© EUROCONTROL Presentation to EUROCONTROL/FAA Action Plan 6 TIM 8Collaborative Decision Making Applications in Air Traffic Flow Management ATFM Priorities.

EUROCONTROLExperimental

Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Presentation to EUROCONTROL/FAA Action Plan 6 TIM 8“Collaborative Decision Making Applications in

Air Traffic Flow Management”

ATFM Priorities

Evaluation Study

Alison Hudgell

QinetiQ


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Background “ATFM Priority Options” Study (1998)

for European Commission how to reduce operational impact of congestion considered chronic congestion and “crises” stakeholder interviews proposed prioritisation strategy options

EUROCONTROL commissioned to validate proposals through simulation ATFM Priorities Evaluation Study (2000-1)


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Agenda

Project Background Assessment criteria Proposed ATFM strategies

description assessment recommended next steps

Conclusion


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Assessment Criteria

Feasibility of technical implementation Potential abuses & feasibility of verification Implementation acceptability to stakeholders Frequency or range of applicability Benefits: delay reduction and split amongst target

population Impact on ATFM performance


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

“Global” Solutions -Slot Allocation Prioritised by:

• Flight Type• Least Consumer Cost

• Flight Distance

Overview of Strategies

CDM Proceduresfor Prioritisation ofParticular Flights

• Integration of AO Tactical Priorities• Selective Amelioration

• Airport Public Order Exceptions• Burden Sharing

• Public Comment Proceedings


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Global Prioritisation Strategies Current: First Planned First Served

all flights are equal Proposed: Prioritisation by ...

Flight Type - some types more time-critical Consumer Cost - equity per passenger Flight Distance - equity over day’s operation

Modified slot allocation algorithm to prioritise flights by category

Redistribute delays across flight categories


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Global Prioritisation Strategies (2)

Flight Type rejected 75% of regulated flights in high-priority class prioritisation ineffective problems of verification / policing

Least Consumer Cost rejected categorisation / validation more feasible redistributes delay from larger to smaller aircraft negative impact on hub operations


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Results equal-sized categories most effective “strength” of prioritisation can be tuned

with 5 equal categories; weight: 20% to prioritisation / 80% to FPFS improved hub management

Recommended next steps stakeholder consultation/analysis concerning

strength of prioritisation dynamic slot allocation algorithm

Flight Distance

Categories

Percent of Regulated Demand

Mean Delay per Regulated Flight

Number of Delayed Flights

Mean Delay per Delayed

FlightTotal Delay

flights < 95 mins 60% - 9 minutes - 63 % - 3 minutes - 57%flights >= 95 mins 40% + 11 minutes + 0.3% + 19 minutes + 103%


Centre

© EUROCONTROL



• Flight Distance







Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Integration of AO Tactical Priorities “Slot Swapping” and

“Substitution on Cancellation” AO to decide on swaps between flights limitiation: same regulations in same order

Modelled Operational Implementation swap flights only of same AO minimum improvement: 5 minutes SIT1A < CTOTB - taxi time - margin for swap


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Estimate Number of Slot Swaps

Number of'Required' Swaps

Number of'Feasible' Swaps

Run a b a b

AfterOperationalModel Filter

Same AOTotal

Total pairsthro’ sameregulations

Date

07-Jul 204 201 613 618 2027 2778 13320

08-Jul 117 123 358 361 849 1212 6303

11-Jul 151 132 424 419 1054 1701 7717

13-Jul 169 161 501 493 1459 2163 10100

14-Jul 131 166 440 437 1065 1668 26427

Each flight may swap only once (random selection)

1 in 3 “feasible” swaps is required

(random selection)


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Slot Swapping - Conclusions Estimate 100 - 200 swaps per day

daily delay savings on critical flights of1600 to 4000 minutes

No disbenefit to non-swapping operators No systematic impact on bunching or overload Recommended next steps

define procedure and rules trial implementation


Centre

© EUROCONTROL



• Flight Distance







Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Selective Amelioration

AOs request amelioration of delayed flights that have become critical - e.g. airport curfew air-crew rostering transfer passengers

Ad-hoc process exists today Need to limit number of cases

agreed constraints? quota system


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Selective Amelioration (2) Modelled random selection among flights

delayed by more than 30 minutes

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Number of flights ameliorated

Nu

mb

er o

f o

verl

oad

slo

ts

07/07

08/07

11/07

13/07

14/07

15/07


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Minimal impact on ATFM performance from amelioration of up to 200 or so flights? further validation needed

Recommend limiting number of cases by quota system

Recommended next steps monitor and analyse current live usage stakeholder consultation on how to distribute quota across

AOs trial implementation

Selective Amelioration - Conclusions


Centre

© EUROCONTROL



• Flight Distance







Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Airport Public Order Exceptions

Initial aim: when serious delays lead to risk of public order disturbances

Delegation of control from central (CFMU) to local (Airport) level e.g. now: De-Icing Procedures generalise: “Chaotic Situation Management”

If number of flights affected is small,use Selective Amelioration


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Airport Public Order Exceptions(Chaotic Situation Management)

Monitoring and reporting of use to guard against abuse or overuse

Recommended next steps trial implementations put in place Letters of Agreement


Centre

© EUROCONTROL



• Flight Distance







Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Burden Sharing

Applicable when capacity shortfall expected to avoid delays, must reduce demand all make agreed proportional reduction AOs to decide which specific flights to cancel

Currently, national ad-hoc frameworks for crisis management


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Trade-off of demand cut and delay saved

Delay Saved by Demand Cut

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

-10% -20% -30% -40% -50%

Demand Reduction

Del

ay S

aved Capacity -25%

Capacity -37%

Capacity -50%

Burden Sharing


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Burden Sharing - Conclusions Implement as fully structured collaborative process

strategic or pre-tactical

Recommended next steps refine guidelines for demand reduction - especially among smaller operators develop collaborative procedures apply in trial cases


Centre

© EUROCONTROL



• Flight Distance







Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Public Comment Proceedings

Strategic planning to deal with large events capacity enhancement demand management and prioritisation

Transparent, consensus-based planning EAG-OSG level

Recommended next steps analysis of events to date consultation on guidelines for applicable events trial procedures in real cases


Centre

© EUROCONTROL

Conclusion All strategies apply to crises, several also to chronic

congestion None appear to reduce ATFM performance Many formalise existing procedures Some could provide incentives for “good behaviour” by

AOs Recommended next step for many is specification of

procedures and live trial Institutional and operational issues remain to be

addressed

© EUROCONTROL Presentation to EUROCONTROL/FAA Action Plan 6 TIM 8Collaborative Decision Making Applications in Air Traffic Flow Management ATFM Priorities.

Documents

order n

minutes n

equal n

n flight type

u flight type

overload n

n need

flights u limitiation