EUROCONTROL · EEC - OPS (ATM Operational & Simulation Expertise) Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre ... DERANSY and Kevin HARVEY Date 02/00

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

RVSM6 CYPRUS

REAL TIME SIMULATION

EEC Report No. 359

Project RVS-5-E3

Issued: February 2001

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part shouldbe 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.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Report No.359

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:EEC - OPS

(ATM Operational & SimulationExpertise)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreCentre de Bois des Bordes B.P.15F91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:EUR RVSM PROGRAMME

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL HEADQUARTERS - BRUSSELS

TITLE:RVSM6 CYPRUS REAL TIME SIMULATION

AuthorsRoger LANE,

Steven BANCROFT, RobinDERANSY and Kevin

HARVEY

Date02/00

Pagesx + 58

Figures33

Tables5

Appendix4

References4

EATMP TaskSpecification

-

ProjectRVS-5-E3

Task No. Sponsor

-

PeriodSeptember 2000

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: Simulation Service Manager(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):

Real Time Simulation – RVSM – Non-RVSM – Transition - FLAS –Sectorisation – Co-ordination –Controller workload – Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft – Radio Communication Failure (RCF)

Abstract: The RVSM6 Cyprus simulation studied the transition from RVSM to non-RVSM airspaceand vice-versa in the Nicosia and Southern Greek FIRs. The simulation also continued thevalidation of RVSM procedures which included the handling of non-RVSM approved aircraft, R/Tphraseology, Radio Communication Failure and the changeover to RVSM which will take place onthe 24 January 2002.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

Centre de Bois des Bordes B.P. 15F91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation EUROCONTROL

Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 v

SUMMARY

The RVSM6 CYPRUS Real Time Simulation (the sixth EUROCONTROLsponsored RVSM continental simulation) was held at the EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre (EEC), Brétigny, France during September and October2000.

The simulation studied the introduction of RVSM in the Cypriot andSouthern Greek airspace and involved the participation of the neighbouringcountries Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

Controllers from the Area Control Centres at Nicosia and Athensdemonstrated that they could successfully handle up to a 20% increase intraffic and perform the transition task from RVSM to non-RVSM airspaceand vice-versa using a modified route structure involving uni-directionalroutes.

The controllers felt confident and positive using RVSM and continued thevalidation of RVSM ATC procedures. Changes to current ATC systems andATC procedures were identified as requirements for successful RVSMimplementation.

EUROCONTROL RVSM6 Cyprus Real Time Simulation

vi Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank all the members of the RVSM6 project team for their work and assistance duringthe preparation and execution of the simulation. There have been larger RVSM simulationsthan RVSM6 but few have been so important with regards to the timing and political sensitivityof the project. The professionalism and dedication of the EUROCONTROL staff once againensured that an RVSM simulation was successfully completed.

However, the main ingredient in a Real Time Simulation is the participation of operational staff.My gratitude goes to the Cyprus CAA, Egyptian CAA and Hellenic CAA for supplying dedicatedteams of controllers for 4 weeks during the end of a busy summer period.

Finally to all the controllers who participated, especially Savvas and George, thank you for yourpatience, enthusiasm and feedback, without which, the project would not have been possible.

Roger Lane

The EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre at Brétigny.


Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF FIGURES /REFERENCES ......................................................................................................ixABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................x

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................11.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS.............................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)...................................................................11.1.2 Transition Task....................................................................................................................11.1.3 Flight Level Allocation Scheme (FLAS) ................................................................................11.1.4 STATE Aircraft.....................................................................................................................1

1.2 RVSM BACKGROUND................................................................................................................21.3 SCOPE OF THE RVSM6 SIMULATION ......................................................................................2

2. SIMULATION OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................32.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE...............................................................................................................32.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................3

3. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................................43.1 SIMULATION AREA....................................................................................................................43.2 ROUTE STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................43.3 RESTRICTED AND DANGER AREAS.........................................................................................43.4 PARTICIPANTS ..........................................................................................................................53.5 OPERATIONS ROOM.................................................................................................................5

3.5.1 Layout..................................................................................................................................53.5.2 Measured Sectors................................................................................................................53.5.3 Feed Sectors .......................................................................................................................63.5.4 Equipment ...........................................................................................................................63.5.5 Radar Functions ..................................................................................................................73.5.6 Flight Strips..........................................................................................................................73.5.7 Telecommunications (AUDIOLAN).......................................................................................73.5.8 Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) .........................................................................................73.5.9 Meteorological Conditions....................................................................................................7

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS .................................................................................84.1 SCENARIO 1 – NON-RVSM (REFERENCE) ...............................................................................84.2 SCENARIO 2 – RVSM.................................................................................................................94.3 SCENARIO 3 – RVSM WITH A FLAS AND MINOR ROUTE MODIFICATION.............................94.4 SCENARIO 4 – RVSM WITH A MAJOR ROUTE MODIFICATION ............................................12

5. TRAFFIC SAMPLES...........................................................................................................145.1 CREATION................................................................................................................................145.2 CHANGES MADE FOR THE REAL TIME SIMULATION ...........................................................145.3 CONVERSION FROM NON-RVSM TO RVSM ..........................................................................15

5.3.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft .............................................................................................155.4 SECTOR CAPACITIES..............................................................................................................155.5 EXERCISE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................15

6. ATC PROCEDURES...........................................................................................................166.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................166.2 RVSM PROCEDURES ..............................................................................................................16

6.2.1 RVSM General Procedures................................................................................................166.2.2 RVSM Transition Procedures.............................................................................................166.2.3 Non-RVSM approved aircraft .............................................................................................176.2.4 Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft.................................................................................176.2.5 R/T procedures – General..................................................................................................176.2.6 Revised RCF Procedures ..................................................................................................18


viii Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359

7. RESULTS............................................................................................................................197.1 ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................19

7.1.1 Subjective analysis ............................................................................................................197.1.2 Objective analysis..............................................................................................................20

7.2 CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIMULATOR .....................................................................................207.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 ..........................................................................................................21

7.3.1 Scenario 1 - Non-RVSM ....................................................................................................217.3.2 Scenario 2 – RVSM (for definition see Para 4.2)................................................................217.3.3 Scenario 3 – RVSM with a FLAS (for definition see Para 1.1.3) .........................................237.3.4 Scenario 4 – RVSM with a modified route system (for definition see Para 4.4) ..................267.3.5 Scenario 4B – RVSM with a MAJOR route modification in ES1 sector ...............................28

7.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 ..........................................................................................................307.4.1 Sector Workload ................................................................................................................307.4.2 Sector throughput ..............................................................................................................35

7.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 ..........................................................................................................367.5.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft (for description see para 6.2.3) ............................................367.5.2 R/T Phraseology ................................................................................................................427.5.3 Radio Communications Failure (RCF) Procedure...............................................................43

7.6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 ..........................................................................................................467.7 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 ..........................................................................................................48

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................508.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 ..........................................................................................................508.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 ..........................................................................................................508.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 ..........................................................................................................518.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 ..........................................................................................................518.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 ..........................................................................................................51

Green pages : French translation of the summary, the introduction, objectives, conclusions andrecommendations ....................................................................................................................... 53

Pages vertes : Traduction en langue française du résumé, de l’introduction, des objectifs, des conclusionset recommandations ................................................................................................................... 53

ANNEX A: AIRSPACE MAPANNEX B: THE OPERATIONS ROOMANNEX C: SIMULATION PARTICIPANTSANNEX D: SIMULATION SCHEDULE.


Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1 : Transition between RVSM and NON-RVSM flight levels.............................................1Figure 2 : The RVSM6 simulated area.........................................................................................4Figure 3 : Cyprus -SS sector with AUDIOLAN telecom panel ......................................................5Figure 4 : The Cairo feed sector ..................................................................................................6Figure 5 : Rhodes airport (LGRP) arrival and departure routes ...................................................8Figure 6 : Tel Aviv airport (LLBG) modified departure route ........................................................8Figure 7 : Scenario 3 - Route modification in ES1 sector ............................................................9Figure 8 : Scenario 3 - FLAS at SIT in STH sector. ...................................................................10Figure 9 : Scenario 3, the FLAS at EVORA ...............................................................................11Figure 10 : Scenario 4 – Route modification in ES1 sector......................................................12Figure 11 : Scenario 4 - Route modification in STH Sector......................................................13Figure 12 : Point of transition-Scenario 2 (Lunch Traffic) .........................................................23Figure 13 : Scenario 3 - ES1 VESAR-NIKAS routeings ...........................................................24Figure 14 : Point of transition-Scenario 3 (Lunch Traffic) .........................................................25Figure 15 : Transition map Scenario 4 (Lunch Traffic) .............................................................27Figure 16 : Scenario 4B – Route modification in ES1 sector ...................................................28Figure 17 : Scenario 4B - Route modification in STH sector....................................................29Figure 18 : Tracks flown in Scenario 4 (Afternoon traffic) ........................................................31Figure 19 : Workload comparison between the Afternoon traffic samples ...............................32Figure 20 : Workload comparison between the Morning traffic samples..................................32Figure 21 : R/T loading - Lunch traffic sample..........................................................................33Figure 22 : Cyprus Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft...................................37Figure 23 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft .................................................37Figure 24 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft ....................................37Figure 25 : Greek Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved aircraft .................................................38Figure 26 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft..........................................................38Figure 27 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft.............................................38Figure 28 : Non-RVSM traffic in clutter (Cyprus and Greek display) ........................................39Figure 29 : RCF – SSR Code 7603 ..........................................................................................44Figure 30 : The Pilots’ room .....................................................................................................63Figure 31 : Greek Controllers on the SE Sector .......................................................................63Figure 32 : The Operations room layout ...................................................................................64Figure 33 : The Operations room during the RVSM6 Simulation .............................................65

REFERENCES

1) RVSM6 Project Management Plan –EEC Bretigny – Author: R. LANE.2) RVSM6 Facility Specification – EEC Bretigny Authors: S. BANCROFT and C. CHEVALIER3) EATMP ATC Manual for RVSM in Europe – EUROCONTROL HQ4) EEC Report 341 – RVSM4 (Turkey) RTS.


x Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359

ABBREVIATIONS

ACC Area Control CentreAIP Aeronautical Information PublicationAMN Airspace Management and NavigationANT Airspace and Navigation TeamARN ATS Route NetworkATC Air Traffic ControlATM Air Traffic ManagementATS Air Traffic ServicesCFL Cleared Flight LevelCWP Controller Working PositionEATMP European Air Traffic Management ProgrammeECAC European Civil Aviation ConferenceEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreEUR RVSM EURopean RVSMEUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air NavigationEXC Executive ControllerFIR Flight Information RegionFL Flight LevelFLAS Flight Level Allocation SchemeFPL Flight PlanFt FeetFTS Fast Time SimulationHMI Human Machine InterfaceHQ HeadquartersICAO International Civil Aviation OrganisationISA Instantaneous Self AssessmentLoA Letter of AgreementN/A Non ApplicableNAT North ATlanticNm Nautical milesOLDI On Line Data InterchangePLC PLanner ControllerR/T Radio TelephonyRCF Radio Communication FailureRFL Request Flight LevelRTS Real Time SimulationRVSM Reduced Vertical Separation MinimumSTCA Short Term Conflict AlertVMC Visual Meteorological ConditionsVSM Vertical Separation Minimum


Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n° 359 1

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS

1.1.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)

RVSM is an approved International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) concept toreduce aircraft vertical separation from 2000’ (600M) to 1000’ (300M), betweenFlight Levels (FLs) 290-410 inclusive. RVSM introduces 6 additional flight levels(FL300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400) and as a general principle the levels up toFL410 are allocated as ‘even levels – west/north bound and odd levels –east/south bound’.

Note that FL310 / 350 / 390 change parity from even to odd flight levels withRVSM.

Figure 1 : Transition between RVSM and NON-RVSM flight levels.

1.1.2 Transition Task

The changing of an aircraft’s flight level either from an RVSM to Non-RVSM levelor from a Non-RVSM to an RVSM level based on the Flight Level OrientationScheme (FLOS) shown in Figure 1.

1.1.3 Flight Level Allocation Scheme (FLAS)

A scheme whereby specific flight levels may be assigned to specific routesegments within the route network on a strategic basis.

1.1.4 STATE Aircraft

A flight operated by the Military, Police or Customs.

410

400

390

380

370

360

350

340

330

320

310

300

290

410

400

390

380

370

360

350

340

330

320

310

300

290

TransitionRVSM NON-RVSM


2 Project RVS-5-E3 – EEC Report n°359

1.2 RVSM BACKGROUND

Early 1960sThe present vertical separation minimum (VSM) of 2000ft above FL290 wasestablished mainly due to the inaccuracy of altitude measuring equipment onearly jet aircraft (e.g. Comet and Boeing 707). In 1966 this VSM was globallyadopted.

Late 1970sCivil aviation faced rising fuel costs and fast growing demand. Consequently,ICAO initiated an extensive programme of studies to investigate the feasibility ofreducing the 2000ft VSM to 1000ft above FL290.

Late 1980sStudies indicated that RVSM between FL290-410 was feasible, safe and cost-beneficial without imposing massive technical requirements.

27th March 1997RVSM (between FL330-370) became operational in the North Atlantic region(NAT).

8th October 1998The flight level band was increased to FL310-390 in the NAT region. Also onthis day, the EUR RVSM Programme was officially established byEUROCONTROL in Brussels.

24th January 2002Full RVSM implementation within European and NAT airspace will take place,and is expected to provide considerable benefits. However, due to the complexnature of the European ATS route structure and the fact that some 40 countriesare participating in the project, European implementation will be morecomplicated compared with the NAT region.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE RVSM6 SIMULATION

As part of the EUR RVSM programme, the administrations of Cyprus andGreece identified that the position of their FIRs in the southeast corner of theEUR RVSM airspace posed potential difficulties in the handling of trafficoperating between EUR RVSM airspace and the neighbouring non-RVSMairspace.

A request was made to EUROCONTROL to help to identify these problems andto find a useable solution. It was agreed that a simulation would study the wholeof the Nicosia airspace and part of the Athens airspace and neighbouring non-RVSM countries were invited to either participate in, or observe, the simulation.



2. SIMULATION OBJECTIVES

2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

To recommend the most suitable airspace organisation for the introductionof RVSM in the airspace of the Nicosia and Southern Athens FIRs.

2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the following organisations, in the airspace of the Nicosia andSouthern Athens FIRs using varying levels of traffic:

• The current route network with non-RVSM (REFERENCE)• The current route network with RVSM• A slightly modified route structure, with RVSM and the application of a

FLAS to effect the transition from non-RVSM to RVSM and vice versa• A revised route structure with RVSM, incorporating uni-directional

routes at the RVSM/non-RVSM interface

with the aim of identifying the most suitable organisation for handlingtraffic making the transition from an RVSM to a non-RVSM proceduralenvironment and vice versa.

2. To examine the effect of the introduction of RVSM in the sectors of theNicosia and Southern Athens FIRs by measuring:

• the sector workload• the sector throughput

in the RVSM organisations, and to compare them with the referencescenario.

3. To examine the following procedural aspects:

• further validate the procedures developed by the ATM ProceduresDevelopment Sub-group (APDSG) for handling non-RVSM approvedflights

• R/T (Radio Telephony) phraseology• test a revised Radio Communications Failure Procedure (RCF).

4. To gain controller confidence in the viability of introducing RVSM in theNicosia and Athens FIRs

Additional Objective agreed during the simulation

5. To simulate the changeover scheduled for 24 January 2002, from non-RVSM to RVSM. Controllers’ subjective feedback was used to identify anypotential operational aspects arising from the changeover.



3. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

3.1 SIMULATION AREA

The area chosen for the simulation covered the whole of the Nicosia FIR (3control sectors) and the south-easterly portion of the Athens FIR (2 controlsectors). Three (ES1, SS and STH) of the five sectors had an interface betweennon-RVSM and RVSM airspace and were considered to be the transitionsectors. The remaining two sectors were of interest as they played an importantrole in transferring and receiving traffic from the transition sectors.

Figure 2 : The RVSM6 simulated area

3.2 ROUTE STRUCTURE

The ATS Route Network (ARN) Version 3 route structure was used during thesimulation (see Annex A). However, additional route proposals as identified inARN Version 4 were tested during the simulation to study their effect on thetransition task.

3.3 RESTRICTED AND DANGER AREAS

The following Restricted and Danger Areas were considered as active.

ATHENS ACC NICOSIA ACCD 101 C –UNL D 3 – FL 200D 87 – UNL



3.4 PARTICIPANTS

The following staff participated in the simulation (see also Annex C):

• 9 controllers from Nicosia (Cyprus) ACC• 7 controllers from Athens (Greece) ACC• 2 controllers from Egypt participated as the Cairo ACC Feed sector.

Figure 3 : Cyprus -SS sector with AUDIOLAN telecom panel

3.5 OPERATIONS ROOM

3.5.1 Layout

The RVSM6 simulation was the first to be held in the refurbished OperationsRoom BC34 at the EEC. The room layout and photographs of the simulation areshown at Annex B.

3.5.2 Measured Sectors

The five sectors shown in Figure 2 were considered to be measured (recordingsmade for analysis purposes). Each of these sectors operated with a radarcontroller and a planning controller, who both had a 28inch Sony radar screen.Details of these sectors appear below,

SECTOR NAME VERTICALLIMITS

FREQUENCY

NICOSIA –ES1 075 - 460 126.3NICOSIA –SS 075 - 460 124.2NICOSIA –WS 075 - 460 125.5ATHENS –SE (RDS) 285 - 460 124.47ATHENS –STH (SIT) 065 - 460 134.07



3.5.3 Feed Sectors

To realistically simulate aircraft entering and exiting a measured sector, five feedsectors were created around the measured airspace. Controllers from Athensand Cyprus took turns in controlling on the feed sectors with the exception of theCairo feed (see Figure 4) which was manned by ATC experts from Cairo ACC.

Figure 4 : The Cairo feed sector

3.5.4 Equipment

The Human Machine Interface (HMI) used in the simulation, closely resembledthe equipment currently in use in the Nicosia and Athens ACCs. This meant thatthe time required by the controllers to become familiar with the simulationenvironment was reduced to a minimum, allowing the controllers more time toconcentrate on the simulation objectives.



3.5.5 Radar Functions

The Simulation was run using the EUROCONTROL ESCAPE platform version4.6. The following functionality was available to all sectors:

• Sony 28 inch colour radar screen for the radar and planning controller,showing full radar cover from FL000-FL460

• Range and bearing• Height filtering• Off-centring and range zoom.

3.5.6 Flight Strips

Paper flight strips were used on the Cypriot measured sectors. The Greeksectors used electronic strips displayed on the Executive and Planner radarscreens (see Figure 23 and Figure 26).

3.5.7 Telecommunications (AUDIOLAN)

All positions used AUDIOLAN telecommunications equipment. This comprisedof a headset and touch input panel (see Figure 3) with pre-defined frequenciesand landlines according to the sector.

3.5.8 Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA)

STCA was available only on the Greek sectors SE and STH.For the RVSM exercises the STCA was modified to take into account thereduction of separation up to FL410. This involved defining 2 volumes asdetailed below, and in each case the look ahead time remained at 2 minutes:

Volume 1 between FL 000 to FL 410:The minimum horizontal separation = 4.9 Nm.The minimum vertical separation = 1000 ft.

Volume 2 FL 410 to FL 460:The minimum horizontal separation =4.9 Nm.The minimum vertical separation = 2000 ft.

3.5.9 Meteorological Conditions

The direction and strength of the wind was changed frequently throughout thesimulation by the project team, in order to vary the traffic situations and reducecontroller familiarity which is often experienced when exercises are regularlyrepeated.

The temperature set in the traffic samples was 30ºC, which is typical in theEastern Mediterranean region during the summer.



4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS4.1 SCENARIO 1 – NON-RVSM (REFERENCE)

Scenario 1 acted as a non-RVSM reference. It simulated the current airspaceorganisation and included:

• the new arrival route for inbound traffic to Rhodes airport (LGRP) which wasestablished MES-KOPAR-ASIMI-RDS (see Figure 5)

• The existing departure route RDS-ASIMI-KOPAR-LARKI-MES.

Figure 5 : Rhodes airport (LGRP) arrival and departure routes

• Departures from Tel Aviv airport (LLBG) routed BGN-PURLA-PASOS-KAROL-EVORA or APLON (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 : Tel Aviv airport (LLBG) modified departure route



4.2 SCENARIO 2 – RVSM

The aim of this scenario was to introduce the controllers to RVSM for the firsttime using the same sectorisation and route network as Scenario 1, with the aimof showing the controllers the effect of using RVSM Procedures on today’sairspace.

The only pre-defined procedure was that the transition task from/to non-RVSM/RVSM should be carried out within RVSM airspace and that it should bedone when it was considered necessary/safe to do so within the appropriatesector adjacent to non-RVSM airspace.

4.3 SCENARIO 3 – RVSM WITH A FLAS AND MINOR ROUTE MODIFICATION

This scenario was the first to examine specific procedures aimed at resolving thepossible operational difficulties caused by the transition task. The differencesfrom Scenario 2 are as follows:

Nicosia Airspace (see Figure 7)

• A one-way route system was established in Nicosia sector ES1. UL619 wasdeclared uni-directional NIKAS–VESAR in order to effect transition fromnon-RVSM to RVSM before the Ankara FIR boundary at VESAR

• Eastbound traffic coming from the Ankara FIR which normally routesVESAR-NIKAS-BAN-KTN was routed VESAR–ALSUS–NIKAS-BAN-KTNand the transition from RVSM to non-RVSM was effected on this route beforetransfer to Damascus FIR at NIKAS

Figure 7 : Scenario 3 - Route modification in ES1 sector



• UM978 remained bi-directional to permit the occasional flights NIKAS-ALSUS-LCA

• In order to allow transition from RVSM to non-RVSM to take place, with noopposite direction traffic on the segment VESAR–ALSUS, traffic departingLLBG via VELOX routed VELOX-direct VESAR, instead of via ALSUS

• Traffic departing LCLK/RA/PH exiting via VESAR routed RUDER-directVESAR instead of via ALSUS.

Athens Airspace (see Figure 8)

• Southbound traffic on route MIL–ATLAN–SIT (UL613) was restricted fromusing FL310

• Traffic on PLH-OTREX-SIT-KAVOS was restricted from using FL350.

The restricting of these levels was the responsibility of the sectors before STH(the Greek Feed sector in the simulation). This ‘SOFT FLAS’ meant that 2 of themain routes where traffic enters sector STH still had 5 out of 6 odd FLsavailable.

• It was considered that there were 6 FL possibilities that required transitionfrom RVSM to non-RVSM (FL310/350/390 on UL613 and FL310/350/390 onUM872). Blocking 2 of these levels was expected to be beneficial to the STHsector’s workload, as it meant that only 4 levels remained which requiredtransition to non-RVSM levels.

Figure 8 : Scenario 3 - FLAS at SIT in STH sector.



Nicosia and Athens Airspace

When preparation commenced for the simulation, traffic inbound to Tel AvivLLBG from SIT routed KAVOS-EVORA-KAROL at non-RVSM ‘eastbound FLs’e.g FL290/330/370. The introduction of RVSM will mean that traffic on this routewill be able to use FL310/350/390 in addition to those FLs currently in use.

Northbound traffic coming from Cairo FIR at ‘westbound non-RVSM FLs’ e.g.FL310/350/390 was required to make the transition to a westbound RVSM FLe.g. FL320/340/360/380. EVORA became a potential conflict point “A” (seeFigure 9), as it was felt that there was not sufficient time/distance betweenRASDA and EVORA for the transition to take place safely in order to avoidconfliction.

However, several months before the simulation started, a new routeing KAVOS-direct APLON-SOLIN was introduced by Nicosia for southeast bound traffic.This in effect created a new conflict point “B” to the north of EVORA (see Figure9 below).

• Despite the fact that the conflict point had moved further away, it was agreedthat a FLAS would still be simulated to see if it had any bearing on the 2traffic flows

• FL350 was restricted for the south-east bound traffic via KAVOS, so thattraffic (with the exception of departures from Alexandria-HEAX and Cairo-HECA which are restricted to FL280) entering Nicosia FIR at RASDA woulduse, where possible, FL350 for automatic de-confliction North of EVORA

• When the northbound traffic on UM855 was clear of traffic between KAVOS-APLON, transition from non-RVSM to RVSM could be effected

Figure 9 : Scenario 3, the FLAS at EVORA



4.4 SCENARIO 4 – RVSM WITH A MAJOR ROUTE MODIFICATION

This scenario tested a revised route structure in order to effect transition. Wherepossible, existing routes and points were used, however some bi-directionalroutes were changed to uni-directional to allow the controller to effect transitionwith no opposite direction traffic. The differences from Scenario 3 are as follows:

Nicosia Airspace

Traffic coming from the Ankara FIR which normally routes VESAR-NIKAS–BAN-KTN were routed VESAR–ALSUS–BALMA–CAK-KTN (see Figure 10) and thetransition from RVSM to non-RVSM was effected on this route before transfer toBeirut FIR at BALMA (this proposal assumed the future agreement of Syria andLebanon).

Figure 10 : Scenario 4 – Route modification in ES1 sector

Nicosia and Athens Airspace

UM872 became uni-directional from GITLA-KAROL-KAVOS-SIT. This routeaccommodated traffic from Jordan, and LLBG departures routed BGN-PURLA-PASOS-KAROL-EVORA or APLON depending on destination (this proposalassumed the agreement of Israel).A new route (see Figure 11) was established SIT-BENIN (Athens/Nicosia FIRboundary at 030 00E) - APLON to accommodate Tel Aviv-LLBG arrivals andtraffic destination Jordan (this proposal assumed the agreement of Athens,Nicosia and Israel).



Athens airspace

The aim of this scenario was to create a one way system of uni-directional routesbetween the Cairo FIR and the STH sector, and a similar system between theSTH sector and the Nicosia SS sector. The following route modifications weremade:

• SIT-KUMBI-BLT = Southbound traffic exiting the Athens FIR (overflights FL290 and above, and Alexandria and Cairo (HEAX/CA) inbound traffic

• DBA/AXD-SOKAL-TANSA-IRA = Northbound traffic (FL280 or above)entering Athens FIR overflights and Alexandria and Cairo (HEAX/CA)departures

• All traffic (above FL280) that currently routes via ANTAR and PAXIS was re-routed via KUMBI or TANSA depending on direction of flight

• SIT-TANSA-SOKAL and SIT-PAXIS-GESAD remained bi-directional FL270and below.

Note: This proposal assumed the agreement of Cairo. Traffic, which originallyrouted from SIT to the point DBA on the Egyptian coastline, would now have toroute via KUMBI. This would mean that after KUMBI the traffic would need toroute either KUMBI direct to DBA or LABNA-OTIKO-DBA in order to get back tothe original FPL route. These routeings are shown in grey in Figure 11.

Figure 11 : Scenario 4 - Route modification in STH Sector



5. TRAFFIC SAMPLES

5.1 CREATION

Four traffic samples covering the simulation area were downloaded from theCFMU database by the Airspace Management and Navigation (AMN)department at EUROCONTROL Brussels. The traffic samples were chosen asthey represented busy periods during the week and weekend. The followingdetails applied:

Date of traffic samples: 28-31 July 1999Time period: 0000-2359Vertical limits: FL000-UnlimitedDays: Wednesday –SaturdayRoutes: The route flown within the declared measured

area, including the beacon before the first sectorand the first beacon after the last sector

The traffic samples were then analysed by the EEC to determine the following:

• the busiest days• the busiest 2 hour period during the day• the arrival/departure rate for LCLK/LCPH/LCRA• the number of different route segments flown• the number of aircraft using each different route segment

Experience has shown that controllers quickly become familiar with trafficsamples which are regularly repeated, so instead of using the normal mix of amorning and an afternoon sample it was decided to create an additional samplebased around the lunchtime period.

The 3 base traffic samples created were:

1. Morning (AM)– 0200-0400Z (predominantly Westbound flow of traffic)2. Afternoon (PM) – 1400-1600Z (predominantly Eastbound flow of traffic)3. Lunchtime (L) – 1000-1200Z (an even mix of East and Westbound traffic)

5.2 CHANGES MADE FOR THE REAL TIME SIMULATION

The traffic was adjusted to simulate different but realistic situations (this includedconflictions at major crossing points). The traffic was also increased inaccordance with sector capacities (declared and increased) as defined in Para5.2 -Sector Capacities.

The ‘PM’ sample simulated a traffic increase of 20% and the ‘AM’ an increase of30%. The aim of the ‘L’ sample was to simulate a steady mixed flow of trafficthrough the sector, with not more than 10 aircraft on frequency at any one time.Although no specific percentage was planned, recordings show that sectorshandled an increase of between 20-45% with the ‘L’ sample. Experts fromAthens and Nicosia ACCs then validated the non-RVSM samples, after which,they were duplicated and the flight levels adjusted to RVSM values.



5.3 CONVERSION FROM NON-RVSM TO RVSM

The adjustments to RVSM flight levels were made using operational experienceinstead of following a specific rule. For the concerned flights, an appropriateRVSM FL was allocated taking into account the route, departure/destinationairport and aircraft performance. Examples of this are:

• A long haul B744 at FL350, entering at NIKAS going to the UK or Germanyrequiring an ‘even FL’, would probably be light enough to climb to FL360

• A flight entering the STH sector at TANSA at FL350 inbound to Athens,would be expecting descent within the Athens FIR, therefore FL340 wasdeemed to be the first stage of the descent

• Some flights entering at FL390 were already at their maximum ceiling level(according to the EEC aircraft performance database-BADA); therefore thelogical RVSM FL was FL380 instead of the unreachable FL400.

For the different scenarios involving a change to the route network the RVSMsamples were duplicated and the routes changed on the flights concerned.

5.3.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft

Non-RVSM approved aircraft (STATE and non-STATE) were included in theRVSM traffic samples (see Para 6.1 ATC Procedures). The exact number ofnon-RVSM approved aircraft likely to be in operation when RVSM isimplemented is unknown. However, based on the information received fromoperators it was decided to have one non-RVSM STATE flight passing througheach sector per exercise, and 1-2 non-RVSM flights entering RVSM airspace pertransition sector per exercise, which required descent below FL290.

5.4 SECTOR CAPACITIES

The following table identifies all target sector capacities per hour.

SECTOR 2000 DECLARED 20% INCREASE 30% INCREASEES1 26 31 34SE 24 29 31SS 26 31 34

STH 26 31 34WS 26 31 34

5.5 EXERCISE SCHEDULE

Generally, three 70 minute measured exercises were played each day. Duringthe last 2 weeks, the shorter Radio Communication Failure (RCF) andChangeover TO RVSM (CTOR) exercises were included in the exerciseschedule.

The simulation schedule can be found at Annex D.



6. ATC PROCEDURES6.1 GENERAL

The ATC working procedures used during the simulation were in accordancewith current Letters of Agreement (LoA) and/or particular OperationalInstructions.

SSR codes were automatically converted to show the callsign in the radar labelwith the exception of traffic starting within the region of the points MUT, AYTand KTN.

Due to the unique ATC procedures between the Nicosia and Ankara ACCs, thefollowing assumptions were made:

• There was no co-ordination or passing of estimates between the feed sectornorth of Cyprus (CY1) and Nicosia ACC (Sectors WS/ES1). This procedureis unique to traffic originating at AYT, MUT and KTN

• The feed controller transferred aircraft that started in the region of MUT tothe pilot of the ES1 sector. The pilot called in 10 minutes prior to sector entryand passed the flight level and squawk. The pilot changed to the newlyassigned squawk upon entering the Nicosia FIR

• No aircraft entered the Nicosia FIR without following the normal ATCprocedures or as identified above.

6.2 RVSM PROCEDURES

6.2.1 RVSM General Procedures

• A separation of 1000ft (300m) was applied from FL290 up to FL410 betweenRVSM approved aircraft operating as GAT within the measured sectors

• Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft operating as GAT (General Air Traffic)within RVSM airspace were provided with a minimum vertical separation of2000ft from other IFR traffic.

6.2.2 RVSM Transition Procedures

• RVSM approved and non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft entering RVSMAirspace were established at the appropriate RVSM FL (see TransitionLevels diagram Figure 1)

• Non-RVSM approved civil aircraft proceeding from non-RVSM airspace intoRVSM airspace were accommodated for the purpose of clearing such aircraftto an appropriate non-RVSM FL. During this transition task these aircraftwere provided with a minimum vertical separation of 2000ft from other traffic

• Aircraft leaving EUR RVSM airspace were given a VSM of 2000ft andestablished at the appropriate non-RVSM levels by the EUR RVSM exitpoint.



6.2.3 Non-RVSM approved aircraft

The following aircraft types were considered to be non-RVSM approved:

B703, B701, BA11, IL76, T134, T154, YK42, LR35, DC8.

Aircraft types (e.g. DH8 max RFL of FL250) with a maximum operating RFLbelow FL290 were also flight planned as non-RVSM approved. This allowed arealistic representation on the controllers’ radar screens of all non-RVSMapproved traffic.

Note: At the time of traffic preparation some of the above types had achieved anRVSM approval on an individual basis, as no group approval was available.However, these were generally privately owned executive aircraft (e.g. Americanregistered DC8/B703), and for simulation purposes it was deemed that mostoperators using these aircraft as part of a fleet would probably not go to theexpense of conversion to meet RVSM approval.

6.2.4 Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft

The following aircraft types were considered to be non-RVSM approved STATEAIRCRAFT (see definitions Para 1.1.4):

E3TF, K35R, K35E, VC10, C9.

6.2.5 R/T procedures – General

The following R/T specific to RVSM procedures, was used during the simulation.

CIRCUMSTANCE PHRASEOLOGYATC wishes to know RVSM status of

flight.(callsign) CONFIRM RVSM

APPROVED?

Pilot indication that flight is RVSMapproved.

AFFIRM RVSM

Pilot indication that the flight is non-RVSM approved. (Used on initial

contact, request for FL change withinRVSM airspace and all read backspertaining to FL clearances within

RVSM airspace).

NEGATIVE RVSM

Pilot of STATE aircraft indicating thatflight is non-RVSM approved

NEGATIVE RVSM STATEAIRCRAFT

ATC denial of clearance into RVSMairspace

UNABLE CLEARANCE INTO RVSMAIRSPACE, MAINTAIN [or

DESCEND TO, or CLIMB TO ]FL……



6.2.6 Revised RCF Procedures

Due to the interface between non-RVSM and RVSM airspace, and the problemsassociated with FLs 310, 350 and 390 being opposite direction it was consideredto be an opportunity to modify the existing RCF procedure for the implementationof RVSM.

A full description of revised procedure and the results of the test can be found atPara 7.6.



7. RESULTS

The description of the methods (Subjective and Objective analysis) used tocollate the results follows this paragraph. The results are then detailedaccording to the Specific Objectives (see section 2.2). The Conclusions of theresults appear at section 8.

7.1 ANALYSIS

7.1.1 Subjective analysis

The subjective analysis is based on two different sources of information. The firstsource is the questionnaires given to the controllers before, during, and after thesimulation. The second source is the Instantaneous Self Assessment method orISA. Where appropriate, questions asked on the questionnaires (indicated by a ‘Q.’ followed by the text in bold italic letters) have been inserted. Theanswers appear below the question in normal text.

Questionnaires

The following questionnaires were used during the simulation:

• Pre-simulation (sent out one month before start of simulation)• Post exercise (short questionnaire after each exercise)• Non-RVSM (given at the end of the Scenario 1)• RVSM (given at the end of the Scenario 2)• RVSM with a FLAS plus a slightly modified route structure (given at the end

of the Scenario 3)• RVSM with a modified route structure (given at the end of the Scenario 4)• Post Simulation -Final questionnaire (given at the end of the Simulation).

The Post exercise questionnaire included subjective evaluations on a scale from1 to 10 of the following elements:

• the controller overall workload• the R/T loading• the degree of realism of the simulated traffic sample• the difficulty in maintaining situational awareness.

For each of these elements, the value 1 was considered to be Very Low, 5 asModerate, and 10 as Very High. If a controller answered with a value of 6 orhigher they were asked to give a brief reason why (i.e. traffic density, R/Tloading, procedures). The value of 6 indicates the point at which theeffort/demand was considered to be higher than moderate. The workload resultson the questionnaires were used as a crosscheck with the ISA and datarecordings, and also as a back up in case of a recording failure.

Instantaneous Self Assessment (ISA)

The ISA method allowed the controller to assess his/her workload during the



course of a simulated exercise. The controller was provided with a warning(Flashing light) every three minutes and had 30 seconds to register theirperceived workload on a five button box (see Figure 3, ISA box situated bottomleft hand corner of photograph) according to the following point scale:

1 - Under-utilised, 2 - Relaxed, 3 - Comfortable, 4 - High, 5 - Excessive.

Experience shows that selection of either button 4 or 5 for more than 40% of anexercise means that the participant is likely to reject the organisation.

7.1.2 Objective analysis

The Objective analysis is taken from data recordings made for each exercise.From these recordings the following factors are studied:

• Analysis of the R/T occupancy• Analysis of RFL• Analysis of pilot orders• Level Changes to Solve Conflicts• Analysis of the loss of separation.

Most of the objective analysis concerned the controllers’ workload and istherefore directed mainly towards Specific Objective 2.

7.2 CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIMULATOR

In a simulation it is impossible to replicate exactly the conditions which exist inreal life. The controllers identified the following operational factors that should betaken into account when reviewing the results:

• The R/T loading on ES1 sector was considered to be lower than normal, as itwas difficult to simulate exactly the normal R/T co-ordination proceduresused between the pilot, Nicosia ACC and the adjacent ACCs

• The Greek STH sector often experiences poor/intermittent R/T reception incertain areas. It was not possible to reproduce this effect, therefore, normalR/T reception was assumed during the simulation

• The STH sector also experiences poor radar cover at the southern boundaryof the sector, which often means that a procedural service is given until radarcontact is achieved. This problem will be resolved with the introduction of anew radar head on the island of Karpathos in the near future. Solid radarcover was simulated during RVSM6

• The three Cypriot sectors had a Sony 28-inch radar screen on the radar andplanning controller positions. The ACC currently operates with only oneradar screen (similar in size to the Sony) per sector, in front of the radarcontroller. The extra screen was seen as an advantage to the planner as hecould set it to his own parameters and did not need to constantly lean overhis colleague to see the radar picture.



7.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1

To compare the following organisations, in the airspace of the Nicosia andSouthern Athens FIRs using varying levels of traffic:

1. The current route network with non-RVSM (REFERENCE)2. The current route network with RVSM3. A slightly modified route structure, with RVSM and the application of a

FLAS to effect the transition from non-RVSM to RVSM and vice versa4. A revised route structure with RVSM, incorporating uni-directional routes

at the RVSM/non-RVSM interface.

with the aim of identifying the most suitable organisation for handling trafficmaking the transition from an RVSM to a non-RVSM procedural environmentand vice versa.

7.3.1 Scenario 1 - Non-RVSM

The project team visited the Nicosia and Athens ACCs prior to the simulation toobserve controllers working under current non-RVSM conditions. It was notedthat certain operational practices would be difficult to simulate (see constraintsPara 7.2), and any direct comparison with RVSM simulation exercises would beunrealistic.

Therefore, in order to make a reasonable comparison between the differences inworkload and control methods under simulation conditions, it was decided that anon-RVSM scenario would be created to act as a reference scenario. This couldthen be directly compared to the RVSM scenarios, which would be based on thesame airspace environment and traffic samples.

The non-RVSM exercises were handled with no major problems. The trafficsamples and co-ordination procedures were considered to be realistic, and the 9exercises played helped the controllers to become familiar with the simulationenvironment prior to commencing the new RVSM procedures.

7.3.2 Scenario 2 – RVSM (for definition see Para 4.2)

A general briefing on RVSM was given before the Scenario 2 exercisescommenced at the end of the first week, however, no specific methods wereproposed to the controllers for handling the transition task.

Nine exercises (scenario 2) were completed and during this period thecontrollers’ confidence quickly grew using the additional flight levels and theexisting route network. Many of the controllers reported using tactical flight levelallocation (climb/descent of 1000ft) to resolve conflicts instead of radarvectoring.

It was reported that the transition task created additional workload and it tooktime for the controllers to understand the concept and adapt their individualcontrolling styles to manage it. In Figure 12 it can be seen that generally,transition was carried out shortly after entering the transition sectors.



Non-RVSM approved traffic did not really cause problems except the occasionalhigh level flight (e.g. FL430) which had to descend to a FL below FL290, andtherefore had to pass all the RVSM FLs in the process. However, it was felt thatthe non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft greatly increased the controllers’workload.

The 6 extra FLs increased the monitoring tasks for the EXC and PLC controllers,and at this stage of the simulation the reversal in parity of FL310, 350 and 390did cause some confusion for about a quarter of the Greek controllers and a thirdof the Cyprus controllers. This confusion was reported to affect not only thePLC, but also the EXC controller.

The most important issue for this scenario was,

Q. Did you have enough time and space to carry out the transition tasks onthe current route structure?

yes

no

12,50%

87,50%

Nicosia

57,14%

42,86%

Athens

Q. If no, please specify in which sector and on which route:

• Most of the Nicosia controllers clearly felt that ES1 was the sector with themost problems. The route segment NIKAS-VESAR was considered to betoo short to safely handle the bi-directional transition task.

• Some of the Athens controllers thought that the bi-directional routes (SIT andPAXIS/TANSA) in the STH sector were unacceptable to carry out transition.The problem of many routes converging on the point SIT contributed to thedifficulties the controllers faced when carrying out the transition task.



From the above responses it was apparent that the current operatingpractices/route network required some modification in order for the controllers tosafely and confidently manage the transition tasks.

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

HEAR

LCLK

LCPH

LCRA

LGIR

LGKC

LGKJ

LGKO

LGKPLGKS

LGRDLGRP

LGSA

LGSM

LGSO

LGSR

LGSTLGTL

LLBG

RVSM6TR2L

Figure 12 : Point of transition-Scenario 2 (Lunch Traffic)

7.3.3 Scenario 3 – RVSM with a FLAS (for definition see Para 1.1.3)

NICOSIA FIR

Route modification in ES1 – The re-routeing of south-east bound traffic viaALSUS provided the controller with an increased sense of security to be able toperform the transition task safely for traffic routeing between VESAR and NIKASand vice versa. The ‘dog leg’ via ALSUS increased the route between VESARand KTN by 22nm (about 2.8 minutes flying time for a B744).

It was noticeable that during the 7 exercises, 89% of the all the traffic planned toroute VESAR-ALSUS-NIKAS was turned before ALSUS direct to NIKAS (seeFigure 13 which shows the recording from one traffic sample). The directrouteing was generally given just south of VESAR when the aircraft had beenestablished at the required non-RVSM exit flight level.



ADA

ALSUS

BALMA

BAN

BOSIS

CAK

DAROS

DEPOL

DESPO

DOREN

KAD

KTNKUKLA

LCA

LEBOR

LOSOS

MUT

NIKAS

REXAL

RUBIKRUDER

SILKO

SOBOS

VELOX

VESAR

ADA

ALSUS

BALMA

BAN

BOSIS

CAK

DAROS

DEPOL

DESPO

DOREN

KAD

KTNKUKLA

LCA

LEBOR

LOSOS

MUT

NIKAS

REXAL

RUBIKRUDER

SILKO

SOBOS

VELOX

VESAR

LCLK

RVSM6TR3P20051000C

Figure 13 : Scenario 3 - ES1 VESAR-NIKAS routeings

The following operational considerations were noted:

• The controllers felt they had enough time to do the transition from RVSM tonon-RVSM between VESAR and ALSUS, and that the new routeingincreased sector capacity whilst reducing the potential for confliction duringthe transition phase. Although not many flights were routed over ALSUS, thecontrollers considered that the fact that the aircraft were flight planned on thisroute gave them more options (the extra distance was useful for establishingtraffic at 10 minutes longitudinal separation) and additional planning time

• The direct routeing VELOX-VESAR for traffic from Tel Aviv-LLBG caused noproblems and the controllers reported that they frequently use this directrouteing in everyday operations. It was therefore felt that a new route shouldbe established as it offered a more direct route for the aircraft and caused nodifficulties for the sector

• This route modification only directly effects the ES1 sector and wouldtherefore require no changes to current LoAs with adjacent ACCs

• The controllers thought that this scenario was an improvement on scenario 2,however, it was believed that further improvement was still needed. STATEaircraft still caused problems and opposite direction traffic still convergedover VESAR (where co-ordination procedures are difficult) and NIKAS.

FLAS at RASDA – The FLAS was seen to have little effect on the transition taskat RASDA. The number of flights operating at FL350 in this area was minimal,and as the conflict point (previously EVORA) had recently been relocated furtherto the north, the controllers saw little benefit in flight level restrictions in this area.This feeling was reinforced with the introduction of the new routeing via BENIN inscenario 4 which moved the conflict point even further away from RASDA andwas considered to be the most suitable option. Note: the current restriction fordepartures from Alexandria (HEAX) and Cairo (HECA), to be not above FL280 atRASDA still applied in all scenarios.



ATHENS FIR

FLAS at SIT – The blocking of a flight level on 2 of the routes converging to SITdid not appear to have a noticeable effect on the controllers workload. This canbe attributed to the fact that the aircraft originally at the blocked levels weresimply moved to another FL and still had to be controlled by the sector (R/T, co-ordination etc remained the same). It was felt that a FLAS was not requiredbecause the transition problem still existed with the remaining FLs.

In Figure 14 the point at which transition took place can be seen in red forRVSM to non-RVSM, and in orange for non-RVSM to RVSM. This graphicshows the Lunch traffic sample, where the flights requiring transition from RVSMto non-RVSM were mostly changed to their exit FL before SIT, with the exceptionof some flights inbound to Cairo-HECA or Alexandria-HEAX, which routed on theuni-directional segment SIT-KUMBI.

In the simulation the flight levels applicable to the FLAS were pre-arranged in thetraffic sample and this meant that the Feed sector FGR1 had very little input tomake. However, in reality a FLAS like this would mean that the adjacentsectors would be faced with the addition task of delivering the traffic at thecorrect levels. Although these tasks were not simulated it was felt that it wouldbe unacceptable to the 2 adjacent sectors concerned, one of which will alsohandle transition tasks in the METRU area and the other which is a busy sectorhandling traffic converging at MIL.

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DEPOL

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK RUDER

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DEPOL

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK RUDER

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

HEAR

LCLK

LCPH

LCRA

LGIR

LGKC

LGKJ

LGKO

LGKPLGKS

LGRDLGRP

LGSA

LGSM

LGSO

LGSR

LGSTLGTL

LLBG

RVSM6TR3L

Figure 14 : Point of transition-Scenario 3 (Lunch Traffic)



7.3.4 Scenario 4 – RVSM with a modified route system (for definition see Para 4.4)

NICOSIA FIR

Route modification in ES1 – The re-routeing of south-east bound traffic viaBALMA meant that traffic no longer converged at NIKAS (but did still converge atVESAR). The controllers felt that this scenario was better than scenario 3 as theuni-directional flow of traffic to and from Syria was separated making thetransition task easier to plan and handle.

The modified routeing increased the total distance between VESAR and KTN by18nm (about 2.5 minutes flying time for a B74F) which was slightly less thanscenario 3.

Another advantage of the routeing via BALMA-CAK was that traffic had to passthrough the Beirut FIR before going on to KTN in the Damascus FIR. BeirutACC is equipped with radar which helped to improve co-ordination (DamascusACC currently provides a procedural service only).

Route modification in SS Sector – The combination of the new uni-directionalroute SIT-BENIN-APLON and the modification of the route KAROL-EVORA-KAVOS-SIT to uni-directional was considered to be a big improvement on thecurrent situation, and the FLAS option at RASDA seen in scenario 3. It was feltthat safety and capacity were increased and it was easier to separate trafficperforming transition from the Tel Aviv-LLBG traffic that was established on uni-directional routes.

Departures from Tel Aviv (LLBG) via PASOS

The proposed new Tel Aviv departure route via PASOS (see Figure 6) wasgenerally considered to be inappropriate, as it routed the traffic too far to thesouth and could potentially conflict with departures from Gaza which enterNicosia FIR via PASOS. Out of the 133 aircraft planned to depart via PASOSonly 9 aircraft (7%) actually routed to PASOS, instead most of the traffic routedfrom PURLA direct to either ALKIS or TOMBI or on a radar vector of about 300°.

Some controllers felt that the old routeing via GITLA was adequate, whilst othersthought that if departures had to be separated from inbound traffic, then movingthe departure route south was a good idea, but to use PURLA-KAROL instead ofvia PASOS.



ATHENS FIR

Route Modification in STH Sector – The proposed routeing system was likedby the Athens controllers because it had only one entry and one exit point to andfrom the Cairo FIR. This facilitated the transition task as traffic was not directlyopposed and from Figure 15 it can be seen that transition for many southboundflights was left until after passing SIT. However, the scenario did have thefollowing drawbacks:

1) The routeing of all traffic above FL280 through KUMBI was a reasonablesolution for Athens ACC to separate the Southbound flow from theNorthbound through TANSA. However, it would mean that traffic going to thepoint DBA in Egypt would be having to route an additional 5-15 minutes(depending on the route in Cairo FIR) from the desired track. It is unlikely thatthe Aircraft Operators would accept this option

2) The Egyptian experts felt that this route proposal was not an acceptablesolution, as it would effect their flows of traffic too much (particularlyconcentrating northbound traffic through the point SOKAL)

3) Some of the Greek controllers felt that despite all the uni-directional routes,there was still too much traffic converging towards the point SIT, causinggarbling and making it difficult to monitor the progress of the traffic.

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BENIN

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DEPOL

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK RUDER

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BENIN

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DEPOL

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK RUDER

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

HEAR

LCLK

LCPH

LCRA

LGIR

LGKC

LGKJ

LGKO

LGKPLGKS

LGRDLGRP

LGSA

LGSM

LGSO

LGSR

LGSTLGTL

LLBG

RVSM6TR4L

Figure 15 : Transition map Scenario 4 (Lunch Traffic)



7.3.5 Scenario 4B – RVSM with a MAJOR route modification in ES1 sector

Having completed the four scenarios the simulation participants discussed thedifferent options and Cyprus and Greece requested a modification based onScenario 4. This request was accepted by the project team as it was could beeasily prepared and it was seen as a good opportunity to incorporate it into anexisting simulation. However, the request did contain new route segments,which would effect neighbouring airspace and it was agreed that thescenario would be simulated on the understanding that no prior negotiationor agreement had taken place with the neighbouring FIRs. The modificationsrequested were as follows:

NICOSIA FIR

• A new route was created from KFK direct to BALMA-CAK-KTN. Where thisroute crossed the Nicosia FIR boundary to the north, a new point wascreated called CORAL (see Figure 16). This route was uni-directional(southbound) for the traffic which currently routes KFK-MUT-VESAR-NIKAS-BAN-KTN

• The reason for this modification was to establish 2 independent uni-directional routes within ES1 sector. This meant that the traffic would nothave to pass each other at any point within ES1 sector, which would facilitatethe transition task

• Inbound traffic to Cyprus from CORAL was routed CORAL-RUDER-LCA andtraffic to Tel Aviv was routed CORAL-VELOX.

Figure 16 : Scenario 4B – Route modification in ES1 sector



ATHENS FIR

• The most suitable solution for Athens was to have the northerly flow of trafficthrough TANSA and the southerly through PAXIS. The opposite applied forCairo as they would prefer to separate the converging northerly flows DBA-SOKAL and AXD-SOKAL

• After discussions between the Athens supervisor and the Egyptianparticipants, it was suggested to try a scheme where 2 new route segmentswould be created between GESAD-TANSA and PAXIS-SOKAL (see Figure17). These routes would be used by Cairo ACC to

½ send northbound traffic routeing AXD-GESAD across to TANSA½ send southbound traffic coming through PAXIS requiring to route to DBA

across to SOKAL.

In reality these new route segments could be potentially difficult toimplement and were therefore created on the understanding that they werea simulation proposal and no formal agreement had been made betweenthe Athens and Cairo ACCs. However, the participation of the Egyptianexperts was much appreciated and greatly assisted the development of thisscenario.

Figure 17 : Scenario 4B - Route modification in STH sector




To examine the effect of the introduction of RVSM in the sectors of the Nicosiaand Southern Athens FIRs by measuring

• the sector workload• the sector throughput

in the RVSM organisations, and comparing them with the reference scenario.

7.4.1 Sector Workload

Due to the complexity and variance of the tasks that a Radar controller andPlanner undertake, it is impossible to put a single figure on the overall workloadthat is done by a sector during a simulation. The workload is normally directlylinked with the number of aircraft passing through a sector, the more aircraft - themore calls on the radio, more co-ordination required and more monitoringrequired.

It was clear that the controllers found a difference between the 20% and 30%traffic samples. Some of the more important tasks have been selected below toindicate at what levels the controllers were performing during the variousscenarios, but due to the fact the same number of aircraft were present duringeach scenario, there appears to be very little difference in the recordingsbetween scenarios.

Headings and Direct Orders – A comparison of the different scenarios showedno clear trend on the number of headings or direct routeings given. It wasnoticeable that the SS and WS sectors were consistently high, and when this iscompared with the replays of the exercises it can be seen that many flightsrouteing between Tel Aviv-LLBG and the point TOMBI were given direct tracks(see Figure 18). The track TOMBI direct to either APLON, LEDRA or SOLIN isnot available as a route due to the Danger Area D3 south of Cyprus, however,during the simulation, D3 was deemed to be only active up to FL200. Althoughthis direct routeing benefits the operators, it should be considered in futureairspace restructuring, as it was widely used by the controllers but at the sametime an aircraft off-route normally requires extra R/T, coordination andmonitoring.



ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BENIN

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DEPOL

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK RUDER

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

ADAAKINA

ALKIS

ALSUS

ANTARAPLON

ARH

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BENIN

BGN

BLT

BOSIS

CAK

CRD

DAL

DAROS

DASNI

DBA

DDM

DEPOL

DESPO

DORENEVENO

EVORA

GESAD

GITLA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

IRA

KAD

KANAR KAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFK

KFKSE

KOPAR

KRC

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEBOR

LEDRA

LINGI

LINRO

LMOS

LOSOS

LUBES

MAROS

MENKU

MERVA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MUT

NIKAS

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PASOS

PAXIS

PIPEN

PLH

PURLA

RASDA

RDS

REDRA

REXAL

RIPLI

RUBIK RUDER

SILKO

SIT

SITRU

SOBOS

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOBAL

TOMBI

TOROS

TOSKA

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

HEAR

LCLK

LCPH

LCRA

LGIR

LGKC

LGKJ

LGKO

LGKPLGKS

LGRDLGRP

LGSA

LGSM

LGSO

LGSR

LGSTLGTL

LLBG

RVSM6TR4P20121000B

Figure 18 : Tracks flown in Scenario 4 (Afternoon traffic)

ISA – The ISA graphs shown in Figure 19 show the comparison of EXCcontrollers’ positions in the afternoon traffic sample (20% increase in traffic).The fairly even spread in all scenarios of medium and dark blue shows a busybut controlled environment, the flashes of orange are when the situation wasbecoming too busy for the controller to keep up with all the required tasks. The 2cases of red scores are when the sector was overloaded, but it was only verybriefly.

The horizontal line shown at the 40% mark indicates the point where, fromexperience, the scenario will normally be rejected. When compared with therecordings from the 30% traffic sample (Figure 20) an increase in the orangeand red scores supports the controllers’ feelings that the 30% traffic sample wasat times too busy on some sectors (especially those dealing with transition or co-ordination via the R/T).



Estimated Workload (ISA)

Very High Norma Low Very No

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ES1/EXC SE/EXC SS/EXC STH/EXC WS/EXC

TC1P20

TR2P20

TR3P20

TR4P20

TC1P20

TR2P20

TR3P20

TR4P20

TC1P20

TR2P20

TR3P20

TR4P20

TC1P20

TR2P20

TR3P20

TR4P20

TC1P20

TR2P20

TR3P20

TR4P20

Figure 19 : Workload comparison between the Afternoon traffic samples

Estimated Workload (ISA)

Very High Norma Low Very No

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ES1/EXC SE/EXC SS/EXC STH/EXC WS/EXC

TC1A30

TR2A30

TR3A30

TR4A30

TC1A30

TR2A30

TR3A30

TR4A30

TC1A30

TR2A30

TR3A30

TR4A30

TC1A30

TR2A30

TR3A30

TR4A30

TC1A30

TR2A30

TR3A30

TR4A30

Figure 20 : Workload comparison between the Morning traffic samples



R/T – The R/T recordings also supported the ISA results showing that theAfternoon traffic (20% increase) was marginally below the 40% marker line,however, the sectors dealing with coordination via the radio (ES1 and WS) wereclose enough to the 40% line to cause concern. In all the traffic samples theGreek sectors STH and SE remained below 30% usage, but in the Lunch trafficsamples it can be seen in Figure 21 that ES1 and WS were unacceptably highin all scenarios except 4B. In the morning samples (30% increase) all 3 Cypriotsectors averaged around the 40% mark, which is considered to beunacceptable.

RADIO USAGELUNCH Traffic samples%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

ES1/EXE SE/EXE SS/EXE STH/EXE WS/EXE

TC1L

TR2L

TR3L

TR4L

TR4LB

TC1L

TR2L

TR3L

TR4L

TR4LB

TC1L

TR2L

TR3L

TR4L

TR4LB

TC1L

TR2L

TR3L

TR4L

TR4LB

TC1L

TR2L

TR3L

TR4L

TR4LB

3943

46

36

30

22 2123 23

2628

34

29 29 30

17 16 17 1714

34 34 3432

25

Figure 21 : R/T loading - Lunch traffic sample

Flight Level Orders – Due to the transition task it was foreseen that the numberof flight level orders would slightly increase on the sectors handling transition. Ingeneral this was the case for each scenario, but there was no clear trendbetween scenarios, however, the benefit of the additional flight levels can beseen in 2 situations.

1. Long haul traffic is often transferred to Nicosia on the route KTN-BAN-NIKAS-VESAR at medium levels due to the fact that Damascus had notbeen able to climb the traffic under the procedural service. Nicosiacontrollers only have a short time to handle this traffic and are currently fairlyrestricted to due to only having the westbound upper FLs 310, 350, 390available.

This was simulated by one flight, which arrived at NIKAS at FL240 requestingFL350 in the non-RVSM exercises and FL360 in the RVSM exercises. In the7 non-RVSM exercises the flight was only climbed to its RFL on 3 occasions(about 50% success rate), whereas in the 22 RVSM exercises, where



additional flight levels were available, the flight was climbed to its RFL on 20occasions (about 90% success rate).

2. Traffic departing from Beirut via VESAR is normally restricted to FL280 dueto the climb profile and lack of FLs available at VESAR due to overflyingtraffic.

In the non-RVSM exercises, of the 21 flights departing Beirut via VESARonly 2 were climbed to their RFL (about 10% success rate), whereas in theRVSM exercises, where additional flight levels were available, of the 54departing flights, 25 were climbed to their RFL (about 46% success rate).

Controller opinion – The main elements affecting the controllers’ workloadwere:

• the non-RVSM STATE flights (see Para 7.5.1)• the co-ordination procedures on WS and ES1 sector• the transition task in sectors STH, SS and ES1.

The amount of workload these 3 elements generated can not be directlyquantified, as a scenario was not simulated where the procedures weremodified. However, it should be noted that the ES1 sector had all 3 elements tocontend with and this made handling traffic very difficult.

The controllers felt that RVSM would provide extra capacity and flexibility,however, in areas such as the transition airspace, changes are required toenable the controllers to safely carry out the transition tasks. The use of uni-directional routes and restricting non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft to belowFL290 were considered to be the factors that would reduce the controllers’workload the most in the short term. A fully automated Flight Plan DataProcessing (FDP) system with On line Data Interchange (OLDI) link would alsoreduce the workload of the EXC and PLC controllers, however, this is seen as amore medium to long term goal due to the complexity of the project.



7.4.2 Sector throughput

The traffic samples were created with the aim of having each sector working asclose to the declared sector capacity as possible. The table below shows thenumber of aircraft per hour, and the figures are the average of the exercisesplayed during each of the 4 scenarios.

For all the sectors, except the SE sector, the target figure for the morning trafficwas 34 aircraft per hour (30% increase on 2000 capacity) and the afternoontraffic was 31 per hour (20% increase on 2000 capacity). The SE sector wasslightly less, 31 and 29 respectively.

The Lunch traffic sample was created to represent a constant flow of trafficwithout specific peaks. Sector capacity was not taken into account, however, itcan be seen that it ranged between 20-45%, dependent on the sector.

Results

The analysis was based on an aircraft being on frequency during the measuredperiod. There are no major differences between the 4 scenarios, this is mainlydue to the fact that the sectors handling transition were not vertically split andany profile changes caused by transition affected the same sector.

The minor discrepancies between scenarios can be attributed to the late transferof traffic between sectors at the start of the exercise or early transfer at the endof the exercise.

SECTOR MORNING (AM)TRAFFIC

LUNCH (L) TRAFFIC AFTERNOON (PM)TRAFFIC

S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4

ES1 36 36 36 36 37 37 36 36 33 33 32 32SE 33 32 33 34 30 32 32 30 32 32 32 30SS 36 35 35 35 36 36 33 36 31 31 33 32STH 36 36 36 36 28 28 29 28 32 32 33 32WS 35 36 35 36 38 36 36 38 33 33 33 32

The controllers considered that the flow and loading of traffic was realistic, andthe workload figures show that the sectors were working close to, and in somecases, at the limit of capacity. This point was reinforced by many of thecontrollers who felt that in the future an increase in traffic levels and the extratransition task would require a reassessment of the current sectorisation andprocedures.




To examine the following procedural aspects:

• further validate the procedures developed by the ATM ProceduresDevelopment Sub-group (APDSG) for handling non-RVSM approvedflights

• R/T phraseology• Test a revised RCF Procedure.

7.5.1 Non-RVSM approved aircraft (for description see para 6.2.3)

Identification of non-RVSM approved flights was done by the following threemethods:

1. Indication in the radar label (by colour or symbol)2. Indication on the flight progress strips3. Specific R/T phraseology.

The RVSM6 simulation simulated two different HMI systems (unique to Cyprusand Greece), each required different marking and identification methods. TheCyprus system could be considered a basic system, where as the Greek systemis a more modern system incorporating the use of colour, therefore allowingdifferentiation by the use of colour alone.

As most of the sectors simulated were geographical sectors (i.e. ground tounlimited based on a geographical area), all non-RVSM approved traffic weredisplayed. This included aircraft whose operational service ceiling limitsprecluded them from ever reaching RVSM airspace (an example of this situationis shown in Figure 25, LOV001 a Jetstream 31, is displayed as a non-RVSMapproved aircraft despite having a maximum service ceiling of FL250.

Note: Under certain conditions, it is possible for an ACC using vertically splitsectors above FL280 to filter out the non-RVSM approved traffic operatingpermanently below FL280. See the “ATC manual for a Reduced VerticalSeparation Minimum (RVSM) in Europe, article 8.6 ATS systems overview” forfurther information on displaying distinguishing features.

THE CYPRUS HMI

Radar Label - The identification of a non-RVSM approved flight in the Cyprussystem was made by displaying an asterix (*) next to the aircraft type on the thirdline of the radar label (see Figure 22). Normally the controller can deselect line3, however, in cases where the symbol was displayed line 3 remainedpermanently displayed.



Figure 22 : Cyprus Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft

Flight progress strips

Non-RVSM - Figure 23 shows an example of a Cyprus westbound flightprogress strip. As this particular aircraft is a Boeing 707 (non-RVSM approved)the label ‘NONRVSM’ appeared on the far right hand side of the strip. In thisexample, the entry level from non-RVSM airspace was FL350; the RVSMrequested flight level (RFL) is FL280 (non-RVSM traffic is required to descendbelow FL290).

Figure 23 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft

Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft - Figure 24 shows an example of aCyprus westbound flight progress strip. As this particular aircraft is a militaryoperated non-RVSM approved aircraft operating on GAT routes the label‘NONRVSM’ and ‘STATE’ appeared on the far right hand side of the strip (seeFigure 24). STATE aircraft will be permitted to operate within RVSM airspaceprovided that 2000’ vertical separation is maintained from all other traffic.

Figure 24 : Cyprus Paper Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft

A0263 B703 OEDR EDDF

N6092M VES NIK

2307

350

NONRVSM

R280

A0263 VC10 LLBG EGVN

RRR4071 VES VEL GIT

2307

300

NONRVSM

STATE



THE GREEK HMI

Radar label - In the Greek system, regardless of the flight status e.g. pending,assumed or transferred, non-RVSM approved aircraft were differentiated bydisplaying the callsign in the colour mustard (see Figure 25).

Figure 25 : Greek Radar Label–Non-RVSM approved aircraft

Flight progress strips (electronic) – In addition to the mustard colouredcallsign, the border of the entire electronic strip was also highlighted with thecolour mustard, which helped to differentiate non-RVSM flight progress from theRVSM strips (see Figure 26).

.

Figure 26 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved aircraft

A further differentiation was made between non-RVSM approved and non-RVSMapproved STATE flights by the text ‘STA’ shown in red, adjacent to the callsign(see Figure 27).

Figure 27 : Greek E-Strip–Non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft



Results

Q. With regard to non-RVSM aircraft, do you consider that the informationon the radar label was adequate?

yes

partially

no

28,57%

28,57%

42,86%

Nicosia

100,00%

Athens

All Nicosia controllers experienced difficulty visualising the non-RVSMindications on a cluttered radar display. Due to the present sectorisation andATC system, Nicosia controllers operate with their radar screen set on a widerange. This combination of wide range displays, lack of differentiating colourand overlapping labels sometimes made the task of visually separating non-RVSM aircraft difficult.

Figure 28 illustrates 2 cases of traffic clutter. On the left the Cyprus radar isshowing a non-RVSM VC10 and the asterix to the right of the word VC10 couldeasily be confused with either trail dots or an aircraft position symbol.

The Greek system on the right shows that despite the target clutter, the callsignof the non-RVSM flight RCH505 still stands out clearly, reminding the controllerof the existence of the flight and hence, the requirement for 2000’ separation.

Figure 28 : Non-RVSM traffic in clutter (Cyprus and Greek display)



The Cypriot controllers had the chance to see the Greek system, which clearlydemonstrated the benefits gained by the use of different colours within the radarlabel. It was felt that colour would be the only practical solution for Nicosia.However, the proposed new Nicosia ACC and HMI will not be complete beforeRVSM implementation, therefore, other suitable methods of visually identifyingnon-RVSM aircraft on a cluttered radar display should be considered. As thepresent system has limited potential for modification the following options aresuggested in addition to the asterisk:

• Focus on controller awareness of the problem by encouraging the use of ared flight strip in the strip bay for non-RVSM traffic and rotating the radarlabel in advance to reduce clutter

• Modify the system so that the radar label of non-RVSM traffic flashesfrequently (every 2-5 minutes) so that the flashing can be acknowledged orcancelled by the controller

• Make the * symbol larger and/or a different brightness

• An additional screen for the PLC (especially on the ES1 sector) would enablea reduction in the range setting of the EXC radar providing the controller witha less cluttered picture, whilst maintaining the extended range on the PLCposition for planning purposes.

Q. With regard to non-RVSM aircraft, do you consider that the informationon the flight strip was adequate?

yes

partially

no62,50%

12,50%

25,00%

Nicosia

100,00%

Athens

Comments

Red paper strip holders - To help further differentiate non-RVSM aircraft,Nicosia controllers utilised a red strip holder as opposed to the normal yellowand blue (relative to direction of flight). Controllers appreciated this suggestionas this clearly identified the aircraft as a non-RVSM or non-RVSM STATEaircraft.

Printing of Requested Flight Level (RFL) - The addition of the RFL on thepaper strip was only simulated in Scenario 3 and 4. All controllers felt that thiswas a requirement for RVSM operations as by knowing the flight’s intentions itresulted in a decrease in R/T time required per aircraft, and also had the addedadvantage of being able to plan the allocation of flight levels in advance.



Non-RVSM approved aircraft

It was considered that the task of transitioning of non-RVSM traffic enteringRVSM airspace to below FL290 only slightly increased the workload on acontroller. However, all the aircraft requiring descent below FL290 did achievethe new FL within the transition sector (notably – traffic entering at NIKAS atFL430 was able to descend through all the RVSM levels to FL280, and level offbefore VESAR). A couple of the controllers found that the highlighting of all non-RVSM approved aircraft (e.g. the traffic unable to climb above FL280 like a DH8as well as the traffic which had to be descended from RVSM airspace) could bea little distracting at times.

Non-RVSM STATE Aircraft (see also Paras 6.2.1 and 6.2.4)

All the sectors reported that the non-RVSM STATE flights greatly increasedcontroller workload. The ES1 sector had the most difficulties with the STATEflights. It was clear that the required separation of 2000ft on the busy routesegment NIKAS-VESAR was very difficult to incorporate. Many flights werevectored off-route to avoid the problem of opposite direction traffic (Note: Thissolution was easily achieved in the simulation, but due to difficult co-ordinationprocedures could not be guaranteed in actual operations) or given a descentbelow FL290.

The controllers did not have much time or space to carry out the normaltransition tasks and the addition of a STATE flight meant that either the FL of theSTATE flight was frequently modified, or the other conflicting flights had to bemodified. The potential for late FL allocation linked with the uncertainty of theexisting co-ordination procedures with Ankara and Damascus were consideredto be factors which raised safety concerns on this route.

For example: A STATE flight entering at NIKAS FL350 requesting FL360. TheNicosia ACC will have had prior notification of the flight from Damascus andshould be able to plan which Even westbound FL to allocate. They will alsoneed to block/vacate the eastbound FL above and below the new westbound FLin order to provide the required 2000ft separation. As soon as the pilots areaware of the new planned FL they will have to contact Ankara ACC and pass anestimate for VESAR plus the FL. If for some reason his RFL FL360 is notavailable and Nicosia allocate FL340, then all the opposite traffic at FL330/350 isa potential loss of separation. Until the flight confirms its cruising FL, AnkaraACC will not be able to plan to keep the opposite FLs clear. A situation couldexist where there may well be traffic coming in the opposite direction atFL330/350 who have already passed their estimates for VESAR to Nicosia,which could mean that further co-ordination would be required.

Due to the problems mentioned above, the controllers believed that in the futureduring RVSM operations, any STATE flight arriving during a busy period in theES1 sector would cause severe disruption. In the interest of safety, it wasrecommended that due to the unique and complex procedures on the routeUL619 and short flying distances involved, STATE flights should be restrictedfrom transiting through the points VESAR and /or NIKAS above FL280.



7.5.2 R/T Phraseology

The phraseology as described in Para 6.2.5 caused few problems for thecontrollers or the pilots.

Q .Was the R/T phraseology considered to be appropriate?

Cyprus = 5-Yes, 1-No, 2-Don’t knowGreece = 7-Yes.



7.5.3 Radio Communications Failure (RCF) Procedure

Description

It has been identified that RVSM has implications regarding air groundcommunications failure procedures, especially regarding aircraft that aretransitioning from adjacent non-RVSM airspace to the European RVSM airspaceand vice-versa. As such, the communication failure procedures applicablewithin the European Region (EUR ICAO Region as reflected in ICAO Doc 7030)are presently under review. The inclusion of this objective within the RVSM6simulation was requested on behalf of the EUROCONTROL ATM ProceduresDevelopment Sub-Group (APDSG).

Three important “communication failure” considerations were:

1. The difference between the cruising levels appropriate to direction of flightwithin RVSM airspace, to those applicable within adjacent non-RVSMairspace

2. The potential time / distance that a “lost communication” aircraft could beoperating at a cruising level not appropriate to direction of flight, whentransitioning from non-RVSM airspace to RVSM airspace, and vice-versa

3. The existing ICAO Doc 4444 requirement to “maintain the last assignedspeed and altitude if higher, for a period of 20 minutes following the aircraft’sfailure to report its position over a compulsory reporting point and thereafteradjust level and speed in accordance with the filed flight plan.”

The Draft RCF Procedures included the following amendments:

Procedure – 7 minute rule:

“Maintain last assigned level or minimum flight altitude, whichever is higher, for20 minutes (proposal to change to 7 minutes) after”,

-The time such level is reached,Or

-The time that the aircraft sets the transponder to Code 7600, whichever is later.

Procedure – SSR selection of code 7600

The use of Emergency SSR Code 7600 to indicate a communication failureremained the same. The draft proposal includes the addition of the followingcodes to identify pilot intentions after the initial declaration of lost communicationi.e. 7600.

7601 – Continue to fly in VMC

7602 – Continuing flight to the aerodrome of destination

7603 – two minutes prior to commencement of climb (in accordance with filed



flight plan). This code would be used until the flight-planned level is reached,then the SSR code would revert to 7602.

7604 - two minutes prior to commencement of descent (in accordance with filedflight plan). This code would be used until the flight-planned level is reached,then the SSR code would revert to 7602.

Figure 29 : RCF – SSR Code 7603

Figure 29 illustrates the Greek HMI and lost communication emergency squawk7603 indicating a climb. In this example, KHO3671, a southbound (non-RVSMapproved) flight is climbing to its RFL FL370 (after passing the RVSM exit point).

Results

All controllers received a briefing on the amended procedures. Three, 30 minuteexercises were specially created incorporating all of the new RCF proposals.

Q. Did the application of the proposed RCF procedures cause any ATCproblems?

YES – 2NO – 11Comment- see notes 1 and 2 below.

Q. Did the use of dedicated SSR codes contribute to controllercomprehension of pilot intentions?

YES – 13NO – 0Comment- see note 5 below.

Q. In general, did you consider that the proposed procedures are animprovement on the existing procedures?

YES – 13NO – 0



Comments:

1) During the RCF exercises several controllers had concerns about the RCFprocedure in general. This is probably due to the fact that in reality it isseldom experienced.

2) Some controllers felt they were never exactly sure of pilot actions. As RCFincidents are so rare, both pilots and controllers have limited practice andexperience with these emergency procedures. Confusion could also becreated by additional “time and or level restrictions” as often-found inpublished standard instrument departures (SID).

3) Some controllers also felt that they were not sure when to apply the two-minute rule (with change of squawk prior to climb or descent) and if that wasin addition to, or part of the seven-minute rule.

4) Confusion existed as to whether an RCF aircraft leaving RVSM airspaceshould climb or descend to reach the non-RVSM flight planned level beforethe RVSM airspace exit point or whether the action should be started at theRVSM airspace exit point, thus climbing or descending in non-RVSMairspace.

The ATC Manual for RVSM in Europe states under RVSM TRANSITIONPROCEDURES that, ATC units on the interface of EUR RVSM airspaceshall establish a minimum 2,000ft VSM between aircraft exiting EUR RVSMairspace before they pass the transfer of control point and establish them atthe appropriate non-RVSM levels.

By following standard ICAO RCF procedures, any required climb or descentshould be started once the aircraft has reached the point specified in theflight plan.

As the flight plan will include an appropriate non-RVSM flight level at the exitpoint of RVSM airspace, an RCF aircraft (leaving RVSM airspace) wouldactually carry out the transition between RVSM and non-RVSM flight levelsafter leaving RVSM airspace. Therefore, this procedure has possibleimplications when considering the flight levels FL310, 350 and 390, whichchange parity at the transition interface.

It was identified that as a safety benefit, one way routes were preferable inthis particular situation. If one way routes were not possible on the RVSMairspace boundary, the separation of RVSM entry and exit points should beinvestigated. This would allow aircraft to be level at their non-RVSM flightlevel prior to physical entry of non-RVSM airspace.

5) Several controllers had difficulty remembering the meaning of the 7603 and7604 squawks. They proposed that as the number 3 is lower than thenumber 4, it is only logical that 7603 would represent a descent and 7604represent a climb.

6) The RCF information displayed in the radar label during the RCF exerciseswas considered to be adequate for the Cypriot and Greek controllers.




To gain controller confidence in the viability of introducing RVSM in theNicosia and Athens FIRs.

Pre-simulation

Prior to the simulation the controllers were given a questionnaire which asked:

• What they hoped to gain from the simulation• What are the advantages/disadvantages of using RVSM with the ECAC area• What effect will transition have on their controlling task within their airspace?

The replies can be summarised as follows, most of the controllers hoped to gainexperience and knowledge of RVSM operations and to find solutions topotential problems with routeings and equipment.

The main advantage foreseen was an increase in capacity coupled with adecrease in workload. The controllers believed that a better ATC service wouldbe possible, as the extra RVSM flight levels would give the operators morechance of achieving their optimum cruising level.

However, transition was seen as a task that could affect safety and wouldrequire additional workload, and was complicated by the handling of non-RVSM approved STATE aircraft and an increase in co-ordination.

Results

At the end of the three-week simulation the controllers had seen about 30 RVSMexercises and had received several presentations and briefings on RVSM ATCprocedures. The following questions were asked on the post simulationquestionnaire,

Q. Has your perception of RVSM been changed by the simulation?

yes 87,50%

no12,50%



Q. In Non-RVSM, FL310, FL350 and FL390 are Westbound levels. WithRVSM, these levels become Eastbound. By the end of the simulation, didthe reversal of these flight levels cause you any problems?

Cyprus 5 = No4 = Yes

Greece 7 = No

Half way through the simulation the controllers were asked the same questionand at that time more controllers were finding that the reversal of the 3 flightlevels was causing some difficulties or confusion.

By the end of the simulation all of the Athens controllers had adapted to thechange in orientation and only 4 of the Nicosia controllers (who were all seniorcontrollers with many years experience) indicated that the reversal still causedproblems. These problems can be attributed to a combination of the complextransition task faced by the Nicosia ES1 sector, and the controller who hasbecome familiar working with one rule over many years (i.e. FL350 is awestbound level), who then has to accept a complete reversal of that rule.

Q. What is your overall impression of RVSM?(A summary of the replies follows)

With the traffic levels increasing yearly, RVSM was seen by many as a potentialsolution to capacity and safety issues.

Non-RVSM approved traffic, especially STATE aircraft increased controllerworkload, as did the reallocation of flight levels required for transition duringpeak periods.

The majority of the controllers felt very positive and confident using RVSM.Some apprehension remained about whether ATC procedures and equipmentmodifications would be finalised in time for RVSM implementation, however, theadvantages of the 6 extra flight levels were clearly seen, and were considered togive more flexibility and capacity to ATC and better optimum level allocation tooperators.




Additional Objective agreed during the simulation

To simulate the changeover scheduled for 24 January 2002, from non-RVSM toRVSM. Controllers’ subjective feedback was used to identify any potentialoperational aspects arising from the changeover.

Exercise preparation

Traffic operating between the period 2300-0100 hours was studied from CFMUrecordings from January 2000 and July 2000. It showed that the 5 simulatedsectors presently handle low levels of traffic at midnight, especially in January.In order to give each sector in the simulation the opportunity to experience thechangeover to RVSM, a traffic sample was created specifically with 4-5 aircraft ineach sector (representing more than reality).

The exercise was programmed assuming that the moment of changeover wouldbe midnight, and the traffic was positioned to be in as many different situationsas possible, these included:

• climbing and descending traffic• east and west bound traffic• traffic at the transfer point between internal sectors• traffic at the transfer point between ACCs• Non-RVSM approved traffic, which would require descent.

The traffic sample was 30 minutes long, this allowed a 20 minute build up tomidnight and 10 minutes after midnight. Two exercises were run in the thirdweek, which ensured that the controllers were familiar with RVSM proceduresprior to the exercises. The exercises were assessed using subjective opiniononly, and the controllers were rotated between feed and measured sectors forthe second run so that everyone had the opportunity to experience an exerciseon one of the simulated sectors.

Results

No major difficulties were reported during the 2 exercises. In theory trafficalready established at an odd/eastbound flight level (FL330/370) did not requireany action unless it wanted to climb a couple of thousand feet for better fueleconomy (this was not simulated). During both exercises all westbound trafficand non-RVSM approved traffic were established at the correct flight levelby 5 minutes past midnight. The following operational questions were raisedeither before or during the runs,

Can a controller allocate an aircraft an RVSM level before midnight?

Example: An aircraft climbing out of LLBG (Tel Aviv) going westbound beingcontrolled by sector SS. Just before midnight the aircraft will climb to FL350 forexample, but his requested RVSM FL just after midnight will be FL360. To savethe aircraft levelling at FL350 and then a couple of minutes later being re-clearedto FL360, could a controller clear the aircraft directly to FL360?



For the simulation controllers were briefed that an RVSM FL could be allocatedbefore midnight, provided that the aircraft was in and would remain within thatsector during the period just before and at midnight, and that 1000’ separation(above FL290) was not used against another aircraft until after midnight.

Does the controller have to make a general broadcast to traffic on hisfrequency that RVSM operations will commence from midnight?

This comment was considered to be a sensible safeguard that could be usedjust in case any aircrew are unaware or have forgotten. During the simulationtraffic was advised either by general broadcast or on an individual basis, toexpect a FL change after midnight.

What safeguards exist to ensure correct flight planning procedures arecarried out prior to RVSM?

This question was raised as a result of an error in the simulation traffic samplewhere a non-RVSM approved aircraft was indicated as RVSM approved in theradar label and on the flight strip, but the pilot correctly transmitted on firstcontact that he was non-RVSM approved.

From November 2000 operators of aircraft that are RVSM approved will berequired to add the letter ‘W’ in Field 10 of their FPL (Flight Plan). Closer toRVSM implementation any operator filing a FPL which omits the letter ‘W’, but isrequesting an RVSM FL will receive a warning message from the IFPS statingthat from 24 January 2002 this FPL will be rejected.

During RVSM operations, if a controller has eastbound bunching at FL370,FL350, FL330 and FL310, which aircraft has priority when it comes toallocate eastbound non-RVSM levels (i.e. FL370, FL330 and FL290)?

This question is related more with eastbound transition from RVSM to non-RVSM than the changeover to RVSM. It would be impossible to state aprocedure that could cover every eventuality, therefore, each controller will needto assess each situation at the time, and using his/her experience, judgementand knowledge of local procedures, resolve the situation in the most safe andefficient way possible.

The following question was asked in the post simulation questionnaire,

Q: Do you consider that the changeover to RVSM on 24 January 2002 willcause any operational difficulties?

No = 68.75% Don’t know = 12.5% Yes= 18.75%

The comments received from controllers answering yes, can be summarised asfollows,

The physical changeover of flight levels from non-RVSM to RVSM should not bedifficult provided that the correct pre-implementation preparation (includes-changes to Letters of Agreement, ATS systems and route network) has beencarried out by the ACCs and controllers have received sufficient RVSM training.



8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The use of uni-directional routes was considered to be the most appropriatemethod to handle the transition within the simulated airspace.

For the Nicosia controllers scenario 4B was clearly the most suitable but wouldbe the most difficult to implement in the short term. Scenarios 3 and 4 were bothseen to be workable in ES1 sector, with 4 being the preferred choice as itreduced the problem of traffic passing at NIKAS. The new route via BENIN forTel Aviv-LLBG arrivals was preferred to the FLAS at RASDA by both Nicosia andAthens controllers.

For the Athens FIR, the most suitable scenario was also 4B. The introduction ofthe new routes in the Cairo FIR remains the responsibility of the Egyptian CAA.Should the creation of the new routes not be possible in time for RVSMimplementation then an alternative solution will be required. Scenario 4 wasconsidered to be unsuitable due to the extra distance that aircraft were requiredto travel via KUMBI. Scenario 2 was considered to be workable by more thanhalf of the controllers, however, the heavy flow of traffic through SIT was thefactor which was considered to make transition difficult when using the currentbi-directional routes.

A good working relationship was established between the EUROCONTROLmember states and neighbouring ACCs. This accord will hopefully continue inthe near future and facilitate any proposed changes to LoAs, which mayberequired for the implementation of RVSM within the simulated airspace.

RECOMMENDATION

Short term – In view of the time constraint for RVSM implementation (24January 2002), Nicosia and Athens should use the existing route network tocreate uni-directional routeings to handle the transition task requiredbetween their FIRs and adjacent non-RVSM FIRs.

Long term – In order for the Nicosia ACC to manage future traffic levels(equivalent to 30% increase on 2000 capacity) a re-organistion of thecurrent sectorisation, route network and ATC procedures is required.


The controllers were seen to successfully handle the transition task with a trafficincrease of 20%. However, the workload figures for the 30% traffic wereunacceptably high in some cases, and show that in the future, changes arerequired to ATC procedures, airspace design and the Nicosia ATC system inorder to handle increased levels of traffic.




Non-RVSM approved aircraft created additional workload, especially STATEflights operating within the 3 sectors handling the transition task.

The addition of the RFL on the Cyprus paper strips was required to reduce theR/T, and allow the controller to plan ahead. It also acted as a reminder of whichaircraft were non-RVSM approved by showing an RFL of below FL290 whenappropriate.

The proposed SSR codes used during the new RCF procedure provided usefuladditional information to the controller about the aircraft’s intentions. However,some confusion existed over the timings and points at which these SSR codeswould be set. The controllers accepted the change to the ‘7 minute’ parameter,and experienced no problems with any of the R/T phraseology.

RECOMMENDATION

Non-RVSM approved STATE Aircraft (ES1 Sector) – due to the unique anddifficult co-ordination procedures and short flying distance involved on theroute UL619, STATE aircraft should be restricted below FL290 whenrouteing via the points NIKAS or VESAR.

Printing of RFL – In transition airspace, the RVSM/non-RVSM RFL shouldbe included on the paper or electronic flight strip.

RCF procedure – The current 20 minute ICAO parameter is changed to 7minutes, and the use of dedicated SSR codes to indicate pilot intentionsduring an RCF could be an additional benefit to a controller during an RCF.

Editorial Note: The use of dedicated codes was subsequently removed from theproposed provisions for the ICAO Doc 7030. The EUROCONTROL AMN Unitreviewed the RCF questionnaires completed by the staff participating in thesimulation.


The majority of the controllers felt positive and confident using RVSM. Althoughsome apprehension remained about finalising ATC procedures for the non-RVSM approved traffic and transition tasks, the advantages of the 6 extra flightlevels were clearly seen, giving more flexibility and capacity to ATC and betteroptimum level allocation to the operators.


The changeover of flight levels from non-RVSM to RVSM planned for 24th

January 2002 should not be difficult provided that the correct pre-implementationpreparation has been carried out by the ACCs. It will be important that thecontrollers have received sufficient RVSM training and there are enoughcontrollers available at the time of changeover to handle the forecast trafficlevels.



Intentionally left blank

RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel EUROCONTROL

Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359 53

Traduction en langue française du Résumé, de l’Introduction,des Objectifs, des Conclusions et Recommandations

RESUME

La simulation temps réel RVSM6 CHYPRE (la sixième simulationRVSM continentale sponsorisée par EUROCONTROL) s’estdéroulée au Centre Expérimental EUROCONTROL, Brétigny, Franceen septembre 2000.

La simulation a étudié l’introduction de la RVSM dans les espacesaériens de Chypre et du sud de la Grèce. Elle a impliqué aussi laparticipation des états voisins suivants : Egypte, Liban et Syrie.

Les contrôleurs des centres de contrôle de Nicosie et d’Athènes ontdémontré, avec succès, qu’ils pouvaient absorber une augmentationde 20% du trafic tout en effectuant les tâches de transition del’espace RVSM vers l’espace non-RVSM, et vice-versa, en utilisantune structure de routes modifiée impliquant des routesunidirectionnelles.

Les contrôleurs, positifs et confiants dans l’utilisation de la RVSM,ont poursuivi la validation des procédures ATC pour la RVSM. Deschangements au niveau des systèmes et des procédures ATCactuels ont été identifiés comme nécessaires à une mise en placeréussie de la RVSM.

HISTORIQUE de la RVSM

Début des années 60

L’actuelle séparation verticale minimale (VSM) de 2000 ft au-dessus du FL290 aété établie principalement à cause du manque de précision des altimètres desavions à réaction (i.e. Comet et Boeing 707). En 1966, la VSM est globalementadoptée.

Fin des années 70

L’aviation civile fait face à l’augmentation des coûts des carburants et àl’explosion de la demande. En conséquence, l’Organisation de l’Aviation CivileInternationale (OACI) initie un programme extensif d’études pour examiner lafaisabilité de la réduction de la VSM (Séparation Verticale Minimale) de 2000ftà 1000ft au-dessus du niveau 290.

Fin des années 80

Des études indiquent que la RVSM entre les niveaux FL290-410 est faisable,sûre et offre un rapport coût/bénéfice avantageux sans imposer des besoinstechniques massifs.

EUROCONTROL RVSM6 Chypre Simulation en temps réel

54 Projet RVS-5-E3– Rapport CEE n° 359

27 mars 1997

La RVSM (entre les niveaux 290-370) devient opérationnelle sur la région NAT(Atlantique Nord).

8 octobre 1998

La RVSM est étendue aux niveaux 310 à 390 dans la région NAT. Ce mêmejour, le programme EUR RVSM est officiellement mis en vigueur parEUROCONTROL Brussel.

24 janvier 2002

Implémentation intégrale de la RVSM dans l’espace Européen et NAT. Desbénéfices considérables sont attendus. Cependant, à cause de la complexité duréseau de route ATS Européen et du fait que quelques 40 états participent auprojet, la mise en œuvre à l’échelle européenne sera plus complexe que pour larégion NAT.

CHAMPS D’ACTION DE LA SIMULATION RVSM6

Dans le cadre du programme EUR RVSM, les administrations chypriotes etgrecques ont identifié que la position de leurs FIR dans le coin sud-est del’espace aérien EUR RVSM pouvait créer des difficultés dans la prise en chargedu trafic opérant entre l’espace aérien EUR RVSM et les espaces aériensvoisins non-RVSM.

Une requête a été faite à EUROCONTROL pour aider à l’identification desproblèmes et trouver une solution acceptable. Il a été convenu que la simulationétudierait l’ensemble de l’espace aérien de Nicosie et une partie de l’espaceaérien d’Athènes. Des états voisins, non-RVSM, ont été invité à participer ou àobserver la simulation.



OBJECTIFS DE LA SIMULATION

Objectif général

Recommander l’organisation la plus adaptée à l’introduction de la RVSMdans l’espace aérien de Nicosie et du sud d’Athènes.

Objectifs spécifiques

1. De comparer les organisation suivantes, dans l’espace aérien de Nicosie etdu sud d’Athènes avec différents niveaux de trafic:

• Le réseau de route actuel sans RVSM (non-RVSM) : Organisation deréférence

• Le réseau de route actuel avec la RVSM• Une structure de route légèrement modifiée, avec la RVSM et

l’application d’un FLAS pour effectuer la transition de l’espace non-RVSM à l’espace RVSM et vice-versa

• Une structure de route révisée, RVSM, avec des routes uni-directionnelles à l’interface RVSM/non-RVSM.

avec pour objectif d’identifier l’organisation la plus adaptée pour effectuer latransition d’un environnement procédural RVSM à non-RVSM et vice-versa.

2. Examiner l’effet de l’introduction de la RVSM dans les secteurs de Nicosie etdu sud d’Athènes en mesurant :

• La charge de travail secteur• Le trafic secteur

dans les organisations RVSM, et de les comparer avec le scénario de référence.

3. Examiner les aspects procéduraux suivants :

• poursuivre la validation des procédures développées par le sous-groupeDéveloppement de Procédures ATM ou APDSG (ATM ProceduresDevelopment Sub-Group) pour d’avions non-RVSM approuvés

• les communications R/T.• Tester une révision des procédures RCF (Radio Communications

Failure).

4. Assurer la confiance des contrôleurs quant à la viabilité de l’introduction dela RVSM dans les FIR de Nicosie et d’Athènes.

Autres objectifs définis durant la simulation

5. Simuler le passage prévue pour le 24 janvier 2002, de non-RVSM àRVSM. Les remarques des contrôleurs ont permis d’identifier les problèmesopérationnels pouvant survenir lors de ce passage.



ESPACE SIMULE

L’espace choisi pour la simulation couvrait l’ensemble de la FIR de Nicosie (3secteurs contrôlés) et la partie sud-est de la FIR d’Athènes (2 secteurscontrôlés). 3 secteurs (ES1, SS et STH) des 5 secteurs avaient une interfaceavec des espaces non-RVSM et RVSM. Ces 3 secteurs ont été considéréscomme des secteurs de transition. Les 2 autres secteurs ont eu pour rôleimportant d’effectuer le transfert et la réception du trafic venant des secteurs detransition.

PROCEDURES RVSM GENERALES

Une séparation de 1000ft (300m) a été appliqué, entre les niveaux de vols 290et 410, aux avions approuvés RVSM opérant comme GAT (General Air Traffic)dans les secteurs mesurés.Les avions d’ETAT (STATE aircraft) non-RVSM approuvés opérants commeGAT dans l’espace RVSM étaient séparés de 2000ft des autres trafics IFR.

PROCEDURES de TRANSITION de/vers RVSM

Les avions approuvés RVSM et avions d’ETAT non-RVSM approuvés entrantdans un espace RVSM ont été établi aux niveaux RVSM appropriés (voir lediagramme des Transitions entre niveaux Figure 1).Les avions civils non-RVSM approuvés allant d’un espace non-RVSM vers unespace RVSM ont reçu dans un premier temps l’autorisation de continuer à leurniveau d’entrée, puis étaient descendus le plus rapidement possible vers unniveau non-RVSM approprié. Durant cette tâche de transition ces avions ont étéséparés d’au moins 2000ft du reste du trafic.Les avions quittant l’espace EUR RVSM ont reçu une séparation verticale de2000ft et ont été établi à un niveau non-RVSM approprié à leur point de sortie(Exit Point).



CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS

Objectif spécifique n° 1

L’utilisation de routes uni-directionnelles a été considérée comme étant lameilleure méthode pour gérer la transition dans l’espace simulé.

Pour les contrôleurs de Nicosie le scénario 4B était clairement le meilleur maisserait le plus difficile à mettre en œuvre à court terme. Les scénario 3 et 4 ontété jugés comme acceptables dans le secteur ES1, le scénario 4 étant préférécar il réduit le problème du trafic passant à NIKAS. La nouvelle route via BENINpour les arrivées sur Tel-Aviv a été préférée au FLAS à RASDA à la fois par lescontrôleurs de Nicosie et d’Athènes.

Pour la FIR d’Athènes, le scénario le plus adapté était aussi le scénario 4B.L’introduction de nouvelles routes dans la FIR du Caire reste de la responsabilitédes égyptiens. Si la création de nouvelles routes se révélait impossible dans letemps impartie pour la mise en œuvre de la RVSM alors une solution alternativedevrait être trouvée. Le scénario 4 a été jugé comme étant non approprié àcause de l’allongement des trajectoires des avions passant par KUMBI. Lescénario 2 a été jugé comme étant acceptable par plus de la moitié descontrôleurs. Cependant, l’important flux de trafic passant par SIT a été jugécomme rendant la transition difficile lors de l’utilisation de routes bi-directionnelles.

Une bonne relation de travail a été établie entre les états membresd’EUROCONTROL et les centres de contrôle voisins. Cette entente, qui seprolongera dans le futur, facilitera toute proposition de modification des actuellesLettres d’Accord qui pourrait être nécessaire dans le cadre de la mise en œuvrede la RVSM.

RECOMMANDATION

Court Terme – Etant donné les contraintes de temps pour la mise en œuvrede la RVSM (24 janvier 2002), nous proposons que Nicosie et Athènesutilisent le réseau de routes existant pour créer des routes uni-directionnelles pour gérer les tâches de transition nécessaires entre leursFIR et les FIR non-RVSM voisines.

Long Terme – Pour permettre au centre de Nicosie de gérer les volumes detrafic futurs (+ de 30% par rapport au trafic 2000) une réorganisation de lasectorisation actuelle, du réseau de route et des procédures ATC estrecommandée.

Objectif Spécifique n°2

Les contrôleurs ont géré avec succès les tâches de transition avec le traficaugmenté de 20%. Cependant, avec le trafic augmenté de 30%, la charge detravail est dans certains cas particulièrement élevée. Cela tend à démontrer que,dans le futur, des changements au niveau des procédures ATC, de laconception de l’espace et du système ATC de Nicosie seront nécessaires pourpermettre d’absorber l’augmentation du trafic.




Les avions approuvés non-RVSM ont créé une charge de travail supplémentaire(En particulier, les avions d’ETAT opérant dans les 3 secteurs effectuant lestâches de transition).

L’ajout du RFL sur les strips papier de Chypre a été exigé pour réduire la chargeR/T, et a permis aux contrôleurs de planifier à l’avance. Cela a aussi servid’indicateur pour les avions non-RVSM approuvés en affichant un RFL endessous du niveau 290 quand approprié.

Les codes SSR dédiés utilisés durant la nouvelle procédure RCF ont fourni uneinformation utile aux contrôleurs à propos de l’intention des avions. Cependant, ily avait une certaine confusion sur le « timing » et la localisation des points oùces codes SSR devaient être appliqués.

RECOMMANDATION

Les avions d’ETAT non-RVSM approuvés (dans le secteur ES1) – dû à ladifficulté et au caractère particulier des procédures de coordination et à lacourte distance de vol sur la route UL619, les avions d’ETAT doivent êtrerestreints sous le niveau FL290 quand ils sont routés par les points NIKASou VESAR.

Impression du RFL – Dans les espaces de transition, le RFL RVSM/non-RVSM devrait être inscrit sur le strip papier ou électronique.

Procédure RCF – L’actuel paramètre de 20 minutes défini par l’OACI estramené à 7 minutes. L’utilisation de codes SSR dédiés, pour indiquer lesintentions du pilote pendant un RCF, peuvent être une aide supplémentairepour le contrôleur.Note éditoriale : L’utilisation de codes SSR dédiés a été par la suite retirée dudocument OACI Doc 7030. Les EUROCONTROL AMN unit ont passé en revueles questionnaires RCF complétés par les personnels participant à la simulation.

Objectif Spécifique n° 4

La majorité des contrôleurs a été positive et confiante dans l’utilisation de laRVSM. Bien qu’une certaine appréhension demeure, à propos de la finalisationdes procédures ATC pour le trafic non-RVSM approuvé et les tâches detransition, le bénéfice des 6 niveaux de vol supplémentaires est clairementperçu : Plus de flexibilité et de capacité pour l’ATC et une meilleure optimisationde l’allocation des niveaux de vol par les opérateurs.


Planifié pour le 24 janvier 2002, le passage des niveaux non-RVSM auxniveaux RVSM, ne devrait pas poser de difficulté à la condition qu’unepréparation à cette mise en œuvre soit conduite par les centres de contrôle. Ilsera primordial que les contrôleurs aient reçu une formation adéquate à laRVSM et qu’un nombre suffisant de contrôleurs soient disponibles lors de cepassage de façon à pouvoir gérer le niveau de trafic prévu.

Annex A: AIRSPACE MAP

ARRLGRP

DEPLGRP

ARRLLBG

DEPLLBG

LLBG

LLHA

LCLK

LCPH

LCRA

LTAI

LGKP

LGRP

LGKO

LGSR

LGAT

LGSA

LGIR

HEAX

OJAI

OJAM

OLBA

ADAAKINA

AKR

ALKIS

ALPAY

ALSUS

ALTIN

ANTAR

APLON

ARH

ARHN

ARLOS

ASIMIASTIS

ATH

ATLAN

ATLIT

AXD

AYT

BALMA

BAN

BANRO

BGN

BLT

BRN

BRONZ

CAK

CLD CRD

DAL

DAMLA

DAROS

DASNI

DAVAR

DBA

DDM

DEENA

DERYA

DILMO

DOREN

EGN

EVENO

EVORA

FALCO

FR

GERMI

GESAD

GITLA

GOR

HER

HFA

HOS

IKARO

IMR

INTRO

IRA

KAD

KANARKAROL

KATEX

KAVAK

KAVOS

KEA

KERMA

KFKKINIK

KIT

KONAK

KOPAR

KOR

KOS

KRC

LINRO

KRS

KTNKUKLA

KULAR

KUMBI

KUMRU

KVR

KZO

LABNA

LAKTO

LARKI

LCA

LEDRA

LINGI

LITAN

LMOS

LOSOS

MANAV

MARIS

MAROS

MEGID

MENKU

MERSA

MES

METRU

MIL

MILAD

MILAS

MKN

MKO

MLO MLS

MUT

NIKAS

OKESA

OLIDA

OTIKO

OTREX

OZYAK

PAR

PASOS

PAXIS

PHA

PINAR

PIPEN

PLH

PSD

PURLA

RASDA

RASLO

RDS

REDRA

RIMON

RIPLI

ROS

SALUN

SEL

SHIRA

SILKO

SIRON

SIT

SITRU

SMO

SNI

SOKAL

SOKNO

SOKRI

SOLIN

SUD

SYR

MERVA

TANSA

TELRI

TIROS

TOMBI

TOPUZ

TOSKA

TUMER

VELOX

VESAR

VEXOL

KFKSE

CY1

WS

CY1

ES1

CY1

SS

CY2

SE

FGR2

FGR2

STH

FGR1

FGR1

CAIRO

CY2

CY1 (000/unl) : 131.05CY2 (000/unl) : 124.30ES1 (075/unl) : 126.30SS (075/unl) : 124.20WS (075/unl) : 125.50

FGR1 (000/unl) : 125.20FGR2 (000/unl) : 120.60SE (285/unl) : 124.47STH (065/unl) : 134.07CAIRO (000/unl) : 130.90

RVSM6 - CYPRUS

Véro : 28.06.2000

Annex B: THE OPERATIONS ROOM

Figure 30 : The Pilots’ room

Figure 31 : Greek Controllers on the SE Sector

23.08.00/SLI

SUPERVISION

28"

Strp.pr.

28"

FCA130.9

40

6

RVSM 628"

28"

16

28" 5

Strp.pr.

PLC

EXC

PLC

EXC

28" 15

28"

Strp.pr.

428"

14

28"

PLC

EXC

28"

28"

28"

Hybrid

28"

41

Hybrid

28"

42

Hybrid

28"

43

Hybrid

28"

Hybrid

28"

28"

28"

28"

13

28"

3

28"12 PLC

EXC

Strp.pr.

28"2

28" PLC

EXC

Strp.pr.

28"

Strp.pr.

WS125.5

SS124.2

NICOSIA

ATHENS

ES1126.3

SE124.47

STH134.07

FGR1125.2

FCY1131.05

FCY2124.3

FGR2120.6

44

11

1

DEMO

ASMT

28"

Figure 32 : The Operations room layout

jos follon

Figure 33 : The Operations room during the RVSM6 Simulation

Annex C: SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS

RRVVSSMM66SSIIMMUULLAATTIIOONN PPAARRTTIICCIIPPAANNTTSS

EEUURROOCCOONNTTRROOLL –– AAiirrssppaaccee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt aanndd NNaavviiggaattiioonn DDiivviissiioonn

Kevin HARVEY Headquarters RepresentativeRobert SANT Headquarters Representative

EEUURROOCCOONNTTRROOLL EExxppeerriimmeennttaall CCeennttrree -- BBrreettiiggnnyy

Roger LANE RTS Project ManagerSteven BANCROFT Assistant Project ManagerHerve Bechtel Video ProductionVeronique BEGAULT Map PreparationJosee BRALET Pilot SupervisorChristine CHEVALIER Simulation Technical CoordinatorRobin DERANSY Data AnalysisSandrine GUIBERT Data AnalysisPierrick PASSUTO EONS ProgrammerElisabeth PLACHINSKI Mission OfficeMarie Claude RAGOT Data PreparationFrancoise ROTH AdministrationPeter SLINGERLAND OPS Room Supervisor

CCYYPPRRUUSS

Savvas THEOPHANOUS Supervisor – Cyprus RVSM PMJohn LOUCASChristos THOMAPanaretos GEORGHIADESAndreas PAPANICOLAOUPetros MICHAELGeorge SAVVIDESNikos PAPANICOLAOUAndreas XENOPHONTOS

GGRREEEECCEE

George GEORGAKAS Supervisor – Greek RVSM PMAngelos SOTIROPOULOSNikos VARVERISIoannis PETROUStavriani RAPTICostas MANDRAGOSGeorge ANTONOPOULOS

EEGGYYPPTT CCaaiirroo FFeeeedd SSeeccttoorr

Mohamed Ismail EL KADYMahmoud FAWZYMohamed METWALLY

LLEEBBAANNOONN OObbsseerrvveerrss

Khaled CHAMIEHDaniel EL-HAIBY

SSYYRRIIAA OObbsseerrvveerr

Suheil IBRAHIM

Annex D: SIMULATION SCHEDULE

Date SCENARIO/ACTIVITY TRAFFIC CODEWEEK 1

MON 25 Sep INTRODUCTION TO RVSM6 AND THEEEC

Training exercise TC1ATraining exercise TC1PTraining exercise TC1A

TUE 26 Sep Training exercise TC1AExercise 1 TC1PExercise 2 TC1L

WED 27 Sep Exercise 1 TC1P20Exercise 2 TC1PExercise 3 TC1A30

RVSM Training exercise TR2P20

THU 28 Sep Exercise 1 TC1P20Exercise 2 TC1LExercise 3 TC1A30

FRI 29 Sep EEC INAUGURATIONExercise 1 TR2P20Exercise 2 TR2LExercise 3 TR2A30

WEEK 2MON 2 Oct Exercise 1 TC1P20

Exercise 2 Lost due to tech problemExercise 3 Moved to 3 Oct

TUE 3 Oct Exercise 1 TC1A30Exercise 2 TR2P20Exercise 3 TR2LExercise 4 TR2A30

WED 4 Oct Exercise 1 TR2P20Exercise 2 TR2LExercise 3 TR2A30

THU 5 Oct Exercise 1 TR3LExercise 2 TR3A30Exercise 3 RCFExercise 4 TR3P20

FRI 6 Oct Exercise 1 TR4P20Exercise 2 TR4LExercise 3 TR4A30

WEEK 3MON 9 Oct Exercise 1 TR3L

Exercise 2 TR3P20Exercise 3 RCFExercise 4 TR3A30

TUE 10 Oct Exercise 1 TR4LExercise 2 TR4P20Exercise 3 RCFExercise 4 TR4LB

WED 11 Oct Exercise 1 TR3P20Exercise 2 TR4LExercise 3 CTORExercise 4 TR4LB

THU 12 Oct Exercise 1 TR4LBExercise 2 TR4P20Exercise 3 CTORExercise 4 TR4A30

FRI 13 Oct Presentation of Initial Results

Traffic sample data decode

T = TrafficC= Non-RVSM1-4 Indicates ScenarioA = AM, Morning SampleL = Lunch time SampleLB = Lunch time Sample adjusted to scenario 4B.P = Pm, Afternoon Sample20 = 20 % increase on current capacity30 = 30% increase on current capacityCTOR = Change To RVSM (30 mins)RCF = Radio Communication Failure Exercise (30 mins)

EUROCONTROL · EEC - OPS (ATM Operational & Simulation Expertise) Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre ... DERANSY and Kevin HARVEY Date 02/00

Documents