026_FASTER.pdf - EUROCONTROL

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

FASTER

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

EEC Report No. 332

EEC Task R23

EATCHIP Task CSD-4-01

Issued: August 1998

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no partshould be reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

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

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Report No. 332

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:

EEC - FDR

(Flight Data Research)

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

Sponsor:

EATCHIP Development Directorate DED.1

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

TITLE:FASTER

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

Author

P. Martin, A Hudgell,

S. Vial, N Bouge

Date

8/98Pages

xii+102Figures

1Tables

4Appendix

-References

8

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

CSD-4-01

EEC Task No.

R23

Task No. Sponsor Period

1997 to 1998

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

Descriptors (keywords):

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

Abstract:

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

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

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

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

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

Publications Office

B.P. 15

91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

v

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT.....................................................................................................................11.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.......................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Context of Study..................................................................................................................11.2.2 Foreseen Benefits of Collaborative Planning & Decision Making....................................2

1.3 THE FASTER PROJECT.................................................................................................................21.3.1 Project Objectives ..............................................................................................................21.3.2 Phase One Activities...........................................................................................................3

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY....................................................................................................................31.4.1 Interview Process ...............................................................................................................31.4.2 Main Themes of Questionnaires.........................................................................................4

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

2.1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................62.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................62.1.2 Summary of Participating Airlines.....................................................................................6

2.2 CURRENT OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................82.2.1 Airline phases of activities .................................................................................................82.2.2 Airline Operations Functions.............................................................................................92.2.3 Operational Issues............................................................................................................112.2.4 Systems and Automation...................................................................................................152.2.5 Present information flow between the CFMU and the airlines........................................16

2.3 INFORMATION HELD BY THE AIRLINE ..........................................................................................172.4 NEW AND ENHANCED INFORMATION EXCHANGES......................................................................21

2.4.1 Flight Plan Route Validation............................................................................................212.4.2 Air Situation Display........................................................................................................212.4.3 Flow Management Information ........................................................................................222.4.4 Airport and ATC Status Information................................................................................23

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

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

3.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................273.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................273.1.2 Organisation.....................................................................................................................273.1.3 Systems and automation ...................................................................................................303.1.4 Airport Capacity...............................................................................................................313.1.5 Capacity Reductions.........................................................................................................333.1.6 Airport Slots .....................................................................................................................343.1.7 Relationship between declared capacity and the number of airport slots offered ..........353.1.8 Hub operations .................................................................................................................36

3.2 CURRENT AIRPORT AUTHORITY OPERATIONS .............................................................................373.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................373.2.2 Strategic............................................................................................................................373.2.3 Seasonal planning ............................................................................................................383.2.4 Stand allocation and planning .........................................................................................403.2.5 Interface with ATC and Flow Management......................................................................42

3.2.6 De-icing ............................................................................................................................433.2.7 Post-flight phase...............................................................................................................43

3.3 INFORMATION AVAILABLE ..........................................................................................................443.3.1 Summary of Current Information Availability .................................................................44

3.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY SYSTEMS .......................................................513.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................513.4.2 Planned future developments for airport systems............................................................513.4.3 Plans to link information systems.....................................................................................51

3.5 NEW INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................523.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................523.5.2 Earlier information on planned rotations ........................................................................523.5.3 Rotation planning updates ...............................................................................................533.5.4 Passenger numbers...........................................................................................................543.5.5 ETA...................................................................................................................................543.5.6 ETD...................................................................................................................................55

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

4.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................574.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................574.1.2 ATC Roles.........................................................................................................................584.1.3 ATC Systems .....................................................................................................................59

4.2 CURRENT ATC OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................604.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................604.2.2 Strategic Planning............................................................................................................604.2.3 Pre-tactical and Tactical Planning ..................................................................................604.2.4 Tactical restrictions .........................................................................................................614.2.5 Tactical operations...........................................................................................................634.2.6 Post-flight phase...............................................................................................................65

4.3 FUTURE AIRPORT ATC SYSTEMS ................................................................................................654.3.1 A-SMGCS .........................................................................................................................654.3.2 Other Developments .........................................................................................................66

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

4.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................704.5.2 Earlier ETA or ATD .........................................................................................................704.5.3 Air Situation Display........................................................................................................714.5.4 Earlier CFMU Slot Information.......................................................................................714.5.5 AO Schedule Information .................................................................................................714.5.6 State of Airline Ground Operations .................................................................................714.5.7 Feedback from Airport Slots ............................................................................................72

4.6 GENERAL COMMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF OPERATIONS BY ATC ..........................................734.6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................734.6.2 Measurement of Delays ....................................................................................................734.6.3 CFMU Slot Allocation and Departure Sequencing..........................................................734.6.4 Take Account of Flight Links............................................................................................734.6.5 Prioritisation ....................................................................................................................734.6.6 Regulation at Times of Bad Weather................................................................................734.6.7 Slot Slipping .....................................................................................................................744.6.8 Faster Communications....................................................................................................744.6.9 Flow Management Data Processing ................................................................................74

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

5.1 GENERAL ATTITUDES AND SITUATION ........................................................................................755.2 OPERATIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................................................755.3 PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................755.4 IMPROVED INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................76

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

vii

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

7.1 QUESTIONNAIRE TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ................................................................................807.2 QUESTIONNAIRE TO AIRPORTS ....................................................................................................88

VERSION EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE DE L'INTRODUCTION, DES OBJECTIFS DUPROJET, DES CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS......................................................95

FRENCH VERSION OF INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................95

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

Airlines Organisations:

IATA: Len Hearnden, Steve Zerkowitz, Razvan Bucuroiu

Airlines:

Air Liberte: Alain Chalmot, Herve Julienne, Neyen Pene

Alitalia: Bruno Paduano, Giancarlo Pucetti

Britannia Airways : John McMillan, Phil Dart, Alison Hubbard

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

Cargolux: John Dedman, Jim Einsweiler

Easyjet: Andy Holmes

Magec Aviation: Richard Kneale

Monarch Airways: Norman Foster, Mark Deacon

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

Regional Airlines: Eric Dorado, Guillaume Ludo, Russel Olivier

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

Virgin Atlantic: Steve Morris, Steve Parker

Virgin Express: Dirk Vrebos, Ludo Neilssen, Jef Kellens

Airports and ATC Authorities:

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

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol: Rob Eebes, Johan Recourt

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

Heathrow Airport Ltd: Daniel Donnely, Kevin Finch

LATCC, London FMP: Alan Jack, Graham White

LVB, Amsterdam: Rob Veelo, Robert van Koert, Fred Bloem

National Air Traffic Services Ltd, Heathrow: Paul Wilson, Brendan Kelly

Nice ATC: M Galibert, M Raoux

Nice CCI: Thierry Pollet, Marie-Anne Vallot

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

SCTA CRNA-N: Daniel Lemaout

Swisscontrol: Andreas Heiter, Pietro Sangaletti

Zurich Airport Authority: Andrea Muggli

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Explanation

AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

a/c aircraft

ACC Area Control Centre

AFTN Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network

ANM ATFM Notification Message

AIM ATFM Information Message

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

AIS Aeronautical Information Service

AO Aircraft Operator

APP Approach control

ARO Airline Reporting Office

ASD Air Situation Display

ATA Actual Time of Arrival

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATD Actual Time of Departure

ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management

CASA Computer Aided Slot Allocation

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CEU Central Executive Unit (CFMU operators)

CFMU Central Flow Management Unit

CTOT Computed Take-Off Time

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

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

DADA Détéction Automatique des Départs/Arrivées (Nice CCISystem)

EAD European AIS Database

EAMG European Airspace Management Group

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

EDI Electronic Data Interchange

EOBT Estimated Off-Block Time

ETA Estimated Time of Arrival

ETD Estimated Time of Departure

x

ETO Estimated Time Over

ETOT Estimated Take-Off Time

FMP Flow Management Position

FMS Flight Management System

FMU Flow Management Unit

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

GA General Aviation

HAL Heathrow Airport Limited

HCAA Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFPS Initial Integrated Flight Plan Processing System

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

NAT North Atlantic Traffic

NOTAM Notice to Air Men

OFP Operational Flight Plan given to the pilot

PFD Planned Flight Data

RCA Remote Client Access

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

RPL Repetitive Flight Plan

RTA Remote Terminal Access (CFMU terminal)

RCA Remote Client Access (CFMU terminal)

SID Standard Instrument Departure

SIP Slot Improvement Message

SITA Société Internationale de TélécommunicationsAéronautiques

STAR Standard (Instrument) Arrival

TACT CFMU capacity and demand tactical monitoring system

TOS Traffic Oriented Schemes

TOT Take-Off Time

TWR Tower control

UTC Universal Time Co-ordinated

VDL VHF Data Link

VFR Visual Flight Rules

xi

GLOSSARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hub and spoke (or "bank") operation: In hub and spoke operations, most ofthe flights of the airline are either inbound to one airport or outbound from oneairport. This airport is the hub; the inbound/outbound flights are the spokes.No flights link outbound destinations: this is done by taking two connectingflights at the hub. To allow for connections between flights, all inbound flightsmust arrive within a certain period, after which all outbound flights depart.This constitutes a wave of which there can be many during a day. Theobjective of a hub is to maximise the load factor of the flights, especially longhaul flights using short haul flights as feeders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand: a designated parking place for an aircraft.

xii

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

[IFPS COURSE] IFPS course version 1.0. March 1995

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 1

EUROCONTROL

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of ReportThe report is the main deliverable resulting from the first phase of the FASTERproject.

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

This study was carried out as a part of wider ranging research to investigate theconcept of collaborative planning and decision making that has been identified as oneof the main characteristics of the target concept for the future European ATM Systemto be progressively implemented as a result of the ATM strategy for 2000+[ATM2000+].

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

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

The objective of this study was to investigate the operating methods of the differentactors and to understand the information flows which exist. The team interviewed across section of actors including representatives of aircraft operators of different typesand sizes, airports and ACCs, analysed the procedures and information exchangesand then identified a number of recommendations for work on improvement ofinformation exchange.

1.2 Background to the Study

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

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

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

It is anticipated that the current ATM organisation and concepts will not be able todeliver the required additional capacity.

FASTER Phase 1

2 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

The EATMS R&D strategy[YellowB] and ATM2000+ strategy [ATM2000+]have been developed to provide a framework for meeting the challenges posed bythese forecasts. A number of possible developments have been proposed in thesedocuments. Collaborative planning and decision making are seen as importantcontributors, with the potential for delivering significant benefits from changes ininformation management and the roles of each actor.

1.2.2 Foreseen Benefits of Collaborative Planning & Decision MakingClearly collaborative planning and decision making go on at present and are essentialparts of the current ATM system. However, they also provide a lever with whichgreater capacity, flexibility and efficiency may be achieved.

First, better distribution and sharing of the information that is available to ATSproviders, airport operators and Airspace users is anticipated to reduce uncertainty,which in turn will improve predictability. At present, low levels of predictability meanthat ATS managers have to be cautious when setting sector load limits and thiswastes available capacity. Similarly, for an individual controller, the present low levelof predictability means that the controller must frequently raise his workload to correctfor errors in prediction. Indeed, improved predictability is essential for the effectiveoperation of the new controller tools. Thus, higher levels of predictability will lead toboth better use of existing capacity and the creation of additional capacity.

Secondly, where capacity constraints allow, greater flexibility and efficiency can beoffered to aircraft operators to meet their operational requirements. For example,improved information exchange will allow aircraft operators to optimise their routingstaking into account their operating and crewing schedule, airspace and airportconstraints, and economic elements such as route charges.

1.3 The FASTER project

1.3.1 Project ObjectivesThe objective of the project FASTER is to identify feasible and beneficial opportunitiesfor improved co-operation and collaboration between ATM, AOC and airports, with aparticular focus on ATFM and the flight planning stage. The project should go on todevelop prototype solutions expressed in terms of potential exchanges of data,supporting processes and operational procedures.

Collaborative planning describes the approach of increasing the informationexchange between actors. Thus, for example, developments might allow aircraftoperators improved information on the state of the airspace, allowing them to identifyless congested routings themselves. Better information on ETAs will help airports tomanage gate and terminal resources more efficiently.

As an alternative to collaborative planning through better physical distribution ofinformation, collaborative decision making considers who is the best actor to beresponsible for decision making, based on the question of who has the rightinformation and knowledge to take the decision. This might lead to a reallocation ofdecision making responsibility. As an example, multi-agent decision making mighthelp to better deal with disruption situations.

The actors concerned with FASTER include Aircraft Operators, covering AirlineOperations Centres (AOC), handling agents and aircraft, Airport Authorities, and AirTraffic Management (ATM) service providers including Air Traffic Flow Management(ATFM) and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Other participants which may be concernedinclude General Aviation (GA) and Military Traffic.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 3

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

• longer term in the full EATMS context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• a final report was written.

1.4 Scope of the Study

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

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

Thus the questionnaires were prepared with three aims in mind:

• to promote open discussion and innovative answers;

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

FASTER Phase 1

4 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

The questionnaires were not filled out at the time of the interview. Instead notes weretaken by the project team during the interview and written up afterwards. The minuteswere then sent back to the interviewees for further comments before being finalisedfor use in the report.

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

1.4.2 Main Themes of QuestionnairesThis section describes the main themes of questionnaires. The reader is referred tosection 7 of this document for the complete questionnaires.

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

The section on current operations addressed the following:

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

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

The section on developments asked questions concerning:

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

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

• new developments, such as the Air Situation Display;

• aircraft operator preferences for evolution of practices and systems.

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

The questionnaire contained three main sections:

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 5

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

6 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

2. Aircraft Operators

2.1 Background

2.1.1 IntroductionThis chapter discusses Aircraft Operators information requirements for enhancedoperations. It is the result of discussions and interviews with several airlines operatingflights within the ECAC region and with the IATA representative at the CFMU.

The airlines which participated in the work were very wide-ranging in size, routes andlevel of technical development of flight planning, communications and operationalsystems. However, a basic organisational structure was identifiable in each, althoughthe precise division of responsibilities did vary.

The rest of this section gives general background on the aircraft operatorsinterviewed.

Section 2.2 describes current airline operations, addressing for example phases ofactivities, operations control and flight planning as well as communicationinfrastructure and interfaces. It touches on issues such as airline reactions to delaysin the cases of both chronic congestion and unexpected delays due to a capacity dropat an airport.

Section 2.3 describes the information that may be available to aircraft operators andits characteristics.

Section 2.4 assesses the information which could enable aircraft operators to operatemore efficiently, whether just through new display methods or through provision ofcompletely new information.

Section 2.5 summarises some further issues which affect the efficiency of airlineoperations.

As general possibilities have been extracted and summarised from the interviews,direct reference to the names of Aircraft Operators has been made in the followingparagraphs.

2.1.2 Summary of Participating AirlinesThis section provides a brief description of the airlines and aircraft operators thatparticipated in the study. They operate mainly within Europe: short to medium haulflights within ECAC bordering countries represent 70% of their activities. Exceptionsare Cargolux which is 100% long haul and the business jet operator MAGEC Aviationwhose flights are very client-specific.

Some airlines operate primarily in hub and spoke mode, whereas others operate amix of point-to-point and/or shuttle flights. All airlines use at least one airport as acentre from where the airline planning, operations and commercial activities aremanaged.

For each airline, some information is presented below concerning the type of activity,parents or subsidiaries and alliances, as at the date of the interview. Informationconcerning alliances or ownership may not be valid at the issue date of thisdocument.

• Air Liberté : Air Liberté combines Air Liberté, a charter and scheduled flightoperator, and TAT, a regional schedule operator. It is based in Orly and is partof the British Airways group. Air Liberte code shares with Air Littoral and

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 7

EUROCONTROL

Regional Airlines. They have wet lease agreements with Flandre Air, AirAtlantic, Air Toulouse and Air Normandie.

• Alitalia: Alitalia is a scheduled operator of long and short haul flights based atRoma Fiumicino. It will be privatised in the future. Alitalia owns the followingairlines: Alitalia Team and Alitalia Express. It is a member of an allianceincluding Continental, Canada Pacific, Finnair, Cyprus, Malev, Czech Airlines,Air France, MESK, Minerva, Azzura, Air Méditerranée.

• Britannia: Britannia Airways is a charter airline, and is a subsidiary of theThomson travel company.

• British Airways: British Airways is a scheduled operator of long and short haulflights based at Heathrow. The British Airways Group owns the followingairlines: A.O.M., Brymon, BA Regional (BHX operation), BA EOG (EuropeanOperations Gatwick - formerly DanAir), Air Liberté. The British Airways Groupalliance network is organised in the following way:

Alliance partners are Bryman, Maersk Air, City Flyer, Logan Air, British RegionalAirlines, ComAir, Deutsche BA, Quantas, Canadian, Sun Air, BritishMediterranean and GB Airways.

• Cargolux: Cargolux specialises in shipping bulky heavy goods (e.g. heavy dutysteel pipes) which differentiates them from Fedex or DHL. The companyprovides a door to door service: goods are taken from the shipper by trucks,brought to the storage facilities, flown to the airport closest to the recipient'slocation and delivered by truck. It operates on a regular schedule anddestination and is based in Luxembourg. Cargolux is owned by banks, Luxairand Swissair. Swissair is part of its alliance network.

• EasyJet: EasyJet is a low-cost schedule operator based in Luton, UK. It is anindependent company flying to European destinations.

• MAGEC: MAGEC Aviation is a charter operator operating high value flights. Ithas been in business since 1947. Aircraft are usually rented for the day bycustomers to go either to leisure or business destinations. They are alsochartered by airlines to do crew positioning in emergency. They can alsotransport high value freight. MAGEC also provides handling services for privateaircraft owners, and has a handling base at London City Airport.

• Monarch: Monarch is a long-established charter airline operating out of anumber of bases in the UK. Monarch is an independent company.

• Olympic Airways: Olympic Airways is a scheduled operator of long haul andshort haul flights based at Athens Hellinikon. It owns Olympic Aviation whichoperates the domestic and local international routes with smaller aircraft.Olympic Airways is allied with VASP, Balkan and Aerosweet.

• Regional Airlines: Regional Airlines is a scheduled business operatorinterconnecting French regional cities and major European cities. It is a privatecompany based in Nantes and owns 20% of Regional Lineas. It has allianceswith Crossair, KLM, SAS, Iberia, Air France, Sabena and Air Normandie.

• Swissair: Swissair is a schedule operator of long and short haul flights based atZurich Airport. It owns Crossair and Balair. It is allied with Delta Airlines,Singapore, Austrian Airlines and Sabena.

• Virgin Atlantic: Virgin Atlantic operates scheduled long haul flights to locationssuch as New York and Hong Kong. It is part of the Virgin Group.

FASTER Phase 1

8 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

2.2 Current Operations

2.2.1 Airline phases of activities

2.2.1.1 Scheduled operatorsMost of the airlines interviewed operated flights connecting city pairs which have co-ordinated airports. This means that airlines have to request slots in order to land anddepart from these airports. This is carried out according to a well-defined andregulated process (see chapter 4). Airlines make their requests to airport schedulecommittees five months before the start of the season. Airport schedule committeescollate the requests and then slot allocations are negotiated at the IATA conference.Airlines are able to negotiate their slot allocations with the schedule committees andwith other airlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• MAGEC Aviation: operates on a flight by flight basis, which can be bookedanything from a day to months advance.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 9

EUROCONTROL

Allocations of flights, crews and other resources are made to the flight at least the daybefore the flight takes place, and relevant information is distributed to all concerned(outstations, crews) by Operations Control.

On the day of flight, the flight itself and associated operations are monitored byOperations Control.

2.2.2 Airline Operations FunctionsParticipants in the study were primarily responsible for flight planning, operationscontrol or flight dispatch, or worked in close relation with them. Collectively they canbe regarded as constituting an airline’s operations centre (AOC).

It should be noted that different aircraft operators have different organisations,allocating the different functions described here to different departments, and thissection is necessarily a generalisation which may well not apply equally to allcompanies.

Also, particularly for smaller aircraft operators, some of these functions are contractedout to service providers, such as SITA, handling agents and airline reporting offices(AROs).

2.2.2.1 Operations ControlThe Operations Control function manages the available resources to maximise usagein compliance with the planned schedule. Typically this involves coordinating some orall of:

• Flight planning,

• Crew roster,

• Fleet roster,

• Outstation crews,

• Handlers,

• Aircraft maintenance,

• Commercial departments (e.g. for passengers interests and yield management).

It also normally requires interconnection with external organisations affecting flightoperations such as CFMU, Meteorological services, Airport Towers, FMPs, ACCs andother AOCs.

The operations control function monitors events and is responsible for resolvingproblems in coordination with all the people concerned. Normally operations controlwill be responsible for developing a solution. They will have a key role in the event ofdisruption or crisis.

Operations control teams in different airlines may communicate with each other.

FASTER Phase 1

10 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

2.2.2.2 DispatchThe dispatch function is concerned with the timely and efficient operation of individualflights. For example, many companies have staff responsible for monitoring theallocation of slots to flights by the CFMU, and then attempting to improve on theseallocations in the event of delays. Often these staff have purpose-built computerisedsupport systems in order to carry out their work.

For some airlines, the dispatch function may have wider responsibilities, especially inflight planning and fleet management.

Slot management may be dealt with by other airlines or airports (e.g. AdP) or specificservice companies (e.g. Transair). They are reflected in the CFMU address databaseand they may use CFMU terminals.

2.2.2.3 Flight Planning

2.2.2.3.1 Strategic Flight PlanningOn a strategic timescale an airline sketches out routes taking into account issuessuch as:

• whether the company has the necessary overflight rights and airport slots

• aircraft economics for the distance/route to be flown

• runway capabilities at departure, destination and diversion airports

• marketing priorities

This activity will take place well in advance of the flight, normally during seasonalplanning.

2.2.2.3.2 Tactical Flight Planning This tactical activity consists of creating the detailed operational flight plans (OFPLs)needed firstly for the crews and the reduced versions filed with Air Traffic Services(e.g. with the CFMU). It also covers the special work necessary to create moredetailed flight plans when FMS optimising functions are used.

The additional information contained in OFPLs, that does not appear in the flight planfiled with ATC, includes:

• For each waypoint: Estimated Elapsed Time (EET), True Air Speed, Mach number,Height, Temperature...

• Additional reporting points with EET if no way-points are available (oceancrossing)

• SIDs, STARs

• Pax, Cargo Load, Fuel load: parameters on which the aircraft performancedepends

Airlines (or the service providers to which the task is outsourced) have sophisticatedtools to create optimised flight plans. Criteria for optimisation are primarily fuelconsumption and flight time. Parameters such as winds and temperature may betaken into account. Cost of route charges can also affect the choice of a route,although this is not usually taken into account directly. The computed trajectorydepends also on the load carried by the aircraft.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 11

EUROCONTROL

2.2.2.3.3 Problems in Flight PlanningDifferences may exist between the different flight plans due to, for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.3 Operational Issues

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

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

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

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

2.2.3.2 Turnaround ManagementTurnaround times range from twenty minutes to an hour and a half for passengercarriers. Typically turnaround can be considered to cover the period from on-blocksto pushback, including disembarkation and boarding by passengers, baggagehandling, refuelling and safety checks on the aircraft. Turnaround times depend on:

FASTER Phase 1

12 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Company operating strategy: some airlines plan a greater margin forturnarounds into their schedule to help manage the effects of delays

• The aircraft type: the bigger the aircraft, the longer the turnaround, e.g. theminimum turnaround time for a B747 is one and a half hours

• Passenger connection times if the airline operates a hub, necessitating sharppeaks in activity

• Airport, since turnaround times are often longer in international airports

• Whether the flight is short-haul or long haul since short-haul flights are operatedwith higher frequency than long haul.

2.2.3.3 Management of Delays and Disruption Situations

2.2.3.3.1 BackgroundBetween 30% and 100% of the flights of the airlines participating in the study areregulated. This result is not surprising: the major activity of the airlines was operatingshort-haul flights inside Europe where the sky is the most congested.

It is difficult to assess the percentages of the flights delayed due to lack of ATCcapacity, because the airlines do not have the same thresholds to define delay.Nevertheless an example can be given: for the airlines taking 15 minutes as athreshold for delays, the percentage of flights delayed ranges from 15% to 40%.

Most airlines generate their own statistics on delays with a breakdown of causeslabelled by the relevant IATA code. These statistics are usually given to the airlinesassociation of which the airline is a member.

Care is needed in interpreting the “ATC delay” statistics:

• ATC is often the “default” delay cause. Airlines are aware of this, but they cannotalways control the exact date and time of all the operations at turnaround.

• Airport congestion is a frequent cause of delay, but is classified as “ATC delay” insome airlines.

• Delays caused by fog also may be counted, as ATC delays rather than weatherdelays.

• True ATC delay is the difference between the requested airport slot and the CFMUslot assigned. But the airline standard (for all airlines) is to measure off blockdelay. Quite often, an aircraft will go off-blocks at the scheduled time and then waitelsewhere. This will cause the ATC delays recorded to be less than is actually thecase.

In addition to the general problem of delays, airlines are particularly badly affected bydisruption situations. These can catastrophically upset the planned schedule andimpose very high costs through aircraft and crews being in the wrong locations. Theairlines indicated that any steps which can be taken to help improve the managementof these occasions will be of particular benefit.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 13

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

Strategic Phase

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

Pre-Tactical Phase

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

Tactical Phase

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

FASTER Phase 1

14 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

Rerouting Action

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

• Extra fuel burned,

• Final arrival time,

• Time saved,

• Disruption threshold,

• Crew working hours,

• Passengers connections,

• Company approach to recording punctuality.

Essentially the earlier flow management slot must at least compensate for theadditional flight time. For example, one company noted that if the additional flighttime due to rerouting is 20 minutes, the new slot has to be at least 30 minutes earlierthan the original (delayed) slot for re-routing to be considered. Others stated thatthey will try re-routing only if the delay is over 60 minutes or if the sector is aparticularly critical one for the company’s schedule.

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

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

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

Flight Cancellation

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 15

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

Withwhom?

Insidecompany

Outboundstation

Pilots Airports ACCs CFMU

Means Operationscontrolsoftware,

phone,

fax,

SITA,

Intranet.

SITA,

Phone,

Fax,

Intranet,

AFTN.

VHF(voice),

HF (voice),

VDL

(ACARS),

Satcom.

Operationscontrolsoftware,

SITA,

Phone,

Fax,

Telex.

AFTN,

Phone,

Fax,

Telex.

AFTN,

SITA,

Phone,

Fax,

Terminal,

Telex.

FASTER Phase 1

16 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

2.2.5 Present information flow between the CFMU and the airlines

2.2.5.1 CFMU to the airlines

2.2.5.1.1 Pre-tactical (1 day before)The CFMU sends ATFM Notification Messages (ANM) or ATFM InformationMessages (AIM) to the airlines.

The ANMs and AIMs are published in “hardcopy ” via ATFN and SITA and areavailable to CFMU RTA/RCA terminal users.

For ANMs, the “ hardcopy ” version is presented in the same format as the CFMUterminal version but whereas the entire ANM is available to terminal users, only thosepages requested will be sent to AOs or ATC units via AFTN or SITA.

The ANM is available at three information levels:

• SUMMARY: summary of all restrictions with ACC concerned, sector concerned,flight level concerned, time of validity and unit managing the rate,

• FMP or area of departure level: SUMMARY information plus traffic affected definedby route followed before entering restriction and slot reference point.

The AIM is a text message informing airlines of particular measures concerningrestrictions.

2.2.5.1.2 Tactical (day of operation) The airline is informed of its slot two hours before EOBT. The slot allocation messageincludes aircraft identification, departure and destination airports, date of flight, EOBT,CTOT and the regulations applied.

In addition, with a CFMU terminal, users have access to:

• Traffic counts and traffic flow counts,

• Lists of all CASA regulations,

• Departure and arrival flight lists, with data such as CTOT,

• Queries on flights according to several criteria, covering up to four hours' worth ofdata,

• Flight data on individual aircraft,

• Airspace information, such as routes,

• Facilities to input messages (Ready, Slot Proposal Acceptance, Slot ProposalRejection, Slot Revision Request, Slot Missed, Flight Confirmation and RoutingRejection messages).

2.2.5.2 Airlines to the CFMUThe following information is sent by the AO to the CFMU:

• PFDs, RPLs including updates and cancellations. These are principally distributedon a strategic timescale.

• FPLs, including updates and cancellations, sent 3-5 hours before EOBT.

• Tactical messages concerning slots, such as slot improvement requests.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 17

EUROCONTROL

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

Verbal exchanges between the AOC and the CEU are also of key importance inensuring smooth operation of the system.

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

The meaning of the columns is as follows:

Information item. This identifies the particular data item.

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

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

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

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

Completeness. This indicates whether the coverage is adequate.

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

18 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability,completeness

Where, how held Distributed to

Commercial schedule(Schedule + type ofaircraft)

Internal After IATA conference accuracy: highstability: highcompleteness: high

At least, on bookletsavailable at theairports.PFD format if givento CFMU

Customers

CFMU

Strategic Programme(Schedule + aircraftallocated to lines)

Internal After IATA conference accuracy: highstability: mediumcompleteness:medium

Operations controlPaper/Electronic

stations

Pre-tacticalProgramme(Schedule + aircraftallocated to lines)

Internal d-1 accuracy: highstability: medium(higher than strategicprogramme)completeness:medium


stations

Tactical Programme(Schedule + aircraftallocated to lines)

Internal d-day accuracy: highstability: medium(higher than pre-tactical programme)completeness:medium


Physical linksbetween flights

Internal Updated continuously accuracy: highstability: mediumcompleteness:medium

Strategic, Pre-tacticaland TacticalProgrammes

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 19

EUROCONTROL



Additional Flights Internal One week to a fewhours before EOBT

accuracy: highstability: mediumcompleteness:medium

Operations Control stations, CFMU

Alternate routes Internal but not allairlines have acatalogue of routes

EOBT - 5 hours ifMTO taken intoaccount, earlier if not.

accuracy: ETA - 90%if Meteo taken intoaccount.(final load and fuel atEOBT - 30 minutes)stability: highcompleteness: high

Flight Planning

OFPLs Internal EOBT - 5 hours ifMTO taken intoaccount, earlier if not.

accuracy: ETA,planned track forNAT traffic- 90% ifMTO taken intoaccount.(final load and fuel atEOBT - 30 minutes)stability: highcompleteness: high

Flight Planning Pilots

Meteo Internal andExternal

every 12 hours forBracknell

accuracy: Highstability: Mediumcompleteness: High

Internal: pilots,outstations

Operations Control,Flight planning, pilots,outstations

navigation database Internal or External accuracy: Mediumstability: Mediumcompleteness:Medium

Flight Planning, FMS pilots

FASTER Phase 1

20 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL



aircraft performancemodels

Internal or External accuracy: Highstability: Highcompleteness:Medium

Flight planning, FMS

cost index Internal accuracy: Highstability: Highcompleteness: High

Flight Planning, FMS pilots

cost of delays Internal but not allairlines

now accuracy: Mediumstability: Mediumcompleteness:Medium

breakdown of delaycauses

Internal now accuracy: Mediumstability: Mediumcompleteness:Medium

airline associations

taxi-time Internal but for someairlines only

now accuracy: Lowstability: Lowcompleteness: Low

Operations control pilots

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 21

EUROCONTROL

2.4 New and Enhanced Information ExchangesThe aircraft operators participating in the study were asked about the benefits to themof new and enhanced information exchanges. As a result of this, several aspects ofdata exchange were raised, covering the following main areas:

• Flight Plan Route validation

• Air Situation Display

• Flow Management information

• Airport and ATC status information

Each of these areas is discussed below.

Several of the information items discussed are already exchanged, or are planned fordevelopment, and hence are not new. However, what is clear is that there may be aneed for attention to the quality of information to be exchanged (e.g. in terms ofaccuracy or timeliness) or the opportunities for display of the data.

General issues which the aircraft operators said must be taken into account whenconsidering the information exchanges were:

• cost of communications

• manpower requirements, both for input and use of the information

• the need for a good business case to justify investment by the companies

2.4.1 Flight Plan Route ValidationAirlines normally have their own flight planning systems or employ a serviceproviders. However, problems arise due to discrepancies between databases andhence this may result in flight plans being rejected (e.g. by IFPS) or best use notbeing made of temporary routes.

It was noted that additional assistance when a flight route is rejected would be helpful,particularly for operators flying unusual city pairs.

2.4.2 Air Situation DisplayThe ASD programme is underway and will allow monitoring of real-time or near futuretraffic situations, allowing anticipation of potential traffic overloads and bunchingwhich could provoke saturation in specific areas [ASD96]. The system will beimplemented by fusion of radar data, ATC position reports and FPL information withsupport of the ENV database. For near future traffic positioning, meteo will be takeninto account.

The objective of the ASD is to improve co-ordination between ATFM, ASM and ATC,as all will have the same picture of the traffic.

Although they are not currently intended as front-line users of the ASD, most airlinesare very interested by the ASD. An overlay of routes and sectors was suggested, andit was requested that the aircraft of other operators should be visible on grounds oftransparency.

IATA is currently working with the ASD project team to put together information onexactly what data will be able to be viewed by them and the cost elements. IATAbelieves that this tool is essential in order to bring about the co-operative planningconcept in Europe [IATA].

FASTER Phase 1

22 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

Some companies have developed basic systems to allow flight monitoring. Typicallythese are based on ACARS reports.

The equivalent tool developed by the FAA is widely used by aircraft operators in theUSA to optimise their operations.

2.4.3 Flow Management InformationIt was suggested by AOs that it might be useful to have more accessible flowmanagement information such as the following:

• pre-tactical forecasting of constrained sectors

• pre-tactical forecasting of likely average delays on particular routes

• tactical information on approximate foreseen delays

• tactical information on possible alternate routes with approximate delayindications

• highlight the timing of regulations in comparison with the flight plan in question

• more information on the reasons behind the delays, such as in which ACCs thecapacity/demand balance is creating a bottleneck.

In general, it would be helpful to follow a strategy of indicating what is available ratherthan what is forbidden. For example, it would be efficient for users if displays couldbe organised to indicate available slots as opposed to a map of constraints.

Clearly some of the information proposed (constrained sectors, delays) is alreadyavailable through the ANMs and the slot allocation messages. However, the shortageof manpower, the effort required to extract information and a lack of familiarity with iteffectively prevents best being made of the available information.

As an example, ANMs give the codes the constrained sectors but the keys to localisethem must be looked up separately. The time required to find the locations meanthat, except for frequently occurring problems, it is not worth the operators investingthe time required to find alternate routes to avoid the restrictions.

One possibility is to consider the use of map-based displays. For example:

• Information on capacity, constrained sectors could be displayed with differentcolours depending on their load levels

• Meteorological data could be displayed

• Routes affected by routing schemes such as the TOS or CDRs could behighlighted

• A flight plan could be superposed and manipulated by the user (or flow manager)

• Customised filters could be used to display selected layers of the airspace (lowersectors included), selected routes, cities, airports etc.

• Implement customised alert systems [e.g. by flagging changed information on mapdisplay] and data discrimination filters

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 23

EUROCONTROL

Given that such facilities would require considerable investment if provided centrallyby ATM service providers (as is the case with the current RTA/RCA), an alternativeapproach would be for a data stream to be provided which aircraft operators couldthen integrate within their own operational systems.

2.4.4 Airport and ATC Status InformationAirlines noted that it would also be useful to have a variety of additional informationrelated to airport and ATC status. Examples of information items that were mentionedinclude:

• pre-tactical data on airport capacity

• information on airport gates and aircraft parking, particularly in special conditions,and also for alternate airports

• coordinated airport and flow management slots

• expected holding times in stacks from ATC so as to better organise turn-arounds

The need for more information from airports was particularly strongly felt. Since ECACairports increasingly congested, if flights do not arrive or depart on time, the disruptionof gate and parking allocation planning results in additional ground delays for theairlines.

One major carrier noted that it has tried to make aircraft approaching its mainoperating airport slow down so as to avoid an irritating wait on the tarmac for itspassengers if the allocated gate is not clear.

Another noted that at its main airport greater use should be made of holding areas tomanage gates and aircraft parking. It was felt that if the aircraft is ready to go,clearance for pushback should be given at the scheduled off-block time and theaircraft should be sent to a holding area to wait for its flow management slot. Thisstrategy was felt to be commercially advantageous because the passengers saw thatthe aircraft was moving, and the contact doors would be freed for another aircraft.

IATA noted that some work is going on to prototype the distribution of real time airportinformation pages via the internet. [IATA]

Some companies stated that it may be useful to standardise airport capacitydeclarations for the purpose of assigning airport slots. At present some airports“oversell ” their capacity whereas others allow in extra flights without slots. It was alsopointed out that aircraft operators assume that ground handling can be automaticallyprovided with the slot, which is not always the case.

Regarding airspace congestion in and around airports, some companies observedthat there is a mismatch of capacity and airport slot allocation, and that it could behelpful to improve coordination between the flow management slot and the airportslot.

2.5 Further Operational AspectsDuring the study discussion often diverged to wider operational questions which, to alarge extent, lie outside the field of improved information exchange.

These included:

• Equity

• Commercial treatment of flow management slots

FASTER Phase 1

24 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Route charges

• Prioritisation of flights

• Ideas for further developments

Each of these is addressed below.

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

However, there are ways in which the current equal treatment could made more"equitable". One example mentioned was the idea of applying a “first filed, firstserved” rule instead of the “first over, first served” after EOBT – 2 hours (i.e. slotallocation time). Filing an alternate flight plan after EOBT – 2 hours can penaliseflights that are subject to the same regulation and which originate from a nearbyairport and therefore have not reached EOBT – 2 hours.

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

2.5.1.2 Commercial treatment of flow management slotsA commercial treatment of flow management slots was felt to be complicated anddifficult to implement fairly and transparently, as well as probably imposing anoverhead in extra administrative costs. However, some companies saw it aspotentially interesting, for example if it could be seen as a part of a more generalpolicy aiming at a clearer customer-supplier structure between aircraft operators andATM service providers, perhaps through appropriate service-level agreements andgreater transparency.

2.5.1.3 Route Charges as an Incentive to Optimise the Use of CapacityIn the future as a means of optimising capacity, various strategies for route-chargesmight be considered. For example, charges could be highest on busy routes, or time-dependent charges could be used.

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 25

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

• When weather is deteriorating at a destination airport, the aircraft needs to arriveas soon as possible, and a delaying slot may mean that the flight can no longer beoperated into the airport with consequent adverse impact on customers

• Night curfew, such as when a delay in departing from an airport would mean arrivalat the destination too late to be allowed to take off again to fly the return leg

• Flights where crew duty-hours limits are approaching

2.5.1.5 Ideas for Further DevelopmentsThe airlines had numerous ideas of interest for the ATM user and service providercommunities. These included:

Flow Management-Related Ideas

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

• Cancel FPL automatically when filing a replacement flight plan

• Wider use of FSA message data

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

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

• More sophisticated rerouting facilities for flow management. For example, a routemight have to change 15 minutes before EOBT. With data-link, this should bepossible in the future

ATM-Related Ideas

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

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

• Look at use of lower cost communications solutions

• Modify sectorisation to enable optimisation of flight level according to flight timeand congestion. For example, short haul flights should not climb to very highflight levels, especially if it is to end piled way up in the arrival stack of a very busy

FASTER Phase 1

26 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

• Set up a stronger customer-supplier structure within European ATM. For example,an “account manager” could be set up for each airline within Eurocontrol whocould be the focus for liaison, suggesting strategic ways to avoid flowmanagement delays and aiming to look after the company’s interests with ATFMand ATC service providers. In this way, the AO could be helped to help the overallsystem

Some of these ideas are already being worked on.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 27

EUROCONTROL

3. Airports

3.1 Background

3.1.1 IntroductionThis chapter discusses Airport operations and information requirements, presentingthe results of discussions and interviews with representatives of the AirportAuthorities from airports in a number of Eurocontrol countries.

It is very difficult to generalise when discussing airports, to talk about “the typicalairport”, because every airport is different. There are major international airports,regional airports, hub airports, airports that are not hubs. There are many differentsizes - in terms of surface area, number of runways, number of stands, number ofterminals and so on. The level of sophistication of automation and informationsystems varies, as does the range of facilities available to passengers and airlines.Each airport operates under different constraints: environmental, political,commercial; and there are a variety of problems, for example unfavourable weatherconditions, to contend with. For all these reasons, the operational priorities of differentairports can be quite different. Furthermore, the organisation and division ofresponsibilities varies significantly.

The rest of this section (3.1) gives the background to airport operations by describingbriefly:

• the range of organisational structures found at the airports involved in the study,and the division of responsibilities;

• the range of automation and information systems used by the organisationsinvolved, and the different levels of co-operation between these systems,

• issues relating to the capacity of an airport: the limiting factors and the differentkinds of capacity (or definitions of capacity) that are considered.

Section 3.2 describes current airport operations, demonstrating the commonality anddifferences in the processes employed at different airports.

Section 3.3 summarises the information that may be available from an airportauthority, and considers the issues that must be addressed to allow widerdissemination of this information.

Section 3.4 notes the future developments in airport automation and informationsystems that were foreseen by some of the participating airports.

Section 3.5 reports what new information participating airport authorities considerwould be useful in their operations, noting possible sources of this information.

ATC operations at the airport are discussed separately, in chapter 4.

3.1.2 OrganisationIn general, a number of different organisations are involved in the operation of anairport. The precise boundaries of responsibility for each organisation vary fromcountry to country and from airport to airport, as do the relationships between thedifferent organisations. Each airport is organised as appropriate for that airport, forcommercial, historical and political reasons.

FASTER Phase 1

28 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

The present exercise, of determining what information is available “at an airport” andwhat new information would be useful to “the airport”, is made more difficult by thisdiversity of organisation. “The Airport” is in fact a number of different organisations,interacting to varying degrees, and with different boundaries at different airports. So agiven piece of information will be held by different parties at different airports. And agiven organisation, for instance the Airport Authority, will see a different “part of thepicture” and therefore have a different viewpoint at different airports.

It is therefore helpful to analyse system requirements by considering the roles that arefulfilled in the operation of every airport, rather than from the point of view of theorganisations which carry out those roles at an individual airport. In practice, morethan one organisation may contribute to a role, and/or a single organisation may fulfil(part of) several roles. Nevertheless generalised roles can be defined as a model forunderstanding “typical” airport operations and information requirements.

The two airport roles of most interest to the current project can be labelled “AirportAuthority” and “ATC Provider”. These are described in section 3.1.3.1. Other rolesand organisations involved in airport operations are summarised briefly in section3.1.3.2.

Sections 3.2 to 3.4 address the operations and information requirements of the AirportAuthority role. ATC operations and information are discussed separately in chapter 4.

3.1.2.1 Airport Authority and ATC ProviderFor the purposes of this report, the roles of the Airport Authority and ATC Providerare defined by the following responsibilities. Note that these are not intended to be fulldefinitions, but are illustrative for the purpose of scoping the present analysis.

Airport Authority: Operation of the airport, including:

• provision and allocation of stands and gates, check-in counters, departurelounges, baggage belts and reclaims;

• guidance and control of vehicles and aircraft on the apron (Apron Control),including provision and operation of follow-me cars and marshallers whererequired;

• provision and allocation of buses to transfer passengers to remote stands;

• towing operations;

• provision of de-icing facilities.

ATC provider: Provision of all Air Traffic Services, including:

• control of taxiing aircraft on taxiways and runways;

• control of aircraft approaching and taking off from airport;

• ATC in terminal area and en-route airspace;

• liaison with CFMU.

These are generalised roles and should not be assumed to reflect the division ofresponsibilities between organisations at any particular airport. The preciseboundaries of responsibility for each organisation vary between states and fromairport to airport. In general however, there will be an organisation that can beidentified with the Airport Authority role and one that can be identified as the ATCProvider.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 29

EUROCONTROL

For example, apron control is the responsibility of ATC at some of the airports visited,while at others that responsibility is assigned to the Airport Authority (although start-up clearance must always be co-ordinated with ATC). But for the purposes of thisreport, apron control is considered to be an “Airport Authority” function. Similarly,responsibility for bus transfers from gate to aircraft, including provision and operationof the buses, may rest with Airlines or Handling Agents (see section 3.1.3.2 below).But at some airports buses are a resource owned and managed by the AirportAuthority, and therefore this is considered as part of the Airport Authority role for thepurpose of this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

30 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

• Station Manager: At other airports, other than their home base airlines oftenemploy a Station Manager to oversee their operations there.

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

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

• Security, customs and immigration services.

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

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

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

• Airport lighting system;

• Airport Authority information system;

• Stand/gate allocation system or database;

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

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

• Passenger booking system(s);

• Airline flight information system at AOC.

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 31

EUROCONTROL

The following examples, from airports contributing to the present project,demonstrate extent of links between systems:

• At Brussels, RLW-RVA’s ATC system and AMS (Airport Movement System,which includes airport, TWR, and stand allocation functions) share commondata; information available in one part of the system is also available in the other.Some data is also exchanged with the terminal information system.

• At Zürich, Airport and ATC systems are separate and exchange some dataelectronically. Other data is exchanged by manual means, but not all data isexchanged.

• At Heathrow, the airport information system (ADAM) gets real-time informationvia SITA from ATC and airlines. Appropriate information is fed from ADAM to theteletext display system BASIS, which is used to display up-to-date information toall airport users.

• At Paris Orly, AdP have a screen of AirInter’s Departure Control System givingfuel, passengers, actual and estimated times of departure and arrival, and similarinformation.

• Nice's AGORA system provides displays in the TWR. This is supported andlinked electronically to the DADA system which automatically takes ETAs fromSITA and radar to give automated advance warning of arrivals and departures.

Many Airport Authorities, ATC Providers and Airlines are currently in the process ofspecifying or procuring new information systems. The trend is of course towardsgreater inter-operation of systems. The situations described here are evolving all thetime; more and more information is becoming available electronically. This must betaken into account when considering what information is available in any givensystem. Furthermore, early input to all actors about what information is required byand available from others, and in what format, can help ensure that new systemscan co-operate easily. This is an aim of the present project.

3.1.4 Airport CapacityIn general, there are two different limits on the throughput of an airport: a short-termlimit and a long-term limit. The short-term limit, or hourly capacity, refers to theamount of traffic that can be accommodated in any one hour. On top of this, theremay be a yearly limit - environmental/political restrictions on the amount of trafficthat is permitted in a one-year period. A limit may alternatively take the form of arestriction on the hours of operation of an airport, such as a noise curfew, imposedto contain the noise and pollution nuisance imposed on local residents.

For example, the major restriction on growth at Schiphol airport is theenvironmental/political annual traffic limit. Much effort is put into investigation ofnoise contours around the airport, and modification of these to reduce aircraft noisein residential areas.

Many different factors can affect hourly capacity. Different factors are dominant atdifferent airports. The main factors affecting the airports interviewed in FASTER arenoted below.

FASTER Phase 1

32 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Runway capacity determines hourly capacity for most airports. Runway capacityis limited by the number of movements that tower controllers can handle,considering wake vortex separation limits. Depending on the configuration ofrunways, arrival and departure capacities may be linked by a total movementscapacity, or may be completely separate. Most of the airports intervieweddeclared total movements capacities; however some, such as Zürich separatethe arrival and departure capacities. The strategy for runway use will also beconsidered: for example mixed mode gives a different capacity to dedicated take-off and landing runways.

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

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

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

• Terminal passenger capacity. The flow of passengers must be considered atan airport as well as the flow of traffic - a flight cannot take off until itspassengers have boarded. This is becoming a significant factor at Heathrow,and is a factor motivating the development of Terminal 5.

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

• Other factors include mix of traffic and security facilities. Light/heavy wakevortex separations can mean that the mix of traffic can “waste” capacity. Thiscan be used as an argument for limiting access to congested airports by smalleraircraft, although it has been commented that the aircraft typically used byregional airlines can make late turns and high rates of descent and early turn-offs, which given judicious ATC operation, can enable them to use runways (orparts of runways) not available for larger aircraft, and in any case reduces theirrunway occupancy time. Some flights may require special arrangements, suchas security associated with flights of heads of state or flights to certain countries.

The declared capacity of the airport is usually a working value for hourly capacity,arrived at by considering the dominant factors for that airport under “typical”conditions. Therefore the declared capacity will often be slightly less than themaximum number of movements that the airport can achieve in one hour wheneverything is operating smoothly. For example, the declared capacity of Schipholairport is currently 90 movements/hour, but if all goes well they can achieve over100 movements/hour. The declared capacity for Orly is between the optimum andCATIII runway capacities.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 33

EUROCONTROL

Different factors are dominant at different airports. An airport’s operations andplanning processes are generally shaped by the factors that limit capacity at thatairport. Of course, as one problem area is addressed (for example stand capacity isincreased by building a new wing on the terminal) another factor takes over as thelimit to capacity (for example, runway capacity).

3.1.5 Capacity ReductionsIn addition to these permanent capacity factors, there are also temporary eventswhich can reduce the hourly capacity of an airfield below the “normal” level. Innorthern Europe, the most significant of these is unfavourable weather. The weatherconditions that cause problems at the airports interviewed are listed below.

• Fog/low cloud. This often results in large reductions in capacity because of theincreased landing and departure intervals required. For example, fog or lowcloud can result in the capacity of Heathrow falling to 60% of the declared value,and that of Schiphol from 90 movements per hour to a maximum of 12 arrivalsand 24 departures per hour.

• Wind. This may affect the runway in use and can have significant impacts, asdemonstrated by the Heathrow where cross winds above 25 knots force a switchto the crossing runway 23 for arrivals. The transfer operation from the normalconfiguration has to be planned 12 hours in advance since stands close to therunway 23 have to be cleared. Strong winds also reduce the ground speed ofapproaching aircraft, slowing down the arrivals process by as much as 25% andthus reducing capacity by a similar amount.

• Frozen Rain or Snow, Lying Snow. At a number of airports including Schiphol,ice or freezing rain will significantly reduce capacity, but at most of the airportsinterviewed this happens infrequently, e.g. only 2% of the time at Heathrow andSchiphol.

• Heat. High temperatures have an effect on capacity principally in SouthernEurope where it may be too hot for heavily loaded aircraft to take off, particularlyin mid-afternoon

Other temporary factors reducing capacity include:

• airport works,

• equipment availability,

• accidents limiting availability to a runway (for example).

• strike action.

Such temporary reductions in capacity cause disruption whenever they occur. Thedisruption caused by meteorological effects can be particularly severe because theycannot be predicted reliably.

FASTER Phase 1

34 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

Allocation of the slots to airlines is largely on an historical basis - the so-called“grandfather’s rights” rule. The Airport receives applications from airlines for anyremaining or new slots. The slots are allocated according to airport operatingpriorities, usually by a schedule committee which is chaired by the Airport Authority.One or more of the Airport’s major Airlines are often represented, as are otherorganisations involved with the running of the airport. International legislation allowsfor airport slot allocation to take account of governments’ Public ServiceObligations, ensuring that airlines providing a transport service to regional andisland airports are able to get the necessary slots at airports in major businesscentres. In principle the rules are also set up to encourage new entrants and tomake competition possible.

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

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

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

The Airport is represented at the IATA conference by the Airport Co-ordinator. Thisrole may be carried out by an independent company (as at Heathrow), by arepresentative of the home-base airline (Athens), by the Airport Authority or by anindependent authority appointed by the government (Schiphol). In Paris, the airportco-ordinator COHOR is formed from a group of 10 airlines supported by the AirportAuthority.

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 35

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

36 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

• Schiphol may declare a runway capacity of 90 movements/hour, but if all goes wellthe effective rate can be 100 movements per hour. The declared capacity has tobe lower than the maximum to allow for bunching and overload. However, thisallows the airport to offer 105 or even 115 slots at peak hours.

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

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

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

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

From the point of view of Airports and ATC, the most significant feature of huboperations is the traffic pattern that results. Flights arrive at and depart from theairport in waves - an inbound wave lasting half an hour or more is followed by a gapof at least half an hour (during which transfers of passengers and baggage takeplace) and then by a wave of outbound flights. This leads to a series of periods ofintense activity for the airport, interspersed by very quiet periods.

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 37

EUROCONTROL

• KLM recently increased from a 3- to a 6-peak per day hub operation at Schiphol,suggesting that more of their flights had been brought in line with the hubscheduling.

• Nice Airport Authority negotiated to host the Air Littoral hub, after concluding thatthe key to success for regional airports was to be a hub airport.

• Regional Airlines operate almost solely hub-and-spoke flights, with their “mini-hub” at Clermont-Ferrand in central France.

The move towards hub operations is generally viewed favourably by the airports. Ata large airport it is considered to bring a good mix of long-haul and short-haul flights,thus helping to optimise use of stand and terminal capacity. Where an airportoperates the hub of a single airline, however, the traffic pattern can make staffingdifficult because many staff are needed to handle each peak, with very few staffneeded between peaks.

The hub traffic pattern is also contrary to Flow Management, which aims to smoothtraffic flow to prevent peaks which may overload sectors or airports. Differentairspace structures may be needed to deal effectively with increasingly hub-basedoperations in Europe. At Schiphol, a different combination of runways is used forinbound and outbound waves of traffic. Hence the runway-in-use is changed 12times a day for a 6-peak hub system. Similarly, different route structures anddifferent combinations of sectors in Terminal Area Airspace may be more efficientfor predominantly inbound and predominately outbound traffic. Airspace planningwill be affected by the increase in hub operations.

3.2 Current Airport Authority Operations

3.2.1 IntroductionThe operational viewpoint of the Airport Authority is different from that of the Airlineor the ATC Provider: whereas the Airline and ATC consider arriving and departingflights (the Airline as part of a schedule and ATC as part of the overall traffic), theAirport Authority is concerned with the “stay” of an aircraft at the airport. It has tomanage a set of such “stays”, or rotations, and the passenger and baggagemovements associated with them.

This section (3.2) describes briefly the typical functions that take place at eachstage in the Airport Authority’s operations, from strategic planning to tacticaloperations and on into the post-flight phase. It aims to demonstrate the commonalityand differences between different airports. Information exchanges are discussed inthe operational context in which they exist.

The information currently available to an airport authority is summarised in thefollowing section, 3.3.

3.2.2 StrategicStrategic commercial planning is an important part of the business operations of allAirport Authorities that operate as profit-making companies. They look 5 yearsahead or more for major infrastructure projects. Quoted estimated growth figureswere 7-10% pa. Apart from this, the majority of Airport Authorities’ planning is

FASTER Phase 1

38 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

carried out on a seasonal basis. The AdP plan airport works on an annual basis -plans for the coming year are fixed in November and distributed to interestedparties.

3.2.3 Seasonal planningFor co-ordinated airports, the framework for seasonal planning is the airport slotsystem described in 3.1.7.

Capacity and infrastructure issues for the coming season are usually discussedbetween the Airport Authority and the ATC Provider. Other parties, such as home-base airlines, are often also involved in this process.

After the airport slots have been negotiated and allocated, the airlines (and theairports) issue their schedules for the coming season. Often, these schedules arenot published until just a few days before the start of the season.

The airline seasonal schedule generally consists of the following information:

• Flight number.

• Scheduled departure and arrival times, to an accuracy of 5 minutes. (US short-haul schedules are specified to the nearest minute, but in Europe scheduledtimes currently have a “granularity” of 5 minutes. One-minute schedules forEurope are under consideration, and may be introduced in some places fromnext season.)

• Aircraft registration, which forms the link between arriving and departing flightsand therefore defines the “aircraft stays”, or rotations, for the airport. This isoften not specified in an airline’s initial seasonal schedule, but added at a laterdate. Home-base airlines have much more opportunity to tailor the aircraft-to-flight allocation to suit the operational situation, and so are less likely to be ableto specify aircraft registration at an early stage. Further, any aircraft registrationinformation from home-base airlines is likely to be subject to change up to thelast minute.

Airports can publish seasonal schedules by collating airline schedules.

Most airports do not form a strategic stand allocation plan, perhaps as a result ofthe lack of reliable information on rotations available in advance. Any strategicplanning of stand capacity for the new season’s traffic is typically carried out withreference to sample traffic from the previous year. The Airport Authority sometimes(but not always) has access to airport slot schedules. These consist of arrival anddeparture slots but rarely detail rotations and do not take account of “precautionaryslots” or opportunity slot traffic. Extrapolation of traffic from the previous year istherefore often considered to give a more accurate prediction than the airport slotallocations.

At airports where stand capacity is a limiting factor, more detailed strategic planningof stand allocations may be essential. At such airports, the Airport Authority willrequire information on rotations from airlines as early as possible.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 39

EUROCONTROL

Specific examples of strategic planning processes at the contributing airports arenoted below:

• Zürich Airport Authority require information on rotations to be specified in theseasonal schedule. Based on this information, they carry out a strategic“feasibility check” of stand allocation. A sample week is planned and the plan iscirculated to the airlines. The plan is re-issued once a month as the seasonprogresses.

• At Brussels airport, a seasonal resource allocation plan is drawn up frominformation available in the seasonal schedule. Aircraft registrations becomeavailable 2 days before the start of the season and from these the AirportAuthority can determine rotations. The seasonal plan is not sent to the airlines; itis never accurate and is intended only as a guide for the Airport Authority’sStand Allocation Unit. It is updated each week by comparison with the previousweek’s operations. The seasonal schedule itself is not input into the Airportinformation system, AMS.

• Heathrow Airport Ltd. (HAL) is trialling a stand allocation simulation tool thisyear, running it in parallel with its normal processes to gauge the tool’sperformance with the available data. Currently the airport seasonal scheduleconsists of:

− flight number,

− time of arrival,

− time of departure,

− aircraft type,

− last port of call,

− terminal,

− charging basis.

It is considered reasonably robust, except for aircraft type (which may change on theday) and additional ad-hoc flights such as positioning flights.

• Nice Airport is not co-ordinated, so the airlines’ seasonal schedules are the firstand only information on expected traffic. The Airport Authority performs asimulation to determine terminal allocation, to see when stands will becongested, and to show how to position boarding areas so that arriving anddeparting passenger flows are kept separate.

• AdP have information about expected rotations in the seasonal schedule fromall except the home-base airlines. No ground resource allocation planning iscarried out from the schedule, but it is used as a basis for staff planning.

It is worth noting that the precision of scheduled times, and therefore the definitionof delays, is in general not well co-ordinated between Airports and Airlines. SomeAirlines count departure delays by the minute after scheduled departure time; manycount departure delays from 3 minutes. But the Airport often considers the departuretime to be specified to the nearest 5 minutes, and at Heathrow the airport slot isconsidered to have a width of 15 minutes.

FASTER Phase 1

40 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.2.4 Stand allocation and planningThe stand allocation process begins for many airports about a week before the dayof operations. An initial plan is generated, often automatically, from updatedschedule information and strategic plans. These initial allocations may bedistributed to Airlines and handlers to ensure that their preferences are met wherepossible. The initial allocation plans are usually updated daily as new and moreaccurate information becomes available on schedule, rotation, aircraft type andpassenger numbers.

Either the day before the day of operations or on the day itself, the stand allocationplan begins to be updated more frequently, as and when new information arrives.Plans become more stable and more accurate as more accurate and completeinformation on expected times of arrival and rotations becomes available. Thiscontinues as the aircraft arrive and the plan is put into action.

Last-minute changes to the planned allocations are common, especially wherestands are a critical resource (for example at Heathrow, where it is estimated thatonly 20% of the initial allocations are realised). Once the aircraft has taken its stand,the time at which it will leave is still not certain. Delays can arise from aircrafttechnical problems, lost passengers or baggage, late catering, lost paperwork,CFMU slot delays, congestion on the airport, and so on.

The Stand Allocation Unit most often obtains estimated and actual times of arrivaland departure for the aircraft via an operator who listens to the operations radiofrequencies. Some receive automatic advance notice of arrivals, e.g. on enteringstack, passing marker, etc., but generally they do not have any ATC system displayor data feed to help.

The complexity of the stand allocation task varies considerably between airports.The size of the airport, whether stands are a critical resource or not, and theflexibility of stands (piers are generally more specific than remote stands) all havean effect. As an example of the variation in operations, Heathrow aims to offer 95%pier service, while Athens airport has no piers. The tools used reflect the complexityof the task.

• The same stand allocation/planning system is used in Brussels, Amsterdam andHeathrow. It consists of a database of flights and stands, and a rule set forallocations. of flights to stands The tool automatically searches for the set ofallocations that gives the best score against the rule set. There are a number ofdifferent levels of rules, scored according to their priority (for example, rulesconcerning the maximum size of aircraft that a stand can accommodate are veryhigh priority). The tool, supplied by the Preston Group, has a different name ateach airport and is tailored for use at that airport.

− At Brussels it is integrated within the Airport Movement System (AMS) whichis closely linked with the ATC system.

− At Schiphol the tool is called TRASS (for Terminal Resource AllocationSystem Schiphol). Information is download from the Airport Authority’sCentral Information System to the stand allocation system two days inadvance. Then pre-tactical planning of stand allocations, and eventuallytactical allocations, are carried out with the aid of the stand allocation tool.

− Heathrow call the tool CASAM, and use it in a similar way to Schiphol.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 41

EUROCONTROL

• AdP has a different tool, SAIGA, but its functioning and use are similar.

• At smaller airports, including Nice, stand allocation and planning is a manualprocess.

The Schengen agreement has complicated operations for many Airport Authoritiesin the signatory nations. Passengers on Schengen-Schengen flights have to betreated like domestic passengers, with no passport or customs checks. This hassignificantly altered the effective proportions of “domestic” and “international”passengers in the Schengen countries. Furthermore, where an aircraft arrives froma Schengen country but departs for a non-Schengen country (or vice-versa), eitherthe aircraft must be towed from a stand at the “domestic” part of the terminal to an“international” stand, or one set of passengers must be transferred by bus to or fromthe correct part of the terminal. Some airports have a few stands that can beaccessed from either “domestic” or “international” areas of the terminal, whichimproves the situation for the airlines and their passengers, but adds complexity tothe stand allocation task.

Various stand allocation strategies are employed. For example:

• Maximising the use of contact doors.

• AdP give priority to domestic flights over long-haul, though if a flight is delayed,it loses its priority.

In general stands are dedicated to a flight a few minutes before predicted on-blockstime. For example, the stand allocation system may allocate a gate to an aircraft for10 minutes before estimated on-blocks time to 15 minutes after estimated on-blockstime. This gives a gate rest of 25 minutes. Where stands are a critical resource, asmaller, or even negative gate rest time may be used. Nice manually allocates astand time at estimated on-blocks time minus 10 minutes, allowing a 10 minutegate rest. The stand allocated is transmitted to ATC and hence to the pilot.

Specific information about stand allocation and planning as performed by each ofthe Airport Authorities interviewed is noted below.

• HAL use airport slot schedules (seasonal plus opportunity slots) to form an initialallocation plan 10 days in advance. The plan is updated at d-1 automatically,and then manually during the day in response to events.

• AdP present the weekly programme, including initial allocations, each Thursdayto airlines, handlers and customs. This information is also passed to the Tower.Rotations are available from most airlines by d-1, so this is when the standallocations are first planned in detail.

• AAS use schedule information as the basis for weekly planning using theirCentral Information System (CISS). There is a weekly operations meeting withthe airlines which aims to optimise use of airport resources. The plan is updateddaily until d-1. Then the plan is frozen on CISS and transferred to the standallocation tool TRASS.

• At Brussels, initial allocation planning is done 2 days in advance using theseasonal plan (updated weekly) for guidance.

FASTER Phase 1

42 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• Nice Airport Authority operations control looks 10 days ahead, but allocationsare first planned manually on d-1, using the previous weeks traffic. This planthen gives guidance for manual allocations on the day.

• Zürich Airport Authority’s stand allocation is carried out on the day, building onthe seasonal plan which is updated each month. The seasonal and daily plansare transmitted to airlines and other organisations at the airport.

Allocation of other airport resources (including gates, lounges, buses and baggagereclaims) usually follows from the stand allocations. (In fact, the other resourcesavailable for each stand are often constraints in the stand allocation. But standallocation is the principal process, with other allocations depending on it.) Theprocesses for allocation of other resources were not discussed in any detail with theparticipating Airport Authorities.

3.2.5 Interface with ATC and Flow ManagementThe Airport Authority and the ATC Provider are integrated, organisationally andoperationally, to different degrees at different airports, as discussed in sections3.1.3 and 3.1.4 above. The two parties invariably co-operate to some extent instrategic planning, discussing capacity and infrastructure issues.

For example, at Nice, the Airport Authority performs a planning simulation based onseasonal schedules, to highlight problems with congestion. A regulation committee,comprising representatives of the Airport Authority, ATC, Handlers and Airlines,considers the simulation results and decides what regulations should be requestedfrom CFMU.

At many airports there are more frequent meetings to discuss operations. Forexample, an operations meeting is held daily at Schiphol and twice a day at Zürich.At Athens there is no daily planning co-ordination between the Airport Authority andthe ATC Provider, but, as all most airports, there is tactical co-ordination bytelephone in case of problems.

At most airports there is an AFTN terminal which can be used by GA pilots andsmaller Aircraft Operators to file flight plans. This is provided by the ARO or AISservices. Some airports provide this service in their role as handling agents (e.g.AdP).

The Airport Authority, in particular the stand allocation unit and Apron Control, haveno contact with CFMU and no direct information on CFMU slots. Sometimesinformation on CFMU slots may be available via the Aircraft Operator. In general, noaccount is taken of CFMU slots in Airport Authority ground operations; no priority isgiven to slotted aircraft. Exceptionally, AdP’s handling operations aim to give priorityto regulated flights, to enable them to meet their slots.

Airport Authority operations are certainly affected by CFMU, however. Delayedflights must wait at the airport. Some airlines prefer to wait on the stand, but someprefer to leave the stand on time and wait with engines running. Although this latterstrategy wastes fuel, it is good for customer relations because the passengers feelthat they have departed on time. Which of these strategies is better for the airportdepends on the relative availability of stands and holding areas.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 43

EUROCONTROL

Stand Allocation Units often rely on listening in to ATC frequencies to have warningof events such as arrival of flights. Links between ATC systems and airport systemscould make this more automatic.

Apron control, if done by the Airport Authority rather than being included with ATCGMC, is often carried out from the same Operations room as stand allocation.

3.2.6 De-icingDe-icing is not a frequent problem, but when it occurs, it has a significant impactacross a significant part of northern Europe. This arises from the slow rate at whichaircraft can be de-iced. Because a de-iced aircraft has to take off with a minimumdelay, compliance with ATFM slots is extremely difficult.

Following EAMG decisions, steps are in progress to introduce de-icing cells atairports to co-ordinate reallocation of flow management slots when de-icing isnecessary. Furthermore, it has been agreed that certain airports that candemonstrate a high quality plan of co-ordination could be given exemption from flowrestrictions when icing conditions are severe, although this exemption would only bepossible for a limited number of airports on any given day.

3.2.7 Post-flight phaseAll Airport Authorities collect information for billing purposes. The extent and use ofthis information was not investigated in the present project, but this could be arelevant area for consideration in further work. The information needed for billingincludes the following:

• actual arrival and departure times;

• actual stand allocation or type of stand, where there are different charges fordifferent stands/types;

• number of passengers;

• noise category.

For example, AAS receives actual arrival and departure times from the AircraftOperator at about +2 hours, and independently from the Tower. The Airline sendsnumber of passengers at +30 days. The Airport Authority has no independentverification of this.

It appears that, in general, Airport Authorities do not collect and analyse statistics onairport traffic and congestion problems. Specific problems are dealt with as theyarise. AdP makes weekly traffic analyses, which are used to forecast busy days. Inaddition it makes specific analyses for special conditions.

FASTER Phase 1

44 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.3 Information available

3.3.1 Summary of Current Information AvailabilityThe table below provides a summary of information that is presently available to orfrom Airport Authorities in Europe.

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







Completeness. This indicates whether the coverage is adequate.

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


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 45

EUROCONTROL


Where, how held Distributed to:

Declared hourlycapacity (standard)

Internal or ATC Permanently -

Permitted annualcapacity

Internal Permanently -

Airport slots offered:number,distribution over time

Internal

(only at co-ordinatedairports)

Season-6 months(??)

accuracy:very highstability: very highcompleteness: veryhigh

Airport Co-ordinator

Current allocation ofairport slots

Airport Co-ordinator

(only at co-ordinatedairports)

Initial allocation atseason-4 months

Updated continuously

accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: veryhigh

Held by Airport Co-ordinator - not oftencommunicated toAirport Authoritynow, but could be?

Electronic database

-

scheduled flights:STD, STA, origin,destination

Airline (Airlineschedule)

Season-2d(or earlier)

Possibly updated(more likely thanaircraft type,registration)

accuracy:very highstability: highcompleteness:

medium

Airline scheduleusually off-line? d-1entered into a FIDS(e.g. HAL BASIS)

Rotations and otherupdates may beentered into system.

Airport Authority,stand allocation unit,ATC?

FASTER Phase 1

46 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL



scheduled flights:aircraft type



Possibly updated.

accuracy:highstability: medium(home-baseairlines)high(others)completeness: low

Schedule usually off-line?

Updates may beentered into system

Stand allocation unit.

scheduled flights:aircraft registration



Possibly updated, butoften wrong or late.

accuracy:highstability: low(home-base airlines)medium(others)completeness: low

Schedule usually off-line?

Airport Authority.

scheduled flights:priorities

Airline, Handlingagent

d-1 or later. Usuallyreal time.

accuracy:variable

stability: variablecompleteness:

variable

Off-line. Passed bytelephone?

Stand allocation,ATC?

Schengen status offlight

Internal Season to d-day accuracy: very highstability: very high

completeness: veryhigh

Off-line. Determinedfrom border policingand customsregulations and airportterminal configuration.

-

previous year’straffic

Internal Post-flightaccuracy: very highstability: very high

completeness: veryhigh

Airport commercialdepartment, terminalmanagers

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 47

EUROCONTROL



Airline preferencesfor stand allocation

Experience/assumption/AO complaints

Updated continuously accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: high

Allocation toolruleset/Head of operator

Stand allocation unit

Strategic standallocation plan

Internal

(only at airportswhere stand capacityis a limit)

Season-2d(or earlier?)

May be updatedduring season

accuracy: lowstability: mediumcompleteness: veryhigh

May be in scenariostried out with standallocation tool

AO (sometimes)

Initial planned standallocations

Internal Between d-10 and d-2

Updated daily.

accuracy:med/lowstability: mediumcompleteness: veryhigh

Stand allocation tool AO/Handler, TWR(sometimes)

Planned standallocations

Internal d-1 or d-day

Updatedcontinuously.

accuracy:mediumstability: mediumcompleteness: veryhigh

Stand allocationtool/operator’s head

AO/Handler, TWR(sometimes)

Actual standallocations

Internal - accuracy:very highstability: very highcompleteness: veryhigh

Stand allocation tool AO/Handler, FIDS,TWR

FASTER Phase 1

48 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL



Other allocations Internal - accuracy:very highstability: very highcompleteness: veryhigh

Handler, FIDS

Rotation information(aircraft registration,duration of stay etc)

Airline/Handler Season, to aircraftdeparture

accuracy:highstability: low (home-based airlines), med(other airlines)completeness:

medium

Stand allocation unit,apron control

ETA, ATA Sometimes bytelephone fromAO/Handler.Sometimes bymanual monitoring ofATC frequency.Sometimeselectronic link to ATCsystem.

Season, to flightarrival

accuracy: lowstability: lowcompleteness: low

Off-line? Sometimeselectronically.

Delays expected byAOs not welldistributed to AirportAuthority.Sometimes sent tostand allocation unit(e.g. LHR)

Pax numbers Airline

Sometimes by manualmonitoring of ATCfrequency on flightarrival/pushback.

Season, to flight arrival

Transfer numbers maybe advised separately

accuracy:lowstability:mediumcompleteness: low

Electronically Terminal managers(for terminal capacity),local transport (e.g. fortransfer buses)

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 49

EUROCONTROL



Post-Flight Informationfor Billing (Pax no etc)

Airline After flight arrival accuracy: very highstability: very highcompleteness: veryhigh

Electronically Airport commercialdepartment

Post-Flight Informationfor Billing (AOBT etc)

Internal Between aircraft arrivaland departure

accuracy: very highstability: very highcompleteness: veryhigh

Electronically Airport commercialdepartment

Towing Plan Airline Daily accuracy: highstability: mediumcompleteness: high

Passed by telephonefrom AO? Someelectronic aircraftmovement trackingsystems.

Apron control, ATC?

Airline GroundOperations

Sometimes electroniclink to gate recordinggate open/closed.

Sometimes CCTVlinks.

Sometimes listen forpushback requests toATC.

Sometimes havetelephone contact withAO/Handler

Aircraft pushback

(Airports would likeadvance warning)

accuracy: mediumstability: mediumcompleteness:medium

Practically, mostAirports authoritieshave little or noreliable advanceinformation.

Stand allocation tool/Operator’s head/ someelectronic systems

Required by standallocation unit, terminalmanagement etc.

FASTER Phase 1

50 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL



EmergencyInformation

Internal, AO, ATC,governmentorganisations

Real-time accuracy: variablestability: lowcompleteness:variable

? All. Special plans or"crisis centres" mayexist.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 51

EUROCONTROL

3.4 Future developments of Airport Authority systems

3.4.1 IntroductionAirport Authority systems are in a continuous process of development followinglocal requirements. Since each local situation has its local needs, thedevelopments are an ad-hoc process, although numerous trends are representedreflecting the onward progress of procedures and supporting technology.

3.4.2 Planned future developments for airport systemsSeveral airports are investigating the possibilities for improving their information onthe process of ground operations through automated docking systems, passengerand baggage tracking, and the widespread introduction of gate-link systems.

BA is using ACARS to slow down aircraft en-route in order to manage standcapacity for the terminals which it operates, although there is the risk that timesspent in the London stacks may delay the aircraft unexpectedly. If this processwere more widespread, as is likely to be feasible with the wider-spread fitting ofdatalink, Airport Authorities would like to be part of the information loop with anumber of Airlines in order to optimise terminal operations.

There are several planned and in-progress developments related to A-SMGCSprocurements. The main consideration for airport authorities w would be theinclusion of automated logging of pushback and taxi.

Similarly, Brussels airport development of A-SMGCS functionality would provideaccurate taxi times.

3.4.3 Plans to link information systemsSeveral Airport Authorities have plans to improve their operations by a closerintegration of existing information systems within their organisation and to externalsystems.

Brussels Airport plans to enable links from AOs to the CANAC system. This couldprovide information such as advance warning of aircraft type for inbound flights,which would aid stand allocation planning. This link could also be used to passinformation on take-off schedule to AOs, and could even enable negotiation overthat schedule.

Aeroports de Paris envisage development of a database (containing aircraft type,pax, stand, gate, etc.) which would provide appropriate read/write access for allusers to facilitate information exchange.

Providing a background to this type of local development, IATA and ACI areengaged in the development of standards for electronic data interchange (EDI)between airports and airlines through the Passenger and Airport Data InterchangeStandard (PADIS) and Airport Data Interchange Standard (ADIS) [EDI97]. Thesestandards provide a background framework for integration of systems.

FASTER Phase 1

52 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.5 New information requirements

3.5.1 IntroductionThe Airport Authorities participating in this project were asked to identify newinformation that would be useful to their operations, or information that they wouldlike earlier or more accurately. The following sections note the new informationrequirements that were identified. These are:

• earlier and more complete information on planned rotations;

• rotation planning updates;

• passenger numbers;

• ETA and ETD.

Where possible, potential sources of this information are noted, along with anyevident problems with provision. Further work may be required to determine themost appropriate source for some of the items, or whether the information could bemade available at all in the timescale and to the accuracy that would be helpful tothe Airport Authorities.

Most organisations interviewed said they were happy to provide whateverinformation they have that is needed, but it in any development it will be importantto clearly address:

• cost of communications

• manpower requirements, both for input and use of the information

• the benefits that will justify the investment

Much of what is required is not new - the Airport Authorities simply require betterquality information : it must be more complete, and be updated with greaterreliability so that the eventual information is complete and accurate and thereforeuseful as a basis for planning.

3.5.2 Earlier information on planned rotationsCurrently, the stand allocation process is necessarily largely tactical. Last-minutedelays and rotation changes are inevitable, and mean that stand allocations cannotbe completely planned in advance. While recognising this fact, a number of airportauthorities would like to be able to plan stand allocations further in advance andmore pro-actively than at present. To enable this, earlier and more accurateplanning information from aircraft operators would be necessary.

For each rotation at its airport, the Airport Authority needs:

• approximate on-blocks time;

• approximate off-blocks time;

• aircraft type.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 53

EUROCONTROL

Any strategic planning of stand capacity for the new season’s traffic is typicallycarried out using extrapolated traffic from the previous year. By the time airlineschedules giving details of rotations are available to Airport Authorities, it is oftentoo late to make any major changes to the stand allocation plan in time for the startof the season. Instead these have to be made as the season progresses. Earlierschedule and aircraft type information from the AOs could be merged with traffichistory to give a more reliable basis for strategic stand allocation planning. Betterquality information from the AOs would also benefit the AOs themselves since theAirports would be in a better position to provide the services demanded by the AOs.

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

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

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

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

The effectiveness of Airport Authorities’ stand allocation planning is reduced by thefact that planning information is not complete. Out-of-date or missing informationfrom some AOs reduces the benefit of high-quality information from others. An on-time flight which behaves exactly as the Airport Authority expects fits smoothly intothe plan, whereas an arrival for which the Airport Authority has incorrect or noinformation causes a lot more work. Airport Authorities would therefore like:

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

• reliable updates on all airlines’ rotation planning.

Airlines are currently not obliged to send the required information and updates, andmay see little direct benefit, particularly from sending all updates as they occur. Somany airlines will not bother to send updates when they are busy, and some willnever consider it worth the manpower and communications cost. The effort requiredwould be reduced by electronic links such that when an AO updates its own fleetplanning (or flight planning) system, updates to rotation plans are sent automatically

FASTER Phase 1

54 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 55

EUROCONTROL

One Airport Authority commented that it would like to be able to give priority to on-time flights, to encourage AOs to send accurate planning information and updates,especially of ETA.

ETA updates could be provided from a number of sources:

• The CFMU has filed flight plans. ETA from the flight plan is not always accurate,but represents an update to an Airport Authority that is working from only airlineschedules.

• AOCs may have updates of ETA, derived from pilot reports or ACARScommunications. Many AOs already provide their handlers (and sometimesAirport Authorities) with updates of ETA for long-haul flights. However, to sendETA updates for all flights could imply a lot of extra effort and communicationscosts, which airlines are unlikely to be prepared to meet without justification(preferably in terms of direct benefit to the airline).

• The local ATC system is likely to have accurate ETAs once the flight is in thelocal FIR. These could be linked directly into the Airport Authority’s system.(Systems are already linked at some airports; some others plan links in thefuture). Accurate ETAs would be available earlier if neighbouring ATC centres’systems were also linked in.

• Information about expected delays and ATD from which ETA might beextrapolated could be sent from the airport of departure.

• The Eurocontrol ASD (Air Situation Display) could provide a centralised sourceof ETAs. A number of Airport Authorities noted that the ASD would be mostuseful if its information were available as an electronic data feed, so that ETAscould be fed directly into their own systems.

Different sources might be most appropriate for different Airport Authorities, or atdifferent times in advance of a flight arriving at its stand. ETA is clearly of greatinterest to many different parties; a consistent, regularly updated estimate availableto all would be widely valued.

3.5.6 ETDAs with ETA, ETD is a key piece of information defining a rotation. To be able topredict push-back times more accurately would be a major contribution to AirportAuthorities’ allocation planning capability. Many Airport Authorities expressed arequirement simply to have 10 minutes’ warning of expected push back.

Again, a number of different aspects were identified by the Airport Authoritiesinterviewed, the two major items being information on departure delays and on theprogress of ground handling operations. These aspects are discussed separately inthe sub-sections below.

As with ETA, ETD is of interest to many different parties, and a consistent, regularlyupdated estimate available to all would be widely valued. However, it appears thatthe information from which ETD could be determined is scattered across a largernumber of sources, and hence an accurate ETD is less likely to be held inelectronic form.

FASTER Phase 1

56 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

3.5.6.1 Information on departure delaysDeparture delays may arise because of handling or technical problems, or as aresult of ATC delays - either from CFMU slots, or delays in receiving start-upclearance from the tower. Notification of problems encountered and expecteddelays would allow the Airport Authority to keep ETD updated.

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

A number of Airport Authorities would be interested to receive CFMU slots, to warnof expected departure delays and as an indication of ETD. However, they do notgenerally consider it necessary to prioritise Apron operations in favour of regulatedaircraft, so knowledge of CFMU slots is not required for that purpose.

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 57

EUROCONTROL

4. ATC

4.1 Background

4.1.1 IntroductionThis chapter discusses ATC information requirements, concentrating largely onATC operations around airports. It presents the results of discussions andinterviews with representatives of the Air Traffic Service providers from a number ofEurocontrol countries.

These organisations perform the “ATC Provider” role referred to in section 3.1.3. Aswas noted in that section, the actual division of responsibility between the AirportAuthority and the ATC Provider varies from airport to airport. For the purpose of thepresent report, the role of the ATC Provider is taken to be:

Provision of all Air Traffic Services, including:

• control of taxiing aircraft on taxiways and runways;

• control of aircraft approaching and taking off from airport;

• ATC in terminal area and en-route airspace;

• liaison with CFMU.

Guidance and control of aircraft and vehicles on an airport apron (Apron Control) istaken, for the purpose of this report, to be part of the Airport Authority role, and isdiscussed in the previous chapter.

The remainder of this section (4.1) gives some background to the ATC operationsrelevant to the study by describing briefly the different ATC roles, and the ATCsystems and tools typically used to support controllers.

Section 4.2 describes some aspects of current ATC operations, in particular thosethat interface with the Airport and with Flow Management.

Section 4.3 notes some foreseen developments of ATC systems, and in particularAirport ATC systems.

Section 4.4 summarises the information that may be available from ATCAuthorities, and considers briefly the issues that must be addressed to allow widerdissemination of this information.

Section 4.5 reports on what new information participating ATC Authorities considerwould be useful in their operations, while section 4.6 presents the developmentsthey suggested to systems, procedures and infrastructure.

FASTER Phase 1

58 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 59

EUROCONTROL

• Ground Movements Control (GMC): Responsible for guidance, control andmanagement of taxiing aircraft, on taxiways and runways.

• Runway: Responsible for aircraft taking off or landing at the airport. At largerairports, usually controls landing aircraft from the time they are established onfinal approach. Alternatively the handover may be earlier, in which case therunway controller is also responsible for finalising the landing sequence.

At individual airports, these positions may be further sub-divided. At large airportsthe work of a position is often split geographically between two or more controllersat busy times; at smaller airports positions may be combined at quiet times.

Control of traffic pushing back and taxiing in the apron (Apron Control) is includedin GMC at some airports, and at others rests with the Airport Authority. For thepurpose of this report Apron Control has been taken to be a responsibility of theAirport Authority, as discussed in section 3.1.3. Where the Airport Authorityperforms Apron Control, start-up clearance may be passed to the pilot by the ApronController, but that that clearance must always have been given by ATC. Likewise,towing operations are usually controlled by the Airport Authority, but need clearancefrom ATC to cross a runway or taxiway.

4.1.2.5 Airline Reporting Offices/Aeronautical Information Services (ARO/AIS)The ARO/AIS play an important role in ATFM, for example being responsible forsupporting flight plan filing and AFTN access to pilots. This service is similar to thatprovided by Handling Agents (independents or airport related). Increasingly they areequipped with CFMU terminals and will be requested to sign CFMU Service LevelAgreements.

AROs are currently undergoing a phase of evolution with, for example, restructuringinto regional service providers in France and Germany.

4.1.3 ATC SystemsA modern ATC system usually serves all controllers: ACC, APP and TWR. Inaddition the TWR controllers at busy airports often have additional systems toassist them, which may or may not be integrated with the national ATC system.

The links between national ATC systems and airport information systems, at theairports visited as part of this study, have been discussed in section 3.1.4.

For example, Brussels CANAC system has a common database which links theAutomation System providing radar and flight data processing and the AirportMovement System providing airport and Tower-related ATC operations.

FMPs have an “FMP terminal” (or Remote Client Access (RCA)) giving access tothe Eurocontrol CFMU databases, and providing the same data but displayeddifferently to that seen by the CFMU Operators at the CEU. The data feed to theRCA is not linked to any national ATC system. Input from FMPs to CFMU could beimproved by allowing modification of sector configurations and capacities directlyfrom the CFMU terminal.

FASTER Phase 1

60 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

4.2 Current ATC Operations

4.2.1 IntroductionThis section describes briefly some typical ATC operations, concentrating on thosethat interface with the Airport and with Flow Management. Information exchangesare discussed in the operational context in which they exist.

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

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

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

Sectorisation and route planning may also be affected by changed traffic patterns.In the example described above, the AO's new schedule information was availableto the ATC authority only two days before the beginning of the new season - toolate for new route structures and/or sectorisations to be designed, tested andbrought into operation (with the accompanying changes to procedures that wouldmost likely have need required).

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

ATC and Airport authorities usually co-operate to some extent in strategic planningof airport infrastructure and capacity. For example at Nice, required CFMUregulations are determined by a regulation committee involving ATC, the AirportAuthority, handlers and airlines. The committee's decisions are based on thepredicted congestion highlighted by the Airport Authority’s planning simulations.

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 61

EUROCONTROL

given the number of controllers available on the day in question. As a result of thisprocess, the pre-tactical regulations set for France can vary significantly from day today.

Planning for airport ATC is typically done 12 or 6 hours ahead. This planning musttake forecast weather into account, for example to decide runway(s) in use forlanding and take-off, so the length of time in advance that operations can beplanned is limited by the accuracy of weather forecasts.

Airport arrival and departure sequences are rarely planned much in advance.Sequencing is discussed in more detail below in section 4.2.5.2. The occupancy ofrunways and taxiways is not planned specifically, although the optimisation ofrunway use is achieved through departure and arrivals sequence planning at someairports.

4.2.4 Tactical restrictions

4.2.4.1 Chronic CongestionChronic congestion arises when the demand level continuously exceeds airportcapacity. This problem is being faced by more and more airports amongst thesample interviewed.

Airport slots provide a “first filter” to manage chronic congestion and to preventoverloading of airport capacity. ATC authorities then use tactical restrictionsimplemented by CFMU arrival regulations as a further filter to handle congestion.

At present the two mechanisms can only be loosely linked since, as one airportpointed out, for an infrequent user of the airport the actual usage of airport slots caneven shift from one day to another as a result of airline operational problems.

The CFMU regulation that is applied is not necessarily the same as the declaredairport slot capacity. It may be higher to keep stacks stocked for maximumthroughput, or lower as at Zurich to avoid overloads from other traffic.

Airports that are not co-ordinated use tactical restrictions to manage congestion,but may also apply more specific controls. For example, Nice ATC will accept allscheduled and military traffic but can reject charter, private, and training flights atbusy times.

4.2.4.2 Disruption CaseDisruption situations occur relatively frequently at airports and may be due to manydifferent causes. Generally they are due to events which cannot be foreseen morethan a few hours in advance. The most frequent causes are adverse weatherconditions (e.g. fog, snow, high winds), but local works, industrial action, strikesand traffic incidents are all potential causes of disruption.

Disruption has a significant impact on airline operations. It induces high costsowing to the disruption of the schedule, leaving aircraft and passengers atunplanned locations. Improved information flow and management of thesesituations would be of significant benefit to airlines.

FASTER Phase 1

62 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

When a problem of this type arises, a flow management regulation is employed toprotect the airport from overload. The responsibility for the notification of reducedcapacity rests with the FMP which informs the CFMU. The available slots are thenallocated with delays reflecting the reduced capacity.

The strategy for employing these tactical constraints depend on the airportconcerned. For example, UK NATS will assume the worst case in bad weather toavoid overload and the need for diversions, and then monitor the situation with theaim of lifting the regulation as early as possible.

When SIGMET warnings are received at the London FMP (LFMP) these are notinput into any system, but are used by the FMP to in decide what flow rates can besupported and what regulations, if any, are required. The ATC staff at each airporthave built up a wealth of experience of local weather conditions which allows themto react quickly to likely changes.

However, there is inevitably a delay in initiating and lifting a tactical regulation.Given that typical flight durations in the European core area are one hour, it takesthis length of time for a new regulation to reduce the traffic demand or for normaltraffic to be re-established following the lifting of a regulation. BA noted that in theevent of fog, internal flights (e.g. from Manchester-Heathrow) are kept on standbyfor rapid response to regulations being lifted.

4.2.4.3 Identification and Implementation of Tactical RestrictionsFMPs usually warn CEU of impending regulation requests by telephone, backed upby an AFTN message. The procedure for deciding the regulation varies betweensites.

For NATS, the TWR and APP supervisors decide on a suitable arrival rate when itneeds to be reduced, co-ordinating via the London FMP (LFMP) to CFMU. A fixedsector configuration is used, but LFMP liaises with ATC to make tactical sectormanning decisions, and LFMP then carries out tactical monitoring, liaising withCFMU and ATC regarding new problems and required restrictions.

The LFMP will try to work with the CEU to reduce any delays that are greater thanone hour (or which might otherwise be considered excessive) where London sectoror TWR is the most penalising restriction. Similarly, when slot extensions areneeded, the TWR will call the LFMP to obtain the necessary clearance from theCEU.

In contrast, in France, the Paris FMP (PFMP) determines the optimal sectorconfiguration at -2d on the basis of predicted traffic. The optimisation that isperformed is to find the grouping of sectors that gives least overloads withinconstraint of available staffing.

ATC then resolves tactical problems dynamically. For example Charles de Gaulleairport operates with no dedicated runway, and take-offs have priority over arrivals.As a result capacity can vary during the day on a short timescale giving unexpectedoverloads for ATC.

Brussels airport noted that since it has only a small surrounding airspace, there areno declared sector capacities, and restrictions are normally only set for longer-term

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 63

EUROCONTROL

problems. Also, Brussels has to deal with many state flights which are exemptfrom flow management controls.

4.2.5 Tactical operations

4.2.5.1 FPLs and CFMU messagesThe ACC/FMP receives flight plan messages (FPLs) and flow managementmessages by AFTN or SITA. The TWR receives these messages directly or via theATC system. For example:

• At Athens, the CFMU slot is sent directly to the TWR

• At Amsterdam, FPLs and the CFMU slot is sent to the ACC, then through theATC system to the TWR. CFMU slots are entered into the system manually.

• At Brussels the FMP receives slot allocations and then an operator types themin for internal distribution

• At Heathrow, the FPLs are transferred to the ATC system by an operator. Fromnext year this will be performed automatically. CFMU messages are enteredautomatically into the Departure Slot Manager. Approximately half an hourbefore departure flight strips are printed: thereafter they are amended by hand

• At Zurich the ACC receives and enters FPLs and slot messages which are thenavailable to TWR and Apron Control. Also Zurich uses pre-input of RPLs toreduce the work needed to enter FPLs.

Several ATC authorities are working on systems to avoid manual transfer of CFMUslot allocations and updates to internal systems. For example, this is underprogress at RVA Schiphol and is contained in the requirements for the GreekPALLAS system although not yet implemented.

Several ATC authorities provide facilities for small AOs such as business jetoperators to interact with the CFMU. This may be through an official ARO orHandling provided by the airport. For example,

• Brussels airport RVA provides an AFTN terminal.

• AdP handling services will submit FPLs and receive slots.

From the CFMU point of view, the ARO of the aerodrome of departure is the defaultaddressing for ATFM messages if the AO has not been identified (i.e. GA).

4.2.5.2 Take off and landing schedulesThe ICAO rule for arrivals is first come, first served, but the ATC authority can getbetter runway utilisation if the sequence of aircraft is optimised (eg by weightcategory)

Several of the ATC organisations interviewed used supporting automation systemsfor sequencing take-offs and landings, but any optimisation of runway use is a

FASTER Phase 1

64 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

manual process. Problems arise with planning in advance due to the low quality ofthe data available.

Brussels TWR performs a manual optimisation with the agreement of users. TheBelgian RVA is in the process of developing a system called Optimum Time ofDeparture (ODT) which will generate an initial automatic sequence using CFMUslots about 20 minutes before TOT. It also takes into account aircraft performance,SID and wake turbulence category. As TOT approaches, sequencing will movefrom automatic to manual, with only the TWR controller finally being able to makechanges. The planning and updates of this optimised departure sequence will besent to AOs and the other ATC and airport services. The AOs will be able to flag ifthey are unable to meet the scheduled TOT.

At Athens HCAA, landings are first-come, first-served with no sequencing anddepartures are ordered by slot time when they are ready to depart. The mix ofarrivals and departures on runway is arranged on an adhoc basis to suit the trafficdemands.

At Schiphol, LVB uses a computer system to develop an automated plan for thearrival sequence from the FPLs 30 minutes before arrival. This is updated usingradar data. The landing schedule is based on first-come, first-served. From this,and the known arrival rate, the exit time from the hold is calculated. Departures areon a first-come, first-served basis depending on start-up time, with clearance beingrefused if it is not consistent with the CFMU slot. Some optimisation is carried outand a queue is often maintained to maximise runway capacity.

UK NATS uses FPLs as a means of initial planning for arrivals, the sequence beingmanually fine-tuned by APP based on wake category. For departures, aircraftsequence can be adjusted during taxi or in holding areas by the runway. A manualoptimisation is carried out considering the CFMU slot, wake category,environmental constraints, speed, route and position in sequence.

Swisscontrol uses first-come, first-served for both arrivals and departures withsome manual optimisation to maximise usage of runway capacity. FPLs are foundto be insufficiently accurate to be useful for arrival sequence planning.

Nice ATC uses first-come, first-served for establishing landing sequences. Fordepartures a pre-tactical sequencing is carried out in advance on the day, butwithout automation tools.

4.2.5.3 Prioritisation of Ground OperationsICAO rules mean that departures with allocated CFMU slots always get priority overnon-slotted flights, which can occasionally result in delays to unregulated slots frombusy airports. State and military flights have a higher priority, as noted by Brusselswhich has to handle a large number of such flights.

In all cases, the TWR has access to CFMU slot information. However, the TWRcontrollers are rarely able to prioritise ground operations to any great extent: theirmain mechanism is through the issue of start-up clearances.

Several ATC organisations noted that controllers have a good mental picture of taxitimes from each stand to each runway from their experience, although it is rare forthis information to be recorded in an automated form.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 65

EUROCONTROL

Brussels noted that once an aircraft is given start-up it will be allowed to take-off.Hence start-up clearance is denied if ATC anticipated that the aircraft won’t makeits CFMU slot and a slot extension is not possible.

Nice ATC noted that for them the taxi time is known with an accuracy of 2-3minutes, and since there are no constraints on taxiing, they can be sure whenCFMU slots will be met.

4.2.5.4 Slot extensionIf necessary due to small delays, ATC will attempt to assist users by negotiating aslot extension. Normally the TWR controller will telephone the CFMU directly or govia the FMP. For example, Brussels and Athens TWR will call the CFMU whileLVB, NATS and ZRH go via their FMPs.

In disruption conditions, the Tower may occasionally negotiate a temporarydispensation, allowing all slots to be extended so that operations are simplified toair disruption recovery.

4.2.6 Post-flight phaseThere is a mixed approach to monitoring flow management operations amongstATC organisations. For example, RVA doesn’t keep statistics on FM problems,HCAA analyses CFMU summaries, LVB keeps statistics and reports monthly to tryto refine operations, and NATS and Zurich maintain logs of problems which areanalysed and solved individually.

4.3 Future Airport ATC systems

4.3.1 A-SMGCSThe principal development which was discussed with ATC authorities was thepossibility of introduction of A-SMGCS systems. These are regarded as importantin significantly increasing the distribution of good quality information.

Several interviewees explained that they have plans to develop such systems.Examples were Brussels, Schiphol, UK NATS and Swisscontrol, although in thelatter case it would initially be standalone.

NATS is intending to procure a system for Heathrow and other UK airports. Thismight display callsign and route for outbound aircraft and callsign and stand forinbound aircraft, and could automatically record movements at airfields.

It was felt that the A-SMGCS might allow more accurate slot management by ATC,although for a real improvement airline operations would also have to make acorresponding improvement in accuracy. Brussels RVA suggested that A-SMGCScould be used to allow much narrower take off slots, even as low as 1 minute. LVBcommented that the CFMU slot is wide relative to the timescale of groundoperations, so it will not help the accuracy of planning and operations to use it in A-SMGCS.

Brussels also commented that A-SMGCS should improve the accuracy of taxitimes.

FASTER Phase 1

66 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

Swisscontrol expect better planning tools in A-SMGCS to increase capacity sincethe declared capacity has margin built in to avoid overloading any departure orarrival route. They also noted that the departure manager should allow a 5 minutetake-off slot by 2005, but the accuracy also depends very much on the accuracy ofAO operations.

4.3.2 Other DevelopmentsBrussels RVA noted several planned developments of their CANAC system whichdemonstrate potential future enhancements elsewhere.

• a plan to link ATIS to the CANAC ATC system for automation of terminalinformation (eg runway in use, weather, RVR, ILS category, ...)

• a plan to use datalink for passing start-up clearance

• the CANAC-AMS-OTD (Optimal Time of Departure) subsystem will carry out atactical allocation of the runway to each departing flight.

4.4 Information AvailableThe following table provides a summary of information that is available to /fromATC authorities in Europe. Note that all of the information listed may not beavailable to all ATC authorities, and that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Itis intended simply to give an indication of the present situation.







Completeness. This indicates whether coverage is adequate.

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


FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 67

EUROCONTROL

Table of ATC Information



Airport Slots AO, Airportcommercial dept

Season accuracy:highstability: high

completeness: high

ATC

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

ATC, Airport

Runway in use ATC Before take-off accuracy:highstability:highcompleteness: high

Voicecommunication,some automation

Pilot via handler

Seasonal scheduleof works

Airport Permanently accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: high

AO, handler

Daily briefing(runway, weather,expected delays)

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

accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: high

AO, handler

RegulationRequests

ATC FMP Real time accuracy:highstability: mediumcompleteness: high

Automated CEU

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

By voice, butincreasingautomation

AO, handler

FASTER Phase 1

68 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL



Aircraft positions,ETA etc

ATC surveillance,perhaps with widercoverage frominterconnection toneighbouringsystems

Real time accuracy: high

stability:mediumcompleteness: high

ATC systems -

Tactical Flow Rates ATC Real time. accuracy:high

stability:mediumcompleteness: high

By voice, butincreasinglyautomated.

AO, handler.

Slot RevisionRequests

AO, handler d-1 up to EOBT+accuracy:highstability: medium

completeness: high

Automated ATC (TWR), CEU

Taxi Times ATC experience,based on apronavailability, aircrafttype, gate and mostlikely take-off runway

Real time accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: high

Head of operator /automated in future

-

Departuresequence

ATC EOBT-30 min accuracy:highstability: mediumcompleteness: high

In operator’s head,but level ofautomationincreasing

AO (sometimes)

Actual Time ofDeparture

ATC Real-time accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: high

From ATC system Stand allocation unit,AO, handler

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 69

EUROCONTROL



Airline GroundOperations (e.g.progress onpreparing a flightprior to pushback)

AO, handler, gatemanager

EOBT-30 min toEOBT+

accuracy:lowstability: low

completeness: low

Little if any link ATC-AO

ATC

Slot ExtensionRequests

ATC, on behalf ofAO/handler

EOBT-1hr to EOBT+accuracy:highstability: medium

completeness: high

Automated CEU

Advisory of ArrivalSequence

ATC EOBT-30 min? accuracy:mediumstability: lowcompleteness:

medium

Off-line? In futureautomated?

Stand allocation unit,AO, handler.

Actual Time ofArrival

ATC Real-time accuracy:highstability: highcompleteness: high

From ATC system Stand allocation unit,AO, handler.

FASTER Phase 1

70 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

4.5 New information requirements

4.5.1 IntroductionThe ATC Providers participating in this project were asked to identify newinformation that would be useful to their operations, or information that they wouldlike earlier or more accurately. The following sections note the new informationrequirements that were identified. These are:

• earlier ETA or ATD

• ASD

• earlier slot information

• AO schedule information

• state of airline ground operations

• feedback from airport slots

Where possible, potential sources of this information are noted. Further work maybe required to determine the most appropriate source for some of the items, orwhether the information could be made available at all in the timescale and to theaccuracy that would be helpful to ATC.

Much of what is required is not new - in many cases ATC simply requires morecomplete information, and more reliable updates, so that the eventual information iscomplete and accurate and therefore useful as a basis for planning.

4.5.2 Earlier ETA or ATDAt present, most ATC authorities have little information on the ETA or ATD. Anestimation can be obtained from, for example FPLs or CFMU slot allocations, butthis is subject to a relatively high degree of inaccuracy. Better quality informationwould be a significant step to allowing ATC to improve arrivals sequencing andstack management.

Brussels airport noted that the information could come from CFMU or directly fromairport systems through appropriate message distribution.

Athens ATC suggested that estimates based on surveillance information would beuseful, and pointed out that they cannot use FDPS updates since there is no auto-processing in PALLAS, and in any case no neighbouring states systems arecurrently able to provide such updates.

UK NATS suggested that TWR control would like an accurate ETA for input toarrivals planning, and thought that ATC systems would be a good source for thisdata. They also noted that since arrivals to London are held in stacks to maximiselocal runway utilisation, prediction of delays before the stacks are joined are of littleuse in tactical planning.

Swisscontrol is considering taking radar data from neighbouring ATC centres toextend its planning horizon.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 71

EUROCONTROL

4.5.3 Air Situation DisplayAn ASD capability was seen as useful by a number of ATC authorities, principally ifit can provide a good quality ETA. For example, Brussels commented that the toolmust give the data needed to update the FPL held locally including providing anadvance ETA for the arrivals manager. Similarly LVB considered that it shouldprovide a better ETA.

Other ATC authorities commented that planned extensions to their radar coveragewere probably sufficient.

4.5.4 Earlier CFMU Slot InformationThere is a requirement for flow management slot information to be available earlier.For example, Swisscontrol TWR controllers noted that they get the slot allocationsfrom their ATC system, but have to wait for it to be entered by the ATC, so that theAO often receives the information some time before them. Also they noted that itwould be very useful if changes to slot allocations could be displayed in animproved manner, making it easier for operators to. detect changes significant tothem

4.5.5 AO Schedule InformationBetter information from AOs on schedules was believed to be needed by ATC. Thiswould help them improve planning for optimising both arrival and departureschedules.

For example LVB noted that they employ different runway combinations for inboundand outbound traffic peaks, and AO schedule information is needed to plan thetimings of switches.

Nice ATC noted that they receive no feedback from the IATA conference since theyare not a coordinated airport. Frequently, schedules are available only at the lastminute, and often later than the dates when they are supposed to be provided. As aresult they proposed that IATA could make early publication mandatory since thiswould help airport organisation make more efficient and consequently also help theusers.

Charter flight information was found to be particularly variable, although specialevents such as football matches can introduce a high level of uncertainty. ATCauthorities would like to be informed of planned flights and special events.

4.5.6 State of Airline Ground OperationsIt was noted by several ATC (eg HCAA, UK NATS, Swisscontrol) that they have noinformation on the state of airline ground operations. Improving this would bringcapacity benefits by allowing ATC to make early planning of taxiing and departuresequence, give time to negotiate slot extensions and help with arrivals planning(since it would be known better when a gate would be free).

Several suggestions for improving the current situation were proposed. Theseincluded:

FASTER Phase 1

72 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

• A 10 minute advance warning of the aircraft’s call for start-up would be ofsignificant help.

• Several ATC authorities said that that they would like to have generalinformation from AO on what is going on at the gates.

• AOs should be responsible for sending accurate information on groundoperations progress and delays to the TWR (and CFMU)

• Useful information could also be provided by Apron Control. For example, itwould be useful to know if a push-back tractor is available, if a push-back tractoris in place and if the baggage is loaded.

Brussels RVA commented that they had attempted to introduce a system where aten minute advance warning of start-up call would come from the pilot, but that thishad not proved to be at all reliable. They also noted that in the future CANAC-AMS-OTD system, they will send the planned departure sequence to the AO’s, who wouldhave the responsibility to update this planning to reflect unforeseen events duringtheir ground operations

UK NATS also noted that it would be useful to have more information on AO'stowing plans.

4.5.7 Feedback from Airport SlotsThere was some discussion of the benefits of more closely linking airport slots withoperations, and it was suggested that this could be done through FPLs. Forexample, if a link could be introduced between the FPL and the airport slot, theIFPU could check the filed FPL corresponds to an expected slot.

One ATC authority said that flights frequently arrive outside their issued slots,particularly in summer when the load can reach up to 150% of the actual issuedslots.

Another ATC authority also said that flights frequently arrive at the start or end oftheir 10 minute-wide airport slot apparently in order to get as close as possible tothe time required by their operating schedules. This can lead to short-term overloadof ATC, which in turn can be compounded by the unpredictable arrival of NorthAtlantic traffic.

It was noted that ATC authorities do not check for a correspondence between theCFMU slot and airport slot. It was felt that this could be useful if only on a strategictimescale (eg by post-flight analysis). Short term checking for correspondence isless easy since, as was noted by UK NATS, the use of the airport slot by an AO canslip by several hours or even days owing to operational problems whereas theCFMU slot must be complied with: the two represent "planning layers".

There was also some mention of the US system where airlines have to pay forairport slots. If such a system were introduced in Europe, the interaction with CFMUdelays would be an issue.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 73

EUROCONTROL

4.6 General Comments for Improvement of Operations by ATC

4.6.1 IntroductionThe ATC authorities interviewed during the study made a number of additionalcomments and suggestions for the improvement of current systems, proceduresand infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

74 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 75

EUROCONTROL

5. ConclusionsThis section contains the principal conclusions that were drawn from the conduct ofthe interviews and the subsequent analysis.

5.1 General Attitudes and SituationThe airlines, airports and ATC authorities interviewed were very aware of the need forand the benefits of improved information exchange, and were keen to participate insuch work provided that good cost-benefit arguments could be made for each specificcase.

It was evident that operators need more information to understand the causes ofproblems such as flight delays. If this were available, it would allow them to work onreducing the delays they experience.

Furthermore, there was support for the philosophy inherent in collaborative planningand decision making, namely to enable operators to gain direct benefit from their ownactions that help the wider community to make better use of scarce resources (e.g.cancellations).

The complexity of airline and airport organisations throughout Europe mean thatinitiatives must take into account local situations. For example, there are widely-varying capabilities and investments in Information Technology support and this mustbe considered when developing potential solutions.

5.2 Operational IssuesA number of particular operational issues were noted which it was felt more advancedinformation management could improve.

Management of the disruption case was seen as an important issue because of thefinancial impact on the companies. Disruption cases were identified as ranging fromreduced visibility to extreme cases such as closure of a runway following an incident.It is currently not possible for new regulations to take effect very quickly, and it alsotakes a long time to recover after regulations are removed. This delay in response isdue to factors such as the typical flight times within the core area, and the uncertaintyof weather predictions. However, it was felt that an improved information exchangecould ameliorate these situations.

The AOs delay cost function is highly non-linear, but there is a marked reluctance tocancel flights even when there is a high delay cost because the aircraft operatoranticipates that its passengers will switch to a competitor providing an equivalentservice. It would be beneficial if procedures were arranged to encourage the aircraftoperator to cancel in these circumstances because it would help to limit demand attimes when capacity is reduced, with consequent reduction in delays.

5.3 PlanningEffective planning is very difficult owing to the impact of real-life events and thedifficulties in ensuring that up-to-date information is available and is propagatedefficiently. Thus, current planning arrangements have to be highly reactive, asdemonstrated by airport stand allocation plans and revisions of slot allocations.

Similarly, poor information availability affects the quality of pre-tactical predictions.In this case important sources of error are the difficulties that ATC authorities havein providing accurate capacity data given variability in staffing levels, and the

FASTER Phase 1

76 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

difficulty that aircraft operators have in providing accurate FPLs at this early stage ofa flight due to problems such as weather prediction. This latter factor iscompounded by the understandable reluctance of aircraft operators to give outinformation which they know will be revised later, not least because of the additionalcommunications costs. However, it is certainly the case that for some actors, suchas ATFM, an initial piece of information will be better than none.

A further element is that aircraft operators, particularly the larger companies, haveadvanced flight planning and slot management systems which allow them to take intoaccount a wide range of factors including weather predictions, the particular aircraft’sperformance and company operating procedures. Also more and more operatorsactively use air/ground datalink communication (e.g. ACARS) as a means ofmanaging their operations. While it is clear that real world events mean that theactual paths are not always very close to the filed routes, the introduction of reroutingtools is considered very important by AOs since they are seen as potential source ofdelay reduction.

5.4 Improved Information DistributionThe focus of FASTER is on improvement of information distribution and management.As was found during the interviews, this can have several dimensions. Not only is itnecessary to distribute the right information, it is necessary to consider severalinformation quality factors : timeliness, stability, completeness.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the approach to displaying the information,since if it is not provided in a form that is readily accessible to the user, it will not beused.

The analysis revealed that consideration of the following aspects of informationdistribution and management amongst the actors would be of interest to the actorsconcerned:

• For AOs:

• early (pre-tactical) information on heavily loaded sectors with some idea oflikely delays on routes, and later (tactical) information on possiblealternative routings to avoid planning problems

• re-presentation of existing information to maximise utility, and to focus onwhat might be possible

• ATC estimations of expected holding times in stacks and airport waitingareas

• additional airport information, such as pre-tactical capacity and tacticalgate allocations in certain circumstances

• For Airport Authorities:

• earlier information on rotations planned by AOs

• updates of rotation planning

• better information on passenger numbers

• earlier ETAs

• better quality ETDs, particularly with respect to expected departure delaysand the progress of ground handling operations

• For ATC providers:

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 77

EUROCONTROL

• earlier availability of ETAs and/or ATDs

• earlier availability of flow management slot information and improveddisplay

• better information from AO on schedules

• better information from AOs and/or handlers and/or gate managers on thestate of airline ground operations in preparation of a flight

• integration of airport slots with FPLs or CFMU slots

These new data could be delivered by enhancements of existing systems such asthe CFMU’s RTA/RCA, planned systems such as the ASD, or alternatively separatenew information systems.

In any case, a key issue of concern to all participants was that developments ininformation management must always be supported by the appropriate justificationof expected benefits, taking into consideration on-going communications costs, andthe manpower for input and use of the information, as well as the systemdevelopment costs.

Finally, improved information distribution should continue to support equity andtransparency to ensure that there are no concerns over equal treatment of users.

FASTER Phase 1

78 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

6. RecommendationsIn any operational system it is appropriate to continuously review existing workingpractices and rules in the light of new requirements and operational developments.Such reviews should be aimed at identifying the problems and new requirements,and, assuming new technical possibilities (e.g. related to communications andcomputation) develop new rules, algorithms and technical requirements.

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

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

• measurement of the benefits accrued from new or better information (e.g. ETAestimates for airports)

• measurement of the benefits of modified display of information (e.g. that identifiedas required by AOs)

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

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

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

• dissemination of accurate taxi time and other information needed for accurateestimation of take-off time

• display of information to ATM system users

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

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

Parameters for evaluation of results should include:

• Feedback from aircraft operators, airports and other experiment participants

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 79

EUROCONTROL

Furthermore, the scope of these experiments should be designed to allow a solidevaluation of operational benefits, and implementation and operating costs for allactors.

FASTER Phase 1

80 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

7. FASTER questionnaires

7.1 Questionnaire to Aircraft Operators

1. THE FUTURE

This section seeks the Airline’s views and preferences on possible futuredevelopments in Flow Management, particularly those concerning links with the AOC.

1.1 We have broken down airline activities into three different phases.

If d day is the day of the flight:

Strategic phase: program elaboration

This phase starts season minus 3 years to season minus 6 months

Pre-tactical phase: program implementation (operations planning)

This phase starts season minus 6 months to d day minus 1 day

Tactical phase: operations control

This phase starts d day minus 1 day

If the breakdown is not correct please, redefine it along with appropriate time limits ofthe phases and activities.

1.2 Do you intend to take congestion into account during the strategic or pre-tacticalphases (see question 1.1)?

1.3 Pre-tactical phase (see question 1.1)

What information could be provided to you by the CFMU during the pre-tacticalphase?

❐ Demand forecast?

❐ Capacity forecast?

❐ Forecast pictures of constrained sectors?

❐ Average delays?

❐ Other? (Please describe...)

When should this information be provided to you?

1.4 Tactical phase and flight phase (see question 1.1)

If the CFMU was to provide additional information to the airlines, what wouldinterest you:

❐ Up-to-date and forecast pictures of sectors constraints?

❐ Foreseen delays?

❐ Capacity and demand forecast?

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 81

EUROCONTROL

❐ Actual capacity and demand?

❐ List of possible alternate routes?

❐ Forbidden sectors for rerouting?

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

❐ Real time information on:

❐ Airport status/runway configuration

❐ Gate assignment

❐ Taxitime

❐ SIDs, STARs, CDRs

❐ Weather (icing/windshear)

❐ Other? (Please describe...)

When should this information be provided to you?

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

❐ Planned flight data of an additional flight?

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

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

❐ Detailed flight plan with associated waypoints & overflight time (FMS like),especially for all external/transatlantic flights?

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

❐ Real take-off time and arrival time?

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

❐ Links between flights?


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


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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

82 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

1.8 Are you interested in an ASD terminal (Air Situation Display) for the real-timelocalisation of aircraft of your company?

1.9 Would you be interested in swapping slots between flights if they go through thesame regulations?

1.10 How would you consider different route charges within re-routing?

1.11 Would you accept a lower than planned cruising level to reduce flow managementdelay?

1.12 Multi-flight-plan filing for slot improvement:

Filing an alternate flight plan after EOBT-2 hours can penalise flights subject to thesame regulation that originate from a nearby airport and therefore have not yetreached EOBT-2 hours (slot allocation) as explained by the following drawing.

Estimated/ComputedTime Over the entry of aregulated sectorETO of alternate flight plan

Time

flight from nearbyairport: CTO

ETO

One way to prevent this, is to apply the "first filed, first served" rule instead of the"first over, first served" rule for flight plans filed after EOBT - 2 hours.

How would you view the application of this rule?

1.13 How would you view commercial treatment of CFMU slots (e.g. paying forregulation slots and not being reimbursed the slots for which no aircraft departurewas registered)?

1.14 Would you accept equity of treatment transformed into an economical context:

❐ Equity of treatment not on flight by flight basis but on a weekly or monthly basis?

❐ Equity of treatment assessed at the Airline Operator level and not on flight byflight basis?

❐ Advantages/Penalties?

example: ATFM priority points

An aircraft operator is given some ATFM points that it can use to give priority to a

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 83

EUROCONTROL

particular flight.

ATFM points are given in the following case :

• The aircraft operator has accepted re-routing proposed by the CFMU

• A given flight has been unduly penalised

ATFM points are lost

• If the aircraft operator cheated

• In case of duplicate flight plan

• If not used after a given period

Extension of the mechanism to a kind of stock exchange of ATFM points. Aircraftoperators being given the opportunity to buy (through ATFM points) or to sell somedelay among themselves.

1.15 What modifications to the CFMU services would you recommend?

1.16 How do you imagine and/or expect the CFMU in 3 years?

1.17 How do you imagine and/or expect the CFMU within "free route" operations?

2. YOUR PRESENT OPERATIONS WITHIN ATFM

The purpose of this part of the questionnaire is to highlight airlines main operationalproblems as well as the existing links between the CFMU and the aircraft operatorcontrol centres. It is divided into two parts:

2.1. General inquiries on delays

2.2. Airlines operations

2.1 General inquiries on delays

2.1.1 Do you assess the cost of delays?

If yes, what is it (expressed in local currency per minute per aircraft)?

Can you give us the breakdown of this cost?

2.1.2 Do you keep statistics on your flights’ delays and associated causes?

2.1.3 Are you ready to share this statistical information with the CFMU?

2.1.4 What percentage of your flights is regulated?

2.1.5 What percentage of your flights is delayed (induced delays excluded)?

2.1.6 What percentage of your flights is delayed (induced delays included)?

2.1.7 What percentage of your flights are you forced to cancel due to congestion delays?

FASTER Phase 1

84 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

2.1.8 What city pairs are the most affected?

2.2 Airlines Operations

2.2.1 When your route is congested, which do you prefer usually (80% of cases):

❐ an on-time take-off with rerouting (perhaps with higher costs from route/fuelcharges)?

❐ a delayed take-off with original route?

❐ meeting arrival time?

❐ Other (please describe)?

2.2.2 Do you file RPLs?

2.2.3 Do you file PFD? Under what circumstances?

If not, why not?

2.2.4 Is an FMP terminal implemented in your operational centre?

2.2.5a If NO:

Do you have another slot management system?

How do you communicate with the CFMU?

Do you communicate with the CFMU in other phases than the tactical one and forother purpose than filing?

If yes, what is the purpose?

2.2.5b If YES:

In what phases of flight plans elaboration do you use it and for what purpose?

2.2.6 Do you co-ordinate your flight schedules with those of your subsidiary(ies) orparent company?

2.2.7 Do you co-ordinate your flight schedules with those of airlines of your alliance?

2.2.8 Do you co-ordinate your flight operations with those of your subsidiary(ies) orparent company?

2.2.9 Do you co-ordinate your flight operations with those of airlines of your alliance?

2.2.10 How long a delay is a threshold for you in terms of ripple effects on youroperations?

2.2.11 What parameters do you take into account to define this threshold?

2.2.12 If you use a hub airport or for an very busy international airport, list all types ofservices provided to you by this airport. We are specially interested in theresources allocation process.

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 85

EUROCONTROL

Actors?

Data exchanged and related time frame associated with the exchanges?

Means?

Example: resource allocation process

actors:

Work position of your representative who does the negotiations?

Work position of his airport counterpart?

data exchanged and related time frame:

What do you request, (contact gates for some flights, outside parking for others,etc.)?

When do you make your request?

e.g.:

Do you make one request for the whole season?

How long in advance (before EOBT) must you make your request for an additionalflight?

means:

What tools/communications support these exchange?

If there are service providers, like de-icing, fuel, catering, with which you negotiatedirectly, please describe processes in the same way (actors, data exchanged andrelated time frame, means).

2.2.13 Same question as above for a small airport if relevant.

2.2.14 Describe the succession of operations during a typical turn around fromtouchdown to take-off including communications with ops control if any.

The answer should be given in the format of three columns table with the followingheaders:

Time Ground Pilot

Operations

The time should go from touchdown to take-off time. The operations should be ofthe type :

"(pilot) gets pre-departure clearance from ATC"

"(pilot) gets a new CFMU slot from ops control"

"(ground operations) passengers board aircraft"

FASTER Phase 1

86 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

2.2.15 Airport slots:

How many months before start of season do you negotiate these slots?

At the same time, do you also negotiate slots for other subsequent seasons?

Which subsequent seasons?

In this case the result of the negotiation is:

❐ An Arrival/Departure in a time band?

❐ A precise slot (day of week, time)?

Would you be ready to give out this information to the CFMU to improve theaccuracy of the strategic traffic forecast?

2.2.16 How do you react to a capacity drop of an airport (choice of flights to cancel...)?

We are interested in the list of actions undertaken to solve the problem.

2 cases:

- Anticipated (~1 day in advance)

- Not anticipated

2.2.17 What type of tools do you use for

Fleet planning?

Flight planning?

Weather forecast?

2.2.18 How were they developed (internal or bought outside)?

Fleet planning:

Flight planning:

Weather forecast:

2.2.19 Are there possibilities of external communication with these tools?

2.2.20 What type of communication provider do you use? (Other than SITA?)

2.2.21 Could you sketch roughly the architecture of the communications within yourcompany and with the outside (CFMU, airports, ACC, weather services)?

2.2.22 Do you have data-links between the operational centre and your aircraft?

If yes, for what percentage of aircraft?

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 87

EUROCONTROL

3. YOUR AIRLINE COMPANY

As the questionnaire is sent to many different types of airlines, it is important for us toassess the scale and type of your operations. This is the purpose of the last part ofthis questionnaire.

3.1 Full name of your company:

3.2 IATA code:

3.3 Country:

3.4 Are you mainly a passenger carrier or a freight carrier?

3.5 Fleet size:

Number of aircraft allocated to long-haul flights:

Number of aircraft allocated to short-haul flights

3.6 Number of aircraft that are not allocated to any line (spare aircraft):

3.7 Number of personnel:

Flight:

Ground:

3.8 Your major hub(s):

3.9 Percentage of long-haul/short-haul flights:

3.10 Your activity in passenger x miles or in tons x miles

3.11 Number of flights per day in/outbound your major hub(s):

3.12 Number of city pairs connected:

3.13 Airlines that are part of your alliance network:

3.14 Indicate if you are a subsidiary of another airline and which airline:

3.15 Indicate if you own other airlines (e.g. subsidiaries) and which airlines:

FASTER Phase 1

88 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

7.2 Questionnaire to Airports

1. Airport scheduling

1.1 The CFMU has 3 phases of operation:

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

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

− Tactical: the day of operation.

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

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

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

❐ declared runway capacity?

❐ tower/approach ATC capacity?

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

❐ taxiway capacity/ average taxi times?

❐ ground infrastructure/apron capacity (number of aircraft the Airport can providefor in terms of fuel, contact doors, gate services, etc.)?

❐ passenger terminal capacity?

❐ likely capacity reduction due to weather?

❐ demand?

❐ type of aircraft?

❐ landing charges?

❐ gate charges?

❐ other- please describe.

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

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

1.4 Who participates in the seasonal scheduling?

− which organisations are represented?

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

− what role does each person/organisation play?

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

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 89

EUROCONTROL

1.6 What is the content of the seasonal schedule? How precisely is the scheduleplanned?

1.7 a. Based on the seasonal schedule, is a take-off schedule established?b. A landing schedule?

1.8 Does the Airport plan gate and ramp services allocation, based on the seasonalschedule?

1.9 Does the Airport also form a strategic plan of runway and/or taxiway occupancy,based on the seasonal schedule?

The next set of questions is about the tactical process of setting daily operationalschedules.

1.10 In determining the number of Airport slots that will be available (on a tactical basis -i.e. that day or within the next hour), what factors are taken into account?

❐ declared runway capacity?

❐ available runway capacity - i.e. runway(s) in use?

❐ tower/approach ATC capacity?

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

❐ taxiway capacity/ average taxi times?

❐ ground infrastructure/apron capacity (number of aircraft you can provide for interms of fuel, contact doors, gate services, etc.)?

❐ passenger terminal capacity?

❐ forecast weather (fog, snow, wind shifts)?

❐ demand?

❐ type of aircraft?

❐ landing charges?

❐ gate charges?

❐ other- please describe.

1.11 a. Does the Airport make provision in the daily schedule for unforeseen arrivalsand/or departures (e.g. for GA, business flights, diverted aircraft)?b. If so, at what rate?

1.12 Who participates in the operational scheduling?

− which organisations are represented?

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

1.13 In case of demand exceeding capacity during the creation of daily schedules, how isthe competition between flights/airlines resolved?

1.14 a. Based on the daily schedule, is a take-off schedule established (or updated)?b. A landing schedule?

1.15 Does the Airport plan runway and/or taxiway occupancy along with gate and rampservices, based on the daily schedule?

FASTER Phase 1

90 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

1.16 a. Does the Airport establish a landing schedule using FPLs as they becomeavailable?b. Is the landing schedule updated using ETA updates from ATC?

1.17 a. Does the Airport establish a take-off schedule using FPLs as they becomeavailable?b. Is the take-off schedule updated using CFMU slots?

2. Current and future links with CFMU

2.1 What messages are passed between the Airport and the CFMU (or the FlowManagement Position at the ACC)?Ideally we would like details as follows. Some examples are suggested, please deleteor correct these if they are wrong, and add any others.

Information From To When? Under whatpassed who? whom? circumstances?

Estimate of airport capacity Airport FMP StrategicNotification of red. capacity Airport FMP TacticalFlow regulation request TWR FMP Tactical Traffic > capacityFlight plans CFMU TWR Tactical When filedCFMU slot CFMU TWR Tactical When allocatedOthers? . . .

2.2 In the future, what further information could the CFMU provide to help optimise theuse of Airport facilities? Examples may include:

❐ estimated times of arrival?

❐ updated flight plan times (for en-route points)?

❐ information on CFMU regulations?

❐ information on expected delays?

❐ other information (please specify).

When and to what accuracy would you need each item?

2.3 What information could the Airport pass to CFMU to help it predict traffic flow andcapacity earlier and/or more accurately? Examples may include:

❐ strategic (seasonal) schedule information?

❐ tactical (daily) schedule information?

❐ planned airport capacity?

❐ notification of reduced airport capacity?

❐ the actual take-off time for each flight?

❐ the actual landing time for each flight?


When would each item of information be available and to what accuracy?

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 91

EUROCONTROL

2.4 How much information could the Airport give to CFMU on the state of groundoperations? For example:

❐ aircraft loaded (or current status)?

❐ gate/ramp delays?

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

❐ predicted/planned take-off time?


When would each item of information be available and to what accuracy?

2.5 Is there a CFMU terminal, giving Flow Management information, at the Airport? If so:a. Who at the Airport uses it?b. What information do they get from it, and how do they use that information?c. Would it be helpful to have any further information, or any more preciseinformation? Please give specific examples, including when the information wouldbe needed.d. Can you envisage using the FMP terminal differently in future, if appropriatesupport was available?

2.6 If there is no CFMU terminal at the Airport, do you need one/would you like one? If so,what use do you foresee making of it?

2.7 Would an ASD (Air Situation Display) be useful at the Airport to show the incomingtraffic situation over a wide area? What use/benefits do you foresee?

2.8 Is Ground Movements Control aware of CFMU (take-off) slots issued to flights? If so:a. Where do they get this information from?b. By what means?

2.9 Are ground operations prioritised to help meet CFMU slots?

❐ on the controller’s initiative?

❐ only at the pilot’s request?

❐ not at all?

2.10 In the future, could CFMU slots be used in an Automated Surface MovementGuidance and Control System (A-SMGCS) or other control tools?Please describe how you think they could be used.

2.11 Does the Airport compare the CFMU slot to the planned “Airport slot”? If so:a. Who does this?b. Do you record statistics from this comparison?c. Is the take-off schedule (if one exists) modified to accommodate the CFMU slot?

2.12 Does the Airport keep records of Flow Management problems encountered? If so:a. Do you analyse them and collect statistics?b. Do you use the analyses to help you solve similar problems subsequently?

2.13 In the future, do you expect technical and/or operational improvements to improve theaccuracy of take-off time prediction and control (and therefore slot time accuracy)? Byhow much, when? (For example slot width reduced from 15 min to 5 min by 20XX?)

FASTER Phase 1

92 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

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

3. Current and future links with Aircraft Operators

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

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

❐ Dispatch offices?

❐ Operational flight control?

❐ Flight planning?

❐ Other handling agent services?

❐ De-icing?

❐ Others - please specify.

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

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

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

Information When? Circumstances?passed

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

Others . . . ?

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

❐ strategic (seasonal) schedule information?

❐ tactical schedule information?

❐ predicted or actual gate/ramp delays?

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

❐ predicted/planned take-off time?

FASTER Phase 1

EEC Task R23 93

EUROCONTROL

❐ the actual take-off time for each flight?

❐ the actual landing time for each flight?


When and to what accuracy would you each item be available?

3.5 What information do Aircraft Operators currently provide to assist in planning the efficientuse of Airport resources, or to help the Airport meet the Company’s priorities?Ideally we would like details as follows. Some examples are suggested, please delete orcorrect these if they are wrong, and add any others.

Information To whom When? How used?passed

Outline flight schedule ? strategic schedule planning?(airline, take-off time slot) planning stand/gate

allocation?

Exact flight plan ? tactical planning stand/gate allocation?(ac type/destination/take-off time) planning runway usage?

Information on links between flights ? planning stand/gate allocation?(passenger/aircraft connections, turn-around times)? Gnd Mvmnts priorities?

Priority between the flights of one airline in case of (e.g. take-off) delays?? ? Ground Movements priorities?

Others . . . ?

3.6 To what extent are you aware of Aircraft Operator’s ground operations at your airport?For example, does anyone at the Airport know:

❐ status (progress) of loading an aircraft during turn-around?

❐ expected start-up/pushback time?

❐ other information - please specify?

a. When is the information received?b. Who in the airport receives the information?c. What use is made of it?

3.7 a. What additional information from Aircraft Operators would be useful to increase efficiency of Airport resource usage? (The lists in questions 3.5 & 3.6 above may

offer some suggestions.)b. Who at the Airport would need the information?c. When and to what accuracy would the information be needed?

4. Airport characteristics

Much information is already available to Eurocontrol in its “Airports Database”,collated from information kindly supplied by yourselves and your colleagues. We willuse this information to help us understand the characteristics of your Airport, to putinto context the information you have given us in the main part of the questionnaire.

FASTER Phase 1

94 EEC Task R23

EUROCONTROL

In addition, we would be grateful for answers to the following:

4.1 Does adverse weather frequently reduce capacity at this Airport? What weathereffects are most often experienced, and with what frequency, typically?

4.2 Is capacity of this Airport significantly affected by wind speed and direction (becauseof the combination of runways that can be used)?

4.3 What is the airport organisational structure? [We are particularly interested in theorganisational structure for planning - both “strategic” and “tactical”.]

− Which services are provided by separate companies and which by the AirportOperator?

− What are the main responsibilities of each department of the Airport Operator?

4.4 Does the airport have an automated Surface Movement Guidance and ControlSystem(A-SMGCS) of any kind? If so, please describe it briefly.

− What kind of data (e.g. manual inputs, radar data, connections with AOC, ...)does the system take as input?

− What is it used for? (e.g. sequencing taxiing traffic? planning schedules forstand occupancy? . . . ?)

− What operational improvements does it give? (e.g. improved efficiency of bad-weather operations? reduced taxi delays? . . .?)

4.5 Do the Ground Controllers have any other automated tools? If so, please describeeach one briefly.

− What kind of data (e.g. manual inputs, radar data, connections with AOC, ...)does each tool take as input?

− What are they used for? (e.g. sequencing taxiing traffic? planning schedules forstand occupancy? . . . ?)

− What operational improvements do they give? (e.g. improved efficiency of bad-weather operations? reduced taxi delays? . . .?)

4.6 Does the airport plan to have an A-SMGCS or any other automated tools in thefuture? If so, please give a brief description of each one as above.

4.7 Could you sketch roughly the architecture of the communications within your companyand with the outside (CFMU, other airports, CAA, Airlines)? What medium is used foreach link and which service provider (e.g. SITA)?

FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 95

EUROCONTROL

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

1. Introduction1.1 Objet du rapport

Ce rapport est le résultat principal de la première phase du projet FASTER.

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

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

Cette étude est un élément d’une analyse plus large des concepts de collaborationpour la planification et la prise de décision, identifiés comme faisant partie deséléments d’EATMS, futur Système ATM Européen, qui doit être progressivementimplémenté en accord avec la stratégie ATM pour les années 2000+.

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

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

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

1.2 Environnement de l’étude

1.2.1 Contexte de l’étude

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

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

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

FASTER Phase 1

96 Tâche CEE R23

EUROCONTROL

est nécessaire pour l’ATM d’améliorer le niveau de service et de réduire les coûts desopérations supportés par les utilisateurs.

Il est prévu que l’organisation et les concepts actuels de l’ATM ne seront pluscapable à terme de fournir de la capacité supplémentaire.

La stratégie ATM pour les années 2000+ est développée pour fournir un cadre afin defaire face au challenges posés par ces prévisions. Plusieurs développementspossibles sont proposés dans cette stratégie. La collaboration pour la planification etla prise de décision est perçue comme une participation importante, fournissantpotentiellement des gains significatifs grâce à des changements dans la gestion desinformations et dans le rôle de chaque acteur.

1.2.2 Gains prévus en collaboration pour la planification et la prise dedécision

La collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision est clairement une partieessentielle du système ATM actuel. Cependant, elles fournissent aussi un levier pouraugmenter la capacité, la flexibilité et l’efficacité.

Une meilleure distribution et un meilleur partage des information disponibles auprèsdes ATS, des aéroports et utilisateurs permettra de réduire les incertitudes et doncd’améliorer la prédictabilité. Aujourd’hui, un faible niveau de prédictabilité signifie parexemple pour les fournisseurs de service aéronautique (ATS) d’être prudents dans ladéfinition des limites de charge des secteurs, ce qui gaspille en partie la capacitédisponible. De même, pour un contrôleur individuel, l’actuel faible niveau deprédictabilité signifie qu’il voit fréquemment augmenter sa charge de travail pourcorriger les erreurs de prédictions. Ainsi, l’amélioration de la prédictabilité estessentielle pour une utilisation efficace des nouveaux outils d’aide aux contrôleurs.

De même, lorsque les contraintes de capacité le permettent, de plus grandesflexibilité et efficacité opérationnelle pourront être offertes aux compagnies aériennespour atteindre leurs objectifs opérationnels. Par exemple, l’amélioration de l’échanged’information permettra aux compagnie aériennes d’optimiser leurs routes, enconsidérant leurs planning d’opérations et d’équipages, les contraintes d’aéroports etd’espace aérien, ainsi que des éléments économiques comme les redevances deroute.

Une meilleure information concernant les estimation d’heure d’arrivée (ETA)permettra aux aéroports de gérer plus efficacement les parkings et portes d’accès etles ressources des terminaux.

En tant qu’extension de la planification collaborative obtenue par meilleur distributiond’information, la collaboration pour la prise de décision peut identifier qui est l’acteurle plus à même d’être responsable pour une prise de décision: qui a les meilleuresinformations et connaissances pour prendre la décision? Cela peut entraîner uneréallocation des responsabilités de prises de décision. Par exemple, une prise dedécision multi-agent peut aider à mieux traiter les situations perturbées.

FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 97

EUROCONTROL

2. Le projet FASTER2.1 Objectifs du projet

L’objectif du projet FASTER est d’identifier les opportunités faisables et bénéficiairesd’amélioration de coopération et de collaboration entre ATM, AOC and aéroports.Dans une première étape, un intérêt particulier est porté à l’ATFM et la planificationdes vols. Le projet doit évoluer vers le développement de prototype de solutionsexprimées en termes d’échanges de données, de traitements et de procéduresopérationnelles.

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

Afin de cadrer avec le plan de développement d’EATMS et pour prévoir lestransitions, le projet considère trois échelles de temps:

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

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

• plus long terme dans le contexte complet d’EATMS

2.2 Activités d’étude

L’équipe de projet a réalisé les activités suivantes dans la Phase Un du projetFASTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• la rédaction du rapport final.

FASTER Phase 1

98 Tâche CEE R23

EUROCONTROL

2.3 Déroulement de l’étude

La première étape du processus d’interview est l’identification des sujets potentiels dechangement et/ou de création d’échange d’informations. Comme le projet devaitprendre en compte un large spectre de perspectives, de niveaux technologiques etde méthodes opérationnelles, une attention particulière a été portée à l’établissementd’une liste variée de candidats. Il est considéré important d’interviewer de grandes,moyennes et petites compagnies, des transporteurs de fret et des charters aussi bienque des compagnies aériennes régulières. De même, une large gamme d’aéroportsest consultée, incluant des aéroports coordonnés ou non, des grands et des petits.

Les entretiens se déroulent en rencontres directes, utilisant le questionnaire commebase. Les questionnaires sont fournis à l’avance pour préparation. C’est considérécomme le moyen le plus efficace pour recueillir des informations, plutôt qued’expédier les questionnaires à remplir. La plupart des questions ont une complexiténécessitant une discussion détaillée des sujets soulevés. De plus, ce procédé fourniaux interviewés la possibilité d’aborder des points hors du questionnaire.

Ainsi, les questionnaires préparés ont trois objectifs:

• faciliter une discussion ouverte et des réponses originales;

• structurer les différentes rencontres d’une manière cohérente;

• fournir des éléments permettant aux participants de préparer les entretiens.

Ces questionnaires ne sont pas remplis durant les entretiens. L’équipe de projetprend des notes de réunion et rédige ensuite des comptes-rendus. Les minutes sontsoumises aux interviewés pour commentaires complémentaires et approbation avantd’être intégrées au rapport.

Les interviewés sont invités à le signaler si des réponses sont confidentielles.

Globalement, des informations sont collectées de treize opérateurs aériens treizeautorités aéroportuaires et services de contrôle aérien.

3. ConclusionsLes principales conclusions tirées de la réalisation des entretiens et de leur analysesont données ci-après.

3.1 Attitude général et Situation

Les compagnies aériennes, les autorités aéroportuaires et les services de contrôleaérien sont très conscients du besoin et de l’intérêt de l’amélioration des échangesd’informations. Ils sont prêt à participer à de tels travaux si la démonstration par desbons arguments coûts-bénéfices peut être faite pour chaque cas spécifique.

Il est évident que les opérateurs ont besoin de plus d’informations pour comprendreles causes de problèmes comme les retards. Lorsqu’elles sont disponibles, elles leurpermettraient de réduire les délais qu’ils subissent.

La philosophie inhérente à la collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décisionest soutenue. Il s’agit de permettre aux opérateurs d’avoir un gain direct de leursactions (ex. la suppression de vols) qui aident la communauté entière à utiliser aumieux les ressources rares et limitées.

La complexité des organisation de compagnies aériennes et d’aéroports dans toutel’Europe entraîne la nécessité de considérer des situations locales. Par exemple, il ya de profondes disparités de capacités et d’investissements dans les technologies de

FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 99

EUROCONTROL

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

3.2 Aspects opérationnels

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

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

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

3.3 Planning

Un planning efficace est difficile à établir compte tenu de l’impact d’événement réelset de la difficulté d’obtenir et de communiquer des données à jour Ainsi, la mise aupoint de planning doit être hautement réactive, comme démontré dans les plansd’allocation de parkings dans les aéroports et dans les révisions d’allocations decréneaux.

De manière similaire, la faible disponibilité d’informations affecte la qualité desprévisions pré-tactiques. Dans ces conditions, une source importante d’erreurs vientde la difficulté des responsables de services des contrôle à fournir des donnéesprécises de capacité à cause des variations de personnels. Une autre source est ladifficulté des opérateurs aériens à établir des plans de vols précis à l’avance à causedu manque de prédictions météorologiques. Ce dernier point est composéd’hésitations des opérateurs aériens à fournir des données qu’ils devront modifierplus tard, en partie à cause des coûts additionnels de communication. Quoiqu’il ensoit, il est certain que pour certains acteurs, comme l’ATFM, un premier élémentd’information est mieux que rien.

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

FASTER Phase 1

100 Tâche CEE R23

EUROCONTROL

comme très important par les AOs puisque qu’ils voient là une source potentielle deréduction des délais.

3.4 Amélioration de la distribution de données

La cible de FASTER est l’amélioration de la gestion et de la distributionsd’informations et de données. Comme découvert lors des entretiens, il y a plusieursdimensions. Il n’est pas suffisant de distribuer de bonnes informations, il faut aussiconsidérer plusieurs facteurs de qualité: l’à propos, la stabilité, la complétude.

De plus, il est important de considérer la visualisation des informations. Si lesinformations ne sont pas présentées dans une forme facilement accessible auxutilisateurs, elles ne sont pas utilisées.

L’analyse révèle que la considération des aspects suivants, dans la gestion et ladistribution d’informations entre les acteurs, peut les intéresser:

• Pour les AOs

• information avancée (pré-tactique) concernant les secteurs très chargés avecquelques idées des délais induits, et plus tard (tactique) des informations surles possibilités de routes alternatives pour éviter des problèmes deplanification

• représentation des données existantes pour maximiser leur utilisation, ens’intéressant sur ce qui est possible

• des estimations par l’ATC des durées d’attente en vol et dans les aéroports

• des informations aéroportuaires additionnelles comme la capacité en pré-tactique et les allocations tactiques des portes dans certaines circonstances

• Pour les autorités aéroportuaires:

• informations avancées concernant les rotations planifiées par les AOs

• mises à jour les plans de rotations

• meilleure information concernant les nombres de passagers

• estimation avancée des heures d’arrivées (ETA)

• meilleurs qualité de l’estimation de l’heure de départ, en particulier en ce quiconcerne la prédiction de retard au départ et l’avancement des opérationsd’escale

• Pour les fournisseur de service aéronautique (ATC):

• disponibilité avancée des estimation d’heures d’arrivée et de départ

• disponibilité avancée des allocations de créneaux ATFM et amélioration de lavisualisation des informations

• meilleure information concernant les plannings des compagnies aériennes

• meilleure information concernant l’avancement de la préparation des vols

• intégration/ coordination de la gestion des plans de vols et de l’allocation descréneaux CFMU et aéroports.

Ces nouvelles données peuvent être fournies par des évolutions de systèmesexistant comme le RTA/RCA de la CFMU, des systèmes programmés comme l’ASDou d’autres nouveaux systèmes distincts.

FASTER Phase 1

Tâche CEE R23 101

EUROCONTROL

Dans tous les cas, un point important pour tous les participants est que lesdéveloppements dans la gestion d’information doit toujours être soutenu par desjustification appropriées concernant les gains escomptés, considérant les coûts decommunication, les tâches de saisie et d’utilisation des données, ainsi que les coûtsde développement des systèmes.

Enfin, l’amélioration de la distribution d’information doit continuer à soutenir l’équité etla transparence de manière à éviter toute inquiétude concernant l’équité de traitementdes utilisateurs.

4. RecommandationsL’étude a identifié un certain nombre de besoins d’information des opérateursaériens, des aéroports, des services de gestion des flux et des services de contrôledu trafic aérien. Si les procédures et les systèmes étaient en places pour effectuer leséchanges d’informations nécessaires, ils produiraient des gains significatifs pour tousles acteurs concernés. Dans de nombreux cas, les informations nécessaires sontdisponibles d’ores et déjà. Elles demandent simplement à être communiquées. Dansd’autres cas, il faut faciliter l’accès à l’information, considérant le temps et le travailnécessaire à leur traitement. Dans tous les cas, la qualité des informations (à propos,précision, complétude) et le coût supplémentaire de communication de cesinformations doivent être pris en compte.

Dans tout système opérationnel, il est utile de revoir régulièrement les pratiques et lesrègles de travail en fonction de l’évolution des besoins et des développementsopérationnels. De telles revues doivent permettre d’identifier les problèmes et lesbesoins nouveaux et, utilisant de nouvelles technologies (ex. concernant lescommunications et les traitements numériques) de développer de nouvelles règles,de nouveaux algorithmes et de nouvelles spécifications.

FASTER réalise une étude examinant la perception des utilisateurs concernant lesbesoins d’amélioration des échanges d’information impliquant ATFM et ATC. Commeavec toute étude basée sur des questionnaires, bien que soigneusement préparés, ily a toujours un risque que les réponses soient orientées par les questions. C’estpourquoi, afin de confirmer les résultats, une recherche plus objective est nécessaire.Cette recherche doit prendre la forme d’expérience en environnements contrôlés.

Il est recommandé que l’étude soit prolongée par l’étude de plusieurs cas particuliersd’échanges d’informations et d’applications de collaboration pour la prise de décisionqui nécessitent des expérimentations consciencieuses. Ces évaluation doivent seconcentrer sur:

• la mesure des gains obtenus pas des nouvelles ou des meilleures données (ex.estimation des ETA pour les aéroports)

• la mesure des gains obtenus par une modification de la visualisation desinformations (besoin identifié pour les AOs)

Exemples d’applications apparues comme ayant un potentiel de gains significatifs etqui doivent être approfondis:

• fourniture aux aéroports par les services ATC et/ou les AOs de meilleuresestimations d’heures d’arrivés

• fourniture aux aéroports et aux services ATM par les AOs et/ou les servicesd’escale de meilleures estimations d’heures de départ

FASTER Phase 1

102 Tâche CEE R23

EUROCONTROL

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

• visualisation d’informations par les systèmes des utilisateurs

• nouvelles approches pour la gestion des condition perturbées (ex: réductiontemporaire de la capacité d’un aéroport)

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

Les paramètres d’évaluation des résultats doivent inclure:

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

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

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

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

De plus, l’envergure de ces expérimentations doit être conçue pour permettre unesolide évaluation des gains opérationnels et des coûts d’implémentation et dedéveloppement pour tous les acteurs.

026_FASTER.pdf - EUROCONTROL

Documents