026 faster

8/2/2019 026 Faster

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/026-faster 1/114

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

FASTER

(Future ATFM-AO-Airport Synergies Towards Enhanced opeRations)

EEC Report No. 332

EEC Task R23

EATCHIP Task CSD-4-01

Issued: August 1998

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no partshould be reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:

EEC Report No. 332

Security Classification:

Unclassified

Originator:

EEC - FDR

(Flight Data Research)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreB.P.15F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:

EATCHIP Development Directorate DED.1

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B -1130 BRUXELLES

Telephone : +32 2 729 9011

TITLE:

FASTER(Future ATFM-AO-Airport Synergies Towards Enhanced opeRations)

Author

P. Martin, A Hudgell,

S. Vial, N Bouge

Date

8/98

Pages

xii+102

Figures

1

Tables

4

Appendix

-

References

8

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

CSD-4-01

EEC Task No.

R23

Task No. Sponsor Period

1997 to 1998

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: Head of FDR(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):

Information management - information distribution - air traffic management - air traffic flow management - airlines -airports - air traffic control - collaborative decision making

Abstract:

This report describes a co-funded research project by EUROCONTROL and Aerospatiale to investigate theimprovement of information distribution and management.

During the study aircraft operators, airport authorities and ATM service providers were interviewed to understandwhat information from external sources they use and how their operations could be improved by better collectivesharing of information.

The work was carried out in the context of collaborative planning and decision making, which is proposed as amain R&D area in the ATM2000+ strategy.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


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

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

Publications Office

B.P. 15

91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

8/2/2019 026 Faster


v

CONTENTS

CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. VIII

ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................................................IX

GLOSSARY..........................................................................................................................................XI

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... XII

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT.....................................................................................................................1

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY .......................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Context of Study..................................................................................................................1

1.2.2 Foreseen Benefits of Collaborative Planning & Decision Making....................................2

1.3 THE FASTER PROJECT.................................................................................................................2

1.3.1 Project Objectives ..............................................................................................................21.3.2 Phase One Activities...........................................................................................................3

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY....................................................................................................................3

1.4.1 Interview Process ...............................................................................................................3

1.4.2 Main Themes of Questionnaires.........................................................................................4

2. AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ..........................................................................................................6

2.1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................6

2.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................6

2.1.2 Summary of Participating Airlines.....................................................................................6

2.2 CURRENT OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................8

2.2.1 Airline phases of activities .................................................................................................8

2.2.2 Airline Operations Functions.............................................................................................92.2.3 Operational Issues............................................................................................................11

2.2.4 Systems and Automation...................................................................................................15

2.2.5 Present information flow between the CFMU and the airlines........................................16

2.3 INFORMATION HELD BY THE AIRLINE ..........................................................................................17

2.4 NEW AND ENHANCED INFORMATION EXCHANGES......................................................................21

2.4.1 Flight Plan Route Validation............................................................................................21

2.4.2 Air Situation Display........................................................................................................21

2.4.3 Flow Management Information........................................................................................22

2.4.4 Airport and ATC Status Information................................................................................ 23

2.5 FURTHER OPERATIONAL ASPECTS...............................................................................................23

3. AIRPORTS................................................................................................................................... 27

3.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................273.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................27

3.1.2 Organisation.....................................................................................................................27

3.1.3 Systems and automation ...................................................................................................30

3.1.4 Airport Capacity...............................................................................................................31

3.1.5 Capacity Reductions.........................................................................................................33

3.1.6 Airport Slots .....................................................................................................................34

3.1.7 Relationship between declared capacity and the number of airport slots offered ..........35

3.1.8 Hub operations .................................................................................................................36

3.2 CURRENT AIRPORT AUTHORITY OPERATIONS .............................................................................37

3.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................37

3.2.2 Strategic............................................................................................................................37

3.2.3 Seasonal planning ............................................................................................................383.2.4 Stand allocation and planning .........................................................................................40

3.2.5 Interface with ATC and Flow Management......................................................................42

8/2/2019 026 Faster


3.2.6 De-icing............................................................................................................................43

3.2.7 Post-flight phase...............................................................................................................43

3.3 INFORMATION AVAILABLE ..........................................................................................................44

3.3.1 Summary of Current Information Availability.................................................................44

3.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY SYSTEMS .......................................................51

3.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................51

3.4.2 Planned future developments for airport systems............................................................513.4.3 Plans to link information systems.....................................................................................51

3.5 NEW INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................52

3.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................52

3.5.2 Earlier information on planned rotations........................................................................52

3.5.3 Rotation planning updates ...............................................................................................53

3.5.4 Passenger numbers...........................................................................................................54

3.5.5 ETA...................................................................................................................................54

3.5.6 ETD...................................................................................................................................55

4. ATC...............................................................................................................................................57

4.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................57

4.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................57 4.1.2 ATC Roles.........................................................................................................................58

4.1.3 ATC Systems .....................................................................................................................59

4.2 CURRENT ATC OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................60

4.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................60

4.2.2 Strategic Planning............................................................................................................60

4.2.3 Pre-tactical and Tactical Planning..................................................................................60

4.2.4 Tactical restrictions .........................................................................................................61

4.2.5 Tactical operations...........................................................................................................63

4.2.6 Post-flight phase...............................................................................................................65

4.3 FUTURE AIRPORT ATC SYSTEMS ................................................................................................65

4.3.1 A-SMGCS .........................................................................................................................65

4.3.2 Other Developments .........................................................................................................66

4.4 INFORMATION AVAILABLE..........................................................................................................664.5 NEW INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................70

4.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................70

4.5.2 Earlier ETA or ATD .........................................................................................................70

4.5.3 Air Situation Display........................................................................................................71

4.5.4 Earlier CFMU Slot Information.......................................................................................71

4.5.5 AO Schedule Information .................................................................................................71

4.5.6 State of Airline Ground Operations.................................................................................71

4.5.7 Feedback from Airport Slots ............................................................................................72

4.6 GENERAL COMMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF OPERATIONS BY ATC ..........................................73

4.6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................73

4.6.2 Measurement of Delays ....................................................................................................73

4.6.3 CFMU Slot Allocation and Departure Sequencing..........................................................734.6.4 Take Account of Flight Links............................................................................................73

4.6.5 Prioritisation ....................................................................................................................73

4.6.6 Regulation at Times of Bad Weather................................................................................73

4.6.7 Slot Slipping .....................................................................................................................74

4.6.8 Faster Communications....................................................................................................74

4.6.9 Flow Management Data Processing ................................................................................74

5. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................... 75

5.1 GENERAL ATTITUDES AND SITUATION ........................................................................................75

5.2 OPERATIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................................................75

5.3 PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................75

5.4 IMPROVED INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................76

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................78

8/2/2019 026 Faster


vii

7. FASTER QUESTIONNAIRES................................................................................................... 80

7.1 QUESTIONNAIRE TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ................................................................................80

7.2 QUESTIONNAIRE TO AIRPORTS ....................................................................................................88

VERSION EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE DE L'INTRODUCTION, DES OBJECTIFS DU

PROJET, DES CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS......................................................95

FRENCH VERSION OF INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................95

8/2/2019 026 Faster


viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of the report would like to acknowledge gratefully the kind assistanceand co-operation of the representatives of Airlines and Airports and ATS providerswho have provided their time, knowledge and ideas in support of this work.

Airlines Organisations:

IATA: Len Hearnden, Steve Zerkowitz, Razvan Bucuroiu

Airlines:

Air Liberte: Alain Chalmot, Herve Julienne, Neyen Pene

Alitalia: Bruno Paduano, Giancarlo Pucetti

Britannia Airways : John McMillan, Phil Dart, Alison Hubbard

British Airways: Colin Hume, Alex Fisher, Fred Barnes, Steve Stebbings, Jim Davies,Dennis Dale-Green

Cargolux: John Dedman, Jim Einsweiler

Easyjet: Andy Holmes

Magec Aviation: Richard Kneale

Monarch Airways: Norman Foster, Mark Deacon

Olympic Airlines: A Parmenion Charistos, Mike Paleocrassas, Costas P Paleologos

Regional Airlines: Eric Dorado, Guillaume Ludo, Russel Olivier

Swissair: Anton Fürer, Manfred Kesner, Werner Suhner, Marc Huber

Virgin Atlantic: Steve Morris, Steve Parker

Virgin Express: Dirk Vrebos, Ludo Neilssen, Jef Kellens

Airports and ATC Authorities:

Aeroports de Paris: G de Cordue, L Faure, D Masson

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol: Rob Eebes, Johan Recourt

Athens ATC: Panagiotis Tziritis, Athanatios Pavlidis, Pavlos Zoulakis, Georgios Rozakis

Heathrow Airport Ltd: Daniel Donnely, Kevin Finch

LATCC, London FMP: Alan Jack, Graham White

LVB, Amsterdam: Rob Veelo, Robert van Koert, Fred BloemNational Air Traffic Services Ltd, Heathrow: Paul Wilson, Brendan Kelly

Nice ATC: M Galibert, M Raoux

Nice CCI: Thierry Pollet, Marie-Anne Vallot

Regie der Luchtwegen/Regie des Voies Aeriennes (RLW-RVA), Brussels Airport:Michel Noel, Daniel Goffin, Stefaan Dhaenens, J Michiels

SCTA CRNA-N: Daniel Lemaout

Swisscontrol: Andreas Heiter, Pietro Sangaletti

Zurich Airport Authority: Andrea Muggli

8/2/2019 026 Faster


ix

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Explanation

AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

a/c aircraft

ACC Area Control Centre

AFTN Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network

ANM ATFM Notification Message

AIM ATFM Information Message

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

AIS Aeronautical Information Service

AO Aircraft Operator

APP Approach control

ARO Airline Reporting Office

ASD Air Situation Display

ATA Actual Time of Arrival

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATD Actual Time of Departure

ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management

CASA Computer Aided Slot Allocation

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CEU Central Executive Unit (CFMU operators)

CFMU Central Flow Management Unit

CTOT Computed Take-Off Time

CDR1 Conditional Routes 1: routes going through militaryairspace usually open but which might be closed forseveral hours with a few hours warning.

CDR2 Conditional Routes 2: routes going through militaryairspace usually closed but which might be open for afew hours with a few hours warning.

DADA Détéction Automatique des Départs/Arrivées (Nice CCISystem)

EAD European AIS Database

EAMG European Airspace Management Group

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

EDI Electronic Data Interchange

EOBT Estimated Off-Block Time

ETA Estimated Time of Arrival

ETD Estimated Time of Departure

8/2/2019 026 Faster


x

ETO Estimated Time Over

ETOT Estimated Take-Off Time

FMP Flow Management Position

FMS Flight Management System

FMU Flow Management Unit

FSA First System Activation (when aircraft has taken-off)

GA General Aviation

HAL Heathrow Airport Limited

HCAA Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFPS Initial Integrated Flight Plan Processing System

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

NAT North Atlantic Traffic

NOTAM Notice to Air Men

OFP Operational Flight Plan given to the pilot

PFD Planned Flight Data

RCA Remote Client Access

RLW-RVA Regie Der Luchtwegen - Régie des Voies Aériennes(Belgian CAA)

RPL Repetitive Flight PlanRTA Remote Terminal Access (CFMU terminal)

RCA Remote Client Access (CFMU terminal)

SID Standard Instrument Departure

SIP Slot Improvement Message

SITA Société Internationale de TélécommunicationsAéronautiques

STAR Standard (Instrument) Arrival

TACT CFMU capacity and demand tactical monitoring system

TOS Traffic Oriented Schemes

TOT Take-Off Time

TWR Tower control

UTC Universal Time Co-ordinated

VDL VHF Data Link

VFR Visual Flight Rules

8/2/2019 026 Faster


xi

GLOSSARY

Some terms are used interchangeably in practice (e.g. stand, ramp, gate)which can be confusing. Often, different terms are used in differentorganisations. The following terms and definitions will be used in this report.

A-SMGCS: Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System. Acomputer assistance system for Ground Control and Airport ATC in general.None is yet implemented, but a number of organisations are working todevelop such a system.

Apron: the hard-surfaced part of the airport surface that is neither runway nortaxiway. This includes all parking areas, and the area immediatelysurrounding them. In fact, aircraft can only be parked on the apron; taxiwaysare surfaced with asphalt which will in time flow under the stationary weight ofan aircraft.

Apron Control: guidance and control of vehicles and aircraft on the apron.

Follow the greens: an airport surface lighting system (part of the SurfaceMovement and Ground Control System) which guides an aircraft along therequired taxiways using green lights to show the correct path.

Gate: an embarkation (or disembarkation) point for passengers. Sometimeseach gate has a dedicated departure lounge, sometimes there is one loungefor many gates.

Hub and spoke (or "bank") operation: In hub and spoke operations, most ofthe flights of the airline are either inbound to one airport or outbound from oneairport. This airport is the hub; the inbound/outbound flights are the spokes.No flights link outbound destinations: this is done by taking two connecting

flights at the hub. To allow for connections between flights, all inbound flightsmust arrive within a certain period, after which all outbound flights depart.This constitutes a wave of which there can be many during a day. Theobjective of a hub is to maximise the load factor of the flights, especially longhaul flights using short haul flights as feeders.

Marshaller: a member of Airport ground staff who guides the pilot duringthe final stages of parking, to ensure correct positioning for docking with thepier.

Pier: the flexible, covered gangway that connects the aircraft to the gate.Gates with piers are also known as contact gates.

Remote stand: a stand at some distance from the gate, so that no pier isavailable, and passengers have to be transferred by bus.

Rotation: the “stay” of an aircraft at an airport.

Sector: a flight between a city pair (Aircraft Operator terminology)

SMGCS: Surface Movement Guidance and Control System. The termincludes elements such as taxiway signposting and surface markings, andairport lighting systems—including “follow the greens” (see below) and redstop bars. A particular SMGCS will not necessarily incorporate all the possibleelements.

Stand: a designated parking place for an aircraft.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


xii

REFERENCES

[ATM2000+] ATM Strategy for 2000+ EATCHIP doc:FCO.ET1.STO7.DEL01. 1 October 1997

[ASD96] Operational Users Requirements for an AirSituation Display « ASD ». Edition 2 January 96.

[CAS93] CASA User Requirement Document: SlotAllocation Computation Version 1.8. January 93

[EDI97] EDI between Airports and Airlines.Implementation Guide for Management andAdministration of Flight Operations. IATA&ACI. 1May 1997.

[IATA] IATA Response to FASTER questionnaire. (SeeAppendix.)

[IFPS COURSE] IFPS course version 1.0. March 1995

[ISA97] Innovative Slot Allocation. EEC Report 322.December 1997.

[YellowB] ATM R&D Strategy in Support of EATCHIP(Yellow Book) Issue 3.2 11 March 1998

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 1

EUROCONTROL

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report

The report is the main deliverable resulting from the first phase of the FASTERproject.

FASTER is a co-funded research project initiated by EUROCONTROL andAEROSPATIALE to carry out research into information exchange between aircraftoperators (AOs), airports and Air Traffic Service Providers, particularly FlowManagement. The information exchange was considered from a gate-to-gateperspective, ranging from strategic planning to in-flight and even post-flight issues.

This study was carried out as a part of wider ranging research to investigate theconcept of collaborative planning and decision making that has been identified as oneof the main characteristics of the target concept for the future European ATM Systemto be progressively implemented as a result of the ATM strategy for 2000+

[ATM2000+].

Essentially collaborative planning and decision making aim at improving exchange ofinformation between all actors in order to realise better decision making, and toensure that decision making is made by the people best placed to take thosedecisions.

These steps are expected to reduce uncertainty and give a better mutualunderstanding of preferences, yielding increased capacity and greater operationalflexibility and efficiency.

The objective of this study was to investigate the operating methods of the differentactors and to understand the information flows which exist. The team interviewed a

cross section of actors including representatives of aircraft operators of different typesand sizes, airports and ACCs, analysed the procedures and information exchangesand then identified a number of recommendations for work on improvement ofinformation exchange.

1.2 Background to the Study

1.2.1 Context of Study

Significant gains in Air Traffic Management capacity and efficiency are required inorder to meet the forecast air traffic demand into the next Century. This increasedcapacity has to be delivered whilst at the same time maintaining or improving safety

levels.

Many airports are saturated or will be in the foreseeable future, and this trend isexpected to increase in the coming years. En-route capacity must also be increasedin-line with demand in a situation where it is becoming increasingly difficult toincrease capacity by simple subdivision of sectors.

Airline operations are also becoming more complex, with more and moreinterconnections being developed. Commercial pressure is demanding better fleetutilisation, and the use of hub and shuttle operations. Moreover, it is necessary forATM to improve service levels and reduce operational costs to airspace users.

It is anticipated that the current ATM organisation and concepts will not be able to

deliver the required additional capacity.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 3

EUROCONTROL

In order to map onto EATMS development plans and to allow for transition issues, theproject considers three distinct time scales:

• short term (less than 4 years) based on the present operational concept (dealingwith planning establishment and related data exchanges) and available data.

• medium term (4 to 8 years) assuming new operational concept (dealing withplanning establishment and related data exchanges) and improved datacommunication can be implemented.

• longer term in the full EATMS context.

1.3.2 Phase One Activities

The project team carried out the following activities in Phase One of the FASTERproject:

• co-operation was established between Aerospatiale and the EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre;

• an investigation of existing related research on was carried out;

• a modelling activity was carried out to capture the actors, processes andprocedures, concentrating on flow management;

• a set of questionnaires was produced raising questions on a range of issuesconcerning ATM organisation and information exchange;

• aircraft operators, airports and ATS providers were contacted and interviewed;

• the results of the interviews were written up and analysed to produce aconsolidated view of the information exchanges and processes;

•

a final report was written.

1.4 Scope of the Study

1.4.1 Interview Process

The first step in the interview process was to identify potential subjects of change andnew information exchanges. Since the project had to take into account the widerange of different perspectives, technology levels and operating methods, attentionwas paid to establishing a diverse list of candidates. It was considered important tointerview large, medium-sized and small airlines, cargo carriers and charter as well asscheduled aircraft operators. Similarly a range of airport types was interviewed

including coordinated and non-coordinated, large and small.

The interview process was to carry out face-to-face interviews based around aquestionnaire which the subjects had been given the opportunity to examine inadvance of the meeting. This was believed to be more effective as a means ofgathering information than simply mailing the questionnaires to addressees becausein many cases the complex nature of the questions demanded a detailed discussionof the issues raised. In addition, it gave the interviewees the opportunity to raisepoints that were outside the scope of the questionnaires.

Thus the questionnaires were prepared with three aims in mind:

• to promote open discussion and innovative answers;

• to structure the meetings with different interviewees in a consistent way;

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

4 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• to provide information that the participants could use to prepare for themeeting.

The questionnaires were not filled out at the time of the interview. Instead notes weretaken by the project team during the interview and written up afterwards. The minutes

were then sent back to the interviewees for further comments before being finalisedfor use in the report.

Where responses were confidential, interviewees were invited to indicate this to theinterviewers.

1.4.2 Main Themes of Questionnaires

This section describes the main themes of questionnaires. The reader is referred tosection 7 of this document for the complete questionnaires.

1.4.2.1 Aircraft Operator Questionnaire

The aircraft operator questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The firstaddressed current operations, the second addressed future developments and thethird requested background information on the aircraft operator concerned.

The section on current operations addressed the following:

• Delays, looking at how delays are assessed by the company, the impact of delayson the company, and the routes where delays have the greatest impact;

• Airlines operations, looking at preferred responses to delays, supportinginformation and communications systems, interactions with flow management andATC, fleet management issues, and interactions with airports and other aircraftoperators.

The section on developments asked questions concerning:

• information currently or could be provided to the aircraft operator by flowmanagement and ATC in various phases of operations (strategic, pre-tactical andtactical);

• information which could be provided by the aircraft operator to ATM serviceproviders;

• new developments, such as the Air Situation Display;

• aircraft operator preferences for evolution of practices and systems.

1.4.2.2 Airport Operator Questionnaire This questionnaire contained topics covering both the Airport Operator and local ATCoperations. The diversity of organisation of airports meant that sometimes thequestionnaire had to be answered by a number of different authorities whereas atothers it could be answered by a single contact point.

The questionnaire contained three main sections:

• Airport scheduling, considering both seasonal scheduling and daily operationalscheduling.

• Links with flow management and ATC, considering current links and ideas forfurther collaboration in the future.

• Links with Aircraft Operators, considering current links and possible futureimprovements.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 5

EUROCONTROL

Airport scheduling was investigated from the viewpoint of the different phases ofoperation: strategic, pre-tactical and tactical. For example, strategic issues involvedin setting numbers of airport slots were discussed, as was the creation of seasonalschedules. At a pre-tactical level, the use of flight plans to establish operational plansfor resource allocation such as gates and ramps was discussed. Finally the

response to tactical changes was raised to examine to what extent integration orexchange of new information was possible.

Information exchanges with flow management, both current and for the future, werediscussed. This included, for example, supply of information from ground operationswhich might indicate the progress of a flight towards push back to give advancewarning or any delays.

Interaction between airport operators and aircraft operators were also examined. Thisconsidered questions such as the role of dominant carriers at hubs and theinformation flows between airport and aircraft operators.

1.4.2.3 National Flow Management and ATC Organisations Ad-hoc discussions were also carried out with national flow management and ATCorganisations to provide a complete picture of the sources of information used for flowmanagement. A formal questionnaire was not required for these interviews.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

8 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Virgin Express: Virgin Express is principally a scheduled flightoperator, operating short-haul flights out of Brussels. It also operates somecharter flights in the summer. The company is publicly-quoted and is separatefrom Virgin Atlantic, offering different products. They have a code-sharingagreement with Sabena.

The interviews were held during the period July to December 1997.

2.2 Current Operations

2.2.1 Airline phases of activities

2.2.1.1 Scheduled operators

Most of the airlines interviewed operated flights connecting city pairs which have co-ordinated airports. This means that airlines have to request slots in order to land anddepart from these airports. This is carried out according to a well-defined and

regulated process (see chapter 4). Airlines make their requests to airport schedulecommittees five months before the start of the season. Airport schedule committeescollate the requests and then slot allocations are negotiated at the IATA conference.Airlines are able to negotiate their slot allocations with the schedule committees andwith other airlines

The IATA slot conference is thus a milestone in the cyclic activities of the airlines: atthis date their schedule for the next season (routes and associated timetables) mustbe well-developed, with resources provisionally allocated to the lines. The schedule isfinalised after the IATA conference, but will be updated during the season to reflectthe actual market.

Schedule preparation takes into account many aspects: traffic and revenue forecasttranslated in terms of capacity and frequency, sufficient crews, available fleet, aircraftmaintenance schedule, and operations planning (station organisation, flight planningetc).

Subsidiaries, franchisees and alliances may be taken into account by, for example,co-ordinating the schedules of some flights.

The schedule is used as a baseline for the on-going operational processes whichinclude flight crew and station crew rostering, fleet planning, flight planning, finetuning of aircraft turn-around with airport agents and yield management. Operationsconcentrate on complying with the schedule and making it profitable.

2.2.1.2 Non-scheduled operators/Unscheduled flights This category covers a wide range of airlines, including scheduled operators. Forexample:

• Regional Airlines: though primarily a scheduled operator, spare aircraft are usedfor charter flights. Some charter flights may be negotiated only a week or lessbefore the flight, whereas others may be negotiated longer in advance (e.g.contracts to fly a football team).

• Monarch: a charter operator, but most flights (especially for summer season) arenegotiated a year in advance and are thus scheduled.

• MAGEC Aviation: operates on a flight by flight basis, which can be booked

anything from a day to months advance.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 11

EUROCONTROL

2.2.2.3.3 Problems in Flight Planning

Differences may exist between the different flight plans due to, for example:

• Differences between FMS/Airline Operational Centre navigation database andCFMU navigation database,

• Differences between aircraft performance models, performance parameters (fueland load) used by FMS, AOC flight planning system and CFMU.

Accurate information on winds and load is seldom available long in advance oftakeoff. For short distances (usually flights within the core area of Europe), standardtemperature, zero wind, and standard mass are commonly used to compute theoperational flights plans. These flight plans are thus valid for the whole season andcan be filed as Repetitive Flight Plans (RPLs). Correspondingly the CFMU does nottake weather into account today when RPLs are transformed into FPL, so OFPLs andFPLs may not match. Filing RPLs saves effort and communications costs associatedwith filing FPLs for every flight every day and some scheduled operators find thisprocedure more convenient.

Nevertheless some operators do take the winds into account for medium and short-haul OFPLs, and this approach will probably become more widespread. If thecorresponding FPL has been generated from an RPL, then discrepancies betweenthe two may exist. It is the responsibility of the airline to check that the FPL is indeeda summary of the OFPL in terms of route, heights and Estimated Time of Arrivals(ETA) but as RPLs are used to avoid filing effort during the tactical phase, there maynot be the effort available to make the necessary comparison.

Wind errors for flights within Europe may lead to discrepancies between estimatedflight time and actual flight time, sometimes of up to a quarter of an hour. As a result,ETAs broadcast by the CFMU to Airport towers may be incorrect and this may causedisruption in airport resource allocation (see chapter 3).

For long haul flights, winds, temperature, passenger and/or cargo load have a moresignificant impact on flight time and fuel consumption. Hence if RPLs are filed for longhaul flights the FPL must be updated shortly before the flight.

2.2.3 Operational Issues

2.2.3.1 Airline Operating Concept

The airline’s operating concept is an important issue affecting operating methods.For example, increasingly airlines are adopting a hubbed mode of operations. Theseare very convenient for switching aircraft and crews, but impose certain constraints:

• For the airline, a hub is very delay sensitive. Feeder flights must not be delayedotherwise transit passengers miss their connection

• For the airport, transit passengers and their baggage must be transferred from oneaircraft to another in a very short time, necessitating sharp peaks in activity

• For ATC a hub imposes a greater load on ATC than point-to-point operations sincearrivals and departures are bunched instead of being spread out in time.

2.2.3.2 Turnaround Management

Turnaround times range from twenty minutes to an hour and a half for passenger

carriers. Typically turnaround can be considered to cover the period from on-blocksto pushback, including disembarkation and boarding by passengers, baggagehandling, refuelling and safety checks on the aircraft. Turnaround times depend on:

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 13

EUROCONTROL

2.2.3.3.2 Impact of Delays

The key impact of delays is to disrupt an airline’s planned flying schedule. In order tomaximise the return on their investment airlines try to maximise the proportion of timespent flying passengers. However, this means that schedules become tighter andmore prone to disruption.

Thresholds quoted for delays that disrupt the company schedule range from zero to30 minutes. If the delay of a flight is greater than this time, the airline cannot absorb itduring subsequent flight or turnaround and the remaining schedule is affected (knock-on delays). Parameters taken into account in determining this are usually the forwardschedule and crew working hours.

2.2.3.3.3 Operational strategies towards delays

Essentially the main strategy adopted by companies is to try to keep up with theplanned schedule, going back as quickly as possible to it from the disrupted situation.

Discussions with airlines on the relative preferences for dealing with congested routes

showed subtle variations in views. For some, the priority was on-time take-off with re-routing if necessary, whereas for others meeting the arrival time was at least asimportant. On-time take-off is regarded as better since customers will have made theeffort to meet the scheduled time and even if the flight arrives late, this imposes lessbad feeling towards the airline. Some airlines also regard it as important to leavebefore the aircraft of the competitor. Conversely, late arrival risks having passengersmiss their connecting flight or business meeting with serious commercial impacts. Inany cases, delay on arrival time often means temporary disruption within the airline’sschedule.

Strategic Phase

In the strategic phase, some airlines take into account chronic congestion delays

when developing their schedule. Among the solutions considered are to increase on-block times, increase turnaround times, or to find a new airport take-off slot at adifferent time. Less congested but less direct routes are also studied. However, suchchanges have a cost and constraints are numerous, including availability of airportslots, environmental constraints, commercially attractive schedule, availability ofpublic transportation in case of very early take-off and overflight permissions.

Pre-Tactical Phase

Pre-tactical information provided by the CFMU is almost never used by the airlines tore-plan their flights to avoid congested areas or to minimise the impact of delays. Themain reasons for not using this information included a lack of manpower to processthe ANMs and the instability of pre-tactical information (e.g. a regulation announcedon d-1 may disappear on d day), which itself is due to a lack of information from ACCsand airlines.

Tactical Phase

Instead, airlines primarily focus on the tactical situation. When asked when theyneeded reliable information on delays, the airlines responded that they needed theinformation on a tactical timeframe, from four to five hours in advance. Theyexplained that it is only on this timescale that factors such as wind, load andoperational disruptions can be effectively taken into account. Thus, the earlier filingtakes place, the less accurate it will be.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

14 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

IATA noted that it encourages airlines to file as early as possible but onmany flights companies must wait for the latest wind forecast to be available. Aninvestigation is being made in meteorology forums on the desirability and cost ofhaving four updates each day rather than just the two currently available [IATA].

Hence delays are principally taken into account in the tactical phase and are dealtwith on a flight-by-flight basis. To minimise delays, airlines may try re-routing or flyingfaster. In particular, it may be possible for outbound long-haul flights to recover fromdelays during the en-route phase, subject to arrival constraints at the destinationairport.

Rerouting Action

Re-routing action is the result of the analysis of delay reasons, availability of airportfacilities (at both departure and destination) and the status of the departing aircraft interms of ground operations. It is also the result of experience of delays on a particularroute. Re-routing is a compromise between:

• Extra fuel burned,

• Final arrival time,

• Time saved,

• Disruption threshold,

• Crew working hours,

• Passengers connections,

• Company approach to recording punctuality.

Essentially the earlier flow management slot must at least compensate for theadditional flight time. For example, one company noted that if the additional flight

time due to rerouting is 20 minutes, the new slot has to be at least 30 minutes earlierthan the original (delayed) slot for re-routing to be considered. Others stated thatthey will try re-routing only if the delay is over 60 minutes or if the sector is aparticularly critical one for the company’s schedule.

The usefulness of re-routing depends on how late the proposal is made and on thespecific delay cause. For example, if the aircraft has already fuelled and the bowserhas to be bought back to take on extra fuel, this can take as much time as the originaldelay.

Also, there will be no point in attempting re-routing if the arrival airport is the cause ofthe delay.

Different strategies may be applied to rerouting of short and long haul flights sinceshort hauls usually have more constraining schedules.

Flight Cancellation

Flights are seldom cancelled due to delays, and continuing with knock-on delays isusually preferable to cancelling. In particular, airlines do not want their customers tobe switched to another airline.

Only a few airlines specifically include the full direct costs of delays such as hotels forpassengers who have missed their connection when recalculating options. Evenfewer airlines try to include the indirect costs of delays such as loss of customers aftera missed connection. It is difficult for an airline, even with the appropriate tools, toconsider different operational scenarios and their consequences in response todelays disruption. Looking more than one flight ahead is not always rewarding, as somuch can happen in the meantime to make plans obsolete.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 15

EUROCONTROL

2.2.4 Systems and Automation

Airlines have different levels of automation and information flow organisation. One ofthe key drivers for automation is the number of aircraft that have to be managed.Beyond a certain number of aircraft it becomes inefficient to manage the resourceswithout appropriate software tools (e.g. for switching the allocation of aircraft todifferent routes).

The level of integration between the different systems dedicated to different activitiesof the airline (booking system, maintenance system, flight planning system,operations control system...) affects the ability of an airline to deal efficiently in case ofdisruption situations such as delays.

The means of communications of the AOCs are shown on the following table. Not allairlines use all the communications means listed.

Withwhom?

Insidecompany

Outboundstation

Pilots Airports ACCs CFMU

Means Operationscontrolsoftware,

phone,

fax,

SITA,

Intranet.

SITA,

Phone,

Fax,

Intranet,

AFTN.

VHF(voice),

HF (voice),

VDL

(ACARS),

Satcom.

Operationscontrolsoftware,

SITA,

Phone,

Fax,

Telex.

AFTN,

Phone,

Fax,

Telex.

AFTN,

SITA,

Phone,

Fax,

Terminal,

Telex.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 17

EUROCONTROL

• Ready message: the AO sends a Ready message to the CFMU to inform it that theflight has passengers boarded and is ready to depart at any time and take any slotimprovement at short notice.

Verbal exchanges between the AOC and the CEU are also of key importance in

ensuring smooth operation of the system.

2.3 Information held by the airline

The following table provides a summary of information that is available to/from AOs inEurope. Note that all of the information listed may not be available to all AOs, and thatthe list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is intended simply to give an indication ofthe present situation.

The meaning of the columns is as follows:

Information item. This identifies the particular data item.

Source. This identifies from whom (person, or system) the information comes

When available. This identifies when the particular information is produced anddistributed.

Accuracy. This identifies the typical level of error on the information.

Stability. This identifies whether the information is likely to be subject to frequentchanges.

Completeness. This indicates whether the coverage is adequate.

Where, how held. This describes how the information item is stored.

Distributed to. This identifies to whom the information is sent, if anyone.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

24 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Route charges

• Prioritisation of flights

• Ideas for further developments

Each of these is addressed below.

2.5.1.1 Equity

Equal treatment for each company is an important concern amongst airlines, althoughthis undoubtedly does introduce inefficiencies in the operation of the flowmanagement system. [ISA97]

However, there are ways in which the current equal treatment could made more"equitable". One example mentioned was the idea of applying a “first filed, firstserved” rule instead of the “first over, first served” after EOBT – 2 hours (i.e. slotallocation time). Filing an alternate flight plan after EOBT – 2 hours can penaliseflights that are subject to the same regulation and which originate from a nearby

airport and therefore have not reached EOBT – 2 hours.

IATA commented that, in general, flights should be issued with a slot that puts themover any restricted point in the same order as if there were no problems (i.e. nocongestion). [IATA]

2.5.1.2 Commercial treatment of flow management slots

A commercial treatment of flow management slots was felt to be complicated anddifficult to implement fairly and transparently, as well as probably imposing anoverhead in extra administrative costs. However, some companies saw it aspotentially interesting, for example if it could be seen as a part of a more general

policy aiming at a clearer customer-supplier structure between aircraft operators andATM service providers, perhaps through appropriate service-level agreements andgreater transparency.

2.5.1.3 Route Charges as an Incentive to Optimise the Use of Capacity

In the future as a means of optimising capacity, various strategies for route-chargesmight be considered. For example, charges could be highest on busy routes, or time-dependent charges could be used.

Again, airlines could envisage application of this policy through a customer-supplierstructure. Thus, different route charges could be considered if lower delays on moreexpensive routes were guaranteed.

However, as IATA pointed out, altering the route charges mechanism may causeanomalies. They said that they prefer to work with the States to control overall costs.They are in favour of using route charges as incentive for route selection but this iswith the view of reducing overall charges and costs. [IATA]

2.5.1.4 Prioritisation of Flights

Airlines were interested in any possibility of having greater control over the prioritythey can allocate to individual flights for flow management slots, although recognisingthat this would have to be within the framework of rules which ensured equityamongst operators. It was noted that as complexity increases, there is more scope

for bending the rules.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 25

EUROCONTROL

Several companies suggested that in the first instance some prioritisation of flights byflow management systems in specific circumstances could be helpful. For example, aflight may be ready to depart on time, but is delayed by flow management such that itwould arrive at the destination airport after it had closed. In this case the airline isfaced with a large bill to keep the airport open a little longer, a diversion or a

cancellation.

"Slot swapping" opportunities were of interest, namely, the possibility for an airline toswap slots of flights that are going through the same regulations. This is currentlypossible [IATA], but only on a fl ight by flight basis with the intervention of an operatorfrom the CFMU. A more general method, perhaps involving automation, could behelpful to companies.

Further examples of flights which airlines might like to be able to prioritise, includedthe following:

• When weather is deteriorating at a destination airport, the aircraft needs to arriveas soon as possible, and a delaying slot may mean that the flight can no longer be

operated into the airport with consequent adverse impact on customers• Night curfew, such as when a delay in departing from an airport would mean arrival

at the destination too late to be allowed to take off again to fly the return leg

• Flights where crew duty-hours limits are approaching

2.5.1.5 Ideas for Further Developments

The airlines had numerous ideas of interest for the ATM user and service providercommunities. These included:

Flow Management-Related Ideas

• Standard interpretation of routing schemes (e.g. TOS, TOS replacement)amongst airlines, States and flow managers

• Cancel FPL automatically when filing a replacement flight plan

• Wider use of FSA message data

• Possibility of requesting an earlier take-off without filing a replacement FPL

• Facility to freeze flow management slots. This might be used, for example, wherereturn flights are linked to arrival of an aircraft, and cannot be advancedsignificantly

• More sophisticated rerouting facilities for flow management. For example, a route

might have to change 15 minutes before EOBT. With data-link, this should bepossible in the future

ATM-Related Ideas

• FPL computation and trajectory prediction should use the meteorologicalforecasts and other data used by AOs

• Standardisation and centralisation of navigation and information databases, aswill be developed under the European AIS database (EAD)

• Look at use of lower cost communications solutions

• Modify sectorisation to enable optimisation of flight level according to flight time

and congestion. For example, short haul flights should not climb to very highflight levels, especially if it is to end piled way up in the arrival stack of a very busy

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

26 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

airport. Long haul flights departing at the same time are often penalised as theycannot reach higher flight levels that are already occupied

• Set up a stronger customer-supplier structure within European ATM. For example,an “account manager” could be set up for each airline within Eurocontrol who

could be the focus for liaison, suggesting strategic ways to avoid flowmanagement delays and aiming to look after the company’s interests with ATFMand ATC service providers. In this way, the AO could be helped to help the overallsystem

Some of these ideas are already being worked on.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 29

EUROCONTROL

For example, apron control is the responsibility of ATC at some of the airports visited,while at others that responsibility is assigned to the Airport Authority (although start-up clearance must always be co-ordinated with ATC). But for the purposes of thisreport, apron control is considered to be an “Airport Authority” function. Similarly,responsibility for bus transfers from gate to aircraft, including provision and operation

of the buses, may rest with Airlines or Handling Agents (see section 3.1.3.2 below).But at some airports buses are a resource owned and managed by the AirportAuthority, and therefore this is considered as part of the Airport Authority role for thepurpose of this report.

In some cases the Airport Authority and ATC Provider roles are carried out by(different parts of) the same organisation. In other cases they are performed bycompletely separate organisations operating in very different ways. Often, the AirportAuthority is a commercial company, while the ATC Provider is government-owned.This can result in a difference in culture and response time between the twoorganisations. For example, an Airport Authority may work to encourage a rapidgrowth in traffic at an airport, while the ATC service cannot respond sufficiently

quickly to accommodate the increase in traffic. The result will be delays at the busiesttimes of day.

Some examples of the actual roles of Airport Authorities and ATC Providers atairports contributing to the present project are given below for illustration:

• At Brussels airport, RLW-RVA currently performs both Airport Authority and ATCProvider roles (although the passenger terminal is operated by a separatecompany). This leads to a close co-operation between the two operations. Fromnext year the terminal-operating company and the airport side of RLW-RVA will jointly form a new company with Airport Authority responsibilities, resulting in anorganisation for Brussels Airport close to that described above.

• At Athens, the ATC Provider and Airport Authority roles are fulfilled by twoseparate, independently-operating branches of the HCAA.

• The major home-base airline operates its own terminal and apron facilities atAthens (Olympic Airlines at West Terminal, for Olympic aircraft only) and LondonHeathrow (BA at Terminals 1 and 4, for BA and other carriers’ aircraft). TheAirport Authority operates the other terminal(s).

• In Paris, the Airport Authority AdP employs Air Traffic Controllers to provide TowerATC, and also provides all aircraft handling (see section 3.1.3.2 below).

3.1.2.2 Other airport roles and organisations

Other roles involved in the operation of an airport, and the organisations that fulfilthem, are noted below for completeness, although they were not necessarilyexamined in detail:

• Airport ownership: The airport may be owned by the Airport Authority, bynational or local government, or by a separate company.

• Handling agent: Handling agents provide the Airlines with a range of aircraftand/or passenger handling services such as cleaning, catering, fuel, de-icing,check-in and baggage handling. To generalise, the facilities are provided by theAirport Authority, but the services are provided by the handling agent. Often themajor home-base airlines provide their own handling services. (In practice, ahome-base airline often also has responsibility for many aspects of airport

operations concerning its own flights and sometimes other flights as well.)

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

30 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Airline Operations Centre: An airline’s operations centre is often located at itshome-base airport. For this reason, the information exchange between the AirportAuthority/ATC and the home-base airline is often better than that for other airlines.

• Station Manager: At other airports, other than their home base airlines often

employ a Station Manager to oversee their operations there.• Aircraft Operator: Depending on the circumstances, the role of the “Aircraft

Operator” may be taken by the Airline Operations Centre, the Station Manager,the Handling Agent or the Pilot. The term is intended to cover the person ororganisation having information about the Airline’s side of operations at an airport.

• Airport co-ordinator: At co-ordinated airports (see section 3.1.5 below), this isthe individual or organisation responsible for distribution of airport slots.

• Security, customs and immigration services.

3.1.3 Systems and automation

In parallel with the range of organisations represented in airport operations, thereare usually a number of different information systems and tools, which inter-operateand exchange information to varying degrees. The level of automation also varieswidely between airports. In general, larger, busier and more complex airports havemore automation. At a smaller, less complex airport, more is done manually.

To generalise, at a major airport one might expect to find the following systems:

• ATC system (including an interface to CFMU information, although this may bemanual);

•

Airport lighting system;

• Airport Authority information system;

• Stand/gate allocation system or database;

• FIDS (flight information display system), displaying in the terminal informationabout flights and the airport resources allocated to them: check-ins, lounges,gates, baggage reclaims, etc.. Often also used to display flight information toother airport users (such as handlers, airlines, customs);

• Handling agent(s) information system(s);

• Passenger booking system(s);

• Airline flight information system at AOC.

There may also be other systems, for example an automated docking system, adeparture gate control system.

3.1.3.1 Systems Interconnection

At most airports the various information systems are at present only loosely linked, ifat all. Some data is exchanged electronically, and some by manual means. Togeneralise, the airport is a loosely-linked, heterogeneous system.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

32 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Runway capacity determines hourly capacity for most airports. Runway capacityis limited by the number of movements that tower controllers can handle,considering wake vortex separation limits. Depending on the configuration ofrunways, arrival and departure capacities may be linked by a total movementscapacity, or may be completely separate. Most of the airports interviewed

declared total movements capacities; however some, such as Zürich separatethe arrival and departure capacities. The strategy for runway use will also beconsidered: for example mixed mode gives a different capacity to dedicated take-off and landing runways.

• Environmental restrictions on runway use. As with annual traffic limits, theserestrictions are imposed to reduce the noise and/or pollution nuisance to localresidents. For example, noise abatement restrictions may forbid use of aparticular runway for take-off. This is the biggest restriction at Zürich airport.

• ATC capacity. The number of available Tower controllers is a limit at Nice,preventing the declared runway capacity from being achieved. It can also be alimit at Athens in summer, when the towers of the many island airports are opento take care of holiday traffic, leaving fewer controllers at Athens. Approachcontrol or ATC sector capacity may also be a limiting factor, but was not at any ofthe airports interviewed.

• Stand capacity can be a limiting factor: if there is no more room on the airport,no further arrivals can be accepted. Stand capacity is currently a limiting factor atZürich, and is becoming critical at Heathrow. Apron congestion is a factor atNice; ATC sometimes request regulations for this reason.

• Terminal passenger capacity. The flow of passengers must be considered at

an airport as well as the flow of traffic - a flight cannot take off until itspassengers have boarded. This is becoming a significant factor at Heathrow,and is a factor motivating the development of Terminal 5.

• Taxiway capacity is not a limit in itself at any of the airports interviewed.However, taxiway structure can affect runway capacity. More early turn-offs couldincrease capacity at Zürich.

• Other factors include mix of traffic and security facilities. Light/heavy wakevortex separations can mean that the mix of traffic can “waste” capacity. Thiscan be used as an argument for limiting access to congested airports by smalleraircraft, although it has been commented that the aircraft typically used by

regional airlines can make late turns and high rates of descent and early turn-offs, which given judicious ATC operation, can enable them to use runways (orparts of runways) not available for larger aircraft, and in any case reduces theirrunway occupancy time. Some flights may require special arrangements, suchas security associated with flights of heads of state or flights to certain countries.

The declared capacity of the airport is usually a working value for hourly capacity,arrived at by considering the dominant factors for that airport under “typical”conditions. Therefore the declared capacity will often be slightly less than themaximum number of movements that the airport can achieve in one hour wheneverything is operating smoothly. For example, the declared capacity of Schipholairport is currently 90 movements/hour, but if all goes well they can achieve over

100 movements/hour. The declared capacity for Orly is between the optimum andCATIII runway capacities.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

34 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.1.6 Airport Slots

Where the demand to use an airport exceeds its capacity (for a significant part ofthe day), it is necessary to control the number of flights intending to use the airport,to avoid excessive congestion and delays on a daily basis. This is done using asystem of “airport slots”. The system is internationally agreed, supported by IATA.The following paragraphs describe a generalised airport slot allocation process, butnote that there are variations from airport to airport.

The number of slots that an airport will offer for the coming season is usuallydetermined by the Airport Authority in co-ordination with the ATC Provider. This isgenerally the only involvement of ATC in the process.

Allocation of the slots to airlines is largely on an historical basis - the so-called“grandfather’s rights” rule. The Airport receives applications from airlines for anyremaining or new slots. The slots are allocated according to airport operatingpriorities, usually by a schedule committee which is chaired by the Airport Authority.

One or more of the Airport’s major Airlines are often represented, as are otherorganisations involved with the running of the airport. International legislation allowsfor airport slot allocation to take account of governments’ Public ServiceObligations, ensuring that airlines providing a transport service to regional andisland airports are able to get the necessary slots at airports in major businesscentres. In principle the rules are also set up to encourage new entrants and tomake competition possible.

Commercial decisions are key elements in the airport's assessments. It was notedthat charters may typically pay higher charges but scheduled operators bringbusiness clientele who will make greater use of airport facilities like hotels.

In the future the rules may be adapted to introduce explicit trading of slots.

At the IATA conference, about 4 months before the start of the season, the slotallocations for all airports are available for scrutiny by all participants, to help ensurea fair distribution. Access to remaining slots can be negotiated, and deals can bestruck between airlines regarding their own allocations. The IATA conference is inprinciple the finalisation of airport slot allocations, although in practice negotiationscontinue right up until the start of the season.

The Airport is represented at the IATA conference by the Airport Co-ordinator. Thisrole may be carried out by an independent company (as at Heathrow), by arepresentative of the home-base airline (Athens), by the Airport Authority or by an

independent authority appointed by the government (Schiphol). In Paris, the airportco-ordinator COHOR is formed from a group of 10 airlines supported by the AirportAuthority.

Any slots remaining once the season starts are available as opportunity slots,enabling business, private and ad-hoc charter flights to use the airport at shorternotice. Some airports may explicitly keep a number of slots unallocated for use asopportunity slots (Zürich Airport has done this until now, but will no longer from nextseason). At busy international airports such as Heathrow very few opportunity slotsare available, and these are usually at less popular times of day - for example mid-afternoon. Distribution of opportunity slots is handled by the Airport Co-ordinator.

Airlines return any slots that will not be used, because of cancellation or a change ofschedule, to the Airport Co-ordinator for distribution as opportunity slots. It has been

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 35

EUROCONTROL

noted that airlines (especially charter airlines) may secure “precautionary slots”against expectations of demand for flights, since the airline’s flight programme forthe season is not finalised by the date of the IATA conference. No charge is madefor airport slots, but significant competitive advantage obviously arises from“ownership” of high-demand slots.

An airport for which airport slots must be negotiated is termed fully co-ordinated:

• Athens, Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Orly and Zürich are fully co-ordinated. Schiphol became fully co-ordinated at the beginning of 1998. Many ofthese major airports are not open to GA aircraft.

• Nice airport is not co-ordinated. GA is commercially important and is encouraged.The airport is busiest between 1100 and 1200 each day. The Airport Authoritytries to discourage flights from arriving at that time by passing Aircraft Operatorsan estimate of the expected delay.

• Brussels is not fully co-ordinated, but has an Airport Co-ordinator (an employeeof Sabena) who issues slots in an advisory capacity but has no authority toprevent flights from using the airport, even at the busiest times of day. VFRflights are forbidden from using Brussels airport at peak hours.

The system of airport slots acts as a first filter to reduce overloads at airports forwhich there is high demand, and to avoid airlines publishing schedules that they willbe unable to fly because of congestion at airports. CFMU arrival regulations areoften required in addition to prevent overloads at the busiest times of day, or ifairport capacity is reduced by weather conditions, works and so on.

Airport slots are in general completely separate from CFMU slots - no link is madebetween the two (except at Zürich where an opportunity slot must be matched by anavailable CFMU slot before it can be assigned to a GA flight).

Furthermore, Airport slots are quite different in nature from CFMU slots. CFMU slotsare a mandatory restriction with a defined tolerance, whereas airport slots are asimpler device for schedule planning. The airport slot system appears to be self-policing (probably by virtue of the IATA conference), since there is rarely anyfeedback of airport slots to tactical operations: none of the ATC Providersinterviewed checks that an arriving flight holds a airport slot entitling it to arrive atthat time, and none of the Airport Authorities verify airport slots in stand allocation,billing or elsewhere. However, one of the airlines interviewed stated that a Spanish

airport monitors actual arrival and departure times and will withdraw airport slotsfrom poor schedule-keepers.

3.1.7 Relationship between declared capacity and the number of airport slotsoffered

The number of slots offered per hour is not necessarily the same as the declared(hourly) capacity of the airport; the relationship is complex. Often the number ofslots that the airport is able to offer is constrained by long-term traffic limits andnoise curfews, so that for many hours of the day fewer slots are available than themaximum hourly capacity would allow.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

36 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

For peak hours, the number of slots offered may be greater than the declared hourlycapacity because:

• declared capacity is often somewhat lower than the maximum that is expected tobe achieved in good conditions;

• the number of flights arriving in one hour may be less than the number of airportslots allocated for that hour (because schedules change, some flights will becancelled, some will be late).

If too many flights arrive they can be held in arrivals stacks, enabling maximum useof airport capacity. If fewer slots had been offered, airport capacity (and commercialpotential) would have been wasted. For example:

• Schiphol may declare a runway capacity of 90 movements/hour, but if all goes wellthe effective rate can be 100 movements per hour. The declared capacity has tobe lower than the maximum to allow for bunching and overload. However, this

allows the airport to offer 105 or even 115 slots at peak hours.

• Gatwick is able to offer over 50 arrival slots per hour at peak times against a 43declared capacity in order to keep the stacks stocked.

At other airports, the number of airport slots per hour offered is less than thedeclared capacity. This is the case at Brussels, which hosts many state flights whichare exempt from airport slot restrictions (and in any case is not fully co-ordinated).

The number of slots offered at peak hours is usually the same in summer and winter(and so is declared capacity) although, at northern European airports, restrictivemeteorological conditions can be expected more often in winter. Capacityreductions are dealt with tactically when they arise.

3.1.8 Hub operations

Hub operations are the usual mode of operation for US airlines and airports. Eachairline has one or more hub airports from which it operates its medium- and long-haul flights. Short-haul flights from other US airports are scheduled to feed theselonger-haul flights.

From the point of view of Airports and ATC, the most significant feature of huboperations is the traffic pattern that results. Flights arrive at and depart from theairport in waves - an inbound wave lasting half an hour or more is followed by a gap

of at least half an hour (during which transfers of passengers and baggage takeplace) and then by a wave of outbound flights. This leads to a series of periods ofintense activity for the airport, interspersed by very quiet periods.

Airlines in Europe are less dedicated to hub operations than their US counterparts,and European traffic consists of a much higher proportion of point-to-point services.However, hub operations are becoming increasingly common in Europe. Thefollowing are some examples that have been highlighted by participants in thepresent project; there are of course many others.

• Heathrow already hosts British Airways’ major hub, and will soon host the hub ofthe Star Alliance.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

44 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.3 Information available

3.3.1 Summary of Current Information Availability

The table below provides a summary of information that is presently available to or

from Airport Authorities in Europe.

Note that not all of the information listed will necessarily be available to all AirportAuthorities, and that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is just intended togive an indication of the present situation.

The meaning of the columns is as follows:

Information item. This identifies the particular data item.

Source. This identifies from whom (person, or system) the information comes

When available. This identifies when the particular information is produced and

distributed.Accuracy. This identifies the typical level of error on the information.

Stability. This identifies whether the information is likely to be subject to frequentchanges.

Completeness. This indicates whether the coverage is adequate.

When, how held. This describes how the information item is stored.

Distributed to. This identifies to whom the information is sent, if anyone.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability,completeness

Where, ho

Declared hourlycapacity (standard)

Internal or ATC Permanently

Permitted annualcapacity

Internal Permanently

Airport slots offered:number,distribution over time

Internal

(only at co-ordinatedairports)

Season-6 months(??)

accuracy:very highstability: very highcompleteness:veryhigh

Current allocation of

airport slots

Airport Co-ordinator

(only at co-ordinatedairports)

Initial allocation at

season-4 months

Updated continuously

accuracy:high

stability: highcompleteness:veryhigh

Held by A

ordinator -communicAirport now, but c

Electronic

scheduled flights:STD, STA, origin,destination

Airline (Airlineschedule)

Season-2d(or earlier)

Possibly updated(more likely thanaircraft type,registration)

accuracy:very highstability: highcompleteness:

medium

Airline usually ofentered in(e.g. HAL

Rotations updates entered int

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 53

EUROCONTROL

Any strategic planning of stand capacity for the new season’s traffic is typicallycarried out using extrapolated traffic from the previous year. By the time airlineschedules giving details of rotations are available to Airport Authorities, it is oftentoo late to make any major changes to the stand allocation plan in time for the startof the season. Instead these have to be made as the season progresses. Earlier

schedule and aircraft type information from the AOs could be merged with traffichistory to give a more reliable basis for strategic stand allocation planning. Betterquality information from the AOs would also benefit the AOs themselves since theAirports would be in a better position to provide the services demanded by the AOs.

Rotation information is generally provided by airlines a few days before the start ofthe season, in time for the Airport Authority to begin pre-tactical planning. SomeAOs already provide this information very accurately and very promptly, but thereare significant gaps. Therefore, even at this later stage, the information held byindividual AOs is generally better than that received by Airport Authorities, andAirport Authorities would benefit from improved accuracy and coverage.

3.5.3 Rotation planning updates

Allied to the above, the Airport Authority needs to receive updates as the airlines’planned rotations change, in order to keep its stand allocation plan in line. Betteradvance information allows them to plan more pro-actively.

It is not unusual for planned rotations to change a number of times before theflights actually take place. The type of aircraft performing a flight may vary from dayto day, as the number of passengers booked on the flight varies. Changes may bemade a very short notice, particularly in the case of home-base airlines or thosehaving more than about 10 aircraft at the airport.

Many AOs already send rotation planning updates, but often these are not fullyreliable. Some send few or no planning updates, so a change may not be apparentto the Airport Authority until the aircraft arrives at the airport. Sometimes the AirportAuthority may have had no advance notification of, for example, aircraft type and sowill not know what kind of stand a flight requires until they actually see it (or areinformed verbally by ATC).

The effectiveness of Airport Authorities’ stand allocation planning is reduced by thefact that planning information is not complete. Out-of-date or missing informationfrom some AOs reduces the benefit of high-quality information from others. An on-time flight which behaves exactly as the Airport Authority expects fits smoothly into

the plan, whereas an arrival for which the Airport Authority has incorrect or noinformation causes a lot more work. Airport Authorities would therefore like:

• advance information on the aircraft type and expected length of stay of allarrivals;

• reliable updates on all airlines’ rotation planning.

Airlines are currently not obliged to send the required information and updates, andmay see little direct benefit, particularly from sending all updates as they occur. Somany airlines will not bother to send updates when they are busy, and some willnever consider it worth the manpower and communications cost. The effort required

would be reduced by electronic links such that when an AO updates its own fleetplanning (or flight planning) system, updates to rotation plans are sent automatically

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

54 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

to the Airport Authorities concerned. For AOs with manual planning systems, effortrequired is likely to remain an issue with provision of full planning updates.However, the possibility to provide such automatic links could be considered arequirement for any new systems being procured.

3.5.4 Passenger numbers

The number of passengers expected on a flight may be required by the AirportAuthority for allocation of terminal resources and/or transfer buses However,passenger load often remains unknown, especially for arriving flights. This can leadto waste of the airport’s passenger capacity, or to inadequate facilities beingprovided for the customers (of the airport and the airline). Passenger numbers fordeparting flights are more readily available to the Airport Authority, via the handlerat the airport.

As a minimum Airport Authorities would like to know final passenger load before a

flight arrives. This could be provided by the check-in handler at the departureairport, or by the Airline (these may in practice be the same organisation).Passenger load is currently already provided to the Airport Authority for billingpurposes in the post-flight phase; all that is required is earlier transmission of thisinformation.

To go further, early notification of expected passenger numbers (preferably withupdates) would aid stand/gate allocation planning. However the airlines mayconsider this commercially sensitive information.

3.5.5 ETA

Another key component of the information about rotations that the Airport Authorityneeds is the estimated time of arrival (ETA) of a flight. More accurate updates canallow stand allocation to be more pro-active and more efficient. Every AirportAuthority interviewed identified a requirement for improved ETAs, although thedetails of what was required varied from airport to airport depending on what wasalready available.

• Some Airport Authorities (e.g. Nice, HAL) receive automatic notification when aflight joins the stack. This notification would be more use to them if they alsoknew how long it was expected to stay in the stack - thus deriving ETA.

• Accurate predictions of arrival taxi times could improve the accuracy ofestimated time of arrival at the stand , where an accurate estimate of landingtime is already available (for example from the ATC system).

• Where the Airport Authority has access to flight plans, notification of an arrivingflight’s actual time of departure (ATD) could be used to update the flight planinformation. This would provide a reliable ETA at the earliest possibleopportunity.

• Information on predicted or actual departure delays could be used by the AirportAuthority to update expected arrival times.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

56 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.5.6.1 Information on departure delays

Departure delays may arise because of handling or technical problems, or as aresult of ATC delays - either from CFMU slots, or delays in receiving start-upclearance from the tower. Notification of problems encountered and expected

delays would allow the Airport Authority to keep ETD updated.

Currently, information on departure delays most often comes by telephone co-ordination between Airport Authority Operations and the Handler or AOC. AircraftOperators often avoid informing Airport Authority Operations of problems orexpected delays, in case they are asked to move the aircraft to a remote stand forthe duration of the delay. (This would allow the Airport Authority to make better useof its available pier service, but is inconvenient for the AO who has to move.)

A number of Airport Authorities would be interested to receive CFMU slots, to warnof expected departure delays and as an indication of ETD. However, they do notgenerally consider it necessary to prioritise Apron operations in favour of regulated

aircraft, so knowledge of CFMU slots is not required for that purpose.

3.5.6.2 Progress of ground handling operations

In general the Airport Authority is not aware of the state of airline ground handlingoperations for a particular flight. Such information would be useful as an aid toprediction of departure time. Confirmation that each part of the operation (cleaning,catering, baggage, boarding of passengers) had been completed would give anindication of whether the flight was ready to depart on schedule. An indication ofany problem encountered (lost baggage, lost passenger, late catering with anestimate of the arrival time of the caterers, . . .) would help further.

Much of this information is already passed verbally, for example between thehandlers and the pilot, but is not made available to all at the airport who could profitfrom it. However it is worth noting again the variation in operations betweendifferent airports and between different airlines. HAL receive updates on theprogress of handling operations for some airlines via ACARS messages; whileother airlines rely on HAL to pass estimated or actual time of departure to the AOC.

AdP was unusual among the Airport Authorities interviewed in that it is alsoresponsible for handling and Airport ATC, so that the different aspects of airportoperations are more closely linked than at many other airports. AdP already passesinformation on handling delays to the Tower, to improve their estimates ofdeparture times, and noted that it could also provide this information to CFMU ifnecessary.

A number of Airport Authorities are already addressing their requirement for moreinformation about handling operations. For example, Zürich Airport Authority isinvestigating methods for tight monitoring of the movement of passengers and bagsaround the airport.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

58 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

4.1.2 ATC Roles

The services provided by the ATC organisations that were interviewed areorganised into four broad roles or functions, as described below. This list is notintended to be exhaustive; it is intended to clarify the terms used in the present

report.

4.1.2.1 Area Control Centre (ACC)

The ACC controls traffic in en-route airspace, and in terminal area airspaceuntil/from the point at which it is handed over to/from Aerodrome Approach orTower controllers (see below). ACC airspace is split into sectors, each sectorcorresponding to one control unit.

4.1.2.2 Flow Management Position (FMP)

The FMP is responsible for liaison between the other ATC functions (sectors andaerodromes) and the CFMU. Its responsibilities include pre-tactical and tacticalregulation setting and capacity planning, and tactical traffic load monitoring.(Strategic flow management functions are dealt with by other parts of the ATCProvider’s organisation.)

Within the AOs and airports interviewed, the FMP is sometimes seen as a“protector of national interests” in today’s centralised Flow Management system.

Each FMP represents one or more ACCs and their Aerodromes. The FMP islocated in one of the ACCs it represents.

4.1.2.3 Approach (APP)

Approach controllers are responsible for controlling and sequencing arrivals as theyapproach the aerodrome. At larger aerodromes there are a number of approachcontrollers, each responsible for one approach stream, with another controllercontrolling the final, merged stream and finalising the landing sequence. Thehandover between APP and Tower often takes place once the flight is establishedon final approach (e.g. at Heathrow, at about 12 miles out). The handover can alsobe earlier, in which case the Tower controller may finalise the landing sequence.

In addition, the aerodrome may have one or more departures controllers within theAPP unit. Alternatively departures may be handed directly from the Tower to the

appropriate TMA sector controller.

The APP unit is sometimes located in the Tower building at the Aerodrome, andsometimes at the local ACC.

4.1.2.4 Tower (TWR)

Tower control, in the Visual Control Room at the airport Tower, generally has threeseparate positions. The names given to these positions vary between airports, butthe roles are very similar.

• Start-up clearance delivery: Responsible for start-up clearance for departingaircraft, in response to pilot request. Hence initiates the departure sequence.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

60 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

4.2 Current ATC Operations

4.2.1 Introduction

This section describes briefly some typical ATC operations, concentrating on those

that interface with the Airport and with Flow Management. Information exchangesare discussed in the operational context in which they exist.

The information currently available to ATC is summarised in section 4.4.

4.2.2 Strategic Planning

The strategic planning function of ATC is Airspace Management. The states’ ATCauthorities are involved in Airspace Management both individually and incombination, through CFMU strategy meetings. Typically it is not the operationalcontrollers who are involved in Airspace Management, but other ATC Authoritystaff.

Where seasonal schedule information is available to the ATC authority sufficientlyfar in advance, it can feed into their Airspace Management and staffing decisions.For example, an AO operating its hub at one of the major airports interviewed in thestudy recently increased its operating schedule from 3 to 6 peaks per day. The firstwave of traffic now arrives earlier, and the ATC authority had to change their staffrosters so that the first shift started earlier to cope with this traffic.

Sectorisation and route planning may also be affected by changed traffic patterns.In the example described above, the AO's new schedule information was availableto the ATC authority only two days before the beginning of the new season - too

late for new route structures and/or sectorisations to be designed, tested andbrought into operation (with the accompanying changes to procedures that wouldmost likely have need required).

It is generally the case that the new season’s schedule is not available earlyenough for Airspace Management purposes. As a result, ATC authorities’ seasonalplans are usually based on the previous year’s traffic, sometimes increased by acertain factor to take account of the expected global traffic growth. Hence, changedtraffic patterns are rarely taken into account in the season in which they first occur.

ATC and Airport authorities usually co-operate to some extent in strategic planningof airport infrastructure and capacity. For example at Nice, required CFMU

regulations are determined by a regulation committee involving ATC, the AirportAuthority, handlers and airlines. The committee's decisions are based on thepredicted congestion highlighted by the Airport Authority’s planning simulations.

4.2.3 Pre-tactical and Tactical Planning

Initial flow regulations are set one day in advance - the CFMU pre-tactical phase.Advising CFMU on what regulations are required is the job of FMP staff. In manycases, “standard” regulations will be used, perhaps with some variations to takeaccount of expected conditions. Where a restriction on the normal capacity of anairport is planned (for example, works) this will also be taken into account.

In France, the Paris FMP uses an automated system to select which combinationsof sectors will be open to provide optimum capacity for the expected traffic pattern,

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23

Table of ATC Information

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability,

completeness

Where, ho

Airport Slots AO, Airportcommercial dept

Season accuracy:highstability: high

completeness: high

Schedule revision AO Season - d-1 accuracy:highstability:mediumcompleteness: high

Runway in use ATC Before take-off accuracy:high

stability:highcompleteness: high

Voice

communicsome auto

Seasonal scheduleof works

Airport Permanently accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness:high

Daily briefing(runway, weather,expected delays)

Airport d-1, updatedregularly (eg every 4hrs at LVB)

accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness:high

Regulation

Requests

ATC FMP Real time accuracy:high

stability: mediumcompleteness:high

Automated

Delay information ATC Real time accuracy:mediumstability:mediumcompleteness: high

By voiincreasingautomation

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 73

EUROCONTROL

4.6 General Comments for Improvement of Operations by ATC

4.6.1 Introduction

The ATC authorities interviewed during the study made a number of additionalcomments and suggestions for the improvement of current systems, procedures

and infrastructure.

4.6.2 Measurement of Delays

Improved recording of delays and other operational performance measurementswould be beneficial. In particular the degree of standardisation could be furtherdeveloped so that a given delay category is used in exactly the same way by eachorganisation, and so that the same minimum threshold for registering a delay isused by all. This would, for example, facilitate the demonstration of equal treatmentof AOs by ATM.

4.6.3 CFMU Slot Allocation and Departure Sequencing

While recognising the difficulties for AOs, several ATC said that it would be helpfulto them (and ultimately to AOs by increasing capacity) if CFMU slot allocationscould be frozen about a half an hour in advance of departure.

This would enable ATC to optimise the local departure sequence to maximise useof the runway. Also, it was pointed out that flight strips have to be amended byhand after printing which causes additional operating problems.

4.6.4 Take Account of Flight Links

One ATC authority suggested that attention should be paid in ATM to information onlikely links between flights, whether due to a particular aircraft being used on anoutbound and return flight, or for connecting traffic. At present, ATC and CFMUhave no information on links between flights.

4.6.5 Prioritisation

The FMP can often help to prioritise flights where the ATC authority is the mostpenalising restriction (for example by prioritising of exempting flights that are upagainst airport closing times). However, a lot of work is currently involved in thissince it has to be carried out by telephone. It was suggested that introduction of a

regular procedure would make this more effective.

4.6.6 Regulation at Times of Bad Weather

There was a discussion of the approach to managing disruption caused byinstances of bad weather, in particular concerning the lead time for a regulation totake effect and the exempting of flights from distant departure airports from arrivalregulation in expectation of improvement in local weather conditions.

Paris FMP explained that the minimum flying time to Paris is around 1 hour, so theeffect of a regulation won’t be seen until at least 1 hour after issue, and furthermore,2-3 hours are needed for the regulation to really be effective. Unfortunately weathereffects often happen on shorter timescales than this, resulting in aircraft being

8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

74 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

diverted or held en-route to avoid overload, or a wastage of capacity as conditionsimprove.

4.6.7 Slot Slipping

It was suggested that an AO would be more likely to report an operational delayearly if this just resulted in its slot being slipped by a small amount rather having togo to back of queue. This approach might help to ensure a freer flow of moreaccurate information.

4.6.8 Faster Communications

Swisscontrol raised the need for fast and effective communications between ATC,CEU and other actors. For example, a delay of 2-3 minutes is too long in manyoperational situations. Possible steps would be intelligent call systems allowingprioritisation towards the nearest-EOBT aircraft or datalink implementation for time-critical interchanges.

4.6.9 Flow Management Data Processing

A number of points were mentioned concerning flow management data processing.The improvement of trajectory prediction was noted, including handling of directs,use of multiple flight levels in the FPL, application of weather forecasts, and use ofactual route, SID and STAR.

It was also noted that additional information is available in the FSA message whichcould be used to update the flow management system. Furthermore, flowmanagement systems could in the future be updated directly by position reports

from ATC.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

78 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

6. RecommendationsIn any operational system it is appropriate to continuously review existing workingpractices and rules in the light of new requirements and operational developments.Such reviews should be aimed at identifying the problems and new requirements,

and, assuming new technical possibilities (e.g. related to communications andcomputation) develop new rules, algorithms and technical requirements.

FASTER has carried out a study which examined users’ perceptions of the needs forimproved information exchanges involving ATFM and ATC. As with anyquestionnaire-based research, however carefully planned, there is always a risk ofresponses being affected by the nature of the questions asked. Therefore, to confirmthe results, more objective research is required. This research should take the formof experiments in controlled environments.

It is proposed that the following kinds of experiments should be carried out:

• measurement of the benefits accrued from new or better information (e.g. ETA

estimates for airports)• measurement of the benefits of modified display of information (e.g. that identified

as required by AOs)

Examples of applications which appear to have the potential to bring significantbenefits and which should be worked on include:

• provision of better ETAs to airport organisations by ATC and/or AOs

• earlier and more accurate ETDs for airport and ATM authorities by AOs andhandlers.

• dissemination of accurate taxi time and other information needed for accurate

estimation of take-off time• display of information to ATM system users

• new approaches to management of disruption situations (e.g. temporarily reducedairport capacity)

Considering the last of these, improved information distribution helping to reduce theimpact of disruption situations would be of particular interest to airlines. Theapproach to further investigations would be to establish a range of disruptionscenarios and to evaluate possible information distribution solutions to each with thehelp of AOCs and ATM, and to try to identify an optimal solution.

Parameters for evaluation of results should include:

• Feedback from aircraft operators, airports and other experiment participants

• Slot allocation measures, such as overall delay, delay to individual flights andknock-on delay

• Aircraft operator oriented measures, such as equity across flights and airlines,total delay in passenger-minutes and the estimated cost of providing substituteaircraft to cover for gaps in the schedule

The outcome of such experiments should enable firm conclusions to be drawn upconcerning the required information exchanges and the necessary information quality.These could then be fed into specifications of future systems or, ideally, near-termdevelopments.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 81

EUROCONTROL

Ë Actual capacity and demand?

Ë List of possible alternate routes?

Ë Forbidden sectors for rerouting?

Ë Map showing your routes, your alternate routes, ATC sectors, meteo data...?

Ë Real time information on:

Ë Airport status/runway configuration

Ë Gate assignment

Ë Taxitime

Ë SIDs, STARs, CDRs

Ë Weather (icing/windshear)

Ë Other? (Please describe...)

When should this information be provided to you?

1.5 Would you be ready to give out the following information to the CFMU?

Ë Planned flight data of an additional flight?

When? (e.g.: as soon as flight is planned, 2 days before flight, 1 hour before flight)?

More generally, the CFMU is interested in being informed of your flight intentions asearly as possible even if the flight is not completely defined and even if it might becancelled in the end. Would you agree with this policy and keep the CFMU informedof flight updates?

Ë Detailed flight plan with associated waypoints & overflight time (FMS like),

especially for all external/transatlantic flights? When (how long before flight: 2 days, 1 day, 5 hours...)?

Ë Real take-off time and arrival time?

When (how long after event: immediately, 1 minute, ten minutes...)?

Ë Links between flights?

When (how long before flight: 2 days, 1 day, 5 hours...)?

Ë Alternate routes for earlier take-off in case of regulations: would you be ready topropose an alternate route?

When (how long before flight: 2 days, 1 day, 5 hours...)?

1.6 If you could be notified accurately of the delays how long in advance would you liketo have this information?

In order to achieve this, are you ready to file your FPLs earlier than three hoursbefore Estimated Off Block Time (EOBT)?

1.7 Would you value new, different services from CFMU (e.g. interactive FlightPlanning, route validation...)?

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

88 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

7.2 Questionnaire to Airports

1. Airport scheduling

1.1 The CFMU has 3 phases of operation:

− Strategic: from 6 months to 2 days before the day of operation;

− Pre-tactical: the two days before the day of operation;

− Tactical: the day of operation.

a. Does the Airport identify similar phases of operation?b. Please define the phases and/or timescales for your airport operations if they aredifferent from those above.

The next few questions are about the strategic process of setting seasonal schedules.

1.2 In deciding the number of Airport slots to be offered each season, what factors aretaken into account?Examples may include:

Ë declared runway capacity?

Ë tower/approach ATC capacity?

Ë environmental constraints (e.g. noise abatement)?

Ë taxiway capacity/ average taxi times?

Ë ground infrastructure/apron capacity (number of aircraft the Airport can provide

for in terms of fuel, contact doors, gate services, etc.)?Ë passenger terminal capacity?

Ë likely capacity reduction due to weather?

Ë demand?

Ë type of aircraft?

Ë landing charges?

Ë gate charges?

Ë other- please describe.

1.3 a. Does the Airport make provision in the seasonal schedule for unforeseen arrivalsand/or departures (e.g. for GA, business flights, diverted aircraft, military

aircraft)?b. If so, at what rate?

1.4 Who participates in the seasonal scheduling?

− which organisations are represented?

− what is the position of the representatives within their organisations?

− what role does each person/organisation play?

1.5 In case of demand exceeding capacity during the creation of seasonal schedules,how is the competition between flights/airlines resolved?

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

92 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

2.14 The need for de-iced aircraft to take off as soon as possible after de-icing makes itdifficult for them to comply with CFMU slots. One possible way to improve CFMUperformance would be to replace the CFMU slot for the de-iced aircraft with apredicted take-off time (TOT) determined by the airport. How accurately, and how farin advance, could TOT for a sequence of de-iced aircraft be predicted?

3. Current and future links with Aircraft Operators

3.1 Is the Airport the hub for an airline? If so, which airline(s)?

3.2 What services does the Airport provide to Aircraft Operators?Examples may include:

Ë Dispatch offices?

Ë Operational flight control?

Ë Flight planning?

Ë Other handling agent services?

Ë De-icing?

Ë Others - please specify.

a. Please give a brief description of each service and say in which timescale(s) itoccurs.

b. Are the services provided to all Airlines, or only to certain Airlines?

3.3 What information does the Airport currently provide to the Aircraft Operators?Ideally we would like details as follows. Some examples are suggested, please deleteor correct these if they are wrong, and add any others.

Information When? Circumstances?passed

Seasonal schedules 1 month before season? When agreedDaily operational schedules Day of flight?Airport slot allocation ?Information on stand/gate/services allocation ? As updatedTake-off/landing schedules ?Actual take-off time ?Actual arrival time ?Notification of reduced capacity ? Capacity drop

Others . . . ?

3.4 In future, what additional information could the Airport pass to the Airport Operators toassist their efficient operations?Examples may include:

Ë strategic (seasonal) schedule information?

Ë tactical schedule information?

Ë predicted or actual gate/ramp delays?

Ë predicted/planned taxi time (including queuing to use runway)?

Ë predicted/planned take-off time?

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 95

EUROCONTROL

Version en langue française de l'introduction, des objectifs duprojet, des conclusions et recommandations

1. Introduction

1.1 Objet du rapportCe rapport est le résultat principal de la première phase du projet FASTER.

FASTER est un projet de recherche initialisé et cofinancé par EUROCONTROL etAEROSPATIALE pour étudier les échanges d’informations entre les opérateursaériens (AOs - aircraft operators), les aéroports, et les fournisseurs de servicesaéronautiques (ATS), particulièrement pour la gestion des flux de traffic.

Les échanges d’informations sont considérés dans une perspective « gate-to-gate »,couvrant les activités de la planification stratégiques aux vols et même desopérations après-vols.

Cette étude est un élément d’une analyse plus large des concepts de collaboration

pour la planification et la prise de décision, identifiés comme faisant partie deséléments d’EATMS, futur Système ATM Européen, qui doit être progressivementimplémenté en accord avec la stratégie ATM pour les années 2000+.

La collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision a pour but essentield’améliorer les échanges d’informations entre les acteurs, de manière à prendre demeilleures décisions, et d’assurer que les décisions sont prises par les personnes lesmieux placées.

Ces avancées permettront de réduire les incertitudes et d’arriver à une meilleurecompréhension mutuelle des préférences de chacun pour augmenter la capacité,l’efficacité et la flexibilité des opérations.

L’objectif de cette étude est d’analyser les méthodes opérationnelles des différentsacteurs et d’appréhender les flux d’information existant. L’équipe a interviewé unéchantillon d’acteurs, incluant des représentant de compagnies aériennes dedifférentes tailles et de différents types, d’aéroports et de centres de contrôle.L’analyse des procédures et des échanges d’informations est réalisée, permettantd’identifier un certain nombre de recommandations pour des travaux relatifs àl’amélioration des échanges d’information.

1.2 Environnement de l’étude

1.2.1 Contexte de l’étude

Des gains significatifs de capacité et d’efficacité de la gestion du trafic aérien sontnécessaires pour faire face à la demande de trafic aérien prévue pour le siècleprochain. Cette augmentation de capacité doit être obtenue en maintenant ou enaugmentant le niveau de sûreté.

De nombreux aéroports sont saturés ou le seront dans un futur proche. Cettetendance devrait s’accroître dans les prochaines années. La capacité en-route devraaussi être augmentée conformément à la demande, dans une situation où il devientde plus en plus difficile d’augmenter la capacité par simple division de secteurs decontrôle.

Les opérations des compagnies aériennes deviennent aussi plus complexes, avec deplus en plus d’interconnexions à développer. La pression commerciale impose unemeilleure utilisation de la flotte et la mise en place de navettes et de hubs. De plus, il

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 97

EUROCONTROL

2. Le projet FASTER

2.1 Objectifs du projet

L’objectif du projet FASTER est d’identifier les opportunités faisables et bénéficiairesd’amélioration de coopération et de collaboration entre ATM, AOC and aéroports.

Dans une première étape, un intérêt particulier est porté à l’ATFM et la planificationdes vols. Le projet doit évoluer vers le développement de prototype de solutionsexprimées en termes d’échanges de données, de traitements et de procéduresopérationnelles.

Les acteurs concernés par FASTER sont les opérateurs aériens, incluant les centresopérationnels des compagnies aériennes (AOC), les opérateurs d’escale (handlers),les avions, les Autorités Aéroportuaires, les fournisseurs de service aéronautique(ATM), incluant la gestion des flux (ATFM) et le contrôle du trafic aérien (ATC).D’autres participants pouvant être concernés sont l’aviation générale (GA) et le traficaérien militaire.

Afin de cadrer avec le plan de développement d’EATMS et pour prévoir les

transitions, le projet considère trois échelles de temps:

• court terme (moins de 4 ans) basé sur le concept opérationnel actuel (concernantl’établissement de planning et les échanges de données) et les informationsdisponibles.

• moyen terme (4 à 8 ans) utilisant de nouveaux concepts (concernantl’établissement de planning et les échanges de données) et d’implémentationéventuelle de nouveaux échanges d’informations.

• plus long terme dans le contexte complet d’EATMS

2.2 Activités d’étudeL’équipe de projet a réalisé les activités suivantes dans la Phase Un du projetFASTER:

• l’établissement d’une coopération entre Aérospatiale et le Centre Expérimentald’EUROCONTROL;

• la réalisation d’une investigation des projets de recherche existant dans cedomaine;

• la réalisation d’une modélisation pour identifier les acteurs, les processus et lesprocédures, en focalisant sur la gestion des flux;

• la mise au point de questionnaires, contenant un large spectre de questionsrelatives à l’organisation de l’ATM et les échanges d’informations;

• le contact et l’interview de plusieurs opérateurs aériens, d’aéroports et defournisseurs de services aéronautiques;

• la transcription et l’analyse des résultats des entrevues, fournissant uneprésentation consolidée des échanges d’informations et des procédés;

• la rédaction du rapport final.

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 99

EUROCONTROL

l’information qui doivent être utilisées pour le développement d’applicationspotentielles.

3.2 Aspects opérationnels

Un certain nombre d’aspects opérationnels sont identifiées comme pouvant êtreamélioré par une gestion avancée des données.

La gestion des perturbations importantes est perçu comme un sujet important àcause de l’impact financier sur les compagnies aériennes. Les cas de perturbationidentifiés vont de la réduction de visibilité à des cas extrême de fermeture de piste àla suite d’un accident. Il n’est pas possible aujourd’hui que des mesures de régulationpuisse prendre effet suffisamment rapidement, et le retour à une situation normale esttrès longue après la suppression des régulations. Ce temps de réponse est dû à desfacteurs comme la courte durée de vol européen typique et aux incertitudes descertaines prédiction météorologiques. Quoiqu’il en soit, il est noté qu’une améliorationdes échanges d’information pourraient améliorer de telles situations.

Les coûts des délais pour les opérateurs aériens sont des fonctions non linéaires,mais il y a une nette répugnance à supprimer des vols, même s’il y a un coûtimportant dû aux retards, car les compagnies veulent éviter de voir leurs passagerspasser sur une compagnie concurrente fournissant un service équivalent. Il seraitavantageux que les procédures encouragent les compagnies à annuler des vols danscertaines conditions car cela permettrait de limiter la demande lorsque la capacité estréduite, permettant ainsi de réduire les délais.

3.3 Planning

Un planning efficace est difficile à établir compte tenu de l’impact d’événement réels

et de la difficulté d’obtenir et de communiquer des données à jour Ainsi, la mise aupoint de planning doit être hautement réactive, comme démontré dans les plansd’allocation de parkings dans les aéroports et dans les révisions d’allocations decréneaux.

De manière similaire, la faible disponibilité d’informations affecte la qualité desprévisions pré-tactiques. Dans ces conditions, une source importante d’erreurs vientde la difficulté des responsables de services des contrôle à fournir des donnéesprécises de capacité à cause des variations de personnels. Une autre source est ladifficulté des opérateurs aériens à établir des plans de vols précis à l’avance à causedu manque de prédictions météorologiques. Ce dernier point est composéd’hésitations des opérateurs aériens à fournir des données qu’ils devront modifier

plus tard, en partie à cause des coûts additionnels de communication. Quoiqu’il ensoit, il est certain que pour certains acteurs, comme l’ATFM, un premier élémentd’information est mieux que rien.

Un élément complémentaire est que les opérateurs aériens, en particulier les grandescompagnies aériennes, ont des systèmes avancés de planification des vols et degestion des créneaux qui leur permettent de prendre en compte un large éventail defacteurs comme les prédictions météorologiques, les performances individuelles desavions et les procédures opérationnelles spécifiques à chaque compagnie. De plusen plus de compagnies utilisent activement des communication numériques air/sol(ex. ACARS) comme moyen de gestion de leurs opérations. Bien qu’il ne soit pasclair que des événement réels signifient que la route réelle ne soit pas proche de la

route planifiée, l’introduction d’outils permettant de faire du re-routing est considéré

8/2/2019 026 Faster


8/2/2019 026 Faster


FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• dissémination de taxi-time plus précis et d’autres informations nécessaire àl’estimation précise de l’heure de décollage

• visualisation d’informations par les systèmes des utilisateurs

• nouvelles approches pour la gestion des condition perturbées (ex: réduction

temporaire de la capacité d’un aéroport)Ce dernier point, l’amélioration de la distribution d’information pour réduire l’impactdes situation perturbées, est particulièrement intéressant pour les compagniesaériennes. Les analyses approfondies doivent établir un large spectre de scénariosde perturbations et considérer plusieures solutions de distribution d’informations pourchaque, avec l’assistance des AOC et des services d’ATM, afin d’identifier la solutionoptimale.

Les paramètres d’évaluation des résultats doivent inclure:

• Appréciation par les opérateurs aériens, les aéroports et les autres participantsaux expérimentations

• Les mesures d’allocations de créneaux, comme le délai total, les délaisindividuels des vols et les délais critiques

• Les mesures dédiées aux opérateurs aériens, comme l’équité d’un vol à l’autre etd’une compagnie à l’autre, le délai total en passagers.minutes et le coût estimépour substituer ou ajouter un avion pour rattraper le planning.

Les résultats de telles expérimentations doivent permettent de tirer des conclusionsfermes concernant les besoins d’échanges d’informations et la nécessité de qualitéde celles-ci. Elles pourront alors être transformées en spécifications de futuresystèmes ou idéalement de développement à court-terme.

De plus, l’envergure de ces expérimentations doit être conçue pour permettre une

solide évaluation des gains opérationnels et des coûts d’implémentation et dedéveloppement pour tous les acteurs.

026 faster

Documents