Analysis of Experimental Data On ATC Workload Complexity

Analysis of the
experimental data on
ATC workload
complexity

BEngFinal Project

Author: Crstic Mihai Adelin
Supervisor(s): Octavian Thor Pleter PhD, PhD, MBA (MBS)
Eng. Rzvan Bucuroiu Eng, Head of Operational Planning Unit (EUROCONTROL)

Session 2013

iii | P a g e

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the ATCOs of Bucureti ACC for their assistance and cooperation during the
surveys. I highly appreciate their warm welcome and their complete co-operation during the discussions
and data gathering process.

I would also like to thank EUROCONTROL experts that provided me with their valuable feedback and
expertise. Special thanks should go to my mentors, Professor Octavian Thor Pleter and Rzvan Bucuroiu,
who provided me with their guidance and support throughout the research.

T Th hi i s s p pa ag ge e i i s s l l e ef ft t b bl l a an nk k i i n nt t e en nt ti i o on na al l l l y y f fo or r p pr ri i n nt ti i n ng g p pu ur rp po os se es s

v | P a g e

Anti-Plagiarism Declaration

I, the undersigned, Crstica Mihai Adelin, student of the University Politehnica of Bucharest, Faculty of
Aerospace Engineering declare herewith and certify that this final project is the result of my own,
original, individual work. All the external sources of information used were quoted and included in the
References. All the figures, diagrams, and tables taken from external sources include a reference to the
source.

Date: Signature:


vii | P a g e

Table of Contents

List of Annexes. ........................................................ I
List of figures............................................................ I
List of tables.............................................................. I
Executive summary
a. Executive summary in English.......................VI
b. Executive summary in Romanian............................X

1. Introduction............................................1
1.1 Structure of the document
1.2 Workload........................3
1.3 Complexity.....................3
1.4 Objective........................5
2. What has been done? .................................6
2.1. Introduction......................................6
2.2. Information theory approach to complexity.............................9
2.3. Queuing theory...............................................11
2.4. Latest approaches to Complexity Management.................................12
2.4.1. Algorithmic Approach (EUROCONTROL) .......................................................12
2.4.2. Cognitive Approach (AENA) ............................14
2.4.3. Statistical Approach (DSNA) .................................17
2.4.4. Other methods..................................19
a) Dynamic Density...................................................................................................19
b) COCA Project.......................................................................................................19
c) CAPAN Method...................................................................................................20
2.5. Complexity factors.............................................21
3. ATC complexity model.......................26
3.1. Introduction...................26
3.2. Complexity, Workload and Capacity.............................................28
3.2.1. Complexity raised by trajectory uncertainty....................................28
3.3. Airspace overview..........................32
3.3.1. Sectorisation................................................34
3.3.2. Vertical Movement......................35
3.3.3. Directional flows.....................35
3.3.4. Sectors selection..............................................37
3.3.5. Sectors load.................................................................................. ..............................38
3.4. Complexity factors and metrics.............................................................43
3.5. Weighting the complexity function - method description......................................................49
3.6. Questionnaires Results.......................50
3.6.1. LRCN19 09 - 10 UTC EC answers analysis...........................50
3.6.2. LRCN19 09 - 10 UTC PC answers analysis................................53
3.6.3. LRKNL16 08 - 09 UTC EC answers analysis.....................53
3.6.4. LRKNL81908 - 09UTC EC answers analysis.....................54
3.6.5. LRKNL8908 - 09UTC EC answers analysis.......................54
3.7. Potential improvement per Key Performance Area...........................................54
3.8. Further development and investigations....................55
4. Conclusions..........................56
5. References.................................................................57

viii | P a g e


I | P a g e

List of Annexes
Annex A - AHP FORM..............................................................................59
Annex B ISA...........................................................................................63
Annex C- Traffic Sample..........................................................................67
Annex D- Weights calculation.................................................................71
List of figures
Figure 1.1. Notional representation of the distinctions between cognitive complexity, perceived
complexity, and system complexity ([9], page 20)..............................................................5
Figure 2.1. Jing Xing Activity patterns over time for information processing in the three stages......10
Figure 2.2. Complexity assessment with a neural network (SESAR complexity management in en-
route)..................................................................................................................................18
Figure 2.3. CAPAN workload analysis................................................................................................21
Figure 3.1. Flights intersecting Bucureti FIR as planned on 29JUN2012 (Flight Plan).....................29
Figure 3.2. Flights intersecting Bucureti FIR as flown on 29JUN2012 (Radar data)........................30
Figure 3.3. Bucureti ACC Sectors (NEVAC)................................................................................. ...32
Figure 3.4. Distribution of the flights in the vertical plane Bucureti ACC for 23 JUN 2012.............35
Figure 3.5. Directional Flows (SAAM analysis)..................................................................................35
Figure 3.6. LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 top view (SAAM)...................................................................38
Figure 3.7. Sectors LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 3D view (NEVAC)....................................................39
Figure 3.8. Sector LRKNL16-SAAM analysis - sector load-30 JUN 2013........................................39
Figure 3.9. Sector LRKNL89-SAAM analysis - sector load-30 JUN 2013........................................40
Figure 3.10. Traffic passing through sector LRKNL16-30 JUN 2013(08:00-09:00 UTC)...................40
Figure 3.11. Traffic passing through sector LRKNL89-30 JUN 2013(08:00-09:00 UTC)..................41
Figure 3.14. Sector LRCN19-SAAM analysis - sector load-30 JUN 2013..........................................42
Figure 3.16. Complexity factors............................................................................................................44
Figure 3.17. Entry-exit points complexity.............................................................................................46
List of tables
Table 2.1 STATFOR Traffic forecast...............................................................................................6
Table 2.2 Jing Xing- Metrics of information complexity.................................................................10
Table 2.3 CAPAN workload thresholds..........................................................................................20
Table 2.4 Table of complexity factors (COCA project)....................................................................23
Table 3.1 Sectors dimensions and declared capacity (AIP Romania and EUROCONTROL data)..33
Table 3.2 Flights by country-pairs impacting Bucuresti ACC (23 JUN 2012).................................36
Table 3.3 Sectors LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 Load- SAAM Analysis..............................................39
Table 3.4 Sector LRCN19 Load- SAAM Analysis............................................................................42
Table 3.5 Complexity factors and Metrics.........................................................................................48
Table 3.6 ATCO answers...................................................................................................................50
Table 3.9 Factors weights LRCN19 EC answers...............................................................................51
Table 3.10 Factors weights LRCN19 PC answers...............................................................................53
Table 3.11 Factors weights LRKNL16 PC answers............................................................................53
Table 3.12 Factors weights LRKNL89 PC answers............................................................................54
Table 3.13 Factors weights LRKNL89 EC answers............................................................................54


III | P a g e

Glossary of terms and acronyms used
A
AENA Aeropuertos Espaoles y Navegacin Area
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
AMAN Arrivals MANager
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
ASA Automated Support to ATC
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCO Air Traffic Controller
ATC-TRG ATC Training
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATS Air Traffic Services
A/C Aircraft
B
BEng Bachelor of Engineering
C
CAPAN CApacityAnalyzer
CM Complexity Management
COCA Complexity and Capacity
CORA COnflict Resolution Assistant
D
DSNA Direction des Services de la Navigation Arienne
E
EC/EXEC Executive Controller
E-TLM Enhanced Traffic Load Monitoring
ESRA EUROCONTROL Statistical Reference Area
EUROCONTROL European Agency for the Safety of Air Navigation
F
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FDP Flight Data Processing
FDPS Flight Data Processing System
FRA Free Route Airspace
FL Flight Level
H
HMI Human Machine Interface
I
IC Information Complexity
ICAT International Center for Air Transportation
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ISA Instantaneous Self-Assessmentof workload technique
IV | P a g e

K
KPA Key Performance Areas
L
LoA Letter of Agreement
Lvl Level
M
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MeSP Meta Sector Planner
MTCD Medium Term Conflict Detection
MUAC Maastricht Upper Area Control Center
N
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEVAC Network Estimation Visualization ACC Capacity
O
OLDI On-Line data interchange
P
PC Planning Controller
R
RT Radio Telephony
S
SAAM System for Traffic Assignment and Analysis at Macroscopic level
SESAR Single European Sky Air Navigation Research
SESAR JU SESAR Joint Undertaken
STATFOR Statistics and Forecasts
SYSCO Concept for System Supported Coordination
T
TMS Traffic Management System
U
USA United States of America
V
VFR Visual Flight Rules

VI | P a g e B E n g F i n a l P r o j e c t

Executive Summary
This chapter is thought to be a short summary of the work done by Cirstica Mihai-Adelin, student of
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, University Politehnica of Bucharest, in the field of ATC workload
complexity, under the close supervision of Octavian Thor Pleter PhD, PhD, MBA (MBS) and Razvan
Bucuroiu Eng, Head of Operational Planning Unit (EUROCONTROL), that represents his BEng Final
Project.

Executive Summary in English
This work addresses the subject of ATC workload complexity. Following an in depth study of a large
number of documents, research projects, articles and publications within this BEng Final Project a set of
complexity factors characterising the sectors belonging to Bucureti ACC have been identified and their
associated metrics have been developed. A method of weighting the complexity factors based on AHP
was elaborated and a first test was accomplished with the help of a number of ATCOs from Bucureti
ACC. The factors and metrics were used to support the construction of a new approach to ATC
complexity and to build an original complexity model.
Workload and Complexity in ATC are among the most studied concepts; numerous studies have been
undertaken in these domains for more than 40 years, basically from the beginning of ATC era itself.
Supported by the continuous and sustained traffic growth (2% per annum) forecasted for the coming
years, air traffic density will increase and so will the complexity. Furthermore, new concepts such as Free
Route Airspace are thought by some to bring further increase in the dynamism and complexity of the
traffic; therefore, new tools need to be developed to assist controllers in dealing with the rising traffic
demand and the new arising situation. Following the aforementioned situation, further investigation needs
to be done in this particular area. The proposed idea aims to bring an added value to the already existing
studies.
In the first chapter you can find the introduction of the document, its structure, based on chapters and sub-
chapters as well as the definition of workload and complexity, since the two are the main subject
examined in this paper.

VII | P a g e B E n g F i n a l P r o j e c t

Further, the main objectives envisaged by this BEng are presented as follows:
OBJ1: Develop forms, gather and analyse experimental data on ATC complexity from a
predefined set of sectors
OBJ2: Study workload from the ATC complexity perspective
OBJ3: Study complexity factors and identify those impacting the sectors in study.
OBJ4: Develop metrics for the factors identified in OBJ3
OBJ5: Build a model of air traffic complexity
OBJ6: Develop an ISA (Instantaneous self-assessment of workload technique) tool

It is worth to say that the above-mentioned objectives were successfully attained the in the content of this
document.
The second chapter of this document provides the reader with an overview of the complexity as seen from
various domains. Among them are information theory approach to complexity, queuing theory etc. as well
as an introduction to the most recent models and studies into the field of ATC complexity such as
EUROCONTROLs algorithmic approach, CAPAN method, COCA Project, and many others. This
chapter is crucial, as it creates a background and a foundation on which to build the original idea
developed by the author, which is to be found in the following chapter.
The third chapter represents the author`s original approach to complexity.
In the beginning of the chapter a number of traffic particularities and sectors characteristics are identified
and presented, using a multitude of tools and sources with the aim to familiarise the reader with the
situation. Further on, a traffic analysis (traffic load) done with SAAM tool, for sectors LRKNL16,
LRKNL89, and LRCN19 and traffic for 30JUN2013 between 08:00 and 09:00 UTC, and between 09:00-
10:00 UTC respectively, is presented. Further in the chapter, the author in cooperation with a number of
ATCOs identified a number of 12 complexity factors thought to be the most influential for the area
serviced by Bucureti ACC and then several metrics have been developed.
As a logical continuation a model of ATC complexity is developed by grouping the12 identified factors in
3 main categories: Traffic characteristics, Sector Characteristics and Dynamicity; a proposal for a linear
complexity function is made. The method used for weighting the factors, based on AHP, is thought to
capture the ATCO perceived complexity, thus making the function a hybrid between subjective and
objective complexity that can prove to be a better estimation of ATCO workload, and therefore, of
capacity.
VIII | P a g e B E n g F i n a l P r o j e c t

After the method was presented to a number of controllers from Bucureti ACC, they were asked to
answer to the questionnaires as from Annex B after finishing their shift (9:00 for KONEL, 10:00 for
NAPOC). After this gathering data session the results have been analysed and the weights of the criteria
have been calculated as you can see in 3.7 and in Annex D.
Even though the correlation between PC ratings and EC ratings is good for most of the factors, the results
stressed out once again that complexity is a very subjective concept, and that the same situation can be
categorised with different levels of complexity, mainly because sometimes ATCOs find it difficult to
discriminate between the relative importance of one factor against each comparison.
The ISA tool developed here with the purpose to catch controllers subjective rating of workload each
every 2 minutes has not been used in the real environment due to a number of safety concerns, however,
for a simulated environment the benefit of such a tool has been recognised by all the respondents.
As a conclusion, one can say that this BEeng Final Project did not only successfully attain all the
preliminary objectives set out in Chapter 1, but went beyond its initial purpose. These findings open the
room for future tests and simulation, in order to validate the concept.

X | P a g e B E n g F i n a l P r o j e c t

Executive Summary in Romanian
Aceast lucrare trateaz subiectul complexitii in activitatea de control a traficului aerian. Ca urmare a
studierii n amnunt a nenumrate documente, proiecte de cercetare, articole si publicaii in cadrul acestei
lucrri de licent au fost identificai o serie de factori ce determin complexitatea in sectoarele apartinnd
ACC-ului Bucureti i pentru fiecare factor in parte s-a dezvoltat cate un mod de msurare. De asemenea
a fost elaborat o metoda de stabilire a ponderei fiecrui factor folosindu-se procesul ierarhizrii analitice
si un prim test a fost realizat cu ajutorul controlorilor de traffic aerian din ACC Bucuresti. Factorii i
metricii mai sus menionai au fost utilizai pentru a ajuta la construcia unei noi abordri asupra
complexitii in cotrolul traficului aerian, i la dezvoltarea unui model de complexitate.
ncrcarea si complexitatea in controlul traficului aerian sunt unele dintre cele mai studiate concepte,
studii in aceste domenii facndu-se de mai mult de 40 de ani, teoretic de la inceputul erei ATC.
Alimentat de creterea continu si susinut a traficului(2% pe an) preconizat pentru viitorii ani,
densitatea traficului si complexitatea acestuia va crete. Mai mult dect att noile concept precum spaiula
erian Free Routesunt vzute ca un potenator al dinamismului i complexitii traficului aerian. De
aceea este nevoie ca noi instrumente sa fie dezvoltate, pentru a ajuta controlorii sa fac fa acestei
creteri a traficului in contextul prezentat.
Ca urmare a situaiei contextuale prezentat mai sus sunt de parere ca nevoia pentru inceperea acestui
studiu a aprut in mod natural, i c idea propus poate aduce o valoarea daugat pentru ceea ce exist
deja.
Primul capitol cuprinde ntroducerea acestui document, structura acestuia, bazat pe capitol i
sub.capitole, precum i definiia volumului de munc i al complexitii. n continuarea primului capitol
sunt prezentate obiectivele prevzute de aceast lucrare de licen, dup cum urmeaz:
OBJ1: Dezvoltarea de formulare, strngerea si analizarea datelor experimentale asupra complexitii
activitii de control a traficului aerian, pe un numr predefinit de sectoare.
OBJ2: Studiul volumului de munc al controlorului din perspective complexitii activitii de control a
traficului aerian
OBJ3: Studiul factorilor asociai complexitii i identificarea celor care influeneaz sectoarele studiate.
OBJ4: Dezvoltarea de metrici pentru factoriii dentificai inOBJ3
OBJ5: Construirea unui model de complexitate a traficului aerian
OBJ6:Dezvoltarea unui instrument ISA (tehnic de auto-evaluare instantanee a incrcrii)
Merit spus ca obiectivele mai sus menionate au fost atinse cu success in cuprinsul prezentei lucrri.
Cel de-al doilea capitol al acestui document furnizeaz cititorului o vedere de ansamblu asupra
complexitii aa cum este vazut din diferite domenii, precum i o introducere asupra celor mai recente
modele si studii in cmpul complexitii in ATC, cum ar fi: abordarea algoritmic propusa de
EUROCONROL, metoda CAPAN, proiectul COCA, i multe altele. Importana acestui capitol const n
XI | P a g e B E n g F i n a l P r o j e c t

crearea unui fundal pe care se poate proiecta idea dezvoltat de autor n cel de-al treilea capitol al acestui
document.
Al treilea capitol reprezint abordarea original asupra complexitii a autorului. n nceputul capitolului,
sunt prezentate numeroasele particulariti ale traficului, i caracteristici a sectoarelor, utiliznd o
multitudine de instrumente (SAAM, NEVAC, etc.) i surse (DDR, AIP, etc.) cu scopul de a familiariza
cititorul cu situaia prezentat.Mai departe se regseste o analiza a traficului(ncrcarea de traffic) din
30.06.2013 ntre orele 8:00 si 9:00 UTC respectiv 9:00-10:00 UTC, pentru sectoarele LRKNL16,
LRKNL89 si LRCN19, folosind instrumentul SAAM. n continuare n cooperare cu un numr de
controlori de traffic, autorul, a identificat un numr de 12 factori care au cea mai mare influen asupra
sectoarelor din Bucureti ACC, factori pentru care au fost dezvoltai metricii afereni.
Continuarea logic a fost dezvoltarea unui model de complexitate.Metoda prezentat n acest document
pentru a stabili ponderea factorilor de complexitate este cea a procesului de ierarhizare analitic prin care
s-a urmrit captarea complexitii subiective aa cum este perceput de controlor. Acest lucru face ca
funcia de complexitate dezvoltat in cuprinsul acestei lucrri s devin un hybrid ntre complexitatea
subiectiv i cea masurat obiectiv, ce poate ajuta la o mai bun estimare a incrcrii controlorului, i a
capacitii de sector.
Dup prezentarea metodei unui numar de controlori de traffic de la Bucureti ACC, acetia au fost rugai
s rspund chestionarelor din Annex B, imediat dupace au ieit din tura de dirijare (9:00 pentru KONEL
i 10:00 pentru NAPOC). Dup strngerea datelor i analizarea rezultatelor au fost calculate ponderile
factorilor de complexitate dup cum sepoate vedea in 3.7 si in Annex D.
Chiar dac corelarea ntre rspunsurile controlorului din pozitia Planning i cele ale controlorului
Executive este bun pentru majoritatea factorilor, rezultatele au subliniat inc odat natura subiectiv a
complexitiii, i faptul c aceai situaie poate fi categorizat ca avnd nivele diferite de dificultate.
Lucrul acesta s-a ntamplat din cauza dificultii controlorilor de a decide importana relativa a unui factor
in faa comparatorului su.
Instrumentul ISA dezvoltat de autor pentru a surprinde auto-evaluarea incrcriicontrolorului la interval
de timp de 2 minute, nu a fost folosit in mediul real de dirijare din motive evidente de siguranta. Pentru
mediul simulate insa, respondenii au recunoscut necesitea unui astfel de instrument.
In concluzie se poate spune c aceast lucrare de licen i-a atins cu succes toate obiectivele stabilite in
capitol 1,iar descoperirile fcute au creat premisele necesare pentru dezvoltri viitoare.


1 | P a g e B E n g F i n a l P r o j e c t

1. Introduction

The following document is a review of the research work done by the author throughout the last academic
year in the fields of ATC complexity, workload and capacity.

One of the most challenging tasks of Air Traffic Management both for present and future times is and will
be to efficiently handle the further increasing traffic density and airspace complexity a way that assures
capacity will meet the traffic demand. Despite the numerous benefits brought to the network by
innovative concepts of operations such as Free Routes, these are still perceived by some as a contributor
to further complexity.These issues will be addressed in the content of this document and a preliminary
conclusion will be drawn whether this assumption is valid or not.

From the above, we deduct that new or optimised algorithms and next generation support tools need to be
developed in order to assist the controller and keep his workload in acceptable limits, while increasing
sector capacity, though productivity, and maintaining the safety standards.

Acceptable workload limits can be subject to interpretation, but here, we refer to the CAPAN definition
of workload that sees ATCO workload as the actual working time within one hour, and imposes a 70%
thresholds equivalent to 42 minutes/hour as maximum acceptable workload. Every minute above this
threshold is seen as overload and thought to be unacceptable because it could compromise safety. While
most of the ATCOs prefer the CAPAN definition of workload, complexity reasons are manifold and
factors determining it are both numerous and diverse. Moreover, one might argue that the way complexity
is influenced by these factors varies from one sector to another, and therefore, calibrating a function
applicable for any sector and have in the same time a fair level of accuracy is inappropriate. These factors
must be identified so that proper algorithms can be developed and measures of detecting and recognising
complexity can be created.

This paper aims to develop a reliable method to diagnose complexity, and as a future development
envisages the need to calculate its influence upon controller workload and to identify possible and reliable
resolution strategies. Up to now, various research projects and academic papers have developed strategies
to deal with ATC complexity. These include a variety of methods and functions, and see complexity
either at a macroscopic scale, grand scale resolution (e.g. Sectorisation), or at a microscopic scale,
microscopic scale resolution (e.g. optimal aircraft control).

1.1 Structure of the document

The structure of this document is based on three main pillars, and therefore the document is split into
three main equally important parts.

The first part is devoted to the work that has already been done: concepts, ideas, representative works in
the industry. It includes a brief explanation of some of the concepts, and it is important because it helps to
place this work in the overall ATC complexity picture. In the second part, this document features a
synopsis of the state-of-the art approaches to complexity and controller workload as proposed by several
key players in European ATM (EUROCONTROL, AENA, DSNA), as well as with a breakdown of the
most noticeable approaches (algorithmic approach, cognitive approach, statistical approach). The review
does not address other complexity related topics, such as the use of complexity assessment in airspace
design, for instance. These approaches were chosen because in the author`s view a future combination of
the three can be seen as a major breakthrough from this so intense studied field of ATC complexity.

The third and last part of this document presents the ATC workload complexity issue from the author
personal and original perspective, backed by a thorough study of representative works that had been
undertaken in the industry in the past, as well as by the newest research programs currently under SESAR
validation (Complexity Management in En-route ID: 04.07.01.D13). A complexity model or
complexity function will be presented as a step by step exemplification on a selected sector. This intends
to prove the method applicability and usefulness. Eventually, the paper offers some conclusions that result
from this study, possible benefits by KPA of adapting this method, as well as foreseen ways of
improvement.

In the sequel the author will treat and consolidate the topics of Workload and Complexity, in order to both
give a summary of previous studies, as well as to introduce perspectives and outlooks to possible further
advancements.


1.2. Workload

Workload is defined by Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus as the amount of work
to be done, especially by a particular person or machine in a period of time. As air traffic controllers are
people trained to maintain the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic in the global air traffic
system, their workload is generally mental, as opposed to physical, in nature, therefore it is not surprising
that a clear definition cannot be identified in the literature. However, the general idea is that workload is
subjective, factors such as aptitude, skill, experience, operating behaviours, and personality traits
(Cognitive complexity in air traffic control A literature review) are the determinants of subjective
workload in ATC. Therefore, we may observe an identical traffic situation to present a reasonable amount
of workload for a controller who is experienced on that particular sector, and yet to overtax a novice or a
controller who has no experience with the sector. A distinction is generally made between taskload (the
objective demands of a task) and workload (the subjective demand experienced in the performance of a
task). In practice, in ATC the workload is generally measured in task duration (time) and studied in close
relationship with the sector capacity. The number of aircraft in the sector that determine a cumulative
task duration up to a certain threshold (refer to Annex 3) within one hour is said to be the capacity of the
sector. The threshold used by the majority of ANSPs in determining the maximum capacity is 70% which
means that a maximum of 42 minutes of working time within one hour is accepted. An interesting link
between workload and complexity is provided by Kopardekar et al. in [7] they argue that air traffic
controller workload is a subjective attribute and is an effect of air traffic complexity.

1.3. Complexity

Despite the fact that the concept of complexity has been intensively studied in a multiple ways across a
variety of domains, in ATC there is still some ambiguity left in the use of terms such as complexity,
sector complexity, and traffic complexity.

As a general term, something that is complex or complexity is defined by Cambridge Advanced Learners
Dictionary, as being The state of having many parts and being difficult to understand or find answer to.
It is more difficult to project the future behaviour of a system with a high number of components than of
one with a fewer number of components.


Terms such as complexity, sector complexity, and traffic complexity are sometimes used interchangeably,
resulting in confusion when attempting to review literature in this field and when undertaking new
research projects [The complexity construct in ATC,1995[8]]. Many definitions of complexity revolve
around the size, count or number of items in an object, FAA sector complexity is defined as the
number of arrivals, departures, en-route aircraft, emergencies, special flights, and coordination associated
with a sector (FAA, 1984;[8]).

Generally, ATC complexity can be defined as an assembly composed of a number of sector and traffic
complexity factors. These factors can be physical aspects of the sector, such as size or airway
configuration, or factors relating to the movement of air traffic through the airspace, such as number of
climbing and descending flights. Some factors cover both sector and traffic issues, such as required
procedures and functions (Grossberg, 1989; Schmidt, 1976; [8])

Furthermore, a distinction can be made between different types of identified complexity. These types of
complexity are: system complexity, cognitive complexity and perceived complexity.

Jonathan M. Histon and R. John Hansman have identified a model that links the three types of complexity
as in Figure 1.1.

The system complexity represents the complexity that is inherent within the real system,
independent of an operator controlling it.
Cognitive complexity is a measure of the complexity of the working mental model that issued to
represent the real system. It is a measure of the complexity of the representation of the real
system that the controller must use to perform the current cognitive task. The perceived
complexity is the apparent complexity, to the controller, of their representation of the real system.
It is thought that the controller can regulate the perceived complexity by adapting the cognitive
tools, such as the working mental mode, used to perform the required cognitive tasks(The impact
of structure on cognitive complexity in air traffic control Jonathan M. Histon and R. John
Hansman, MIT ICAT,2002, [9]).

Figure 1.1 Notional representation of the distinctions between cognitive complexity, perceived complexity, and system
complexity ([9], page 20)

1.4. Objective

The chief goal of this BEng Final Project is to study and analyse experimental data on ATC workload
complexity. A broader set of goals is to identify, develop and evaluate factors related to air traffic control
complexity, to understand the ATC complexity by studying previous research and scientific papers, and
finally, to develop a complexity function to support reliable workload estimations, better than the classical
and simple aircraft count method.

Based on the above description the following objectives can be identified:
OBJ1: Develop forms, gather and analyse experimental data on ATC complexity from a predefined set of
sectors
OBJ2: Study workload from the ATC complexity perspective
OBJ3: Study complexity factors and identify those impacting the sectors in study.
OBJ4: Develop metrics for the factors identified in OBJ3
OBJ5: Build a model of air traffic complexity
OBJ6: Develop an ISA (Instantaneous self-assessment of workload technique) tool

To date, research in air traffic complexity has tended to overlook cognitive aspects of the controllers
task. In the context of this BEng project, the author has recognised the need to incorporate such cognitive
aspects of air traffic complexity. One of the aims of the current research paper is to ensure a model of
traffic complexity that adequately captures those cognitive aspects, as well as the objective aspects
imposed by the traffic situation.

2. What has been done?

This chapter is a short introduction into the work that has been done into the field of ATC complexity as
well as workload and capacity and a summary of the main ideas depicted from the literature sources the
author had under review; reports, scientific articles, book chapters and operational reviews. The
importance of this chapter relies on making an overview of the various complexity approaches that helps
placing this work in the overall picture.

2.1. Introduction

Despite the fact that in 2012 air traffic in Europe registered a drop of around 2.4%, according to
EUROCONTROL Medium Term Forecast (February 2013) in the forthcoming years the growth will be
positive and continuous, so that by 2019 there will be around 11.2 million IFR flights that will have to be
accommodated in the crowded European sky during a year. This corresponds to a 17% increase in traffic
comparatively to 2012.The Long Term Forecast states that in 2030 Europe skies will have to
accommodate 16 to 20million fights yearly, which means as much as double as 2008 traffic which is the
year with the peak of traffic recorded until now with 10million 83 thousands IFR flights.
ESRA08 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
AAGR
2019/201
2
IFR Fli ght
Movement
s
(Thousand
)
H

9,559 9,924 10,358
10,83
5
11,22
2
11,65
8
12,07
9
3.4%
B 10,083 9,413 9,493 9,784 9,548 9,424 9,689 9,975
10,29
8
10,57
6
10,88
5
11,19
5
2.3%
L

9,276 9,409 9,517 9,690 9,815 9,969
10,13
2
0.9%
Annual
Growth
(compared
to previ ous
year)
H

0.1% 3.8% 4.4% 4.6% 3.6% 3.9% 3.6% 3.4%
B 0.4% -6.6% 0.8% 3.1% -2.4% -1.3% 2.8% 3.0% 3.2% 2.7% 2.9% 2.8% 2.3%
L

-2.9% 1.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.9%
H - High; B - Basic; L - Low
Table 2.1.STATFOR Traffic forecast

Supported by the latest technologies available on the market, ATS will have to develop in the near future
new systems able to assist and enable the ATCOs to deal with the increased forecasted traffic as well as
with the new operating environment, free-route airspace, that is currently one of the trends in Europe
and that will most probably be adopted by all European States at some point in the future. The personal
belief of the author is that in order to assure efficient and safe operations in this arising situation, new
complexity models should be developed, ones that will match these new directions of development.

While technological advancements have no foreseeable limits and in theory are able to assure the
monitoring and to supply with flight data an infinite number of aircrafts at once, the air traffic controller
is a limited entity that can only deal and provide useful information to a small and limited number of
aircrafts at the same time. Thus, we can draw a simple yet conclusive idea: the human, ATCO, is likely to
remain the biggest, if not the only bottleneck, of the ATM system in what concerns capacity.

Traditionally, traffic density has been the single factor most associated with complexity.
However, it is increasingly clear that density by itself is an insufficient indicator of the
difficulty a controller faces. Anecdotal evidence suggests that controllers increasingly
speak not of the difficulty of a given traffic density, but of the associated traffic complexity.
Past attempts to assess complexity (Kirwan et al.,2001) have generally relied on geometric
relationships between aircraft, or on observable physical activity (Pawlak et al., 1996).
Increasingly, it is being recognized that complexity factors can interact (Fracker& Davis,
1990) in nonlinear ways (Majumdar&Ochieng, 2000; Athenes et al., 2002),and that
individual differences between controllers can mean that different controllers respond
differently to the same constellation of complexity factors (Mogford et al., 1994). These are
among the considerations that seem to be driving the search for a better way to describe and
predict complexity as it affects the controller (COCA project).

As the air traffic controller workload is primarily affected by the features of the air traffic (FL change,
Heading change, etc.) and as the ATC sector capacity is commonly estimated only by using the number of
aircraft within that sector for a certain period of time (traffic density), usually 20 minutes or one hour
(NEVAC model), it is straightforward to conclude that the models used to assess the workload, and
therefore the sector capacities, are subjected to a big variety of errors and unknowns and the obtained
values present a considerable lack of precision.

Sector capacities are mainly driven by the air traffic controller workload which in turn is driven among
others by the complexity associated to the traffic he has to monitor. In other words, ATC complexity is
the cause that via controllers workload leads to the effect limited sector capacity and impossibility to
adapt the capacity and provide a safe and orderly flow for all the demand.


With this in mind, it is not surprising that throughout the years the ATC complexity has been the subject
of so many studies and research programs both in Europe, but especially in the United States of America,
where ATC complexity related studies were made since the beginning of the ATC era itself. Despite of all
the work and sustained effort during the years, arguably, no one has managed to come up with a generally
accepted solution yet. One that can be applied in every environment and no one has succeeded yet to find
the right mean of correctly quantify the complexity of the ATC workload.

As mentioned above, the preponderance of the literature on ATC complexity factors originates from the
United States of America, primarily from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where research references to ATC complexity and the
associated factors were done nearly 40 years ago (cf. Arad, 1964).

A number of seminal reports and articles on the subject of ATC complexity were produced in recent
years, including several in-depth reviews of complexity factor literature including the work done by the
Complexity and Capacity team (COCA) in the project called Cognitive complexity in Air Traffic Control
initiated by EUROCONTROL.

In the sequel relevant approaches to complexity as seen from different fields will be presented. For data
integrity reasons and to avoid possible errors due to wrong interpretation, upon their availability, the
primary sources were preferred and used where possible. Pertinent references were mostly drawn from
the fields of air traffic management, human factors and computer modelling. As this research is treating
the subject of ATC workload complexity, in this review it absolutely necessary to rely on the theoretical
and empirical work in the related field of complexity and workload assessment and capacity, as they are
all linked together. However, it should be noted that the main purpose of this chapter is not to be an
exhaustive review, but rather a framework in which are identified and synthesised the major theoretical,
empirical and operational perspectives on ATC complexity together with an introductory presentation of
the most interesting approaches relevant to the concept of complexity.

Below you can find some relevant approaches to complexity, as identified in the literature sources under
review and the way various researchers try to solve or explain the matter of complexity, using their own
and particular assumption from the perspective of a certain field.


2.2. Information theory approach to complexity

In the field of information theory complexity has been broadly reviewed and investigated along the years
in a number of scientific papers and researches and the term of information complexity (IC) is
commonly used to describe complexity from the perspective of a system.

One simple, yet straightforward definition of the complexity with regards to the information theory is that
of the minimum or shortest possible description size. Kolmogorov complexity known also as
descriptive complexity is defined as the minimum possible length of a description in some language
(Casti, 1979). For instance, if a description can reach a high degree of compression without losing its
meaning, then it is considered simpler than one that cannot. Considering this definition, the expressions
that are highly ordered appear as simple while random when ma intaining maximal complexity. For
example, consider the following two strings of length 18, the string A=(fiafiafiafiafiafia) is less complex
than the string B=(a2b3jcfsadfa52jj3x) because the former has a short English-language description,
being easily compressed into a description fia 6 times which consist of 11 characters. The second one
has no obvious simple description, other than writing down the string itself, which has 18 characters,
however, this definition corresponds to the difficulty of compressing a representation with little direct
connection to the practical aspects of a functioning organism. Indeed, it is only concerned with the
numeric size factor of complexity.

Jing Xing in his paper Information Complexity in Air Traffic Control Displays[]presents a framework for
decomposing factors of information complexity and a set of metrics to measure ATC display complexity.
Jing Xing information complexity model is based on a combination of three basic factors: quantity,
variety, and relation, factors that are evaluated with the mechanisms of brain information processing at
three stages of information processing: perception, cognition, and action. The metrics of complexity can
be derived by associating task requirements to brain functions.

It is worth to mention that the brain mechanisms are much more complex and that this model is just a
rough approximation of reality as the author argues and depicts in Figure 2.1:

While our three-stage classification of brain functions is coarse, those stages have
intrinsically different mechanisms of information processing. One example would be the
neuronal response patterns overtime, as illustrated in Figure2.

Perceptual neuronal responses (left panel) start following the onset of a stimulus and ends
after the stimulus is no longer present, while the cognitive responses (middle panel)
remain for an extended period without the stimulus, such sustained activity is the
substrate of working memory. On the other hand, neuronal responses in the cortical pre-
motor areas become activated before an action and end after the action plan is executed.
Another example is the way in which information is encoded. Perceptual information
processing is initially performed in a parallel manner. Thousands of visual neurons are
activated by a visual image and they simultaneously encode many pieces of the image.
Thus, the perceptual system offers a relatively broad information band width. On the
other hand, working memory, as the basis of cognitive activities, has a highly limited
capacity. That is, only a few pieces of information can be simultaneously encoded
(Cowan, 2001). Consequently, the information bandwidth of the cognition stage is much
less than that for perception. Finally, the cortical areas that encode action plans are
characterised with one plan at a time, yielding an even narrower bandwidth
(Georgopoulos, Schwartz & Kettner, 1986; Pouget, Zemel, & Dayan, 2000; Xing &
Andersen, 2000).

Perception Cognition Action

Stimulus Action execution

Working memory

Perception Cognition Action
Quantity

Variety

Relation

Table 2.1 Jing Xing- Metrics of information complexity

Crutchfield and Young (1989) have broaden and enhanced Kolmogorovs complexity concept by defining
complexity as the minimal size of a model representation of a system that can statistically reproduce the
observed data within a specified tolerance with the name of topological complexity.
Figure 2.1: Jing Xing Activity patterns over time for information processing in the three stages

The following two traffic situations can be considered as an example. In both situations it is involved the
same number of aircrafts, the difference is that in Case A the aircraft are flying on fixed routes with just
one intersection while in Case B the aircrafts are flying off the routes, which can create many potential
conflicts. A controller can build a model of the first case that has two flows of aircraft and one crossing
point, while a model of the second case has to be composed of many flows and crossings. Thus the
topological complexity of Case A is less than Case B.

Stuart Kauffman (1993) defined complexity as the number of conflicting constraints. For example, the
airspace can be made less complex by removing air traffic constraints such as military zones, bad
weather, etc. It should be noted however, that the definition is only concerned with the complexity factor
of structural rules and cannot be accepted as a model for assessing ATC complexity.

2.3. Queuing theory

In queuing theory a model is constructed so that queue length and waiting times can be predicted.
Schmidt (1978) used this theory to analyse ATC workload. The difference between this approach and
other system engineering approaches that consider the human as a comparative function between one state
that is actual and another one that is the desired one is that in queuing theory the accomplishment of a task
and performance is measured in terms of task completion times. Making use of the operational data
collected from Los Angeles en-route controllers, Schmidt managed to derive a mathematical expression
which can be used for predicting the average en-route delay as well as the server occupancy upon the
demand, with a very good accuracy.[2]

Finally, cyclo-matic complexity is a complexity metric that attempts to capture the dependencies between
components. It considers the number of linearly independent loops through a system, with the
assumption that the greater the number of feedback loops, the greater the potential for complex behaviour
(Vikal, 2000, [10]). Vikal (2000) has used cyclo-matic complexity to analyse the apparent complexity of a
flight management system to a pilot.


2.4. Latest approaches to Complexity Management at European
Level

This chapter will introduce some of the latest approaches to complexity Management at European Level.
The first three: algorithmic approach, cognitive approach, and statistical approach, have also been
selected for further analysis and validation within SESAR JU working project: Complexity Management
in-en route. These approaches have been chosen because a future combination of the three can really be
seen as a major breakthrough from this so intense studied field of ATC workload complexity and because
they are relevant for this study, since they express the current trends in European ATM, and after
validation, they will most probably be adopted by many of European ANSPs.
Further on, a brief introduction into CAPAN method (CAPacityANalyser), COCA Project and Dynamic
Density will be done and their relevance for this research will be explained. In the end of this chapter
(2.6) complexity indicators and complexity metrics will be discussed.

2.4.1. Algorithmic Approach (EUROCONTROL)

Following the numerous works undertaken in the past with the aim of providing the ATC with automated
assistance, and also following the experiments with a number of assistance tools like Medium Term
Conflict Detection (MTCD-conflict detection), Arrival MANager (AMAN - arrival sequencing), Conflict
Resolution Assistant (CORA-conflict resolution) EUROCONTROL has initiated the work on Complexity
Management (CM) within their Automated Support to ATC Programme (ASA). As conclusions have
indicated, that support tool cannot work in isolation from the airspace organisation and planning and the
dynamic management of the flows and workload.

This approach is also based on previous work on analysis of Traffic Complexity for off-line sector
analysis (COCA project). Supported by this study it was concluded that by following this thread and
using its output operational concept for complexity management could be established.

The main goal of this project was to product an algorithm based on linear inputs for prediction of
complexity in a volume of airspace. Furthermore, the algorithm uses only data that can be downloaded
from the FDPS which restrict the room for erroneous inputs to be made but in the same time disregards
some of the cognitive aspects.


This algorithm was supported by previous fast and real time simulations that were undertaken for its
validation.

Real-time simulations using the Traffic Management System (TMS) Level 0 set-up were held at the
Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, and essentially consisted of an integration of the E-TLM
(Enhanced Traffic Load Monitoring) tool (see 6.3.2) in the ATC Training (ATC-TRG) simulator; for the
complexity calculations performed by the E-TLM, both an algorithmic approach and a cognitive model
were run in parallel and were operationally validated.

The E-TLM tool is designed to:

Identify Operational Sectors overloads, given the current sectorisation;
Assess the impact when applying a different sectorisation in terms of sector workload (What-If on
sectorisation);
Calculate the changes needed to perform in the sectorisation in order to get the most appropriate
workload situation in the Operational Sectors for the current traffic (Sector Optimiser);
Provide the user with a list of aircraft contributing to specific workload/complexity problems allowing
him to act on the current situation

The E-TLM is connected to an FDP system in the MUAC simulation environment; a Meta Sector Planner
(MeSP) Controller Working Position connected to this FDP system allowed to make What-If inputs on
flights to assess the impact of trajectory changes on the predicted complexity (What-If on trajectories).

Predicted complexity was calculated based on an algorithmic approach and on a cognitive model (both
run in parallel). The cognitive model approach is further described in 2.5.2. For the algorithmic approach,
workload was calculated using the following model:


Where:

: The number of flights in an OPS Sector is calculated by adding the number of flights in each Basic Sector (nsec)
belonging to this OPS Sector. Note: An ASPL contributes to the workload of an OPS Sector if it is the UNDER
CONTROL OPS Sector.

: The number of flights in the OPS Sector that are in climb or descent is obtained by summing climbing flights and
descending flights in this OPS Sector.

: The number of flights in the OPS Sector that are near the boundary is calculated by adding the number of flights
that are near the boundary in a Basic Sector (nsb) belonging to this OPS Sector that are not inside any other Basic
Sector belonging to the OPS Sector

: The number of flights in the OPS Sector that can receive and acknowledge ATC clearances by data link is
calculated by adding the number of flights in each Basic Sector (ndl) belonging to this OPS Sector classified as AGDL
flights.
Snorm= 1/
, where
is the maximum traffic capacity that can be supported by a certain OPS Sector.
For each pair SGCP (Sector Group Configuration Patterns) and OPS Sector the Maximum traffic Capacity, and Upper
and Lower threshold is statically adapted.

: The number of flights affected by a TSA availability change will be computed by adding flights that fulfill the
condition: A flight contributes to the Ntsa parameter for an OPS Sector, if at the Report Time the intersection of
theactive TSA crossing time interval with the OPS Sector crossing time interval is not null or the flight is inside a
timeinterval around the entry to the affected OPS Sector.

: The number of MTCD conflicts within the OPS Sector is calculated by adding the number of MTCD conflicts
in each Basic Sector (nmtcd) belonging to this OPS Sector.

: The number of OAT flights controlled by a GAT OPS Sector (applicable only for GAT OPS Sectors) is obtained
by summing all the Military classified flights inside this OPS Sector.

: The number of flights in a holding within the OPS Sector is obtained by summing all flights classified as
holding flights inside this OPS Sector. (SESAR-JU Complexity Management in En-route, Step1: Consolidation of
previous studies)

The linearity of the model allowed dividing the workload in different components:

Occupancy workload:

Coordination workload:

Conflict workload:
- even if seen as linear in my view this is a non-linear

component of the function.

Furthermore, this approach allows specifying the contribution of each aircraft separately to the total
workload, thus allowing sorting on workload contribution; this is seen as an important enabler for theso-
called cherry-picking, where individual flights are chosen for specific actions (level capping,rerouting)
to reduce overall workload (SESAR-JU Complexity Management in En-route, Step1: Consolidation of
previous studies)

2.4.2. Cognitive Approach (AENA)

Aeropuertos Espaoles y Navegacin Area (AENA, Air Navigation branch) is the Spanish Air
Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) designated by the state to provide air navigation services within the
Spanish controlled airspace. The company also plays a leading, active role in all European Union projects
relating to the introduction of the Single European Sky, being the Project Manager for various working
packages and projects within SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research).

Within AENA there have been developed two different methodologies to estimate the airspace
complexity, both equally important NORVASE methodology and E-TLM cognitive model; however for
the purpose of this study we will focus on the latter.

NORVASE methodology

NORVASE methodology is currently used in AENA during the strategic planning phase to determine
sector capacities and to design airspace sectorisation but its complexity indicators can also be applied
during the tactical/execution phase.

Enhanced Traffic Load Monitoring cognitive model. (E-TLM)

E-TLM is a tool internally developed by AENA created to dynamically adjust sector configurations to the
current, up-to-date traffic situation by means of measuring traffic complexity and reacting to high traffic
complexity situations. It is based on continuous complexity which takes into consideration up-to-date data
rather than historical demand. It measures the sector complexity as a function of the controllers workload
from the present time to few hours in advance by continuously doing Fast-Time Simulations of the
predicted traffic.

The best sectorisation is determined based on a predefined set of possible combinations, avoiding
workloads higher than the maximum acceptable safety level, minimising the number of open sectors and
balancing workloads between the operative sectors.

As stated before, the concept behind the E-TLM tool is the prediction of the controller workload for a set
of predefined sector configurations and this information is used to dynamically adjust sector
configurations to the real needs of controllers.

The inputs of this tool are the current and forecasted traffic flows as well as the predefined configuration
of different sectors of an airspace volume under study.
This tool calculates the workload values for each sector in all the possible predefined sector
configurations both for current time and as well as for a matter of hours in the future based on traffic
forecast.


It also incorporates a what-if functionality that displays to the user the optimum sectorisation that might
be used at each moment. Thus, the user will have the right information before the demand peaks arise. So,
he/she can detect in advance the demand peaks and can implement in a short time a change of
configuration to eliminate or smooth these peaks.

The E-TLM tool is comprised of three main components:

Workload calculator module - estimates the workload for every operational controller for
all the sector configurations: the one which is applied at that moment and the rest of the
predefined sector configurations.
Optimiser module - calculates the optimum sector configuration at each moment taking
into account user selected criteria.
HMI (Human Machine Interface) is the interface where all graphical data are shown.
For the purpose of this study only the first functionality is of a real interest and therefore in the next line I
will explain a bit the concept.
The E-TLM tool is integrated together with a fast time simulate or in such a way that from the predicted
traffic demand and the set of predefined sector configurations, it identifies the possible demand resources
from the airspace controller by generating a set of control events that will normally be undertaken by the
controller. The fast time simulator runs each every five minutes in order to make sure that the demand is
updated with all the flight plans that have changed during this period.

For calculating the workload the E-TLM model makes use of two concepts, a temporal workload, which
represents the time spent by the ATC to perform the controlling tasks, and a cognitive workload,
measured through an estimation of the impact of the cognitive channels demanded in each controlling
action.

The breakdown of ATC Actions (basic elements such as thinking, listening, speaking, etc.) in
cognitive channels (resources invoked in the brain) has been obtained from the experience of
human factor experts in the ATC domain.
Interferences between actions, which result in an increase of the controller workload, are
modelled in this module as different basic actions done at a time, so an action done
simultaneously with another one will have a different workload associated to it, depending on
what the second is.

The workload calculator module needs the connection between the ATC Tasks and the detailed
ATC Actions that the controller has to perform along with the cognitive channels used. This
connection is defined through an Operational Concept, which establishes the controller
behaviours according to this environment (Human Machine Interface, support tools, etc.). The
control events break down, within the Operational Concept, each of these events into tasks,
actions and channels, as it is shown in Figure 20. (SESAR-JU Complexity Management in En-
route, Step1: Consolidation of previous studies)

2.1.1. Statistical Approach (DSNA)

DSNA (Direction des Services de la Navigation Arienne) is the French ANSP, the company held and
delegated by the state to provide air navigation services within French controlled airspace. DSNA is also
a big supporter of SESAR objectives, and like AENA it holds the Project Manager position for a set of
researches held under SESAR umbrella.

Internally, DSNA has put the basis of the so called statistical approach to workload complexity, which is
backed by the use of artificial neural networks, algorithms inspired from the biological neurons and
synaptic links way of functioning.

The primary driver of the statistical approach was the need to find out whether and when a control sector
should be split into several elementary modules or on contrary more sectors should be merged together
(that is to assign these sectors to a single working position). One key point in answering these questions is
the finding that splitting and/or merging sectors are statistically related to the controller workload.

According to this principle, the studies hereafter have been led by DSNA prior to SESAR and have
focused on two themes: complexity assessment via the statistical approach and complexity reduction via
airspace reconfiguration proposals.

In order to function, this statistical approach proposed by DSNA makes use of six relevant metrics that
have been determined from previous studies and have been used to train the neural network.


The six metrics used are as follow:
1. Sector volume
2. Number of aircraft within the sector
3. The average vertical speed
4. Incoming flows with time horizons of 15 minutes
5. Incoming flows with time horizons of 60 minutes
6. The number of potential crossings with an angle greater than 20 degrees
As previously stated the complexity assessment algorithm uses a trained neural network with the six
metrics to predict the sector status based on the controller workload. The prediction issued from the
algorithm can fall in one of the three variants: the probability of having a low workload, a normal
workload or a high workload.
Depending on the predicted controller workload the decision of changing the airspace configuration either
by splitting the overloaded sectors and merging the under-loaded one can be taken.

The working principle can be seen below in Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Complexity assessment with a neural network (SESAR complexity management in en-route)
In order to give the most accurate workload prediction, the neural networks parameters are tuned on
historical data from a wide variety of sectors, taking into account the traffic complexity, so it can
generalise to any en-route sector. This is an interesting feature, as the model will also give an indication
of when an elementary sector (which cannot be split) will get overloaded, extrapolating from overloads
occurring in wider control sectors that can be split. Another interesting aspect of the calibration on
historical airspace and air situation data resides in the fact that the model is potentially adaptable to
changes in working methods via recalibration and fine tuning of a few parameters.
To conclude, this method belonging to DSNA is an interesting approach, though further analysis shall be
undertaken.

The Neural
Network
Sector volume V
Number of aircraft within the sector Nb
Average vertical speed avg_vs
Incoming flow with time horizon 15 min F15
Incoming flow with time horizon 60 min F60

Number of potential trajectory crossing with an
angle greater than 20 degrees inter_hori
P high
P normal
P low

2.1.2. Other methods for complexity and workload

a) Dynamic Density

One of the most cited works in the literature when it comes to controller workload, which is at the same
time the first complexity indicator incorporating structural considerations along with the simple number
of aircraft, is the Dynamic Density of Laudeman et al. from NASA. The Dynamic Density is a
weighted sum of the traffic density (number of aircraft), the number of heading changes (> 15 degrees),
the number of speed changes (>0.02 Mach), the number of altitude changes (>750 ft), the number of
aircraft with 3DEuclidean distance between 0-25 nautical miles, the number of conflicts predicted in 25-
40 nautical miles. These factors are summed together using weighting factors that were determined by
showing different traffic scenarios to several controllers. Sridhar from NASA has developed a model to
predict the evolution of such a metric in the near future. Efforts to define Dynamic Density have
identified the importance of a wide range of potential complexity factors, including structural
considerations. However, the instantaneous position and speeds of the traffic itself does not appear to be
enough to describe the total complexity associated with the airspace. Some previous studies have
attempted to include structural consideration in complexity metrics, but have done so only to a restricted
degree. For example, the Wyndemere Corporation proposed a metric that included a term based on the
relationship between aircraft headings and dominant geometric axis in a sector. The importance of
including structural consideration has been explicitly identified in work at EUROCONTROL. In a study
to identify complexity factors using judgment analysis, Airspace Design was identified as the second
most important factor behind traffic volume.

b) COCA Project

Complexity and Capacity project (COCA) was a major research project initiated by EUROCONTROL
Experimental Centre (EEC) at the end of year 2000 in the field of ATC Complexity, whose aim was to
provide the Agency with a functional model of ATC cognitive complexity and to describe the relationship
between capacity and complexity by means of accurate performance metrics. Due to various reasons this
work was abandoned but the reports and the studies made within this project are of a real value and in my
personal opinion deserve to be further analysed, since they provided promising results.
A quantitative approach was used to evaluate operational complexity intrinsic to MUAC traffic flows and
airspace environment characteristics. That approach consisted of first defining the complexity metrics
which could best describe the factors contributing to the complexity of MUAC sectors.

Those factors were defined considering both static (sector configuration and specific fixed aspects related
to the airspace environment) and dynamic (e.g. operational behaviour, traffic variability) data. The set of
elicited metrics was systematically evaluated for all MUAC sectors in each sector configuration that
occurred during both data collection phases. The results provided quantitative measurements of the
selected indicators and were used as the basis of the sector I/D cards.
The study proved that the method to calculate workload had, in many cases, a good correlation to the
controllers' reported perceived workload. However, additional work was needed to identify those
indicators and situations where the link was weakest, or missing, and incorporate them in an improved
workload calculation. Further, subjective results underscored the potentially critical role of factor
combinations, especially interactions involving a subset of so precursor factors.
c) CAPAN Method

Capacity Analyzer (CAPAN) is a tool and simulation method developed by EUROCONTROL to evaluate
the ATC sector capacities before or after new airspace organisations, implementation of new route
structures, new sectorisation, new procedures, etc. with the aim of providing possible solutions to
improve ATC Operations and increase sector capacity.

After analysing several CAPAN studies I identified some interesting findings that are of a real interest for
this research. Below, I summarise two of them.
a) Workload thresholds
This thresholds used here are the result of empirical experimentation and were validated and calibrated by
several real time simulation studies, and even conservative, they are generally accepted in the industry.

Threshold Interpretation Recorded working time during 1 hour
70% or above Overload 42 minutes or more
54% - 69% Heavy Load 32 - 41 minutes
42% - 53% Medium Load 25 - 31 minutes
18% - 41% Light Load 11 - 24 minutes
0% - 17% Very Light Load 0 - 10 minutes
Table 2.3 CAPAN workload thresholds

The Executive Controller workloads are not directly proportional to traffic demand. It is clear from
(Figure1) that the function EC workload versus Traffic demand is not a linear function. A deeper analysis
shows that EC workload is more dependent on complexity of traffic than on demand.

The second conclusion proves that our initial assumption that workload is not a linear function, directly
dependent to traffic demand holds. On the other hand, the PC controller workload appears in direct
dependency with the number of a/c in the sector (due to various enablers: SYSCO, OLDI).

Figure 2.3 CAPAN workload analyses

Entry rate
Executive Controller workload; 70% threshold
Planning Controller workload

2.2. Complexity factors

As it was already stated in the beginning of this document complexity reasons are manifold and factors
determining it are both numerous and diverse. Most of ATC complexity studies in the past relied on
previous works and researches, however they have introduced as well new complexity factors or gave
different names to indicators that have previously been identified. Workload and ATC complexity studies
have been undertaken in the last 40 years. Hence, identifying all the complexity factors will be a very
demanding job. While for this study the real importance of some of the factors is low, this effort can be
considered by some as questionable. However, for the purpose of this study the author considers that
having a list of all the factors that are thought to affect ATC complexity is of a real help, as it can be
considered a pool from where the most important factors for this study can be identified.

In a study from University Politehnica of Bucharest, based on an analysis of a large number of
complex or difficult traffic scenarios and how did the ATCOs deal with them, the researchers
identified a number of 9 factors and 45 sub-factors that from were proven to be relevant in defining a
comprehensive function of complexity. The authors of the study introduced the idea of a nonlinear

complexity function and attempts to catch the perceived complexity in a quantitative measure as
accurately as possible.

In order to identify complexity factors several techniques were used. In an effort to identify complexity
factors, Mogford (1993, 1994), though not complementary, used two distinct techniques: direct and
indirect. Direct techniques use the results of verbal reports, questionnaires, and interviews to elicit
complexity factors. Indirect techniques use statistical techniques analysing controller judgments of the
relative complexity of different air traffic situations to determine potential complexity factors. Results
indicated the direct technique was an appropriate and adequate tool for identifying potential complexity
factors (Mogford 1994).

Complexity factors previously identified in the literature have included the distribution of aircraft in the
air traffic situation and properties of the underlying sector. Relevant characteristics of the underlying
sector have included sector size, sector shape, the configuration of airways, the location of airway
intersections relative to sector boundaries, and the impact of restricted areas of airspace. Coordination
requirements have also been identified as a factor in ATC complexity. This factor depends on the design
of the airspace and the structure that defines interactions between controllers in adjoining sectors.

Mogford (1995) has made a survey of the literature relating to complexity in air traffic control where he
presented the factors that by that time were thought to have an influence upon ATC complexity. An
exhaustive listing of various factors identified throughout the literature has been compiled by Majumdar
(2002) and further by the research done within EUROCONTROL COCA Project (2004).

Notice that there were great differences across the literature in how much detail was provided for
complexity factors. In some cases, factors were specified in great detail (including the measurement
methods and units such as total number of flights effecting a heading change of more than 15 degrees,
per hour). In other cases, factors were mentioned without any clear indication of how to capture them
operationally (e.g. Military activity). The occasional overlap between factors (below) reflects this
inconsistency. Details are provided where available.


In the table below you can find a list comprising a total of 108 complexity factors as identified by the
COCA team in [2].

1. Aerodromes, number of airline hubs
2. Aerodromes, total number in airspace
3. Aircraft mix climbing and descending
4. Airspace, number of sector sides
5. Airspace, presence/proximity of restricted airspace
6. Airspace, proximity of sector boundary
7. Airspace, sector area
8. Airspace, sector boundary proximity
9. Airspace, sector shape
10. Airspace, total number of navaids
11. Conflicts, average flight path convergence angle
12. Conflicts, degree of flight path convergence
13. Conflicts, number of aircraft in conflict
14. Conflicts, number of along track
15. Conflicts, number of crossing
16. Conflicts, number of opposite heading
17. Conflicts, total time-to-go until conflict, across all aircraft
18. Convergence, presence of small angle convergence routes
19. Coordination, frequency of coordination with other controllers
20. Coordination, hand-off mean acceptance time
21. Coordination, hand-offs inbound, total number
22. Coordination, hand-offs outbound, total number
23. Coordination, number aircraft requiring hand-off to tower/approach
24. Coordination, number aircraft requiring vertical handoff
25. Coordination, number flights entering from another ATC unit
26. Coordination, number flights entering from same ATC unit
27. Coordination, number flights exiting to another ATC unit
28. Coordination, number flights exiting to same ATC unit
29. Coordination, number of communications with other sectors
30. Coordination, number of other ATC units accepting hand-offs
31. Coordination, number of other ATC units handing off aircraft
32. Coordination, total number LoAs
33. Coordination, total number of handoffs
34. Coordinations, total number required
35. Equipment status
36. Flight entries, number aircraft entering in climb

37. Flight entries, number aircraft entering in cruise
38. Flight entries, number aircraft entering in descent
39. Flight entries, number entering per unit time
40. Flight exits, number aircraft exiting in climb
41. Flight exits, number aircraft exiting in cruise
42. Flight exits, number aircraft exiting in descent
43. Flight Levels, average FL per aircraft
44. Flight Levels, difference between upper and lower
45. Flight Levels, number available within sector
46. Flight time, mean per aircraft
47. Flight time, total
48. Flight time, total time in climb
49. Flight time, total time in cruise
50. Flight time, total time in descent
51. Flight type, emergency / special flight operations, number
52. Flow organisation, altitude, number of altitudes used
53. Flow organisation, average flight speed
54. Flow organisation, complex routing required
55. Flow organisation, distribution of Closest Point of Approach
56. Flow organisation, flow entropy/structure
57. Flow organisation, geographical concentration of flights
58. Flow organisation, multiple crossing points
59. Flow organisation, number of altitude transitions
60. Flow organisation, number of current climbing aircraft proportional to historical maximum
61. Flow organisation, number of current descending aircraft proportional to historical maximum
62. Flow organisation, number of current level aircraft proportional to historical maximum
63. Flow organisation, number of intersecting airways
64. Flow organisation, number of path changes total
65. Flow organisation, routes through sector, total number
66. Flow organisation, vertical concentration
67. Other, controller experience
68. Other, level of aircraft intent knowledge
69. Other, pilot language difficulties
70. Other, radar coverage
71. Other, resolution degrees of freedom
72. Procedural requirements, number of required procedures
73. RT, average duration of Air-Ground communications
74. RT, callsign confusion potential
75. RT, frequency congestion
76. RT, frequency of hold messages sent to aircraft
77. RT, total number of Air-Ground communications

78. Separation standards (separation/spacing/standards)
79. Staffing
80. Time, total climb
81. Time, total cruise
82. Time, total descent
83. Traffic density, aircraft per unit volume
84. Traffic density, average instantaneous count
85. Traffic density, average sector flight time
86. Traffic density, localised traffic density / clustering
87. Traffic density, mean distance travelled
88. Traffic density, number flights during busiest 3 hours
89. Traffic density, number flights during busiest 30 minutes
90. Traffic density, number flights per hour
91. Traffic density, number of arrivals
92. Traffic density, number of current aircraft proportional to historical maximum
93. Traffic density, number of departures
94. Traffic density, total fuel burn per unit time
95. Traffic density, total number aircraft
96. Traffic distribution/dispersion
97. Traffic mix, aircraft type, jets versus propellers
98. Traffic mix, aircraft type, slow versus fast aircraft
99. Traffic mix, climbing versus descending
100. Traffic mix, military activity
101. Traffic mix, number of special flights (med, local traffic)
102. Traffic mix, proportion of arrivals, departures and overflights
103. Traffic mix, proportion of VFR to IFR pop up aircraft
104. Weather
105. Weather, at or below minimums (for aerodrome)
106. Weather, inclement (winds, convective activity)
107. Weather, proportion of airspace closed by weather
108. Weather, reduced visibility
Table 2.4 Table of complexity factors (COCA project)

In 3.5 from the total of 108 complexity factors identified in the literature a number of 12 will be selected
for an in-depth study as they proved to be relevant for this research. Furthermore the metrics for them will
be derived.


3. ATC complexity model

This chapter will present en-details the original approach to complexity of this paper, where the author
had developed a conceptual mathematical function adapted to BucurestiACC Sectors that is thought to be
a better and more precise way to quantify ATC workload through the complexity point of view. As stated
in the first chapter, the complexity in ATC can be equally attributed to traffic characteristics, to
dynamicity of the traffic, to sector characteristics, and not in the last place to the controller abilities
(cognitive complexity). Nevertheless, the general experience from consulting previous studies is that there
are many methods and function that would contribute to a great improvement in Complexity
Management; improvement in ATM performance.

With this in mind and after an in-depth study of all the above mentioned methods and principle to
measure complexity and its additional workload to the controller, in the sequel it will be explain the need
to develop a new method to assess ATC workload complexity by making use of the main benefits of
previous researches.

3.1. Introduction

Nowadays the civil aviation industry in Europe is gradually moving towards a Free Route Airspace
concept of operation which is thought to increase the benefits of all the airspace users and to assist the
accomplishment of the Single European Sky Air Navigation research (SESAR) requirements and
expectations, like achieving an almost double airspace capacity by 2020 compared to 2005, reduced en-
route delays, as well as to improve the safety performance by a factor of ten while air traffic is expected
to triple.

Once with the increase in traffic ATC complexity can be seen as a key factor in establishing the workload
of a controller, therefore complexity has become one of the most discussed subjects in this field, but
surprisingly or not, a clear and generally accepted solution has still not been found. Furthermore, as you
can see in 2.6 there is a huge variety of complexity-driving factors that has been identified in practice,
however one can say that this high number it is both reasonable but also impractical, since the factors
driving complexity are not the same in every sector or at least they dont have the same impact upon
controller (for instance the ATC complexity into a TMA sector is mostly influenced by the number of a/c

in climbing or descending profile, while for an en-route sector it can be the number of crossing points,
however they are not mutually exclusive).
In conclusion, this research is not for finding a general formula for complexity that can be applied
regardless the sector characteristics or traffic sample, but for an individual sector study and factors
identification.

Following the discussions with a number of controllers from ROMATSA (Romanian Air Traffic
Services) within the frame of this work a set of complexity-driving factors has been identified, together
with their associated metrics for sectors KONEL and NAPOC, in such a way that a complexity model can
be built upon them.

Further, we will present the method developed to gather ATCOs perception of complexity (subjected to
high subjectivity) and the objective factors such as a/c count, etc. The model that will be presented in the
sequel wants to be more accurate than the classical occupancy model or a/c count and aims to be used
initially as a static model to analyse the complexity post operations, based on traffic archives and
situations, and after achieving a maturity level, as a dynamic model, to predict ATC complexity and
ATCO workload. Further development might prove it suitable to be implemented in the development of
concepts such as dynamic sectorisation that might be necessary to adopt by most of the ANSPs at a some
point, if we take into account the expected increase in traffic and increase in traffic dynamicity once with
the Free Route Environment operations.

Though making use of numerous previous concepts and research programs, the approach of this paper is
original and it claims to capture better the picture of the ATC complexity than simple traffic count
method.

This study categorises factors influencing workload complexity in 3 main categories:
1. The static sector characteristics
2. Dynamical aspects imposed by the traffic
3. Traffic characteristics (number of aircraft in the sector, number of climbing aircraft,
number of descending aircraft, instantaneous aircraft count)
+, a cognitive/perceived component that is not to be forgotten
The cognitive component seems to be the one that can be the most difficult to quantify.
Although this research recognises that factor such as: controller experience, reaction time, duty time etc.
are of a real interest in achieving a more precise picture of the complexity as it affects the controller, it

does not encapsulate all of them. In this research perceived complexity is thought to be captured in two
ways. One is by deriving the weights of the complexity factors, using as primary input ATCOs answers
and analysing them within an AHP exercise. The second way and complementary way to capture
perceived complexity is by measuring the difficulty encountered by the ATCO on 2 minutes interval with
an ISA-like tool developed by the author especially for this research.

Although ISA tool is thought to have a very small intrusive impact upon controllers activity, installing an
additional computer screen or tablet on the working station and using it to gather controller perceived
complexity or workload in real working environment was found unacceptable due to safety reason.
Furthermore, each and every new tool that aims to be introduced in a working environment has to pass
first through several test and validation sessions into a simulated environment. Even though it was not the
scope of this research to validate a ATC complexity model, the findings open the door for future studies
and development; Such development refers to a number of simulation sessions, where the model
presented here could be tested, calibrated and validated. The main benefit of such a simulated
environment is that the same traffic sample can be repeated as many times as necessary to calibrate the
model.

3.2. Complexity, Workload and Capacity

3.2.1. Complexity raised by trajectories uncertainty

David Knorr and Leif Walter in their research Trajectory Uncertainty and the Impact on Sector
Complexity and Workload focus on the role of trajectory uncertainty in controller workload and propose a
new approach to measuring complexity. Studying the impact of trajectory uncertainty on tools such as
MTCD, designed to reduce controllers workload by anticipating and predicting future conflicts with
considerable amount of time ahead, they have proved how data communication technologies such as
CPDLC will decrease the possibility of conict and increase the feasibility of con ict situations and
therefore will reduce complexity and controller workload, thus providing more room for accommodating
flights thus increasing capacity, hence productivity.


As we have seen, most of the studies and algorithms previously discussed are based at a certain level, on
trajectories predictions based on the Flight Plan. Even though this approach seems to be and it is the right
one, unfortunately in real world, day to day operations the things doesnt really happen like that, and
sometimes we face big differences between what it is planned and what it is actually flown, which
introduce in the models a big amount of uncertainties. As the realisation of the prediction lies on the
realisation of the Flight Plan its a straightforward conclusion to say that in order to have a more accurate
estimation of ATCworkload and capacity arise the need to bring the Flight Planning as close as possible
to what is actually flown. Below you can see the results of one day of traffic analysis in SAAM tool
(System for traffic Assignment and Analysis at a Macroscopic level).

Figure 3.1. Flights intersecting Bucuresti FIRas planned on 29JUN2012 (Flight Plan)


Figure 3.2. Flightsintersecting Bucuresti FIRas flown on 29 JUN 2012 (Radar data)

As can be seen there are big discrepancies between the Flight Plan and what has actually been flown
ignoring weather aspects or military activation zones this is happening mainly because of poor planning
of flights by the companies. Even though horizontal trajectory uncertainty seems not to be as important as
vertical trajectory when comes to the ATC experienced complexity, it represents a noise when making
complexity and workload prediction that have to be taken into account.

In the beginning of this research it was mentioned that Free Route or Free Flight concepts are thought by
some to increase ATC workload and complexity. In the sequel the author will address this issue from the
perspective of traffic predictability and based on the findings a preliminary conclusion on this topic will
be drawn.
This subject is of a real interest since the concept of Free Route Operations is already adopted by some
countries in Europe, and several others are on the waiting list, for various steps of Free Route
implementation. Before proceeding further, below you can find the Free Route definition.
A specified airspace within which users may freely plan a route between a defined entry
point and a defined exit point, with the possibility to route via intermediate (published or
unpublished) way points, without reference to the ATS route network, subject to airspace
availability. Within this airspace, flights remain subject to air traffic control.(Free Route
concept of operations)

Pawlak et all in the research A framework for the evaluation of air traffic control complexity[4] are
studying the ATC complexity considering the new approaches and say that as the aviation community
moves towards a free flight environment, traffic complexity may not necessarily increase or decrease, but
it will most certainly change.

The complexity of air traffic control is of particular importance in the study of the free flight concept for
ATC.
The removal of many of the procedures that are currently used for the control of air
traffic as advocated by the free flight concept will most likely affect all of the task
elements (both physical and mental tasks) that must be conducted by the ATS. For
example, the process of evaluating a traffic situation and determining the conflicts that
will arise will most likely become more difficult for a number of different reasons. The
loss of the current existing organization of traffic flows that is created through the use of
non-free flight ATC procedures will potentially increase the number of possible conflicts
that might occur. By assigning each aircraft to a specific route selected from a finite and
relatively small set of routes, todays controller is significantly reducing the number of
locations at which aircraft may come into conflict. Additionally, when two aircraft are
assigned to the same route; they are separated by altitude or by time along the route.
This separation can then be easily maintained and monitored through the use of various
methods, such as speed control. The controller simply ensures that the distance between
the aircraft does not decrease below that which is acceptable, by assigning speeds if
necessary [4].

Though giving no reference the authors of [4] argue that both the evaluation and planning tasks will
become more difficult under free flight procedures because of the increased flexibility that will be
afforded aircraft. Under free flight, the controller will no longer know the exact route that an aircraft is
expected to follow.

Making a Free Route analysis study is beyond the purpose of this paper but one can argue that at least in
its initial phase, the implementation of Free Route Airspace in Europe will bring no big ATC complexity
issues. Studies have shown that there is a common practice between controllers to give long directs, and
that aircraft trajectories follow a sort of free route instead of the planned route. More than that, the
companies will plan between an entry and exit point from the free route airspace and between them they
will make use of as many latitude/longitude points as they want, but they will have to respect what they
have planned. This is thought to reduce horizontal uncertainty and increase the predictability of the
flights, so the impact on air traffic control complexity will be minimal. However, in a full Free Route
Airspace environment that will cover the whole Europe at a certain point in time, the possibility of
complexity escalation should not be ignored, and further in-depth studies should be undertaken.


3.3. Airspace overview

Currently Romanian Airspace is split in 16 sectors, covering horizontally all the Bucuresti FIR and
vertically the airspace between the lower limit of Airways and FL660.The sectors are: ARGES Middle,
ARGES Top, BACAU, NAPOC, DINSI Middle, DINSI TOP, BUDOP Middle, BUDOP Top, KOMAN
Middle, KOMAN Top, LOMOS Middle, LOMOS Top, MOPUG Middle, MOPUG Top, NERDI Middle,
and NERDI Top.

3.3.1. Sectorisation

In the Table 3.1 you can find sectors within Romanian Airspace, their horizontal and vertical limits as
well as their declared maximum hourly capacity as provided by EURCONTROL, via NEVAC tool.

Figure 3.3.BucuretiACC Sectors (NEVAC)


Sector Name Vertical Dimensions Horizontal Dimensions
Declared
Capacity
ARGES Middle Lower limit of airways-FL335
461603N0254353E -
453250N0272026E445530N0274921E-
440700N0271700E then border of SOFIA FIR
up to the point of coordinates:
440350N0263945E-442627N0260924E-
445418N0254515E-455436N0243532E-
460256N 0242514E - 460205N0243707E-
460648N0245740E-461603N0254353E
50
ARGES Top FL335-FL660 54
BACAU Lower limit of airways- FL660
474400N 0245259E then border of LVIV FIR,
CHISINAU FIR up to the point of
coordinates:455630N0280547E-
454345N0274308E- 452506N0272629E-
453250N0272026E- 461603N0254353E-
462912N0253532E- 471609N0250821E-
474400N0245259E
54
NAPOC Lower limit of airways- FL660
480100N0230600E then border of LVIV FIR up
to the point of coordinates 474400N0245259E -
471609N0250821E -462912N0253532E -
461603N0254353E -460648N0245740E -
460205N0243707E -460256N0242514E -
461533N0233031E -462935N0231008E -
472929N0230730E -474140N0230939E -
480100N0230600E
54
DINSI Middle Lower limit of airways- FL335
455630N 0280547E - then border of CHISINAU
FIR, ODESA FIR up to the pointof coordinates
451300N 0294000E -450900N 0295800E -
443000N 0301600E -441500N 0302400E -
434100N 0303200E -434400N 0290200E -
434000N 0290000E - 434500N 0283600E then
border of SOFIA FIR up to the point of
coordinates 440700N 0271700E - 445530N
0274921E -452506N 0272629E - 454345N
0274308E -455630N 0280547E
48
DINSI TOP FL335-FL660 48
BUDOP Middle Lower limit of airways- FL335
480100N0230600E - 474140N0230939E -
472929N0230730E - 462935N0231008E -
462509N0231636E - 455737N0230517E -
454442N0225318E - 453237N0225614E -
454355N0222956E - 461244N0213145E -
462500N0211740E - then border of
BUDAPEST FIR, LVIV FIR up to the point of
coordinates: 480100N0230600E
50
BUDOP Top FL335-FL660 54
KOMAN Middle Lower limit of airways- FL335
445418N0254515E - 442627N0260924E -
440350N0263945E - then border of SOFIAFIR
up to the point of coordinates:
434253N0244241E - 435236N0243420E -
435747N0243219E - 441155N0242223E -
442038N0251212E - 443737N0250858E -
445212N0250955E - 445418N0254515E
47
KOMAN Top FL335-FL660 47
LOMOS Middle Lower limit of airways- FL335
452455N0225804E - 445212N0250955E -
443737N0250858E - 442038N0251212E -
441155N0242223E - 435747N0243219E -
435236N0243420E - 434253N0244241E -then
border of SOFIA FIR, BEOGRAD FIR up to the
point of coordinates: 443600N0224300E -
443819N0225616E - 444641N0230642E-
452455N0225804E
45
LOMOS Top FL335-FL660 45
MOPUG Middle Lower limit of airways- FL335
462500N0211740E - 461244N0213145E -
454355N0222956E - 453237N0225614E -
452700N0225735E - 444641N0230642E -
443819N0225616E - 443600N0224300E -then
border of BEOGRAD FIR, BUDAPEST FIR up
to the point of coordinates:462500N0211740E
50
MOPUG Top FL335-FL660 54
NERDI Middle Lower limit of airways- FL335
462509N0231636E - 461533N0233031E -
460256N0242514E - 455436N0243532E -
445418N0254515E - 445212N0250955E -
452455N0225804E - 452700N0225735E -
454442N0225318E - 455737N0230517E -
462509N0231636E
45
NERDI Top FL335-FL660 47
Table 3.1.Sectors dimensions and declared capacity(AIP Romania and EUROCONTROL data)


3.3.2. Vertical Movement

Figure 3.4 shows the breakdown of the vertical movements computed for 23 JUN 2012. Here, vertical
movements means the proportion of flights in climb/descent profiles subdivided into the following
categories: Internal, Departing, Landing, and Overflights.

Internal flights are those which have departed from and landed at airports located within
Romanian airspace geographic boundaries.
Departing and Landing flights are those which have either departed from or landed at airports
located beneath Bucureti ACC sectors, excluding internal flights.
Overflights are those flights that have passed through the Bucureti ACC sector group and did not
depart from or land at an airfield located subjacent to the groups area of responsibility. The
overflights are divided into two categories: pure overflights, and overflights to/from fringe
airports.

The fringe airports are defined as being within a radius of 150 NM from the sector groups area of
responsibility.
The proportion of Internal/Landing/Departing flights does not exceed 20% (17% as for 23JUN 2012).
These low percentages are explained by the low number of Internal flights (37 that represents only 2%)
compared to the total number of flights (1802).
Nevertheless, Romanian airspace sits at the boundary between Western Europe and Middle East and
Turkey, regions that register high traffic growth and that are currently the engines of traffic growth in
Europe.
Dealing with the overflights, sectors such as DINRO, KOMAN, LOMOS, are clearly more affected by
traffic to/from fringe airports especially those flights departing or landing from/to Bulgarian airports,
however the traffic volume is small.

Figure 3.4. Distribution of the flights in the vertical plane BucuretiACC for 23 JUN 2012

3.3.3. Directional flows

Figure 3.5 shows the main traffic flows handled by Bucureti ACC. As can be seen the major traffic flow
is on direction west, north-west to south, south east and vice versa, that are flights departing from Turkey
to western and northern Europe mainly to Germany, Sweden, UK and vice-versa. There is another flow
on south-west direction, which means departure/arrival Romania to/from Italy.

Figure 3.5. Directional Flows (SAAM analysis)
INTERNAL
2%
DEPARTING
8%
ARRIVAL
7%
OVERFLIGHT
S
68%
OVERFLIGHT
S TO/FROM
FRINGE
AIRPORTS
15%

The routes in red correspond to more than 100 flights /day
The thick orange one correspond to 75-100 flights/day, orange 50-75flights/day, the other colours
between 1 and 50 flights a day.

Country Pair
Number of
flights
LT_ED 101
ED_LT 81
LR_LR 37
LI_LR 30
LR_LI 30
ES_LT 28
LT_ES 25
EG_OM 25
ED_LR 23
LR_ED 23
Table 3.2. Flights by country-pairs impacting Bucureti ACC (23 JUN2012)


3.3.4. SECTOR SELECTION

As can be seen from the Table 3.2, Romania it is mostly a transit country for flights to and from Turkey
and Middle East, therefore the biggest traffic flow is north-westbound and south-eastbound, though the
overall airspace complexity is pretty small. One of the few exceptions is the KONEL sector group
(KOMAN/NERDI/LOMOS) where the main flow intersects the departures and arrivals from/ to LROP.

The DANUBE Real Time Simulation [6] completed in November 2011 at the EUROCONTROL
Experimental Centre in Brtigny, France found that the most problematic sectors of the current Bucureti
ACC are LOMOS middle, DINSI middle, and NERDI. During the RTS all the proposed airspace re-
organisations revealed that improvements are realised within all the candidate sectors. However, Sector
NERDI remains a problematic sector. This sector is faced with operability problems in handling two
hotspots (LAMIT, DP109-NERDI). Even if NERDI Sector seems to be the best candidate for testing a
complexity function KONEL group (KOMAN/NERDI/LOMOS) is a very good candidate as well since it
contains an airspace which copes with a big amount of climbs, descents as well as with overflights, so it
can capture all sorts of phases of flight and all types of aircraft operating to/from Bucharest Henri
Coanda International Airport, and not only, some descends to Burgas Airport begin here.

The sectors covered by our survey and for which controllers had filled in questionnaires are KONEL
(LRKNL16, LRKNL89) and NAPOC (LRCN19). Therefore in the sequel Sector load analysis using
SAAM tool will be done for the envisaged sectors as for 30 JUN 2013.

After selecting the Sectors that will be used for testing the complexity function, in the sequel we will
analyse the traffic that passes through LRKNL16, LRKNL89 and LRCN19. The traffic used is as for 30
JUN 2013) hours 08:00-10:00 UTCsince it is the same time interval for which the forms in Annex A were
filled.


3.3.5. SECTORS LOAD
SAAM abbreviations used:
Entry rate Sliding hourly entry rate, is the number of aircraft entering a sector within one hour.
This figure is calculated every minute;
INST - Instantaneous number of aircraft, which gives the number of aircraft that are observed
within the sector at any minute during the interval. An aircraft is counted during the time it
actually flew in the sector. INST of 15 (fifteen) aircraft could be considered as a maximum for
sector workload;
AVG TIME - Average time aircraft spent in the sector during the interval, in minutes;
Capacity - Current capacity figures.

Below you can find the sectors dimensions and their Load analysis as for the hours we have
applied the surveys from 3.6
a) LRKNL16 and LRKNL89
Horizontal dimensions, top view (SAAM)

Figure 3.6. LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 top view (SAAM)


3D view (NEVAC)

Figure 3.7. Sectors LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 3D view (NEVAC)
Sector load
DATE SECTOR
Number
of
flights
Average
distance
(NM)
Average
time
(min)
Maximum
Instantaneous
Aircraft Number
30 JUN 2013
08:00 - 09:00 UTC
LRKNL16 26 116.9 18.5 9
LRKNL89 31 115.5 15.3 12
Table 3.3.Sectors LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 Load- SAAM Analysis

Figure 3.8. Sector LRKNL16-SAAM analysis - sector load-30 JUN 2013

Figure 3.9. Sector LRKNL89-SAAM analysis - sector load-30 JUN 2013

Traffic passing through sectors (SAAM)

Figure 3.10. Traffic passing through sector LRKNL16-30 JUN 2013(08:00-09:00 UTC)

Figure 3.11. Traffic passing through sector LRKNL89-30 JUN 2013(08:00-09:00 UTC)

b) LRCN19
Horizontal dimensions, top view (SAAM)

Figure 3.12. LRCN19 top view (SAAM)

3D view (NEVAC)

Figure 3.13. Sectors LRKNL16 and LRKNL89 3D view (NEVAC)

Sector load
DATE SECTOR
Number
of
flights
Average
distance
(NM)
Average
time
(min)
Maximum
Instantaneous
Aircraft Number
30 JUN 2013
09:00 - 10:00 UTC
LRCN19 34 96.4 14.0 12
Table 3.4. Sector LRCN19 Load- SAAM Analysis

Figure 3.14. Sector LRCN19-SAAM analysis - sector load-30 JUN 2013


Traffic passing through sector (SAAM)

Figure 3.15. Traffic passing through sector LRCN19-30 JUN 2013 (08:00-09:00 UTC)

3.4. Complexity Factors and Metrics

In 2.6 there were identified by [2] a total of 108 number of complexity factors. Following several
meetings with controllers from BucurestiACC a number of 12 complexity indicators thought to be most
relevant to the BucurestiACC sectors were selected for this study:
A/C in cruise
A/C in a climbing profile
A/C in a descending profile
Instantaneous A/C count
Sector volume
Volume unused due to Meteorological conditions or Military Areas activation
No. of crossing points
No. of Entry/exit points
Sector shape
Detected conflicts
Speed variance
Time to conflict

Figure 3.16.Complexity factors
1. Level1 factors
1.1. Traffic characteristics (as in 2.1-2.4)
1.2. Sector Characteristics (as in 2.5- 2.8)
1.3. Dynamicity (as in 2.9-2.12)

2. Level2 factors
2.1. A/C in cruise- the number of aircraft that enter and exit the sector at the same Flight Level, without
changing the FL between the entry and the exit of sector. This aircraft are said to be on cruise. The
metric proposed here is:
CRA=- Number of cruising a/c in the sector within a time interval [dimensionless unit] where,

CRA= Number of cruising a/c
Acr- A/C in cruise

2.2. A/C in a climbing profile - the number of flights in the OPS Sector that are in climb is obtained by
adding up climbing flights in the OPS Sector, therefore,
ATC WORKLOAD
COMPLEXITY
Traffic
characteristics (ac)
A/C in cruise (cra)
A/C in a climbing
profile
(cla)
A/C in a descending
profile(dsa)
Instantaneous a/c
count
(ina)
SECTOR
CHARACTERISTICS
(sc)
Sector volume (ssv)
No. of crossing
points (hot-points)
(shp)
Entry/Exit points
(see)
Sector shape (ssc)
DYNAMICITY
(dc)
Detected conflicts
(dnc)
Speed
variance(traffic mix)
(dsv)
Time to conflict
(dtc)
Volume unused due
to Met or Mil
(dvu)

CLA= [dimensionless unit]where,
CLA- total number of climbs in the sector within a time interval
Acl- A/C in climb

2.3. A/C in a descending profile - the number of flights in the OPS Sector that are in descend is obtained
by adding up descending flights in the OPS Sector, therefore,
DSA= [dimensionless unit] where,

DSA- total number of descending in the sector within a time interval
Ads - A/C in Descent

2.4. Instantaneous a/c count- represents the instantaneous number of aircraft in frequency at any instant
of time.
INA=
-a/c in frequency at time i
INA- Instantaneous a/c count

2.5. Sector volume the average time one aircraft is under control. The metric we propose is the time
elapsed between the first call to last call.
SSV = [s] where:

SSV= Average sector volume
N= number of aircraft in the sector in a certain time interval
Lc- last call time
Fc- first call time

2.6. No. of crossing points, here, a crossing point represents the intersection between two routes or more
routes.
This is of a particular interest because it necessitates more attention from the air traffic controller side,
since it is a hot spot where there is a higher probability for a conflict to arise. The metric proposed is SHP.
SHP= [dimensionless unit]; where,

SHP- total number of crossing points
CP- crossing point
2.7. No. of Entry/exit points
The number of entry versus exit points from a sector was proved to be important to complexity, though a
large number of entries and small number of exit points will typically correspond to a increase in
complexity since a large number of aircraft trajectories will converge to just a few exits. The opposite will
correspond to a decrease in complexity since the flight will diverge.

[Dimensionless unit]
Where:
SEE= the ratio between Entry and Exit Points
EP = number of entry points
ExP = number of exit points

Figure 3.17. Entry-exit points complexity

2.8. Sector shape is thought to influence the ATC complexity.
In order to capture this factor we propose the following metric:
SSC =
SSC- Sector Shape
Tl - Time needed for an average A/C to cross the sector on the longest route
Ts- Time needed for an average A/C to cross the sector on the shortest route

2.9. Detected conflicts-computed by summing the possible conflicts detected by MTCD
DNC = [dimensionless unit]; where,

DNC- total no of predicted conflict within a time interval
- Conflicts detected by MTCD

2.10. Speed variance can also be named traffic mix
The proposed metric derived for the speed variance was adopted from the study The use of Panel Data
Analysis Techniques in Airspace Capacity Estimation[5] done by Majumdar et al. for the MFF Region
simulation. It comprises both the maximum speed difference between the fastest and slowest aircraft at
each flight level and the number of aircraft at each flight level. In order to account for the interview based
responses of controller as to how these factors affect controller workload a new variable for speed
differential (DSV) at different FLs and for each hour was derived as follows:

DSV=
[knots]
Where
= number of aircraft at Flight Level i
- Maximum speed difference between the fastest and the slowest aircraft in the hour at FL i
total number of flight level used
The larger the value of DSV, the Greater will be the impact on controller workload, a fact apparent from
the interviews.

2.11. Time to conflict- the time left from the moment a conflict has been identified to the moment it
will happen if no action is undertaken
DTC
2.12. Volume unused due to Met or Mil volumes of airspace that cannot be used because of adverse
meteorological conditions (severe icing, severe turbulence, CB or TCU clouds, etc.)or Military
areas activation.
The metric proposed to capture this factor is the ratio between the volume that cannot be used and the
total sector volume.
DVU = [dimensionless unit]; where,
DVU - ratio between affected volume of airspace/ volume that cannot be used due to severe
meteorological conditions or military area activation and the total sector volume.

AV - volume of airspace/volume that cannot be used due to severe meteorological conditions or military
area activation
TV- total sector volume
Index
Complexity
Factor
Metric Explanation
1 CRA

Total number of cruising a/c in the sector within a time
interval
2 CLA
Total number of climbs in the sector within a time interval
3 DSA
Total number of descends in the sector within a time
interval
4 INA

Instantaneous a/c count
5 SSV

Average sector volume
6 SHP
No. of crossing point
7 SEE

The ratio between Entry and Exit Points
8 SSC

Sector Shape
9 DNC

Total number of predicted conflict within a time interval
10 DSV

Speed variance
11 DTC Time-to-go to conflict
12 SVU

Volume unused due to Met or Mil
Table 3.5.Complexity factors and Metrics
CF =

AC =

SC =

DC =

CF=


3.5. Weighting complexity factors - method description

The AHP methodology compares criteria, or alternatives with respect to a criterion, in a natural, pair wise
mode. To do so, the AHP uses a fundamental scale of absolute numbers that has been proven in practice
and validated by physical and decision problem experiments. The fundamental scale has been shown to be
a scale that captures individual preferences with respect to quantitative and qualitative attributes just as
well or better than other scales (Saaty 1980, 1994). It converts individual preferences into ratio scale
weights that can be combined into a linear additive weight for each alternative.

The resultant can be used to compare and rank the alternatives and, hence, assist the decision maker in
making a choice. Given that the three basic steps are reasonable descriptors of how an individual comes
naturally to resolving a multi criteria decision problem, then the AHP can be considered to be both a
descriptive and prescriptive model of decision making.

Even though the Analytical Hierarchy Process is designed mainly for decision making purposes I believe
that the first part of the process, giving weights to the criteria can be used with success for weighting a
complexity function.

After the method had been presented to a number of controllers from Bucuresti ACC, they were asked to
answer to the questionnaires as from Annex B. After that the results have been analysed and the weights
of the criteria have been calculated. The forms that contained inconsistent answers have been, rejected.
Below you can find the results as for sector LRCN19 executive controller position.
In order not to have a very heavy document the other analysis will be presented only for one questionnaire
and for the others only the results will be presented in the content of this document while for the others
the calculation can be found in AnnexD of the present document.


3.6. QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS

3.6.1. LRCN19 09 - 10 UTCEC answers analysis
Below you can find the answers provided by the EC of sector LRCN19 representing the importance of
different criteria for the difficulty/complexity of the traffic situation encountered between 9- 10 UTC
The analysis of the answers revealed that
their consistency was acceptable (<10%)
and provided the influence of each factor,
on the complexity perceived by the
controller. In order to have a better view,
the results were derived in percentages.
In Table 3.9you can find these results

Table 3.6 ATCO answers

AC SC DY

AC 0.66666667 0.6 0.7272727 0.655123 65.51%
AC 1.0000 4.0000 4.0000

SC 0.16666667 0.1 0.0909091 0.133478 13.35%
SC 0.2500 1.0000 0.5000

DY 0.16666667 0.3 0.1818182 0.2114 21.14%
DY 0.2500 2.0000 1.0000

checksum 1 1 1 weight s percent age
sum 1.5000 7.0000 5.5000

1 ok if = 1
Table 3.7 Pairwise comparison

Table 3.8 Standardized matrix

n 3

CI 0.0398629
lamda
max 3.0797258

CR 0.0687292 6.873%
Traffi c characteristi cs 4 Sector characteristi cs
Traffi c characteristi cs 4 Dynami city
Sector characteristi cs 1/2 Dynami city
A/C in cruise 1/5 A/C in a climbing profile
A/C in cruise 1/5 A/C in a descending profile
A/C in cruise 1/8 Instantaneous a/c count
A/C in a climbing profile 1/2 A/C in a descending profile
A/C in a climbing profile 1/5 Instantaneous a/c count
A/C in a descending profile 1/3 Instantaneous a/c count
Sector volume 1/3 No. of crossing points
Sector volume 1 Entry/Exi t Points ratio
Sector volume 1/4 Sector shape
No. of crossing points 5 Entry/Exi t points rati o
No. of crossing points 3 Sector shape
Entry/Exi t points rati o 1/3 Sector shape
Detected confli cts 5 Speed vari ance
Detected confli cts 7 Ti me to confli ct
Detected confli cts 9 Volume unused due to Met or Mil
Sped variance 2 Ti me to confli ct
Speed vari ance 4 Volume unused due to Met or Mil
Ti me to confli ct 4 Volume unused due to Met or Mil

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

62.32%

13.73%

23.95%
A/C in cruise 4.87% Sector volume 11.11% Detected conflicts 65.29%
A/C in a
climbing
profile
15.30%
No. of
crossing
points
50.59% Speed variance 17.58%
A/C in a
descending
profile
23.02%
Entry/Exit
Points ratio
9.77% Time to conflict 12.30%
Instantaneous
a/c count
56.80% Sector shape 28.53%
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil
4.84%
Table 3.9. Factors weights LRCN19 EC answers


AC Air traffic charact erist ics

Pai rwise comparison

Standardized matri x

n 4

CRA CLA DSA INA

CRA 0.05263 0.02439 0.04255 0.0754 0.048738 4.87%

max 4.204777

CRA 1.0000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1250

CLA 0.26316 0.12195 0.10638 0.1206 0.153024 15.30%

CI 0.068259

CLA 5.0000 1.0000 0.5000 0.2000

DSA 0.26316 0.2439 0.21277 0.201 0.230208 23.02%

CR 0.075843 7.58%

DSA 5.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.3333

INA 0.42105 0.60976 0.6383 0.603 0.56803 56.80%

INA 8.0000 5.0000 3.0000 1.0000

checksum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 weight s percent age

sum 19.0000 8.2000 4.7000 1.6583

1 ok if =1

SC Sect or characterist ics



n 4

SSV SHP SEE SSC

SSV 0.11111 0.17857 0.10000 0.0545 0.111057 11.11%

max 4.228932

SSV 1.0000 0.3333 1.0000 0.2500

SHP 0.33333 0.53571 0.50000 0.6545 0.505898 50.59%

CI 0.076311

SHP 3.0000 1.0000 5.0000 3.0000

SEE 0.11111 0.10714 0.10000 0.0727 0.097745 9.77%

CR 0.08479 8.48%

SEE 1.0000 0.2000 1.0000 0.3333

SSC 0.44444 0.17857 0.30000 0.2182 0.285299 28.53%

SSC 4.0000 0.3333 3.0000 1.0000

checksum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 weight s percent age

sum 9.0000 1.8667 10.0000 4.5833

1 ok if =1

DC Dynamicity



n 4

DNC DSV DTC DUM

DNC 0.68777 0.74074 0.68293 0.5 0.65286 65.29%

max 4.266972

DNC 1.0000 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000

DSV 0.13755 0.14815 0.19512 0.2222 0.175762 17.58%

CI 0.088991

DSV 0.2000 1.0000 2.0000 4.0000

DTC 0.09825 0.07407 0.09756 0.2222 0.123028 12.30%

CR 0.098879 9.89%

DTC 0.1429 0.5000 1.0000 4.0000

DUM 0.07642 0.03704 0.02439 0.0556 0.048351 4.84%

DUM 0.1111 0.2500 0.2500 1.0000

sum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 weight s percent age

sum 1.4540 6.7500 10.2500 18.0000

1 ok if =1


3.6.2. LRCN19 09- 10UTC planning controller AHP analysis
results

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

28.28%

7.38%

64.34%
A/C in cruise 5.29%
Sector
volume
9.54% Detected conflicts 65.85%
A/C in a
climbing
profile
21.17%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
21.17%
Entry/Exit
Points ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
52.38%
Sector
shape
5.08%
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil
4.84%
Table 3.10. Factors weights LRCN19 PC answers

3.6.3. LRKNL16 08 - 09 UTC planning controller AHP analysis
results

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

26.05%

10.62%

63.33%
A/C in cruise 17.07%
Sector
volume
A/C in a
climbing
profile
40.10%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
5.50%
Entry/Exit
Points ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
37.33%
Sector
shape
13.93%
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil
56.96%
Table 3.11. Factors weights LRKNL16 PC answers


3.6.4. LRKNL89 08 - 09 UTC Planning Controller AHP analysis
results

Traffic
characteristics

Sector
characteristics

Dynamicity

44.29%

16.98%

38.73%
A/C in cruise 8.39%
Sector
volume 19.72% Detected conflicts 20.31%
A/C in a
climbing
profile 19.65%
No. of
crossing
points 34.14% Speed variance 57.92%
A/C in a
descending
profile 15.45%
Entry/Exit
Points
ratio 12.00% Time to conflict 9.13%
Instantaneous
a/c count 56.52%
Sector
shape 34.14%
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil 12.64%
Table 3.12. Factors weights LRKNL89 PC answers

3.6.5. LRKNL89 08- 09UTC Executive Controller AHP analysis
results

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

44.29%

16.98%

38.73%
Sector
volume
A/C in a
climbing
profile
24.06%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
7.05%
Entry/Exit
Points
ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
55.71%
Sector
shape
35.99%
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil
12.31%
Table 3.13. Factors weights LRKNL89 EC answers

3.7. Potential improvements per Key Performance Area
The Single European Sky II (SES-II) legislative package, adopted in 2010, has introduced a SES
Performance Scheme as its key feature with the EC Regulation N. 691/2010 published the 29th July
2010.The4 Key Performance Areas envisaged by this research are: Safety, Cost effectiveness and
Capacity. The possible benefits are explained as per KPA.

Safety
Using ATC complexity instead of hourly entry-rate and occupancy to precisely forecast the workload
variation can be an improvement for safety because of its awareness regarding possible traffic demand
over capacity/overload situations beyond the traffic count.
Environment
Developing a quantitative model to measure the improvement brought by the ATC complexity model
developed here on Environment is very difficult to make and it is beyond the purpose of this BEng
However, by having a better picture of the flights that can be safely handled by an ATCO we can aim for
a redistribution of the flights; and by avoiding the peaks of high workload and overload, we can claim for
having more room for routings that can be translated into a reduction of emissions.
Cost-Effectiveness
The method can prove to be cost effective but to measure its exact impact upon this KPA further studies
should be undertaken backed by simulations. A further development of this ATC complexity model can
lead to the use of most optimum sector configuration
Capacity
The Sector Capacity can increase by using a complexity model for workload, for the simple fact that by
identifying and correcting factors that penalises the most ATCO perceived complexity, we can reduce the
complexity, therefore the workload and create more room for flights, though increasing both ATCO
productivity and therefore capacity
3.8. Future development& investigations
This study showed focused on its first part on gathering subjective complexity data from the controllers
and analyse the weights of various factors upon perceived complexity. Though most of the results seem to
be as expected, there is still much discrepancy between some results. There is plenty of room left for
future development that can consist in enlarging the pool of surveys to have a better picture of the
situation. Testing and validating the complexity function into a simulator can be seen as the main task
subjected to future development. Using the ISA tool to get controller self-assessment of workload is
another area to further develop. Future investigation should be done in what concerns re-weighting the
criteria in the case one of the complexity factor is not present, to assure the consistency of the method.


4. Conclusions

There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the present document.
Firstly, the realisation of the objectives set in 1.4.
The OBJ1: Develop forms, gather and analyse experimental data on ATC complexity from a predefined
set of sectors was successfully attained as can be seen in AnnexA and AnnexC and the subject was treated
in chapters 3.5 and 3.6.The OBJ2: Study workload from the ATC complexity perspective was
accomplished successfully by the work done in chapter 2 and 3. The objective OBJ3: Study complexity
factors and identifies those impacting the sectors in study was fulfilled by the extensive work done in
chapters 2.5 and 3.4. OBJ4 and OBJ5 were both accomplished by the work on chapter 3.5.
OBJ6: Develop an ISA (Instantaneous self-assessment of workload technique) tool was attained by
developing a JavaScript application. Being practically a piece of software, it couldnt be attached to this
document; however the description of the tool is presented in AnnexB.

5. References

[1] EUROCONTROL. ACE Working Group on Complexity, 2006, Complexity Metrics for ANSP
Benchmarking Analysis, -Performance Review Commission Report.
[2] EUROCONTROL.Cognitive complexity in Air Traffic Control: A literature review EEC Note No.
04/04
[3] David Knorr and Leif Walter. Uncertainty and the Impact on Sector Complexity and Workload focus
[4] Pawlak et al. A framework for the evaluation of air traffic control complexity (Pawlaket all.)
[5] Romanian AIP-www.aisro.ro
[6] DANUBE Real Time Simulation- Final Report
[7] Airspace complexity measurement: An air traffic control simulation analysis (ParimalKopardekar,
Albert Schwartz, Sherri Magyarits, and Jessica Rhode)
[8] The complexity construct in ATC- A review and synthesis of the literature, (FAA, 1995)
[9] The impact of structure on cognitive complexity in air traffic control Jonathan M. Histon and R. John
Hansman,MIT ICAT, 2002
[10] Vikal, Sanjay Analysis of Complexity Evolution Management and Human Performance Issues in
Commercial Aircraft Automation Systems, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000.
Anthony J. Masalonis, Michael B. Callaham, and Craig R. Wanke: Dynamic density and complexity
metrics for real time traffic flow management
Arash Yousefi, George L. Donohue: Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Airspace Complexity for Air
Traffic Controller Workload-Based Sectorization
Arnab Majumdar and Washington Y. Ochieng: The factors affecting airspace capacity in Europe: A
Framework Methodology based on Cross Sectional Time-Series Analysis using Simulated Controller
Workload Data
Banavar Sridhar, Kapil S. Sheth Shon Grabbe: Airspace Complexity and its Application in ATM
Complexity and Controller Workload: Trying to Bridge the Gap
EUROCONTROL: A complexity study of the Maastricht Upper Airspace Centre
EUROCONTROL: Adaptation of workload model by optimization algorithms
EUROCONTROL: Airspace complexity for regulatory purposes
EUROCONTROL: Cognitive complexity in ATC- A literature review
EUROCONTROL: Complexity Metrics for ANSP Benchmarking Analysis
EUROCONTROL: D4.3.1.1.1-02 - En-route & complexity management ExpertGroup Report

EUROCONTROL: Instant load
EUROCONTROL: Pessimistic sector capacity estimation
EUROCONTROL: Seven-Year Forecast February 2013
FAA: The Complexity Construct in Air Traffic Control: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature
Jonathan M. Histon and R. John Hansman: The impact of structure on cognitive complexity in ATC
KeumJin Lee: Describing airspace complexity: Airspace response to disturbances
M.L. Cummings, C.G. Tsonis COMPLEXITY MITIGATION THROUGH AIRSPACE STRUCTURE
Parimal Kopardekar et all : Airspace complexity measurement: An ATC Simulation Analysis
Parimal Kopardekar et all: Airspace complexity measurement: An ATC simulation analysis
SESAR: Complexity Management in En-Route
SESAR: STEP 1 Consolidation of previous studies
Stphane Puechmorel and Daniel Delahaye: New Trends in Air Traffic Complexity
Sylvie Athnes, Philippe Averty Stephane Puechmorel*Daniel Delahaye Christian Collet ATC
Thomas L. Saaty: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.
Thomas L. Saaty: How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Thomas. L. Saaty: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation
William S. Pawlak Christopher R. Brinton Kimberly Crouch Kenneth M. Lancaster: A framework for the
evaluation of ATC Complexity


Annex A - AHP questionnaire
Level 1
Traffic characteristics versus Sector characteristics
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ABS Strong Moderate Weak Equal Weak Moderate Strong ABS
Traffic characteristics versus Dynamicity
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sector characteristics versus Dynamicity
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Level 2- Traffic characteristics
A/C IN CRUISE
A/C in cruise versus A/C in a climbing profile
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A/C in cruise versus A/C in a descending profile
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A/C in cruise versus Instantaneous a/c count
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A/C IN A CLIMBING PROFILE VS OTHERS
A/C in a climbing profile versus A/C in a descending profile
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A/C in a climbing profile versus Instantaneous a/c count
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A/C IN A DESCENDING PROFILE VS OTHERS
A/C in a descending profile versus Instantaneous a/c count
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Level 2- Sector characteristics
SECTOR VOLUME VS OTHERS
Sector volume versus No. of crossing points
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sector volume versus Entry/Exit Points ratio
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sector volume versus Sector shape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No. of crossing points versus Entry/Exit points ratio
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No. of crossing points versus Sector shape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ABS Strong Moderate Weak Equal Weak Moderate Strong AB
ENTRY/EXIT POINTS RATIO VS OTHERS
Entry/Exit points ratio versus Sector shape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Level 2- Dynamicity
Detected conflicts versus Speed variance
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Detected conflicts versus Time to conflict
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Detected conflicts versus Volume unused due to Met or Mil
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SPEED VARIANCE VS OTHERS
Sped variance versus Time to conflict
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Speed variance versus Volume unused due to Met or Mil
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time to conflict versus Volume unused due to Met or Mil
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9




Annex B - ISA
Instantaneous self-assessment of workload technique
Background and applications
Instantaneous self-assessment (ISA) is a technique that has been developed as a measure of workload to
provide immediate subjective ratings of work demands during the performance of primary work tasks
such as air traffic control. Major drawback of the technique is that the performance on the primary
tracking task is found to be poorer during periods when ISA responses were required, regardless of
whether they were spoken or manual responses. This finding suggests that the usefulness of the technique
is limited in comparison to less intrusive measures of workload. The ISA workload technique is a
subjective workload assessment technique that was developed for use in the assessment of ATCs mental
workload during the design of future ATM systems A very simple technique, ISA involves participants
self-rating their workload during a task (normally every two minutes) on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).
Kirwan et al. (1997) used the following ISA scale to assess air traffic controllers (ATC) workload.

Table 1. Example ISA workload scale (Source: Kirwan et al 1997)

Level WorkloadHeading SpareCapacity Description
5 Excessive None Behind on tasks; losing track of the full picture
4 High Very Little
Non-essential tasks suffering. Could not work at
this level very long.
3
Comfortable Busy
Pace
Some
All tasks well in hand. Busy but stimulating pace.
Could keep going continuously at this level.
2 Relaxed Ample
More than enough time for all tasks. Active on
ATC task less than 50% of the time.
1 Under- Utilised Very Much Nothing to do. Rather boring.

Typically, the ISA scale is presented to the participants in the form of a colour-coded keypad. The
keypad flashes when a workload rating is required, and the participant simply pushes the button that
corresponds to their perceived workload rating.

For this study a web application was developed and the controllers will be asked to rate their experienced
workload directly on a tablet or a an additional PC, however after discussing with experts in RTS it was

concluded that an additional function should be added to the program in order to store the time of rating,
and derive the controller response time.

Controller response time was proved to be useful in practice because it gives a meaning of interpretation
of the controllers rating by the meaning of not assessing correctly the workload he had faced. For
instance a rating type 1 Under-utilised it is not acceptable to come together with a large response time.

The ISA technique allows a profile of operator workload throughout the task to be construction, and
allows the analyst to ascertain excessively high or low workload parts of the task under analysis. The
appeal of the ISA technique lies in its low resource usage and its low intrusiveness.
Advantages

ISA is a very simple technique to learn and use.
The output allows a workload profile for the task under analysis to be constructed.
ISA is very quick in its application as data collection occurs during the trial.
Has been used extensively in numerous domains.
Requires very little in the way of resources.
Whilst the technique is obtrusive to the primary task, it is probably the least intrusive of the on-
line workload assessment techniques.
Low cost.

Disadvantages

ISA is intrusive to primary task performance.
Limited validation evidence associated with the technique.
ISA is a very simplistic technique, offering only a limited assessment of operator workload.
Participants are not very efficient at reporting mental events.
Tools needed

For this exercise an ISA recording tool was developed by Cirstica Mihai Adelin as a simple, JavaScript
web application. The tool is easy to use and very productive in delivery of the data. The ratings and rating
times are stored in a .txt file though further analysis could be undertaken.
Below you can find a print screen with the tool and an example of the data stored:

In this example the ratings 3, 1, 4 were given at times 19:47:23, 19:47:25, 19:47:26
Note that this is just an exemplification and the values have nothing to do with the study where
workload ratings are supposed to be taken at predefined time intervals.




Annex C- Traffic Sample





Annex D - Weights calculation

LRCN19-Planning Controller Answers
Standardized matrix

weights

AC 0.238095 0.384615 0.2258065 0.282839 28.28%

SC 0.047619 0.076923 0.0967742 0.073772 7.38%

DY 0.714286 0.538462 0.6774194 0.643389 64.34%

checksum 1 1 1

1
ok if =
1

Traffic
characteristic
s

Sector
characteristic
s

Dynamicity

28.28%

7.38%

64.34%
A/C in cruise 5.29%
Sector
volume
A/C in a
climbing
profile
21.17%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
21.17%
Entry/Exit
Points ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil
4.84%

n 3

lamda
max
3.0967258

CI 0.0483629

CR 0.0833843 8.338%
Pairwise comparison

AC SC DY

AC 1.0000 5.0000 0.3333

SC 0.2000 1.0000 0.1429

DY 3.0000 7.0000 1.0000

sum 4.2000 13.0000 1.4762

AC



CRA CLA DSA INA

CRA 0.05556 0.03846 0.038461538 0.07895 0.05286 5.29%
lamda
max
4.1005

CRA 1.0000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1429

CLA 0.27778 0.19231 0.192307692 0.18421 0.21165 21.17% CI 0.0335

CLA 5.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333

DSA 0.27778 0.19231 0.192307692 0.18421 0.21165 21.17% CR 0.0372 3.72%

DSA 5.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333

INA 0.38889 0.57692 0.576923077 0.55263 0.52384 52.38%

INA 7.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000

checksum 1 1 1 1 weight s

sum 18.0000 5.2000 5.2000 1.8095

1
ok if =
1
SC



SSV SHP SEE SSC

SSV 0.07500 0.08000 0.05983 0.16667 0.09537 9.54%
lamda
max
4.2339

SSV 1.0000 0.1429 0.2000 3.0000

SHP 0.52500 0.56000 0.59829 0.38889 0.51804 51.80% CI 0.078

SHP 7.0000 1.0000 2.0000 7.0000

SEE 0.37500 0.28000 0.29915 0.38889 0.33576 33.58% CR 0.0866 8.66%

SEE 5.0000 0.5000 1.0000 7.0000

SSC 0.02500 0.08000 0.04274 0.05556 0.05082 5.08%

SSC 0.3333 0.1429 0.1429 1.0000

checksum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 weight s

sum 13.3333 1.7857 3.3429 18.0000

1
ok if =
1
DC



DNC DSV DTC DUM

DNC 0.68777 0.68966 0.756756757 0.5 0.65855 65.85%
lamda
max
4.2363

DNC 1.0000 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000

DSV 0.13755 0.13793 0.108108108 0.22222 0.15145 15.15% CI 0.0788

DSV 0.2000 1.0000 1.0000 4.0000

DTC 0.09825 0.13793 0.108108108 0.22222 0.14163 14.16% CR 0.0875 8.75%

DTC 0.1429 1.0000 1.0000 4.0000

DUM 0.07642 0.03448 0.027027027 0.05556 0.04837 4.84%

DUM 0.1111 0.2500 0.2500 1.0000


sum 1.4540 7.2500 9.2500 18.0000

1
ok if =
1


LRKNL16-Planning Controller Answers
Pairwise comparison

AC SC DY

AC 1.0000 3.0000 0.3333

SC 0.3333 1.0000 0.2000

DY 3.0000 5.0000 1.0000

sum 4.3333 9.0000 1.5333

Standardized matrix

weights

AC 0.230769 0.333333 0.217391 0.260498 26.05%

SC 0.076923 0.111111 0.130435 0.106156 10.62%

DY 0.692308 0.555556 0.652174 0.633346 63.33%

checksum 1 1 1

1
ok if =
1

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

26.05%

10.62%

63.33%
Sector
volume
A/C in a
climbing
profile
40.10%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
5.50%
Entry/Exit
Points ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
37.33%
Sector
shape
13.93%
Volume unused
due to Met or Mil
56.96%

n 3

lamda
max
3.055361

CI 0.027681

CR 0.047725 4.773%


AC



CRA CLA DSA INA

CRA 0.1389 0.13462 0.2778 0.13158 0.1707152 17.07%
lamda
max
4.15765

CRA 1.0000 0.3333 5.0000 0.3333

CLA 0.4167 0.40385 0.3889 0.39474 0.4010346 40.10% CI 0.05255

CLA 3.0000 1.0000 7.0000 1.0000

DSA 0.0278 0.05769 0.0556 0.07895 0.0549933 5.50% CR 0.05839 5.84%

DSA 0.2000 0.1429 1.0000 0.2000

INA 0.4167 0.40385 0.2778 0.39474 0.3732569 37.33%

INA 3.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000


sum 7.2000 2.4762 18.0000 2.5333

1
ok if =
1
SC



SSV SHP SEE SSC

SSV 0.10000 0.10000 0.08333 0.10714 0.097619 9.76%
lamda
max
4.20952

SSV 1.0000 0.1429 1.0000 1.0000

SHP 0.70000 0.70000 0.58333 0.75000 0.6833333 68.33% CI 0.06984

SHP 7.0000 1.0000 7.0000 7.0000

SEE 0.10000 0.10000 0.08333 0.03571 0.0797619 7.98% CR 0.0776 7.76%

SEE 1.0000 0.1429 1.0000 0.3333

SSC 0.10000 0.10000 0.25000 0.10714 0.1392857 13.93%

SSC 1.0000 0.1429 3.0000 1.0000

checksum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 weight s

sum 10 1.42857 12 9.33333

1
ok if =
1
DC



DNC DSV DTC DUM

DNC 0.2303 0.38889 0.3704 0.20818 0.2994252 29.94%
lamda
max
4.20989

DNC 1.0000 7.0000 5.0000 0.3333

DSV 0.0329 0.05556 0.037 0.07807 0.0508886 5.09% CI 0.06996

DSV 0.1429 1.0000 0.5000 0.1250

DTC 0.0461 0.11111 0.0741 0.08922 0.0801143 8.01% CR 0.07774 7.77%

DTC 0.2000 2.0000 1.0000 0.1429

DUM 0.6908 0.44444 0.5185 0.62454 0.5695719 56.96%

DUM 3.0000 8.0000 7.0000 1.0000

checksum 1 1 1 1 weight s weight s

sum 4.3429 18 13.5 1.60119

1 ok if =1


LRKNL89-Planning Controller Answers
Pairwise comparison

AC SC DC

AC 1.0000 3.0000 1.0000

SC 0.3333 1.0000 0.5000

DC 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000

sum 2.3333 6.0000 2.5000

Standardized matrix

weights

AC 0.4286 0.5000 0.4000 0.442857 44.29%

SC 0.1429 0.1667 0.2000 0.169841 16.98%

DC 0.4286 0.3333 0.4000 0.387302 38.73%

checksum 1 1 1

1
ok if =
1

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

44.29%

16.98%

38.73%
A/C in cruise 8.39%
Sector
volume
A/C in a
climbing profile
19.65%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
15.45%
Entry/Exit
Points ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
Volume unused due
to Met or Mil
12.64%

n 3

lamda
max
3.020635

CI 0.010317

CR 0.017789 1.779%


AC



CRA CLA DSA INA

CRA 0.09091 0.0625 0.06667 0.11538 0.083865 8.39%
lamda
max
4.109

CRA 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.2000

CLA 0.27273 0.1875 0.13333 0.19231 0.196467 19.65% CI 0.036

CLA 3.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333

DSA 0.18182 0.1875 0.13333 0.11538 0.154509 15.45% CR 0.04 4.03%

DSA 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.2000

INA 0.45455 0.5625 0.66667 0.57692 0.565159 56.52%

INA 5.0000 3.0000 5.0000 1.0000

checksum 1 1 1 1

sum ###### 5.3333 7.5000 1.7333

1 ok if =1

SC



SSV SHP SEE SSC

SSV 0.2000 0.3125 0.1000 0.1765 0.197243 19.72%
lamda
max
4.246

SSV 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000

SHP 0.2000 0.3125 0.5000 0.3529 0.34136 34.14% CI 0.082

SHP 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000

SEE 0.2000 0.0625 0.1000 0.1176 0.120037 12.00% CR 0.091 9.12%

SEE 1.0000 0.2000 1.0000 0.3333

SSC 0.4000 0.3125 0.3000 0.3529 0.34136 34.14%

SSC 2.0000 1.0000 3.0000 1.0000

checksum 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

sum 5.0000 3.2000 10.0000 2.8333

1 ok if =1

DC



DNC DSV DTC DUM

DNC 0.1579 0.1515 0.3000 0.1250 0.203137 20.31%
lamda
max
4.166

DNC 1.0000 0.2500 3.0000 1.0000

DSV 0.6316 0.6061 0.5000 0.6250 0.579213 57.92% CI 0.055

DSV 4.0000 1.0000 5.0000 5.0000

DTC 0.0526 0.1212 0.1000 0.1250 0.091281 9.13% CR 0.095 9.54%

DTC 0.3333 0.2000 1.0000 1.0000

DUM 0.1579 0.1212 0.1000 0.1250 0.126369 12.64%

DUM 1.0000 0.2000 1.0000 1.0000

checksum 1 1 1 1

sum 6.3333 1.6500 10.0000 8.0000

1 ok if =1


LRKNL89-Executive Controller Answers
Pairwise comparison

AC SC DC

AC 1.0000 3.0000 1.0000

SC 0.3333 1.0000 0.5000

DC 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000

sum 2.3333 6.0000 2.5000

Standardized matrix

weights

AC 0.42857143 0.5 0.4 0.442857 44.29%

SC 0.14285714 0.166667 0.2 0.169841 16.98%

DY 0.42857143 0.333333 0.4 0.387302 38.73%

checksum 1 1 1

1 ok if = 1

Traffic
characteristics
Sector
characteristics
Dynamicity

44.29%

16.98%

38.73%
Sector
volume
19.63%
Detected
conflicts
16.02%
A/C in a
climbing profile
24.06%
No. of
crossing
points
A/C in a
descending
profile
7.05%
Entry/Exit
Points
ratio
Instantaneous
a/c count
55.71%
Sector
shape
35.99%
Volume unused
due to Met or
Mil
12.31%

n 3

lamda
max
3.020635

CI 0.010317

CR 0.017789 1.779%

AC



CRA CLA DSA INA

CRA 0.1071 0.0714 0.2308 0.1176 0.1317 13.17%
lamda
max
4.217

CRA 1.0000 0.3333 3.0000 0.2000

CLA 0.3214 0.2143 0.2308 0.1961 0.2406 24.06% CI 0.072

CLA 3.0000 1.0000 3.0000 0.3333

DSA 0.0357 0.0714 0.0769 0.0980 0.0705 7.05% CR 0.08 8.02%

DSA 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 0.1667

INA 0.5357 0.6429 0.4615 0.5882 0.5571 55.71%

INA 5.0000 3.0000 6.0000 1.0000


5.0000 9.3333 4.6667 13.0000 1.7000

1 ok if =1

SC



stv sca sfr svu

stv 0.2000 0.3125 0.0909 0.1818 0.1963 19.63%
lamda
max
4.258

stv 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000

sca 0.2000 0.3125 0.4545 0.3636 0.3327 33.27% CI 0.086

sca 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000

sfr 0.2000 0.0625 0.0909 0.0909 0.1111 11.11% CR 0.095 9.55%

sfr 1.0000 0.2000 1.0000 0.2500

svu 0.4000 0.3125 0.3636 0.3636 0.3599 35.99%

svu 2.0000 1.0000 4.0000 1.0000


sum 5.0000 3.2000 11.0000 2.7500

1 ok if =1

DC



DNC DSV DTC DUM

DNC 0.1333 0.1250 0.2222 0.1602 16.02%
lamda
max
4.08

DNC 1.0000 0.2000 2.0000 1.0000

DSV 0.6667 0.6250 0.5556 0.6157 61.57% CI 0.027

DSV 5.0000 1.0000 5.0000 5.0000

DTC 0.0667 0.1250 0.1111 0.1009 10.09% CR 0.046 4.60%

DTC 0.5000 0.2000 1.0000 1.0000

DUM 0.1333 0.1250 0.1111 0.1231 12.31%

DUM 1.0000 0.2000 1.0000 1.0000

checksum 1 1 1 weight s

sum 7.5000 1.6000 9.0000 8.0000

1 ok if =1

Analysis of Experimental Data On ATC Workload Complexity

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis of Experimental Data On ATC Workload Complexity

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis of the

- even if seen as linear in my view this is a non-linear

= number of aircraft at Flight Level i

Вам также может понравиться