View - SESAR

FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE
MAASTRICHT AND KARLSRUHE
(FRAMaK)
Dr. Morten Grandt, DFS
Project Overview
•
Free Route Airspace Maastricht and Karlsruhe (FRAMaK)
has been a joint initiative of – DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH
– Deutsche Lufthansa AG
– Eurocontrol Maastricht UAC
•
•
•
•
A funding was provided by SESAR Joint Undertaking in the framework of
„SESAR Integrated Flight Trials and Demonstration Activities“, Lot 2
Consortium Lead: DFS
Start: 01 June 2012
Duration: 24 months
FRAMaK
2
Free Route Airspace
Maastricht and Karlsruhe
Objectives
•
FRAMaK demonstrated the feasibility and validates the benefits and impacts of
– Cross‐Border Directs
– User Preferred trajectories
in a complex and high traffic density environment comprising MUAC and KUAC airspace •
The project addressed gains in the Key Performance Areas
– Efficiency
– Environmental Sustainability
while the effects on Capacity were carefully evaluated.
3
Relationships & Coherency
•
FRAMaK determined conditions for a realistic and stepwise transition towards a Cross‐Border Free Route Airspace.
•
Complementing the strong emphasis on operational aspects and potentials for short‐term implementations, in view of the mid‐ and long‐term perspective FRAMaK was coordinated with
– FRA evolutions of the SESAR Working Programme related to SESAR PAC 03 “Moving from Airspace to Trajectory Management”/ Free Routing / AOM 501 and 502, currently under consolidation in OFA 03.01.03;
– the FABEC FRA programme.
•
Seamlessly related to preceding FRA activities of KUAC and MUAC
FRAMaK formed a major step towards the implementation of
Primary Common Projects, in particular ATM Function #3
(Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route).
4
FRAMaK Concept Elements
•
[FR‐CAP‐01]
Cross‐border DCTs from lateral/vertical entry (NPt) to exit (XPt) points of the FRAMaK airspace for flights
– crossing the FRAMaK airspace
– to/from aerodromes below the FRAMaK airspace
Horizontal view
Vertical view
•
5
[FR‐CAP‐02]
DCT segments from lateral/vertical entry to exit points of the FRAMaK airspace, allowing intermediate navigation points (WPT) by Airline Operator’s (AO) free choice
FR‐CAP‐01: Connectivity
•
Lateral/vertical coordination points at the FRA entry (NCOP) and FRA exit (XCOP) with connection to the ATS route network or adjacent FRAs.
Horizontal view
•
6
Lateral/vertical transparency buffers may be necessary for technical or operational reasons; otherwise entry/exit and related coordination points will be combined.
Vertical view
FR‐CAP‐01: Connectivity
•
NCOPs / XCOPs at the lower FRA boundary will connect to (ATS‐
based) transition routes between FRAMaK airspace and SIDs/STARs.
Horizontal view
Vertical view
7
Basis: ATS Routes in KUAC and MUAC AoR
• A very dense ATS route network facilitates various traffic flows crossing
the airspace or to/from numerous aerodromes within the area.
• A number of (temporary) reserved airspaces are limiting routeing options.
• Approx. 80% of flights are provided with Tactical Directs.
MUAC AoR
KUAC AoR
8
Step 1: Local DCTs by FRAK and FRAM
MUAC AoR
• Numerous DCTs have been implemented on a “local” basis by
Free Route Airspace Karlsruhe (FRAK) and Free Route Airspace
Maastricht (FRAM), or even across the boundary by FABEC Night Network. Route length
• Day‐by‐day many flights are provided with Tactical DCTs even Number of Fuel savings
Reduction of emissions
savings
Availability
DCTs
[tonnes]
[tonnes]
KUAC
AoR
beyond the AoR boundary, e.g. from a position within KUAC [million km]
FABEC Night 115
at night
1.5
4,800
CO : 16,000
airspace towards a far‐reaching waypoint within MUAC airspace and Network
at night,
CO : 12,000 vice versa. 142 at weekends
FRAM
1.2
3,700
NO : 37
Project
2
2
x
9
FRAK
(Phases 1&2)
144
usually 24 hrs
1.4
7,700
CO2: 24,000
Step 2: FRAMaK DCTs in support of cross‐border traffic
FRAMaK DCT
• The basic idea behind the elaboration of FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs was
complementing
to “formalise day‐by‐day ATCO behaviour and make DCTs plannable”
existing FRAK or FRAM
• In several workshops operational experts identified new DCTDCTs
routing or
existing ATS routes
options for both, overflights and flights to/from major aerodromes
FRAMaK DCT making
use of existing
Coordination Points (COPs)
MUAC AoR
FRAMaK DCT supporting
flows from/to major
aerodromes
KUAC AoR
10
FRAMaK DCT
without a COP
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs publicly available in RAD App 4
Public Cross‐Border DCT
Live Trials comprised 466 FRAMaK DCTs:
• 314 new FRAMaK DCTs
• 57 former FRAM or FRAK DCTs re‐labelled as now supporting cross‐border flows
• 95 DCTs developed in the framework of FRAMaK but not cross‐border, therefore not labelled.
• Availability:
46% H24
35% Night + Weekend
18% Night only
1% Weekend only
• All DCTs do persist after the FRAMaK project.
FRAMaK DCTs as of AIRAC 1404
FRAMaK Performance Assessment
•
•
FRAMaK Performance Assessment
comprised all types of validations
(FTS, RTS, Live Trials, Flight Trials).
All flights relevant for FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs within
4 measurement periods (1 week each)
were analysed with regard to
Great Circle, FPL, and actual track
referring to the respective period
in the reference period (previous year). •
UPR Flight Trials were analysed on a case‐by‐case basis.
•
Focus of the assessment was on Flight Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability.
Possible side effects ( Capacity) and especially operator workload were considered as well. 12
ATS
network
WP1
ConOps
WP2
Route Design
WP3
SAAM Network
Assessment
DNM
WP6 Operational Validation
CAP‐01 Live Trials of RAD‐published DCTs and CAP‐02 UPR Flight Trials
Capacity, safety and workload
of CAP‐01 proposals for high‐density areas
WP4
KUAC Central
FTS AirTop
NEST & AEM
GC, FPL, TRK
ATCO Questionnaires
DFS
WP5
KUAC Central RTS
DFS
WP5
MUAC RTS
DNM
DFS
MUAC
MUAC
Statistics & Report
DFS
LIDO Flight analyses
FMS Data
Dispatcher & Crew
Questionnaires
DLH
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Potential Effects (SAAM FTS)
•
•
•
•
SAAM analysis of one summer week (end of JUN) and one winter week (end of OCT) extrapolated to the full year. Additional analysis was made for weekends.
Based on shortest route option FRAMaK DCTs (up to AIRAC 1404) are available for about 20% of all flights passing through FRAMaK airspace. Weekend flights account for 34% of traffic.
In total, potential savings are > 1.5 Mio NM p.a. (44% of savings are achievable simply because of WE flights). Average saving is 4.2 NM per flight (weekend: 5.5 NM per flight).
Route extension decreased from summer 2.01% (winter 1.96%) to 1.70% (1.67%).
Summer
Complete Week
Winter
Complete Week
Summer
Weekend
Winter
Weekend
34,270
29,350
13,919
11,572
Number of eligible flights
7,727
6,286
2,638
2,029
Route length Savings [NM]
32,189
25,971
14,532
11,049
Number of flights
Route length savings in two periods [NM]
58,160
25,581
Route length savings per year [NM]
1,512,163
665,096
Fuel savings [kg]
(1 NM ≙ 6 kg fuel)
9,072,976
3,990,574
CO2 savings [kg]
(1 NM ≙ 20 kg CO2)
30,243,252
13,301,912
7,560,813
3,325,478
Direct Cost savings [EUR]
(1 NM ≙ EUR 5)
13
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trials
Data Collection & Comparisons
•
Effects of Cross‐Border DCTs were demonstrated by means of
so‐called „Public Live Trials“:
– In serveral implementation packages DCTs were made publicly available for
flight planning by publication in RAD Appendix 4
– Airspace Users made use of DCTs: A latency could be observed when AUs do not use state‐of‐the‐art flight planning systems or have to create company
routes first.
– For the analysis FPL data and track information were derived from
EUROCONTROL DDR. – Data were collected in 4 Measurement Periods and related Reference Periods: Period
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP4b
Time
2013, Week 12, 18/03-24/03/2013
2013, Week 26, 24/06-30/06/2013
2013, Week 44, 28/10-03/11/2013
2014, Week 12, 17/03-23/03/2014
2014, Week 12, 17/03-23/03/2014
Reference
2012, Week 12, 19/03-25/03/2012
2012, Week 26, 25/06-01/07/2012
2012, Week 44, 29/10-04/11/2012
2013, Week 12, 18/03-24/03/2013
2012, Week 12, 19/03-25/03/2012
resulting in a sample size of 17.295 flights which filed at least 1 FRAMaK DCT.
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trials
Data Collection & Comparisons
•
•
•
Sample: All flights of which either GC, Short Route, FPL Route or Actual Route both
in the reference period or in the measurement period touched FRAMaK airspace.
ENV parameters only for flights with the same A/C type on the specific citypair.
Data of measurement periods and refence periods were compared in several ways:
Optimum
Baseline
FR-CAP-01
Today‘s
planning
situation
Today‘s
actual
situation
FR-CAP-01
theoretical
effect
FR-CAP-01
actual
effect
Great Circle
Trajectory
ATS
Flight Plan
Track data of
flights based
on ATS FPL
(probably with
tactical DCTs)
DCT
Flight Plan
Track data of
flights based
on DCT FPL
GC
FPLATS
TRKATS
FPLDCT
TRKDCT
Lateral
Optimum
theoretical benefit planning
theoretical benefit
actual benefit
gap planning vs. OPS
theoretical remaining gap
actual remaining gap
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
KPI impact per flight
•
•
•
•
•
Route Length
Potential benefit against REF (based on FPLs)  impact on fuel calculation
– ECAC: ‐6.8 NM (‐0.6%)
 FRAMaK DCTs attracting traffic
– FRAMaK:
+15.4 NM (+4.6%)
Route Length
Actual benefit against REF (based on tracks considering tactical directs)
– ECAC:
‐3.7 NM (‐0.3%)
– FRAMaK:
+15.9 NM (+4.9%)
FPL Coherence
Deviation of track from FPL route (benefits achieved through tactical directs)
– ECAC:
‐13.8 NM (‐1.3%)
REF: ‐16.4 NM  15% better prediction
– FRAMaK:
‐9.3 NM (‐2.9%)
REF: ‐9.7 NM  4.1 % better prediction
Fuel Burn
Actual fuel savings
– ECAC:
‐56.4 kg (‐0,4%)
CO2
Actual savings
– ECAC:
‐178.1 kg (‐0.5%)
16 (weighted means out of 4 periods á 1 week; N≈6,000 paired flights; ENV 4.000 flights)
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Route Efficiency
•
REDES
Directness of routings towards destination within FRAMaK area
– FPL routing: Enhancement from 1.039 to 1.035
median 1.029 to 1.019
– Actual track: Enhancement from 1.020 to 1.019 median 1.012 to 1.008
FPL
Source
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP1-4
TRK
Source
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP1-4
17
Period
MP
Flights
1,142
Mean
1.036
q1
1.011
Median
1.023
q3
1.052
Max
1.349
REF
1,142
1.040
1.015
1.029
1.052
1.324
MP
1,627
1.035
1.009
1.020
1.051
1.653
REF
1,627
1.042
1.014
1.028
1.057
1.642
MP
1,442
1.034
1.008
1.019
1.046
1.598
1.642
REF
1,442
1.038
1.014
1.026
1.049
MP
1,565
1.033
1.009
1.019
1.046
1.349
REF
1,565
1.035
1.012
1.023
1.046
1.608
MP
5,776
1.035
1.653
REF
5,776
1.039
1.642
Period
Flights
Mean
q1
Median
q3
Max
MP
1,104
1.018
1.002
1.009
1.025
REF
1,104
1.020
1.003
1.010
1.024
1.302
1.302
MP
1,613
1.018
1.002
1.008
1.023
1.538
REF
1,613
1.023
1.003
1.012
1.030
1.584
MP
1,447
1.020
1.003
1.010
1.025
1.439
REF
1,447
1.020
1.003
1.010
1.025
1.544
MP
1,530
1.018
1.003
1.010
1.025
1.252
1.003
1.010
1.022
1.403
REF
1,530
1.018
MP
5,694
1.019
1.538
REF
5,694
1.020
1.584
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Route Efficiency
•
RESTR
Straightness of routings between Entry and Exit within FRAMaK area
– FPL routing: Enhancement from 1.024 to 1.018
median 1.019 to 1.010
– Actual track: Enhancement from 1.009 to 1.007 median 1.004 to 1.002
FPL
Source
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP1-4
TRK
Source
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP1-4
18
Period
Flights
Mean
q1
Median
q3
Max
MP
1,142
1.021
1.005
1.011
1.027
1.144
REF
1,142
1.028
1.008
1.019
1.038
1.205
MP
1,627
1.019
1.004
1.011
1.026
1.137
REF
1,627
1.025
1.007
1.018
1.033
1.304
MP
1,442
1.018
1.003
1.010
1.026
1.134
REF
1,442
1.024
1.007
1.017
1.031
1.205
MP
1,565
1.016
1.003
1.010
1.021
1.180
REF
1,565
1.019
1.006
1.013
1.026
1.257
MP
5,776
1.018
1.180
REF
5,776
1.024
1.304
Period
Flights
Mean
q1
Median
q3
Max
MP
1,104
1.008
1.001
1.003
1.011
1.100
REF
1,104
1.011
1.001
1.003
1.013
1.171
MP
1,613
1.007
1.000
1.003
1.009
1.109
REF
1,613
1.010
1.001
1.004
1.013
1.138
MP
1,447
1.007
1.000
1.002
1.009
1.439
REF
1,447
1.008
1.001
1.003
1.011
1.177
MP
1,530
1.007
1.001
1.003
1.009
1.121
REF
1,530
1.007
1.001
1.003
1.009
1.124
MP
5,694
1.007
1.439
REF
5,694
1.009
1.177
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Eligibility and Acceptability
•
•
•
Out of all flights in the FRAMaK airspace up to 17% were eligible to DCT usage (based on shortest route option).
Up to 63% of eligible flights filed at least one FRAMaK DCT. Why not more? – The FPL route is not only a matter of route length but of:
– Weather (AOs aiming for tailwind effects, avoiding bad weather conditions)
– Capacity (AOs avoiding delay in congested airspace)
– Route charges (using FRAMaK DCTs may cause longer route portions in „expensive“ airspace)
– Delay regarding adaptation of DCT routeing options from RAD into AOs’ company routes Eligibility and Acceptability for/of FRAMaK DCTs
100,000
61,486 49,002 13,747 10,000
7,857 59,557 55,395 17,179 10,721 1,873 1,656 1,406 1,071 14,871 7,573 4,802 4,758 4,743 2,992 16,161 8,667 1,611 1,596 1,231 1,393 1,000
100
10
1
19
Complete Week
Weekend
Complete Week
Weekend
Complete Week
Weekend
Complete Week
Weekend
MP1
MP1
MP2
MP2
MP3
MP3
MP4
MP4a
Flights in FRAMaK area
Flights eligible for DCT
Flights filed DCT
More flights than
eligible  not on shortest route
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Vertical Optimization Directs
•
•
17 Vertical Optimization Directs were created to allow for Late Descents.
Some routings were defined as „Compulsory routes“ (e.g. EBBR: ETAGO‐ADENU) in order to separate flights towards specific aerodromes from overflights.
ADES
20
Entry
Exit
Lower Limit Upper Limit (FL)
(FL)
EBBR EBMB DIMSU ADKUV 255
660
EBBR EBMB EDISA
ADENU 245
660
EBBR EBMB ETAGO ADENU 255
660
EBBR EBMB INBED
ADKUV 255
660
EBBR EBMB KORUP ADKUV 255
660
EBBR EBMB OKG
ADKUV 295
660
EBBR EBMB TAMEB ADKUV 245
660
EDDK
PASAU PILAM 305
660
EDDM
ABGUS ALOSO 285
660
Utilization
Compulsory for traffic ARR EBBR/MB Via DIMSU
23.15 ‐ 04.00 (22.15 ‐ 03.00) at DIMSU
Only available for traffic ARR EBBR/MB via HEUSE
Only available for traffic ARR EBBR/MB
‐‐‐
Compulsory for traffic ARR EBBR/MB via ETAGO above FL255
23.15 ‐ 04.00 (22.15 ‐ 03.00) at ETAGO
Compulsory for traffic ARR EBBR/MB (except DEP EDDM) via INBED above FL255
Between 23.30‐04.00 (22.30‐03.00 at INBED
Only available for traffic above FL335 at KORUP
‐‐‐
Not available for traffic DEP EPPO/ZG
Only available for traffic above FL335 at OKG
‐‐‐
Not available for traffic DEP Prague Group, LKKV
‐‐‐
Compulsory for traffic ARR EBBR/MB via OKG above FL335
23.30 ‐ 04.00 (22.30 ‐ 03.00) at OKG
Compulsory for traffic ARR EBBR/MB via TAMEB above FL245
23.30 ‐ 04.00 (22.30 ‐ 03.00) at TAMEB
Only available for traffic ARR EDDK/KZ/LA/LI/LP/LW/VK, ETUO above FL335 at PASAU
‐‐‐
Not available for traffic DEP LO** except DEP LOWW
Not available for traffic
1. ARR EDMM FIR except ARR EDDM
2. DEP EDDV/DW/FQ/LI/LP/VE/VK, ETUO
3. Below FL325 at ABGUS
Availability published
Number of lfights
-
Night
OCT 2012
Night
MAR 2013
46
Night
OCT 2012
17
Night
OCT 2012
83
Night
OCT 2012
Night
OCT 2012
8
Night
OCT 2012
41
H24
MAR 2013
7
H24
OCT 2012
-
126
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Vertical Optimization Directs
•
Fuel savings per flight calculated by means of LIDO Flight Planning System based
on typical a/c weight on short‐haul flights
ADES
21
A/C Type
ZFW
[t]
Assumed DCT
Fuel saving per flight
[kg]
EBBR
Brussels
A320
60
INBED DCT ADKUV
68
EDDK
Cologne/Bonn
A319
58
PASAU DCT PILAM
45
EDDM
Munich
A320
58
EDDV
Hanover
A320
58
EDDW
Bremen
A320
58
KUMER DCT WEMAR
WEMAR DCT SODRO
MILGU DCT KOSIX
HDO DCT MILGU
ALIBU DCT KEMAD
7
20
34
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Cost Effectiveness (Sector occupancy)
•
Sector Route Length
–
22
medianREF=54.7 NM, medianMP=55.1 NM
•
Sector Flight Duration
–
medianREF=444 s, medianMP=446 s
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Cost Effectiveness (Sector count per flight)
•
Number of sectors per flight (in KUAC and/or MUAC airspace) without noticeable
effects.
Source
Complete week
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP1-4
Source
MP1
Weekend
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP1-4
23
Period
Flights
Mean
Max
MP
1,082
5.1
11.0
REF
1,082
4.7
10.0
MP
1,512
5.2
13.0
REF
1,512
4.6
11.0
MP
1,436
5.1
11.0
REF
1,436
7.2
18.0
MP
1,522
1,522
5,552
5,552
5.2
4.8
5.2
5.3
11.0
11.0
13.0
18.0
REF
MP
REF
Period
Flights
Mean
Max
MP
361
5.5
11.0
REF
361
4.8
10.0
MP
525
5.4
10.0
REF
525
4.8
11.0
MP
474
5.3
11.0
REF
474
7.2
18.0
MP
493
493
5.3
5.1
10.0
10.0
1,853
1,853
5.4
5.5
11.0
18.0
REF
MP
REF
FRAMaK Cross‐Border DCTs: Live Trial Results
Technical Findings
•
24
Today, the handover of flights between control centres and the exchange of flight plan data between the ATS systems refers to available (published) navigation waypoints which are used as coordination points (COPs). In the future (Trajectory‐based operations), system coordination needs to be accomplished by means of flexible points along the AoR boundary, e.g. by means of latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. An important finding of the FRAMaK project was that – despite being OLDI compliant – the ATS systems do not allow for the exchange of LAT/LON‐based flight plan data. For further steps such interoperability of systems is key.
Due to coordination needs it was not possible to implement COP‐less Cross‐Border Directs serving major traffic flows.
FR‐CAP‐02: Cross‐Border User Preferred Routing
•
•
•
25
Airspace User were allowed to plan and file FPLs comprising DCT segments from lateral/vertical
entry to exit points of the UPR Test Area
UPR routings included published intermediate navigation points provided for the UPR Flight Trials. (All FPL waypoints needed to be adapted in KUAC and MUAC ATC systems.)
UPR Flight Trials were foreseen on 6 citypairs (3 inner‐European, 3 transatlantic) starting from either FRA or MUC.
Horizontal view
UPR Test Flights’ Citypairs
ICAO (IATA)
EDDM‐ENGM
(MUC‐OSL)
EDDM‐EGCC
(MUC‐MAN)
EDDM‐KSFO
(MUC‐SFO)
EDDF‐ESSA
(FRA‐ARN)
EDDF‐KLAX
(FRA‐LAX)
EDDF‐CYVR
(FRA‐YVR)
FR‐CAP‐02: Operational Prerequisites
•
•
•
26
FRAMak project partners and all stakeholders affected developed
– an UPR Test Plan which determined
the UPR routing constraints,
– an UPR Operational Procedure
which determined the process of
FPL submission and validation.
Within the UPR Test Area the FPL was checked by the respective ANSP(s) prior
to submission to IFPS.
Outside the UPR Test Area regular IFPS rules were effective.
FRAMaK UPR Flight Trials: Concept Elements / Capabilities
User Preferred Route
The ability of the Airspace User to plan and file
FPLs comprising DCT segments from lateral/vertical
entry to exit points of the FRAMaK airspace,
allowing (published) intermediate navigation points by Airspace User’s free choice.
Horizontal view
Design and Demonstration:
•
•
•
•
27
Determination of the UPR Test Area
62 UPR Flights of DLH (SEP 2013 – MAR 2014) on 6 citypairs and
additional dry‐runs with DLH flight planning system (LIDO flight)
Data collection and analysis
Filing non‐published DCT segments is not according to IFPS rules
 FRAMaK Operational Procedure and Test Plan clarify the procedures for planning,
FPL filing and execution of UPR Test Flights FRAMaK UPR Flight Trials: UPR Test Flights
•
•
•
Between SEP 2013 and MAR 2014 Lufthansa accomplished 62 UPR Test Flights.
6 citypairs were served, 3 of them inner‐
European, 3 transatlantic.
Since DEC 2013 an extended UPR Test Area was effective. UPR Test Area till 11DEC2013
AMSTERDAM FIR (Upper Airspace Maastricht UAC) BRUSSELS UIR
HANNOVER UIR RHEIN UIR 28
UPR Test Flights’ Citypairs
ICAO (IATA)
EDDM‐ENGM
(MUC‐OSL)
EDDM‐EGCC
(MUC‐MAN)
EDDM‐KSFO
(MUC‐SFO)
EDDF‐ESSA
(FRA‐ARN)
EDDF‐KLAX
(FRA‐LAX)
EDDF‐CYVR
(FRA‐YVR)
UPR Test Area from 12DEC2013
+
BODO OCEANIC FIR KOBENHAVN FIR LONDON UIR (NE of GODOS – NATEB – GOMUP)
NORWAY FIR SCOTTISH UIR
SWEDEN FIR
FRAMaK Cross‐Border UPR: Results of UPR Flight Trials
•
•
•
•
Two characteristics of UPR were impacting the fuel savings:
– the route length reduction due to absence of routing constraints and
– the opportunity to adapt the routing to the wind situation. For most flights additional tailwind components between 1 and 3 knots were utilized with the UPR routing. In some cases even additional headwind on the UPR routing was accepted since the route length reduction was the predominant factor in view of an overall benefit.
Savings Route length
Reduction of planned
– Short‐hauls:
6…87 kg TO fuel
– Long‐hauls: 280…618 kg TO fuel
Potential for route length reduction
29
ADEP
ADES
EDDF
KLAX
KLAX
EDDF
EDDF
ESSA
ESSA
reduction [NM]
11.8
Short/Long
TO Fuel [kg]
L
278.6
L
not demonstrated
5.0
S
27.3
EDDF
1.6
S
8.7
EDDF
CYVR
26.2
L
618.6
CYVR
EDDF
21.9
L
517.1
EDDM
EGCC
14.5
S
79.2
EGCC
EDDM
16.0
S
87.4
EDDM
ENGM
2.7
S
14.7
ENGM
EDDM
1.0
S
5.5
EDDM
KSFO
24.0
L
566.6
KSFO
EDDM
22.3
L
526.5
not demonstrated
FRAMaK Cross‐Border UPR: UPR Flight Routings
•
•
•
UPR
•
RAD‐conform routing
30
Citypair EDDM – EGCC has been operated based on UPRs on weekends due to MIL areas.
Some modifications were necessary at the MUAC LON boundary due to crossing flows.
On short‐range flights we usually do not see curved routings but long DCT segments.
Benefits in route length due to significant route extension in the RAD‐
conform routing FRAMaK Cross‐Border UPR: UPR Flight Routings
•
•
UPR
RAD‐conform routing
31
Citypair ENGM ‐ EDDM shows no noticeable differences between UPR and RAD‐conform routing.
For EDDM‐ENGM (and also EDDF‐ESSA) and vice versa in combination with NUAC FRA there is an inventory of ATS‐/DCT routings in FRAMaK area which is suitable for different wind conditions. FRAMaK Cross‐Border UPR: UPR Flight Routings
•
UPR
RAD‐conform routing
32
On long‐range flights we found curved routings, adapted to wind situations, resulting from long DCT segments.
FRAMaK Cross‐Border UPR: Operator Feedback ‐ AO
•
•
33
AO Dispatchers:
– Since there was no support in terms of an automatic Flight Planning for UPR flights the planning was accomplished manually. Clearly this would be not acceptable for daily operations.
Flight Crews:
– About 77% of flight crew members reported no irregularities. A major irregularity was that ATCOs were not informed about the UPR flight and offered DCTs on a tactical basis which has been rejected usually.
FRAMaK Cross‐Border UPR: Operator Feedback ‐ ATCOs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
34
Unusual turns at the sector boundary and in the middle of the sector are considered to be a major safety issue with more UPRs.
A high number of UPRs will decrease the ATCOs capacity and will increase the complexity. Therefore they should only be allowed in low to medium traffic intensity.
UPRs have as a characteristic that the ATCOs are not allowed to alter the flightplans unless safety of the aircraft is impaired. As a consequence this is more difficult to spot and solve conflicts compared with todays, planned or tactical, direct routes.
The fact that the routes are not standard or direct, gives the ATCO an unsafe feeling and as a result a reduction in capacity as the ATCOs has to check the routeing continually.
Some UPRs caused conflicts too close to the boundary, leaving the controller little time to solve the issue. This issue was also flagged as a major safety issue when UPR traffic would increase.
UPRs need to be flagged to the ATCO, via HMI improvements (Label, Flightleg
etc.), to improve situational awareness, especially in a mixed traffic environment.
Aircraft had to be locked on heading to avoid traffic
on an opposite ATS route.
Acknowledgement
Created by DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and EUROCONTROL for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co‐financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL.
35
Thank you for your attention
36
Problem Statement
•
•
•
•
•
37
Das ATS‐Routennetz ist ausgelegt, um im dichten Maastricht UAC
europ. Luftraum bei größtmöglicher Sicherheit eine hohe Kapazität bereitzustellen.
Luftstraßen entzerren gegenläufige Verkehrsströme, schaffen Raum für spezielle militärische Übungslufträume und verhindern so Konflikte. Die Flugroute vom Abflugort zum Zielflughafen setzt sich aus einzelnen Luftstraßen zusammen.
Die Flugroute wird als Flugplan aufgegeben und von der Flugsicherung genehmigt.
Die Länge der Flugroute bestimmt die zu tankende Treibstoffmenge.
militärisches
Übungsgebiet
Karlsruhe UAC
Problem Statement
•
Häufig ist der Luftraum jedoch nicht voll ausgelastet oder Übungsgebiete werden nicht Maastricht UAC
benötigt.
militärisches
Übungsgebiet
Karlsruhe UAC
38
Problem Statement
•
•
Wann immer möglich, bietet die Flugsicherung Maastricht UAC
Abkürzungen an, sog. „Taktische Directs“
Die tatsächliche Flugstrecke ist kürzer als geplant: –
–
–
39
Das taktische Direct spart Treibstoff und es werden weniger schädliche Gase produziert, aber rückblickend wurde zuviel
Treibstoff getankt und (teuer) transportiert
Das taktische Direct spart Flugzeit, aber eventuell kommt der Flieger zu früh an.
Die Flugroute verläuft anders als von der Flugsicherung geplant: andere Sektoren sind betroffen, die Kapazität reicht eventuell nicht aus
Taktisches Direct
militärisches
Übungsgebiet
Geplante Flugroute
Karlsruhe UAC
Problem Statement
•
Um die Vorteile der Directs
auszunutzen, die Nachteile aber zu vermeiden, müssen die Maastricht UAC
Directs im Flugplan geplant werden.
–
–
–
•
40
Die Flugroute ist kürzer als bei klassischer Route – man spart Treibstoff und reduziert Emissionen
Der Flug ist pünktlich dort, wo er erwartet wird
Es wird nur soviel Kerosin getankt wie nötig ‐ man spart Gewicht, was wiederum Treibstoff spart und Emissionen reduziert
In FRAMaK wurden 466 solcher Directs entwickelt und den Luftraumnutzern bereitgestellt.
Karlsruhe UAC