eurocontrol · appendix c detailed data charts vienna fir ... (no vertical splits or up to fl340...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

A M S(ATC Model Simulations)

CENTRAL EUROPE FAST-TIME SIMULATION

EEC Note No.3/99

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18)

Issued: March 1999

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should bereproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Note No. XX/99

Security Classification:Unclassified

OriginatorEEC - AMS

(ATC Model Simulations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP1591222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

SponsorEATCHIP Development Directorate

DED/4

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B - 1130 BruxellesTelephone: +32 2 729 9011

TITLE:CENTRAL EUROPE FAST-TIME SIMULATION

AuthorLeif Lundqvist

Date

3/99

Pagesxiv+37

Figures1 Figure

2 maps

34 charts

Tables32

Appendices

5 (22 pages)incl .12

tables 32charts.

Reference

-

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

-

Project

SIM-F-E1(F18)

Task No. Sponsor Period

1997 to 1998

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

Descriptors (keywords):Area Route Network - Arrivals Management System - ATC Tasks - Bratislava (LZBB) FIR – Bratislava(LZIB) TMA - Budapest (LHCC) FIR - Budapest (LHBP) TMA - Conflict detection and resolution -Controller Workload - Forecast Traffic Levels - Planning Controller - Radar tasks - RAMS – Sectorisation- Tactical Controller - TMA -TMA Upper Limits - Traffic Samples - Vienna (LOVV) FIR - Vienna (LOWW)TMA.

Abstract:This report describes a EUROCONTROL Fast-Time simulation study using the RAMS simulator,conducted at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre for AUSTROCONTROL of Austria, LRI ofHungary and the Slovak ATS Authority. The study evaluated, in terms of controller workload, the impactof future traffic growth, sectorisation configurations and associated ATC procedures.

The main objective of the study was to analyse the current route structure, including SIDs andSTARs for the Vienna-Bratislava-Budapest TMA interface. Further objectives examined the effects ofimplementation of the ARN V3 route network and traffic levels forecast for the year 2003.

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

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEX

France

Central Europe Fast-Time Simulation EECAMS

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999v

EUROCONTROL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED .................................................................................... viSECTOR ABBREVIATIONS IN THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... viiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................ ix1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 11.2 STUDY TIMETABLE..................................................................................................................................... 11.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 2

2. INPUT DATA......................................................................................................................................................... 22.1 TRAFFIC SAMPLES....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 1997 Traffic Sample (A and B organisations) .......................................................................................... 22.1.2 2003 Traffic Sample (C and D organisations) .......................................................................................... 22.1.3 Aircraft types found in the traffic samples................................................................................................. 3

2.2 AIRSPACE SIMULATED............................................................................................................................... 32.2.1 Flight information regions......................................................................................................................... 32.2.2 Sectorisation and Route description.......................................................................................................... 42.2.3 Sectors simulated and measured: .............................................................................................................. 42.2.4 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 ATC Tasks and positions simulated................................................................................................................. 52.3.1 ATC Task description ................................................................................................................................ 62.3.2 ATC Task Groups ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Separation Standards........................................................................................................................................ 72.4.1 Radar minimum separations within the simulation area ............................................................................ 72.4.2 Separation minima for Inter-centre crossings ........................................................................................... 7

3. ORGANISATIONS SIMULATED......................................................................................................................... 83.1 Organisation A .................................................................................................................................................. 83.2 Organisation B ................................................................................................................................................. 93.3 Organisation C .................................................................................................................................................. 93.4 Organisation D ................................................................................................................................................. 9

4. SIMULATION RESULTS................................................................................................................................... 114.1 Organisation A ................................................................................................................................................ 11

4.1.1. Vienna FIR Reference organisation: ..................................................................................................... 114.1.2 Budapest FIR Reference organisation:................................................................................................... 144.1.3 Bratislava FIR Reference organisation: ................................................................................................. 164.1.4 Workload distribution – all sectors ......................................................................................................... 184.1.5 Studies of extra work in the “REFE” scenario........................................................................................ 18

4.2 Organisation B. .............................................................................................................................................. 224.2.1 Exercise B1 ............................................................................................................................................. 224.2.2 Exercise B2 ............................................................................................................................................. 25

4.3. Comparison of all 1997 scenarios. ( A and B organisation) .......................................................................... 264.4 Organisation C. .............................................................................................................................................. 294.5 Organisation D. (ARN V3) ............................................................................................................................. 31

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ............................................................................................... 36Appendix A ATC Task description.............................................................................................................................Appendix B Flight entries per sector and hour B, C and D organisations ...................................................................Appendix C Detailed data charts Vienna FIR..............................................................................................................Appendix D Detailed data charts Budapest FIR ..........................................................................................................Appendix E Detailed data charts Bratislava FIR .........................................................................................................


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999vi

EUROCONTROL

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED

A/C or ACFT AircraftAMS ATC Model SimulationsARN Area Route NetworkARR ArrivalATC Air Traffic ControlCFMU Central Flow Management UnitCTR Control ZoneDEP DepartureEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreEXP.CLR Expedite ClearanceFIR Flight Information RegionFL Flight LevelGND GroundHDG HeadingLAU Local Approach UnitMIL MilitaryORG OrganisationPC Planning ControllerRAMS Reorganised ATC Mathematical SimulatorREQ RequestR/T Radio TelecommunicationRVSM Reduced Vertical Separation MinimaRWY RunwayRX ReceiveSAAM System for Analysis and Assignment at a Macroscopic levelSID Standard Instrument DepartureSTAR Standard Instrument Arrival RouteTAS True Air SpeedTC Tactical ControllerTMA Terminal Control AreaTWR Control TowerTX TransmitUAC Upper Area Control CentreUNL UnlimitedVFR Visual Flight Rules


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999vii

EUROCONTROL

SECTOR ABBREVIATIONS IN THE STUDY

Hungarian airspace:LHBP_TMA Budapest Terminal Control AreaLHCC_E East SectorLHCC_N North SectorLHCC_S South SectorLHCC_W West Sector

Austrian airspace:LO_B5 Sector 5 (no vertical splits or up to FL340 when B5T is open)LO_B5T Sector 5 Top (FL340 and above)LO_E East sector (no vertical splits)LO_EL East Low Sector (up to FL285)LO_ELU East Low/Upper Sector (up to FL340)LO_EU East Upper Sector (FL285-FL340)LO_ET East Top Sector (FL340 and above)LO_N North Sector (no vertical splits)LO_NL North Low Sector (up to FL285)LO_NLU North Low/Upper Sector (up to FL340)LO_NU North Upper Sector (FL285-FL340)LO_NT North Top Sector (FL340 and above)LO_S South Sector (no vertical splits)LO_SL South Low Sector (up to FL285)LO_SU South Upper Sector (FL285-FL340)LO_SUT South Upper/Top Sector (FL285 and above)LO_ST South Top Sector (FL340 and above)LO_SE SouthEast Sector (no vertical splits)LO_SEL SouthEast Low Sector (FL245-FL285)* see specifics for exercises TMA 165, TMA 195,TMA 205)LO_SEU SouthEast Upper Sector (FL285-FL340)LO_SET SouthEast Top Sector (FL 340 and above)LO_T Vienna TMALO_TL Vienna TMA Low (up to FL105)LO_TUN Vienna TMA Upper North Sector (normally FL105-FL245)LO_TUS Vienna TMA Upper South Sector (normally FL105-FL245)LO_W West Sector (no vertical splits)LO_WL West Low Sector (up to FL285)LO_WLU West Low/Upper Sector (up to FL340LO_WU West Upper Sector (FL285-FL340)LO_WT West Top Sector (FL340 and above)LOWW Vienna airport

Slovakian airspace:LZ_1 Low Sector (up to FL285)LZ_2 Middle Sector (FL285-FL340)LZ_3 Top Sector (FL340 and above)LZIB_TMA Bratislava TMA(up to FL105 in REFE, REFW, up to FL85 in REFX, B2, and up to FL195 elsewhere)


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999viii

EUROCONTROL

INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999ix

EUROCONTROL

F 18 - Central Europe Fast-Time Simulation

By Leif Lundqvist (EEC/AMS)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April of 1997 a first meeting was held for the planned three-state real-time simulation for theinterface between Vienna, Bratislava and Budapest.

On the initiative of DED/4 a slot for a fast-time simulation study to lay the ground for the real-time simulation was allocated and the project was given EEC task number F18.

The first meeting was held in Brétigny in August 1997 between the national representativesand EUROCONTROL representation from DED/4 and EEC.

The scope of the simulation was decided and the working group nominated ATC expertsrepresenting both ACC and APP from all three countries with Leif Lundqvist of the EEC asproject leader.

The objectives agreed for the project were:

• To analyse the current system including SIDs and STARs concerning the TMAinterface between Bratislava - Vienna - Budapest.

• To study the effects of the ARN V3 route network, re-sectorise and, as necessary, re-

align or create new SIDs and STARs to join the new route system. • To study the effects of future traffic increases • To harmonise routes and optimise sectorisation of TMA and ACC sectors irrespective

of National boundaries. • To include the whole area of the three FIRs to properly assess the effects of ARN V3

route network changes in the area. As a basis for the simulation, to represent a normal busy day, the 7th of August 1997 waschosen. The 24 hour traffic sample provided by the three countries was verified by all threestates and consisted of 2928 flights. The results of this fast-time simulation will be consideredwith regards to routing, sectorisation and manning plans for the forthcoming real-timesimulation in Brétigny early 2000. The measurement of workload levels used as an approximate reference 50% over a period ofthree hours, and 70% over a period of one hour as the limit, above which controllers workloadis considered severe. The different organisations and individual exercises simulated sought tofind an even distribution of workload avoiding overload on any sector.


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999x

EUROCONTROL

The following exercises were simulated: • Organisation A: (6 exercises) Reference organisation A was based on August 7,1997 traffic, sectors and procedures.Different exercises compared different runway configurations, effect of military co-ordinationswith areas delegated within Vienna FIR, all military sectors open in Bratislava FIR, opensportsfields in Budapest TMA which are used by gliders and parachutists, and different verticalsector splits. • Organisation B: (7 exercises) Re-aligned routes, new SID/STAR systems, enlarged Bratislava TMA and in different exercisescomparing effect of re-routing on certain routes, different upper levels of TMA and differentsectorisation in Vienna FIR. • Organisation C: (2 exercises) Exercises of the forecast traffic level in 2003 with sectorisation based on organisation B. 4100flights appeared in this organisation. • Organisation D: (1 exercise) Organisation C transferred to ARN V3 route network. This organisation changed therelationship between different sectors since a great deal (40-50%) of the traffic in the Budapestsouth (LHCC_S) sector and Vienna South sector (LO_S) sector was re-routed on forecast re-opened routes through former Yugoslavia. The basis for this organisation was the ARN Version3 route network as agreed in May of 1998. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS: • A and B organisations - General for the 1997 studies : In the reference scenarios, (Org. A) the effect on controller workload caused by military co-ordination procedures was tested against closed military sectors. The effect on controllerworkload for the TMA, caused by open sportsfields in LHBP TMA was also assessed.Although an important effect on the workload was found in the concerned sectors of all threeFIRs, it did not have an impact on capacity or put controllers under what could be consideredheavy workload. It was therefore seen as unnecessary to test in future organisations. The B organisation was in part been implemented during the course of the study. The newSID/STAR systems and partial re-routing proved beneficial in the mathematical study. Thisaffected all three countries and was recommended as an early result of the study. Thecombination of simulations and real experience showed this to be a more efficient organisationthan Reference Organisation A.


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999xi

EUROCONTROL

Different runway configurations tested showed that using Vienna RWY 16 for arriving trafficwas more favourable from a workload viewpoint than the use of RWY 34 for the Vienna TMAsectors. Similarly, for Budapest TMA the use of RWY13L/R proved more favourable than RWY31L/RWY31R. Vienna FIR Testing of different vertical sectorisation was made, and for the TMA the present level, FL 245was found to be the most efficient upper level of Vienna TMA. However it is recommended tosplit the lower TMA sector into two, in order to avoid overloading with the forecast traffic levels.(Ref exercise B1C). It is further recommended to implement a tested re-routing of Viennaarrivals from NW to fly SBG-SNU direct. Testing of alternative routing of inbound traffic from Southeast gave no positive indicationseither way. Combining the East and South sectors proved to be difficult due to the traffic loading. Evenwith vertical splits at FL285 and FL340 overload risks occurred at 2003 traffic levels. Thesectors are therefore recommended to be kept separate. Budapest FIR The 1997 studies showed the workload level for the South sector (LHCC_S) to be above thenormally acceptable measurements, and several other sectors were very close to this limit. Theproposed re-routing of inbound Vienna traffic through Bratislava FIR is believed to have apositive effect, although the number of flights is limited. Another alternative routing DIMLO-BABIT for Vienna inbound traffic increased the load on thealready busy South sector and also gave negative effects on the Vienna en-route sectors. Thisis consequently not recommended. A new outbound routing for Vienna departures into Budapest FIR was tested with southboundheading after border-point ABETI to avoid opposite north-westbound traffic. The re-routingclearly separated the flows of north-westbound and south-eastbound traffic but had no effecton the number of conflicts in the Budapest West sector. For Budapest FIR the existing sectorisation was maintained in the future scenarios andshowed overloading with severe workload in the West, South and East sectors. This will beresolved through the new agreed sectorisation into seven ACC sectors. This new sectorisationplan was never presented as a simulation requirement for the fast-time simulation and wasconsequently never simulated. Budapest TMA was tested with only one sector and theforecast indicated severe workload (above 50%) for the busiest three hour period. Splitting theTMA into two sectors will become necessary.


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999xii

EUROCONTROL

Bratislava FIR The main question for Bratislava FIR was the extent of Bratislava TMA and its effect on ACCsectors. The studies lead to a recommendation to raise the upper limit of the TMA to FL195instead of FL105. The increase in traffic would not pose a problem to the workload in the TMAand all co-ordination between Vienna TMA and Bratislava FIR could be handled directly byBratislava TMA sector. The increased volume of Bratislava TMA relieves the lower ACC sector which opens thepossibility of raising the limit to the middle sector and leaves more capacity for further growthwithout increasing the number of ACC sectors. • Future organisation C Traffic cloned by 40% to indicate the forecast traffic level for 2003 in accordance with forecastfigures for the area published by EUROCONTROL DED/4 in 1997. Cloning of traffic reproduced existing flights in 40% of the cases and the new flights appearedon the same routes and at the same levels as the “parentflights” in the 1997 scenario. Theentry time was offset by up to 180 minutes. Vienna FIR Severe workload results in sectors East upper (EU), North upper (NU) and TMA low (TL). Budapest FIR The present sectorisation was retained and with the traffic increase severe workload was theresult for South (LHCC_S), East (LHCC_E) and West (LHCC_W) sectors as well as forBudapest TMA. The heaviest workload appeared in LHCC_S sector. A vertical split at FL 340was tested and the workload level for the two new sectors was drastically decreased althoughit remained severe for the lower sector (up to FL 340). With existing route structure this isconsequently recommended. LHBP TMA will require a split into two sectors during busyperiods. Re-sectorisation of Budapest FIR is already planned. Bratislava FIR LZBB FIR had moderate workload throughout even at 2003 level. • Future organisation D The shifting of traffic to new routes had a dramatic effect in the southern part of the simulationarea. Vienna FIR The traffic in Vienna South sectors was forecast 40-45% lower than the Corganisation due to preference to re-opened routes through former Yugoslavia. Other Viennasectors were only slightly affected by the route changes.


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999xiii

EUROCONTROL

Budapest FIR Budapest South sector was forecast to have 45% less traffic than the Corganisation promises. If ARN V3 is fully implemented as foreseen in this study theaforementioned need for splitting the LHCC_S sector will not be necessary. Other sectors wereonly slightly affected by the route changes. Bratislava FIR The D organisation forecasted a traffic increase of approximately 10% throughthe new route structure. • Unfulfilled objectives:

One of the objectives determined during the first meeting was to optimise sectorisationirrespective of National boundaries.

In spite of some initial ideas, the project did not produce any such solutions. For flights fromLHCC FIR inbound to LOWW the routing is via a part of LZBB FIR that is delegated to LHCC.Other re-routings were tried which take flights from LHCC FIR into LZBB FIR en-route toLOWW, but no initiatives to sectorise across the FIR boundaries were taken.

Reaching agreements concerning airspace division APP/ACC within the National airspace wasdifficult, and the working group found no obvious advantages in sectorising across the FIRboundaries. Perhaps the only solution is to conduct a totally unprejudiced simulation andattempt to set sectorisation according to traffic flows alone. The ATC sectors in the boundaryarea between the states are already busy and, at least for the lower airspace, it is difficult tosee how a re-sectorisation would lead to fewer, more efficient sectors.

Regardless of sectorisation, the separation minima for border crossing between the threecountries were set to 10-15 NM, considerably more than the 3-5 NM required for separationwithin any National airspace. Co-ordinations tasks timing was also longer for inter-centre co-ordination, as more information was included in a pilots first call to a centre, than to a newsector of the same centre. Consequently the task timing was longer, and the workload for theassociated sectors was increased by the mere fact that they belong to different Centres.


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999xiv

EUROCONTROL

INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 19991

EUROCONTROL

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

A three state Real-time simulation planned for 1999 sponsored by EUROCONTROL DED/4led to the allocation of a fast-time simulation slot for September 1997. The First preparatorymeeting was held in Budapest on the 15th of April 1997. Following this meeting an analysisof the airspace was performed in Brussels from 24 June to 26 June 1997 using the SAAM(System for Analysis and Assignment at a Macroscopic level) tool. This analysis formed thebasis for the fast-time simulation project. The fast-time simulation was conducted using theEUROCONTROL Reorganised ATC Mathematical Simulator (RAMS). The purpose of theproject was to examine the interface between the terminal areas around Bratislava, Viennaand Budapest airports, to study the effects of the new route network (ARN V3), and tosimulate future traffic levels and optimise the sectorisation in the area. EEC Task No. F18was assigned to this project.

As basis for the study August 7 1997 was chosen as a reference date. The purpose of thereference organisation was to simulate the current traffic and operational conditions of thethree states in order to validate the performance of the RAMS model and to provide abaseline against which proposed changes and future traffic could be measured.

1.2 STUDY TIMETABLE

The Fast-time study at the EEC began in September 1997 with editing of traffic samples andairspace data input.Initial trends were anticipated early 1998. During the autumn a number of events led to adelay in getting the data right. One major setback was that the initial CFMU sample studiedhad to be abandoned in favour of merging the three national traffic samples.

A simulation study with RAMS can be done with or without conflict resolution. To chooseconflict resolution means allowing the simulator to find a resolution to a conflict and takingthe appropriate action, climb, descent, vectoring or whatever the rulebase deems necessary.After testing during the autumn of 1997 and finding that the rulebase decisions were notreliable and 25-30% of the conflicts were left unresolved, we, the working group decided torun the simulations with conflict detection only. By doing this we maintained control over theflights which would always follow their flightplans and penetrate the sectors foreseen. Allconflicts would lead to the same allocation of workload to the controller irrespective of thetype of conflict found.

In December all the data had been collected and the first results were produced early 1998.During a progress meeting in Brétigny March 2-6 further updates were made, includingsector changes for LOVV FIR. During March the first output files from the simulations weresent to the working group for verification and during the spring the remaining simulationswere run and analysed.

The final results were presented in Vienna, Budapest and Bratislava between 1st and 4th

September 1998.



EUROCONTROL

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The three countries for the study identified four main common objectives:

● To analyse the current system including SIDs and STARs concerning the TMA interfacebetween Bratislava - Vienna - Budapest.

● To study the effects of the ARN V3 route network, re-sectorise and, as necessary, re-align or create new SID and STAR to join the new route system.

● To study the effects of future traffic increases.

● To harmonise routes and optimise sectorisation of TMA and ACC sectors irrespective ofNational boundaries.

A fifth objective was added during the course of the study:

● To simulate the whole area irrespective of levels in order to properly assess the effects of ARN V3 route network changes to the area. This served the purposes of the three participating countries as well as EUROCONTROL. 2. INPUT DATA To carry out a simulation study using RAMS numerous data items are required. ◆ Actual and future traffic samples◆ Airspace environment and sectorisation details.◆ Controller task specifications and positions simulated.◆ Separation standards.

2.1 TRAFFIC SAMPLES

2.1.1 1997 Traffic Sample (A and B organisations) It was agreed to use a 24-hour traffic sample for the 7th of August 1997. An initial attempt touse the CFMU sample was abandoned since it was found that 5-7% of the traffic did notcorrespond to the three national samples provided. Instead the national samples werecompiled and verified during meetings in Brétigny Sep 30-Oct 2 (Slovakia), and Oct 12-14(Hungary/Austria). The final traffic sample for 1997 contained 2928 flights. The workinggroup verified all routes flown by the traffic in the sample.

2.1.2 2003 Traffic Sample (C and D organisations) The 1997 sample was cloned in RAMS by 40% overall and contained 4100 flights. The cloning methodology ensures that existing flights are reproduced on the same routes atthe same levels with up to 180 minutes offset entry time into the simulation. This means thatroutes that were not flown on 7 August 1997 will not be flown in 2003, exception being Organisation D, where traffic was transferred to ARN 3, then cloned. Furthermore the 40%cloning was set so that all sectors in the study had a traffic increase of 38-42%.



EUROCONTROL

2.1.3 Aircraft types found in the traffic samples

In the chart above, the blue bars represent the most frequently used aircraft types in thesample from 1997. The entries in red on the right show some of the most recent aircrafttypes. Note that their numbers are very low. For future simulations it must be expected thatthese will replace older aircraft types gradually. However, the TAS of the aircraft involveddoes not differ significantly, and it is uncertain which would appear on which route andtherefore, when the future traffic levels have been cloned, the old aircraft types have beenretained.

2.2 AIRSPACE SIMULATED

2.2.1 Flight information regions The airspace simulated consisted of VIENNA FIR (LOVV FIR), BRATISLAVA FIR (LZBBFIR) and BUDAPEST FIR (LHCC FIR), from ground to the top of controlled airspace. LOVV FIR was simulated excluding the airspace delegated to Rhein UAC, overlyingInnsbruck LAU (LOWI LAU). To Include Ljubljana FIR (LJLA FIR) in the simulation wasdiscussed but abandoned following a 1997 decision not to incorporate LJLA into LOVV asearlier discussed. The focus of the simulation was on the interface of the three countries inthe area Vienna - Bratislava - Budapest.

Most frequently used aircraft types

502

252228

192

158

125 115 11295 90 79 76 71 65

32 20 162

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

B737-300/400/500EA32MD80B757B737-100/200B747 (all)TU54CL65EA31B767FK70EA30BA46AT72

EA34MD11B777MD90



EUROCONTROL

Arriving and departing flights were simulated to/from the main airports but workloads in theControl zones and the aerodrome control towers were not measured, since aerodromecontrol and runway occupancy were not an objective of simulation.

2.2.2 Sectorisation and Route description Details of the airspace, sectorisation and SIDs/STARs were supplied to the ExperimentalCentre. The data was continuously discussed, corrected and updated during our meetingsand were considered definite following the March 1998 meeting at the EEC. Organisation A used the sectorisation and routing existing in August 1997. For scenariosreferring to Organisation B and following, amended SID/STAR systems for LOWW, LZIB andLHBP were used. Commonly agreed new routing of traffic inbound to / outbound from LHBPand LOWW were also used. An extended LZIB TMA was simulated in Organisation B.

2.2.3 Sectors simulated and measured Vienna (LOVV) FIR Vienna (LOWW) TMA, which consists of a number of sub-sectors. For each exercise thesectorisation may differ. See the sector abbreviation list (page vi) for details of sectornames and abbreviations. En-route sectors East (LO_E), West (LO_W), South (LO_S), North (LO_N) and B5 LO_5).For each exercise it is indicated if sectors are combined, i.e. SE means a combined Southand East sector, mention of L, U and T as a suffix indicates a vertical split into Lower, Upperand Top sectors. Budapest (LHCC) FIR: Budapest (LHBP) TMA, En-route sectors South, West, North and East. Bratislava FIR Bratislava (LZIB) TMA, En-route sectors Low (LZ_1), Middle (LZ_2) and High (LZ_3)

2.2.4 Overview The following map outlines the airspace simulated and shows in yellow the routes flownwithin the three Flight Information Regions. All sectors and FIRs not mentioned above werenot measured for ATC workload. The three FIR’s simulated are shown in the centre of the following map, and the routesdepicted are taken from the REFE scenario. Note that only the en-route flight profiles appear on the map. The arrival and departureroutes do not appear. For reference some of the navigation aids used for en-route navigationin the area are included. Vienna is located inside the triangle SNU-WGM-STO, Budapest is represented by BUD, and



EUROCONTROL

Bratislava by OKR.

VIENNA FIR - BUDAPEST FIR - BRATISLAVA FIR AND

NEIGHBOURING CENTRES.

2.3 ATC Tasks and positions simulated ATC tasks were defined with conditions and time values as described in Appendix A. Each sector was manned by a Planning Controller (PC) and Tactical Controller (TC) withone exception; the Feeder sector in Vienna TMA where only the Tactical Controller wassimulated. Flight data tasks were defined and measured only where they were carried out byone of the sector controllers.

EEC TASK N° F18 EUROCONTROL AMS44

EEC TASK N° F18: AIRSPACE OF THE SIMULATION



EUROCONTROL

2.3.1 ATC Task description Task description was agreed within the working group during the December 1997 meeting. Additions, corrections and updates were applied during the March 1998 meeting. The tasks were described in two ways: 1) GENERAL, in which case they are generic for all centres or for a specific centre.

2) SPECIFIC, in which case they were recorded only under specific conditions set out in the task description for a certain group of flights.

2.3.2 ATC Task Groups

ATC Tasks were divided into five groups:

2.3.2.1 Flight Data Management Includes tasks for the PC and TC concerning loading and removing of flight progress strips.

2.3.2.2 Conflict Search For all sector entries, the conflict search task is performed by both PC and TC to assess thesituation and determine the need for further actions.

2.3.2.3 Co-ordination Consists of both internal and external co-ordinations (within and outside the own centre) andalso includes both standard co-ordinations and others depending on dynamic conditions.

2.3.2.4 R/T communication This group of tasks includes the standard R/T communication between controller and pilotconcerning sector entry, requests for climb/descent and hand-over to next sector.

2.3.2.5 Radar Activity This includes the task assigned to the Tactical controller when conflicts are found to modelthe resolution of the conflict. Specific radar tasks mainly concerning vectoring for the TMAsectors also belong in this group. For the complete list of ATC tasks, times allocated and description see appendix A.



EUROCONTROL

2.4 Separation Standards

2.4.1 Radar minimum separations within the simulation area ❒ Within Vienna TMA 3NM ❒ Within Vienna en-route sectors 5NM ❒ Within all Hungarian airspace 5NM ❒ Within Bratislava TMA 3NM ❒ Within Bratislava en-route sectors 5NM

2.4.2 Separation minima for Inter-centre crossings The following values apply for silent hand-over: (lower separation lead to a co-ordination task for Planning controller) Vienna - Bratislava 15 NM (except arrivals/departures LOWW reduced to 10 NM) Vienna - Budapest 10 NM Vienna - Ljubljana 15 NM Vienna - Padova 15 NM Vienna - Munich 10 NM Vienna - Prague 15 NM Budapest -Bratislava 15NM Budapest - Lvov 15 NM Budapest - Bucharest 15 NM Budapest - Belgrad 15 NM Budapest - Zagreb 15 NM Budapest - Ljubljana 15 NM Budapest - Vienna 10 NM Bratislava - Prague 10 NM Bratislava - Warsaw : 15 NM except via LENOV: 20 NM Bratislava - Lvov: 15 NM Bratislava - Budapest 15 NM Bratislava - Vienna 15 NM except for traffic arriving/departing LOWW: 10 NM



EUROCONTROL

3. ORGANISATIONS SIMULATED

3.1 Organisation A The principal reference organisation from August 7, 1997. Three separate exercises: • “REFE”(easterly runway config) A 24 hour exercise with the following runway configuration: LOWW 29-DEP/34-ARR, LZIB04-DEP/31-ARR and LHBP 31L-DEP/31R-ARR. In this exercise all sectors were open (fordescription see below), military sectors “TAW”, “TAE”, “ALL” and “ISH” were open in LOVVFIR generating additional workload due to co-ordinations, re-routings and additionalmonitoring. Extra co-ordinations with military authorities and adjacent sectors for all flightsleaving cruising level or deviating from flight plan were simulated for LZBB ACC sectors.Three open sportsfields within LHBP TMA generated extra workload due to extra monitoring,vectoring and altitude restrictions. The sectorisation for LOVV was: West sector divided into WL (125-285), WU (285-340) andWT (340-999). North sector divided similarly into NL, NU and NT sectors. The South andEast sectors were combined but split vertically into SEL, SEU and SET at FL 285/340.Sector B5 was not split and the LOWW TMA consisted of a TMA Low sector - TL up toFL105 and the upper sector split into a TUN (North) and TUS (south) with vertical limitsFL105-FL245. LZIB TMA had upper limit FL 105 and the three ACC sectors were LZ_1 (FL50-FL285except overlying LZIB TMA FL105-FL285), LZ_2 (FL285-FL340) and LZ_3 (FL340-FL999). LHCC FIR had all sectors (North, East, South and West) without vertical splits FL75-FL999.LHBP TMA had an upper limit FL195. • “REFW”(westerly runway config) A 24 hour exercise with the following runway configuration: LOWW 29-DEP/16-ARR, LZIB13-DEP/22-ARR and LHBP 13L-DEP/13R-ARR. In this exercise the LOVV North, Southeastand West sectors were split only at FL340, all other sectors were identical to REFE and nomilitary areas or sportsfields were active. • “REFX “An exercise with Easterly runway configuration without military or sportsfield activity. LOVVACC and TMA sectors were not split vertically, LZIB TMA was simulated with reduced upperlevel FL 85. For LHCC FIR this simulation gave a direct comparison of workload with andwithout the active sportsfields simulated in REFE.

An early request to simulate a laterally extended LHBP TMA was abandoned. An additionalrequest from Hungary was to study the effect of re-routing inbound traffic to LOWW viaDIMLO-BABIT into LOVV South sector. This sub-scenario was referred to as REFX-DIMLO.



EUROCONTROL

3.2 Organisation B “B1” Also at 1997 traffic level including revised SID/STAR system, redesigned routes forinbound and outbound traffic (Fig 1), and extended LZIB TMA with upper limit FL195. Based on B1 additional exercises were also run for Vienna to evaluate different verticalsplits between TMA and en-route sectors. “B2” Different vertical sectorisation in Vienna FIR, alternative routing of flights and BratislavaTMA with upper limit FL85.

3.3 Organisation C Traffic was cloned from the B organisation by 40% and the route structure from OrganisationB was maintained. The new traffic levels corresponded to the EUROCONTROL forecast forthe year 2003 as published by DED/4 in June of 1997. “C1” Studied the effect of the additional traffic on the ATC workload. “C2” Tested different vertical sector splits. Vienna East sector tried a combined low andupper sector (LO_ELU), the vertical split of Budapest South sector at FL340 and BratislavaTMA with an upper limit of FL105.

3.4 Organisation D “D1” This was the 2003 traffic as simulated in the “C1” exercise transferred to ARN V3 routenetwork. In addition to the above a number of sub-exercises were run to study specific areas. Theseare explained in the section relating to simulation results.



EUROCONTROL

The main exercises in the study have been simulated as follows:

REFERENCE ORG

August 1997 traffic1997 route network1997 sectorisation

Scenarios:1 - REFE

2 - REFW 3 - REFX

ORGANISATION “C”

2003 traffic (+40%) Scenarios:

C 1C 2

ORGANISATION “D”

2003 trafficARN 3 route network

D 1

PROPOSED ORGANISATION

FOR REAL TIME SIMULATION

ORGANISATION “B” August 1997 traffic

new routes new LZIB TMA new SID/STAR

Scenarios:B1 B2

Figure 1



EUROCONTROL

4. SIMULATION RESULTS

4.1 Organisation A

4.1.1. Vienna FIR Reference organisation:

The following bar-charts show the traffic entries per hour and sector, percentage of eachtask group per sector and the peak workload for the tactical controller over the busiestone and three hour period in the REFE scenario.

The chart above shows the traffic entries hour by hour in Vienna sectors 5, North and West.The next chart contains the other sectors. The highest peaks were reached in the combinedSoutheast sectors SEU (285-340) and SET (FL340+). The low TMA sector (TL), and theNorth upper (NU) also had high traffic load.

Traffic entries per hour and sector LOVV FIR Sectors 5, North and West REFE (A org)

13

19

29 282730

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

LO_5 LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_WL LO_WU LO_WT



EUROCONTROL

The controller workload was divided into five different groups of tasks. The next chart showsthe percentage of working time spent on each task group over the 24 hours. Note that thischart does not show the workload or total time spent on each task, only the relationbetween the task groups. The red bars show the radar activity, which includes specifictasks for TMA traffic (vectoring, speed restriction and spacing of inbound traffic) and theresolution of conflicts in all sectors. The red bars and their relation to the other task typesgives an indication of the complexity and density of conflicts in the concerned sector.

Traffic entries per hour and sector LOVV FIR SouthEast sectors and TMA REFE (A org)

25

44

32

58

42

29

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LO_Feeder LO_TL LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_SEL LO_SEU LO_SET

0000-0100

0100-0200

0200-0300

0300-0400

0400-0500

0500-0600

0600-0700

0700-0800

0800-0900

0900-1000

1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1300

1300-1400

1400-1500

1500-1600

1600-1700

1700-1800

1800-1900

1900-2000

2000-2100

2100-2200

2200-2300

2300-2400

Percentage of each task group per sector- LOVV FIR

6%

25% 31%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Flight data

Conflict search

Coordination

RT communication

Radar Activity



EUROCONTROL

Note that in the previous chart the difference between percentage-marked sectors indicatinghigh complexity in LOWW TMA and, the comparison with the low occurrence of conflicts inthe LO_5T sector. This chart shows the sector workload. Flight data and conflict searchtasks represent the combined working time for the Planning Controller and the TacticalController.

The following chart shows the peak workload for the tactical controller in the LOVV sectors.The busiest one hour and three hour periods are shown. The workload is shown as anaddition of all the tasks specified for each controller and continues to increase above 100%.Note that even in 1997 for the reference organisation, three sectors (highlighted in turquoise)have a workload above what is generally seen as the limit for severe workload, i.e. 50% overthree hours and 70% over one hour. The most overloaded sector is the Low TMA sector. Inthe case of the ACC sectors they are combined for this exercise and can be separated inperiods of high traffic. Because of this the overloading of the ACC sectors is not necessarilya problem. Note that number of flights and workload does not necessarily follow each other.The TMA sectors show much higher workload due to the labour-intensive handling ofarriving traffic in the TMA environment.

Peak workload - Austria sectorsTC One and Three hour load

37

45

75

46

24

106

61

20

48

30

65

94

59

37

29 28

54

31

20

78

50

13

38

19

42

75

30 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

60 min

180 min



EUROCONTROL

4.1.2 Budapest FIR Reference organisation:

The following bar-charts show the traffic entries per hour, percentage of each task groupper sector and the peak workload for the tactical controller over the busiest one andthree hour period in the REFE scenario.

The traffic in Budapest FIR, as seen above, shows the highest number of flight entries in theSouth sector, with East and West sectors not far behind.

On the next chart the percentage of working time spent on each task group over 24 hours isshown. Note that this chart does not show the workload or total time spent on eachtask, only the relation between the task groups. The red bars show the radar activity,which consists of specific tasks for the TMA traffic for vectoring, speed restriction andspacing of inbound traffic and the resolution of conflicts in all sectors. The red bar and itsrelation to the other task types gives an indication of the complexity and density of conflictsin the concerned sector.

For Budapest FIR this shows a higher level of complexity with more radar actions requiredper flight in the TMA sector, than in the en-route sectors.

Traffic entries per hour and sector LHCC FIR REFE( A Org)

25

4244

50

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LHBP_TMA LHCC_N LHCC_E LHCC_S LHCC_W



EUROCONTROL

The following chart shows the peak workload for the tactical controller in the Budapestsectors. Note that even in 1997 for the reference organisation, the South sector is severelyloaded by the standards normally used, i.e. 50% over three hours and 70% over one hour.The three hour load for Budapest TMA is also severe – 51%.

Comparing the traffic count per sector and the associated peak workload, we can note thatthe number of flights and workload do not necessarily increase with each other. The Southsector which had approximately 10% more traffic than the east and west sectors recorded apeak workload almost 50% higher than the other en-route sectors. This indicates a highercomplexity with more aircraft appearing in conflict with each other.

Percentage of each task group per sector- LHCC FIR

9%9%7%9%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Flight data

Conflict search

Coordination

RT communication

Radar activity

Peak workload LHCC sectorsTC One and Three hour load

59

33

52 5251

24

45 45

77

64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


60 min

180 min



EUROCONTROL

The TMA is also labour-intensive. Compare the peak workload between the North sectorand the LHBP TMA. With similar traffic count the workload is infinitely higher in the TMA.

4.1.3 Bratislava FIR Reference organisation:

The following barcharts show the traffic entries per hour, percentage of each task group persector and the peak workload for the tactical controller over the busiest one hour and threehour period in the REFE scenario.

In Bratislava FIR the traffic is well distributed between the en-route sectors with sector LZ_2counting 272 aircraft over 24 hours compared with 224 for LZ_3 and 186 for LZ_1. Note theclearly defined peaks that occur at different times in the three sectors. Low traffic inBratislava TMA.

The next chart shows the percentage of working time spent on each task group over the 24-hour period. Note that this chart does not show the workload or total time spent oneach task, only the relation between the task groups. The red bars show the radaractivity, which consists of specific tasks for the TMA traffic (vectoring, speed restriction andspacing of inbound traffic) and the resolution of conflicts in all sectors. The red bar and itsrelation to the other task types gives an indication of the complexity and density of conflictsin the concerned sector.

Note the difference between Bratislava TMA and the en-route sectors which have, bycomparison low occurrence of conflicts. This chart shows the sector workload and thereforecombines the tasks performed by planning controller and tactical controller.

Traffic evolution LZBB FIRREFE( A Org)

232322

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

LZIB_TMA LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3



EUROCONTROL

On the next chart, the workload is compared sector by sector. Comparing with the trafficcount per sector we note that number of flights and workload are not necessarily completelyassociated with each other.

The low en-route sector LZ_1 has approximately 30% fewer flights than LZ_2 but still thepeak workload in LZ_1 exceeds that of LZ_2. The reason for this is that more conflictsoccur in the lower airspace, resulting in a higher workload. This is not surprising since moreaircraft are in climb/descent at lower levels.

Division of working time by types of ATC tasks - LZBB FIR

25%7% 7% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Flight data

Conflict search

Coordination

RT Communication

Radar activity

Peak workload - LZBB sectorsTC One and Three hour load

13

39

35

29

8

26

30

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


60 min

180 min



EUROCONTROL

4.1.4 Workload distribution – all sectors

The chart above shows that the TC (red bars) is the busiest controller in all sectors. It alsoshows the level of workload during the busiest three hours for each sector. This is notnecessarily the same time as previously shown in charts with traffic evolution. Some sectorswill be open only during peak hours - the workload of all sectors should therefore berepresented using a three-hour busy period as comparison. Overload at present traffic levelaffects the TC for LO_SEU, LO_TL, LHCC_S, LO_NU, LHBP_TMA and LO_SET over thethree busiest hours. The busiest level recorded for a PC was 40%. Since the TC figureswere more indicative of sector overload they were used for comparison except wheresignificant workload for the PC was noted.

4.1.5 Studies of extra work in the “REFE” scenario

The REFE scenario was specified for each ACC with extra tasks for military co-ordination inthe case of LOVV and LZBB, and for “open sportsfields” within Budapest TMA for LHCCFIR.

In the following charts the effects of military activity and sportsfields is shown centre bycentre. For LOVV and LHBP the extra tasks were shared between the TC and PC but inLZBB all the extra tasks were allocated to the PC.

Peak 3 hour workload comparison - all measured sectors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



EUROCONTROL

Bratislava FIR

The following chart looks at the effect on the Bratislava Planning Controllers of open militaryareas and the associated co-ordination tasks required and specified.

The difference in workload above is obvious, (25-30% increase in workload during thebusiest hour) but since the workload was not significant it was agreed not to run moresimulations to highlight this effect. With a continued increase of traffic and associatedworkload this may still be a future item of interest.

LZBB Planning controller 1 hour peak load with / without mil. co-ordinations(comparison REFE/REFX)

8

30

2725

7

2321

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

LZBB_TMA LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3



EUROCONTROL

Budapest FIR

The above chart shows the peak load for the PC in green and the TC in blue with andwithout the open sports-fields. Although there was an effect on the total workload for the PCit did not manifest itself in the busiest hour but the TC was affected by a 10% increase of thepeakloading through extra level-restrictions on arriving flights and extra monitoring tasks forarrivals and departures. The effect of the open sportsfields, which is an important constrainton the TMA controllers, could probably be better assessed in the following real-timesimulation.

LHBP TMA - effect of open sports-fields in TMA

57

62

29 29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Closed Open

LHBPTMA TC

LHBPTMA PC

TC



EUROCONTROL

Vienna FIR

The military co-ordination was reflected through two different scenarios for LOVV FIR. Thefirst scenario delegated the following areas to the military:

Tauern West (TAW) FL125-FL245,Tauern East (TAE) FL125-FL245,Allentsteig (ALL) GND-FL460, andIschl (ISH) FL245-UNL.

The second scenario delegated:

Tauern West (TAW) as before but with re-delegated “Munich corridor FL155-FL245,Villach East/West (VIE/VIW) FL125-UNL,Lienz (LIE) FL125-UNL andTauern South (TAS) FL245-UNL

The extra work caused was measured by definition of extra co-ordination tasks between thesectors and the military, re-routing of flights and monitoring the compliance with instructions.The effect (mainly on the PC) is shown in the chart below.

The chart above shows the effect on PC workload of military co-ordination within LOVV FIR.The blue bars indicate no military activity. The red bars represent REFE (MIL scenario 1)while the yellow bars represent MIL scenario 2. The peak loads for the planning controllerswere not significantly affected. The most notable difference was in scenario 2 where thepeak hour workload increased from 14% to 20% for WT and from 23% to 27% for WU.

Mil. coordination LOVV FIR - effect on PC workload

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

LO_5 LO_WL LO_WU LO_WT LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_SEL LO_SEU LO_SET



EUROCONTROL

4.2 Organisation B.

The scenarios in Organisation B retained the 1997 traffic but simulated agreed newSID/STAR routes and tested suggested route changes for LOWW arrivals from LHCC FIR.The amendments were done in order to optimise the use of airspace regardless of theexisting FIR and sector boundaries, and were agreed during a meeting in Bratislava betweenthe national ATS specialists.

ARN V3 was simulated in a scenario at 2003 traffic levels and was based on the latestagreement reached in May 1998.

4.2.1 Exercise B1

Exercise B1 tested an increased LZIB TMA with upper limit FL195, LOWW TMA with threeTMA sectors plus a feeder in the lower sector concerned only with LOWW arrivals. TheLOVV ACC Sectors E, S, W, N and B5 were all simulated separately with level-splits at FL285 and FL 340.

Flights from LHCC FIR with destination LOWW previously on track JULIA-LOWW were re-routed JULIA-TPS-ERGOM (FL310-) -OKI-JAN-OKR-WGM.

Studies for Vienna FIR

A specific request from LOVV led to additional versions of B1. To highlight the effect of re-routing inbound traffic to LOWW via SBG-SNU an exercise was tested and is referred to asB1b. The chart below shows a comparison of the traffic/sector for each exercise.

Effect of aircraft/sector through rerouting LOWW arr via SBG-SNU

210

347

368

185

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

B1 B1b

LO_TUN

LO_TUS



EUROCONTROL

The workload effect of the re-routing is illustrated by the chart below, with the one hour andthree hour peak loads for the Tactical Controllers.

To see the effect of different upper limits to the LOWW TMA exercises B1-165, B1-195 andB1-205 were tested. The upper limits are as the names suggest. Below a comparison oftraffic/sector in different scenarios.

Peak load for upper TMA sectors after re-routing SBG-SNU

57

30

37

29

52

25

39

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LO_TUN 1 h LO_TUN 3 h LO_TUS 1 h LO_TUS 3 h

B1

B1b

Aircraft/sector with different TMA top LOWW

210

348

69

411

200

334

443

410

204

341332

410

203

243 245

410

66

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

TUN TUS LO_EL LO_EU LO_EM

B1

165

195

205



EUROCONTROL

The upper TMA sectors were not greatly affected by a change in upper level. Almost allaircraft in the area below FL 245 were found to be in climb/descent to/from LOWW andpenetrated the sector regardless of its upper limit. The East_Low sector was described in B1as FL245-FL285, which gave a low number of flights, compared with the “B1-165” exercisewhere the sector was FL165-FL285. In the “B1-195” exercise EL was FL195-FL285 and, inthe “B1-205” exercise FL205-FL245. In this exercise an extra sector “E_M” was tried fromFL245-FL285. This is identical to the E_L already simulated in B1. Workload changes for theTMA were minimal.

Exercise B1C split the lower TMA sector into two. With RWY29 departures the division gaveall departures except the southbound ones to the TLN sector, and only arrivals that werealready in the level-band below FL105 and coming from the north, entered the TLN sector.

TLS was considerably busier but the peak three-hour workload for the TC was a modest41% compared to 73% for the combined sector. This is something to consider for the future.For comparison see charts below:

Workload distribution B org with split lower TMA sector (B1C)

33

5754

38

60

21

41

3128

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LO_TLN LO_TLS TO_TUN LO_TUS Feeder

TC 1h

TC 3h



EUROCONTROL

For comparison the B1 scenario with one lower TMA sector had the following distribution:

4.2.2 Exercise B2Exercise B2 simulated the new LZIB TMA with upper limit FL 85. LOWW TMA wassimulated with two sectors only (vertically split at FL105) plus a feeder sector. Sector N andS were split at FL 285 and sector E at FL340. Sector W and B5 were not split.

B1 scenario - Distribution of workload LOWW TMA sectors

88

54

38

60

70

31 29

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LO_TL LO_TUN LO_TUS Feeder

TC 1h

TC 3h



EUROCONTROL

4.3. Comparison of all 1997 scenarios. (Organisations A and B)

The chart above shows a comparison of the workload over the busiest three hour period inthe five exercises at 1997 traffic level. The REFX figures may appear misleading since theupper level was FL245 instead of FL105 in the others. REFW in comparison with REFEshowed the difference between landing RWY34 (REFE) or RWY16 (REFW). It also showedthat the peak workload was reduced by up to 12% by using RWY16 for landing instead ofRWY34.

Exercise B1 and exercise B2 had new SID/STAR systems and re-routed inbound Viennatraffic from LHCC FIR via LZIB TMA. The new SID/STAR systems had already beenimplemented and found efficient. This was confirmed by the fast-time simulations and shownin the chart above. Compare REFE with B1/B2 where the peak workload was reduced byapproximately 7% through the transfer to new SID/STAR.

The REFX results show the effect of working the TMA as one sector at all hours, leading tosevere overload on the controllers.

LOWW TMA Low sector (TL) workload for PC/TC over one and three hours in ’97 simulations

3330

3732 32

94

82

116

88 88

28 2730 28 28

7569

94

70 70

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

REFE REFW REFX B1 B2



EUROCONTROL

The REFE scenario had the higher workload due to the “open sportsfields” in the TMA.(peak workload 59% compared to 55% in REFX). There was little difference in peak loadbetween the other scenarios.

LHBP TMA Workload for PC/TC over one and three hours in ’97 simulations

2628

26 27 27

2123

21 21 22

59

5355

5355

51

4648 47 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


PC 1 hour

PC 3 hour

TC 1 hour

TC 3 hour

LZIB TMA Workload for PC/TC over one and three hours in ’97 simulations

65

6

19

45

34

11

3

11 11 11

19

10

8 8 8

13

7

0

5

10

15

20

25




EUROCONTROL

Exercise B2 maintained the extended horizontal limits of the TMA but had a verticallimitation of FL85.

In REFE, REFW and REFX Vienna inbound traffic from Budapest FIR avoided BratislavaFIR. The routing is shown below, routes via BKS, TPS, GYR, KELAN into LOWW TMApenetrated LHCC_E and LHCC_W sectors before LOVV FIR.

In exercise B1 the route after TPS was ERGOM (310-)-OKI-OKR-WGM thus leavingLHCC_E into LZBB FIR before LOWW TMA.

In exercise B2 the route was further east, entering LHCC_N sector via BEVAR andcontinuing via LITKU into LZBB FIR, routing via SLC, NIT, OKR and WGM.

Only 11 flights appeared in the original sample and the effect was therefore minimal in thefast time simulation. Clearly the route transfer will relieve the LHCC_E sector and furthertesting may be done with more traffic in the real-time simulation.



EUROCONTROL

4.4 Organisation C.

Exercise C1 used the traffic in the B1 exercise cloned to a forecast 2003 level (+40%). Anadditional exercise tested a vertical split at FL 340 of the LHCC_S sector and an upper limitof FL105 for LZIB_TMA.

Although all sectors had the traffic increased by 38-42% the peak workload effect variesfrom 31% to 61% in LOVV en-route sectors. The difference is due to the random cloningwhere it cannot be predicted which flight through a sector is cloned and which is not. Theworkload for each aircraft differs due to co-ordination tasks, conflict with other aircraft andtime spent in the sector. The unexpectedly low workload increases in sectors SL and WLUwhere the increase is only 33 and 31% respectively are due to this effect of cloning.

In the LOWW TMA Sectors below, workload increases by 40-53%

LO W W TM A Sectors - Peak 3 hour load TC 1997-2003Increase in % from 1997 -2003

45% increase41% increase

53% increase

40% increase

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_feeder

1997

2003

Peak Three Hour Load for TC LOVV A CC 1997-2003(increase in % )

50%

44%

61%

38%

52%

55%

52%

42%

44%

33%

43%

31%

56%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LO _5 LO _5T LO _NL LO _NU LO _NT LO _EL LO _EU LO _ET LO _SL LO _SU LO _ST LO _W LU LO _W T

1997

2003

&HQWUDO�(XURSH�)DVW�7LPH�6LPXODWLRQ ((&$06


(852&21752/

Note above how the already busy LHCC_S sector suffered serious overloading withunchanged route structure. Sectors experienced workload increase varying from 35% to60%.

For LZBB FIR Exercise C1 tested upper limit of FL195. Exercise C2 tested the present upperlevel FL105 instead. Distribution of workload between TMA and lower en-route sector LZ_1for the two exercises is shown below. (Figures for 2003).

7KUHH�KRXU�SHDN�ZRUNORDG�7&�/+&&�/=%%�),5��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

LHCC_E LHCC_N LHCC_S LHCC_W LHBP_TMA LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3 LZIB_TMA

1997

2003

:RUN�GLVWULEXWLRQ�/=B��/=,%B70$��&�RUJ��

�ZLWK�XSSHU�70$�OLPLW�)/��RU�)/��

��

��

��

��

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FL195 FL105

LZ_1

IB_TMA



EUROCONTROL

4.5 Organisation D. (ARN V3)

The ARN V3 route structure for future simulations as supplied by DED/4 in May of 1998 wasimplemented in exercise D1. To simulate ARN V3 the working group made the assumptionthat all countries would be able to offer the most direct routes available and that all operatorswould select the most direct routing.

Based on the automatic assignment to most direct route available through the SAAM tooldeveloped by DED/4 the traffic was re-assigned for each city pair to the preferred route. Thismade a great deal of difference especially where flights to/from Greece and Turkey wouldavoid LHCC airspace by routing via former Yugoslavia.

It should be noted that the ARN V3 organisation assumed full implementation of ARN V3route network, and also unlimited capacity for the routes shown. Any capacity problemsalong selected routes could bring some traffic back to the old routes as alternatives to themost direct.

However, the charging of en-route fees for the actual route flown instead of the earliersystem of most common route flown for each city pair is expected to lead to an evenstronger determination from airlines to request the most direct route available. This will putpressure on the system to avoid detours. With implementation of Reduced VerticalSeparation Minima (RVSM) between FL290-410, the capacity for en-route sectors will alsoincrease greatly.

The most affected sectors in the simulation were the south sectors in Hungary and Austriawhere, following the route transfer, the number of flights per sector was more than 40%lower than before, and in fact even lower than in 1997.

The eventual effect of ARN V3 is difficult to envisage, especially since new agreementsreached after the study was completed have further modified some routings. However the Cand D organisations gave us the forecast traffic level for 2003 and the agreed route networkwas reflected in organisation D. Changes to agreements or difficulties in fulfillingcommitments to routes agreed would lead to a return, in principle to organisation C. In thefollowing charts the expected traffic per sector is described in organisation B (1997 traffic onmodified routes), organisation C (2003 traffic level) and finally organisation D where thetraffic was transferred to ARN V3 route network.



EUROCONTROL

Note above how, in 2003 the South sector with full ARN V3 implementation would havefewer flights than in 1997.

In LZBB/LHCC FIR above the most dramatic effect of ARN V3 would be 20% fewer flights in2003 than in 1997 in the LHCC South sector despite the 40% cloning of existing traffic.

Aircraft/sector LHCC & LZBB FIR Org B (1997) - Org C (2003) - Org D (2003)

273

666

265

689

600

112

179

282

224

376

928

378

952

829

155

247

405

309

376

858

406

530

739

145

266

428

342

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

37 LHCC_E LHCC_N LHCC_S LHCC_W LZIB_TMA LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3

B - 1997

C - 2003

D - 2003

Aircraft sector LOVV En-route sectors Org B (1997) - Org C (2003) - Org D (2003)

318

98

329

473

365

69

411

356

206

354

282

415

239

449

139

467

657

510

99

559

491

282

498

387

583

337

465

187

488

645

488

94

503

421

274 283 274

579

308

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

LO_5 LO_5T LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT



EUROCONTROL

The workload increase already presented for organisation C assumed the present routenetwork. The following charts also show the forecast peak workload with a transfer to theARN V3 route network. This assumed unlimited capacity on the proposed routes, nodeviations for any reason and no change to the route system, as presented in May 1998.The two possible levels for 2003 could be seen as a frame, indicating within whichlimitations traffic will be routed in the year 2003.

For LOVV en-route sectors note how the 2003 traffic in Organisation D gives a lower peakworkload than in 1997 for the south sectors. This is due to traffic bypassing the simulationarea to the South or in some cases finding new routings further East. Severe workload isindicated in the NU sector in both organisation C and D while the WL sector (FL340 andbelow) indicates severe workload in Organisation D.

3 hour peak load LOVV En-route sectors Org B (1997) - Org C (2003) - Org D (2003)

23

9

4

37

25 25

39

23

15

31

23

36

18

35

14

6

51

36 36

63

35

20

44

33

47

28

38

15

6

49

3335

58

32

21

25 25

53

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LO_5 LO_5T LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WL LO_WT



EUROCONTROL

For LHCC sectors ARN V3 indicates a dramatic drop for the South sector while the othersremain largely unaffected.

Vertical sector splits are practical solutions to overload of an en-route sector. In case thetraffic pattern is maintained as in Organisation C, a split in the LHCC_S sector at FL 340would be necessary and lead to the distribution of traffic and workload as shown above.

LHCC_S sector in C org. before/after levelsplit at FL 340

37.0%

471

57.0%588 flights

952 flights

83.0%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

C1 - traffic C2 - traffic C1 - work C2 - work

LHCC_SU

LHCC_SL

LHCC_S

3 hour peak load for TC LHCC Org B (1997) - Org C ( 2003) - Org D ( 2003)

42

23

62

46 47

60

33

83

68 69

57

37

45

64

69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

LHCC_E LHCC_N LHCC_S LHCC_W LHBP_TMA



EUROCONTROL

LZBB FIR is largely unaffected by the ARN V3 route network. A reduction of workload in theTMA appears strange at first, but is caused by aircraft descending into LOWW TMA thathave been re-routed in the new route network to avoid Bratislava TMA.

3 hour peak load TC LZBB Org B (1997) - Org C (2003) - Org D (2003)

20

27

22

13

28

44

30

21

28

47

30

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3 LZIB_TMA



EUROCONTROL

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The simulation project looked at a number of different areas. The TMA traffic within andbetween the three TMAs was studied with different runway configurations, differentSID/STAR systems, different route systems and two different traffic levels. What can beseen from the first studies is that the REFW exercise appears to require less work andcauses less conflicts than the REFE / REFX /B1 exercises. The B1 exercise which used thenew proposed SID/STAR systems as well as new links between SID/STAR and ATS routeshas already been tried, both in simulation and reality and found to be effective. Therefore,the future organisations build on this exercise (B1), and not the Reference Organisation A.

5.1 Proposed Organisation.

As yet, the real-time simulation working group has not agreed on which route structure tosimulate. The ARN V3 route network will undoubtedly be implemented, but if this takes placeas in Organisation D or whether further changes are made remains to be seen. For manysectors both the existing and the new route system give similar forecast figures for trafficand workload. This should mean a greater degree of accuracy than extremes like LHCCSouth sector which indicated possible peak workload between 45% and 83%.

For LOVV sectors a combined SE sector will clearly be overloaded in the future samples, aswill the lower TMA sector. Separation of the South and East sectors is thereforerecommended. For LOVV TMA the heaviest workload is generated by the arrivals and aclear distinction between arrival sectors and a departure sector could be the best way ofdividing the workload evenly. See the B1C scenario.

Another LOWW problem is the number of flights and the runway capacity. If one runway is toserve as the normal arrival or departure runway it is difficult, if not impossible, to exceed 35movements/hour as a maximum. The future sample shows several hours where the numberof arrivals or departures reaches or exceeds that number. See chart on next page.

For LZBB FIR no overloading of sectors is forecast. The B1 scenario gives the bestdistribution of workload between the sectors since the extended LZIB TMA to FL 195becomes more of a low ACC Sector and is responsible for the co-ordinations with LOVV forin- and outbound traffic LOWW, relieving the LZ_1 sector.



EUROCONTROL

5.2 Capacity issues

The most crucial problem in the area is for LOWW arrivals and departures. During the peakhour the evolution of traffic is a measure of whether capacity can be a problem. For LOWWTMA the number of arrivals per hour with only one runway for landing cannot exceed 35 asan absolute maximum. In the 2003 scenario this figure is reached between 0700-0800 andexceeded (38 arrivals) between 1000-1100. Between 0800-0900 and 1500-1600respectively there were 35 departures recorded. The lower TMA sector for LOWW should besplit into separate departure and arrival sectors when the traffic increase requires it. In the2003 exercises, the lower TMA sector is predicted to have as many as 59 flights/hour. Thisbreakdown in departures and arrivals per hour is shown in the following bar chart.

As shown above, the theoretical maximum runway capacity for departures were reached

with 2003 traffic in Organisation C and Organisation D. Moreover, runway capacities wereexceeded for arrivals in both organisations. A flexible use of runways for arrivals anddepartures will be necessary to avoid lengthy delays.

For the en-route sectors no capacity study was made but based on the simulation resultsthey do not appear to be a problem, even with the 40% extra traffic, except in LO_NU sectorwhich had an evolution of up to 50 flights/ hour.

For LHCC FIR the potentially busiest sector was the LHCC_S sector, but with ARN V3implementation it will be greatly relieved. If this should not take place a vertical split isrecommended at FL 340 to align with the adjoining LOVV sectors. Final agreement on ARNV3 was not completed before the last simulation exercises were run; therefore the effects ofagreements after May 1998 should be studied for further help.

LOWW arrivals and departures Org B - C - D

3535 35353738

3535

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Org B (1997)ARR

DEP Org C (2003)ARR

DEP Org D (2003)ARR

DEP

0600-0700

0700-0800

0800-0900

0900-1000

1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1300

1300-1400

1400-1500

1500-1600

1600-1700

1700-1800

1800-1900

1900-2000

2000-2100



EUROCONTROL

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

$33(1',;(6

Central Europe Fast-Time Simulation Appendix A

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999Appendix A Page 1

The following ATC Tasks have been agreed for the F18 simulationBased on conditions set they are recorded for the sector controllers in thesimulated sectors, and are the basis for workload calculations.

Flight Data management tasks Numbers 100--

101 Flight data task entry TC (3 “)102 Flight data task entry PC (7 “)103 Flight data task exit TC (2”)104 Flight data task exit PC (3”)105 Rx Planning Strip LZIB_TMA PC (to LO FIR) (5 “)106 Rx Planning strip LHCC_W PC (dep LHBP/LOWW) (5”)107 Rx Planning Strip LZIB TMA PC (from LOWW) (10”)

Conflict Search Numbers 200--

201 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LOVV PC (5”)202 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LOVV TC (5”)203 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LHCC PC (5”)204 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LHCC TC (5”)205 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZ1 PC (10”)206 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZ1 TC (5”)207 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZ2 PC (7”)208 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZ2 TC (5”)209 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZ3 PC (5”)210 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZ3 TC (5”)211 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZIB TMA PC (7”)212 ATCPlanning conflict search entry LZIB TMA TC (3”)213 Confl.Search for SportsFields Activity LHBP_TMA TC (5”)

Co-ordination Numbers 300--

301 Transmit Co-ordination after found conflict LOVV PC (20”)302 Transmit Co-ordination after found conflict IntSec LHCC PC (20”)303 Transmit Co-ordination after found conflict IntCen LHCC PC (45”)304 Transmit Co-ordination after found conflict IntSec LZBB PC (20”)305 Transmit Co-ordination after found conflict IntCen LZBB PC (45”)306 Transmit Radar Co-ordination for climb LHCC_N - LZ_1 ( PC LHCC_N) (15”)307 Receive Radar Co-ordination for climb (Receipt of 306 for PC LZ_1) (15”)308 Transmit Radar Co-ordination from LZ_1 to LZ_2 (10”)309 Expedite Clearance delivery to LOWS PC LO_5 (35”)310a Transmit Mil Co-ordination PC LZ_3 (50”)310b Transmit Mil Co-ordination PC LZ_2 (50”)



Co-ordination Numbers 300-- (cont)

310c Transmit Mil Co-ordination PC LZ_1 (50”)311 Expedite Clearance delivery to LOWL PC LO_N (35”)312 Expedite Clearance delivery to LOWG PC LO_SE (35”)313 Expedite Clearance delivery to LOWK PC LO_W (35”)314a Request Expedite Clearance LZIB Dep PC LZIB_TMA (NITSID) (30”)314b Request Expedite Clearance LZIB Dep PC LZIB_TMA (BERVASID) (30”)314c Request Expedite Clearance LZIB Dep PC LZIB_TMA (IB04VV) (include 7 seccall to TWR LZIB) (37”)314d Request Expedite Clearance LZIB Dep PC LZIB_TMA (IB04N) (include 7 sec callto TWR LZIB) (37”)314e Request Expedite Clearance LZIB Dep PC LZIB_TMA (DP18) (30”)315 Deliver Expedite Clearance LZIB departures LOVV or LZIB PC (30”)316 Deliver Expedite Clearance LOWW- LZBB FIR PC LZIB_TMA (30”)318 Receive Co-ordination for conflict in previous sector All PC (20”)319 Transmit Co-ordination PC-TC after conflict found All PC (15”)320 Receive Clearance Request PC LO_TL (Dep west&south) (5”)321 Receive Clearance Request PC LO_TL (Dep east&north) (5”)322 Receive Clearance request PC LZIB_TMA (5”)323 Transmit Radar Co-ordination for climb PC LO_TL (15”)324 Transmit Radar Co-ordination for climb PC LZIB_TMA (14”)325 Transmit Radar Co-ordination for climb PC LZIB_TMA (14”)326 Transmit Radar Co-ordination for climb towards LZBB FIR LH_W PC (15”)327 as 326 (15”)328 as 326 (15”)329 Clearance request and clearance delivery (from airport in LZBB FIR) (70”)330 Clearance request and clearance delivery (from airport in LZBB FIR) (70”)331 Clearance request and clearance delivery (from airport in LZBB FIR) (70”)332 Clearance request and clearance delivery (from airport in LZBB FIR) (70”)

R/T Communication Numbers 400--

401 Rx First Call Inter Center (15”)402 Rx First call Inter Sector (8”)403 Handoff (10”)404 Rx Flight Level Reached report (3”)405 New Clearance Climb or Descent (5”)406 First call (extra for departures) LO_TL (9”)407 First call (extra for departures) LZIB_TMA (15”)408 First call (extra for departures) LHBP_TMA (9”)409 First call (extra for arrivals) LO_TL (12”)410 First call (extra for arrivals) LZIB_TMA (12”)411 First call (extra for arrivals) LHBP_TMA (12”)



Radar Activity Numbers 500--

501 Transmit Approach heading LHBP TMA (40”)502 Transmit Approach heading LO_TL (29”)503 Transmit Approach heading LZIB TMA(OKRARR) (40”)504 Transmit Approach heading LZIB TMA (VYDRA) (40”)505 Transmit Final approach vector LO_Feeder TC (WW023) (49”)506 Transmit Final approach vector LO_Feeder TC (WW027) (49”)507 Monitor Selected Flight (VELAT-TORNO arr)(15”) LHBP_TMA TC when sports fields open508 Monitor Compliance to Instruction (BALAP-ERGOM arrivals)(15”) LHBP TMA PC when sports fields open509 Initial approach vector LOWW TMA (based on first entered sector) (14”)

Conflict Resolution Numbers 600--

601 Conflict Resolution - Tactical conflict All TC except LOVV Feeder (66”)

Central Europe Fast Time Simulation Appendix B

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999Appendix B Page 1

AIRCRAFT/SECTOR - COMPARISON ORGANISATION B, C and D

The following charts show the entry of flights per sector in the different exercises.They can be used to study the difference between different exercises and comparedwith the charts in Appendix C that show the same exercises with total number offlights peak workloads and a breakdown of the working times per task group. Theyare shown country by country, for Organisation B, C and D and give a comparison ofsector entries with the present (1997) traffic level and at 2003 level with present (Corganisation) route network and the ARN V3 network (Org D).

Evolution of traffic LOVV FIR South and East sectors B1

32

24

34

17

25

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Evolution of traffic LOVV FIR Sectors North, West and B5 B1

19

34

12

25 24

38

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

LO_5 LO_5T LO_WLU LO_WT LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Evolution of traffic LOVV FIR South and East sectors C1

33

24

4143

10

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Evolution of Traffic LOVV FIR Sectors North, West and B5 C1

28

17

42

37 37

50

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LO_5 LO_5T LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_WLU LO_WT

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Evolution of traffic LOVV FIR Sector South and East D1

24

42

9

26

31

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Evolution of traffic LOVV FIR Sectors North, West and B5 D1

52

22

17

32

4239 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LO_5 LO_5T LO_WLU LO_WT LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Evolution of traffic LHCC FIR B1

25

4344

23

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LHBP_TMA LHCC_E LHCC_N LHCC_S LHCC_W

Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Evolution of traffic LHCC FIR - C1

33

6061

65

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Evolution of traffic LHCC FIR - D1

4039

57

64

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Evolution of traffic LZBB FIR B1

23

15

22 22

0

5

10

15

20

25


Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Evolution of traffic - LZBB FIR C1

39

25

16

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Evolution of traffic - LZBB FIR D1

38

16

3028

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Nu

mb

er o

f fl

igh

ts e

nte

rin

g p

er h

ou

r

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Central Europe Fast-Time simulation Appendix C

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999Appendix C Page 1

VIENNA FIR

In the following tables the traffic/sector and the workload for Planning Controller (PC) andTactical Controller (TC) is shown together with a breakdown of the working time in types ofATC tasks performed.

EXERCISE REFE(97)

LO_5 LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_SEL LO_SEU LO_SET LO_WL LO_WU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 380 347 506 393 260 715 606 146 320 239 199 347 534 262 5254TOTAL 380 347 506 393 260 715 606 146 320 239 199 347 534 262 5254Workload:

Flt Data 94 87 127 99 65 179 152 37 80 59 50 87 135 66 1317Co-Ord 32 44 103 35 27 104 48 13 39 11 21 13 74 23 587C/Search 63 58 85 66 44 120 102 24 53 40 33 58 90 0 836R/T 137 115 185 132 92 251 233 54 123 86 112 119 223 81 1943Radar 23 44 172 66 19 182 92 11 66 21 78 37 231 208 1250

0TOTAL 349 348 672 398 247 836 627 139 361 217 294 314 753 378 5933Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 29 28 54 31 20 78 50 13 38 19 30 28 75 40 533Plan Cont 16 16 29 15 12 40 24 7 19 9 10 13 28 238

EXERCISE REFEB(97) Second military scenario for LOVV FIR:




TOTAL 395 375 688 422 247 861 701 145 546 329 321 309 768 378 6485Peakload in % over 180 min.




EXERCISE REFEC(97) No military areas open




TOTAL 346 343 640 398 242 816 627 139 352 217 294 314 753 378 5859Peakload in % over 180 min.


EXERCISE REFX(97)

LO_5 LO_N LO_SE LO_W LO_T TOTAL

No. A/C 380 992 1360 636 562 3930TOTAL 380 992 1360 636 562 3930Workload:

Flt Data 94 249 341 158 140 982Co-Ord 35 102 163 68 95 463C/Search 63 166 228 106 94 657R/T 136 357 509 242 295 1539Radar 28 158 286 119 326 917

TOTAL 356 1032 1527 693 950 4558Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 28 74 121 61 94 378Plan Cont 15 38 60 30 30 173

EXERCISE REFW(97)

LO_5 LO_NLU LO_NT LO_SELU LO_SET LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 380 682 401 863 607 414 239 249 309 537 257 4938TOTAL 380 682 401 863 607 414 239 249 309 537 257 4938Workload:

Flt Data 94 171 101 216 153 103 59 67 82 135 64 1245Co-Ord 36 75 35 76 53 38 11 21 6 67 35 453C/Search 63 114 67 114 102 69 40 42 52 90 0 753R/T 136 258 135 307 234 162 86 106 122 223 77 1846Radar 30 145 66 113 102 74 21 40 25 209 202 1027

TOTAL 359 763 404 826 644 446 217 276 287 724 378 5324Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 29 59 31 72 52 44 19 26 26 69 41 468Plan Cont 16 29 15 37 25 21 9 12 11 27 202



EXERCISE B1( 97) New routes, new SID/STAR

LO_5 LO_5T LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 318 98 329 473 365 69 411 356 206 354 282 415 239 210 348 534 262 5269TOTAL 318 98 329 473 365 69 411 356 206 354 282 415 239 210 348 534 262 5269Workload:

Flt Data 79 25 82 118 92 17 103 90 52 89 71 103 59 53 87 135 66 1321Co-Ord 29 1 33 40 12 0 23 15 20 24 11 26 8 19 13 80 25 379C/Search 53 16 55 79 61 12 69 60 35 59 47 69 40 35 58 90 0 838R/T 114 35 110 175 122 23 145 138 73 121 106 162 86 118 120 216 84 1948Radar 17 2 25 76 23 0 47 35 7 45 21 35 15 75 37 235 207 902

TOTAL 292 79 305 488 310 52 387 338 187 338 256 395 208 300 315 756 382 5388Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 23 9 25 39 23 4 37 25 15 31 23 36 18 31 29 70 41 479Plan Cont 13 4 15 19 11 2 18 11 10 16 11 18 9 10 13 28 208

EXERCISE B1b (97) Alternative inbound routing LOWW via SBG-SNU






EXERCISE B1/165 (97)








EXERCISE B1/195 (97)






EXERCISE B1 205 (97)

LO_5 LO_5T LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_EL LO_EM LO_EU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 318 98 329 473 365 245 69 411 356 206 354 282 415 239 210 348 534 262 5514TOTAL 318 98 329 473 365 245 69 411 356 206 354 282 415 239 210 348 534 262 5514Workload:

Flt Data 79 25 82 118 92 61 17 103 90 52 89 71 162 59 53 87 135 66 1441Co-Ord 29 1 33 40 12 7 0 23 15 20 24 11 26 8 19 13 80 25 386C/Search 53 16 55 79 61 40 12 69 60 35 59 47 69 40 35 58 90 0 878R/T 114 35 110 175 122 83 23 145 138 73 121 106 162 86 118 120 216 84 2031Radar 17 2 25 76 23 13 0 47 35 7 45 21 35 15 75 37 235 207 915

TOTAL 292 79 305 488 310 204 52 387 338 187 338 256 454 208 300 315 756 382 5651Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 23 9 25 39 23 17 4 37 25 15 31 23 36 18 27 19 73 41 485Plan Cont 13 4 15 19 11 9 2 18 11 10 16 11 18 9 9 10 29 214

EXERCISE B1C Split lower TMA sector

LO_5 LO_5T LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TLN LO_TLS LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 318 98 329 473 365 69 411 356 206 354 282 415 239 210 348 182 395 262 5312TOTAL 318 98 329 473 365 69 411 356 206 354 282 415 239 210 348 182 395 262 5312Workload:

Flt Data 79 25 82 118 92 17 103 90 52 89 71 162 59 53 87 46 101 66 1392Co-Ord 29 1 33 40 12 0 23 15 20 24 11 26 8 19 13 16 52 25 367C/Search 53 16 55 79 61 12 69 60 35 59 47 69 40 35 58 30 67 0 845R/T 114 35 110 175 122 23 145 138 73 121 106 162 86 118 120 76 138 84 1946Radar 17 2 25 76 23 0 47 35 7 45 21 35 15 75 37 9 106 207 782

TOTAL 292 79 305 488 310 52 387 338 187 338 256 454 208 300 315 177 464 382 5332Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 23 9 25 39 23 4 37 25 15 31 23 36 18 31 29 21 41 41 471Plan Cont 13 4 15 19 11 2 18 11 10 16 11 18 9 10 13 11 19 210



EXERCISE B2 (97) Alternative routing

LO_5 LO_NL LO_NUT LO_ELU LO_ET LO_SL LO_SUT LO_W LO_TU LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 380 332 779 440 356 206 567 636 498 534 262 4990TOTAL 380 332 779 440 356 206 567 636 498 534 262 4990Workload:

Flt Data 94 82 92 111 90 52 142 158 124 135 66 1146Co-Ord 30 13 105 42 25 4 67 65 32 75 23 481C/Search 63 55 130 74 60 35 95 106 83 90 0 791R/T 138 110 279 156 138 73 205 242 220 216 79 1856Radar 19 25 199 84 48 7 130 113 113 231 207 1176

TOTAL 344 285 805 467 361 171 639 684 572 747 375 5450Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 28 25 69 43 26 15 60 60 51 69 40 486Plan Cont 15 13 34 22 12 7 30 29 19 28 209

EXERCISE C1 (2003 - B1 With 40%new traffic cloned)

LO_5 LO_5T LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL





EXERCISE C2(2003) As above but with East sector split only at FL340

LO_5 LO_5T LO_ELU LO_ET LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL

No. A/C 449 139 598 491 467 657 510 282 498 387 583 337 301 484 749 369 7301TOTAL 449 139 598 491 467 657 510 282 498 387 583 337 301 484 749 369 7301Workload:

Flt Data 110 35 150 141 117 164 128 71 125 97 145 84 75 121 189 93 1845Co-Ord 49 3 39 25 46 74 23 30 41 18 41 14 32 23 42 23 523C/Search 75 23 100 83 78 110 85 47 83 65 97 56 50 81 126 0 1159R/T 161 50 214 190 156 243 171 101 170 144 228 122 169 167 302 117 2705Radar 35 6 77 56 41 141 43 17 78 34 61 26 116 60 398 292 1481

TOTAL 430 117 580 495 438 732 450 266 497 358 572 302 442 452 1057 525 7713Peakload in % over 180 min.

Tact Cont 35 13 65 36 36 63 35 20 44 33 47 28 45 41 107 56 704Plan Cont 20 7 31 16 21 31 18 13 23 16 23 13 14 20 45 311



EXERCISE D1 (2003) Traffic transferred to ARN / V3 route network

LO_5 LO_5T LO_EL LO_EU LO_ET LO_NL LO_NU LO_NT LO_SL LO_SU LO_ST LO_WLU LO_WT LO_TUN LO_TUS LO_TL LO_Feed TOTAL





Central Europe Fast-Time Simulation Appendix D

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999Appendix D Page 1

BUDAPEST FIR

The tables show aircraft/sector , workload for Planning Controller (PC) andTactical Controller (TC) plus a breakdown of the working time in types of ATCtasks performed.

EXERCISE REFE(97)

LHBP_TMA LHCC_E LHCC_N LHCC_S LHCC_W TOTALNo. A/C 270 666 265 689 593 2483TOTAL 270 666 265 689 593 2483Workload:Flt Data 68 167 66 172 198 671Co-Ord 55 56 29 84 69 293C/Search 68 111 44 115 99 437R/T 130 246 111 301 234 1022Radar 152 42 23 70 58 345

TOTAL 473 622 273 742 658 2768Peakload in % over 180 min.Tact Cont 51 43 24 64 45 227Plan Cont 21 26 13 38 32 130

EXERCISE REFW(97)





EXERCISE B1(97) New routing



EXERCISE REFX/LH (97) Traffic to LOWW via DIMLO-BABIT



EXERCISE REFX(97)





EXERCISE B2(97) Alternative routing of LOWW arrivals



EXERCISE C1(2003) B1 exercise with 40% traffic cloning





EXERCISE D1 (2003) Traffic transferred to ARN / V3 route network



EXERCISE C2(2003) Split South sector - 2003 traffic on old route network

LHBP_TMA LHCC_E LHCC_N LHCC_SL LHCC_SU LHCC_W TOTALNo. A/C 373 928 378 588 471 830 3568TOTAL 373 928 378 588 471 830 3568Workload:Flt Data 69 164 69 172 172 200 846Co-Ord 60 52 23 72 72 71 350C/Search 46 109 46 115 115 100 531R/T 133 242 116 301 301 235 1328Radar 143 39 19 61 61 59 382

TOTAL 451 606 273 721 721 665 3437Peakload in % over 180 min.Tact Cont 69 61 33 57 37 69 326

Central Europe Fast-Time Simulation Appendix E

Project SIM-F-E1 (F18) March 1999Appendix E Page 1

BRATISLAVA FIR

The tables show aircraft/sector, workload for Planning Controller (PC) and Tactical Controller(TC) plus a breakdown of the working time in types of ATC tasks performed

EXERCISE REFE(97) LZIB 04/31 military co-ordinations

LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3 LZIB_TMA TOTALNo. A/C 185 272 224 49 730TOTAL 185 272 224 49 730Workload:Flt Data 46 69 56 13 184Co-Ord 51 61 49 14 175C/Search 52 64 45 8 169R/T 75 112 95 29 311Radar 15 21 20 21 77

TOTAL 239 327 265 85 916Peakload in % over 180 min.Tact Cont 26 30 23 8 87Plan Cont 19 25 20 5 69

EXERCISE REFW(97) LZIB13/22 no mil co-ordinations





EXERCISE REFX(97) LZIB04/31 no mil co-ordinations



EXERCISE B1(97) New routes LZIB TMA limit FL195LZ_1 LZ_2 LZ_3 LZIB_TMA TOTAL

No. A/C 179 282 224 112 797TOTAL 179 282 224 112 797Workload:Flt Data 46 71 56 29 202Co-Ord 13 24 21 32 90C/Search 52 67 45 19 183R/T 69 118 95 54 336Radar 11 18 18 25 72


EXERCISE B2(97) New routes LZIB TMA limit FL85





EXERCISE C1(2003) LZIB TMA limit FL195



EXERCISE C2(2003) LZIB TMA limit FL105



EXERCISE D1(2003) ARN3 (V3) route network LZIB TMA limit FL195



eurocontrol · appendix c detailed data charts vienna fir ... (no vertical splits or up to fl340...

Documents