EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EEC Note No. 07/03 Project PFE-F-EN Issued: May 2003 The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should 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.. FAP Future ATM Profile Based on national capacity enhancement plans Delay Forecast
19
Embed
Delay Forecast - Eurocontrol...Varna LBWR 0% Croatia Zagreb LDZO 6% Cyprus Nicosia LCCC 12% Czech Republic Praha LKAA 15/16% Denmark Copenhagen EKDK 3% Estonia Tallinn EETT 18% Eurocontrol
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
The information contained i
The views express
FAP Future ATM Profile
capa
Delay Forecast
Based on nationalcity enhancement plans
EEC Note No. 07/03
Project PFE-F-EN
Issued: May 2003
n this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should bereproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission
ed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency..
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
ReferenceEEC Note No. 07/03
Security ClassificationUnclassified
OriginatorEEC - NCD(Network Capacity and DemandManagement)
Originator (Corporate author) Name/Location :EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreCentre de Bois des BordesB.P.15F-91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCE.Telephone: +33 (0) 1 69 88 75 00
Sponsor Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/LocationEUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B-1130 BRUXELLESTelephone: +32 (0)2 729 9011
Title :
DELAY FORECAST 2003 BASED ON NATIONAL CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLANS
AuthorsS. Vincent
M. Dalichampt
Date
05/03
Pages
IV+15
Figs
15
Tables
8
Annex
-
References
5
Project
PFE-F-ENSponsor Task No.
-Period
Feb.-March2003
Distribution Statement :(a) Controlled by : Head of NCD(b) Special Limitations (if any) : None(c) Copy to NTIS : No
Abstract :The study uses the capacity growth figures 2002-2003 declared by the ANSPs to estimate thedelay development in the summer 2003.Assumption: STATFOR (Feb. 2003) Traffic growth: Low +1.2%, Medium +2.2%, High +4.3% Airport capacities 2003 as declared to EUROCONTROLTarget: En-route ATFM delay for all flights is lower or equal to 2.1 min. per flight Methodology: Future ATM Profile (FAP)Results: The capacity increase provided by the European air navigation services will be sufficient to meet the target (forecast en-route delay between 0.4 and 0.9
minutes per flight). The 1-minute delay target set for Summer would already beattained in 2003, given that the hypotheses taken are respected.
ACC Area Control CentreAMOC ATFM Modeling CapabilityATC Air Traffic ControlATFM Air Traffic Flow ManagementATM Air Traffic ManagementATS Air Traffic ServiceANSP Air Navigation Service Providers CASA Computer Assisted Slot AllocationCFMU Central Flow Management UnitCIP Convergence and Implementation ProgrammeCRCO Central Route Charges Officec/d Capacity demand ratioEAM EUROCONTROL Airspace ModelEATMP European Air Traffic Management ProgrammeECAC European Civil Aviation ConferenceMECA Model for the Economic Evaluation of Capacities in the ATM SystemRAMS Reorganized ATC Mathematical SimulatorROI Return on InvestmentSTATFOR Specialist Panel on Air Traffic Statistics and ForecastTACOT TACT Automated Command Tool
The purpose of this study was to forecast the delay during the summer 2003 in each ACC of theECAC area.
The FAP, Future ATM Profile, methodology and tools were used. They can be summarised asfollows:
For each Centre the 2003 capacity baseline was determined using the "Reverse CASA"algorithm. This capacity is defined as the declared capacity which would generate the sameATFM delay as was actually observed, if the ACC were considered as a single elementary sector.The CFMU hourly sector regulations are simplified within FAP in order to apply a constantregulation throughout the day. Unfortunately, the CASA algorithm cannot simply be employedusing an inverse function i.e. given delay figures it cannot provide capacity values. Hence foreach ACC it is necessary to consider the delay which would have been observed for ahypothetical estimate of capacity. The calculated delay is then compared to that which wasobserved and an iterative modification cycle commences until the CASA determined delay withinan ACC for an estimated value of capacity converges to that observed for the day in question.
The STATFOR service processes air traffic statistics at European level (using CFMU and CRCOdata) and produces traffic forecasts. These forecasts take into account the ‘maximum aircraftmovements per year’ at congested airports, as well as different sets of assumptions, e.g.economic growth, airline productivity, and competition from other means of transport. TheSTATFOR forecasts are based on a certain number of “traffic flows” between a number oforigin/destination zones (ODZ). An ODZ corresponds to a major airport or to a group of airports.
The ANSPs capacity forecast growth are then apply to the baselines and a 2003 set of ATFMsimulations are run to forecast the summer 2003 delay per ACC. The ANSPs capacity plans aresummarised overleaf.
State ACC ACC code Plan 2003Latvia Riga EVRR 0%Lithuania Vilnius EYVC 0%Malta Malta LMMM 0%Moldova Chisinau LUKK 5%Netherlands Amsterdam EHAA 2%Norway Bodo ENBD 0%
Oslo ENOS 5%Stavangar ENSV 0%Trondheim ENTR 0%
Poland Warsaw EPWW 6%Portugal Lisboa LPPC 11%Romania Bucuresti LRBB 0%Slovakia Bratislava LZBBSlovenia Ljubljana LJLA 10%Spain Barcelona LECB 3%
The impact of these plans on delays has been studied for the three STATFOR hypotheses intraffic growth over Europe (low, baseline, high). A traffic sample of 55 days was simulated (fromthe 13th of June to the 7th of August).
Traffic growth data is based on STATFOR low growth estimates, applied to the traffic pattern ofsummer 2002 (55 days, AIRAC cycles 231 and 232). This growth is given for the demand,defined as the three-hour peak (average hourly demand for the three consecutive busiest hoursin the day).
Over Europe, there is an increase of traffic of +1.2% compared to summer 2002.
The delay has been computed for the low traffic growth hypothesis predicted by STATFOR, withthe capacities as declared for each ACC. During the week, most of the ACCs would reduce their delay compared to 2002. Only Frankfurtand Milano would exceed 0.5 minute delay per flight.
Delay per flight, weekday
0
1
2
3
4
LIM
M
ED
FF
EG
CC
LIB
B
ED
LL
EG
TT
LSA
Z
ED
WW
LEC
M
ED
YY
LFE
E
LIP
P
LFB
B
LCC
C
LFFF
EP
WW
LIR
R
LKA
A
LEC
B
LFM
M
Dela
y pe
r flig
ht, m
in
2002, observed2003, forecast, low
During the weekend, Milano increases its delay, and will have more than one minute per flight.However, most of the ACCs will improve their performance compared to 2002.
The following map is presenting the en-route delay distribution over Europe for summer 2003.Delay over Europe is much lower than in 2002 given the low traffic growth hypothesis.
With the medium Statfor traffic growth hypothesis, the majority of the ACCs will still reduce theirdelays in 2003. Four ACCs will increase their delays, which are Frankfurt, Milano, Manchesterand Dusseldorf, as in the low traffic growth hypothesis. Frankfurt and Milano get over one minutedelay per flight.
Delay per flight, weekday
0
1
2
3
4
ED
FF
LIM
M
EGC
C
LIB
B
LSAZ
EDL
L
EG
TT
EDW
W
LEC
M
ED
YY
LFE
E
LIP
P
LFB
B
LFFF
LCC
C
LIR
R
LKA
A
EPW
W
LEC
B
LFM
M
Dela
y pe
r flig
ht, m
in
2002, observed2003, forecast, medium
During the week-ends, Milano will generate more than one minute delay per flight.
The following map is presenting the en-route delay distribution over Europe for summer 2003.Delay is very low all over Europe, and only a two ACCs are presenting delay around one minuteper flight (Milano and Frankfurt). Delay over Europe is much lower than in 2002 given the mediumtraffic growth hypothesis.
In the high traffic growth hypothesis, Frankfurt and Milano would generate an increase in delays.They significantly increase their delay compared to 2002, due to the fact that they do not plan anycapacity increase for summer 2002.
Delay per flight, weekday
0
1
2
3
4
ED
FF
LIM
M
LEC
M
LSA
Z
LIB
B
EG
CC
ED
LL
ED
YY
EG
TT
ED
WW
LFE
E
LFB
B
LIP
P
LFFF
LCC
C
LKA
A
LIR
R
EP
WW
LEC
B
LFM
M
Dela
y pe
r flig
ht, m
in
2002, observed2003, forecast, high
During the week-end, the situation is better for Frankfurt, but getting worse for Milano. Bordeauxand Zurich are also over one minute delay per flight.
With the high STATFOR traffic growth hypothesis, some ACCs will have significant delays insummer 2003. However, the situation should be better than in 2002, even with the high trafficgrowth assumption.
Observed delay low STATFOR (+1,2%) medium STATFOR (+2,2%) high STATFOR (+4,3%)
1.8 0.36 0.5 0.93
2.5 0.9 1.1 1.7
ECAC
en-route
total (en-route + Airport)
Delay forecast - Summer 2003
Even with the high traffic growth assumption, the Provisional Council target for 2003 will bebettered. Provided that current traffic trends continue and that ANSPs provide the capacityenhancements they committed to, the 1 minute delay target set for Summer 2006 will be reachedearlier.
These results are based on the February 2003 STATFOR traffic forecast, before the start of theconflict in the Gulf. If STATFOR adjusts its figures to take into account the impact of the war, anew delay study should be carried out.
5.3 Cost for total year 2003
Baseline traffic growth (+2.2%)
According to the forecast for 2003 costs declared to the CRCO, there would be a decrease of thecapacity cost per kilometer. The direct cost of delay will also be reduced, leading to a 12%reduction in the total cost per kilometer.
Total year 2002 Total year 2003Forecast
Flights per year (CRCO) 8 228 000 8 412 000 Km controlled (CRCO) 6 583 426 220 6 730 649 169 Capacity Cost (CRCO) 5 254 590 794 5 051 806 877 Capacity cost per km 0,80 0,75 Delays (min) 17 987 563 7 914 528 Delay cost (millions) 719 502 520 316 581 109 Delay cost per km 0,11 0,05 Delay per flight 2,2 0,9 Total cost (capacity+delay) 5 974 093 314 5 368 387 986 Total cost per km 0,91 0,80