIONS ROOM LAYOUT REFERENCES Reference 1 AIP SPAIN Reference 2 Facility Specification S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Internal Document Authors: R. Lane, A. Harvey and J. Seixo Page viii EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACC AENA ARN ATC ATS CFL EEC FIR FL HMI ICAO ISA MS ORG R/T SID UIR Air Traffic Control Centre Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea AirNav Route Network Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Service Route Cleared Flight Level EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Flight Information Region Flight Level Human Machine Interface International Civil Aviation Organisation Instantaneous Self Assessment Microsoft Organisation Radio Telephony Standard Instrument Departure Upper Flight Information Region EXPLANATION OF TERMS Unless specific reference is made, the phrase ‘controller workload’, can refer to either the Executive controller or the Planning controller. In Madrid and Sevilla airspace there are many beacons which have the same name as the sectors in which they appear. To avoid confusion in this report, they shall be written in the following way. • ‘MAR’ - Martin VOR Beacon MART Sector- Martin Sector • ‘BLN’ - Bailen VOR Beacon BALN Sector- Bailen Sector • ‘PPN’ - Pampelona VOR Beacon PPN Sector - Pampelona Sector • ‘ZZA’ - Zaragoza VOR Beacon ZZA Sector - Zaragoza Sector • ‘VTB’ - Villatobas VOR Beacon VTB Sector - Villatobas Sector • ‘TLD’ - Toledo VOR Beacon TLD Sector - Toledo Sector In the case where the beacons are written as part of a route they shall appear in inverted commas e.g. ‘VJF-MAR-BLN’ EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age i x SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ Intentionally Left Blank P age x EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION The SPAIN 97 Simulation was requested by the Spanish Civil Aviation Authority (AENA DCCA). The simulation examined new traffic flows within Madrid and Sevilla airspace in particular the proposed inversion of the Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes UN869/UN871, foreseen for implementation in 1998 as a consequence of the AirNav Route Network (ARN) Plan. The suggested inversion of UN871 and UN869 would require the routes to cross over each other within Sevilla airspace, in order that traffic entered and exited the Madrid (LECM) FIR through the existing points, • UN871 - via ‘ADUBI’, Northbound flow • UN869 - via ‘GALTO’, Southbound flow New sectorisation and co-ordination procedures for Madrid Air traffic Control Centre (ACC) and Sevilla ACC were also studied during the course of the simulation. 2. 2.1 SIMULATION OBJECTIVES GENERAL OBJECTIVES To access the impact on controller workload within the Madrid UIR of the new traffic flows including the interface with Sevilla. 2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 1. To assess the impact, in terms of controller workload, of the inversion of routes UN869 and UN871 using the sectorisation described for Organisation 1 and 1998 traffic levels. When the routes are inverted the crossover point (helice) used will be the one selected in Objective 3. 2. To study the operational impact on the interface between the Madrid TMA and enroute sectors when the routes UN869 and UN871 are inverted, with particular reference to arriving and departing traffic to Madrid Barajas Airport. 3. To determine which, of VJF-MGA-BLN and VJF-MAR-BLN, is the more suitable crossover point (helice), based on controller feedback using Organisation 2 and 1998 traffic levels. 4. To study the operational impact of the new sectorisation in Madrid and Sevilla airspace, described in Organisation 3, using the preferred helice (from Objective 3) with 1998 and higher levels of traffic (+30%). 5. To determine which Organisation, 2 or 3, is the more suitable, with 1998 and higher levels of traffic (+30%), based on subjective feedback and measures of controller workload. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 1 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3. THE SPAIN 97 (S16) REAL-TIME SIMULATION 3.1 THE SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT The simulation area incorporated seven sectors within the Madrid Upper Flight Information Region (UIR) and three sectors within the Sevilla UIR (Figure 2 shows the airspace layout). The measured airspace spanned the length of Spain, from the French border (Bordeaux) to the Moroccan border (Casablanca). Feed sectors were created outside of the measured area, to deliver and receive traffic to/from the measured sectors and were staffed by controllers from Bordeaux, Barcelona, Madrid and Sevilla ACCs. Figure 2. SPAIN 97 Simulation - Airspace layout P age 2 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3.2 SECTOR TYPES The simulation area was divided into "Measured sectors" and "Feed sectors". 3.2.1 Measured Sectors The Measured sectors closely resembled existing Madrid and Sevilla ACC sectors. These sectors required detailed analysis, therefore recordings were made of all inputs to the system in order to obtain results such as controller workload and R/T loading (for a more detailed description of the analysis process see RESULTS Section: 4). Two controllers; Executive (EXC) Controller and Planner (PLC) controller (Figure 3 shows a typical sector) staffed each measured sector. The Operations Room layout for each organisation can be found at Annex D. Figure 3. A Measured Sevilla Sector EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 3 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3.2.2 Feed Sectors Five feed sectors were created to assure continuity of control and co-ordination to the measured positions. (Figure 4 shows the row of five feed sectors). SECTOR BARCL BORDX MATMA SEVIL MADRD AIRSPACE CONTROLLER Barcelona UIR, Zaragoza TMA and the Sevilla Barcelona (South East) UIR. (Mr C. Peregrin) Bordeaux (France UIR) Bordeaux (Mr P. De Langen) Madrid TMA Madrid (Various) Sevilla (west) UIR, central below FL135, Sevilla (Various) Casablanca UIR Madrid (west and North west) UIR. Madrid (Various) Each feed sector was staffed by one controller, whose primary task was provide a realistic interface with the measured sectors, and to carry out pilot orders such as climb, heading and frequency change using the Hybrid console (Hybrid - a combined pilot/controller position). Figure 4. The five Feed Sectors (BARCL sector in the foreground) P age 4 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3.3 ORGANISATIONS Six airspace organisations were prepared in order to meet the objectives. 3.3.1 Organisation 1 Organisation 1 simulated the airspace proposed for 1998, which is the current sectorisation and route network with the following exceptions; • The Castejon sector CJN was vertically split into two sectors, CJA - upper sector from FL305-FL460 and CJB - lower sector from Ground - FL305. • The traffic on route UN871 exited the Madrid UIR via a new point ‘LATEK’, instead of ‘SOVAR’. 3.3.2 Organisation 2 In Organisation 2 the routes UN869 and UN871 were inverted. The inversion required the traffic to crossover within the Sevilla airspace to enable the traffic to enter Casablanca airspace on the existing routes. Two different crossover scenarios were tested, and the preferred controllers’ choice determined whether Organisation 3 or 4 would be used. In Madrid airspace the route UG52 between Pampelona (PPN) and Tarbes (TBO) was bi-directional. The sectorisation in Organisation 2 was the same as in Organisation 1. 3.3.3 Organisation 3 Organisation 3 tested a new sectorisation plan within Madrid and Sevilla airspace, using the route inversion (UN869/UN871) described in Organisation 2. The Madrid sectors, PPN and ZZA were joined together, and vertically split at FL305 to become ZPA (upper) and ZPB (lower). The same was done with TLD and VTB, which became TVA (upper) and TVB (lower). The route UG52 between Tarbes (TBO) and Pampelona (PPN) was unidirectional, and traffic exiting the Madrid UIR to the North East via Pampelona was routed ‘PPN-SOVAR’ instead of via ‘PPNLURAN-TBO’. Sevilla tested the introduction of a new sector (SURR), which incorporated the crossover of the routes UN869 / UN871. The SURR sector was positioned in the south of the Sevilla UIR and reduced the length of the existing BALN and MART sectors. 3.3.4 Organisation 4 Organisation 4 was the same as Organisation 3, except for the Sevilla sectorisation. The BALN and MART sectors remained the same shape as in Organisation 2, with a new upper sector (BAMA) covering both of them from FL305 to FL460. Due to the results of Organisation 2, Organisation 4 was not used. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 5 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3.3.5 Organisation 5 Organisation 5 was a combination of Organisation 2 and 3. The Madrid sectorisation (with the exception of the ESTE vertical limit FL205) was the same as Organisation 2 with the traffic exiting the UIR to the North East, routeing PPN-SOVAR. The Sevilla sectorisation was the same as Organisation 3 (3 sectors; BALN, MART and SURR). 3.3.6 Organisation 6 Organisation 6 closely resembled ORG 5, with the exception of the BALN and MART sectors, which were joined together and vertically split at FL325. The new sectors were named MBA (FL325-FL460) and MBB (FL000-FL325). The Madrid sectors remained the same as ORG5. 3.4 TRAFFIC SAMPLES 3.4.1 Creation of traffic samples The traffic samples were created at the EEC. They were based upon traffic recordings from 31 August 1996 and the 13 and 18 October 1996 supplied by AENA in MS Excel format. Two base samples were created representing traffic flow in the morning and afternoon, each one lasted for a period of 1 hour 30 minutes, 75 minutes of which was measured for analysis. The morning and the afternoon traffic sample represented Madrid using a northerly runway configuration (RWY 36 in use for take-off at Madrid). The samples were adjusted to include conflicting traffic situations within the measured sectors, and to represent a workload equivalent to the present published sector capacity (1997) plus 10% to represent 1998 traffic, and a further increase of 30%, which represented a busy future traffic scenario. The samples for Organisation 2 and 3 were modified to include new airspace changes and there were 2 variations of each sample in order to test the different helice proposals in Sevilla airspace. The samples used in Organisation 5 and 6 included addition traffic on the route ‘BAN-LARDA’ in order to test the exit point ‘SOVAR’. These departures were later re-routed via ‘TOSMA’ or ‘DGOS’ (Domingo south). 3.4.2 Sector capacities The Sector capacity figures for 1997 were provided by AENA. The capacity figures were used as a guide to help construct the base traffic samples, however, due to sectorisation and routeing changes, the sector capacities in Organisations 2-6 varied from those in Organisation 1. The following table details sector capacity (number of aircraft per hour). P age 6 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ SECTOR ZZA PPN CJA CJB ESTE VTB TLD MART BALN SURR 1997 Declared Capacity Target 1998 Capacity (97 +10%) 36 36 36 36 40 39 36 30 30 40 40 40 40 44 43 40 33 33 1998 Traffic Sample used during the simulation 31 43 41 38 36 40 39 35 35 Target 1998+30% 30% Traffic Sample used during the simulation 52 52 52 52 57 56 52 43 43 43 52 58 46 46 56 50 58 31 49 33 The 1997 Madrid airport capacity is 50 movements per hour. (The planned (1999) Madrid airport capacity using the new parallel runway configuration will be between 70-75 movements per hour) The 1997 Malaga airport capacity is 30 movements per hour. The following table details the hourly movement rate calculated from the traffic samples used. The high number of Madrid departures compared to arrivals was due to extra traffic being added (on the request of AENA) on the departure route BANLARDA. This was done in order to study the problems associated with the departures and arrivals conflicting in the ZZA sector. Movements per hour 1998 MADRID MALAGA 30% MADRID MALAGA 3.4.3 Morning IN 20 14 23 16 OUT 45 16 62 21 Afternoon IN 24 8 30 10 OUT 42 13 58 17 Traffic distribution Figure 5 and 6 show the distribution of traffic in the 1998 and +30% (morning and afternoon) traffic samples. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 7 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ Traffic +30% am No. Flights 305 Max Present 163 Mean Present 123 Traffic 1998 am No. Flights 236 Max Present 127 Mean Present 104 Morning Traffic Samples for Organisation 2HM Figure 5. Morning Traffic distribution Traffic +30% pm No. Flights 303 Max Present 144 Mean Present 123 Traffic 1998 pm No. Flights 239 Max Present 114 Mean Present 98 Afternoon Traffic Samples for Org 2HM Figure 6. Afternoon Traffic distribution P age 8 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3.5 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES The ATC procedures used during the simulation were in accordance with current Letters of Agreement and Operational Instructions. In order to reduce co-ordination between upper and lower sectors, some new procedures were adopted during the exercises where vertically split sectors were used. 3.5.1 Radar Display It was agreed during the preparation phase to use Sony 2K Colour screens. This was a new feature to the controllers who are accustomed to a predominantly green picture. On all measured sectors the following colours were used on the radar display. Dark grey Medium grey Black White Radar Labels Yellow Radar labels Light green Orange Blue (cyan) - Concerned sector Non-concerned sectors Sector geographical limits. Traffic assigned to a sector Traffic not-assigned to a sector Route centrelines and beacons Danger/military areas Borderlines and coastlines The controllers adapted quickly to the screens and many welcomed the use of colour to highlight sector limits and assigned aircraft. (Figure 7 shows sector MBA during Organisation 6). Figure 7. Colour Radar screen (Sector MBA) EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 9 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 3.5.2 Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) was available within the radar coverage area. STCA parameters, 1. The minimum horizontal separation was 10 Nm. 2. The minimum vertical separation was 1000 ft below FL290 3. The minimum vertical separation above FL 290 was 2000 ft. In each case the look ahead time was 1 minute, and the Cleared Flight Level (CFL) was taken into account when calculating conflicts involving climbing and descending traffic. 3.6 CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIMULATOR The following considerations should be taken into account regarding the results. • The controllers may be able to handle more traffic than in reality due a combination of factors associated with the simulator e.g. reduced stress, predictable aircraft performance, co-operative pilots. • The controllers may also become familiar with the traffic samples. This ’Learning Effect’ was countered by ◊ placing controllers in different working positions ◊ varying the meteorological conditions (i.e. wind) ◊ Altering start times by up to ± 5 minutes on selected aircraft (this was done so as not to effect sector throughput). • The system provided was designed to closely resemble the functionality currently in use at the Madrid and Sevilla ACCs. Certain functionality, however, did prove to be difficult for the controllers to adapt to, in particular, ◊ the Mouse operation was sometimes slow and erratic, ◊ many controllers had difficulty with the size and rotation of the radar label ◊ the response time following an input (i.e. change of CFL) was slower than real life. P age 10 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4. 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 five Specific Objectives (see section 4.2). The Conclusions of the results appears at section 5. 4.1 ANALYSIS 4.1.1 Subjective Results The subjective results are obtained from two different sources: questionnaires and the Instantaneous Self-Assessment (ISA) method. The questionnaires were given to the controllers before, during, and after the simulation. ISA was used for each measured position during the measured exercises. Questionnaires Where appropriate questions asked on the questionnaires (indicated by a ‘ Q.’ followed by the text in bold italic letters) have been inserted, the answers to the questions appear below the question in normal text ISA ISA allows the controller to assess his or her workload during the course of a simulated exercise. The controller is provided with a prompt (a flashing light) every 2 minutes and then has 30 seconds to register their perceived workload according to the following five-point scale: 1 - Under utilised, 2 - Relaxed, 3 - Comfortable, 4 - High, 5 - Excessive. 4.1.2 Objective Results The Objective data is taken from recordings made during each exercise. These cover: • • • • • • 4.1.3 Flight profiles (position updates) STCAs and Separation Losses R/T occupancy Flight Level Occupation and RFLs Pseudo-pilot Inputs Telephone Use Analysis of the loss of separation The Aircraft Proximity Index (API) is a measure designed to describe numerically the ‘severity’ of a loss of separation. It is calculated according to the separation minima in force for the airspace in question. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 11 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ The API was calculated as follows : API = (1000 -Dv)2 * (5-Dh)2 / 2.5E5 where Dv was the vertical separation in feet and Dh the horizontal separation in nm The classification of « Very serious », « Serious », « Minor » is based on the following scale: • 0 =< API < 6.25 • 6.25 =< API < 31.36 31.36 >= API « Minor » « Serious » « Very serious » Conflict severity zones (FL < 290 or RVSM) 1200 No separation violation Vertical separation (feet) 1000 800 Minor separation violation 600 400 Serious violation 200 Very Serious violation 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Horizontal separation (nm) Figure 8. Aircraft proximity in vertical and horizontal terms P age 12 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 To assess the impact, in terms of controller workload, of the inversion of routes UN869 and UN871 using the sectorisation described for Organisation 1 and 1998 traffic levels. When the routes are inverted the helice used will be the one selected in Objective 3. The results applicable to this objective are based on the comparison between Organisations 1 and 2. Figure 9 shows the route network in Organisation 1 with the routes as they are in use today, and the routes inverted in Organisation 2. Figure 9. Routes UN869/UN871 before and after the inversion 4.2.1 Madrid In Madrid airspace the inversion of the routes UN871 and UN869 generally had little effect on controller workload. Figure 10 shows the average ISA response from both ACCs for the two Organisations. It can be seen that the responses were unaffected by the inversion. Several operational problem areas were identified, especially in Organisation 3 and 5, and these problems are detailed under Specific Objective 2. The controllers considered that the inversion did not reduce safety, and the majority felt that sector capacity either remained unchanged or increased. The mean ISA response from Madrid positions was just over two which corresponds to a ’Low to Comfortable’ perceived workload for this level of traffic. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 13 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 5 M ed ian IS A resp onse (V a lues rep resent the m ean o f 6 exerc ise s. B ars show ±2 std.) 4 3 2 1 O rg.1 O rg .2 M ad rid S evilla Figure 10. Mean ISA Response by ACC and Organisation No operational problems were encountered at the interface between Madrid ACC and Sevilla ACC. Q. Based on what you have seen here, do you prefer the routes UN869 and UN871 inverted or non-inverted? Inverted Non-inverted = 53% = 7% No preference = 40% P age 14 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.2.2 Sevilla In Sevilla airspace the inversion of routes UN871 and UN869 had two notable effects, 1. Advantage - The inversion meant that the routes in MART sector became predominantly southbound. This helped the controller by reducing the controlling tasks, and allowing the overflying traffic to be more easily integrated with the descending arrivals to Malaga Airport (LEMG) via ‘MAR’ from ‘CRISA’ and ‘LOGRO’. In the BALN sector the traffic flow became predominantly northbound, and Malaga departures via ‘BLN-MORAL/ANZAN’ could be sequenced more easily with the northbound overflights. Traffic routeing ‘LOGRO-AMR’ caused some problems as they remained opposite direction to the northerly flow. The controllers all felt that having the traffic flow in the same direction made the controlling safer. As can be seen from Figure 11 the perceived controller workload was 'High' and remained “High” with the inversion. 2. Disadvantage - The inversion required the routes to crossover so that the traffic crossed the Casablanca FIR at the existing entry/exit points. This meant that overflights passed through both the BALN and MART sectors, where previously, they would only pass through one sector or the other. This increased the number of aircraft passing through a sector, and added extra workload. Figure 11 shows the percentage of ISA results of 'High' or 'Very High' from the 2 Sevilla sectors. This percentage is very high in both sectors before the inversion and becomes even higher for BALN rising to 75%. Based on previous uses of ISA in other simulations it is apparent that this is an unacceptably high level of workload. 100 %Responses( ’High’ or ’V.High’) (Values represent the mean of 6 exercises. Bars show ±2 std.) 80 60 40 20 0 Org.1 Org.2 BALN MART Figure 11. Percentage of High Responses EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 15 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ Q. Based on what you have seen here, do you prefer the routes UN869 and UN871 inverted or non-inverted? Inverted Non-inverted No preference = 100% = 0% = 0% Q. What do you think was the impact of the inversion on the capacity of the Sevilla Centre. Increase Decrease Unchanged Don’t Know 4.2.3 = 100% (43% stated that it increased in a 3 sector configuration and decreased in the 2 sector configuration). = 0% = 0% = 0% Conflicts and STCA The table below shows the number of Very Serious / Serious conflicts and the mean number of STCAs. It can be seen that there are fewer incidents in Organisation 2 compared to Organisation 1. There is very little difference between the two options in Organisation 2, Helice Malaga (HM) and Helice Martin (HB). Separation Losses STCA P age 16 ORG1 5 ORG2HM 2 ORG2HB 0 43 31 29 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 To study the operational impact on the interface between the Madrid TMA and en-route sectors when the routes UN869 and UN871 are inverted, with particular reference to arriving and departing traffic to Madrid Barajas Airport. 4.3.1 Madrid Organisation 2 Six exercises (morning and afternoon traffic) were run using Organisation 2. No major operational problems were encountered during these exercises, and only 1 controller preferred the routes non-inverted. The controllers considered that the sector split FL305 between CJA and CJB was well positioned, with the traffic load and the controller workload being evenly distributed between the 2 sectors. Figure 12 shows the median ISA results from these two sectors along with the occupation of the R/T frequency. Both variables indicate that the sectors CJA and CJB were evenly charged to a comfortable level with 1998 traffic. 3 Median IS A R esponse 40% % O ccupation R /T 30% 2 20% 1 10% 0 C JA C JB C JA C JB Figure 12. Load on CJA/CJB with 1998 traffic levels There were no reported difficulties with the new entry point ‘LATEK’, and the 2 exit points ‘LURAN’ and ‘SOVAR’ on the Madrid /Bordeaux boundary. ORGANISATION 5 Interface with Bordeaux ACC The current Letter of Agreement between Bordeaux ACC and Madrid ACC, allows aircraft to exit via the point ‘SOVAR’ at the even levels FL280 and FL350. This is to permit traffic in the nearby Barcelona sector to exit into Bordeaux airspace at the remaining flight levels, ‘conflict free’. It was agreed with the representative from Bordeaux ACC that for the duration of the simulation, all even levels would be available to traffic exiting Madrid airspace via the point ‘SOVAR’. Traffic exiting on the same route, at the same level was subject to standard ICAO horizontal and lateral radar separation standards. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 17 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ Madrid departures via ‘SOVAR’ In Organisation 3 and 5, traffic departing from Madrid Barajas airport to the north east (‘BAN-LARDA-SOVAR’) exited Madrid airspace into Bordeaux airspace through a point ‘SOVAR’, which was also the exit point for overflying traffic on two other routes (‘DGO-PPN-SOVAR’ and ‘ZZA-SURCO-SOVAR’). The controllers had difficulty climbing the departing traffic to the requested flight level because of the volume of overflying traffic, converging towards SOVAR, already occupying the ‘even’ cruising levels. At the same time the controllers had to sequence the overflying traffic prior to transfer to Bordeaux ACC. The Standard Instrument Departure (SID) route from Madrid Barajas, was varied to study whether this had a major impact on controller workload. Two new departure routes were tested, one via ‘TOSMA’ and the other via ‘DGOS’ (Domingo south). All three SIDs tested passed through the ZZA sector, the TOSMA SID routed via the ESTE and CJB sectors and the DGOs routed via the Domingo sector and the PPN sector. In comparing the relative workload and traffic load between sectors, it must be remembered that the Domingo sector was not measured and only formed part of the Madrid feed sector. Figure 13 shows the ISA results from the 5 sectors most concerned by the change in SID. There appears to be an increase in perceived workload for ZZA and CJA sectors when the departures are routed via LARDA. However there is no clear distinction between Org 5T and Org.5D except in PPN sector where there is a slight reduction in perceived workload in Org.5D. The reduction in ZZA sector is also seen for the R/T occupation percentage (Figure 14). Again there is no clear distinction between Org.5T and Org.5D, both are successful in reducing a very high R/T workload in PPN and ZZA sectors to a more manageable level. However, the controllers considered that changing the SID could not solve the problem, as this still resulted in integrating 3 routes into one exit point. With high levels of traffic as seen in the 30% traffic samples, it was felt that the only practicable solution would be to use more than one exit point. 70 %Responses( ’High’ or ’V.High’) (Values represent the mean of 8 exercises. Bars show ±2 std.) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CJA ORG CJB 5 ESTE 5D PPN ZZA 5T Figure 13. Comparison of ISA for Org 5 P age 18 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 60 R /T p e r c e n ta g e o c c u p a tio n (V a lu e s re p re s e n t th e m e a n o f 8 e x e rc is e s . B a r s s h o w ± 2 s td .) 50 40 30 20 CJA C JB ORG 5 ESTE PPN 5D 5T ZZA Figure 14. Comparison of Org 5’s: R/T occupation ESTE Sector - Vertical limit FL245 or FL205? A request was made by Madrid ACC to study the effect on the ESTE sector when the vertical sector limit was reduced from FL245 to FL205. This experiment was done during Organisation 5 and a total of 7 exercises (5-LARDA SID, 1-TOSMA SID and 1-DGOS SID) were completed using morning and afternoon traffic samples. The result was that the controllers preferred the split at FL245 instead of FL205. The main reason for this was that when the split was at FL205 the Madrid arrivals remained under the control of sector CJB longer, adding extra workload to the CJB sector, and as a consequence the traffic spent less time in the ESTE sector. The ESTE executive controller is responsible for sequencing Madrid arrivals and separating departures from arrivals. The controllers considered this was best achieved with the higher sector limit (FL245), as the aircraft were under the ESTE sector control longer and the four extra flight levels gave greater flexibility for separating the arrivals from the departures. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 19 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 To determine which, of ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’ and ‘VJF-MAR-BLN’, is the more suitable crossover point (helice), based on controller feedback using Organisation 2 and 1998 traffic level. (Madrid ACC were consulted regarding the choice of helice, and it was decided that the choice of helice had little/no direct impact on the Madrid sectors, therefore, the results were based on the opinions and comments of the Sevilla controllers only). The point where the routes UN869 and UN871 crossed over in Sevilla airspace was referred to as an helice (see Figure 15), and 2 different possibilities were studied during the simulation; • the ‘MGA’ helice, whose crossover occurred at the point ‘HELIX’ (junction of ‘VJF-MGA’ and ‘MAR-PIMOS’) • the ‘MAR’ helice, whose crossover occurred at the point ‘MAR’ (junction of ‘VJFBLN’ and ‘LOGRO -PIMOS’) 4.4.1 Controllers choice of helice Six exercises were completed in order to study the crossover problem, three using the ‘MGA’ helice and three using ‘MAR’ helice. The traffic samples used were 1998, morning and afternoon scenarios, and were played in the following order MAR, MAR, MGA, MGA, MGA (30% traffic) MAR. The controllers were asked to choose, based on professional opinion, the most suitable helice (with the option to view six more exercises if they were unable to decide). Q. How usable did you find the helice via ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’? Optimal Acceptable Difficult Impossible - 29% - 57% - 14% -0 Q. How usable did you find the helice via ‘VJF-MAR-BLN’? Optimal Acceptable Difficult Impossible -0 -0 - 100% -0 Q. Which helice do you recommend? Use VJF-MGA-BLN Use VJF-MAR-BLN Use neither of them Use either of them P age 20 - 100% -0 -0 -0 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ Figure 15. Sevilla airspace before and after the inversion The controllers preferred the route via ‘MGA’, because the northbound traffic was routed to the south-east of ‘MAR’ and entered the BALN sector just before ‘MGA’. This meant that the northerly flow of traffic, was kept away from the busy southerly flow of traffic (many of which are Malaga arrivals being descended and sequenced) converging to ‘MAR’ from ‘LOGRO’ and ‘CRISA’. The northbound traffic entered the BALN sector just before ‘MGA’ and this allowed the BALN controller sufficient time to position and sequence traffic against Malaga departures to the north. The disadvantage of the route via ‘MAR’ was that, the northbound overflights (controlled by MART sector) converged towards ‘BLN’ with the Malaga departures (controlled by the BALN sector). This often resulted in the BALN sector having to coordinate with the MART sector. When the traffic was transferred to the BALN sector, it was very close to ‘BLN’ and would only remain in the sector for about 11 minutes before being transferred to Madrid ACC. As a consequence of the route ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’ being the preferred choice by the Sevilla controllers, Organisation 4 (which had been foreseen in the event that the elected crossover point had been via ‘MAR’), was not simulated. All the Sevilla controllers agreed that the route ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’, with the crossover of the routes UN869 and UN871 at the point “HELIX” was the most suitable. The controllers also identified the need to introduce a new sector, in order to reduce the controller workload and traffic load on the BALN and MART sectors (see 4.5.2 ). EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 21 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 To study the operational impact of the new sectorisation in Madrid and Sevilla airspace, described in Organisation 3, using the preferred helice (from Objective 3) with 1998 and higher levels of traffic (+30%). The aim of this objective was to determine which was the most appropriate sectorisation for the Madrid ACC and to see how the Sevilla ACC was affected by the inclusion of the SURR sector. 4.5.1 Madrid Objective 3 was achieved by using only 1998, morning and afternoon traffic samples. Six exercises were completed. Three exercises with the sectors split at FL305 and 3 exercises with the sectors split at FL325. The Madrid controllers preferred the split between the sectors CJA/B at FL305, as the lower sector was very busy co-ordinating with the ESTE sector, and handling Madrid arriving and departing traffic. The split at FL325 was favoured on sectors ZPA/B and TVA/B, as the majority of traffic was overflying and having FL310 in the lower sector helped to reduce the controller workload particularly for ZPA (Figure 16). It can be seen in Figure 17 that FL310 was used for more flights when it was controlled by the lower sector. A similar result was found in ZPA/ZPB. However, many controllers preferred the sectorisation used in Organisation 2, because the routes generally flowed in only one direction i.e. VTB sector-northerly flow, TLD sector-southerly flow. 4 M e d ia n IS A R e s u lt (V a lu e s re p re s e n t th e m e a n o f 8 e x e rc is e s . B a rs s h o w ± 2 s td .) 3 2 1 SECTOR O rg .3 TVA TVB O rg .3 B ZPA ZPB Figure 16. Mean ISA for Org.3 and 3B P age 22 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ FL 410 390 370 350 330 310 290 280 270 220 O R G =3 FL305 TVA TVB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 FL 410 390 370 350 330 310 290 280 270 220 170 10 11 12 13 O RG =3B FL325 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Figure 17. Flight Level Occupation in Org 3 during the measured period The option of having sectors split at different levels was discussed and rejected, and as a consequence, it was agreed to create a new sectorisation plan (Organisation 5). The new Organisation 5 retained the Madrid sectorisation used in Organisation 2 but incorporated the new route ‘PPN-SOVAR’. ‘SOVAR’ became the only north east exit point from Madrid UIR to Bordeaux ACC, and it was agreed with the Bordeaux representative that all even flight levels would be available for traffic exiting via ‘SOVAR’. Sevilla ACC used the sectorisation described in Organisation 3 with the SURR sector. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 23 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.5.2 Sevilla There were no differences between Organisation 3 and 5 in Sevilla Airspace. Organisation 3 was studied following the choice made by the Sevilla controllers in Organisation 2, to use the helice via ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’. A new sector (SURR) was introduced in the south of Sevilla airspace with the intention of, • Positioning the crossover of the routes UN871 and UN869 in the new sector, so that overflying traffic would only need to enter, either MART (southbound) or BALN (northbound), instead of both MART and BALN, thus reducing the movements within each sector. • Reducing the length of the MART and BALN sectors • Assuming the responsibility for co-ordinating traffic to and from the Casablanca FIR. Results • All the Sevilla controllers were in favour of the SURR sector, and considered that it was correctly positioned (Figure 18). This meant that the size of the BALN and MART sectors was reduced, which decreased the flight time within the sectors. Example - The approximate flight time for an MD80 at FL330 in the SURR sector was, southbound-9 mins, northbound-14 mins, this time would previously have been spent in the BALN and MART sectors. Figure 18. The SURR Sector (Organisation 3) P age 24 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ • It was immediately evident that the workload on all three Sevilla sectors was at a more comfortable level compared with the same traffic with only two sectors (see Figure 19). ◊ With the 1998 traffic there was a fairly even distribution of controller workload among the 3 sectors, SURR and MART sectors were about the same and BALN sector was the slightly busier. ◊ With the 30% traffic, BALN sector at times was overloaded, and it was suggested, that in order to handle this amount of traffic or more, the sector would need to be split into an upper/lower configuration. This is seen even more clearly in Figure 20. 4 M e d ia n I S A R e s p o n s e 3 2 1 0 B A LN M A R T O rg 2 /1 9 9 8 B A LN M A R T S U R R O rg 3 /1 9 9 8 B A LN M A R T S U R R O rg 5 /+ 3 0 % Figure 19. Sevilla ISA • There were no problems encountered at the interface between Sevilla ACC and Madrid ACC. • The SURR sector successfully managed the traffic crossover at ‘HELIX’, which resolved the problem of traffic being counted in both the BALN and MART sectors (see Figure 21). Without the SURR sector, the controllers considered that the inversion would cause reduced capacity and delays in the MART and BALN sectors. • The SURR sector had the responsibility for making co-ordination calls to Casablanca for southbound traffic via ‘GALTO’ and receiving co-ordination calls from Casablanca for northbound traffic via ‘ADUBI’. This reduced the controller workload on the MART sector as can be seen from Figures 19, 20, 21 and 22. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 25 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 70 % R e s p o n s e s ( ’ H i g h ’ o r ’V . H i g h ’ ) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 B A LN M A R T B A LN O rg 2 /1 9 9 8 M A R T S U R R O rg 3 /1 9 9 8 B A LN M A R T S U R R O rg 5 /+ 3 0 % Figure 20. ISA percent of 4 or 5, Sevilla sectors 60 N u m b e r o f A irc ra ft E n te rin g th e S e c to r in 1 h o u r 50 40 30 20 10 0 BALN M ART O rg 2 /1 9 9 8 BALN SURR MART O rg 3 /1 9 9 8 BALN SURR MART O rg 5 /+ 3 0 % Figure 21. Sevilla traffic throughput P age 26 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ Telephone Communication Duration (min.) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BALN MART Org2/1998 BALN MART SURR Org3/1998 BALN SURR MART Org5/+30% Figure 22. Telephone Use in Sevilla sectors • No East-West routes directly passed through the crossover point ‘HELIX’, which made the controlling task easier. • It was suggested that the route ‘SVL-MAR-MGA’ within the UIR could be delegated to the SURR sector, in order to, reduce co-ordination and frequency changes between the MART and BALN sectors. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 27 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.5.3 Modification to the BALN/MART sector boundary In Organisation 5, following a request from the Sevilla controllers, the sector boundary between MART and BALN sectors was modified (see Figure 23). All of the Sevilla controllers felt that this small modification was necessary, as it provided more airspace to the BALN sector, allowing traffic to route either ‘MGA’ direct ‘VTB’ or to be routed from a point about 10nm before ‘MGA ‘direct to ‘MORAL’, and remain within the BALN sector. The main advantages of the direct routes are; • That overflying aircraft, are routed parallel or diverging (instead of being directly above on the same route) to Malaga departures to ‘ANZAN’ via ‘BLN’, which makes the sequencing and separating easier for the controller, thus reducing controller workload. • Traffic remains within the BALN sector limits and does not require to be coordinated with the adjacent MART sector, again reducing the controller/planner workload. Figure 23. BALN/MART Sector boundary modification P age 28 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.5.4 Study of vertically split sectorisation in Sevilla airspace (Organisation 6) Organisation 6 - Sevilla ACC was interested to see the results of a sectorisation plan, which involved joining the BALN and MART sectors together, and vertically splitting them at FL325 into an upper (MBA) and lower (MBB) sector. This would mean that the lower sector MBB would handle all the departures from Malaga up to FL310 as well as the Malaga arrivals below FL310. The Upper sector would be predominantly responsible for ‘overflight’ traffic. The SURR sector limits and Madrid sectors remained unchanged from Organisation 5. There were no new procedures agreed for Organisation 6. Three exercises were run using 30% traffic levels (2-morning and 1-afternoon traffic sample). Results • The Sevilla controllers all agreed that the co-ordination between sectors MBA/B increased considerably, as it was necessary for MBB to co-ordinate the climb above FL310 for Malaga departures with MBA and vice-versa for Malaga arrivals at FL330 or above needing descent. These co-ordinations were generally made between the planning controllers. Figure 24 shows that the mean telephone usage for all the Sevilla sectors in Org.6 was greater than in Org.5. 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 N u m b e r o f M in u te s of T elep h on e U se BALN SURR MBA SURR MART MBB O rg .5 O rg .6 Figure 24. Sevilla telephone use in Org 5 and Org 6 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 29 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ • Many of the controllers found it necessary to work with the OJEO (show all aircraft labels) button selected, despite the fact that, if an aircraft was profiled to go through both sectors it was displayed in the next sector, before entering that sector. The use of the OJEO button increases the controller’s workload as they are presented with a very cluttered radar display, which makes identifying particular aircraft more difficult. • The majority of controllers felt that the geographical limits were not a problem, however, all the controllers expressed dissatisfaction with having to work with vertically split sectorisation. P age 30 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 4.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 To determine which Organisation, 2 or 3, is the more suitable, with 1998 and higher levels of traffic (+30%), based on subjective feedback and measures of controller workload. In Organisation 3, two different levels were tested for the division between the upper and lower sectors in CJA/B, TVA/B and ZPA/B. As no common level could be agreed, Organisation 5 was created (see Para 4.5.1), using the sectorisation in Organisation 2 for Madrid, and the sectorisation in Organisation 3 for Sevilla. The traffic, which previously exited Madrid airspace via PPN-LURAN was, routed PPN-SOVAR (as previously planned in Organisation 3). 4.6.1 Madrid There was no clear preference for sectorisation between Organisation 2, 3 or 5. Following the completion of Organisation 1 and 2, only 1 of the Madrid controllers preferred the routes non-inverted, the remainder preferred either the inversion or had no preference. Several different sectorisation plans and Madrid SIDs were then tested in Organisations 3 and 5, which lead to a variety of individual preferences. The controllers had different opinions on the most suitable SID from Madrid airport to the exit point SOVAR, however, all the controllers agreed that in real life, using ‘SOVAR’ as the exit point for 3 routes would be dangerous for converging overflights and unexpeditious for climbing traffic. It was agreed that the most suitable split between the Castejon upper and lower sectors (CJA/B) was FL305, and the division between ESTE and CJB was best placed at FL245. 4.6.2 Sevilla Organisations 3 and 5 were preferred to Organisation 2. In the 2 sector configuration, the BALN and MART sectors were very busy with 1998 traffic and overloaded with the 30% traffic. The SURR sector helped to reduce the controller workload and traffic load on the MART and BALN sectors. All three sectors were able to handle the 1998 traffic, however, with the 30% traffic the SURR and MART sectors were busy and the BALN sector was frequently overloaded. All the Sevilla controllers found that the route inversion improved the flow of traffic in Sevilla airspace, specifically, it alleviated the problem of Malaga arrivals and departures being opposite direction to overflying traffic. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 31 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 5. 5.1 CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1. To assess the impact, in terms of controller workload, of the inversion of routes UN869 and UN871 using the sectorisation described for Organisation 1 and 1998 traffic levels. When the routes are inverted the helice used will be the one selected in Objective 3. There was no significant difference in controller workload when the routes UN869 and UN871 were inverted. The Madrid controllers encountered no major problems. The Sevilla controllers felt that having the Malaga arriving and departing traffic flying in the same direction as the majority of overflying traffic was a big improvement. However, to enable traffic to enter/exit Moroccan airspace at the existing points, the routes were required to crossover. This meant that overflying traffic entered both the Sevilla sectors instead of only one, therefore, increasing the workload and number of aircraft passing through each sector. 5.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2. To study the operational impact on the interface between the Madrid TMA and en-route sectors when the routes UN869 and UN871 are inverted, with particular reference to arriving and departing traffic to Madrid Barajas Airport. In Organisation 2 no major operational problems were encountered with the route inversion. In Organisation 3 and 5, traffic departing from Madrid Barajas airport to the northeast exited through a point called SOVAR, which was also the exit point for overflying traffic on two other routes. The controllers had difficulty climbing the departing traffic to the requested flight level at the same time that they were sequencing the overflying traffic. The problem of integrating 3 routes into one exit point was constant despite varying the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) route, and the controllers felt that the only practicable solution would be to use more than one exit point. With reference to arriving and departing traffic the division of three of the Madrid sectors (ESTE, CJA/B) was studied. The controllers preferred using the split of FL305 instead of FL325 between sectors CJA/B, and the top level of the ESTE sector was preferred at FL245 instead of FL205. 5.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3. To determine which, of ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’ and ‘VJF-MAR-BLN’, is the more suitable crossover point (helice), based on controller feedback using Organisation 2 and 1998 traffic levels. All the Sevilla controllers agreed that the ’VJF-MGA-BLN’ route with the crossover of the routes UN869 and UN871 at ‘HELIX’ was the most suitable. This option was preferred to the ‘MAR’ option because the northbound traffic flow was separated earlier from the southbound flow, and at the same time it was easier integrating the Malaga departures with the northbound flow. The controllers also identified the need to introduce a new sector, in order to reduce the controller workload and traffic load on the BALN and MART sectors caused by the crossover of the inverted routes. P age 32 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 5.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4. To study the operational impact of the new sectorisation in Madrid and Sevilla airspace, described in Organisation 3, using the preferred helice (from Objective 3) with 1998 and higher levels of traffic (+30%). Organisation 3 was tested using 1998 traffic only. Sectors CJA/B favoured the split at FL305 as the lower sector was very busy with Madrid arriving/departing traffic and co-ordination with the ESTE sector. Sectors ZPA/B and TVA/B favoured the FL325 split as the majority of traffic was overflying and having FL310 in the lower sector helped to reduce the workload, however, many controllers preferred the Organisation 2 sectorisation as the routes generally flowed in only one direction instead of two. The option of having sectors split at different levels was discussed and rejected, and as a consequence, it was agreed to create Organisation 5. This new sectorisation plan retained the Madrid sectorisation used in Organisation 2 but incorporated the new route PPN-SOVAR. ‘SOVAR’ became the only north east exit point to Bordeaux ACC, and all even flight levels were available for exiting traffic. Sevilla ACC used the sectorisation described in Organisation 3 with the SURR sector. The positioning of the SURR sector in Sevilla Airspace was considered as correct as the crossover occurred within the SURR sector, which generally would handle less traffic than the MART and BALN sectors. It was immediately clear that the workload on all three Sevilla sectors was at a more comfortable level compared with the same traffic with only two sectors. 5.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5. To determine which Organisation, 2 or 3, is the more suitable, with 1998 and higher levels of traffic (+30%), based on subjective feedback and measures of controller workload. There was no clear preference for sectorisation between Organisation 2, 3 or 5. Following the completion of Organisation 1 and 2, only 7% of the Madrid controllers preferred the routes non-inverted, the remainder preferred either the inversion or had no preference. The controllers had different opinions on the most suitable SID from Madrid airport to the exit point SOVAR, however, all the controllers agreed that in real life, using ‘SOVAR’ as the exit point for 3 routes would be dangerous for converging overflights and unexpeditious for climbing traffic. It was agreed that the most suitable split between the Castejon upper and lower sectors (CJA/B) was FL305, and the division between ESTE and CJB was best placed at FL245. In Sevilla airspace Organisations 3 and 5 were preferred to Organisation 2. In the 2 sector configuration, the BALN and MART sectors were very busy with 1998 traffic and overloaded with the 30% traffic. The SURR sector helped to reduce the controller workload and traffic load on the MART and BALN sectors. All three sectors were able to handle the 1998 traffic, however, with the 30% traffic the BALN sector was frequently overloaded. All the Sevilla controllers found that the route inversion improved the flow of traffic in Sevilla airspace, specifically, it alleviated the problem of Malaga arrivals and departures being opposite direction to overflying traffic. EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 P age 33 SPAIN 97 Real-Time Simulation (852&21752/ EUROCONTROL EXPERIM ENTAL CENTRE_________________________________________________________________ 6. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made on the assumption that the proposed route inversion of UN869/UN871 is introduced within the Madrid UIR but not within the Moroccan FIR, and that future traffic levels are the same as those used during the simulation (1998 and 30%). • A new sector (SURR) should be introduced in Sevilla airspace to accommodate the crossover of the routes before entering the Casablanca FIR. • The crossover point (helice) in Sevilla airspace used for the route inversion should be ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’. • The most suitable sector split for the Castejon sector should be FL305. • Co-ordination procedures are published between the Castejon upper/lower and adjacent sectors, and that all controllers are familiar with these procedures prior to the introduction of the sector split. • With the current Madrid sectorisation, the ESTE sector upper limit remains at FL245 instead of lowering the limit to FL205. • ‘SOVAR’ should not be used as the only exit point in the Zaragoza sector for traffic from the Madrid UIR to the Bordeaux UIR. Further studies should be carried out (which include the Domingo sector) to determine the most suitable solution for integrating the Madrid Barajas arriving/departing traffic, with overflight traffic in the DGO, PPN and ZZA sectors. P age 34 EEC Task - S16 SPAIN 97 EEC Report Nº 328 ESPAGNE 97 Simulation En Temps Réel (852&21752/ CENTRE EXPERIM ENTAL EUROCONTROL ________________________________________________________________ TRADUCTION EN LANGUE FRANçAISE RESUME SIMULATION TEMPS REEL S16 ESPAGNE97 La simulation SPAIN 97 a été demandée par AENA DCCA (Spanish Civil Aviation Authority). La simulation a examiné de nouveaux flux de trafics dans l’espace aérien de Madrid et Séville et en particulier la proposition d’inversion des routes ATS (Air Traffic Service ) UN869/UN871, en prévision d’une mise en œuvre en 1998 tel que recommandé par le plan ARN (AirNav Route Network). La proposition d’inversion de UN871 et UN869 amènera les routes à se croiser dans l’espace de Séville, de façon que le trafic entre et sorte de la FIR de Madrid (LECM) par les points existants, • UN871 - via ‘ADUBI’, Northbound flow • UN869 - via ‘GALTO’, Southbound flow Une nouvelle sectorisation et de nouvelles procédures de coordination pour les centres de contrôle de la navigation aérienne (ACC) de Madrid et de Séville ont été aussi étudiées durant cette simulation. Objectifs généraux Evaluer à l’intérieur de l’UIR de Madrid l’impact des nouveaux flux de trafics sur la charge de travail (y compris l’interface avec Séville). Objectifs particuliers Les objectifs spécifiques sont détaillés dans la CONCLUSION. ENVIRONNEMENT DE LA SIMULATION L’espace simulé comprenait sept secteurs à l’intérieur de l’UIR (Upper Flight Information Region) de Madrid et 3 secteurs à l’intérieur de l’UIR de Séville. L’espace mesuré couvrait l’Espagne, de la frontière française (Bordeaux) à la frontière du Maroc (Casablanca). Des secteurs « FEED » ont été créés à l’extérieur de l’espace mesuré, pour délivrer et recevoir le trafic venant de ou allant vers les secteurs mesurés. Ces secteurs étaient gérés par des contrôleurs des centres de Bordeaux, Barcelone, Madrid et Séville. Tâche CEE – S16 SPAIN 97 Rapport CEE Nº 328 P age 35 ESPAGNE 97 Simulation En Temps Réel (852&21752/ CENTRE EXPERIM ENTAL EUROCONTROL ________________________________________________________________ ORGANISATIONS Six organisations de l’espace ont été préparées de façon à atteindre les objectifs. Organisation 1 L’Organisation 1 simulait l’espace aérien proposé pour 1998, qui est la sectorisation et le réseau de route actuel à l’exception des points suivants : • Le secteur de Castejon (CJN) était éclaté en deux secteurs, CJA – secteur supérieur du niveau 305 au niveau 460 et le secteur CJB – secteur inférieur allant du sol au niveau 305. • . Le trafic sur la route UN871 sortait de l’UIR de Madrid par le nouveau point ‘LATEK’ au lieu de ‘SOVAR’. Organisation 2 Dans l’Organisation 2, la sectorisation était la même que dans l’Organisation 1 mais les routes UN869 et UN871 étaient inversées. L’inversion a nécessité un croisement dans l’espace de Séville pour permettre au trafic d’entrer dans l’espace de Casablanca sur des routes existantes. Deux scénarios de croisement différents ont été testés, et le choix des contrôleurs a déterminé quelle Organisation 3 ou 4 serait utilisatée. Organisation 3 L’Organisation 3 a testé un nouveau projet de sectorisation de l’espace aérien de Séville et Madrid, utilisant l’inversion de route (UN869/UN871) décrite dans l’Organisation 2. Les secteurs de Madrid, PPN / ZZA et TLD / VTB étaient réunis, avec une coupure verticale au niveau 305. Le trafic sortant de l’UIR de Madrid par Pampelone dans le Nord était dirigé vers ‘PPN-SOVAR’ au lieu de ‘PPN-LURANTBO’. Séville a testé l’introduction d’un nouveau secteur ‘SURR’. Organisation 4 L’Organisation 4 était identique à l’Organisation 3, à l’exception de la sectorisation de Séville. Les secteurs BALN et MART ont conservé la même forme que dans l’Organisation 2, avec un nouveau secteur supérieur (BAMA) les recouvrant tous les deux du niveau 305 au niveau 460. A cause des résultats de l’Organisation 2, l’Organisation 4 n’a pas été jouée. Organisation 5 L’Organisation 5 était une combinaison de l’Organisation 2 et 3. La sectorisation de Madrid (à l’exception de la limite verticale de ESTE au niveau 205) était identique à l’Organisation 2 avec le trafic sortant de l’UIR par le nord-est dérigé sur PPNSOVAR. La sectorisation de Séville était la même que dans l’Organisation 3 (3 secteurs ; BALN, MART et SURR). P age 36 Tâche CEE – S16 SPAIN 97 Rapport CEE Nº 328 ESPAGNE 97 Simulation En Temps Réel (852&21752/ CENTRE EXPERIM ENTAL EUROCONTROL ________________________________________________________________ Organisation 6 L’Organisation 6 était très proche de l’Organisation 5, à l’exception des secteurs BALN et MART qui étaient réunis avec une coupure au niveau 325. Les nouveaux secteurs ont été appelés MBA (FL325-FL460) et MBB (FL000-FL325). Les secteurs de Madrid étaient identiques à ceux de l’Organisation 5. ECHANTILLONS DE TRAFIC La création des échantillons de trafic Les échantillons de trafic ont été créés au CEE. Ils étaient basés sur des enregistrements du 31 août 1996 et des 13 et 18 octobre 1996 fournis par AENA sous format Excel. Les deux trafics de base ont été créés pour représenter des flux de trafic du matin (morning) et après-midi (afternoon), chacun durant 1H30, les analyses étant faites sur une période de 75 minutes. Les échantillons étaient ajustés pour inclure des situations conflictuelles à l’intérieur des secteurs mesurés, et pour représenter des charges de travail équivalentes aux capacités secteurs déclarées en 1997 avec 10% de plus pour le trafic 1998, et une augmentation supplémentaire de 30% pour représenter un trafic futur « chargé ». PROCEDURES OPERATIONNELLES Les procédures ATC utilisées durant la simulation étaient en conformité avec les lettres d’accord (Letters of Agreement) et les instructions opérationnelles. De façon à réduire les coordinations entre les secteurs supérieurs et inférieurs, un certain nombre de nouvelles procédures ont été adoptées durant les exercices, où les coupures verticales de secteurs étaient utilisées. Radar Display Comme convenu durant la phase de préparation, des écrans Sony 2K couleurs ont été utilisés. L’utilisation de différentes couleurs sur les écrans radar étaient une fonctionnalité nouvelle pour les contrôleurs habitués à une image à prédominance verte. Les contrôleurs se sont rapidement adaptés aux écrans et beaucoup ont accueilli avec joie l’utilisation des couleurs pour mettre en relief les limites des secteurs ainsi que l’attribution des avions. Tâche CEE – S16 SPAIN 97 Rapport CEE Nº 328 P age 37 ESPAGNE 97 Simulation En Temps Réel (852&21752/ CENTRE EXPERIM ENTAL EUROCONTROL ________________________________________________________________ RESULTATS (conclusions) 1. D’évaluer l’impact, en terme de charge de travail du contrôleur, de l’inversion des routes UN869 et UN871 en utilisant la sectorisation définie pour l’Organisation 1 et des niveaux de trafics de 1998. Quand les routes sont inversées « l’hélice » utilisée sera celle sélectionnée dans l’Objectif 3. Il n’y avait aucune différence significative sur la charge de travail quand les routes UN869 et UN871 étaient inversées. Les contrôleurs de Madrid n’ont rencontré aucunes difficultés majeures. Les contrôleurs de Séville ont eu le sentiment que le fait d’avoir les arrivées et départs de Malaga naviguant dans la même direction était une grande amélioration. Cependant, pour permettre au trafic d’entrer et de sortir de l’espace aérien du Maroc par les points existants, il était nécessaire de croiser les avions. Ceci signifiait que le trafic en survol entrait dans les deux secteurs de Séville au lieu d’un seul, et donc accroissait la charge de travail et le nombre d’avions passant dans chaque secteur. 2. D’étudier l’impact opérationnel de l’impacte de l’interface entre la TMA de Madrid et les secteurs en-route quand les routes UN869 et UN871 sont inversées, avec une référence particulière pour le trafic à l’arrivée et au départ de l’aéroport de Madrid Barajas. Dans l’Organisation 2 aucun problème opérationnel majeur n’a été rencontré avec l’inversion des routes. Dans l’Organisation 3 et 5, le trafic au départ de Madrid Barajas vers le nord-est sortait par le point nommé SOVAR, point qui servait aussi de point de sortie pour les avions en survol sur deux autres routes. Le problème d’intégration de 3 routes sur un point de sortie était constant quelque soit la route SID (Standard Instrument Departure), et les contrôleurs ont eu le sentiment que l’unique solution serait d’avoir plus d’un point de sortie. Les contrôleurs ont préféré utiliser la coupure au niveau FL305 au lieu de FL325 entre les secteurs CJA/B, et le niveau supérieur du secteur ESTE a été préféré au niveau FL245 au lieu du niveau FL205. 3. De déterminer entre, ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’ et ‘VJF-MAR-BLN’, le point de croisement le plus approprié (hélice), selon l’appréciation des contrôleurs dans le cadre de l’Organisation 2 et les niveaux de trafic de 1998. Tous les contrôleurs de Séville ont trouvé que la route ‘VJF-MGA-BLN’ avec le croisement des routes UN869 et UN871 à ‘HELIX’ était la plus commode. Cette option a été préférée à l’option ‘MAR’ car le flux de trafic nord était séparé du flux sud plus tôt, de plus il était plus facile d’intégrer les départs de Malaga avec les flux de trafic nord. Les contrôleurs ont aussi identifié le besoin d’un nouveau secteur, de façon à réduire la charge de travail et le volume de trafic sur les secteurs BALN et MART provoqué par le croisement des routes inversées. 4. D’étudier l’impact opérationnel de la nouvelle sectorisation de l’espace aérien de Madrid et Séville, décrite dans l’Organisation 3, en utilisant l’hélice choisie (dans l’Objectif 3) avec des volumes de trafics de 1998 et plus (+30%). L’Organisation 3 a été testé seulement avec du trafic 1998. Les contrôleurs des secteurs CJA/B ont préféré la coupure au niveau FL305 car le secteur inférieur était très occupé par le trafic arrivées/départs de Madrid et la coordination avec le secteur P age 38 Tâche CEE – S16 SPAIN 97 Rapport CEE Nº 328 ESPAGNE 97 Simulation En Temps Réel (852&21752/ CENTRE EXPERIM ENTAL EUROCONTROL ________________________________________________________________ ESTE. Les contrôleurs des secteurs ZPA/B et TVA/B ont préféré la coupure au niveau FL325 car la majorité du trafic était en survol et le fait d’avoir le niveau FL310 dans le secteur inférieur a permis de réduire la charge de travail, cependant , beaucoup de contrôleurs ont préféré la sectorisation de l’Organisation 2 car les routes étaient généralement unidirectionnelles. L’option « coupures secteurs » à différents niveaux a été discutée et rejetée, et en conséquence, il a été décidé de créer l’Organisation 5. Cette nouvelle sectorisation a retenu la sectorisation de Madrid utilisée dans l’Organisation 2 mais en incorporant la nouvelle route PPN-SOVAR. ‘SOVAR’ est devenu le seul point de sortie nord est vers Bordeaux, et tous les niveaux de vol pair étaient disponibles pour le trafic en sortie. Le centre de Séville a utilisé la sectorisation décrite dans l’Organisation 3 avec le secteur SURR. Le positionnement du secteur SURR dans l’espace aérien de Séville était considéré comme correct, le point de croisement se trouvant dans le secteur SURR, lequel généralement gère moins de trafic que les secteurs MART et BALN. Il est apparu immédiatement que la charge de travail des trois secteurs de Séville était à un niveau plus confortable que le cas au l’on utilise seulement deux secteurs. 5. De déterminer laquelle des Organisations , 2 ou 3, est la plus adaptée, avec un volume de trafic de 1998 et plus (+30%), en fonction de l’avis subjectif des contrôleurs et de mesures de la charge de travail des contrôleurs. Il n’y avait aucune préférence particulière en ce qui concerne la sectorisation entre les Organisations 2, 3 ou 5. A la fin des Organisations 1 et 2, seulement 7% des contrôleurs de Madrid ont préféré les routes non-inversées, les autres préférant la solution d’inversion ou n’ayant pas de préférence. Les contrôleurs avaient des opinions différentes sur la SID la plus adaptée pour l’aéroport de Madrid vers le point de sortie SOVAR. Cependant, tous les contrôleurs étaient d’avis que dans la vie réelle l’utilisation de ‘SOVAR’ comme point de sortie pour les 3 routes serait dangereuse pour la convergence des avions en survol et pas efficace pour les vols en montée. Il a été décidé que le niveau de coupure le plus adapté entre le secteur supérieur et inférieur de Castejon (CJA/A) était le FL305, et la coupure entre ESTE et CJB était mieux placée au niveau FL245. Dans l’espace de Séville les Organisations 3 et 5 ont été préférées à l’Organisation 2. Dans les 2 configurations de secteur, les secteurs BALN et MART ont été très chargés avec le trafic 1998 et surchargés avec le trafic +30%. Le secteur SURR a permis de réduire la charge de travail du contrôleur et la charge de trafic sur les secteurs MART et BALN. Ces trois secteurs ont pu gérer le trafic 1998, cependant, avec le trafic +30% le secteur BALN était fréquemment surchargé. Tous les contrôleurs de Séville ont trouvé que l’inversion des routes améliorait le flux de trafic dans l’espace aérien de Séville, en particulier, elle réduit le problème des arrivées et départs sur Malaga qui vont en direction opposée au trafic en survol. Tâche CEE – S16 SPAIN 97 Rapport CEE Nº 328 P age 39 ESPAGNE 97 Simulation En Temps Réel (852&21752/ CENTRE EXPERIM ENTAL EUROCONTROL ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATIONS Les recommandations suivantes sont faites sous l’hypothèse que la proposition d’inversion de route de UN869/UN871 est introduite dans l’UIR de Madrid mais non dans la FIR du Maroc, et que les niveaux de trafic futurs soient équivalents aux capacités utilisés durant la simulation (1998 et +30%). • Un nouveau secteur (SURR) devrait être introduit dans l’espace aérien de Séville pour facilité le croisement des routes avant l’entrée dans la FIR de Casablanca. • Le point de croisement (hélice) dans l’espace de Séville utilisé pour l’inversion des routes devrait être ‘VFD-MGA-BLN’. • La niveau de coupure le plus adapté pour le secteur Castejon devrait être FL305. • Les procedures de co-ordination entre les secteurs Castejon supérieur et inférieur et les secteurs adjacents devraient etre documentees et tous les controlleurs devraient etre familiarises avec ces procédures avant l’introduction de la coupure verticale. • Avec l’actuelle sectorisation de Madrid, les limites supérieures du secteur ESTE demeurent au niveau FL245 au lieu d’être descendue au niveau FL205. • ‘SOVAR’ devrait être utilisée comme l’unique point de sortie dans le secteur Zaragoza pour le trafic de l’UIR de Madrid vers l’UIR de Bordeaux. Des études complémentaires devraient être conduites (incluant le secteur Domingo) pour déterminer la solution la plus adaptée pour intégrer le trafic au départ/arrivée sur Madrid Barajas, avec le trafic en survol dans les secteurs DGO, PPN, et ZZA. P age 40 Tâche CEE – S16 SPAIN 97 Rapport CEE Nº 328 ANNEX A MAPS OF SIMULATION AIRSPACE SPAIN 97 - ORG1/ORG2 45 08 07 06 05 04 03 NUB42 02 01 00 01 02 45 NUA23 LOTEE SAU NUL14 GASCO ATLEN NUB11 NH200 PATEL ENSAC 44 POPUL BISKA AVS FERMO ABRIX SSN BLV AMTOS CEGAM OLTRE VRA KORET VEDER LURAN SILOS POSSY BORJA RUBEO GRECO ARN TOSMA TAPET ACD LMD CNR BERMI KASEL TLD WUG52 QUV MLA 41 AROMA AMPOL CMA1 ADUXO LOTOS CJN LEMD NVS LRD PEXOT CMA SEGRE AVILA REBUL ERMES SMA NINOS 42 GRAUS SHARA BAN ORBIS CANAR 40 TURBO RITEX ZZA ZMR BARDI ANETO ZRZ MALIS RIVRO ESTAT PERDU EPATO PPN ADORO GIROM SURCO MARIO LARDA 42 43 ZZA ALEPO DGO BGS TOU SOVAR RONKO RATAS 41 LATEK 44 TBO ENDAY THUNE BEGUY PIPOR PPN BEMRA MADRD 134.35 BARKO BORDX 134.0 BTZ SNR 43 GAI AGN BELEN CPL PALIO ALVAL GOTOR CJA CJB MARTA MANDY DRAGO TLD CENTA VTB 40 CLS KAMPO PORTA WUB60 CCS SOLAX ELVAR 39 MOLIN PARKA SEVIL 128.50 MORAL LOGRO CRISA VLC NASOS VTB MONTO ANANA BEJ VILNA YES MAGAL RESTU BAZAS TOSGA BAENA ROLAS VIBAS SVL LOJAS MINTA ONUBA MAR MRN GRD VIBA1 LABRO AMR MGA HELIX LEMG ADUBI TNG BARPA GOLFO CARBO GONZA PIMOS KORIS LINTO BAMBA HAMRA BOLKA BALN VJF ORTOP 37 GENNI PESAS BRIKE BARCL 132.35 38 ALCOL SANTA KORNO ALT BLN ROSAL 36 39 IBZ HIJ VULPE 37 ASTRO NARGO OXACA VFA GATOS ANZAN MART 38 RIKOS BERUM 36 MOS LIGUM GALTO TTN ABODA TSE SN871 35 08 SUG5 07 HMB ALM 06 05 04 MADRD (000/460) : 134.35 BARCL (000/460) : 132.35 BORDX (000/460) : 134.0 MATMA (000/195) : 127.50 SEVIL (000/460) : 128.50 CJB (245/300) : 133.85 CJA (300/460) : 132.97 MATMA 35 SEVIL 128.5 ARB ESTE 03 02 01 00 01 TLD (000/460) : 133.75 PPN (050/460) : 133.95 VTB (000/460) : 133.20 ZZA (000/460) : 136.25 BALN (135/460) : 132.60 MART (135/460) : 133.35 ESTE (000/245) : 118.40 MILITARY AREA VLC TMA ZZA TMA 02 SPAIN 97 - ORG3 45 08 07 06 05 04 03 NUB42 02 01 00 01 02 45 NUA23 LOTEE SAU NUL14 GASCO ATLEN NUB11 NH200 PATEL ENSAC 44 POPUL BISKA AVS FERMO ABRIX SSN BLV AMTOS CEGAM OLTRE VRA KORET VEDER ESTAT SILOS POSSY BORJA ZPA ZPB SHARA BAN ORBIS ERMES SMA NINOS RUBEO GRECO ARN TOSMA CNR BERMI TAPET ACD LMD KASEL WUG52 40 PALIO ALVAL GOTOR TVA TVB AMPOL CMA1 LOTOS CJN CPL TLD 41 AROMA ADUXO LEMD NVS QUV MLA PEXOT CMA SEGRE AVILA REBUL LRD RITEX ZZA CANAR 42 GRAUS ZRZ ZMR BARDI TURBO EPATO MALIS RIVRO ANETO SURCO MARIO LARDA ADORO 43 GIROM PERDU ALEPO DGO BGS 42 TOU SOVAR RONKO RATAS 41 LATEK LURAN 44 TBO ENDAY THUNE BEGUY PIPOR PPN BEMRA MADRD 134.35 BARKO BORDX 134.0 BTZ SNR 43 GAI AGN BELEN CJA CJB MARTA MANDY DRAGO CENTA VTB 40 CLS KAMPO PORTA WUB60 CCS SOLAX ELVAR 39 MOLIN PARKA SEVIL 128.50 VLC NASOS MORAL LOGRO BEJ CRISA ANANA VILNA YES ALT MAGAL BLN ROSAL ALCOL TOSGA ROLAS VIBAS SVL LOJAS ONUBA MAR MRN 38 BAZAS BAENA MINTA GRD VIBA1 LABRO AMR MGA HAMRA HELIX LEMG BOLKA GOLFO BRIKE VJF KORNO BAMBA SURR BARPA CARBO GONZA PIMOS KORIS LINTO ADUBI TNG 37 GENNI PESAS ORTOP BARCL 132.35 RESTU BALN SANTA 36 39 IBZ HIJ VULPE 37 ASTRO NARGO OXACA VFA GATOS ANZAN MART 38 RIKOS MONTO BERUM 36 MOS LIGUM GALTO TTN ABODA TSE SN871 35 08 SUG5 07 HMB ALM ARB 06 05 04 03 35 02 01 TVA (300/460) : 133.20 TVB (000/300) : 133.75 ZPA (300/460) : 133.95 ZPB (050/300) : 136.25 BALN (135/460) : 132.60 MART (135/460) : 133.35 ESTE (000/245) : 118.40 MADRD (000/460) : 134.35 BARCL (000/460) : 132.35 BORDX (000/460) : 134.0 MATMA (000/195) : 127.50 SEVIL (000/460) : 128.50 CJB (245/300) : 133.85 CJA (300/460) : 132.97 MATMA SEVIL 128.5 ESTE MILITARY AREA 00 01 02 SURR (135/460) : 132.47 VLC TMA ZZA TMA SPAIN 97 - ORG4 45 08 07 06 05 04 03 NUB42 02 01 00 01 02 45 NUA23 LOTEE SAU NUL14 GASCO ATLEN NUB11 NH200 PATEL ENSAC 44 POPUL BISKA AVS FERMO ABRIX SSN BLV AMTOS CEGAM OLTRE VRA KORET VEDER ESTAT SILOS POSSY BORJA ZPA ZPB SHARA BAN ORBIS ERMES SMA NINOS RUBEO GRECO ARN TOSMA TAPET ACD LMD CNR BERMI KASEL WUG52 40 PALIO ALVAL GOTOR TVA TVB AMPOL CMA1 LOTOS CJN CPL TLD 41 AROMA ADUXO LEMD NVS QUV MLA PEXOT CMA SEGRE AVILA REBUL LRD RITEX ZZA CANAR 42 GRAUS ZRZ ZMR BARDI TURBO EPATO MALIS RIVRO ANETO SURCO MARIO LARDA ADORO 43 GIROM PERDU ALEPO DGO BGS 42 TOU SOVAR RONKO RATAS 41 LATEK LURAN 44 TBO ENDAY THUNE BEGUY PIPOR PPN BEMRA MADRD 134.35 BARKO BORDX 134.0 BTZ SNR 43 GAI AGN BELEN CJA CJB MARTA MANDY DRAGO CENTA VTB 40 CLS KAMPO PORTA WUB60 CCS SOLAX ELVAR 39 MOLIN PARKA SEVIL 128.50 BEJ MORAL LOGRO CRISA HIJ ANANA ASTRO VILNA YES ALT MAGAL ALCOL TOSGA ROLAS VIBAS SVL LOJAS MAR MRN 38 RESTU BAENA MINTA ONUBA GRD VIBA1 LABRO AMR MGA HAMRA HELIX LEMG BOLKA GOLFO BRIKE KORNO VJF BAMBA BARPA CARBO GONZA PIMOS KORIS LINTO ADUBI TNG 37 GENNI PESAS ORTOP BARCL 132.35 BAZAS SANTA 36 39 IBZ BLN VULPE 37 GATOS ANZAN BAMA BALN BAMA MART OXACA VFA RIKOS NARGO ROSAL 38 VLC NASOS MONTO BERUM 36 MOS LIGUM GALTO TTN ABODA TSE SN871 35 08 SUG5 07 HMB ALM ARB 06 05 04 03 35 02 01 TVA (300/460) : 133.20 TVB (000/300) : 133.75 ZPA (300/460) : 133.95 ZPB (050/300) : 136.25 BALN (135/300) : 132.60 MART (135/300) : 133.35 ESTE (000/245) : 118.40 MADRD (000/460) : 134.35 BARCL (000/460) : 132.35 BORDX (000/460) : 134.0 MATMA (000/195) : 127.50 SEVIL (000/460) : 128.50 CJB (245/300) : 133.85 CJA (300/460) : 132.97 MATMA SEVIL 128.5 ESTE MILITARY AREA 00 01 02 BAMA (300/460) : 132.47 VLC TMA ZZA TMA SPAIN 97 - ORG5 45 08 07 06 05 04 03 NUB42 02 01 00 01 02 45 NUA23 LOTEE SAU NUL14 GASCO ATLEN NUB11 NH200 PATEL ENSAC 44 POPUL BISKA AVS FERMO ABRIX SSN BLV 43 CEGAM OLTRE VRA KORET VEDER LATEK RONKO ZZA SILOS POSSY BORJA RUBEO GRECO ARN TOSMA TAPET ACD LMD AVILA CNR BERMI KASEL TLD WUG52 40 41 AROMA AMPOL CMA1 ADUXO LOTOS CJN LEMD NVS QUV MLA PEXOT CMA SEGRE BARDI LRD ERMES SMA NINOS REBUL SHARA BAN ORBIS 42 GRAUS RITEX ZZA ZMR CANAR RIVRO TURBO ZRZ MALIS 41 ANETO EPATO PPN ADORO PERDU SURCO MARIO LARDA 42 43 GIROM SOVAR ESTAT ALEPO DGO BGS MADRD 134.35 TOU ENDAY THUNE BEGUY PIPOR LURAN 44 TBO PPN BEMRA RATAS BARKO BORDX 134.0 BTZ SNR AMTOS GAI AGN BELEN CPL PALIO ALVAL GOTOR CJA CJB MARTA MANDY DRAGO TLD CENTA VTB 40 CLS KAMPO PORTA WUB60 CCS SOLAX ELVAR 39 MOLIN PARKA SEVIL 128.50 MORAL LOGRO CRISA VLC NASOS VTB MONTO ANANA BEJ 39 IBZ HIJ VILNA YES ALT MAGAL BLN ROSAL VULPE RESTU BALN TOSGA ROLAS VIBAS SVL LOJAS ONUBA BAZAS BAENA MINTA MAR MRN PESAS HELIX BRIKE BARCL 132.35 38 ALCOL SANTA 37 ASTRO NARGO OXACA VFA GATOS ANZAN MART 38 RIKOS GRD VIBA1 LABRO 37 GENNI AMR MGA LEMG HAMRA BOLKA GOLFO VJF ORTOP 36 KORNO BAMBA SURR KORIS LINTO ADUBI TNG BARPA CARBO GONZA PIMOS BERUM 36 MOS LIGUM GALTO TTN ABODA TSE SN871 35 08 SUG5 07 HMB ALM 06 05 04 03 02 01 TLD (000/460) : 133.75 PPN (050/460) : 133.95 VTB (000/460) : 133.20 ZZA (000/460) : 136.25 BALN (135/460) : 132.60 MART (135/460) : 133.35 ESTE (000/205) : 118.40 MADRD (000/460) : 134.35 BARCL (000/460) : 132.35 BORDX (000/460) : 134.0 MATMA (000/195) : 127.50 SEVIL (000/460) : 128.50 CJB (000/300) : 133.85 CJA (300/460) : 132.97 MATMA 35 SEVIL 128.5 ARB ESTE MILITARY AREA 00 01 02 SURR (135/460) : 132.47 VLC TMA ZZA TMA SPAIN 97 - ORG6 45 08 07 06 05 04 03 NUB42 02 01 00 01 02 45 NUA23 LOTEE SAU NUL14 GASCO ATLEN NUB11 NH200 PATEL ENSAC 44 POPUL BISKA AVS FERMO ABRIX SSN BLV AMTOS CEGAM OLTRE VRA KORET VEDER RATAS BARKO LATEK RONKO ZZA SILOS POSSY BORJA ERMES SMA NINOS RUBEO GRECO ARN TOSMA KASEL TLD WUG52 40 41 AROMA AMPOL CMA1 ADUXO LOTOS CJN LEMD NVS QUV MLA PEXOT CMA SEGRE TAPET AVILA CNR ACD BERMI LMD REBUL LRD SHARA BAN ORBIS CANAR 42 GRAUS RITEX ZZA ZMR BARDI TURBO ZRZ MALIS RIVRO ANETO EPATO PPN 41 PERDU SURCO MARIO LARDA ADORO 43 GIROM SOVAR ESTAT ALEPO DGO BGS 42 TOU ENDAY THUNE BEGUY PIPOR LURAN 44 TBO PPN BEMRA MADRD 134.35 BORDX 134.0 BTZ SNR 43 GAI AGN BELEN CPL PALIO ALVAL GOTOR CJA CJB MARTA MANDY DRAGO TLD CENTA VTB 40 CLS KAMPO PORTA WUB60 CCS SOLAX ELVAR 39 MOLIN PARKA SEVIL 128.50 BEJ CRISA ASTRO 39 IBZ VILNA MBA MBB VULPE YES MAGAL BLN 38 BAZAS TOSGA BAENA ROLAS VIBAS LOJAS MINTA MAR MRN PESAS HELIX BRIKE BARCL 132.35 RESTU SVL ONUBA ALT ALCOL SANTA 37 GATOS NARGO OXACA VFA ANANA RIKOS ANZAN HIJ ROSAL 38 MORAL LOGRO VLC NASOS VTB MONTO GRD VIBA1 LABRO 37 GENNI AMR MGA LEMG HAMRA BOLKA GOLFO VJF ORTOP 36 KORNO BAMBA SURR KORIS LINTO ADUBI TNG BARPA CARBO GONZA PIMOS BERUM 36 MOS LIGUM GALTO TTN ABODA TSE SN871 35 08 SUG5 07 HMB ALM 06 05 04 03 TLD PPN VTB ZZA MBB MBA ESTE MADRD (000/460) : 134.35 BARCL (000/460) : 132.35 BORDX (000/460) : 134.0 MATMA (000/195) : 127.50 SEVIL (000/460) : 128.50 CJB (000/300) : 133.85 CJA (300/460) : 132.97 MATMA 35 SEVIL 128.5 ARB ESTE 02 01 (000/460) : 133.75 (050/460) : 133.95 (000/460) : 133.20 (000/460) : 136.25 (135/325) : 133.35 (325/460) : 132.60 (000/205) : 118.40 MILITARY AREA 00 01 02 SURR (135/460) : 132.47 VLC TMA ZZA TMA ANNEX B SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS S16 PARTICIPANTS EUROCONTROL - Experimental Centre Roger LANE Peter ERIKSEN Jose SEIXO Yvette FAUCHOT Andy HARVEY Peter SLINGERLAND Veronique BEGAULT Francoise ROTH Project Manager Assistant Project Manager Simulation Technical Co-ordinator Data Preparation Specialist Analyst Operations room Supervisor Map Preparation Specialist Administration AENA - Headquarters Madrid Julian TORRES CARRERO Jose Maria CURA OCANA Iciar CEBERIO AENA - MADRID ACC Ramon VEGA ALONSO Vicente LAMATA GARCIA Ramon EXPOSITO PUERTAS Julio GIL RENEDO Joaquin CASADO CATALINA Antonio PLAZA VICENTE Juan J. GARCIA CONDE Miguel FIDALGO VILLAPALOS Juan A. FERNANDEZ MORALES Jose CANELADA SANTOS Jose L. FERNANDEZ LOJA Francisco J. RODRIGUEZ GARCIA Maria Dolores CELADA ALMELA Atilano LORENZANA PEREZ Maria Aranzazu LUCIA AGUIRRE Manuel P. MUNOZ CUENCA Manuel MOYANO BOYERO Fernando MARTIN FELIPE AENA - SEVILLA ACC Francisco RENSHAW GONZALEZ Felix RODRIGUEZ MORENO Jose R. JURADO CHACON Manuel CABEZUELO GAMITO Loreta MESON GARCIA Eduardo MAURY BUENDIA Ricardo AGUADO TOME Esther MARTIN DIEZ Emilio VIEJO MIRA AENA - BARCELONA ACC Cristobal PELEGRIN CRNA SUD OUEST - BORDEAUX ACC Pierre DE LANGEN ANNEX C EXERCISE TIMETABLE Date START STOP SCENARIO/ACTIVITY 1030 1200 1445 1615 INTRODUCTION AND THE EEC Training exercise Training exercise Training exercise TUE 09 0945 SEP 1145 1430 1115 Exercise 1 - ORG 1 T98M1 1315 1600 Exercise 2 Exercise 3 T98A1 T98M1 WED 10 0900 SEP 1100 1400 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 1 T98A1 1230 1530 Exercise 2 Exercise 3 T98M1 T98A1 1040 Exercise 1 - ORG 2 T98M2HB 1245 1530 1630 Exercise 2 Exercise 3 Debrief T98A2HB T98M2HM 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 2 T98A2HM 1230 1530 1630 Exercise 2 Exercise 3 Debrief (MGA T30M2HM T98A2HB WEEK 1 MON 08 0915 SEP 1100 1330 1500 THU 11 0915 SEP 1110 1400 1545 FRI 12 0900 SEP 1100 1400 1545 TRAFFIC CODE TO Helice chosen) S16 TTNG TTNG TTNG WEEK 2 MON 15 0900 SEP 1100 1400 1545 TUE SEP WED SEP THU SEP 16 1045 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 3 (helice via T98M3 Malaga) FL300 1230 Exercise 2 T98A3 FL300 1530 Exercise 3 T98M3b FL325 1630 Debrief 1215 Exercise 1 - ORG 3 S3bT98M3b FL325 S3-T98M3 FL300 1330 1455 Exercise 2 1500 1530 Debrief 1530 1700 Exercise 3 S3T98A3b FL325 17 0900 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 1 S1-T98M1 1300 1445 1415 Exercise 2 1600 Exercise 3 - ORG 2 S1-T98A1 S2T98M2HM 1600 1635 Debrief 18 0900 1100 1400 1545 FRI 19 SEP 0900 1100 (Org 3 not required, continue with Org 5 with CJA/B split at FL305) 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 5 S5-T30A5 1230 Exercise 2 1530 Exercise 3 1630 Debrief S5-T30M5 S5-T30A5 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 5 1230 Exercise 2 -S5-T30A5 S5-T30M5 (Org 2 with ESTE FL205 exit traffic via PPNSOVAR and SURR sector) (lost due to technical failure) 1400 1545 1530 Exercise 3 1630 Debrief S5-T30M5 WEEK 3 MON 22 0900 SEP 1100 1400 1545 TUE SEP 23 0945 1130 1330 1500 WED SEP 24 0900 1100 1400 1545 THU SEP 25 1000 1130 1345 1545 FRI SEP 26 0930 1030 Exercise 1 - ORG 6 S6-T30M6 1230 Exercise 2 1530 Exercise 3 1630 Debrief S6-T30A6 S6-T30M6 1055 Exercise 1 - Org 5 S5-T30M5T 1240 Exercise 2 (ESTE FL205) 1500 Exercise 3 (ESTE FL245) 1700 Debrief S5-T30A5D S5-T30M5T 1030 Exercise 1 - Org 5 S5-T30M5D 1230 Exercise 2 1530 Exercise 3 1630 Debrief S5-T30A5T S5-T30M5D 1100 Exercise 1 - ORG 3 S3 - T30M3T 1230 Exercise 2 1430 Exercise 3 1630 Debrief S3 - T30A3T S3 - T30M3T (ORG5 but with BALN and MART combined and split at FL325 with CJA/B split at FL300) LEMD departures to SOVAR via TOSMA or DGOS (ESTE FL205) LEMD departures to SOVAR via TOSMA or DGOS (ESTE FL245) (CJA/B Split at FL300, TVA/B and ZPA/B split at FL325 - Departures via TOSMA, Traffic via MAR in Sevilla UIR) 1100 Final Presentation 1130 Depart ANNEX D OPERATIONS ROOM LAYOUTS ORGANISATION 1 / 2 OPERATIONS ROOM 132.35 134.35 BARCL MADRD 134.0 BORDX 128.5 127.5 SEVIL MATMA 24 25 26 27 23 28" 28" 28" 28" 28" VTB 133.2 strp.pr. M R.B. 15 28" M M 28" EXC PLC R.B. 4 28" EXC 133.75 CJB 3 28" PLC R.B. MART 2 28" 28" 1 28" 28" EXC PLC 132.97 BALN PPN PLC S16 SPAIN-97 PLC ZZA EXC EXC 133.95 R.B. R.B. 17 28" 8 28" 18 R.B. R.B. 28" 9 28" 19 R.B. 132.60 PLC EXC 28" strp.pr. R.B. R.B. 7 R.B. EXC strp.pr. 11 PLC 28" R.B. 133.35 CJA strp.pr. 12 16 strp.pr. R.B. 28" EXC 133.85 strp.pr. 13 28" strp.pr. TLD PLC 6 R.B. 118.4 R.B. 28" 28" R.B. ESTE strp.pr. 14 EXC M PLC R.B. 5 M 136.25 ORG.1/2 R.B. strp.pr. EXC PLC 28" 10 28" 20 R.B. R.B. strp.pr. SUPERVISEUR 15.09.97/SLI ORGANISATION 3 OPERATIONS ROOM 132.35 134.35 BARCL MADRD 24 134.0 BORDX 128.5 127.5 SEVIL MATMA 25 26 27 23 TVA 133.2 28" strp.pr. R.B. 15 28" 28" M M 28" M 28" EXC 28" R.B. 28" EXC 133.75 CJB 3 28" PLC R.B. 2 28" 28" MART 1 28" 28" EXC PLC SURR 17 28" 8 28" 18 R.B. R.B. EXC 28" 9 28" 19 R.B. 132.47 PLC ZPA PLC 133.95 S16 SPAIN-97 R.B. PLC ZPB EXC 28" strp.pr. R.B. R.B. 7 R.B. EXC EXC 28" R.B. 133.35 CJA strp.pr. 11 PLC 132.97 R.B. 16 strp.pr. strp.pr. 12 EXC 133.85 R.B. 28" 28" strp.pr. strp.pr. 13 6 R.B. 118.4 TVB PLC 28" R.B. PLC R.B. 4 EXC M ESTE strp.pr. 14 28" PLC R.B. 5 28" M ORG.3 R.B. strp.pr. BALN EXC 132.60 136.25 PLC 28" 10 28" 20 R.B. R.B. strp.pr. SUPERVISEUR 15.09.97/SLI ORGANISATION 5 and 6 OPERATIONS ROOM Organisation 5 and 6 were the same except for the following ; MART Sector became MBB and BALN Sector became MBA. The frequencies remained unchanged. 132.35 134.35 BARCL MADRD 134.0 BORDX 128.5 127.5 SEVIL MATMA 24 25 26 27 23 28" 28" 28" 28" 28" VTB 133.2 strp.pr. M R.B. 15 28" M M 28" EXC PLC R.B. 4 28" EXC 133.75 CJB 3 28" PLC R.B. MART 2 28" 28" 1 28" 28" EXC PLC 132.97 EXC SURR PLC 132.47 PPN EXC 17 28" 8 28" 18 R.B. R.B. SPAIN-97 ZZA ORG.5 28" 9 28" 19 R.B. R.B. strp.pr. S16 PLC EXC PLC 133.95 R.B. R.B. 28" strp.pr. R.B. R.B. 7 R.B. EXC strp.pr. 11 PLC 28" R.B. 133.35 CJA strp.pr. 12 16 strp.pr. R.B. 28" EXC 133.85 strp.pr. 13 28" strp.pr. TLD PLC 6 R.B. 118.4 R.B. 28" 28" R.B. ESTE strp.pr. 14 EXC M PLC R.B. 5 M EXC BALN 132.60 136.25 PLC 28" 10 28" 20 R.B. R.B. strp.pr. SUPERVISEUR 15.09.97/SLI