EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

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 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.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference: Security Classification: EEC Report No. 332 Unclassified Originator: Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre EEC - FDR B.P.15 (Flight Data Research) F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEX FRANCE Telephone : +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00 Sponsor: Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Agency EATCHIP Development Directorate DED.1 Rue de la Fusée, 96 B -1130 BRUXELLES Telephone : +32 2 729 9011 TITLE: FASTER (Future ATFM-AO-Airport Synergies Towards Enhanced opeRations)

Author Date Pages Figures Tables Appendix References P. Martin, A Hudgell, 8/98 xii+102 1 4 - 8 S. Vial, N Bouge EATCHIP Task EEC Task No. Task No. Sponsor Period Specification CSD-4-01 R23 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 the improvement of information distribution and management. During the study aircraft operators, airport authorities and ATM service providers were interviewed to understand what information from external sources they use and how their operations could be improved by better collective sharing of information. The work was carried out in the context of collaborative planning and decision making, which is proposed as a main R&D area in the ATM2000+ strategy. This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Publications Office B.P. 15 91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX France CONTENTS

CONTENTS ...... V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... VIII

ABBREVIATIONS ...... IX

GLOSSARY ...... XI

REFERENCES ...... XII

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT...... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ...... 1 1.2.1 Context of Study...... 1 1.2.2 Foreseen Benefits of Collaborative Planning & Decision Making...... 2 1.3 THE FASTER PROJECT...... 2 1.3.1 Project Objectives ...... 2 1.3.2 Phase One Activities...... 3 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY...... 3 1.4.1 Interview Process ...... 3 1.4.2 Main Themes of Questionnaires...... 4 2. AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ...... 6

2.1 BACKGROUND ...... 6 2.1.1 Introduction...... 6 2.1.2 Summary of Participating Airlines...... 6 2.2 CURRENT OPERATIONS ...... 8 2.2.1 Airline phases of activities ...... 8 2.2.2 Airline Operations Functions...... 9 2.2.3 Operational Issues...... 11 2.2.4 Systems and Automation...... 15 2.2.5 Present information flow between the CFMU and the airlines...... 16 2.3 INFORMATION HELD BY THE AIRLINE ...... 17 2.4 NEW AND ENHANCED INFORMATION EXCHANGES...... 21 2.4.1 Flight Plan Route Validation...... 21 2.4.2 Air Situation Display...... 21 2.4.3 Flow Management Information...... 22 2.4.4 Airport and ATC Status Information...... 23 2.5 FURTHER OPERATIONAL ASPECTS...... 23 3. AIRPORTS...... 27

3.1 BACKGROUND ...... 27 3.1.1 Introduction...... 27 3.1.2 Organisation...... 27 3.1.3 Systems and automation ...... 30 3.1.4 Airport Capacity...... 31 3.1.5 Capacity Reductions...... 33 3.1.6 Airport Slots ...... 34 3.1.7 Relationship between declared capacity and the number of airport slots offered ...... 35 3.1.8 Hub operations...... 36 3.2 CURRENT AIRPORT AUTHORITY OPERATIONS ...... 37 3.2.1 Introduction...... 37 3.2.2 Strategic...... 37 3.2.3 Seasonal planning ...... 38 3.2.4 Stand allocation and planning ...... 40 3.2.5 Interface with ATC and Flow Management...... 42

v 3.2.6 De-icing...... 43 3.2.7 Post-flight phase...... 43 3.3 INFORMATION AVAILABLE ...... 44 3.3.1 Summary of Current Information Availability ...... 44 3.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY SYSTEMS ...... 51 3.4.1 Introduction...... 51 3.4.2 Planned future developments for airport systems...... 51 3.4.3 Plans to link information systems...... 51 3.5 NEW INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS...... 52 3.5.1 Introduction...... 52 3.5.2 Earlier information on planned rotations...... 52 3.5.3 Rotation planning updates ...... 53 3.5.4 Passenger numbers...... 54 3.5.5 ETA...... 54 3.5.6 ETD...... 55 4. ATC...... 57

4.1 BACKGROUND ...... 57 4.1.1 Introduction...... 57 4.1.2 ATC Roles...... 58 4.1.3 ATC Systems ...... 59 4.2 CURRENT ATC OPERATIONS ...... 60 4.2.1 Introduction...... 60 4.2.2 Strategic Planning...... 60 4.2.3 Pre-tactical and Tactical Planning...... 60 4.2.4 Tactical restrictions ...... 61 4.2.5 Tactical operations...... 63 4.2.6 Post-flight phase...... 65 4.3 FUTURE AIRPORT ATC SYSTEMS ...... 65 4.3.1 A-SMGCS ...... 65 4.3.2 Other Developments...... 66 4.4 INFORMATION AVAILABLE...... 66 4.5 NEW INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS...... 70 4.5.1 Introduction...... 70 4.5.2 Earlier ETA or ATD ...... 70 4.5.3 Air Situation Display...... 71 4.5.4 Earlier CFMU Slot Information...... 71 4.5.5 AO Schedule Information ...... 71 4.5.6 State of Airline Ground Operations ...... 71 4.5.7 Feedback from Airport Slots ...... 72 4.6 GENERAL COMMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF OPERATIONS BY ATC ...... 73 4.6.1 Introduction...... 73 4.6.2 Measurement of Delays...... 73 4.6.3 CFMU Slot Allocation and Departure Sequencing...... 73 4.6.4 Take Account of Flight Links...... 73 4.6.5 Prioritisation ...... 73 4.6.6 Regulation at Times of Bad Weather...... 73 4.6.7 Slot Slipping ...... 74 4.6.8 Faster Communications...... 74 4.6.9 Flow Management Data Processing ...... 74 5. CONCLUSIONS...... 75

5.1 GENERAL ATTITUDES AND SITUATION ...... 75 5.2 OPERATIONAL ISSUES ...... 75 5.3 PLANNING ...... 75 5.4 IMPROVED INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION ...... 76 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 78 7. FASTER QUESTIONNAIRES...... 80

7.1 QUESTIONNAIRE TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ...... 80 7.2 QUESTIONNAIRE TO AIRPORTS ...... 88 VERSION EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE DE L'INTRODUCTION, DES OBJECTIFS DU PROJET, DES CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS...... 95 FRENCH VERSION OF INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 95

vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of the report would like to acknowledge gratefully the kind assistance and co-operation of the representatives of Airlines and Airports and ATS providers who 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

viii 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 military airspace usually open but which might be closed for several hours with a few hours warning. CDR2 Conditional Routes 2: routes going through military airspace usually closed but which might be open for a few hours with a few hours warning. DADA Détéction Automatique des Départs/Arrivées (Nice CCI System) 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

ix 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 Télécommunications Aéronautiques 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

x GLOSSARY Some terms are used interchangeably in practice (e.g. stand, ramp, gate) which can be confusing. Often, different terms are used in different organisations. The following terms and definitions will be used in this report. A-SMGCS: Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System. A computer assistance system for Ground Control and Airport ATC in general. None is yet implemented, but a number of organisations are working to develop such a system. Apron: the hard-surfaced part of the airport surface that is neither runway nor taxiway. This includes all parking areas, and the area immediately surrounding them. In fact, aircraft can only be parked on the apron; taxiways are surfaced with asphalt which will in time flow under the stationary weight of an aircraft. Apron Control: guidance and control of vehicles and aircraft on the apron. Follow the greens: an airport surface lighting system (part of the Surface Movement and Ground Control System) which guides an aircraft along the required taxiways using green lights to show the correct path. Gate: an embarkation (or disembarkation) point for passengers. Sometimes each gate has a dedicated departure lounge, sometimes there is one lounge for many gates. Hub and spoke (or "bank") operation: In hub and spoke operations, most of the flights of the airline are either inbound to one airport or outbound from one airport. This airport is the hub; the inbound/outbound flights are the spokes. No flights link outbound destinations: this is done by taking two connecting flights at the hub. To allow for connections between flights, all inbound flights must arrive within a certain period, after which all outbound flights depart. This constitutes a wave of which there can be many during a day. The objective of a hub is to maximise the load factor of the flights, especially long haul flights using short haul flights as feeders. Marshaller: a member of Airport ground staff who guides the pilot during the final stages of parking, to ensure correct positioning for docking with the pier. 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 is available, 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 term includes elements such as taxiway signposting and surface markings, and airport lighting systems—including “follow the greens” (see below) and red stop bars. A particular SMGCS will not necessarily incorporate all the possible elements. Stand: a designated parking place for an aircraft.

xi REFERENCES

[ATM2000+] ATM Strategy for 2000+ EATCHIP doc: FCO.ET1.STO7.DEL01. 1 October 1997 [ASD96] Operational Users Requirements for an Air Situation Display « ASD ». Edition 2 January 96. [CAS93] CASA User Requirement Document: Slot Allocation Computation Version 1.8. January 93 [EDI97] EDI between Airports and Airlines. Implementation Guide for Management and Administration of Flight Operations. IATA&ACI. 1 May 1997. [IATA] IATA Response to FASTER questionnaire. (See Appendix.) [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

xii FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report The report is the main deliverable resulting from the first phase of the FASTER project. FASTER is a co-funded research project initiated by EUROCONTROL and AEROSPATIALE to carry out research into information exchange between aircraft operators (AOs), airports and Air Traffic Service Providers, particularly Flow Management. The information exchange was considered from a gate-to-gate perspective, 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 the concept of collaborative planning and decision making that has been identified as one of the main characteristics of the target concept for the future European ATM System to be progressively implemented as a result of the ATM strategy for 2000+ [ATM2000+]. Essentially collaborative planning and decision making aim at improving exchange of information between all actors in order to realise better decision making, and to ensure that decision making is made by the people best placed to take those decisions. These steps are expected to reduce uncertainty and give a better mutual understanding of preferences, yielding increased capacity and greater operational flexibility and efficiency. The objective of this study was to investigate the operating methods of the different actors and to understand the information flows which exist. The team interviewed a cross section of actors including representatives of aircraft operators of different types and sizes, airports and ACCs, analysed the procedures and information exchanges and then identified a number of recommendations for work on improvement of information exchange.

1.2 Background to the Study

1.2.1 Context of Study Significant gains in Air Traffic Management capacity and efficiency are required in order to meet the forecast air traffic demand into the next Century. This increased capacity has to be delivered whilst at the same time maintaining or improving safety levels. Many airports are saturated or will be in the foreseeable future, and this trend is expected to increase in the coming years. En-route capacity must also be increased in-line with demand in a situation where it is becoming increasingly difficult to increase capacity by simple subdivision of sectors. Airline operations are also becoming more complex, with more and more interconnections being developed. Commercial pressure is demanding better fleet utilisation, and the use of hub and shuttle operations. Moreover, it is necessary for ATM to improve service levels and reduce operational costs to airspace users. It is anticipated that the current ATM organisation and concepts will not be able to deliver the required additional capacity.

EEC Task R23 1 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

1.2.2 Foreseen Benefits of Collaborative Planning & Decision Making Clearly collaborative planning and decision making go on at present and are essential parts of the current ATM system. However, they also provide a lever with which greater capacity, flexibility and efficiency may be achieved. First, better distribution and sharing of the information that is available to ATS providers, airport operators and Airspace users is anticipated to reduce uncertainty, which in turn will improve predictability. At present, low levels of predictability mean that ATS managers have to be cautious when setting sector load limits and this wastes available capacity. Similarly, for an individual controller, the present low level of predictability means that the controller must frequently raise his workload to correct for errors in prediction. Indeed, improved predictability is essential for the effective operation of the new controller tools. Thus, higher levels of predictability will lead to both better use of existing capacity and the creation of additional capacity. Secondly, where capacity constraints allow, greater flexibility and efficiency can be offered to aircraft operators to meet their operational requirements. For example, improved information exchange will allow aircraft operators to optimise their routings taking into account their operating and crewing schedule, airspace and airport constraints, and economic elements such as route charges.

1.3 The FASTER project

1.3.1 Project Objectives The objective of the project FASTER is to identify feasible and beneficial opportunities for improved co-operation and collaboration between ATM, AOC and airports, with a particular focus on ATFM and the flight planning stage. The project should go on to develop prototype solutions expressed in terms of potential exchanges of data, supporting processes and operational procedures. Collaborative planning describes the approach of increasing the information exchange between actors. Thus, for example, developments might allow aircraft operators improved information on the state of the airspace, allowing them to identify less congested routings themselves. Better information on ETAs will help airports to manage gate and terminal resources more efficiently. As an alternative to collaborative planning through better physical distribution of information, collaborative decision making considers who is the best actor to be responsible for decision making, based on the question of who has the right information and knowledge to take the decision. This might lead to a reallocation of decision making responsibility. As an example, multi-agent decision making might help to better deal with disruption situations. The actors concerned with FASTER include Aircraft Operators, covering Airline Operations Centres (AOC), handling agents and aircraft, Airport Authorities, and Air Traffic Management (ATM) service providers including Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Other participants which may be concerned include General Aviation (GA) and Military Traffic.

2 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

In order to map onto EATMS development plans and to allow for transition issues, the project considers three distinct time scales: • short term (less than 4 years) based on the present operational concept (dealing with planning establishment and related data exchanges) and available data. • medium term (4 to 8 years) assuming new operational concept (dealing with planning establishment and related data exchanges) and improved data communication can be implemented. • longer term in the full EATMS context.

1.3.2 Phase One Activities The project team carried out the following activities in Phase One of the FASTER project: • co-operation was established between Aerospatiale and the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre; • an investigation of existing related research on was carried out; • a modelling activity was carried out to capture the actors, processes and procedures, concentrating on flow management; • a set of questionnaires was produced raising questions on a range of issues concerning 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 a consolidated view of the information exchanges and processes; • a final report was written.

1.4 Scope of the Study

1.4.1 Interview Process The first step in the interview process was to identify potential subjects of change and new information exchanges. Since the project had to take into account the wide range of different perspectives, technology levels and operating methods, attention was paid to establishing a diverse list of candidates. It was considered important to interview large, medium-sized and small airlines, cargo carriers and charter as well as scheduled aircraft operators. Similarly a range of airport types was interviewed including coordinated and non-coordinated, large and small. The interview process was to carry out face-to-face interviews based around a questionnaire which the subjects had been given the opportunity to examine in advance of the meeting. This was believed to be more effective as a means of gathering information than simply mailing the questionnaires to addressees because in many cases the complex nature of the questions demanded a detailed discussion of the issues raised. In addition, it gave the interviewees the opportunity to raise points 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;

EEC Task R23 3 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• to provide information that the participants could use to prepare for the meeting. The questionnaires were not filled out at the time of the interview. Instead notes were taken by the project team during the interview and written up afterwards. The minutes were then sent back to the interviewees for further comments before being finalised for use in the report. Where responses were confidential, interviewees were invited to indicate this to the interviewers.

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

1.4.2.1 Aircraft Operator Questionnaire The aircraft operator questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The first addressed current operations, the second addressed future developments and the third 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 delays on the company, and the routes where delays have the greatest impact; • Airlines operations, looking at preferred responses to delays, supporting information and communications systems, interactions with flow management and ATC, fleet management issues, and interactions with airports and other aircraft operators. The section on developments asked questions concerning: • information currently or could be provided to the aircraft operator by flow management and ATC in various phases of operations (strategic, pre-tactical and tactical); • information which could be provided by the aircraft operator to ATM service providers; • new developments, such as the Air Situation Display; • aircraft operator preferences for evolution of practices and systems.

1.4.2.2 Airport Operator Questionnaire This questionnaire contained topics covering both the Airport Operator and local ATC operations. The diversity of organisation of airports meant that sometimes the questionnaire had to be answered by a number of different authorities whereas at others it could be answered by a single contact point. The questionnaire contained three main sections: • Airport scheduling, considering both seasonal scheduling and daily operational scheduling. • Links with flow management and ATC, considering current links and ideas for further collaboration in the future. • Links with Aircraft Operators, considering current links and possible future improvements.

4 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Airport scheduling was investigated from the viewpoint of the different phases of operation: strategic, pre-tactical and tactical. For example, strategic issues involved in setting numbers of airport slots were discussed, as was the creation of seasonal schedules. At a pre-tactical level, the use of flight plans to establish operational plans for resource allocation such as gates and ramps was discussed. Finally the response to tactical changes was raised to examine to what extent integration or exchange of new information was possible. Information exchanges with flow management, both current and for the future, were discussed. This included, for example, supply of information from ground operations which might indicate the progress of a flight towards push back to give advance warning or any delays. Interaction between airport operators and aircraft operators were also examined. This considered questions such as the role of dominant carriers at hubs and the information flows between airport and aircraft operators.

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

EEC Task R23 5 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

2. Aircraft Operators

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Introduction This chapter discusses Aircraft Operators information requirements for enhanced operations. It is the result of discussions and interviews with several airlines operating flights 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 and level of technical development of flight planning, communications and operational systems. However, a basic organisational structure was identifiable in each, although the precise division of responsibilities did vary. The rest of this section gives general background on the aircraft operators interviewed. Section 2.2 describes current airline operations, addressing for example phases of activities, operations control and flight planning as well as communication infrastructure and interfaces. It touches on issues such as airline reactions to delays in the cases of both chronic congestion and unexpected delays due to a capacity drop at an airport. Section 2.3 describes the information that may be available to aircraft operators and its characteristics. Section 2.4 assesses the information which could enable aircraft operators to operate more efficiently, whether just through new display methods or through provision of completely new information. Section 2.5 summarises some further issues which affect the efficiency of airline operations. As general possibilities have been extracted and summarised from the interviews, direct reference to the names of Aircraft Operators has been made in the following paragraphs.

2.1.2 Summary of Participating Airlines This section provides a brief description of the airlines and aircraft operators that participated in the study. They operate mainly within Europe: short to medium haul flights within ECAC bordering countries represent 70% of their activities. Exceptions are Cargolux which is 100% long haul and the business jet operator MAGEC Aviation whose flights are very client-specific. Some airlines operate primarily in hub and spoke mode, whereas others operate a mix of point-to-point and/or shuttle flights. All airlines use at least one airport as a centre from where the airline planning, operations and commercial activities are managed. 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. Information concerning alliances or ownership may not be valid at the issue date of this document. • Air Liberté: Air Liberté combines Air Liberté, a charter and scheduled flight operator, and TAT, a regional schedule operator. It is based in Orly and is part of the British Airways group. Air Liberte code shares with Air Littoral and

6 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Regional Airlines. They have wet lease agreements with Flandre Air, Air Atlantic, Air Toulouse and Air Normandie. • Alitalia: Alitalia is a scheduled operator of long and short haul flights based at Roma Fiumicino. It will be privatised in the future. Alitalia owns the following airlines: Alitalia Team and Alitalia Express. It is a member of an alliance including 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 the Thomson travel company. • British Airways: British Airways is a scheduled operator of long and short haul flights based at Heathrow. The British Airways Group owns the following airlines: A.O.M., Brymon, BA Regional (BHX operation), BA EOG (European Operations Gatwick - formerly DanAir), Air Liberté. The British Airways Group alliance network is organised in the following way: Alliance partners are Bryman, Maersk Air, City Flyer, Logan Air, British Regional Airlines, ComAir, Deutsche BA, Quantas, Canadian, Sun Air, British Mediterranean and GB Airways. • Cargolux: Cargolux specialises in shipping bulky heavy goods (e.g. heavy duty steel pipes) which differentiates them from Fedex or DHL. The company provides 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's location and delivered by truck. It operates on a regular schedule and destination and is based in Luxembourg. Cargolux is owned by banks, Luxair and Swissair. Swissair is part of its alliance network. • EasyJet: EasyJet is a low-cost schedule operator based in Luton, UK. It is an independent company flying to European destinations. • MAGEC: MAGEC Aviation is a charter operator operating high value flights. It has been in business since 1947. Aircraft are usually rented for the day by customers to go either to leisure or business destinations. They are also chartered by airlines to do crew positioning in emergency. They can also transport high value freight. MAGEC also provides handling services for private aircraft owners, and has a handling base at London City Airport. • Monarch: Monarch is a long-established charter airline operating out of a number of bases in the UK. Monarch is an independent company. • Olympic Airways: Olympic Airways is a scheduled operator of long haul and short haul flights based at Athens Hellinikon. It owns Olympic Aviation which operates 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 operator interconnecting French regional cities and major European cities. It is a private company based in Nantes and owns 20% of Regional Lineas. It has alliances with Crossair, KLM, SAS, Iberia, Air France, Sabena and Air Normandie. • Swissair: Swissair is a schedule operator of long and short haul flights based at Zurich 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 locations such as New York and Hong Kong. It is part of the Virgin Group.

EEC Task R23 7 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• Virgin Express: Virgin Express is principally a scheduled flight operator, operating short-haul flights out of Brussels. It also operates some charter flights in the summer. The company is publicly-quoted and is separate from Virgin Atlantic, offering different products. They have a code-sharing agreement with Sabena. The interviews were held during the period July to December 1997.

2.2 Current Operations

2.2.1 Airline phases of activities

2.2.1.1 Scheduled operators Most of the airlines interviewed operated flights connecting city pairs which have co- ordinated airports. This means that airlines have to request slots in order to land and depart from these airports. This is carried out according to a well-defined and regulated process (see chapter 4). Airlines make their requests to airport schedule committees five months before the start of the season. Airport schedule committees collate the requests and then slot allocations are negotiated at the IATA conference. Airlines are able to negotiate their slot allocations with the schedule committees and with other airlines The IATA slot conference is thus a milestone in the cyclic activities of the airlines: at this date their schedule for the next season (routes and associated timetables) must be well-developed, with resources provisionally allocated to the lines. The schedule is finalised after the IATA conference, but will be updated during the season to reflect the actual market. Schedule preparation takes into account many aspects: traffic and revenue forecast translated in terms of capacity and frequency, sufficient crews, available fleet, aircraft maintenance schedule, and operations planning (station organisation, flight planning etc). 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 which include flight crew and station crew rostering, fleet planning, flight planning, fine tuning of aircraft turn-around with airport agents and yield management. Operations concentrate on complying with the schedule and making it profitable.

2.2.1.2 Non-scheduled operators/Unscheduled flights This category covers a wide range of airlines, including scheduled operators. For example: • Regional Airlines: though primarily a scheduled operator, spare aircraft are used for charter flights. Some charter flights may be negotiated only a week or less before 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) are negotiated a year in advance and are thus scheduled. • MAGEC Aviation: operates on a flight by flight basis, which can be booked anything from a day to months advance.

8 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Allocations of flights, crews and other resources are made to the flight at least the day before 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 by Operations Control.

2.2.2 Airline Operations Functions Participants in the study were primarily responsible for flight planning, operations control or flight dispatch, or worked in close relation with them. Collectively they can be 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 this section is necessarily a generalisation which may well not apply equally to all companies. Also, particularly for smaller aircraft operators, some of these functions are contracted out to service providers, such as SITA, handling agents and airline reporting offices (AROs).

2.2.2.1 Operations Control The Operations Control function manages the available resources to maximise usage in compliance with the planned schedule. Typically this involves coordinating some or all 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 flight operations such as CFMU, Meteorological services, Airport Towers, FMPs, ACCs and other AOCs. The operations control function monitors events and is responsible for resolving problems in coordination with all the people concerned. Normally operations control will be responsible for developing a solution. They will have a key role in the event of disruption or crisis. Operations control teams in different airlines may communicate with each other.

EEC Task R23 9 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

2.2.2.2 Dispatch The dispatch function is concerned with the timely and efficient operation of individual flights. For example, many companies have staff responsible for monitoring the allocation of slots to flights by the CFMU, and then attempting to improve on these allocations in the event of delays. Often these staff have purpose-built computerised support systems in order to carry out their work. For some airlines, the dispatch function may have wider responsibilities, especially in flight planning and fleet management. Slot management may be dealt with by other airlines or airports (e.g. AdP) or specific service companies (e.g. Transair). They are reflected in the CFMU address database and they may use CFMU terminals.

2.2.2.3 Flight Planning

2.2.2.3.1 Strategic Flight Planning On a strategic timescale an airline sketches out routes taking into account issues such 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 seasonal planning.

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 more detailed flight plans when FMS optimising functions are used. The additional information contained in OFPLs, that does not appear in the flight plan filed 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 (ocean crossing) • SIDs, STARs • Pax, Cargo Load, Fuel load: parameters on which the aircraft performance depends Airlines (or the service providers to which the task is outsourced) have sophisticated tools to create optimised flight plans. Criteria for optimisation are primarily fuel consumption and flight time. Parameters such as winds and temperature may be taken 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 trajectory depends also on the load carried by the aircraft.

10 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

2.2.2.3.3 Problems in Flight Planning Differences may exist between the different flight plans due to, for example: • Differences between FMS/Airline Operational Centre navigation database and CFMU navigation database, • Differences between aircraft performance models, performance parameters (fuel and load) used by FMS, AOC flight planning system and CFMU. Accurate information on winds and load is seldom available long in advance of takeoff. For short distances (usually flights within the core area of Europe), standard temperature, zero wind, and standard mass are commonly used to compute the operational flights plans. These flight plans are thus valid for the whole season and can be filed as Repetitive Flight Plans (RPLs). Correspondingly the CFMU does not take weather into account today when RPLs are transformed into FPL, so OFPLs and FPLs may not match. Filing RPLs saves effort and communications costs associated with filing FPLs for every flight every day and some scheduled operators find this procedure 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 the corresponding FPL has been generated from an RPL, then discrepancies between the two may exist. It is the responsibility of the airline to check that the FPL is indeed a 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 may not be the effort available to make the necessary comparison. Wind errors for flights within Europe may lead to discrepancies between estimated flight 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 cause disruption in airport resource allocation (see chapter 3). For long haul flights, winds, temperature, passenger and/or cargo load have a more significant impact on flight time and fuel consumption. Hence if RPLs are filed for long haul flights the FPL must be updated shortly before the flight.

2.2.3 Operational Issues

2.2.3.1 Airline Operating Concept The airline's operating concept is an important issue affecting operating methods. For example, increasingly airlines are adopting a hubbed mode of operations. These are 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 delayed otherwise transit passengers miss their connection • For the airport, transit passengers and their baggage must be transferred from one aircraft 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 since arrivals and departures are bunched instead of being spread out in time.

2.2.3.2 Turnaround Management Turnaround times range from twenty minutes to an hour and a half for passenger carriers. Typically turnaround can be considered to cover the period from on-blocks to pushback, including disembarkation and boarding by passengers, baggage handling, refuelling and safety checks on the aircraft. Turnaround times depend on:

EEC Task R23 11 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• Company operating strategy: some airlines plan a greater margin for turnarounds into their schedule to help manage the effects of delays • The aircraft type: the bigger the aircraft, the longer the turnaround, e.g. the minimum turnaround time for a B747 is one and a half hours • Passenger connection times if the airline operates a hub, necessitating sharp peaks 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 operated with higher frequency than long haul.

2.2.3.3 Management of Delays and Disruption Situations

2.2.3.3.1 Background Between 30% and 100% of the flights of the airlines participating in the study are regulated. This result is not surprising: the major activity of the airlines was operating short-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 ATC capacity, 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 a threshold for delays, the percentage of flights delayed ranges from 15% to 40%. Most airlines generate their own statistics on delays with a breakdown of causes labelled by the relevant IATA code. These statistics are usually given to the airlines association 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 cannot always 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” in some airlines. • Delays caused by fog also may be counted, as ATC delays rather than weather delays. • True ATC delay is the difference between the requested airport slot and the CFMU slot assigned. But the airline standard (for all airlines) is to measure off block delay. Quite often, an aircraft will go off-blocks at the scheduled time and then wait elsewhere. This will cause the ATC delays recorded to be less than is actually the case. In addition to the general problem of delays, airlines are particularly badly affected by disruption situations. These can catastrophically upset the planned schedule and impose very high costs through aircraft and crews being in the wrong locations. The airlines indicated that any steps which can be taken to help improve the management of these occasions will be of particular benefit.

12 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 to maximise the return on their investment airlines try to maximise the proportion of time spent flying passengers. However, this means that schedules become tighter and more prone to disruption. Thresholds quoted for delays that disrupt the company schedule range from zero to 30 minutes. If the delay of a flight is greater than this time, the airline cannot absorb it during subsequent flight or turnaround and the remaining schedule is affected (knock- on delays). Parameters taken into account in determining this are usually the forward schedule 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 the planned schedule, going back as quickly as possible to it from the disrupted situation. Discussions with airlines on the relative preferences for dealing with congested routes showed subtle variations in views. For some, the priority was on-time take-off with re- routing if necessary, whereas for others meeting the arrival time was at least as important. On-time take-off is regarded as better since customers will have made the effort to meet the scheduled time and even if the flight arrives late, this imposes less bad feeling towards the airline. Some airlines also regard it as important to leave before the aircraft of the competitor. Conversely, late arrival risks having passengers miss their connecting flight or business meeting with serious commercial impacts. In any cases, delay on arrival time often means temporary disruption within the airline’s schedule. Strategic Phase In the strategic phase, some airlines take into account chronic congestion delays when developing their schedule. Among the solutions considered are to increase on- block times, increase turnaround times, or to find a new airport take-off slot at a different time. Less congested but less direct routes are also studied. However, such changes have a cost and constraints are numerous, including availability of airport slots, environmental constraints, commercially attractive schedule, availability of public 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 to re-plan their flights to avoid congested areas or to minimise the impact of delays. The main reasons for not using this information included a lack of manpower to process the ANMs and the instability of pre-tactical information (e.g. a regulation announced on d-1 may disappear on d day), which itself is due to a lack of information from ACCs and airlines. Tactical Phase Instead, airlines primarily focus on the tactical situation. When asked when they needed reliable information on delays, the airlines responded that they needed the information on a tactical timeframe, from four to five hours in advance. They explained that it is only on this timescale that factors such as wind, load and operational disruptions can be effectively taken into account. Thus, the earlier filing takes place, the less accurate it will be.

EEC Task R23 13 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

IATA noted that it encourages airlines to file as early as possible but on many flights companies must wait for the latest wind forecast to be available. An investigation is being made in meteorology forums on the desirability and cost of having 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 dealt with on a flight-by-flight basis. To minimise delays, airlines may try re-routing or flying faster. In particular, it may be possible for outbound long-haul flights to recover from delays during the en-route phase, subject to arrival constraints at the destination airport. Rerouting Action Re-routing action is the result of the analysis of delay reasons, availability of airport facilities (at both departure and destination) and the status of the departing aircraft in terms of ground operations. It is also the result of experience of delays on a particular route. 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 the additional flight time. For example, one company noted that if the additional flight time due to rerouting is 20 minutes, the new slot has to be at least 30 minutes earlier than the original (delayed) slot for re-routing to be considered. Others stated that they will try re-routing only if the delay is over 60 minutes or if the sector is a particularly critical one for the company's schedule. The usefulness of re-routing depends on how late the proposal is made and on the specific delay cause. For example, if the aircraft has already fuelled and the bowser has to be bought back to take on extra fuel, this can take as much time as the original delay. Also, there will be no point in attempting re-routing if the arrival airport is the cause of the delay. Different strategies may be applied to rerouting of short and long haul flights since short hauls usually have more constraining schedules. Flight Cancellation Flights are seldom cancelled due to delays, and continuing with knock-on delays is usually preferable to cancelling. In particular, airlines do not want their customers to be switched to another airline. Only a few airlines specifically include the full direct costs of delays such as hotels for passengers who have missed their connection when recalculating options. Even fewer airlines try to include the indirect costs of delays such as loss of customers after a missed connection. It is difficult for an airline, even with the appropriate tools, to consider different operational scenarios and their consequences in response to delays disruption. Looking more than one flight ahead is not always rewarding, as so much can happen in the meantime to make plans obsolete.

14 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

2.2.4 Systems and Automation Airlines have different levels of automation and information flow organisation. One of the 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 resources without appropriate software tools (e.g. for switching the allocation of aircraft to different routes). The level of integration between the different systems dedicated to different activities of the airline (booking system, maintenance system, flight planning system, operations control system...) affects the ability of an airline to deal efficiently in case of disruption situations such as delays. The means of communications of the AOCs are shown on the following table. Not all airlines use all the communications means listed. With Inside Outbound Pilots Airports ACCs CFMU whom? company station Means Operations SITA, VHF Operations AFTN, AFTN, control (voice), control Phone, Phone, SITA, software, software, HF (voice), Fax, Fax, Phone, phone, SITA, VDL Intranet, Telex. Fax, fax, Phone, (ACARS), AFTN. Terminal, SITA, Fax, Satcom. Telex. Intranet. Telex.

EEC Task R23 15 FASTER Phase 1

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 Information Messages (AIM) to the airlines. The ANMs and AIMs are published in “hardcopy ” via ATFN and SITA and are available to CFMU RTA/RCA terminal users. For ANMs, the “ hardcopy ” version is presented in the same format as the CFMU terminal version but whereas the entire ANM is available to terminal users, only those pages 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 defined by route followed before entering restriction and slot reference point. The AIM is a text message informing airlines of particular measures concerning restrictions.

2.2.5.1.2 Tactical (day of operation) The airline is informed of its slot two hours before EOBT. The slot allocation message includes 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 of data, • Flight data on individual aircraft, • Airspace information, such as routes, • Facilities to input messages (Ready, Slot Proposal Acceptance, Slot Proposal Rejection, Slot Revision Request, Slot Missed, Flight Confirmation and Routing Rejection messages).

2.2.5.2 Airlines to the CFMU The following information is sent by the AO to the CFMU: • PFDs, RPLs including updates and cancellations. These are principally distributed on a strategic timescale. • FPLs, including updates and cancellations, sent 3-5 hours before EOBT. • Tactical messages concerning slots, such as slot improvement requests.

16 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• Ready message: the AO sends a Ready message to the CFMU to inform it that the flight has passengers boarded and is ready to depart at any time and take any slot improvement at short notice. Verbal exchanges between the AOC and the CEU are also of key importance in ensuring smooth operation of the system.

2.3 Information held by the airline The following table provides a summary of information that is available to/from AOs in Europe. Note that all of the information listed may not be available to all AOs, and that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is intended simply to give an indication of the present situation. The meaning of the columns is as follows: Information item. This identifies the particular data item. Source. This identifies from whom (person, or system) the information comes When available. This identifies when the particular information is produced and distributed. Accuracy. This identifies the typical level of error on the information. Stability. This identifies whether the information is likely to be subject to frequent changes. 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.

EEC Task R23 17 FASTER Phase 1 EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to completeness Commercial schedule Internal After IATA conference accuracy: high At least, on booklets Customers (Schedule + type of stability: high available at the aircraft) completeness: high airports. PFD format if given CFMU to CFMU Strategic Programme Internal After IATA conference accuracy: high Operations control stations (Schedule + aircraft stability: medium Paper/Electronic allocated to lines) completeness: medium Pre-tactical Internal d-1 accuracy: high Operations control stations Programme stability: medium Paper/Electronic (Schedule + aircraft (higher than strategic allocated to lines) programme) completeness: medium Tactical Programme Internal d-day accuracy: high Operations control (Schedule + aircraft stability: medium Paper/Electronic allocated to lines) (higher than pre- tactical programme) completeness: medium Physical links Internal Updated continuously accuracy: high Strategic, Pre-tactical between flights stability: medium and Tactical completeness: Programmes medium

18 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1 EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to completeness Additional Flights Internal One week to a few accuracy: high Operations Control stations, CFMU hours before EOBT stability: medium completeness: medium Alternate routes Internal but not all EOBT - 5 hours if accuracy: ETA - 90% Flight Planning airlines have a MTO taken into if Meteo taken into catalogue of routes account, earlier if not. account. (final load and fuel at EOBT - 30 minutes) stability: high completeness: high OFPLs Internal EOBT - 5 hours if accuracy: ETA, Flight Planning Pilots MTO taken into planned track for account, earlier if not. NAT traffic- 90% if MTO taken into account. (final load and fuel at EOBT - 30 minutes) stability: high completeness: high Meteo Internal and every 12 hours for accuracy: High Internal: pilots, Operations Control, External Bracknell stability: Medium outstations Flight planning, pilots, completeness: High outstations navigation database Internal or External accuracy: Medium Flight Planning, FMS pilots stability: Medium completeness: Medium

EEC Task R23 19 FASTER Phase 1 EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to completeness aircraft performance Internal or External accuracy: High Flight planning, FMS models stability: High completeness: Medium cost index Internal accuracy: High Flight Planning, FMS pilots stability: High completeness: High cost of delays Internal but not all now accuracy: Medium airlines stability: Medium completeness: Medium breakdown of delay Internal now accuracy: Medium airline associations causes stability: Medium completeness: Medium taxi-time Internal but for some now accuracy: Low Operations control pilots airlines only stability: Low completeness: Low

20 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

2.4 New and Enhanced Information Exchanges The aircraft operators participating in the study were asked about the benefits to them of new and enhanced information exchanges. As a result of this, several aspects of data 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 for development, and hence are not new. However, what is clear is that there may be a need for attention to the quality of information to be exchanged (e.g. in terms of accuracy or timeliness) or the opportunities for display of the data. General issues which the aircraft operators said must be taken into account when considering 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 Validation Airlines normally have their own flight planning systems or employ a service providers. However, problems arise due to discrepancies between databases and hence this may result in flight plans being rejected (e.g. by IFPS) or best use not being 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 Display The ASD programme is underway and will allow monitoring of real-time or near future traffic situations, allowing anticipation of potential traffic overloads and bunching which could provoke saturation in specific areas [ASD96]. The system will be implemented by fusion of radar data, ATC position reports and FPL information with support of the ENV database. For near future traffic positioning, meteo will be taken into 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 airlines are very interested by the ASD. An overlay of routes and sectors was suggested, and it was requested that the aircraft of other operators should be visible on grounds of transparency. IATA is currently working with the ASD project team to put together information on exactly what data will be able to be viewed by them and the cost elements. IATA believes that this tool is essential in order to bring about the co-operative planning concept in Europe [IATA].

EEC Task R23 21 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Some companies have developed basic systems to allow flight monitoring. Typically these are based on ACARS reports. The equivalent tool developed by the FAA is widely used by aircraft operators in the USA to optimise their operations.

2.4.3 Flow Management Information It was suggested by AOs that it might be useful to have more accessible flow management 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 delay indications • 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 the capacity/demand balance is creating a bottleneck. In general, it would be helpful to follow a strategy of indicating what is available rather than what is forbidden. For example, it would be efficient for users if displays could be organised to indicate available slots as opposed to a map of constraints. Clearly some of the information proposed (constrained sectors, delays) is already available through the ANMs and the slot allocation messages. However, the shortage of manpower, the effort required to extract information and a lack of familiarity with it effectively prevents best being made of the available information. As an example, ANMs give the codes the constrained sectors but the keys to localise them must be looked up separately. The time required to find the locations mean that, except for frequently occurring problems, it is not worth the operators investing the 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 different colours depending on their load levels • Meteorological data could be displayed • Routes affected by routing schemes such as the TOS or CDRs could be highlighted • 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 (lower sectors included), selected routes, cities, airports etc. • Implement customised alert systems [e.g. by flagging changed information on map display] and data discrimination filters

22 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

2.4.4 Airport and ATC Status Information Airlines noted that it would also be useful to have a variety of additional information related to airport and ATC status. Examples of information items that were mentioned include: • 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 ECAC airports increasingly congested, if flights do not arrive or depart on time, the disruption of gate and parking allocation planning results in additional ground delays for the airlines. One major carrier noted that it has tried to make aircraft approaching its main operating airport slow down so as to avoid an irritating wait on the tarmac for its passengers if the allocated gate is not clear. Another noted that at its main airport greater use should be made of holding areas to manage 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 the aircraft should be sent to a holding area to wait for its flow management slot. This strategy was felt to be commercially advantageous because the passengers saw that the 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 airport information pages via the internet. [IATA] Some companies stated that it may be useful to standardise airport capacity declarations for the purpose of assigning airport slots. At present some airports “oversell ” their capacity whereas others allow in extra flights without slots. It was also pointed out that aircraft operators assume that ground handling can be automatically provided with the slot, which is not always the case. Regarding airspace congestion in and around airports, some companies observed that there is a mismatch of capacity and airport slot allocation, and that it could be helpful to improve coordination between the flow management slot and the airport slot.

2.5 Further Operational Aspects During the study discussion often diverged to wider operational questions which, to a large extent, lie outside the field of improved information exchange. These included: • Equity • Commercial treatment of flow management slots

EEC Task R23 23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• Route charges • Prioritisation of flights • Ideas for further developments Each of these is addressed below.

2.5.1.1 Equity Equal treatment for each company is an important concern amongst airlines, although this undoubtedly does introduce inefficiencies in the operation of the flow management 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, first served” rule instead of the “first over, first served” after EOBT – 2 hours (i.e. slot allocation time). Filing an alternate flight plan after EOBT – 2 hours can penalise flights that are subject to the same regulation and which originate from a nearby airport and therefore have not reached EOBT – 2 hours. IATA commented that, in general, flights should be issued with a slot that puts them over any restricted point in the same order as if there were no problems (i.e. no congestion). [IATA]

2.5.1.2 Commercial treatment of flow management slots A commercial treatment of flow management slots was felt to be complicated and difficult to implement fairly and transparently, as well as probably imposing an overhead in extra administrative costs. However, some companies saw it as potentially interesting, for example if it could be seen as a part of a more general policy aiming at a clearer customer-supplier structure between aircraft operators and ATM service providers, perhaps through appropriate service-level agreements and greater transparency.

2.5.1.3 Route Charges as an Incentive to Optimise the Use of Capacity In the future as a means of optimising capacity, various strategies for route-charges might 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-supplier structure. Thus, different route charges could be considered if lower delays on more expensive routes were guaranteed. However, as IATA pointed out, altering the route charges mechanism may cause anomalies. 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 is with 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 priority they can allocate to individual flights for flow management slots, although recognising that this would have to be within the framework of rules which ensured equity amongst operators. It was noted that as complexity increases, there is more scope for bending the rules.

24 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Several companies suggested that in the first instance some prioritisation of flights by flow management systems in specific circumstances could be helpful. For example, a flight may be ready to depart on time, but is delayed by flow management such that it would arrive at the destination airport after it had closed. In this case the airline is faced with a large bill to keep the airport open a little longer, a diversion or a cancellation. "Slot swapping" opportunities were of interest, namely, the possibility for an airline to swap slots of flights that are going through the same regulations. This is currently possible [IATA], but only on a flight by flight basis with the intervention of an operator from the CFMU. A more general method, perhaps involving automation, could be helpful to companies. Further examples of flights which airlines might like to be able to prioritise, included the following: • When weather is deteriorating at a destination airport, the aircraft needs to arrive as soon as possible, and a delaying slot may mean that the flight can no longer be operated into the airport with consequent adverse impact on customers • Night curfew, such as when a delay in departing from an airport would mean arrival at the destination too late to be allowed to take off again to fly the return leg • Flights where crew duty-hours limits are approaching

2.5.1.5 Ideas for Further Developments The airlines had numerous ideas of interest for the ATM user and service provider communities. 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, where return flights are linked to arrival of an aircraft, and cannot be advanced significantly • More sophisticated rerouting facilities for flow management. For example, a route might have to change 15 minutes before EOBT. With data-link, this should be possible in the future ATM-Related Ideas • FPL computation and trajectory prediction should use the meteorological forecasts and other data used by AOs • Standardisation and centralisation of navigation and information databases, as will be developed under the European AIS database (EAD) • Look at use of lower cost communications solutions • Modify sectorisation to enable optimisation of flight level according to flight time and congestion. For example, short haul flights should not climb to very high flight levels, especially if it is to end piled way up in the arrival stack of a very busy

EEC Task R23 25 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

airport. Long haul flights departing at the same time are often penalised as they cannot reach higher flight levels that are already occupied • Set up a stronger customer-supplier structure within European ATM. For example, an “account manager” could be set up for each airline within Eurocontrol who could be the focus for liaison, suggesting strategic ways to avoid flow management delays and aiming to look after the company’s interests with ATFM and ATC service providers. In this way, the AO could be helped to help the overall system Some of these ideas are already being worked on.

26 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3. Airports

3.1 Background

3.1.1 Introduction This chapter discusses Airport operations and information requirements, presenting the results of discussions and interviews with representatives of the Airport Authorities from airports in a number of Eurocontrol countries. It is very difficult to generalise when discussing airports, to talk about “the typical airport”, because every airport is different. There are major international airports, regional airports, hub airports, airports that are not hubs. There are many different sizes - in terms of surface area, number of runways, number of stands, number of terminals and so on. The level of sophistication of automation and information systems 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 weather conditions, to contend with. For all these reasons, the operational priorities of different airports can be quite different. Furthermore, the organisation and division of responsibilities varies significantly. The rest of this section (3.1) gives the background to airport operations by describing briefly: • 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 organisations involved, and the different levels of co-operation between these systems,

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

Section 3.2 describes current airport operations, demonstrating the commonality and differences in the processes employed at different airports. Section 3.3 summarises the information that may be available from an airport authority, and considers the issues that must be addressed to allow wider dissemination of this information. Section 3.4 notes the future developments in airport automation and information systems that were foreseen by some of the participating airports. Section 3.5 reports what new information participating airport authorities consider would 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 Organisation In general, a number of different organisations are involved in the operation of an airport. The precise boundaries of responsibility for each organisation vary from country to country and from airport to airport, as do the relationships between the different organisations. Each airport is organised as appropriate for that airport, for commercial, historical and political reasons.

EEC Task R23 27 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

The present exercise, of determining what information is available “at an airport” and what new information would be useful to “the airport”, is made more difficult by this diversity of organisation. “The Airport” is in fact a number of different organisations, interacting to varying degrees, and with different boundaries at different airports. So a given piece of information will be held by different parties at different airports. And a given organisation, for instance the Airport Authority, will see a different “part of the picture” and therefore have a different viewpoint at different airports. It is therefore helpful to analyse system requirements by considering the roles that are fulfilled in the operation of every airport, rather than from the point of view of the organisations which carry out those roles at an individual airport. In practice, more than 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 for understanding “typical” airport operations and information requirements. The two airport roles of most interest to the current project can be labelled “Airport Authority” and “ATC Provider”. These are described in section 3.1.3.1. Other roles and organisations involved in airport operations are summarised briefly in section 3.1.3.2. Sections 3.2 to 3.4 address the operations and information requirements of the Airport Authority role. ATC operations and information are discussed separately in chapter 4.

3.1.2.1 Airport Authority and ATC Provider For the purposes of this report, the roles of the Airport Authority and ATC Provider are defined by the following responsibilities. Note that these are not intended to be full definitions, 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, departure lounges, 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 where required; • 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 of responsibilities between organisations at any particular airport. The precise boundaries of responsibility for each organisation vary between states and from airport to airport. In general however, there will be an organisation that can be identified with the Airport Authority role and one that can be identified as the ATC Provider.

28 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 this report, apron control is considered to be an “Airport Authority” function. Similarly, responsibility for bus transfers from gate to aircraft, including provision and operation of the buses, may rest with Airlines or Handling Agents (see section 3.1.3.2 below). But at some airports buses are a resource owned and managed by the Airport Authority, and therefore this is considered as part of the Airport Authority role for the purpose 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 by completely separate organisations operating in very different ways. Often, the Airport Authority is a commercial company, while the ATC Provider is government-owned. This can result in a difference in culture and response time between the two organisations. For example, an Airport Authority may work to encourage a rapid growth in traffic at an airport, while the ATC service cannot respond sufficiently quickly to accommodate the increase in traffic. The result will be delays at the busiest times of day. Some examples of the actual roles of Airport Authorities and ATC Providers at airports contributing to the present project are given below for illustration: • At Brussels airport, RLW-RVA currently performs both Airport Authority and ATC Provider roles (although the passenger terminal is operated by a separate company). This leads to a close co-operation between the two operations. From next year the terminal-operating company and the airport side of RLW-RVA will jointly form a new company with Airport Authority responsibilities, resulting in an organisation for Brussels Airport close to that described above. • At Athens, the ATC Provider and Airport Authority roles are fulfilled by two separate, independently-operating branches of the HCAA. • The major home-base airline operates its own terminal and apron facilities at Athens (Olympic Airlines at West Terminal, for Olympic aircraft only) and London Heathrow (BA at Terminals 1 and 4, for BA and other carriers’ aircraft). The Airport Authority operates the other terminal(s). • In Paris, the Airport Authority AdP employs Air Traffic Controllers to provide Tower ATC, and also provides all aircraft handling (see section 3.1.3.2 below).

3.1.2.2 Other airport roles and organisations Other roles involved in the operation of an airport, and the organisations that fulfil them, are noted below for completeness, although they were not necessarily examined in detail: • Airport ownership: The airport may be owned by the Airport Authority, by national or local government, or by a separate company. • Handling agent: Handling agents provide the Airlines with a range of aircraft and/or passenger handling services such as cleaning, catering, fuel, de-icing, check-in and baggage handling. To generalise, the facilities are provided by the Airport Authority, but the services are provided by the handling agent. Often the major home-base airlines provide their own handling services. (In practice, a home-base airline often also has responsibility for many aspects of airport operations concerning its own flights and sometimes other flights as well.)

EEC Task R23 29 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• Airline Operations Centre: An airline’s operations centre is often located at its home-base airport. For this reason, the information exchange between the Airport Authority/ATC and the home-base airline is often better than that for other airlines. • Station Manager: At other airports, other than their home base airlines often employ a Station Manager to oversee their operations there. • Aircraft Operator: Depending on the circumstances, the role of the “Aircraft Operator” may be taken by the Airline Operations Centre, the Station Manager, the Handling Agent or the Pilot. The term is intended to cover the person or organisation 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 is the individual or organisation responsible for distribution of airport slots. • Security, customs and immigration services.

3.1.3 Systems and automation In parallel with the range of organisations represented in airport operations, there are usually a number of different information systems and tools, which inter-operate and exchange information to varying degrees. The level of automation also varies widely between airports. In general, larger, busier and more complex airports have more 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 be manual);

• Airport lighting system;

• Airport Authority information system;

• Stand/gate allocation system or database;

• FIDS (flight information display system), displaying in the terminal information about flights and the airport resources allocated to them: check-ins, lounges, gates, baggage reclaims, etc.. Often also used to display flight information to other 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, a departure gate control system.

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

30 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 common data; 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 data electronically. Other data is exchanged by manual means, but not all data is exchanged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEC Task R23 31 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

• Runway capacity determines hourly capacity for most airports. Runway capacity is limited by the number of movements that tower controllers can handle, considering wake vortex separation limits. Depending on the configuration of runways, arrival and departure capacities may be linked by a total movements capacity, or may be completely separate. Most of the airports interviewed declared total movements capacities; however some, such as Zürich separate the arrival and departure capacities. The strategy for runway use will also be considered: 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, these restrictions are imposed to reduce the noise and/or pollution nuisance to local residents. For example, noise abatement restrictions may forbid use of a particular 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 a limit at Athens in summer, when the towers of the many island airports are open to take care of holiday traffic, leaving fewer controllers at Athens. Approach control or ATC sector capacity may also be a limiting factor, but was not at any of the 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 at Zürich, and is becoming critical at Heathrow. Apron congestion is a factor at Nice; ATC sometimes request regulations for this reason.

• Terminal passenger capacity. The flow of passengers must be considered at an airport as well as the flow of traffic - a flight cannot take off until its passengers 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 could increase capacity at Zürich.

• Other factors include mix of traffic and security facilities. Light/heavy wake vortex separations can mean that the mix of traffic can “waste” capacity. This can be used as an argument for limiting access to congested airports by smaller aircraft, although it has been commented that the aircraft typically used by regional airlines can make late turns and high rates of descent and early turn- offs, which given judicious ATC operation, can enable them to use runways (or parts of runways) not available for larger aircraft, and in any case reduces their runway occupancy time. Some flights may require special arrangements, such as 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 the maximum number of movements that the airport can achieve in one hour when everything is operating smoothly. For example, the declared capacity of Schiphol airport is currently 90 movements/hour, but if all goes well they can achieve over 100 movements/hour. The declared capacity for Orly is between the optimum and CATIII runway capacities.

32 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

• Fog/low cloud. This often results in large reductions in capacity because of the increased landing and departure intervals required. For example, fog or low cloud 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 arrivals and 24 departures per hour.

• Wind. This may affect the runway in use and can have significant impacts, as demonstrated by the Heathrow where cross winds above 25 knots force a switch to the crossing runway 23 for arrivals. The transfer operation from the normal configuration has to be planned 12 hours in advance since stands close to the runway 23 have to be cleared. Strong winds also reduce the ground speed of approaching aircraft, slowing down the arrivals process by as much as 25% and thus 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 airports interviewed this happens infrequently, e.g. only 2% of the time at Heathrow and Schiphol.

• Heat. High temperatures have an effect on capacity principally in Southern Europe where it may be too hot for heavily loaded aircraft to take off, particularly in 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. The disruption caused by meteorological effects can be particularly severe because they cannot be predicted reliably.

EEC Task R23 33 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3.1.6 Airport Slots Where the demand to use an airport exceeds its capacity (for a significant part of the 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 a system of “airport slots”. The system is internationally agreed, supported by IATA. The following paragraphs describe a generalised airport slot allocation process, but note that there are variations from airport to airport.

The number of slots that an airport will offer for the coming season is usually determined by the Airport Authority in co-ordination with the ATC Provider. This is generally 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 any remaining or new slots. The slots are allocated according to airport operating priorities, 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 other organisations involved with the running of the airport. International legislation allows for airport slot allocation to take account of governments’ Public Service Obligations, ensuring that airlines providing a transport service to regional and island airports are able to get the necessary slots at airports in major business centres. In principle the rules are also set up to encourage new entrants and to make competition possible.

Commercial decisions are key elements in the airport's assessments. It was noted that charters may typically pay higher charges but scheduled operators bring business 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 slot allocations for all airports are available for scrutiny by all participants, to help ensure a fair distribution. Access to remaining slots can be negotiated, and deals can be struck between airlines regarding their own allocations. The IATA conference is in principle the finalisation of airport slot allocations, although in practice negotiations continue right up until the start of the season.

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

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 shorter notice. Some airports may explicitly keep a number of slots unallocated for use as opportunity slots (Zürich Airport has done this until now, but will no longer from next season). At busy international airports such as Heathrow very few opportunity slots are 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 of schedule, to the Airport Co-ordinator for distribution as opportunity slots. It has been

34 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

noted that airlines (especially charter airlines) may secure “precautionary slots” against expectations of demand for flights, since the airline’s flight programme for the season is not finalised by the date of the IATA conference. No charge is made for 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 of these 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 Authority tries to discourage flights from arriving at that time by passing Aircraft Operators an estimate of the expected delay.

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

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

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

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

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

EEC Task R23 35 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

• Schiphol may declare a runway capacity of 90 movements/hour, but if all goes well the effective rate can be 100 movements per hour. The declared capacity has to be lower than the maximum to allow for bunching and overload. However, this allows the airport to offer 105 or even 115 slots at peak hours. • Gatwick is able to offer over 50 arrival slots per hour at peak times against a 43 declared capacity in order to keep the stacks stocked. At other airports, the number of airport slots per hour offered is less than the declared capacity. This is the case at Brussels, which hosts many state flights which are 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, restrictive meteorological conditions can be expected more often in winter. Capacity reductions are dealt with tactically when they arise.

3.1.8 Hub operations Hub operations are the usual mode of operation for US airlines and airports. Each airline 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 these longer-haul flights.

From the point of view of Airports and ATC, the most significant feature of hub operations is the traffic pattern that results. Flights arrive at and depart from the airport in waves - an inbound wave lasting half an hour or more is followed by a gap of at least half an hour (during which transfers of passengers and baggage take place) and then by a wave of outbound flights. This leads to a series of periods of intense 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. The following are some examples that have been highlighted by participants in the present project; there are of course many others.

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

36 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 hub scheduling.

• Nice Airport Authority negotiated to host the Air Littoral hub, after concluding that the 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. At a 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 airport operates the hub of a single airline, however, the traffic pattern can make staffing difficult because many staff are needed to handle each peak, with very few staff needed between peaks.

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

3.2 Current Airport Authority Operations

3.2.1 Introduction The operational viewpoint of the Airport Authority is different from that of the Airline or the ATC Provider: whereas the Airline and ATC consider arriving and departing flights (the Airline as part of a schedule and ATC as part of the overall traffic), the Airport Authority is concerned with the “stay” of an aircraft at the airport. It has to manage a set of such “stays”, or rotations, and the passenger and baggage movements associated with them.

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

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

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

EEC Task R23 37 FASTER Phase 1

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 interested parties.

3.2.3 Seasonal planning For co-ordinated airports, the framework for seasonal planning is the airport slot system described in 3.1.7.

Capacity and infrastructure issues for the coming season are usually discussed between 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 the airports) issue their schedules for the coming season. Often, these schedules are not 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 scheduled times currently have a “granularity” of 5 minutes. One-minute schedules for Europe are under consideration, and may be introduced in some places from next season.)

• Aircraft registration, which forms the link between arriving and departing flights and therefore defines the “aircraft stays”, or rotations, for the airport. This is often not specified in an airline’s initial seasonal schedule, but added at a later date. 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 able to specify aircraft registration at an early stage. Further, any aircraft registration information from home-base airlines is likely to be subject to change up to the last minute.

Airports can publish seasonal schedules by collating airline schedules.

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

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

38 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

• Heathrow Airport Ltd. (HAL) is trialling a stand allocation simulation tool this year, running it in parallel with its normal processes to gauge the tool’s performance with the available data. Currently the airport seasonal schedule consists 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 the day) and additional ad-hoc flights such as positioning flights.

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

• AdP have information about expected rotations in the seasonal schedule from all except the home-base airlines. No ground resource allocation planning is carried 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 definition of delays, is in general not well co-ordinated between Airports and Airlines. Some Airlines count departure delays by the minute after scheduled departure time; many count departure delays from 3 minutes. But the Airport often considers the departure time to be specified to the nearest 5 minutes, and at Heathrow the airport slot is considered to have a width of 15 minutes.

EEC Task R23 39 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3.2.4 Stand allocation and planning The stand allocation process begins for many airports about a week before the day of operations. An initial plan is generated, often automatically, from updated schedule information and strategic plans. These initial allocations may be distributed to Airlines and handlers to ensure that their preferences are met where possible. The initial allocation plans are usually updated daily as new and more accurate information becomes available on schedule, rotation, aircraft type and passenger numbers.

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

Last-minute changes to the planned allocations are common, especially where stands are a critical resource (for example at Heathrow, where it is estimated that only 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 aircraft technical 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 arrival and departure for the aircraft via an operator who listens to the operations radio frequencies. Some receive automatic advance notice of arrivals, e.g. on entering stack, passing marker, etc., but generally they do not have any ATC system display or 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 the flexibility of stands (piers are generally more specific than remote stands) all have an 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 complexity of the task.

• The same stand allocation/planning system is used in Brussels, Amsterdam and Heathrow. It consists of a database of flights and stands, and a rule set for allocations. of flights to stands The tool automatically searches for the set of allocations that gives the best score against the rule set. There are a number of different levels of rules, scored according to their priority (for example, rules concerning the maximum size of aircraft that a stand can accommodate are very high priority). The tool, supplied by the Preston Group, has a different name at each airport and is tailored for use at that airport. − At Brussels it is integrated within the Airport Movement System (AMS) which is closely linked with the ATC system. − At Schiphol the tool is called TRASS (for Terminal Resource Allocation System Schiphol). Information is download from the Airport Authority’s Central Information System to the stand allocation system two days in advance. Then pre-tactical planning of stand allocations, and eventually tactical 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.

40 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 manual process.

The Schengen agreement has complicated operations for many Airport Authorities in the signatory nations. Passengers on Schengen-Schengen flights have to be treated like domestic passengers, with no passport or customs checks. This has significantly altered the effective proportions of “domestic” and “international” passengers in the Schengen countries. Furthermore, where an aircraft arrives from a Schengen country but departs for a non-Schengen country (or vice-versa), either the 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 from the correct part of the terminal. Some airports have a few stands that can be accessed from either “domestic” or “international” areas of the terminal, which improves the situation for the airlines and their passengers, but adds complexity to the 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-blocks time. For example, the stand allocation system may allocate a gate to an aircraft for 10 minutes before estimated on-blocks time to 15 minutes after estimated on-blocks time. This gives a gate rest of 25 minutes. Where stands are a critical resource, a smaller, or even negative gate rest time may be used. Nice manually allocates a stand time at estimated on-blocks time minus 10 minutes, allowing a 10 minute gate rest. The stand allocated is transmitted to ATC and hence to the pilot.

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

• HAL use airport slot schedules (seasonal plus opportunity slots) to form an initial allocation 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 Thursday to 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 stand allocations are first planned in detail.

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

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

EEC Task R23 41 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

3.2.5 Interface with ATC and Flow Management The Airport Authority and the ATC Provider are integrated, organisationally and operationally, to different degrees at different airports, as discussed in sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 above. The two parties invariably co-operate to some extent in strategic planning, discussing capacity and infrastructure issues.

For example, at Nice, the Airport Authority performs a planning simulation based on seasonal 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 requested from CFMU.

At many airports there are more frequent meetings to discuss operations. For example, 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 and the ATC Provider, but, as all most airports, there is tactical co-ordination by telephone in case of problems.

At most airports there is an AFTN terminal which can be used by GA pilots and smaller Aircraft Operators to file flight plans. This is provided by the ARO or AIS services. 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, have no contact with CFMU and no direct information on CFMU slots. Sometimes information on CFMU slots may be available via the Aircraft Operator. In general, no account is taken of CFMU slots in Airport Authority ground operations; no priority is given to slotted aircraft. Exceptionally, AdP’s handling operations aim to give priority to regulated flights, to enable them to meet their slots.

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

42 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

3.2.7 Post-flight phase All Airport Authorities collect information for billing purposes. The extent and use of this information was not investigated in the present project, but this could be a relevant area for consideration in further work. The information needed for billing includes the following:

• actual arrival and departure times;

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

• number of passengers;

• noise category.

For example, AAS receives actual arrival and departure times from the Aircraft Operator at about +2 hours, and independently from the Tower. The Airline sends number of passengers at +30 days. The Airport Authority has no independent verification of this.

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

EEC Task R23 43 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3.3 Information available

3.3.1 Summary of Current Information Availability The table below provides a summary of information that is presently available to or from Airport Authorities in Europe.

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

The meaning of the columns is as follows:

Information item. This identifies the particular data item. Source. This identifies from whom (person, or system) the information comes When available. This identifies when the particular information is produced and distributed. Accuracy. This identifies the typical level of error on the information. Stability. This identifies whether the information is likely to be subject to frequent changes. Completeness. This indicates whether the coverage is adequate. When, how held. This describes how the information item is stored. Distributed to. This identifies to whom the information is sent, if anyone.

44 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Declared hourly Internal or ATC Permanently - capacity (standard)

Permitted annual Internal Permanently - capacity

Airport slots offered: Internal Season-6 months accuracy:very high Airport Co-ordinator number, (??) stability: very high distribution over time (only at co-ordinated completeness: very airports) high

Current allocation of Airport Co-ordinator Initial allocation at accuracy:high Held by Airport Co- - airport slots season-4 months stability: high ordinator - not often (only at co-ordinated completeness: very communicated to airports) Updated continuously high Airport Authority now, but could be?

Electronic database

scheduled flights: Airline (Airline Season-2d accuracy:very high Airline schedule Airport Authority, STD, STA, origin, schedule) (or earlier) stability: high usually off-line? d-1 stand allocation unit, destination completeness: entered into a FIDS ATC? Possibly updated medium (e.g. HAL BASIS) (more likely than aircraft type, Rotations and other registration) updates may be entered into system.

EEC Task R23 45 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

scheduled flights: Airline (Airline Season-2d accuracy:high Schedule usually off- Stand allocation unit. aircraft type schedule) (or earlier) stability: medium line? (home-base Possibly updated. airlines) Updates may be high(others) entered into system completeness: low

scheduled flights: Airline (Airline Season-2d accuracy:high Schedule usually off- Airport Authority. aircraft registration schedule) (or earlier) stability: low line? (home-base airlines) Possibly updated, but medium(others) often wrong or late. completeness: low

scheduled flights: Airline, Handling d-1 or later. Usually accuracy:variable Off-line. Passed by Stand allocation, priorities agent real time. telephone? ATC? stability: variable completeness: variable

Schengen status of Internal Season to d-day accuracy: very high Off-line. Determined - flight stability: very high from border policing completeness: very and customs high regulations and airport terminal configuration. accuracy: very high previous year’s Internal Post-flight Airport commercial stability: very high traffic department, terminal managers completeness: very high

46 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Airline preferences Experience/assumpti Updated continuously accuracy:high Allocation tool Stand allocation unit for stand allocation on/AO complaints stability: high ruleset/ completeness: high Head of operator

Strategic stand Internal Season-2d accuracy:low May be in scenarios AO (sometimes) allocation plan (or earlier?) stability: medium tried out with stand (only at airports completeness: very allocation tool where stand capacity May be updated high is a limit) during season

Initial planned stand Internal Between d-10 and d- accuracy:med/low Stand allocation tool AO/Handler, TWR allocations 2 stability: medium (sometimes) completeness: very Updated daily. high

Planned stand Internal d-1 or d-day accuracy:medium Stand allocation AO/Handler, TWR allocations stability: medium tool/operator's head (sometimes) Updated completeness: very continuously. high

Actual stand Internal - accuracy:very high Stand allocation tool AO/Handler, FIDS, allocations stability: very high TWR completeness: very high

EEC Task R23 47 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Other allocations Internal - accuracy:very high Handler, FIDS stability: very high completeness: very high

Rotation information Airline/Handler Season, to aircraft accuracy:high Stand allocation unit, (aircraft registration, departure stability: low (home- apron control duration of stay etc) based airlines), med (other airlines) completeness: medium

ETA, ATA Sometimes by Season, to flight accuracy:low Off-line? Sometimes Delays expected by telephone from arrival stability: low electronically. AOs not well AO/Handler. completeness: low distributed to Airport Sometimes by Authority. manual monitoring of Sometimes sent to ATC frequency. stand allocation unit Sometimes (e.g. LHR) electronic link to ATC system.

Pax numbers Airline Season, to flight arrival accuracy:low Electronically Terminal managers stability:medium (for terminal capacity), Sometimes by manual Transfer numbers may completeness: low local transport (e.g. for monitoring of ATC be advised separately transfer buses) frequency on flight arrival/pushback.

48 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Post-Flight Information Airline After flight arrival accuracy: very high Electronically Airport commercial for Billing (Pax no etc) stability: very high department completeness: very high

Post-Flight Information Internal Between aircraft arrival accuracy: very high Electronically Airport commercial for Billing (AOBT etc) and departure stability: very high department completeness: very high

Towing Plan Airline Daily accuracy: high Passed by telephone Apron control, ATC? stability: medium from AO? Some completeness: high electronic aircraft movement tracking systems.

Airline Ground Sometimes electronic Aircraft pushback accuracy: medium Stand allocation tool/ Required by stand Operations link to gate recording stability: medium Operator's head/ some allocation unit, terminal gate open/closed. (Airports would like completeness: electronic systems management etc. advance warning) medium Sometimes CCTV links. Practically, most Airports authorities Sometimes listen for have little or no pushback requests to reliable advance ATC. information.

Sometimes have telephone contact with AO/Handler

EEC Task R23 49 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Emergency Internal, AO, ATC, Real-time accuracy: variable ? All. Special plans or Information government stability: low "crisis centres" may organisations completeness: exist. variable

50 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3.4 Future developments of Airport Authority systems

3.4.1 Introduction Airport Authority systems are in a continuous process of development following local requirements. Since each local situation has its local needs, the developments are an ad-hoc process, although numerous trends are represented reflecting the onward progress of procedures and supporting technology.

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

BA is using ACARS to slow down aircraft en-route in order to manage stand capacity for the terminals which it operates, although there is the risk that times spent in the London stacks may delay the aircraft unexpectedly. If this process were more widespread, as is likely to be feasible with the wider-spread fitting of datalink, Airport Authorities would like to be part of the information loop with a number of Airlines in order to optimise terminal operations.

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

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

3.4.3 Plans to link information systems Several Airport Authorities have plans to improve their operations by a closer integration of existing information systems within their organisation and to external systems.

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

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

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

EEC Task R23 51 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3.5 New information requirements

3.5.1 Introduction The Airport Authorities participating in this project were asked to identify new information that would be useful to their operations, or information that they would like earlier or more accurately. The following sections note the new information requirements 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 any evident problems with provision. Further work may be required to determine the most appropriate source for some of the items, or whether the information could be made available at all in the timescale and to the accuracy that would be helpful to the Airport Authorities.

Most organisations interviewed said they were happy to provide whatever information they have that is needed, but it in any development it will be important to 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 better quality information : it must be more complete, and be updated with greater reliability so that the eventual information is complete and accurate and therefore useful as a basis for planning.

3.5.2 Earlier information on planned rotations Currently, the stand allocation process is necessarily largely tactical. Last-minute delays and rotation changes are inevitable, and mean that stand allocations cannot be completely planned in advance. While recognising this fact, a number of airport authorities would like to be able to plan stand allocations further in advance and more pro-actively than at present. To enable this, earlier and more accurate planning 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.

52 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Any strategic planning of stand capacity for the new season’s traffic is typically carried out using extrapolated traffic from the previous year. By the time airline schedules giving details of rotations are available to Airport Authorities, it is often too late to make any major changes to the stand allocation plan in time for the start of the season. Instead these have to be made as the season progresses. Earlier schedule and aircraft type information from the AOs could be merged with traffic history to give a more reliable basis for strategic stand allocation planning. Better quality information from the AOs would also benefit the AOs themselves since the Airports 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 of the season, in time for the Airport Authority to begin pre-tactical planning. Some AOs already provide this information very accurately and very promptly, but there are significant gaps. Therefore, even at this later stage, the information held by individual AOs is generally better than that received by Airport Authorities, and Airport Authorities would benefit from improved accuracy and coverage.

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

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

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

The effectiveness of Airport Authorities’ stand allocation planning is reduced by the fact that planning information is not complete. Out-of-date or missing information from some AOs reduces the benefit of high-quality information from others. An on- time flight which behaves exactly as the Airport Authority expects fits smoothly into the plan, whereas an arrival for which the Airport Authority has incorrect or no information causes a lot more work. Airport Authorities would therefore like:

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

• reliable updates on all airlines’ rotation planning.

Airlines are currently not obliged to send the required information and updates, and may see little direct benefit, particularly from sending all updates as they occur. So many airlines will not bother to send updates when they are busy, and some will never consider it worth the manpower and communications cost. The effort required would be reduced by electronic links such that when an AO updates its own fleet planning (or flight planning) system, updates to rotation plans are sent automatically

EEC Task R23 53 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 airline schedules.

• AOCs may have updates of ETA, derived from pilot reports or ACARS communications. Many AOs already provide their handlers (and sometimes Airport Authorities) with updates of ETA for long-haul flights. However, to send ETA updates for all flights could imply a lot of extra effort and communications costs, 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 the local FIR. These could be linked directly into the Airport Authority’s system. (Systems are already linked at some airports; some others plan links in the future). 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 be extrapolated could be sent from the airport of departure.

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

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

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

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

As with ETA, ETD is of interest to many different parties, and a consistent, regularly updated estimate available to all would be widely valued. However, it appears that the information from which ETD could be determined is scattered across a larger number of sources, and hence an accurate ETD is less likely to be held in electronic form.

EEC Task R23 55 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

3.5.6.1 Information on departure delays Departure delays may arise because of handling or technical problems, or as a result of ATC delays - either from CFMU slots, or delays in receiving start-up clearance from the tower. Notification of problems encountered and expected delays would allow the Airport Authority to keep ETD updated.

Currently, information on departure delays most often comes by telephone co- ordination between Airport Authority Operations and the Handler or AOC. Aircraft Operators often avoid informing Airport Authority Operations of problems or expected delays, in case they are asked to move the aircraft to a remote stand for the duration of the delay. (This would allow the Airport Authority to make better use of 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 warn of expected departure delays and as an indication of ETD. However, they do not generally consider it necessary to prioritise Apron operations in favour of regulated aircraft, so knowledge of CFMU slots is not required for that purpose.

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

Much of this information is already passed verbally, for example between the handlers and the pilot, but is not made available to all at the airport who could profit from it. However it is worth noting again the variation in operations between different airports and between different airlines. HAL receive updates on the progress of handling operations for some airlines via ACARS messages; while other 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 also responsible for handling and Airport ATC, so that the different aspects of airport operations are more closely linked than at many other airports. AdP already passes information on handling delays to the Tower, to improve their estimates of departure times, and noted that it could also provide this information to CFMU if necessary.

A number of Airport Authorities are already addressing their requirement for more information about handling operations. For example, Zürich Airport Authority is investigating methods for tight monitoring of the movement of passengers and bags around the airport.

56 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

4. ATC

4.1 Background

4.1.1 Introduction This chapter discusses ATC information requirements, concentrating largely on ATC operations around airports. It presents the results of discussions and interviews with representatives of the Air Traffic Service providers from a number of Eurocontrol countries.

These organisations perform the “ATC Provider” role referred to in section 3.1.3. As was noted in that section, the actual division of responsibility between the Airport Authority and the ATC Provider varies from airport to airport. For the purpose of the present 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) is taken, for the purpose of this report, to be part of the Airport Authority role, and is discussed in the previous chapter.

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

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

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

Section 4.4 summarises the information that may be available from ATC Authorities, and considers briefly the issues that must be addressed to allow wider dissemination of this information.

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

EEC Task R23 57 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

4.1.2 ATC Roles The services provided by the ATC organisations that were interviewed are organised into four broad roles or functions, as described below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive; it is intended to clarify the terms used in the present report.

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

4.1.2.2 Flow Management Position (FMP) The FMP is responsible for liaison between the other ATC functions (sectors and aerodromes) and the CFMU. Its responsibilities include pre-tactical and tactical regulation setting and capacity planning, and tactical traffic load monitoring. (Strategic flow management functions are dealt with by other parts of the ATC Provider’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 is located in one of the ACCs it represents.

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

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

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

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

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

58 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

At individual airports, these positions may be further sub-divided. At large airports the work of a position is often split geographically between two or more controllers at 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 included in GMC at some airports, and at others rests with the Airport Authority. For the purpose of this report Apron Control has been taken to be a responsibility of the Airport Authority, as discussed in section 3.1.3. Where the Airport Authority performs Apron Control, start-up clearance may be passed to the pilot by the Apron Controller, but that that clearance must always have been given by ATC. Likewise, towing operations are usually controlled by the Airport Authority, but need clearance from 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 for supporting flight plan filing and AFTN access to pilots. This service is similar to that provided by Handling Agents (independents or airport related). Increasingly they are equipped with CFMU terminals and will be requested to sign CFMU Service Level Agreements. AROs are currently undergoing a phase of evolution with, for example, restructuring into regional service providers in France and Germany.

4.1.3 ATC Systems A modern ATC system usually serves all controllers: ACC, APP and TWR. In addition the TWR controllers at busy airports often have additional systems to assist them, which may or may not be integrated with the national ATC system.

The links between national ATC systems and airport information systems, at the airports 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 the Automation System providing radar and flight data processing and the Airport Movement System providing airport and Tower-related ATC operations.

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

EEC Task R23 59 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

4.2 Current ATC Operations

4.2.1 Introduction This section describes briefly some typical ATC operations, concentrating on those that interface with the Airport and with Flow Management. Information exchanges are discussed in the operational context in which they exist.

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

4.2.2 Strategic Planning The strategic planning function of ATC is Airspace Management. The states’ ATC authorities are involved in Airspace Management both individually and in combination, through CFMU strategy meetings. Typically it is not the operational controllers who are involved in Airspace Management, but other ATC Authority staff.

Where seasonal schedule information is available to the ATC authority sufficiently far 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 the study recently increased its operating schedule from 3 to 6 peaks per day. The first wave of traffic now arrives earlier, and the ATC authority had to change their staff rosters 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 available to the ATC authority only two days before the beginning of the new season - too late for new route structures and/or sectorisations to be designed, tested and brought into operation (with the accompanying changes to procedures that would most likely have need required).

It is generally the case that the new season’s schedule is not available early enough for Airspace Management purposes. As a result, ATC authorities’ seasonal plans are usually based on the previous year’s traffic, sometimes increased by a certain factor to take account of the expected global traffic growth. Hence, changed traffic 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 planning of airport infrastructure and capacity. For example at Nice, required CFMU regulations are determined by a regulation committee involving ATC, the Airport Authority, handlers and airlines. The committee's decisions are based on the predicted congestion highlighted by the Airport Authority’s planning simulations.

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

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

60 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

Planning for airport ATC is typically done 12 or 6 hours ahead. This planning must take forecast weather into account, for example to decide runway(s) in use for landing and take-off, so the length of time in advance that operations can be planned 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 of runways and taxiways is not planned specifically, although the optimisation of runway use is achieved through departure and arrivals sequence planning at some airports.

4.2.4 Tactical restrictions

4.2.4.1 Chronic Congestion Chronic congestion arises when the demand level continuously exceeds airport capacity. This problem is being faced by more and more airports amongst the sample interviewed.

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

At present the two mechanisms can only be loosely linked since, as one airport pointed out, for an infrequent user of the airport the actual usage of airport slots can even 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 declared airport slot capacity. It may be higher to keep stacks stocked for maximum throughput, 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 all scheduled and military traffic but can reject charter, private, and training flights at busy times.

4.2.4.2 Disruption Case Disruption situations occur relatively frequently at airports and may be due to many different causes. Generally they are due to events which cannot be foreseen more than a few hours in advance. The most frequent causes are adverse weather conditions (e.g. fog, snow, high winds), but local works, industrial action, strikes and traffic incidents are all potential causes of disruption.

Disruption has a significant impact on airline operations. It induces high costs owing to the disruption of the schedule, leaving aircraft and passengers at unplanned locations. Improved information flow and management of these situations would be of significant benefit to airlines.

EEC Task R23 61 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

When SIGMET warnings are received at the London FMP (LFMP) these are not input into any system, but are used by the FMP to in decide what flow rates can be supported and what regulations, if any, are required. The ATC staff at each airport have built up a wealth of experience of local weather conditions which allows them to 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 takes this length of time for a new regulation to reduce the traffic demand or for normal traffic to be re-established following the lifting of a regulation. BA noted that in the event of fog, internal flights (e.g. from Manchester-Heathrow) are kept on standby for rapid response to regulations being lifted.

4.2.4.3 Identification and Implementation of Tactical Restrictions FMPs usually warn CEU of impending regulation requests by telephone, backed up by an AFTN message. The procedure for deciding the regulation varies between sites.

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

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

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

ATC then resolves tactical problems dynamically. For example Charles de Gaulle airport 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 unexpected overloads for ATC.

Brussels airport noted that since it has only a small surrounding airspace, there are no declared sector capacities, and restrictions are normally only set for longer-term

62 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

4.2.5 Tactical operations

4.2.5.1 FPLs and CFMU messages The ACC/FMP receives flight plan messages (FPLs) and flow management messages by AFTN or SITA. The TWR receives these messages directly or via the ATC 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 the ATC system to the TWR. CFMU slots are entered into the system manually.

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

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

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

Several ATC authorities are working on systems to avoid manual transfer of CFMU slot allocations and updates to internal systems. For example, this is under progress at RVA Schiphol and is contained in the requirements for the Greek PALLAS system although not yet implemented.

Several ATC authorities provide facilities for small AOs such as business jet operators to interact with the CFMU. This may be through an official ARO or Handling 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 default addressing for ATFM messages if the AO has not been identified (i.e. GA).

4.2.5.2 Take off and landing schedules The ICAO rule for arrivals is first come, first served, but the ATC authority can get better runway utilisation if the sequence of aircraft is optimised (eg by weight category)

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

EEC Task R23 63 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

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

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

At Schiphol, LVB uses a computer system to develop an automated plan for the arrival sequence from the FPLs 30 minutes before arrival. This is updated using radar 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 are on a first-come, first-served basis depending on start-up time, with clearance being refused if it is not consistent with the CFMU slot. Some optimisation is carried out and a queue is often maintained to maximise runway capacity.

UK NATS uses FPLs as a means of initial planning for arrivals, the sequence being manually fine-tuned by APP based on wake category. For departures, aircraft sequence can be adjusted during taxi or in holding areas by the runway. A manual optimisation 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 with some manual optimisation to maximise usage of runway capacity. FPLs are found to be insufficiently accurate to be useful for arrival sequence planning.

Nice ATC uses first-come, first-served for establishing landing sequences. For departures a pre-tactical sequencing is carried out in advance on the day, but without automation tools.

4.2.5.3 Prioritisation of Ground Operations ICAO rules mean that departures with allocated CFMU slots always get priority over non-slotted flights, which can occasionally result in delays to unregulated slots from busy airports. State and military flights have a higher priority, as noted by Brussels which has to handle a large number of such flights.

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

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

64 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 make its CFMU slot and a slot extension is not possible.

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

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

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

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

4.3 Future Airport ATC systems

4.3.1 A-SMGCS The principal development which was discussed with ATC authorities was the possibility of introduction of A-SMGCS systems. These are regarded as important in 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 the latter case it would initially be standalone.

NATS is intending to procure a system for Heathrow and other UK airports. This might display callsign and route for outbound aircraft and callsign and stand for inbound 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 a corresponding improvement in accuracy. Brussels RVA suggested that A-SMGCS could be used to allow much narrower take off slots, even as low as 1 minute. LVB commented that the CFMU slot is wide relative to the timescale of ground operations, 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 taxi times.

EEC Task R23 65 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

4.3.2 Other Developments Brussels RVA noted several planned developments of their CANAC system which demonstrate potential future enhancements elsewhere.

• a plan to link ATIS to the CANAC ATC system for automation of terminal information (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 a tactical allocation of the runway to each departing flight.

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

The meaning of the columns is as follows:

Information item. This identifies the particular data item.

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

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

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

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

Completeness. This indicates whether coverage is adequate.

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

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

66 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL Table of ATC Information

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Airport Slots AO, Airport Season accuracy:high ATC commercial dept stability: high

completeness: high

Schedule revision AO Season - d-1 accuracy:high ATC, Airport stability:medium completeness: high

Runway in use ATC Before take-off accuracy:high Voice Pilot via handler stability:high communication, completeness: high some automation

Seasonal schedule Airport Permanently accuracy:high AO, handler of works stability: high completeness: high

Daily briefing Airport d-1, updated accuracy:high AO, handler (runway, weather, regularly (eg every 4 stability: high expected delays) hrs at LVB) completeness: high

Regulation ATC FMP Real time accuracy:high Automated CEU Requests stability: medium completeness: high

Delay information ATC Real time accuracy:medium By voice, but AO, handler stability:medium increasing completeness: high automation

EEC Task R23 67 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness

Aircraft positions, ATC surveillance, Real time accuracy: high ATC systems - ETA etc perhaps with wider coverage from stability:medium interconnection to completeness: high neighbouring systems

Tactical Flow Rates ATC Real time. accuracy:high By voice, but AO, handler. increasingly stability:medium automated. completeness: high accuracy:high Slot Revision AO, handler d-1 up to EOBT+ Automated ATC (TWR), CEU stability: medium Requests completeness: high

Taxi Times ATC experience, Real time accuracy:high Head of operator / - based on apron stability: high automated in future availability, aircraft completeness: high type, gate and most likely take-off runway

Departure ATC EOBT-30 min accuracy:high In operator's head, AO (sometimes) sequence stability: medium but level of completeness: high automation increasing

Actual Time of ATC Real-time accuracy:high From ATC system Stand allocation unit, Departure stability: high AO, handler completeness: high

68 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

Information item Source When available accuracy, stability, Where, how held Distributed to: completeness accuracy:low Airline Ground AO, handler, gate EOBT-30 min to Little if any link ATC- ATC stability: low Operations (e.g. manager EOBT+ AO progress on completeness: low preparing a flight prior to pushback) accuracy:high Slot Extension ATC, on behalf of EOBT-1hr to EOBT+ Automated CEU stability: medium Requests AO/handler completeness: high

Advisory of Arrival ATC EOBT-30 min? accuracy:medium Off-line? In future Stand allocation unit, Sequence stability: low automated? AO, handler. completeness: medium

Actual Time of ATC Real-time accuracy:high From ATC system Stand allocation unit, Arrival stability: high AO, handler. completeness: high

EEC Task R23 69 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

4.5 New information requirements

4.5.1 Introduction The ATC Providers participating in this project were asked to identify new information that would be useful to their operations, or information that they would like earlier or more accurately. The following sections note the new information requirements 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 may be required to determine the most appropriate source for some of the items, or whether the information could be made available at all in the timescale and to the accuracy that would be helpful to ATC.

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

4.5.2 Earlier ETA or ATD At present, most ATC authorities have little information on the ETA or ATD. An estimation can be obtained from, for example FPLs or CFMU slot allocations, but this is subject to a relatively high degree of inaccuracy. Better quality information would be a significant step to allowing ATC to improve arrivals sequencing and stack management.

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

Athens ATC suggested that estimates based on surveillance information would be useful, 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 are currently able to provide such updates.

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

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

70 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 4.5.3 Air Situation Display An ASD capability was seen as useful by a number of ATC authorities, principally if it can provide a good quality ETA. For example, Brussels commented that the tool must give the data needed to update the FPL held locally including providing an advance ETA for the arrivals manager. Similarly LVB considered that it should provide a better ETA.

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

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

4.5.5 AO Schedule Information Better information from AOs on schedules was believed to be needed by ATC. This would help them improve planning for optimising both arrival and departure schedules.

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

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

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

4.5.6 State of Airline Ground Operations It was noted by several ATC (eg HCAA, UK NATS, Swisscontrol) that they have no information on the state of airline ground operations. Improving this would bring capacity benefits by allowing ATC to make early planning of taxiing and departure sequence, 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. These included:

EEC Task R23 71 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL • A 10 minute advance warning of the aircraft's call for start-up would be of significant help.

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

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

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

Brussels RVA commented that they had attempted to introduce a system where a ten minute advance warning of start-up call would come from the pilot, but that this had 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 would have the responsibility to update this planning to reflect unforeseen events during their ground operations

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

4.5.7 Feedback from Airport Slots There was some discussion of the benefits of more closely linking airport slots with operations, and it was suggested that this could be done through FPLs. For example, if a link could be introduced between the FPL and the airport slot, the IFPU 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 issued slots.

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

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

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

72 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 4.6 General Comments for Improvement of Operations by ATC

4.6.1 Introduction The ATC authorities interviewed during the study made a number of additional comments and suggestions for the improvement of current systems, procedures and infrastructure.

4.6.2 Measurement of Delays Improved recording of delays and other operational performance measurements would be beneficial. In particular the degree of standardisation could be further developed so that a given delay category is used in exactly the same way by each organisation, and so that the same minimum threshold for registering a delay is used by all. This would, for example, facilitate the demonstration of equal treatment of AOs by ATM.

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

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

4.6.4 Take Account of Flight Links One ATC authority suggested that attention should be paid in ATM to information on likely links between flights, whether due to a particular aircraft being used on an outbound and return flight, or for connecting traffic. At present, ATC and CFMU have no information on links between flights.

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

4.6.6 Regulation at Times of Bad Weather There was a discussion of the approach to managing disruption caused by instances of bad weather, in particular concerning the lead time for a regulation to take effect and the exempting of flights from distant departure airports from arrival regulation in expectation of improvement in local weather conditions.

Paris FMP explained that the minimum flying time to Paris is around 1 hour, so the effect 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 weather effects often happen on shorter timescales than this, resulting in aircraft being

EEC Task R23 73 FASTER Phase 1

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

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

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

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

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

74 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

5. Conclusions This section contains the principal conclusions that were drawn from the conduct of the interviews and the subsequent analysis.

5.1 General Attitudes and Situation The airlines, airports and ATC authorities interviewed were very aware of the need for and the benefits of improved information exchange, and were keen to participate in such work provided that good cost-benefit arguments could be made for each specific case. It was evident that operators need more information to understand the causes of problems such as flight delays. If this were available, it would allow them to work on reducing the delays they experience. Furthermore, there was support for the philosophy inherent in collaborative planning and decision making, namely to enable operators to gain direct benefit from their own actions 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 that initiatives must take into account local situations. For example, there are widely- varying capabilities and investments in Information Technology support and this must be considered when developing potential solutions.

5.2 Operational Issues A number of particular operational issues were noted which it was felt more advanced information management could improve. Management of the disruption case was seen as an important issue because of the financial impact on the companies. Disruption cases were identified as ranging from reduced 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 also takes a long time to recover after regulations are removed. This delay in response is due to factors such as the typical flight times within the core area, and the uncertainty of weather predictions. However, it was felt that an improved information exchange could ameliorate these situations. The AOs delay cost function is highly non-linear, but there is a marked reluctance to cancel flights even when there is a high delay cost because the aircraft operator anticipates that its passengers will switch to a competitor providing an equivalent service. It would be beneficial if procedures were arranged to encourage the aircraft operator to cancel in these circumstances because it would help to limit demand at times when capacity is reduced, with consequent reduction in delays.

5.3 Planning Effective planning is very difficult owing to the impact of real-life events and the difficulties in ensuring that up-to-date information is available and is propagated efficiently. Thus, current planning arrangements have to be highly reactive, as demonstrated 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 have in providing accurate capacity data given variability in staffing levels, and the

EEC Task R23 75 FASTER Phase 1

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

A further element is that aircraft operators, particularly the larger companies, have advanced flight planning and slot management systems which allow them to take into account a wide range of factors including weather predictions, the particular aircraft's performance and company operating procedures. Also more and more operators actively use air/ground datalink communication (e.g. ACARS) as a means of managing their operations. While it is clear that real world events mean that the actual paths are not always very close to the filed routes, the introduction of rerouting tools is considered very important by AOs since they are seen as potential source of delay reduction.

5.4 Improved Information Distribution The 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 it necessary to distribute the right information, it is necessary to consider several information 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 be used. The analysis revealed that consideration of the following aspects of information distribution and management amongst the actors would be of interest to the actors concerned: • For AOs: • early (pre-tactical) information on heavily loaded sectors with some idea of likely delays on routes, and later (tactical) information on possible alternative routings to avoid planning problems • re-presentation of existing information to maximise utility, and to focus on what might be possible • ATC estimations of expected holding times in stacks and airport waiting areas • additional airport information, such as pre-tactical capacity and tactical gate 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 delays and the progress of ground handling operations • For ATC providers:

76 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL • earlier availability of ETAs and/or ATDs • earlier availability of flow management slot information and improved display • better information from AO on schedules • better information from AOs and/or handlers and/or gate managers on the state 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 as the CFMU's RTA/RCA, planned systems such as the ASD, or alternatively separate new information systems.

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

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

EEC Task R23 77 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

6. Recommendations In any operational system it is appropriate to continuously review existing working practices 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 and computation) develop new rules, algorithms and technical requirements. FASTER has carried out a study which examined users' perceptions of the needs for improved information exchanges involving ATFM and ATC. As with any questionnaire-based research, however carefully planned, there is always a risk of responses being affected by the nature of the questions asked. Therefore, to confirm the results, more objective research is required. This research should take the form of experiments in controlled environments. It is proposed that the following kinds of experiments should be carried out: • measurement of the benefits accrued from new or better information (e.g. ETA estimates for airports) • measurement of the benefits of modified display of information (e.g. that identified as required by AOs) Examples of applications which appear to have the potential to bring significant benefits 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 and handlers. • dissemination of accurate taxi time and other information needed for accurate estimation of take-off time • display of information to ATM system users • new approaches to management of disruption situations (e.g. temporarily reduced airport capacity) Considering the last of these, improved information distribution helping to reduce the impact of disruption situations would be of particular interest to airlines. The approach to further investigations would be to establish a range of disruption scenarios and to evaluate possible information distribution solutions to each with the help 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 and knock-on delay • Aircraft operator oriented measures, such as equity across flights and airlines, total delay in passenger-minutes and the estimated cost of providing substitute aircraft to cover for gaps in the schedule The outcome of such experiments should enable firm conclusions to be drawn up concerning the required information exchanges and the necessary information quality. These could then be fed into specifications of future systems or, ideally, near-term developments.

78 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL Furthermore, the scope of these experiments should be designed to allow a solid evaluation of operational benefits, and implementation and operating costs for all actors.

EEC Task R23 79 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

7. FASTER questionnaires

7.1 Questionnaire to Aircraft Operators

1. THE FUTURE This section seeks the Airline’s views and preferences on possible future developments 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 of the phases and activities.

1.2 Do you intend to take congestion into account during the strategic or pre-tactical phases (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-tactical phase? ❐ 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 would interest you: ❐ Up-to-date and forecast pictures of sectors constraints? ❐ Foreseen delays? ❐ Capacity and demand forecast?

80 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 as early as possible even if the flight is not completely defined and even if it might be cancelled in the end. Would you agree with this policy and keep the CFMU informed of 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? When (how long before flight: 2 days, 1 day, 5 hours...)? ❐ Alternate routes for earlier take-off in case of regulations: would you be ready to propose an alternate route? When (how long before flight: 2 days, 1 day, 5 hours...)?

1.6 If you could be notified accurately of the delays how long in advance would you like to have this information? In order to achieve this, are you ready to file your FPLs earlier than three hours before Estimated Off Block Time (EOBT)?

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

EEC Task R23 81 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL

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

1.9 Would you be interested in swapping slots between flights if they go through the same 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 management delay? 1.12 Multi-flight-plan filing for slot improvement: Filing an alternate flight plan after EOBT-2 hours can penalise flights subject to the same regulation that originate from a nearby airport and therefore have not yet reached EOBT-2 hours (slot allocation) as explained by the following drawing.

Estimated/Computed Time Over the entry of a ETO of alternate flight plan regulated sector ETO flight from nearby airport: CTO

Time

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 for regulation slots and not being reimbursed the slots for which no aircraft departure was 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 by flight basis? ❐ Advantages/Penalties? example: ATFM priority points An aircraft operator is given some ATFM points that it can use to give priority to a

82 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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. Aircraft operators being given the opportunity to buy (through ATFM points) or to sell some delay 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 operational problems as well as the existing links between the CFMU and the aircraft operator control 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?

EEC Task R23 83 FASTER Phase 1

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/fuel charges)? ❐ 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 for other 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) or parent 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) or parent 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 your operations? 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 of services provided to you by this airport. We are specially interested in the resources allocation process.

84 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

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 additional flight?

means: What tools/communications support these exchange?

If there are service providers, like de-icing, fuel, catering, with which you negotiate directly, please describe processes in the same way (actors, data exchanged and related 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 from touchdown to take-off including communications with ops control if any. The answer should be given in the format of three columns table with the following headers: Time Ground Pilot Operations

The time should go from touchdown to take-off time. The operations should be of the type : "(pilot) gets pre-departure clearance from ATC" "(pilot) gets a new CFMU slot from ops control" "(ground operations) passengers board aircraft"

EEC Task R23 85 FASTER Phase 1

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 the accuracy 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 your company 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?

86 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 3. YOUR AIRLINE COMPANY As the questionnaire is sent to many different types of airlines, it is important for us to assess the scale and type of your operations. This is the purpose of the last part of this 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:

EEC Task R23 87 FASTER Phase 1

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 are different 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 are taken 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 provide for 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?

88 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 1.6 What is the content of the seasonal schedule? How precisely is the schedule planned?

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 seasonal schedule? 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 operational schedules.

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 in terms 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 arrivals and/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 is the 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 ramp services, based on the daily schedule?

EEC Task R23 89 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 1.16 a. Does the Airport establish a landing schedule using FPLs as they become available? 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 become available? 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 Flow Management Position at the ACC)? Ideally we would like details as follows. Some examples are suggested, please delete or correct these if they are wrong, and add any others.

Information From To When? Under what passed who? whom? circumstances?

Estimate of airport capacity Airport FMP Strategic Notification of red. capacity Airport FMP Tactical Flow regulation request TWR FMP Tactical Traffic > capacity Flight plans CFMU TWR Tactical When filed CFMU slot CFMU TWR Tactical When allocated Others? . . .

2.2 In the future, what further information could the CFMU provide to help optimise the use 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 and capacity 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? ❐ other information (please specify).

When would each item of information be available and to what accuracy?

90 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 2.4 How much information could the Airport give to CFMU on the state of ground operations? For example: ❐ aircraft loaded (or current status)? ❐ gate/ramp delays? ❐ predicted/planned taxi time (including queuing to use runway)? ❐ predicted/planned take-off time? ❐ other information (please specify).

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 precise information? Please give specific examples, including when the information would be needed. d. Can you envisage using the FMP terminal differently in future, if appropriate support 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 incoming traffic 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 Movement Guidance 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 the accuracy of take-off time prediction and control (and therefore slot time accuracy)? By how much, when? (For example slot width reduced from 15 min to 5 min by 20XX?)

EEC Task R23 91 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 2.14 The need for de-iced aircraft to take off as soon as possible after de-icing makes it difficult for them to comply with CFMU slots. One possible way to improve CFMU performance would be to replace the CFMU slot for the de-iced aircraft with a predicted take-off time (TOT) determined by the airport. How accurately, and how far in 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 delete or correct these if they are wrong, and add any others.

Information When? Circumstances? passed

Seasonal schedules 1 month before season? When agreed Daily operational schedules Day of flight? Airport slot allocation ? Information on stand/gate/services allocation ? As updated Take-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 to assist 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?

92 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL ❐ the actual take-off time for each flight? ❐ the actual landing time for each flight? ❐ other information (please specify).

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 efficient use 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 or correct 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 will use this information to help us understand the characteristics of your Airport, to put into context the information you have given us in the main part of the questionnaire.

EEC Task R23 93 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL In addition, we would be grateful for answers to the following:

4.1 Does adverse weather frequently reduce capacity at this Airport? What weather effects are most often experienced, and with what frequency, typically?

4.2 Is capacity of this Airport significantly affected by wind speed and direction (because of the combination of runways that can be used)?

4.3 What is the airport organisational structure? [We are particularly interested in the organisational structure for planning - both “strategic” and “tactical”.] − Which services are provided by separate companies and which by the Airport Operator? − What are the main responsibilities of each department of the Airport Operator?

4.4 Does the airport have an automated Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (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 for stand 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 describe each 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 for stand 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 the future? 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 company and with the outside (CFMU, other airports, CAA, Airlines)? What medium is used for each link and which service provider (e.g. SITA)?

94 EEC Task R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL Version en langue française de l'introduction, des objectifs du projet, des conclusions et recommandations

1. Introduction 1.1 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 et AEROSPATIALE pour étudier les échanges d’informations entre les opérateurs aériens (AOs - aircraft operators), les aéroports, et les fournisseurs de services aéronautiques (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 des opérations après-vols. Cette étude est un élément d’une analyse plus large des concepts de collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision, identifiés comme faisant partie des éléments d’EATMS, futur Système ATM Européen, qui doit être progressivement implémenté en accord avec la stratégie ATM pour les années 2000+. La collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision a pour but essentiel d’améliorer les échanges d’informations entre les acteurs, de manière à prendre de meilleures décisions, et d’assurer que les décisions sont prises par les personnes les mieux placées. Ces avancées permettront de réduire les incertitudes et d’arriver à une meilleure compréhension 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 différents acteurs et d’appréhender les flux d’information existant. L’équipe a interviewé un échantillon d’acteurs, incluant des représentant de compagnies aériennes de différentes tailles et de différents types, d’aéroports et de centres de contrôle. L’analyse des procédures et des échanges d’informations est réalisée, permettant d’identifier un certain nombre de recommandations pour des travaux relatifs à l’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 sont nécessaires pour faire face à la demande de trafic aérien prévue pour le siècle prochain. Cette augmentation de capacité doit être obtenue en maintenant ou en augmentant le niveau de sûreté. De nombreux aéroports sont saturés ou le seront dans un futur proche. Cette tendance devrait s’accroître dans les prochaines années. La capacité en-route devra aussi être augmentée conformément à la demande, dans une situation où il devient de plus en plus difficile d’augmenter la capacité par simple division de secteurs de contrôle. Les opérations des compagnies aériennes deviennent aussi plus complexes, avec de plus en plus d’interconnexions à développer. La pression commerciale impose une meilleure utilisation de la flotte et la mise en place de navettes et de hubs. De plus, il

Tâche CEE R23 95 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL est nécessaire pour l’ATM d’améliorer le niveau de service et de réduire les coûts des opérations supportés par les utilisateurs. Il est prévu que l’organisation et les concepts actuels de l’ATM ne seront plus capable à terme de fournir de la capacité supplémentaire. La stratégie ATM pour les années 2000+ est développée pour fournir un cadre afin de faire face au challenges posés par ces prévisions. Plusieurs développements possibles sont proposés dans cette stratégie. La collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision est perçue comme une participation importante, fournissant potentiellement des gains significatifs grâce à des changements dans la gestion des informations et dans le rôle de chaque acteur. 1.2.2 Gains prévus en collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision La collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision est clairement une partie essentielle du système ATM actuel. Cependant, elles fournissent aussi un levier pour augmenter la capacité, la flexibilité et l’efficacité. Une meilleure distribution et un meilleur partage des information disponibles auprès des ATS, des aéroports et utilisateurs permettra de réduire les incertitudes et donc d’améliorer la prédictabilité. Aujourd’hui, un faible niveau de prédictabilité signifie par exemple pour les fournisseurs de service aéronautique (ATS) d’être prudents dans la définition des limites de charge des secteurs, ce qui gaspille en partie la capacité disponible. De même, pour un contrôleur individuel, l’actuel faible niveau de prédictabilité signifie qu’il voit fréquemment augmenter sa charge de travail pour corriger les erreurs de prédictions. Ainsi, l’amélioration de la prédictabilité est essentielle pour une utilisation efficace des nouveaux outils d’aide aux contrôleurs. De même, lorsque les contraintes de capacité le permettent, de plus grandes flexibilité et efficacité opérationnelle pourront être offertes aux compagnies aériennes pour atteindre leurs objectifs opérationnels. Par exemple, l’amélioration de l’échange d’information permettra aux compagnie aériennes d’optimiser leurs routes, en considérant leurs planning d’opérations et d’équipages, les contraintes d’aéroports et d’espace aérien, ainsi que des éléments économiques comme les redevances de route. Une meilleure information concernant les estimation d’heure d’arrivée (ETA) permettra aux aéroports de gérer plus efficacement les parkings et portes d’accès et les ressources des terminaux. En tant qu’extension de la planification collaborative obtenue par meilleur distribution d’information, la collaboration pour la prise de décision peut identifier qui est l’acteur le plus à même d’être responsable pour une prise de décision: qui a les meilleures informations et connaissances pour prendre la décision? Cela peut entraîner une réallocation des responsabilités de prises de décision. Par exemple, une prise de décision multi-agent peut aider à mieux traiter les situations perturbées.

96 Tâche CEE R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 2. Le projet FASTER 2.1 Objectifs du projet L’objectif du projet FASTER est d’identifier les opportunités faisables et bénéficiaires d’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 planification des vols. Le projet doit évoluer vers le développement de prototype de solutions exprimées en termes d’échanges de données, de traitements et de procédures opérationnelles. Les acteurs concernés par FASTER sont les opérateurs aériens, incluant les centres opérationnels 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 trafic aérien militaire. Afin de cadrer avec le plan de développement d’EATMS et pour prévoir les transitions, le projet considère trois échelles de temps: • court terme (moins de 4 ans) basé sur le concept opérationnel actuel (concernant l’établissement de planning et les échanges de données) et les informations disponibles. • moyen terme (4 à 8 ans) utilisant de nouveaux concepts (concernant l’établissement de planning et les échanges de données) et d’implémentation éventuelle 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 projet FASTER: • l’établissement d’une coopération entre Aérospatiale et le Centre Expérimental d’EUROCONTROL; • la réalisation d’une investigation des projets de recherche existant dans ce domaine; • la réalisation d’une modélisation pour identifier les acteurs, les processus et les procédures, en focalisant sur la gestion des flux; • la mise au point de questionnaires, contenant un large spectre de questions relatives à l’organisation de l’ATM et les échanges d’informations; • le contact et l’interview de plusieurs opérateurs aériens, d’aéroports et de fournisseurs de services aéronautiques; • la transcription et l’analyse des résultats des entrevues, fournissant une présentation consolidée des échanges d’informations et des procédés; • la rédaction du rapport final.

Tâche CEE R23 97 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL 2.3 Déroulement de l’étude La première étape du processus d’interview est l’identification des sujets potentiels de changement et/ou de création d’échange d’informations. Comme le projet devait prendre en compte un large spectre de perspectives, de niveaux technologiques et de méthodes opérationnelles, une attention particulière a été portée à l’établissement d’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 bien que des compagnies aériennes régulières. De même, une large gamme d’aéroports est consultée, incluant des aéroports coordonnés ou non, des grands et des petits. Les entretiens se déroulent en rencontres directes, utilisant le questionnaire comme base. Les questionnaires sont fournis à l’avance pour préparation. C’est considéré comme le moyen le plus efficace pour recueillir des informations, plutôt que d’expédier les questionnaires à remplir. La plupart des questions ont une complexité nécessitant une discussion détaillée des sujets soulevés. De plus, ce procédé fourni aux 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 projet prend des notes de réunion et rédige ensuite des comptes-rendus. Les minutes sont soumises aux interviewés pour commentaires complémentaires et approbation avant d’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 treize autorités aéroportuaires et services de contrôle aérien.

3. Conclusions Les principales conclusions tirées de la réalisation des entretiens et de leur analyse sont données ci-après. 3.1 Attitude général et Situation Les compagnies aériennes, les autorités aéroportuaires et les services de contrôle aérien sont très conscients du besoin et de l’intérêt de l’amélioration des échanges d’informations. Ils sont prêt à participer à de tels travaux si la démonstration par des bons arguments coûts-bénéfices peut être faite pour chaque cas spécifique. Il est évident que les opérateurs ont besoin de plus d’informations pour comprendre les causes de problèmes comme les retards. Lorsqu’elles sont disponibles, elles leur permettraient de réduire les délais qu’ils subissent. La philosophie inhérente à la collaboration pour la planification et la prise de décision est soutenue. Il s’agit de permettre aux opérateurs d’avoir un gain direct de leurs actions (ex. la suppression de vols) qui aident la communauté entière à utiliser au mieux les ressources rares et limitées. La complexité des organisation de compagnies aériennes et d’aéroports dans toute l’Europe entraîne la nécessité de considérer des situations locales. Par exemple, il y a de profondes disparités de capacités et d’investissements dans les technologies de

98 Tâche CEE R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL l’information qui doivent être utilisées pour le développement d’applications potentielles.

3.2 Aspects opérationnels Un certain nombre d’aspects opérationnels sont identifiées comme pouvant être amélioré par une gestion avancée des données. La gestion des perturbations importantes est perçu comme un sujet important à cause de l’impact financier sur les compagnies aériennes. Les cas de perturbation identifiés vont de la réduction de visibilité à des cas extrême de fermeture de piste à la suite d’un accident. Il n’est pas possible aujourd’hui que des mesures de régulation puisse prendre effet suffisamment rapidement, et le retour à une situation normale est très longue après la suppression des régulations. Ce temps de réponse est dû à des facteurs comme la courte durée de vol européen typique et aux incertitudes des certaines prédiction météorologiques. Quoiqu’il en soit, il est noté qu’une amélioration des 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 coût important dû aux retards, car les compagnies veulent éviter de voir leurs passagers passer sur une compagnie concurrente fournissant un service équivalent. Il serait avantageux que les procédures encouragent les compagnies à annuler des vols dans certaines conditions car cela permettrait de limiter la demande lorsque la capacité est réduite, permettant ainsi de réduire les délais.

3.3 Planning Un planning efficace est difficile à établir compte tenu de l’impact d’événement réels et de la difficulté d’obtenir et de communiquer des données à jour Ainsi, la mise au point de planning doit être hautement réactive, comme démontré dans les plans d’allocation de parkings dans les aéroports et dans les révisions d’allocations de créneaux. De manière similaire, la faible disponibilité d’informations affecte la qualité des prévisions pré-tactiques. Dans ces conditions, une source importante d’erreurs vient de la difficulté des responsables de services des contrôle à fournir des données précises de capacité à cause des variations de personnels. Une autre source est la difficulté des opérateurs aériens à établir des plans de vols précis à l’avance à cause du manque de prédictions météorologiques. Ce dernier point est composé d’hésitations des opérateurs aériens à fournir des données qu’ils devront modifier plus tard, en partie à cause des coûts additionnels de communication. Quoiqu’il en soit, il est certain que pour certains acteurs, comme l’ATFM, un premier élément d’information est mieux que rien. Un élément complémentaire est que les opérateurs aériens, en particulier les grandes compagnies aériennes, ont des systèmes avancés de planification des vols et de gestion des créneaux qui leur permettent de prendre en compte un large éventail de facteurs comme les prédictions météorologiques, les performances individuelles des avions et les procédures opérationnelles spécifiques à chaque compagnie. De plus en plus de compagnies utilisent activement des communication numériques air/sol (ex. ACARS) comme moyen de gestion de leurs opérations. Bien qu’il ne soit pas clair que des événement réels signifient que la route réelle ne soit pas proche de la route planifiée, l’introduction d’outils permettant de faire du re-routing est considéré

Tâche CEE R23 99 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL comme très important par les AOs puisque qu’ils voient là une source potentielle de réduction des délais.

3.4 Amélioration de la distribution de données La cible de FASTER est l’amélioration de la gestion et de la distributions d’informations et de données. Comme découvert lors des entretiens, il y a plusieurs dimensions. Il n’est pas suffisant de distribuer de bonnes informations, il faut aussi considérer plusieurs facteurs de qualité: l’à propos, la stabilité, la complétude. De plus, il est important de considérer la visualisation des informations. Si les informations ne sont pas présentées dans une forme facilement accessible aux utilisateurs, elles ne sont pas utilisées. L’analyse révèle que la considération des aspects suivants, dans la gestion et la distribution d’informations entre les acteurs, peut les intéresser: • Pour les AOs • information avancée (pré-tactique) concernant les secteurs très chargés avec quelques idées des délais induits, et plus tard (tactique) des informations sur les possibilités de routes alternatives pour éviter des problèmes de planification • représentation des données existantes pour maximiser leur utilisation, en s’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 qui concerne la prédiction de retard au départ et l’avancement des opérations d’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 la visualisation 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 des créneaux CFMU et aéroports. Ces nouvelles données peuvent être fournies par des évolutions de systèmes existant comme le RTA/RCA de la CFMU, des systèmes programmés comme l’ASD ou d’autres nouveaux systèmes distincts.

100 Tâche CEE R23 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL Dans tous les cas, un point important pour tous les participants est que les développements dans la gestion d’information doit toujours être soutenu par des justification appropriées concernant les gains escomptés, considérant les coûts de communication, les tâches de saisie et d’utilisation des données, ainsi que les coûts de développement des systèmes. Enfin, l’amélioration de la distribution d’information doit continuer à soutenir l’équité et la transparence de manière à éviter toute inquiétude concernant l’équité de traitement des utilisateurs.

4. Recommandations L’étude a identifié un certain nombre de besoins d’information des opérateurs aériens, des aéroports, des services de gestion des flux et des services de contrôle du trafic aérien. Si les procédures et les systèmes étaient en places pour effectuer les échanges d’informations nécessaires, ils produiraient des gains significatifs pour tous les acteurs concernés. Dans de nombreux cas, les informations nécessaires sont disponibles d’ores et déjà. Elles demandent simplement à être communiquées. Dans d’autres cas, il faut faciliter l’accès à l’information, considérant le temps et le travail nécessaire à leur traitement. Dans tous les cas, la qualité des informations (à propos, précision, complétude) et le coût supplémentaire de communication de ces informations doivent être pris en compte. Dans tout système opérationnel, il est utile de revoir régulièrement les pratiques et les règles de travail en fonction de l’évolution des besoins et des développements opérationnels. De telles revues doivent permettre d’identifier les problèmes et les besoins nouveaux et, utilisant de nouvelles technologies (ex. concernant les communications 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 les besoins d’amélioration des échanges d’information impliquant ATFM et ATC. Comme avec toute étude basée sur des questionnaires, bien que soigneusement préparés, il y a toujours un risque que les réponses soient orientées par les questions. C’est pourquoi, 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 particuliers d’échanges d’informations et d’applications de collaboration pour la prise de décision qui nécessitent des expérimentations consciencieuses. Ces évaluation doivent se concentrer 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 des informations (besoin identifié pour les AOs) Exemples d’applications apparues comme ayant un potentiel de gains significatifs et qui doivent être approfondis: • fourniture aux aéroports par les services ATC et/ou les AOs de meilleures estimations d’heures d’arrivés • fourniture aux aéroports et aux services ATM par les AOs et/ou les services d’escale de meilleures estimations d’heures de départ

Tâche CEE R23 101 FASTER Phase 1

EUROCONTROL • dissémination de taxi-time plus précis et d’autres informations nécessaire à l’estimation précise de l’heure de décollage • visualisation d’informations par les systèmes des utilisateurs • nouvelles approches pour la gestion des condition perturbées (ex: réduction temporaire de la capacité d’un aéroport) Ce dernier point, l’amélioration de la distribution d’information pour réduire l’impact des situation perturbées, est particulièrement intéressant pour les compagnies aériennes. Les analyses approfondies doivent établir un large spectre de scénarios de perturbations et considérer plusieures solutions de distribution d’informations pour chaque, avec l’assistance des AOC et des services d’ATM, afin d’identifier la solution optimale. Les paramètres d’évaluation des résultats doivent inclure: • Appréciation par les opérateurs aériens, les aéroports et les autres participants aux expérimentations • Les mesures d’allocations de créneaux, comme le délai total, les délais individuels des vols et les délais critiques • Les mesures dédiées aux opérateurs aériens, comme l’équité d’un vol à l’autre et d’une compagnie à l’autre, le délai total en passagers.minutes et le coût estimé pour substituer ou ajouter un avion pour rattraper le planning. Les résultats de telles expérimentations doivent permettent de tirer des conclusions fermes concernant les besoins d’échanges d’informations et la nécessité de qualité de celles-ci. Elles pourront alors être transformées en spécifications de future systèmes ou idéalement de développement à court-terme. De plus, l’envergure de ces expérimentations doit être conçue pour permettre une solide évaluation des gains opérationnels et des coûts d’implémentation et de développement pour tous les acteurs.

102 Tâche CEE R23