Adherence Brochure Apr09

8/8/2019 Adherence Brochure Apr09

1/12

DMEAN and the Flight Efciency Plan

Flight Plan and

ATFCM adherenceor the sae and optimum ow o air trafc


2/12

Introduction

The Dynamic Management o the

European Airspace Network (DMEAN)

consolidates a number o current ATM

developments and improved inorma-

tion processes to meet capacity de-

mands in the short-term through a network

ocused approach. The Flight Eciency

Plan (FEP), a common EUROCONTROL/

CANSO/IATA initiative, was introduced in

August 2008 to put emphasis on fighteciency such as airspace design and

the utilisation o the available capacity o

airspace (en-route & TMAs) and airports.

A ocus or both initiatives is to im-

prove supporting systems, procedures

and fight planning to allow operators

to fy shorter routes, carry less uel and

reduce emissions.

Flight Plan andATFCM adherenceor the sae and optimum ow o air trafc


3/12

3

Delivering the optimised fight plan

Flight plans and associated update messages are submitted or all

IFR/GAT fights, including the IFR portions o mixed IFR/VFR fights,

entering, overfying or departing the IFPS Zone (IFPZ).

The led fight plan is the result o the preparation by AOs to ensure, as

ar as possible, the most ecient and economic prole or the intended

fight.

The route and levels are determined by many actors such as

aircrat type, payload, weather conditions, route charges, etc.

The fight plan data, departure and arrival times, waypoints, route

and levels are key elements in the preparation or airports, ACCs and

CFMU to manage the fight in a sae and optimum manner.

The orecast trac demand and available ATC capacity is identied by

Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) at ATC sector level and thus

appropriate scenarios and sector congurations can be put in place

or the day o operations. This assessment o trac counts and sector

loads, when and where appropriate, may result in a request or Central

Flow Management Unit (CFMU) to put protective ATFCM regulation in

place.

ATFCM is implemented or airspace where the traic demand

exceeds the deined ATC capacity.

Flow and/or capacity management measures such as departure

slots, level-capping or rerouting scenarios may then be needed

to prevent sector overloads.

What are the RulesA new Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 layingdown the requirements on procedures or fight plans in

the pre-fight phase or the single European sky applies as

rom 1st January 2009:

The operator shall ensure that the conditions o acceptance o

a fight plan and any necessary changes thereto as notied by

IFPS to the originator are incorporated into the planned fight

operation and communicated to the pilot. and

The operator shall ensure prior to operation o the fight that

the content o the initial fight plan correctly refects the opera-

tional intentions.


4/12

4

Why is there a problem?

Daily across Europe, regulations are put in place to protect ATC

rom receiving more trac than the controller can handle saely.

However, it happens that more aircrat than planned enter these

protected sectors, exceeding their capacities by more than 10%,

which is regarded as an ATFCM over-delivery. When investigating

those reported occurrences in most cases it is ound that additional

fights entered the concerned sector as a result o:

Not lying at the initial requested light level (RFL); or,

Departing at times dierent rom the original estimated o-block

time (EOBT) or calculated take-o time (CTOT); or,

Arriving in the sector earlier or later than originally planned; or

Deviating rom their original planned route

(oten direct routeing (DCT)).

The EUROCONTROL Enhanced Trac Flow Management System

(ETFMS) count was 33 fights or a regulated capacity o 36 or

the period between 0540-0620hrs. The actual number o fights

was 42 fights. The causes were: 3 fights earlier than planned,

2 fights later than planned and 4 fights in sector operating on

another route than planned.

0

0540 hrs 0600 hrs 0620 hrs

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Example: Reported over-delivery LECMAST sector (Mar 08)

16

Regulated Sector Capacity

Trafc Count


5/12

5

In 35% o all reported ATFCM over-deliveries during 2008, the actual

FL was dierent to the RFL in the Flight Plan. The network impact o

this over-delivery can result in:

Wasted capacity in some sectors,

Potentially excessive workload,

An overall lack o conidence in the accuracy o orecast

traic counts,

Protective capacity reduction,

Increased workload, stress or working conditions such that the

ability o ATC controller may be signiicantly impaired and thus a

saety issue.

Why is there a lack o adherence to FPL

& ATFCM measures at Airports?

CFMU is systematically monitoring the perormance on ATFCM slot

adherence. At some holiday destinations, a ew fights can be hours

not minutes away rom their CTOT without notication to ATM.

These changes to the planned timing, route or fight level, i not

communicated, may cause disruption to a handling ACC but also

to the destination airport. Who has not arrived early on a fight at an

airport to nd no stand available?

So where it is experienced, what are the principal causes or the lack o

FPL adherence at airports? It can be caused by:

AOs not submitting DLA/CHG messages.

Poor management o delays.

Failure to adhere to CTOT and to update EOBTs or non-regulated lights.

Dispatchers Message

A change o Estimated O Block Time (EOBT) o more than

15 minutes requires a DLA/CHG message.

Ensure that the led FPL correctly refects the operational

intentions.


6/12

6

Accurate fight plan data is essential. I change is not communicated

then this immediately introduces an element o inaccuracy into trac

projections or both en route and destination airports.

CFMU can allocate a calculated take-o time (CTOT) to protect a

congested ATC sector. In such circumstances:

Aircrat Operators (AOs) should plan the departure o their light

so that the aircrat will be ready or start in suicient time to

comply with the CTOT.

Slot tolerance (-5min +10min) is available to ATC to organise the

departure sequencing.

Airports and controllers should have eective practices to

monitor EOBT & CTOT.

ATC has a joint responsibility with AOs in CTOT adherence

(ATFCM Users Manual).

ATC may deny start up clearance to a light unable to meet its

CTOT until coordination with the ATFCM unit concerned.

What are the RulesThe CFMU ATFCM User Manual describes:

ATC may deny start up clearance to a fight unable to meet its

CTOT until coordination with the ATFCM units concerned has

been eected and a revised CTOT issued.

What are the RulesICAO Doc 7030/4 (EUR) stipulates that

ATC is responsible or departure slot monitoring at departure

aerodromes and

Aircrat operators shall inorm themselves o and adhereto current ATFM measures (e.g. specic measures applica-

ble on the day in question such as ATFM slot or fight suspen-

sion).

In the same document it also mentioned that

Any changes to the EOBT o more than 15 minutes or any IFR

fight within the IFPZ shall be communicated to the IFPS


7/12

7

Why is there a lack o adherence to FPL & ATFCM measures

in the En Route Phase o Flight?

Most ANSPs provide guidelines to controllers which typically state that

changes to the requested FL should only be initiated in exceptional

circumstances such as or weather or or ATC reasons, however, it is

oten the case that controllers ask the crew or their requested level

and i circumstances permit it is readily granted.

I or example the fight has been level-capped to avoid a regulated

sector, the requested level rom ATC is oten interpreted as being

the original higher fight level rather than the fight level envisaged in

the fight plan. Thus the fight may end up back in the sector which

regulation had sought to avoid.

There are many genuine reasons or pilots to request dierent

fight levels (headwinds/tailwinds, CAT, lighter payloads, etc.) and

consequently deviate rom the fight level originally requested in the

FPL. In the current economic situation o today carrying and burning

the minimum amount o uel is considered paramount, and many pilots

are placed under pressure to fy an optimised uel trajectory whereverand whenever possible.

The Network impact

FPL Routes Actual Routes

ATC Message

Do not ask or change to proles unless operationally necessary

I changing a prole or an urgent reason then ensure

ollow-up with Network level co-ordination

Notiy your colleagues downstream i you are making a

signicant change to route or level


8/12

8

What are the RulesThe CFMU IFPS User Manual states:

The ATC Flight Plan Proposal Message (AFP) message shall

be submitted to the IFPS by an ATS unit where that unit has

new or revised inormation concerning an aircrat led as IFR/

GAT within the IFPZ that is already in fight.

In some cases low lers have sought to avoid regulated airspace andthen request a higher level in fight. I the higher level is granted, they

will achieve a more ecient cruising level than that or which they led

and avoid the delays incurred by other airlines, who had genuinely led

at the higher level.

less more

less

Sector A Workload

Result: higher workload in sector A and wasted capacity in sector B

1. A flight plan from GCLG to EDDN, through Geneva airspace is filed

2. A regulation is put in place which would impose a 20-minute delay

3. A re-filed flight plan avoids the delay

4. Pilot then requests FL 380 en-route and enters regulated sector

Actual

FL Flight

RFL Flight Sector B Workload -1

+1more

Flight 1

FL

GCLG300

320

340

400

380

360

EDDN

Regul

ation1

Cockpit Message

Consider rationale or iled FL beore requesting urtherlevel change


9/12

9

For controllers there is a problem o knowing whether a light hasbeen subject to regulation in the irst place; so some major ANSPs are

beginning to address this need to respect the requested light level in

a more systematic way rather than a verbal alert.

Skyguide have a tool on the basis o CFMU data in development

to monitor speciic regulated sectors and to detect lights deviating

rom their original light plans. I required, on a tactical basis, a

correction o the light level as iled in the FPL will be requested

beore it enters the regulated airspace.

Maastricht UAC new FDPS will be able to show active low

regulation on lights through its airspace.

ATC may also clear a light to take a more direct route (DCT) than that

originally envisaged and thus the light proile may deviate substan-

tially rom the FPL route and its planned times. Provided the controller

meets the sector exit conditions it is not oten regarded as an issue,

and urther, it is a rare occasion when a pilot reuses a shorter route!

There are many positive reasons why the use o DCT is an

appropriate course o action or a controller e.g. low traic volumes, a

light wishing to make up time, military airspace has been made

available but principally because use o DCT is seen as providing

a more economic light proile.

However, DCT may also be a cause or lights entering sectorsearlier, or indeed entering a sector which had not anticipated this

traic.

Approach timing and sequencing is increasingly an issue and an

accurate time over on approach will become more important or

ground handling; thus an early arrival can be just as much an issue

or an airport and AO as arriving late.

ATC Message

Use o DCT, while oten desirable, can be the cause o sector

overloads, approach sequencing problems and timing issues

or ground handling.


10/12

10

The uture

In the uture with SESAR there will be a progressive move rom air-

space to trajectory based operations where the Shared Business /

Mission Trajectory (SBT) is made widely available or ATM planning

purposes to authorized users. The Reerence Business/Mission

Trajectories (RBT) represents an agreed 4D prole between AO and

the ANSP which takes account o route, charges, weather, approach

sequencing and predictable arrival times or ground handling etc. This

trajectory is the choice o the AO. It will be the role o ATC and the cock-

pit to match that agreed prole to the extent possible and the fight plan

will increasingly be regarded as a contract between parties. The use othe business trajectory is a undamental element o SESAR, their use

and denition is sought by airlines and ATM has to prepare itsel to meet

this requirement. The led route, fight levels and timing will need to be

respected through training, system support and practice.

Your neighbour is an ATCO too

Deviations rom the FPL routes and fight level mainly occur because

controllers have oered optimum route and fight levels when-

ever possible. Traditionally, pilots are also in the habit o requesting

optimum fight levels when they can. So beore asking or level

changes in the cockpit and beore granting changes by ATC there

should be pause or refection by both to consider as to whether

the fight is subject to regulation and am I xing my problems at the

expense o others?

Ater all, the more imprecise the projected trac loads

or airspace sectors prove to be, the bigger the saety

margins will have to be which are built into their declared capa-

city limits. So controllers are really doing the system no avours

by letting individual crews climb to higher fight levels over

and over again. (Dr. Klaus Affholderbach Head ATFCM Skyguide)

Consider your actions

Aircrat OperationsInorm your pilots o the reason or a lower FL being led

PilotsHigh or low, bear in mind there is a good reason behind the led FL

ACC ControllersBeore proposing or agreeing a change to the RFL or using DCT, consider

the impact downstream on your ellow controllers

ATS communication

I the RFL needs to be changed, provide means to inorm all other ATCconcerned via an AFP message.

AOsAdhere to CTOT and update EOBTs or non-regulated fights

Tower Controllers

ATC has a joint responsibility with AOs in CTOT adherence


11/12

11

EOBT estimated o-block time

ETFMS Enhanced trac fow management system

FL fight level

FPL fight plan message

GAT general air trac

IATA international air transport association

IFPS integrated initial fight plan processing system

IFR instrument fight rules

RBT reerence business/mission trajectory

RFL requested fight level

SBT shared business/mission trajectory

TMA terminal control area

VFR visual fight rules

Glossary

ACC airspace control center

ADEP aerodrome o departure

ADES aerodrome o destination

AFP air trac control fight plan proposal message

ANSP air navigation service provider

AO aircrat operator

ATFCM air trac fow & capacity management

ATM air trac management

canso civil air navigation services organisation

CAT category

CHG change message

CTOT calculated take-o time

DCT direct routeing

DLA delay message


12/12

April 2009 - European Organisation or the Saety o Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

This document is published by EUROCONTROL or inormation purposes. It may becopied in whole or

in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and to the extent justifed by the non-

commercial use (not or sale). The inormation in this document may not be modifed without prior written

permission rom EUROCONTROL.

www.eurocontrol.int/dmean

Adherence Brochure Apr09

Documents

Transcript of Adherence Brochure Apr09