View - SESAR

Transcription

View - SESAR

Project Number 02.06
TOPMET Final Demonstration Report
Edition 00.01.02
TOPMET Final Demonstration
Report
Document information
Project Title
TOPMET
Project Number
02.06
Project Manager
THALES AIR SYSTEMS
Deliverable Name
Edition
00.01.02
Template version
01.00.00
Task contributors
Brussels Airlines, DSNA, EUMETNET (UK Met Office, Météo France, DWD), THALES Air Systems,
THALES Avionics
Abstract
The TOPMET project addresses the key objective of better serving Ground and Air
Airspace Users with consistent, relevant and up-to-date Meteorological information.
This results in improved resilience of ATM operations to weather hazards, leading to an
improved flight safety; and more accurate information to inform flight planning, leading
to improved flight efficiency and improved airspace capacity. Measurable KPI
improvements have been demonstrated through a 2-months trials period, and practical
recommendations have been derived in the perspective of further demonstration
activities, e.g. through the TOPLINK LSDA project.
1 of 103
©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Thales Air Systems, Thales Avionics, EUMETNET, Brussels Airlines,
DSNA for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and
EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.
Edition 00.01.02
Authoring & Approval
Prepared By - Authors of the document.
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Daniel MULLER / THALES AIR SYSTEMS
Project Coordinator
Dominique LATGE / THALES AIR SYSTEMS
TR6 contributor
24/09/2014
24/09/2014
Anne CORMONT / METEO-FRANCE
Project Communication Officer
24/09/2014
Xavier VERSAVEL / Brussels Airlines
Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project.
BEL contributor
24/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Fabien GRANIER / THALES AVIONICS
TAV Contribution manager
Date
24/09/2014
Jean-Louis BRENGUIER / Meteo France
MF Contribution manager
26/09/2014
Helen WELLS / UK MET Office
UKMO Contributor
26/09/2014
Svenja KOOS / DWD
DWD Contributor
26/09/2014
Pieter STEURBAUT / BEL
BEL Contributor
26/09/2014
Philippe KUHN / DSNA
DSNA Contribution manager
24/09/2014
Reviewed By - Other SESAR projects, Airspace Users, staff association, military, Industrial Support, other organisations.
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
None
Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Project Coordinator
EUMETNET & UKMO
Contribution manager
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
Bjoern BECKMANN / DWD
DWD Contribution manager
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
Jean-Marc VAN VYNCKT / Brussels Airlines
BEL Contribution manager
29/09/2014
Jon DUTTON / UK MET Office
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
None
Rational for rejection
None.
2 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Document History
Edition
Date
Status
Author
Justification
00.00.01
18/08/2014
Initial Draft
D. Muller
New Document
00.00.02
24/09/2014
Updated Draft
D. Muller
Updated Document
00.00.03
26/09/2014
Final Draft
D. Muller
Updated Document
00.01.00
29/09/2014
First issue
D. Muller
Approved issue for release
00.01.01
06/11/2014
Revised issue
D. Muller
00.01.02
28/11/2014
Revised issue
D. Muller
Corrected following SJU
assessment report
Revised numbering in
Appendixes
Intellectual Property Rights (foreground)
This deliverable consists of SJU foreground.
3 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 8
1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT............................................................................................................... 9
INTENDED READERSHIP......................................................................................................................... 9
STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT........................................................................................................... 9
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................................... 10
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 10
CONTEXT OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS............................................................................................. 14
2.1
SCOPE OF THE DEMONSTRATION AND COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE SESAR PROGRAMME .......... 14
2.1.1 Project operational and geographical dimensions .................................................................. 14
2.1.2 Project background and context ................................................................................................ 14
2.1.3 Project outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.4 Project scope ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.1.5 Demonstration exercises overview ............................................................................................ 17
3
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 21
3.1
ORGANISATION.................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.1 Consortium overview ................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.2 Consortium structure ................................................................................................................... 24
3.1.3 Roles of Consortium Members................................................................................................... 24
3.2
W ORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE....................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1 Project overview ........................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Resources Breakdown ................................................................................................................ 26
3.3
SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................................... 27
3.4
DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.1 Formal Deliverables ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.2 Other deliverables and key project milestones ........................................................................ 28
3.4.3 Quarterly reporting ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.5
RISK & ISSUES MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 29
3.5.1 Risks .............................................................................................................................................. 29
3.5.2 Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 30
4
EXECUTION OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES ............................................................................ 32
4.1
EXERCISES PREPARATION.................................................................................................................. 32
4.1.1 Preparatory activities ................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.2 Adaptation of the supporting platform ....................................................................................... 32
4.1.3 Operational demonstration procedures .................................................................................... 34
4.1.4 KPI & metrics definition ............................................................................................................... 39
4.1.5 Post-analysis procedures ............................................................................................................ 42
4.2
EXERCISES EXECUTION ...................................................................................................................... 48
4.3
DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 49
4.3.1 Airline scenarios EXE-0206-100 & -200 ................................................................................... 49
4.3.2 ANSP scenario EXE-0206-300 .................................................................................................. 50
5
EXERCISES RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 52
5.1
SUMMARY OF EXERCISES RESULTS ................................................................................................... 52
5.1.1 EXE-0206-100 (airline benefits, pilot-driven assessment) ..................................................... 52
5.1.2 EXE-0206-200 (airline benefits, end-to-end assessment) ..................................................... 53
5.1.3 EXE-0206-300 (ANSP benefits, FMP-driven assessment).................................................... 55
5.2
METRICS AND INDICATORS PER KPA ................................................................................................. 56
5.3
SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION CONDUCT ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................... 58
5.3.1 Results per KPA ........................................................................................................................... 58
5.3.2 Impact on Safety, Capacity and Human Factors ..................................................................... 58
4 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
5.3.3 Description of assessment methodology .................................................................................. 58
5.3.4 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives ................................................. 58
5.4
ANALYSIS OF EXERCISES RESULTS ................................................................................................... 59
5.4.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results ................................................................................................ 59
5.5
CONFIDENCE IN RESULTS OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES............................................................. 59
5.5.1 Quality of Demonstration Exercises Results ............................................................................ 59
5.5.2 Significance of Demonstration Exercises Results ................................................................... 60
5.5.3 Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................... 61
6
DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES REPORTS ....................................................................................... 62
6.1
DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE REPORT EXE-0206-100 ..................................................................... 62
6.1.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 62
6.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-0206-100 ............................................................... 62
6.1.3 Exercise Results ........................................................................................................................... 66
6.2
6.2.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 68
6.3
6.3.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 73
7
SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 78
7.1
INITIAL COMMUNICATION PLAN ............................................................................................................ 78
7.1.1 Three communication stakes ..................................................................................................... 78
7.1.2 Three work areas (targets) ......................................................................................................... 79
7.1.3 Three expected action levels for TOPMET .............................................................................. 79
7.1.4 Initial schedule .............................................................................................................................. 80
7.2
THE DEVELOPED COMMUNICATION TOOLS ......................................................................................... 80
7.2.1 Synthesis- general presentation ................................................................................................ 80
7.2.2 Brochures ...................................................................................................................................... 81
7.2.3 Roll-up............................................................................................................................................ 81
7.2.4 Poster ............................................................................................................................................. 82
7.2.5 User Manuals ................................................................................................................................ 82
7.2.6 Short film ....................................................................................................................................... 83
7.3
DIFFUSION CHANNELS......................................................................................................................... 84
7.3.1 Partners’ annual reports .............................................................................................................. 84
7.3.2 Partners’ E-News ......................................................................................................................... 84
7.3.3 Partners’ Websites ....................................................................................................................... 85
7.3.4 Professional network (LinkedIn) ................................................................................................. 85
7.3.5 Inflight magazines ........................................................................................................................ 85
7.3.6 Professional events (TOPMET demonstration) ....................................................................... 86
7.3.7 Press relations .............................................................................................................................. 88
7.4
THE FINAL COMMUNICATION SCHEDULE ............................................................................................. 89
8
NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................. 90
8.1
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................... 90
8.2
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 91
8.2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................ 91
8.2.2 Recommended system evolutions ............................................................................................. 91
9
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 94
9.1
9.2
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS................................................................................................................... 94
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. 94
5 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
APPENDIX A
KPA RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 95
APPENDIX B
COMMUNICATION MATERIAL ....................................................................................... 97
B1- Synthesis- general presentation ....................................................................................................... 97
B2- Brochures ............................................................................................................................................. 97
B3- Roll-up and poster .............................................................................................................................. 98
B4- User Manuals ...................................................................................................................................... 98
B5- Short film .............................................................................................................................................. 98
B6- Partners’ E-News and Websites ....................................................................................................... 99
B7- Professional network (LinkedIn) ....................................................................................................... 99
B8- Inflight magazines ............................................................................................................................. 100
B9- Professional events (TOPMET demonstration) ............................................................................ 100
B10- Press relations ................................................................................................................................ 100
APPENDIX C
TOPMET DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE REPORT .................................................. 101
APPENDIX D
TOPMET PERFORMANCE SYNTHESIS REPORT ................................................... 102
6 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
List of tables
Table 1 – Overview EXE-0206-100 ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 4 - Critical expertise of each participant ...................................................................................... 23
Table 5 – Resources breakdown (efforts) ............................................................................................. 26
Table 6 – Project GANTT & overall schedule ....................................................................................... 27
Table 7 – Contractual deliverables & milestones .................................................................................. 28
Table 8 – Non contractual deliverables & milestones ........................................................................... 28
Table 9 – Quarterly reporting deliverables & milestones ...................................................................... 29
Table 10 – Risks register ...................................................................................................................... 30
Table 11: Scenarios / Decisions matrix ................................................................................................. 45
Table 12: Exercises execution/analysis dates ...................................................................................... 48
Table 13: Scenario EXE-0206-100: Summary of Demonstration Exercises Results ........................... 52
Table 16: Table of KPAs addressed ..................................................................................................... 57
Table 17: Exercise EXE-0206-100 execution/analysis dates ............................................................... 63
Table 18: Exercise EXE-0206-100 summary ........................................................................................ 65
List of figures
Figure 1: TOPMET System Architecture overview ............................................................................... 16
Figure 2: TOPMET consortium overview .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 3 - TOPMET Work Breakdown Structure................................................................................... 26
Figure 4: TOPMET KPI assessment principle ...................................................................................... 46
7 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Executive summary
The TOPMET project addresses the key objective of better serving Ground and Air Airspace Users
with consistent, relevant and up-to-date Meteorological information. This results in improved resilience
of ATM operations to weather hazards, leading to an improved flight safety; and more accurate
information to inform flight planning, leading to improved flight efficiency and improved airspace
capacity.
This project has offered an integrated pre-operational demonstration using the combination of:

some of the most advanced Meteorological products worldwide offered by EUMETNET
members,

early versions of development prototypes designed in the core of the SESAR program,
such as the MISC (4DWxCube), the enabling SWIM infrastructure, and various impactassessment and decision-aid prototypes targeted for dedicated end-user profiles .
The exposure of the considered new technologies and the associated new procedures to live trials
during more than two months has clearly demonstrated the potential to increase ATM and Airspace
Users operational performance, especially regarding:

flight efficiency, based on an optimization of flight routes, in order to reduce the METinduced extra fuel consumption (by more than 20%) , to reduce the cost impact of MET
hazards (by more than 15%), and to reduce the MET-induced delays (by more than 15%)

flight safety, through a better monitoring of weather, enabling the avoidance of MET
hazards with potential impact on the crew / passengers or on the aircraft itself,

capacity, through a better anticipation of the impact of the MET hazards on the flights,
enabling earlier implementation of measures to avoid sector overload, or unnecessary
regulation measures .
Furthermore, the project has widely contributed to raising the awareness regarding SESAR
activities and objectives, by an intensive communication campaign executed around this project.
The following main recommendations can be derived from the projects results

To introduce a number of evolutions on the MET products & supporting tools based on
operational feedback from BEL and DSNA

To improve the operational procedure on how to use the tools and how they can be
inserted in the daily operational processes of BEL and DSNA

To implement the above described changes in the TOPLINK LSDA trials (in the relevant
use cases involving BEL and /or DSNA) and to take the lessons learned into account in
the other TOPLINK LSDA use cases, with other Airline partners (Air France, Air Corsica,
ENAC for GA) or ANSP partners (Croatia Control, Austrocontrol)

To refine the targeted KPI figures, and assessment of the KPI gains over a broader scope
(more flights, more Airlines, more ATC centers, more ANSPs)

To provide the right inputs in view of standardization, and prepare for deployment
8 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the document
This document provides the Demonstration report for the TOPMET project. It describes the results of
demonstration exercises defined in the “TOPMET Demonstration Plan”, version 00.01.01, issued on
18/12/2012, and refined in the “TOPMET Demonstration Objectives”, version 00.01.01, issued on
26/07/2013, and how they have been conducted.
1.2 Intended readership
The TOPMET Final Demonstration Report is primarily intended for:

The SESAR Joint Undertaking, since this document describes the main results obtained from
the demonstration trials and their analysis in order to establish if the project objectives have
been successfully achieved;

The SESAR WP11.2, WP11.1, WP9.48, WP4, WP5, WP10, WP7, WP13, and WP14 leaders,
since this project demonstrates some of the operational concepts developed and validated by
aforementioned SESAR Work Packages in an operational context;

The SESAR OFAs OFA 03.01.08 - System Interoperability with air and ground data sharing,
OFA 03.01.04 - Business and Mission Trajectory, OFA 05.03.04 - Enhanced ATFM
Processes

The consortium members participating in the project (Thales, Eumetnet, Brussels Airlines,
DSNA), since this document constitutes the report of the activities performed during the
execution phase as well as the results obtained.

The members of the TOPLINK Large Scale Demonstration project, who will take into account
the recommendations provided in this report, in the execution of this new project.
1.3 Structure of the document
The document is organized as follow:
-
Section 1 introduces the document.
-
Section 2 provides the context and scope of the demonstrations with reference to the overall
SESAR programme and stakeholders involved.
-
Section 3 provides the Project Management Plan for TOPMET, including the work and
resource breakdowns, project milestones and risks.
-
Section 4 details the execution of the demonstration exercises.
-
Section 5 presents the exercise results achieved for each demonstration exercise.
9 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
-
Section 6 presents the reports for each demonstration exercise.
-
Section 7 summarizes the communication activities planned for the project.
-
Section 8 provides the next steps identifying the most important conclusions and
recommendations.
1.4 Glossary of terms
NA
1.5 Acronyms and Terminology
Term
Definition
ATM
Air Traffic Management
DOD
Detailed Operational Description
E-ATMS
European Air Traffic Management System
E-OCVM
European Operational Concept Validation Methodology
OFA
Operational Focus Areas
SESAR
Single European Sky ATM Research Programme
SESAR Programme
The programme which defines the Research and Development activities and
Projects for the SJU.
SJU
SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission)
SJU Work Programme The programme which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint
Undertaking Agency.
4DWxCube
4 Dimensional Weather Cube
A-CDM
Airport Collaborative Decision Making
ACC
Area Control Centre
ADD
Architecture Definition Document
AIRMET
Significant low-level en-route Meteorological Information
ANSP
Air Navigation Service provider
AOP
Airport Operations Plan
APOC
Airport Operations Centre
10 of 103
Term
Edition 00.01.02
Definition
APP
Approach Control Service
ATCO
Air Traffic Controller
ATM
CAT
Clear Air Turbulence
CONOPS
Concept of Operations
DCB
Demand and Capacity Balancing
DOD
E-ATMS
E-OCVM
FIC
Flight Information Centre
FOC
Flight Operations Centre
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organisation
iCWP
Integrated Controller Working Position
IP
Implementation Package
INTEROP
Interoperability Requirements
IRS
Interface Requirements Specification
KPA
Key Performance Area
LVC
Low Visibility Conditions
LVP
Low Visibility Procedures
MET
Meteorological or Meteorology
METAR
Meteorological Aerodrome Report
METSP
MET Service Provider
MISC
MET Information Service Composition
NMSP
National MET Service Providers
NOP
Network Operations Plan
OFA
OI
Operational Improvement
11 of 103
Term
Edition 00.01.02
Definition
OPS
Operational
OSED
Operational Service and Environment Definition
PAC
Operational Package
QFE
Atmospheric pressure at aerodrome elevation
QNH
Aviation Q-code for barometric pressure adjusted to sea level (in the ICAO
Standard Atmosphere)
RVT
Remote and Virtual Tower
SARPS
Standards and Recommended Practices
SESAR
Single European Sky ATM Research Program
SESAR Program
The program which defines the Research and Development activities and
SIGMET
Significant en-route Meteorological Information
SJU
SJU Work Program
The program which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint Undertaking
Agency.
SPC
Operational Sub Package
SPR
Safety and Performance Requirements
SUT
System Under Test
SWIM
System Wide Information Management
TAD
Technical Architecture Description
TAF
Terminal Aerodrome Forecast
TBS
Time Based Separation
TREND
Landing forecast
TS
Technical Specification
TWR
Aerodrome Control Tower
UDPP
User Driven Prioritization Process
VALP
Validation Plan
VALR
Validation Report
VALS
Validation Strategy
12 of 103
Term
Edition 00.01.02
Definition
VP
Verification Plan
VR
Verification Report
VS
Verification Strategy
WDS
Weather Dependant Separation
WMO
World Meteorological Organisation
WOC
Wing Operations Centre
WP
Work Package
WV
Wake Vortex
Wx
Weather
13 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
2 Context of the Demonstrations
2.1 Scope of the demonstration and complementarity with the
SESAR Programme
of ATM operations to weather hazards, resulting in an improved flight safety; and more accurate
capacity.
2.1.1 Project operational and geographical dimensions
The project encompasses multiple operational and geographical dimensions.
First, it supports a global operational interoperability by enabling the consistent distribution of
advanced MET information services, among various profiles of Aeronautical Users, such as:

Flow Management Position staff in En Route ATC centers (in charge of exchanging
information from their ATC Unit to the DNM and contributing to manage the demandcapacity balance),

Commercial Airlines Flight Dispatchers and Network Managers,

Commercial Airlines Pilots.
The project has also demonstrated a global geographical interoperability – through a unique
infrastructure supporting multiple geographical scales such as:

a “national” / sub-regional scale, typically over the French controlled Airspace,

an international scale, offering a global coverage over the Europe, Atlantic, and Africa
regions.
MET products have been made available in order to allow the airspace user and ATM communities to
plan safe and efficient routes based on consistent and accurate weather observations and forecast
services across all these geographical regions.
The considered enabling infrastructure, namely an early prototype of the MISC (4DWxCube), is
planned to be later used in a similar approach to support the validation of MET services as part of the
SESAR WP11.2 and SESAR core program (e.g. in VP700) , therefore demonstrating its capability to
ensure a geographical interoperability.
2.1.2 Project background and context
Meteorology is currently taken into account in Aviation and ATM operations, through the use of
standardized MET products and services delivered in accordance with ICAO Annex 3 regulations.
Those services have been established on the prevailing state-of-the-art available in the 1960’s, and
14 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
consist mainly in coded text messages (TAF, METAR, SIGMET,…) and low-resolution grids (Wind,
Temperature,…).
In addition, most commercial aircraft are equipped with on-board weather radar delivering a real-time
image of the weather present in the front sector of the aircraft.
In recent years, technological developments have been the cornerstone for NMS to advance the
scientific understanding of meteorology and thereby to enhance the operational capability to deliver
tailored observational and forecast products designed to the specific requirements of individual users.
While such new products are currently used in a research capacity or in the forecast production
process, they are not usually directly accessible to industry, since they are not viewed as
“standardized” or “regulated” MET services.
Over the past decade, awareness has been rising within the aviation community, of the benefits which
could be derived from a better use and integration of those new products in operational processes,
and of the positive impact this usage could create on flight safety and efficiency.
The TOPMET project aimed at demonstrating and promoting the principle of stakeholder-wide
integration of new MET products, fully consistent and compatible with ongoing initiatives in SESAR
and beyond.
2.1.3 Project outcomes

members,

such as the MISC (4DWxCube), the enabling SWIM infrastructure, and various impact
assessment and decision-aid prototypes targeted for dedicated end-user profiles .
The exposure to live trials of the considered new technologies and the associated new procedures
has clearly demonstrated the potential to increase ATM and Airspace Users operational performance,
especially regarding:



In summary; the achieved benefits of the project have been:
15 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
to improve the awareness of Aeronautical Users regarding new MET services, and collect
their operational feedback in order to better focus the development of these services along
their actual needs and priorities. This feedback will be re-introduced in related SESAR
projects whenever relevant (e.g. WP11.2, WP9.48, WP 7.6.2,…),

to demonstrate the interoperability of the MISC (4DWxCube) between multiple MET
providers (NMS) and multiple ATM and Aviation clients (Airlines Ground and Air segments,
ANSPs), and to demonstrate Air-Ground pre-SWIM operations in a non-safety-critical
environment
Finally, the TOPMET project has enabled for many lessons learned, especially regarding the need for
more (better) tailoring of MET information to end users requirements.
2.1.4 Project scope
The TOPMET system architecture is depicted in the figure 1 below. In this diagram:

The yellow boxes correspond to already existing applications, that are used “as is” in the
TOPMET trials

The blue boxes have been specifically developed or adapted and deployed for TOPMET.
Figure 1: TOPMET System Architecture overview
16 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
2.1.5 Demonstration exercises overview
The TOPMET project had planned to perform a set of 4 demonstration exercises:

2 exercises involving the Airline only,
o
either for domestic flights over Europe (exercise 100)
o
or for long-haul flights from Europe to Africa or North America (exercise 200)

1 exercise involved the ANSP only, over the FIR LFBB (exercise 300)

1 joint exercise involving jointly the ANSP and the Airline over the FIR LFBB (exercise
400),
In practice, the following adjustments have been brought during the course of the demonstration
campaign, and agreed by the SJU during the Final review held on September 22, 2014:

Exercises 100 and 200 conducted by Brussels Airlines have been merged, due to the
similarity of the processes for European and long haul flights

A new Exercise 200 has been defined with Brussels Airlines, focused on an alternative
mode of operations, enabling and end-to-end process triggered from the ground, instead
of being purely “pilot-driven”

Exercise 300 has been conducted as initially planned, however in “shadow mode”, rather
than as a “live trial” interacting with the actual traffic.

Exercise 400 has not been implemented, mainly due to its legal and regulatory
implications, finally not compatible with the schedule of the project.
The exercises have been conducted in parallel over the period of the trials between June 30 and
August 29, 2014.
KPIs and associated metrics have also been slightly adjusted during the course of the trials, in order
to better reflect the operational expectations of both the Airline and the ANSP.
17 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Demonstration Exercise ID and Title
EXE-0206-100 – Airline improvement (pilot-driven
assessment)
Leading organization
Brussels Airlines
Demonstration exercise objectives
OFA addressed
Applicable Operational Context
Demonstration Technique
Number of flight trials
Demonstrate the benefits of using advanced new MET
products on Brussels Airlines flights, in order to:
 Reduce fuel consumption
 Reduce flight cost
 Improve flight predictability
 Improve passenger comfort and flight safety
 Reduce Environmental impact
 OFA03.01.04: Business and Mission Trajectory
 OFA03.01.08: System Interoperability with air and
ground data sharing
The operational context applicable to TOPMET scenarios
in EXE-0206-100 includes:
 Optimized preparation of the SBT/RBT by the FOC.
 Optimized flight execution & possible revisions to the
RBT by the Pilot in coordination with the FOC
Principally offline analysis of data recorded during
conduct of the Live Flight Trial
93 commercial flights (where the pilot has used the
TOPMET flight application, and provided some feedback)
Table 1 – Overview EXE-0206-100
18 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
EXE-0206-200 – Airline improvement (end-to-end
assessment)
Brussels Airlines
OFA addressed
ground data sharing
 Optimized preparation of the SBT/RBT by the FOC
21 commercial flights (impacted by MET, subject to
specific analyses)
19 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
EXE-0206-300 – FMP improvement
DSNA
OFA addressed
products on flights overflying the LFBB FIR, in order to:
 Increase Airspace capacity
 Increase IFR flights predictability
 Reduce cost flights for Airlines
 OFA05.03.04: Enhanced ATFCM processes
 Preparation of possible Mid & Short Term ATFM
measures by the ACC/FMP in coordination with the
DNM.
848 commercial flights (reported as delayed due to
MET during the trials period, taken into account in the
KPI assessment)
20 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
3 Programme management
This section details the main project management principles applied during the course of the project.
3.1 Organisation
The TOPMET project has been performed by a well balanced consortium of partners having a long
experience of cooperative teamwork, each of them with highly skilled staff – offering the best technical
and professional capacity to perform the necessary activities.
3.1.1 Consortium overview
A summary of the critical skills and expertise each Consortium partner has brought to the TOPMET
project is listed in the table below.
Consortium partner
Thales Air Systems
(TR6)
Critical Expertise relevant to TOPMET project
Thales Air Systems is the company of Thales Group designing,
developing and delivering ATM Ground Systems.
It has brought its expertise:
-
in successfully managing large scale research projects from
concept through to deployment,
-
as world leader in ATM Ground Systems manufacturing
industry.
Thales is also member of the SESAR Joint Undertaking and the highest
industrial contributor, at the forefront of SESAR since its inception,
and currently involved in all work-packages of the SESAR development
program.
In addition, Thales is fully involved in worldwide standardisation
activities essential for European and worldwide ATM interoperability; i.e.
ICAO, support to SES regulation, EUROCAE/RTCA, ARINC etc..
Thales Avionics
(TAV)
Thales Avionics is the avionics company of Thales Group and is the
European leader in the avionics market and one of the world’s top
three suppliers of avionics systems including cockpit and cabin
electronics, on-board utilities, power generation equipment and in-flight
entertainment systems for both fixed and rotary-wing aircraft.
Thales Avionics has brought its expertise in the embedded systems and
actively participate to AOC Air –Ground Data and Message Exchange
Format.
Thales Avionics (as part of the Thales Group) is also directly involved in
the SESAR Joint Undertaking an in worldwide standardization activities.
21 of 103
Consortium partner
Brussels Airlines
(BEL)
Edition 00.01.02
Brussels Airlines has brought its expertise in the Flight Operations
domain, in particular for dispatching and planning processes.
Brussels Airlines has a wide range of European, African and American
destinations. The extensive coverage of the European airspace makes it
an airline of choice for SESAR research.
Having been involved in previous SESAR project (e.g. AIRE), Brussels
Airlines can bring its knowledge of team research in tailored projects.
DSNA
DSNA (Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne) is the national
air navigation services provider of France. DSNA is entrusted with the
provision of air traffic services and associated communication,
navigation and surveillance services and aeronautical information
services in all airspace under French responsibility and at designated
airports.
DSNA is member of FABEC and of SESAR JU.
To ensure a flow of air traffic both safe and respectful of the environment
is at the core of the DSNA’s activities.
DSNA has brought its experience as an early implementer of demand
capacity balancing measures as well as its expertise in short-term ATFM
measures. DSNA has provided the support of its FMP staff to the flights
crossing Bordeaux ACC airspace. It has also supported the flight data
and traffic flow analysis.
EUMETNET EIG
(EMN)
Météo France
Has brought expertise in successfully coordinating the activities of up to
29 European National Meteorological Services (NMS). EUMETNET
represents its NMS members and therefore brings access to world
leading science in most fields of meteorology, hydrology and
climatology, as well as operational aviation MET services on a global
scale. EUMETNET also serves as a singular point of contact for
cooperation and collaboration in terms of cross-European aviation
meteorology, its delivery and future standards.
Météo-France (MF) is one of the leading aeronautical weather services
in Europe, holds the SES certification for MET Air Navigation Service
Provision since the end of 2006 and undertakes ICAO mandatory
airport measurements and forecasting on ~70 airports in
continental France. Currently MF is actively involved in the
implementation of FABEC (Functional Airspace Block Europe Central).
MF has brought expertise acquired in actively and successfully
participating to large scale research projects in areas of aviation
meteorology (S-WAKE, FLYSAFE, , EUFAR, COPAL).
Nationwide, MF runs an ambitious and wide ranging R&D program into
aviation meteorology (fog forecasting, runway surface conditions
prediction, nowcasting, airport instrumentation, wake vortex, icing
detection, NWP etc.).
Met Office (UK)
The UK Met Office is internationally renowned for its meticulous
standards of weather data collection and research, and provides
products and services to some of the biggest names in aviation. The UK
Met Office brings its extensive expertise in aviation meteorology based
on a long history of aviation forecasting which is recognised by its status
as one of the two World Area Forecast Centres (WAFC) for aviation.
22 of 103
Consortium partner
Edition 00.01.02
Additionally the UK Met Office has a wide ranging program of R&D into
aviation meteorology with a focus on developing products and services
which enhance flight safety and operational efficiency whilst
minimising environmental impacts.
DWD (Germany)
DWD is one of the leading aeronautical weather services in Europe
and is SES certificated since 2007 as an ANSP. Aviation forecast
products are continuously developed and improved with respect to
customer requirements in collaboration between its own R&D and
aeronautical departments. Currently, DWD is engaged in the
meteorological composition of FABEC. Further, DWD has many
rd
experiences in the execution of international and national 3 party
funded projects and in Project Management. DWD is affiliated in
international organisations and consortiums such as WMO, ECMWF,
EUMETNET, EUCOS and COSMO.
Table 4 - Critical expertise of each participant
23 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
3.1.2 Consortium structure
The figure below provides an overview of the TOPMET consortium structure:
Figure 2: TOPMET consortium overview
The consortium includes:

one project coordinator (Thales Air Systems),

four project partners (EUMETNET EIG, DSNA, Brussels Airlines, Thales Avionics).
th
The consortium is bound through a consortium agreement signed on July, 30 2012.
In addition, three Met Offices (DWD, Météo-France, UK Met Office) participate to the project as
EUMETNET EIG members. They are bound together through a signed internal agreement.
3.1.3 Roles of Consortium Members
The TOPMET consortium represents a balance of end-users and industrial partners who collectively
were ideally suited to deliver the project objectives.
Thales Air Systems (TR6) has ensured the project coordination, and performed the provision of a
MISC (4DWxCube) early prototype (in coordination with SESAR WP11.2), the delivery of preliminary
SWIM Services (in coordination with SESAR WP14), and the adaptation of a Decision Aid prototype
(derived from the QuickWin prototype used in WP11.2 Step 1, and from the Bluesky prototype
nominated to an award in the “SWIM Master Class” 2012) to support the new MET services for ATC
and FOC applications.
24 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Thales Avionics (TAV) has focussed on the adaptations of an existing airline product (Ground and
Airborne segments) to support the new MET applications.
EUMETNET EIG (EMN) and its participating members, namely Météo-France (MF), the UK's Met
Office (UKMO) and Germany’s Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) have ensured the provision of new
MET products, delivering training that have ensured that ATC and Airline users were able to integrate
these new products into their operational procedures. Eumetnet EIG has also been in charge of the
promotion of the results of this project.
Brussels Airlines (BEL) has hosted the commercial flights considered for the trials, and provided the
operational feedback of a representative Medium-Size Airline.
Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA) has operated the Ground (FMP)
segment and provided the operational feedback of a representative ANSP.
In addition, Eurocontrol (ECTL) has supported the consortium with “Customer Furnished
Information”, through the provision of Network Management flight data, accessible through the “NOP
B2B services”.
3.2 Work Breakdown Structure
3.2.1 Project overview
TOPMET project is split into seven (7) Tasks devoted to differentiated but complementary tasks:

T0: Management (TR6)

T1: Operational validation objectives (BEL)

T2: System architecture definition Architecture (TR6)

T3: System deployment and verification (TAV)

T4: Demonstration exercise execution (BEL)

T5: Demonstration exercise validation (TAV)

T6: Dissemination (EMN)
The TOPMET Work Breakdown Structure is presented in the following Figure.
25 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
TOPMET
T0 - Management
(TR6)
T1 - Operational
validation objectives
(BEL)
T2 - System
architecture definition
(TR6)
T3 - System deployment
& verification
(TAV)
T4 - Demonstration
exercises execution
(BEL)
T5 - Demonstration
exercises analysis
(TAV)
T6 - Dissemination
A1.1 - Trials objectives
definition, EU flights,
A2.1 -Overall system
architecture definition
A3.1 - Overall system
integration
A4.1 - Execution EU
flights
A5.1 -Post flight
analysis EU flights,
A6.1 -Dissemination
A1.2 - Trials objectives
definition, Long Haul
flights
A2.2 -MET segment &
interfaces definition
A3.1 -MET segment
customization &
verification
A4.2 - Execution long
hail flights
A5.2 - Post flight
analysis Long haul
flights
A1.3 - Trials execution
methodology
A2.3 -Airlines segment
& interfaces definition
A3.2 -Airlines segment
customization &
verification
A1.4 - Trials
assessment
methodology
A2.4 -ATC segment &
interfaces definition
A3.3 -ATC segment
customization &
verification
A2.5 - SWIM & 4D
Weather Cube
configuration definition
A3.4 -SWIM & 4D
Weather Cube
customization &
verification
(EMN)
Figure 3 - TOPMET Work Breakdown Structure
3.2.2 Resources Breakdown
The table below presents the distribution of allocated efforts (in man-months) per partners and per
DSNA
Brussels
Airlines (BEL)
UK MO
DWD
Meteo
France
Eumetnet
EIG
Thales TAV
Thales TR6
Total
Task leader
task throughout the TOPMET project.
Task
Title
T0
Management
TR6
7,50
7,50
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
T1
Operational validation objectives
BEL
7,00
1,00
1,00
2,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2,00
1,00
T2
System architecture definition
TR6
10,00
3,50
3,00
0,25
0,75
0,50
0,50
0,50
1,0
T3
System deployment & verification
TAV
29,50
8,50
11,00
1,50
1,50
2,00
1,00
2,00
2,0
T4
Demonstration exercises execution
BEL
11,50
1,50
2,50
0,50
1,00
0,50
0,50
3,00
2,0
T5
Demonstration exercises analysis
TAV
19,50
2,50
6,00
0,50
2,50
2,00
2,00
2,00
2,0
T6
Dissemination & Promotion
EMN
11,25
1,00
1,00
6,00
0,25
0,25
0,25
2,00
0,50
96,25
25,50
24,50
10,75
6,00
5,25
4,25
11,50
8,50
TOTAL (man.month)
Table 5 – Resources breakdown (efforts)
26 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Efforts have been actually spent according to the plans, with some possible fluctuations in the
distribution of activities between the tasks, without impact of the total effort spent by each partner.
NB: Dissemination efforts has been conducted by Météo-France on behalf of Eumetnet.
3.3 Schedule
The TOPMET general schedule as defined at project start is presented in the following table.
Table 6 – Project GANTT & overall schedule
As reported in the Quarterly Reports, and accepted by the SJU during the Mid-Term Critical Review,
some of the internal milestones of the project have been shifted, in order to take into account the
change of some of the initial assumptions, made at the proposal stage – e.g. related to the on-board
technologies to be used by Brussels Airlines.
As a consequence:

The milestone M1 (end of the design phase) has been postponed by approximately 4
months, until the end of July 2013.

The milestone M2 (end of the deployment phase) has been postponed by approximately 9
months, until the end of June 2014, in order to accommodate for the shift on M1, and to
include a number of iterative cycles taking into account the user feedback (with platform
updates namely in Dec. 2013, Feb-Mar. 2014, April 2014, May 2014, and June 2014)

The milestone M3 (end of the trial phase) has been postponed by approximately 2 months,
until the end of August 2014, in order to accommodate for the shift on M2. Despite the
reduction of the operational trial duration, a relevant number of commercial flights have
however been executed (far above the contractual threshold of “at least 30 commercial
flights”)

The milestone M4 (end of the project) has been left unchanged, in compliance with the
contract.
27 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
3.4 Deliverables
3.4.1 Formal Deliverables
The table below summarizes the project contractual deliverables and milestones.
(Note: Milestones and deliverables numbering are aligned with the baseline available on the SJU
Extranet, which slightly differs from the initial numbering defined in the proposal and demonstration
plan. This difference does not affect dates or contents.)
Deliverable name
Due date / (Effective date)
Demonstration Plan (D01)
T0 + 45 days, 5 November 2012 (5 November 2012)
Final Demonstration Report (D02)
T0 + 24 months, 20 September 2014
(29 September 2014)
Table 7 – Contractual deliverables & milestones
3.4.2 Other deliverables and key project milestones
The table below summarizes the project non-contractual deliverables and milestones.
Deliverable
Deliverable Name
No
Due date /
Responsible
Mile -
partner
stone
(Effective date)
D002
Trials definition report (T002)
BEL
M008
20 March 2013
(26 July 2013)
D003
System definition report (T003)
TR6
M009
20 March 2013
(26 July 2013)
D004
Overall System verification report
(T004)
TAV
M010
20 Sept. 2013
(29 Sept. 2014)
Yearly project critical review
TR6
M011
20 Sept. 2013
(21 Nov. 2013)
D005
Demonstration exercises report (T005)
BEL
M012
20 June 2014
(20 June 2014)
D006
Performance synthesis and
recommendation report (T006)
TAV
M013
20 June 2014
(29 Sept. 2014)
D007
Summary report on dissemination
actions and results (T007)
EMN
M014
20 June 2014
(29 Sept. 2014)
Table 8 – Non contractual deliverables & milestones
28 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
3.4.3 Quarterly reporting
The table below summarizes the project quarterly reporting deliverables and milestones.
Deliverable Name
Milestone No
Responsible
Due date
partner
M001
Quarterly progress report N°1
TR6
20 December 2012
(21 December 2012)
M002
TR6
20 March 2013
(20 March 2013)
M003
TR6
20 June 2013
(20 June 2013)
M004
TR6
20 September 2013
(24 September 2013)
M005
TR6
20 December 2013
(03 February 2014)
M006
TR6
20 March 2014
(08 April 2014)
M007
TR6
20 June 2014
(27 August 2014)
Table 9 – Quarterly reporting deliverables & milestones
3.5 Risk & Issues Management
3.5.1 Risks
The table below summarizes the risks, as identified initially, monitored during the course of the project
in the SJU Extranet Risk Register, and mitigated in case they have occurred.
All risks are now closed.
Risk description
R4625: Operational delivery of
the expected new MET products
is not available at the date of the
trials
R4626: Complete deployment of
TOPWINGS on board full B.AIR
fleet delayed
R4627: Minimum delay between
last TOPWINGS upload and OffBlock Time at Gate is too high
(e.g. > 30 mn)
Probability
assessment
(Low/ Medium/
High/
Very high)
Severity
assessment
(Low/ Medium/
High/
Very high)
CLOSED
(No longer
applicable)
All planned MET products have been EMN
made available and integrated into
TOPMET tools.
OCCURRED +
CLOSED
OCCURRED +
CLOSED
(No longer
applicable)
See ISSUE management
BEL + TAV
(No longer
applicable)
Plan B based on commercial tablet
now implemented, allows an update
until engine switch-on.
TAV + BEL
Mitigation actions
Owner
29 of 103
Risk description
R4628: Adaptations in B.AIR
Flight Dispatcher tool to use new
MET products in the actual
planning process are not
feasible in the project
R4629: Adaptations in DSNA
FMP processes to use new MET
products in the actual planning
process are not feasible in the
project
R4630: Deployment of a
dedicated “Airline Monitoring
Officer” on the ground during
some long haul flights is not
feasible
R4631: Monitoring of aircraft
position from the ground during
long haul flights is not feasible
Edition 00.01.02
Probability
assessment
(Low/ Medium/
High/
Very high)
Severity
assessment
(Low/ Medium/
High/
Very high)
CLOSED
(No longer
applicable)
CLOSED
(No longer
applicable)
CLOSED
Mitigation actions
Owner
Finally, no change required in the
BEL Flight Dispatchers tool.
TOPMET delivers a standalone AOC
application connected to the NOP
B2B.
The deployment process of the
TOPMET tool has now been defined
and agreed with DSNA FMPs.
BEL
(+ TAV
+ TR6)
(No longer
applicable)
The TOPMET tool will be available
during the trials on the Display
position of the Network Manager
(OCC) on duty
BEL
(+ TAV
+ TR6)
CLOSED
(No longer
applicable)
BEL
(+TAV)
R4632: No significant capacity
CLOSED
impacting weather event occurs
during the trials period
R4633: Weather hazards are not CLOSED
occurring in a relevant way
during the trials period, resulting
in a non statistically sufficient
sample to assess performance
R4634: Relevant Flight Data
CLOSED
from the airline are not
accessible for post analyses
(No longer
applicable)
Baseline (validated, based on NOP
B2B): use estimated position from
the flight plan ; completed with pilots
Flight Folder, GPS track records
(when available) and
alternative external sources
(“FlightRadar24”).
Finally trials conducted over JulyAugust 2014; a number of MET
events have been reported.
Finally trials conducted over JulyAugust 2014; a number of MET
events have been reported.
R4635: Available Tools for the
Post flight analysis do not allow
to assess all the intended
metrics & criteria
(No longer
applicable)
CLOSED
(No longer
applicable)
(No longer
applicable)
DSNA +
TR6
EMN +
DSNA
EMN +
BEL
Initial definition of the post-analyses BEL + TAV
procedures have targeted a limited
use of Airline sensitive data.
Fine-tuning of the post-analyses
processes will be optimized based
on the available data; to be
completed during the first “dry run”
flight analyses (expected Jan-Feb
2014)
Initial definition of the post-analyses BEL + TAV
procedures & definition of metrics
have been made in consistence with
the available tools.
The risk is now closed, as post
analyses have been conducted, and
the proposed KPIs and metrics have
been accepted by the SJU.
Table 10 – Risks register
3.5.2 Issues
Risk N° 4626 (see above) had been declared as an issue by Feb 28, 2013.
The issue has been since then closed after completion of the corrective action N°5478.as described
on the SJU extranet Risk & Issues Register.
30 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
st
A Plan B based on the use of a commercial tablet instead if using the TOPWINGS 1 generation EFB
has finally been defined, implemented, and tested. Impact has been a shift on milestones M1, M2 and
M3 as reported in section 3.3 above and no impact on M4.
31 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4 Execution of Demonstration Exercises
4.1 Exercises Preparation
The preparation of the TOPMET demonstration trials has involved a number of dedicated activities,
and required the set-up of dedicated operational procedures, as well of a dedicated supporting
platform.
4.1.1 Preparatory activities
The following preparatory activities have been conducted in the project:

Activity 1.1:
The refined definition of common objectives, metrics, and tools, completing the initial definition
provided in the Demonstration Plan, has been conducted in Task T002 (Operational validation
objectives). Metrics have later been refined again during the course of Task T004 (System
deployment & verification), taking into account the feedback of operational users when starting
the deployment of the platform.

Activity 1.2:
The definition, deployment and verification of an experimental platform supporting the
demonstrations, has been conducted mainly in Task T003 (System architecture definition),
associated to deliverable D003 (System definition report) and Task T004 (System deployment &
verification), associated to deliverable D004 (Overall system verification report). This system was
supporting the provision of the new MET information services to respectively the FMP controllers,
the Airline Network Managers, and the pilots in the cockpit. For more details, refer to references

Activity 1.3:
The training of individual staff (pilots, network managers, FMP controllers) on the TOPMET tools
and processes

Activity 1.4:
The final selection of scenarios, routes and flights considered for the reference and solution
trials (depending on the aircraft equipped with the TOPMET applications, and the trained staff)
4.1.2 Adaptation of the supporting platform
The TOPMET supporting platform has been described on figure 1 above. The following section
summarizes the main adaptations performed on this platform for the purpose of the TOPMET
demonstrations. Details on the platform have been provided in the Technical Specification
(deliverable D003, reference [4]) and in the Overall system verification report deliverable D004,
reference [5]).
32 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4.1.2.1 MET Services
Overview: This segment consists of a set of new MET products addressing mainly the observation
and forecast of convection, lightning, thunderstorms, icing and turbulence - on geographical coverage
depending on the products. In addition, the provision of high resolution Wind & Temperature data has
been offered. However, due to the impossibility to use this information in the ATM & Aviation systems
in their current status (aircraft FMS, ATM & AOC decision aids), no further exploitation of these data
has been performed in the project. The possible benefits to be envisaged in their use are summarized
in the “recommendations” section 8.2.
Performed adaptations in TOPMET: The considered services were readily available at individual
MET Offices and under evolutions as per WP 11.2, in order to ensure their standardization over
Europe under the banner of the EUMETNET EIG. They have been used in TOPMET in their current
status – keeping in mind that as an outcome of WP11.2, those products will become available in a
standardized and homogeneous format over Europe.
4.1.2.2 European ATM Network Management
The Network Management portal of Eurocontrol has been used during the course of the project, and a
permanent access to the information flow has been made available through the NM B2B interface.
No dedicated changes have been implemented by Eurocontrol for the purpose of TOPMET project.
4.1.2.3 TOPMET Data Center
Overview: This segment consists of a preliminary prototype of the MISC (4DWxCube), and aims at
performing the interface between the various MET Services providers, and the various ATM clients
(ANSP, Airline). It has been derived from the Step 1 Quick Win developments in WP11.2.
Performed adaptations in TOPMET: The prototype developed for WP 11.2 Step 1 has been
replicated (to avoid any contractual or technical interference between the two projects). Both
interfaces of the MISC (4DWxCube, on the “MET side” and on the “SWIM side”) have been
customized to the specific needs of the TOPMET project, based on the means developed in WP11.2
and in WP 14 “SWIM Technical Architecture”.
In addition, a “TOPMET Data Repository” capability has been implemented, to store all relevant
information during the course of the trials,
These adaptations have been conducted by Thales Air Systems with the support of the relevant
EUMETNET members involved in its development within WP11.2.
Finally a “TOPMET Briefing Builder” capability has been developed by Thales Avionics, in order to
prepare the information required by the “TOPMET Flight Support” function.
4.1.2.4 ANSP segment
Overview: This segment consists in a dedicated application which has been deployed at the Flow
Management Position offices, in the Bordeaux (LFBB) En Route control centre of DSNA. This
33 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
application was operated on a dedicated terminal (PC + high resolution display) deployed in a
technical room, contiguous to the main control room of Bordeaux ACC.
Performed adaptations in TOPMET: The considered TOPMET application has been developed by
Thales Air Systems and derived (replicated, extended, and customized) from the AWIDSS (Airport
Weather Information & Decision Support System) prototype deployed since October 2012 at Paris,
Charles de Gaulle Airport Tower as per WP 11.2 Quick Win.
4.1.2.5 Airline FOC segment
Overview: This segment consists in a dedicated application which has been deployed in the Brussels
Airlines Operational Control Centre (OCC), in BEL headquarters in Brussels. This application was
operated on two dedicated terminals (PC + high resolution display) deployed in the OCC, and
enabling the involvement of two Network Officers in parallel.
Thales Air System, as directly derived from the ANSP supporting application deployed in Bordeaux
ACC.
4.1.2.6 Aircraft segment
Overview: This segment consists in a dedicated application running on a ground connected Personal
Electronic Device (tablet) delivered to Brussels Airlines Pilots, and fit for use by Pilots, either on the
ground (BEL premises, home, hotel,…), or on-board commercial aircraft of Brussels Airlines (when on
the ground), connected through Wi-Fi or 3G mobile communication networks.
10 devices have been delivered to Brussels Airlines pilots; one device being allocated to a given,
trained, pilot.
Thales Avionics, and deployed on COTS tablet devices.
4.1.3 Operational demonstration procedures
Operational procedures have been tuned for each of the three demonstration scenarios, in order to fit
into local constraints, and to take into account the actual capabilities of the supporting platform.
The resulting procedures, as performed during the execution of the demonstrations, are summarized
in the following sections.
34 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4.1.3.1 Scenario EXE-0206-100 (Airline improvement, pilot-driven
assessment)
Roles
Time
TOPMET
coordinator
BEL TOPMET
Ground PoC
BEL TOPMET
Pilot
BEL fuel
efficiency
Manager
- Connect TOPMET
Tablet tool & upload
relevant information
for the coming flight
- Assess MET situation
based on TOPMET
pre-flight information
- Initialize Pilot's
Flight Report in
TOPMET Tablet
Day N
(Preflight)
- Depending on MET
evolutions during
flight, re-assess the
MET situation in flight
based on TOPMET
Day N
(Execution)
If severe situation
confirmed:
- identify MET-impact
scenario type;
- report actual
decision taken
- Update Pilot's Flight
Report in TOPMET
Tablet
Day N
(Post-flight)
When tablet is back
in BEL OCC:
- consolidate Pilot
feedback reports
- upload reports in
TOPMET Data
Center
35 of 103
Post-flight
daily
Edition 00.01.02
- download & check
all new pilots reports
in Data Center
- trigger TOPMET
local contact to get
any missing postanalysis information
- recover missing
paper info, scan &
download into Data
Center
consolidation
(D+1)
Check all information
is complete
Post-flight
weekly
consolidation
Consolidate all
information &
compute estimated
KPIs
Check validity of
estimated KPIs
36 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4.1.3.2 Scenario EXE-0206-200 (Airline improvement, end-to-end
assessment)
Roles
Time
TOPMET
coordinator
- Monitor alerts in
TOPMET OCC tool
- If impacting MET
event detected,
prepare "trigger"
report including
Flight ID, description
of suspected METimpact scenario, and
proposed decision
- Send trigger report
to BEL PoC on duty
by email
Execution
Day N
BEL TOPMET
Ground PoC
BEL Pilot
BEL fuel
efficiency
Manager
- Monitor alerts in
TOPMET OCC tool
- assess the actual
severity of the MET
situation using
TOPMET OCC Tool,
and other available
means in OCC
- if severe situation
confirmed, contact
Pilot via ACARS
- identify METimpact scenario type
(S1-S13);
- report
recommended
decision, and actual
decision taken by
pilot
If contacted by BEL
PoC:
- check MET situation
based on visual &
WXR
- feedback BEL PoC
by ACARS on actual
status & decision
taken
- consolidate Trigger
report and Pilot
feedback
- upload
consolidated event
report in TOPMET
Data Center
37 of 103
Post-flight
daily
Edition 00.01.02
- check all actions
performed
-download & check
all data reports
- trigger TOPMET
consolidation
(D+1)
- recover missing
paper info, scan &
download into Data
Center
Check all
information are
complete
Post-flight
weekly
consolidation
Consolidate all
information &
compute estimated
KPIs
Check validity of
estimated KPIs
4.1.3.3 Scenario EXE-0206-300 (ATC/FMP improvement)
The operational process used at DSNA for the trials period is summarized below:

The TOPMET DSNA coordinator monitors the FMP application

When a MET hazard warning is occurring, he analyses in detail the situation

When relevant he contacts the Deputy Control Room Supervisor on duty to assess his current
perception of the situation (based on the currently available tools)

The TOPMET DSNA coordinator collects all relevant data related to the Flow Management
decisions (regulations) related to MET, and associated information (concerned flights,
resulting delays,…)

The TOPMET DSNA coordinator validates the computation of KPIs and metrics, based on the
consolidation and analysis of the collected data.
38 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4.1.4 KPI & metrics definition
KPIs and associated metrics have been refined and tuned for each of the three demonstration
scenarios, in order to ensure the representativeness of the selected metrics, and the feasibility of their
assessment.
4.1.4.1 Scenarios EXE-0206-100 & -200 (Airline improvement)
The same KPIs have been defined for both “pilot-driven assessment” scenario (100) and “end-to-end
assessment” scenario (200).
The rationale for revising is a refined analysis of KPIs targets by BEL « fuel management officer »,
which has raised some concerns on their operational relevance, and their ability to demonstrate
positive benefits.
The approach taken has been to reduce the number of KPIs, and to keep focused on what will
represent value to BEL and will be aligned with the latest recommendations from the SJU.
4.1.4.1.1 INITIAL KPIs definition
The following KPIs had been defined in the TOPMET Demonstration plan:
OBJ-0206-100: Reduce fuel consumption
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Average kg Fuel Burn per Flight
Target:
2% reduction over “hazardous MET periods” (tbc)
OBJ-0206-200: Reduce extra fuel take-off
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Remaining extra fuel at gate
Target:
OBJ-0206-300: Improve flight punctuality
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
number of delayed flights, average delay of delayed flights
Target:
39 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
OBJ-0206-400: Improve passenger comfort & aircraft flyability
Related SESAR KPI:
Safety
Performance Index:
Average period of flight with vertical/horizontal acceleration
above threshold
Target:
10 % reduction over “hazardous MET periods” (tbc)
4.1.4.1.2 Revised KPIs definition
They have been revised and refined as follows:
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Cumulated additional fuel consumption due to MET
Target:
20% reduction
OBJ-0206-200: Reduce flight cost
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (cost)
Performance Index:
Additional flight cost due to MET
Target:
10% reduction
OBJ-0206-300: Improve flight predictability
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
cumulated additional (unexpected) flight delay due to MET
compared to plan
Target:
20% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Safety
Performance Index:
Cumulated period of flight with vertical/horizontal acceleration
above threshold
Target:
10 % reduction
OBJ-0206-500: Improve Airspace capacity
Related SESAR KPI:
Capacity (Airspace)
Performance Index:
IFR movements per airspace volume / unit time based on NM
Entry/Occupancy count
Target:
3% gain (tbc)
40 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
OBJ-0206-600: reduce ATCO workload
Related SESAR KPI:
-
Performance Index:
Perceived reduced stress in degraded conditions reported in
questionnaires (no quantitative target measurable)
Target:
(no quantified index)
OBJ-0206-700: improve flight predictability
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
number of flights with deviation of flight duration over FIR
compared to initial FPL – above a given threshold
Target:
3% reduction (tbc)
(Unchanged)
Related SESAR KPI:
Capacity (Airspace)
Performance Index:
Target:
3% gain
(not measurable for TOPMET)
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
cumulated unexpected delays induced by MET over FIR (vs
initial flight plans)
Target:
20 % reduction
OBJ-0206-800: Reduce cost-impact of MET related network delays
Related SESAR KPI:
Cost efficiency
Performance Index:
cost impact of cumulated unexpected delays induced by MET
over FIR (vs initial flight plans)
Target:
10 % reduction
41 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4.1.5 Post-analysis procedures
4.1.5.1 Scenario EXE-0206-100 & -200 (Airline improvement)
4.1.5.1.1 Definition of “MET-impact scenarios”
A number of “MET-impact scenarios” have been defined, which characterize different operational
situations where the flight may be impacted by MET phenomena. They are summarized below:

Typical situations where « inefficient » fuel consumption could be avoided: (« potential to
reduce loss »):
o
S01: Diversion due to MET hazards at arrival (fog, snow, severe thunderstorm…)
Could be avoided e.g. by waiting on ground before taking-off, or slowing down while
en-route
o
S02: Holding patterns due to MET hazards at arrival (fog, thunderstorm,…)
en-route
o
S03: Extra track miles due to route deviation around severe thunderstorms / Cbs
Could be reduced by anticipated / optimized in flight re-routing (horizontal or vertical)
o
S04: Extra-fuel induced by switching-on de-icing devices when entering severe
icing areas en route
Could be reduced e.g. by anticipated / optimized FL change

Typical situations where fuel consumption could be more efficient (« potential to improve
gain »)
o
S05: Suboptimal horizontal routes (jet streams…) or FLs due to low accuracy of
MET parameters (wind/temp, …)
Could be improved by higher accuracy MET parameters
o
S06: Suboptimal climb or descent profiles due to low accuracy of MET parameters
(wind/temp, …)
42 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
Typical situations where significant variance on Flight Duration is induced by MET causes :
o
S07: « Last minute change » on Take Off Time due to MET hazards at departure
(fog, snow, severe thunderstorm,…) requiring to postpone TOT and keep aircraft
grounded
Could be reduced by better MET forecast , enabling to anticipate an effective TOT

S07a: Situation where a TOT change is induced by an un-anticipated need
for aircraft de-icing

S07b: Situation where a TOT change is induced by an un-anticipated need
for re-tank after initial tanking completion, due to an un-anticipated need for
aircraft de-icing
o
S08: Change on flight duration , due to MET hazards on the planned route,
requiring to make tactical decisions and change route during the flight
Could be reduced by better MET forecast , enabling to anticipate an effective
not
« weather-dependent » route
o
S09: Change on Time of Arrival, due to MET hazards at arrival (fog, snow, severe
thunderstorm,…), requiring to postpone TA by holding patterns or diversion
Could be reduced by better MET forecast, enabling to anticipate an effective TA

Typical situations where flight safety is impacted due to MET hazards :
o
S10: passenger or crew incidents due to severe turbulence, high winds, wind
shear…
o

S11: airframe damages due to severe hail impact on front glass, severe icing…
Typical situations where flight comfort is impacted by MET hazards:
o
S12: passenger or crew discomfort due to moderate/severe turbulence En Route,
high winds…
o
S13: intense pilot stress due to severe turbulence, high winds, wind shear…
4.1.5.1.2 Definition of “MET-impact reduction decisions”
In order to reduce the impact of MET on those scenarios, a number of potential operational decisions
have been identified:

D01: Decision for delaying take-off to avoid diversion or holding patterns at arrival
o
Conditions for success: severe MET@ ADES, reliable forecast (horizon > 1 -2 h ?, shorthaul only) , automated warning & proposed TOT change to dispatcher & pilot
43 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
D02: Decision for slowing-down en-route to avoid diversion or holding patterns at arrival
o
Conditions for success: severe MET@ ADES, reliable forecast (horizon > 30 mn - 1 h ?) ,
automated warning & proposed TTA change to dispatcher & pilot

D03a: Decision for an anticipated (before take-off) horizontal re-routing to « more
efficiently » avoid a severe Cb / thunderstorm
o
Conditions for success: wide horizontal & vertical extension of Cb, reliable forecast
(horizon > 1 -2 h ?, short-haul only), automated warning & proposed rerouting to
dispatcher & pilot

D03b: Decision for an anticipated (during flight) horizontal re-routing to « more
o
(horizon > 30 mn - 1 h ?) automated warning & proposed rerouting to dispatcher & pilot

D04a: Decision for an anticipated (before take-off) FL change to « more efficiently » avoid
a severe Turbulence or Icing area
o
Conditions for success: limited vertical extension of hazard, reliable forecast (horizon > 1 2 h ?, short-haul only), automated warning & proposed FL change to dispatcher & pilot

D04b: Decision for an anticipated (during flight) FL change to « more efficiently » avoid a
severe Turbulence or Icing area
o
Conditions for success: limited vertical extension of Cb, reliable Cb forecast (horizon > 15
mn ?) , automated warning & proposed FL change to dispatcher

D05: Decision to uplink more up-to-date / accurate GRIBs to FMS while en route:
o
Conditions for success: higher time & space resolution gridded MET information,
automatic what-if during flight, automatic warning of dispatcher if a gain is identified, GRIB
update during flight is feasible

D06: Decision for delaying take-off at Flight planning phase, to avoid unexpected last
minute delay of TOT due to MET
o
Conditions for success: severe MET@ ADES, reliable forecast (horizon > 1 -3 h ?) ,
automated warning & proposed TOT change to dispatcher

D07: Decision for including de-icing time at Flight planning phase, to avoid unexpected
delay of TOT due to de-icing
o
44 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
The applicability matrix from the Decisions Dxx to the MET-impact scenarios Sxx is summarized in the
Divertion
/ MET @ ARR
Holding
/ MET @ ARR
Fl. Length extension
/ MET En Route
De-icing in-flight
Sub-optimal ER
profile
Sub-optimal climb /
descent profile
TOT change
/ MET @ DEP
TOT change
/ aircraft de-icing
TOT change
/ re-tanking
Fl. Duration Change
/ MET En Route
TOA change
/ MET @ ARR
PAX / crew METrelated incidents
Airframe METrelated damages
MET-related PAX /
crew discomfort
MET-related
Pilot stress
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S07a
S07b
S08
S09
S10
S11
S12
S13
table below:
D01: delay take-off when MET @ ARR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D02: slow down when MET @ ARR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Decisions \ Scenarios
D03a: anticipated re-routing (before DEP) when MET ER
X
X
X
X
X
X
D03b: anticipated re-routing (in-flight) when MET ER
X
X
X
X
X
X
D04a: anticipated FL change (before DEP) when MET ER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D04b: anticipated FL change (in-flight) when MET ER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D05: uplink improved GRIBs to FMS (in-flight)
D06: delay take-off at Fl Planning stage when MET @ DEP
X
X
D07: include de-icing & full tanking at Fl Planning stage
X
X
Table 11: Scenarios / Decisions matrix
4.1.5.1.3 Principles of the KPI assessment
For each flight performed during the demonstration:

A first analysis identifies if the flight has been impacted by MET or not

For each MET-impacted flight, the corresponding MET-impact scenario is identified (S01 to
S13)
o
The effect on KPIs due to this MET-impact is computed, with reference to the original
flight plan (i.e. without MET-impact)

For each identified MET-impacted flight, the potential decisions (D01 to D07) available to the
Airline are identified
o
The effect on KPIs (i.e. reduced MET impact) which would have resulted if the
decision is computed, with reference to both the original situation (no MET impact),
and the actual situation (MET impact)
45 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
The principle is depicted in the figure below:
Extra cost of
flight as it
occurred.
Potential TOPMET
saving
Extra cost would
TOPMET decision
have been used.
Cost of flight if
meteo phenomenon
did not occur.
This is a
hypothetical
situation (=original
OFP).
Hypothetical
flight
Real
flight
Hypothetical
flight
Figure 4: TOPMET KPI assessment principle
Based on this analysis,

the required post-flight data necessary to assess the KPIs have been identified for each
scenario / decision,

a computation sheet has been created for each scenario / decision, in order to assess the KPI
metrics, based on the relevant post-flight data.
4.1.5.1.4 Data gathering
This paragraph summarizes the post-flight data which have been collected for each MET-impacted
flight:

Situation report:
Which scenario is observed during the flight (S01 to S13)
Which potential decision could be made or have been made (D01 to D07)

MET situations:
(to store MET products during identified events S01 to S13)
46 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
Flight Plans
FTFM, CTFM (successive changes if any) related to considered flight (from the NOP)

Flight Tracks
Actual flight profile (from tablet GPS, FlightRadar24)

BEL Flight Data Recorder
Initial fuel at take-off, Residual fuel at landing
Detailed flight profile (position, altitude, speed, vertical acceleration)
4.1.5.2 Scenario EXE-0206-300 (ANSP improvement)
A similar approach as for the Airline has been conducted with the ANSP.
Essentially one scenario has been documented, i.e. a hazardous MET area forecasted to enter a
control sector, and requiring moving away the traffic, and reducing the sector capacity, through a
regulation, i.e. assigning departure slots to scheduled flights.
The decision for setting up a regulation is often made once one or a few flights have requested for an
horizontal re-routing, in order to avoid dangerous MET areas.
In a number of cases, the decision can also be anticipated, and made typically up to 3h ahead of the
time where the actual MET hazard will impact the considered sector.
The TOPMET supporting tools will help reducing the impact of a MET regulation, by a more accurate
and timely forecast of MET hazards, enabling to:

reduce the “false alerts”, i.e. setting a regulation for a MET hazard that finally does not occur
in the considered sector

improving the timeliness of the regulation, i.e. matching the start and end time of the
regulation to the actual entry and exit time of the MET hazard in the considered sector
The principle finally applied for the KPI assessment are the same in this exercise, as compared with
the Airline Case, as no real-time actual operational decision can be made- based on the TOPMET
tools.
47 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
The relevant data are collected, and a “what if” scenario is reconstructed based on the recorded data,
taking into account the decision that could have been made based on TOPMET tools, and reassessing the KPI in this alternative case.
The data gathered to support the analysis include:

MET situations : storage of MET products during the trial period (from the MET Offices)

Flight Plans: FTFM, CTFM (with successive changes if any) related to all flights overflying the
LFBB FIR (from the NOP)

Sector load: occupancy & entry counts related to all flights overflying the LFBB FIR (from the
NOP)

Historical track of TFM decisions : all features (start, update and end time of regulations, with
associated features

List of flights having received a regulation slot, and resulting ground delay at departure.
4.2 Exercises Execution
The trials have finally been executed over the following periods of time:
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-100
EXE-0206-200
EXE-0206-300
Exercise Title
Actual
Exercise
execution
start date
Airline
improvement
1/07/2014
(pilots-driven
assessment)
Airline
improvement (end7/07/2014
to-end
assessment)
FMP improvement 1/05/2014
Actual
Exercise
execution
end date
Actual
Actual
Exercise
Exercise end
start
date
analysis date
1/09/2014
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
29/08/2014
7/07/2014
19/09/2014
31/08/2014
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
Table 12: Exercises execution/analysis dates
48 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
4.3 Deviations from the planned activities
The detailed activities and procedures have been documented in the section 4.1 above. The following
sections summarize the main deviations introduced during the course of the project, with reference to
the Demonstration Plan.
4.3.1 Airline scenarios EXE-0206-100 & -200
In summary, the following deviations have been introduced with reference to the Demonstration Plan:

The decomposition in two exercises has been reshaped, with 2 exercises running in parallel :
o
1 exercise involving pilots, supported by the TOPMET tablet
o
1 exercise involving the whole decision chain (a trial coordinator, a local point of
contact in BEL OCC, and the concerned pilots)
The distinction between medium and long haul appeared to be not relevant, as tools and
process were applied in exactly the same way for both categories of flights

The operational procedures have been adjusted, based on a more accurate analysis of their
insertion in the current organisation of BEL, and to take into account a number of local
constraints, not yet identified at the stage of the Demonstration Plan.

The KPI objectives and associated metrics have been revised as follows:
o
The metrics for assessing the improvement of fuel consumption has been revised to
be more representative of the approach in use within the Airline
o
The KPI “reduction of extra fuel take-off” has been removed, as not measurable and
with poor relevance at this stage of maturity of the concept
o
A new KPI has been introduced on “flight cost improvement”, directly related to the
improvement of fuel consumption, but taking also into account additional effects, e.g.
in the case of a diversion.
o
The KPI “flight punctuality” has been replaced by “flight predictability” in order to
better isolate the effect of MET

The duration of the “operational trials” (i.e. on which the KPI can be assessed) has been
reduced to a period of 2 months, in order to meet the project final milestone
o
A period of approximately 6 months (from Jan to June 2014) has included more than
50 “TOPMET pre-operational” commercial regular flights, and has been used for
multiple iteration cycles, in order to refine the end –to –end process, and improve the
suitability of supporting tools for pilots and OCC. This “pre-trials” period has enabled
49 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
many “lessons learned” and has been extremely beneficial to improve the maturity of
the concept.

The operating process has been limited to “Shadow Mode” operations
o
The MET false alarm rate (probability to warn against a hazard not actually present,
or not to warn against a hazard actually present), and the level of calibration of MET
information ( i.e. unified inter-calibration of the MET information from various sources,
and unified settings of appropriate impact thresholds), as well as the level of maturity
of the operational concept, were not sufficient to enable implementing operational
decisions on commercial flights, purely relying on the TOPMET infrastructure
o
However the real-time- and post-analysis of the information provided by the TOPMET
infrastructure was sufficient to predict, in a number of situations, the hypothetical
results which would have been reached when implementing the recommended
decisions

The usage of High Resolution Wind & Temperature gridded data, offered by the MET
services, has finally not been evaluated as not feasible in the current status of the aircraft or
ground support decision aids; as a consequence, no scenario of the type “S05’ or “S06” (suboptimal routes or climb /.descent profiles) has been assessed; the issue is related below in
the “recommendations” in section 8.2.
4.3.2 ANSP scenario EXE-0206-300

insertion in the current organization of DSNA, and to take into account a number of local

Revision of KPI objectives and associated metrics:
o
The KPI “reduction of ATCO workload” has been removed, as not measurable and
o
The metrics for the KPI “flight predictability” have been refined in order to better
isolate the effect of MET, and measure its contribution to network delays
o

A new KPI has been introduced on the “cost impact of MET-related network delays”,
50 of 103
o
Edition 00.01.02
The period of from October 2013. to April 2014 has been used for multiple iteration
cycles, in order to refine the end –to –end process, and improve the suitability of
supporting tools for FMPs. This “pre-trials” period has enabled many “lessons
learned” and has been extremely beneficial to improve the maturity of the concept.

o
The level of maturity of the operational concept, and the performance of the MET
forecasts (see section 4.3.1) was not sufficient to enable implementing operational
ATC decisions on, purely relying on the TOPMET infrastructure
o
decisions
51 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
5 Exercises Results
5.1 Summary of Exercises Results
The table below summarizes the results obtained against each of the success criteria identified above.
5.1.1 EXE-0206-100 (airline benefits, pilot-driven assessment)
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-100
Airline
improvement
(pilot-driven
assessment)
Demonstration
Objective ID
Demonstration Objective Description
OBJ-0206-100
Reduce fuel consumption
OBJ-0206-200
Reduce flight cost.
OBJ-0206-300
Improve flight predictability.
OBJ-0206-400
Improve passenger comfort & aircraft
flyability
Success Criterion
Cumulated additional fuel
consumption due to MET: 20%
reduction
Additional flight cost due to MET:
10% reduction
Cumulated additional (unexpected)
flight delay due to MET compared to
flight plan: 20% reduction
Cumulated period of flight with
vertical/horizontal acceleration
above threshold: 10 % reduction
Exercise Results
Not measurable, No significant METimpact scenario observed on the flights
where the TOPMET tablet was on-board
Demonstration
Objective Status
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
Table 13: Scenario EXE-0206-100: Summary of Demonstration Exercises Results
52 of 103
©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Thales Air Systems, Thales Avionics, EUMETNET, Brussels Airlines, DSNA for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the SESAR
Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.
Edition 00.01.02
5.1.2 EXE-0206-200 (airline benefits, end-to-end assessment)
Exercise ID
Demonstration
Objective ID
OBJ-0206-100
EXE-0206-200
OBJ-0206-200
Reduce flight cost.
Success Criterion
reduction
10% reduction
Airline
improvement
(end-to-end
assessment)
OBJ-0206-300
plan: 20% reduction
OBJ-0206-400
flyability
above threshold 10 % reduction
Exercise Results
Demonstration
Objective Status
S03 MET-impact scenario (in-flight rerouting): 26% reduction
S01 MET-impact scenario (diversion to
alternate airport): 79% reduction
S03 MET-impact scenario (in-flight rerouting): 19% reduction (MET-induced
extra cost reduced from 1937 € to 1561
€, over 4 flights)
OK
OK
OK
alternate airport): 73% reduction (METrelated fuel consumption reduced from
3748 € to 1020 €, over 1 flight – not
taking into account the indirect cost –
related to PAX)
extra flight duration reduced from 9 mn
to 6 mn, over 4 flights)
Not measurable during the trials, No
relevant “S12” MET-impact scenario
observed during the period of the trials
OK
OK
Not measured
53 of 103
Exercise ID
Demonstration
Objective ID
Improve safety of flight
(Possible objective of interest,, not
included in the original plans)
Edition 00.01.02
Success Criterion
(Avoid any MET-related event
impacting the safety of flight)
Exercise Results
Demonstration
Objective Status
Was not expected to be encountered
during the trials period.
This objective was
The post-analysis of an incident due to
not part of the
strong turbulences occurred on April 27,
plan; however
2014 in Luanda on SN359 (8 injured,
some positive
significant airframe damages) provides
elements show
some indications showing that the
that TOPMET
TOPMET tools might have allowed to
should contribute
avoid the incident. No more details can
to its satisfaction
be provided at this stage considering the
on-going investigation report.
54 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
5.1.3 EXE-0206-300 (ANSP benefits, FMP-driven assessment)
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-300
FMP
improvement
Demonstration
Objective ID
OBJ-0206-500
Improve Airspace capacity
OBJ-0206-600
reduce ATCO workload
OBJ-0206-700
Cumulated unexpected delays
induced by MET over FIR (vs initial
flight plans): 20 % reduction
OBJ-0206-800
Reduce cost-impact of MET-related
network delays
Cumulated cost-impact on Airlines of
unexpected delays induced by MET
Achieved: 18 % reduction
over FIR (vs initial flight plans): 10 %
reduction
Success Criterion
Exercise Results
IFR movements per airspace volume
Gain not measurable during the trials,
/ unit time based on NM
Entry/Occupancy count: 3% gain
Demonstration
Objective Status
Not measured
N/A
N/A
OK (objective
nearly achieved)
OK
55 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
5.2 Metrics and Indicators per KPA
The final indicators, metrics and the results obtained from the analysis are summarized in the table below, synthetized per KPA.
The KPA for which no measurements have finally been provided are not reminded here (capacity).
KPA
EFFICIENCY
(FUEL)
EFFICIENCY
(COST)
Objective
ID
OBJ-0206100
OBJ-0206200
KPI
Extra fuel
consumption
due to MET
Extra flight
cost due to
MET
Measuring Process
and Criteria
Expected Benefit
TOPMET Results
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
additional fuel
consumption due to
MET
26% reduction (MET-related fuel
consumption reduced from 2356 kg
to 1751 kg, over 4 flights)
.
Cumulated additional fuel consumption due to
MET, based on EXE-0206-200, S01 METimpact scenario (diversion)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
additional fuel
consumption due to
MET
to 1000 kg, over 1 flight).
Cumulated additional flight cost due to MET,
based on EXE-0206-200, S03 MET-impact
scenario (in-flight rerouting)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 10% the
additional flight cost
due to MET
Cumulated additional flight cost due to MET
scenario (diversion)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 10% the
due to MET
based on EXE-0206-300,
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 10% the
due to MET
Metric
MET, based on EXE-0206-200, S03 METimpact scenario (in-flight rerouting)
19% reduction (MET-induced extra
cost reduced from 1937 € to 1561 €,
over 4 flights)
.
73% reduction (MET-related extra
over 1 flight – not taking into
account the indirect cost –related to
PAX).
18 % reduction (from 488 k€ to 399
k€ cumulated cost, over 12 days, for
848 flights, i.e. in average 104 €
gain per flight).
56 of 103
SAFETY
OBJ-0206400
Severe
turbulence
impacting
PAX comfort
OBJ-0206300
vertical/horizontal acceleration above
threshold, , based on EXE-0206-200, S12
MET-impact scenario (high turbulence)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduction of at least
10 %
Extra flight
delay due to
MET
Cumulated additional (unexpected) flight delay
due to MET compared to plan, based on EXE0206-200, S03 MET-impact scenario (in-flight
rerouting)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
additional time delay
due to MET
Extra flight
delay due to
MET
Cumulated unexpected delays induced by
MET over FIR (vs initial flight plans), based on
EXE-0206-300,
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
due to MET
PREDICTA
BILITY
OBJ-0206700
Edition 00.01.02
No occurrence observed during the
trials period
flight duration reduced from 9 mn to
6 mn, over 4 flights)
18 % reduction (from 14376 mn to
11776 mn cumulated delay, over 12
days, for 848 flights, i.e. in average
3 mn gain per flight
Table 16: Table of KPAs addressed
57 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
5.3 Summary of Demonstration Conduct Assumptions
5.3.1 Results per KPA
See sections 5.1 and 5.2.
5.3.2 Impact on Safety, Capacity and Human Factors
The following points may be highlighted:

Safety: Even if a positive impact on safety was expected in the deployment of TOPMET, it
was not expected to provide any evidence on safety benefits during the course of the project;
and actually, no safety-related event has been observed during the trials period. However, the
post-analysis of an incident due to strong turbulences occurred on April 27, 2014 in Luanda
on flight SN359 (8 injured, significant airframe damages) provides some indications showing
that the TOPMET tools might have allowed to avoid the incident. No more details can be
provided at this stage considering the on-going investigation by the Belgian Authorities.

Capacity: the expected impact on the sectors capacity was expected to be analysed in
exercise EXE-0206-300 (FMP). However the considered metrics appeared to be not
appropriate and unable to properly reflect the impact of MET on sector capacity, and its
possible improvement through the introduction of the TOPMET concept. Other KPIs related to
predictability and cost efficiency for Airlines appeared to be more powerful to measure the
potential impact of the TOPMET concept on Flow Management performances.
.

Human Factors: this KPA was out of the scope of the project. However a specific effort has
been undertaken to take HF into considerations in the design of end-users applications for
Pilots, OCC and FMP ground operators. Much feedback has been gained during the project
on HF aspects, which will be valued in the preparation of follow-on activities.
5.3.3 Description of assessment methodology
See sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.5 above.
5.3.4 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives
The feedback obtained on the use of MET information in actual operations will provide useful inputs in
the perspective of future standardization of MET hazards representation for aviation (reflectivity
thresholds, contours, etc,…). Further experiments will however be needed before reaching the
required background in defining these standards.
58 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
5.4 Analysis of Exercises Results
See section 5.1 and 5.2 for the general analysis of the results for each exercise and objective. See
also section 6 for more detail regarding the rationale for the results.
5.4.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results
The most significant unexpected behaviours or results encountered during the course of the project
are summarized below:

The difficulty to adapt existing operational processes to take into account additional MET
information (considering the current workload of actors, especially in the critical periods when
MET hazards generally occur)

The difficulty to reach an adequate level of acceptance of the new MET information by
operational end-users (delivering a relevant and valid information , at the right time, to the
right actor)
5.5 Confidence in Results of Demonstration Exercises
5.5.1 Quality of Demonstration Exercises Results
The quality of the Demonstration Exercise Results has been limited by several factors faced during
the course of the trials.
In summary:

In Exercise EXE-0206-100 (Airline, Pilot-driven assessment):
o
The lack of in-flight connectivity, and the insufficient (or not reliable enough) forecast
horizon for MET hazards, strongly reduced the domain where the benefits could be
actually derived in this scenario
o
The probability of occurrence of MET hazards during the trials has been
overestimated, and the use of even up to 5 tablets in parallel has not allowed to reach
a statistically sufficient number of MET hazards occurrences
o
The use of a “shadow mode” process (i.e. the pilot using the tablet for information
only, not making any decision to optimize his flight based on the tablet information)
has limited the capture of operational feedbacks from the pilot .
o
The consequence is that the flights executed in EXE-0206-100 have finally not been
fit for the assessment of KPI gains. They have however generated a high added
value in preparation of follow-on activities, where the main limitations listed above will
have been removed.

In Exercise EXE-0206-200 (Airline, end-to-end assessment):
59 of 103
o
Edition 00.01.02
The insufficient levels of calibration, and reliability of the forecast of MET hazards,
have induced a number of “false alerts”, or conversely, not allowed to detect in time
some actual hazards observed by the pilots
o
The limited duration of the trials (2 months), the capacity to perform the monitoring
only part-time (e.g. not over week-ends), or the allocation of higher priorities to the
OCC staff during some critical periods, resulted in the fact that only a part of the
potential flights of interest have been captured during the trial period.
o
The flights selected for the post-analyses appear however to be representative of the
most common situations; they demonstrate potential KPI gains which revealed to be
consistent with those measured in EXE-0206-300

In Exercise EXE-0206-300 (ATC/FMP):
o
The insufficient levels of calibration, and reliability of the forecast of MET hazards, did
not allow FMP operators to make real-time analyses, and limited the approach to a
post-analysis demonstration of the expected benefits
o
This approach however allowed capturing a much significant sample of METimpacted flights (> 800) which provided a good level of confidence on the assessed
statistical results.
5.5.2 Significance of Demonstration Exercises Results

Operational significance:
o
In Exercise EXE-0206-100, the pilot has identified a relevant use of the tablet in the
flight preparation phase, in collaboration with the OCC staff. He has also confirmed a
non relevant use of the tablet during flight execution, due to the absence of in-flight
connectivity.
o
In Exercise EXE-0206-200, a detailed analysis has been conducted with BEL
operational staff, to identify the most representative MET-impact scenarios expected
to be encountered during actual operations. A similar analysis has been conducted as
well with DSNA in EXE-0206-300. The trials have allowed to better assess the actual
level of impact of those scenarios, and to get an indication on their frequency of
occurrence. The flights selected for the post-analysis correspond well to some of the
“template scenarios” which have been defined, hence are considered as operationally
relevant. A longer trial period, would have allowed capturing further types of
scenarios of low or seasonal occurrence. Also some of the considered “template
scenarios” have been proved as having a much lower impact as initially predicted
(e.g. the use of in-flight de-icing devices, which has finally a very limited impact on
fuel consumption).
60 of 103
o
Edition 00.01.02
A similar analysis has been conducted as well with DSNA in EXE-0206-300.Similar
considerations can be derived.

Statistical significance:
o
In Exercise EXE-0206-200, the number of statistical samples has been relatively low
(less than 5 flights per investigated scenario type). Hence the statistical
representativeness has to be considered as low. However, especially for MET-impact
scenario S03 (in flight rerouting), the few samples analysed have shown a relative
consistency in their statistical distribution.
o
In Exercise EXE-0206-300, the number of statistical samples has been much higher
(> 800 flights) hence the statistical representativeness can be considered as much
greater.
5.5.3 Conclusions and recommendations
5.5.3.1 Conclusions
See section 8.1
5.5.3.2 Recommendations
See section 8.2
61 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
6 Demonstration Exercises reports
6.1 Demonstration Exercise Report EXE-0206-100
6.1.1 Exercise Scope
This exercise addresses the improvement of the Airline KPIs, through the use of the supporting tools
available on a Tablet for the Pilot.
It aims at demonstrating the benefits of using advanced new MET products on Brussels Airlines
flights, in order to:
6.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-0206-100
More details on the exercise are available in appendixes C and D.
6.1.2.1 Exercise Preparation
The preparation of this exercise has included the following activities:
-
Activity 1.1: refined definition of common objectives, metrics, and tools
-
Activity 1.2: definition, deployment and verification of an experimental platform supporting the
demonstrations
-
Activity 1.3: training of individual staff (pilots, network managers, FMP controllers) on the
TOPMET tools and processes
-
Activity 1.4: final selection of scenarios, routes and flights
-
Activity 1.5: definition and tuning of the operational and post-analysis procedures in order to fit
into local constraints, and to take into account the actual capabilities of the supporting
platform
The configuration used in this exercise is depicted in figure 1, section 2.1.4 above, and focuses on the
operational use of the “BEL aircraft segment” (bottom right of the diagram).
6.1.2.2 Exercise execution
The trials for exercise EXE-0206-100 have finally been executed over the following periods of time:
62 of 103
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-100
Exercise Title
Airline
improvement
(pilots-driven
assessment)
Edition 00.01.02
Actual
Exercise
execution
start date
1/07/2014
Actual
Exercise
execution
end date
1/09/2014
Actual
Actual
Exercise
Exercise end
start
date
analysis date
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
Table 17: Exercise EXE-0206-100 execution/analysis dates
In total, 79 flights have been executed.
The table below summarizes the list of the flights executed as per EXE-0206-100, i.e. the flights
executed with the pilot using the TOPMET tablet:
Date
From/To
City
01/07/14
01/07/14
02/07/14
02/07/14
02/07/14
04/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
08/07/14
08/07/14
08/07/14
09/07/14
09/07/14
10/07/14
10/07/14
16/07/14
16/07/14
16/07/14
17/07/14
17/07/14
17/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
BRU-RAK
RAK-BRU
BRU-CPH
BRU-GOT
GOT-BRU
FCO-BRU
BRU-MAN
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
MAN-BRU
BRU-MXP
MXP-BRU
BRU-MXP
MXP-BRU
BRU-BIO
BIO-BRU
BRU-BMA
BRU-FSC
FSC-BRU
BMA-BRU
BRU-SXB
SXB-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
Marrakech
Marrakech
Copenhagen
Goteborg
Goteborg
Roma
Manchester
Geneva
Geneva
Geneva
Geneva
Manchester
Milano
Milano
Milano
Milano
Bilbao
Bilbao
Stockholm
Figari
Figari
Stockholm
Strasbourg
Strasbourg
Lyon
Lyon
63 of 103
18/07/14
18/07/14
24/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
30/07/14
30/07/14
31/07/14
04/08/14
04/08/14
04/08/14
07/08/14
07/08/14
08/08/14
08/08/14
11/08/14
11/08/14
12/08/14
21/08/14
21/08/14
21/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
23/08/14
24/08/14
25/08/14
25/08/14
27/08/14
27/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
29/08/14
29/08/14
30/08/14
30/08/14
30/08/14
31/08/14
Edition 00.01.02
BRU-MAD
MAD-BRU
BRU-SVQ
BRU-OSL
BRU-GOT
GOT-BRU
BRU-EDI
OSL-BRU
EDI-BRU
BRU-BSL
BSL-BRU
BRU-LIN
BRU-BMA
BMA-BRU
BRU-FLR
FLR-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-LYS
BRU-GOT
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
GOT-BRU
BRU-VCE
VCE-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-LYS
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
BRU-BIO
BIO-BRU
BRU-FCO
FCO-BRU
BRU-BLQ
BLQ-BRU
BRU-SVQ
SVQ-BRU
BRU-BIO
BRU-MLA
MLA-BRU
BIO-BRU
BRU-CDG
CDG-BRU
BRU-MRS
Madrid
Madrid
Seville
Oslo
Goteborg
Goteborg
Edinburgh
Oslo
Edinburgh
Basel
Basel
Milano
Stockholm
Stockholm
Florence
Florence
Lyon
Lyon
Lyon
Goteborg
Lyon
Lyon
Goteborg
Venice
Venice
Lyon
Lyon
Lyon
Geneva
Geneva
Bilbao
Bilbao
Roma
Roma
Bologna
Bologna
Seville
Seville
Bilbao
Malta
Malta
Bilbao
Paris
Paris
Marseille
64 of 103
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
Edition 00.01.02
MRS-BRU
BRU-OSL
BRU-BCN
BCN-BRU
BRU-FLR
FLR-BRU
OSL-BRU
BRU-GOT
Marseille
Oslo
Barcelona
Barcelona
Florence
Florence
Oslo
Goteborg
Table 18: Exercise EXE-0206-100 summary
6.1.2.3 Deviation from the planned activities
In summary, the following deviations have been introduced on EXE-0206-100, with reference to the
Demonstration Plan:

insertion in the current organization of BEL, and to take into account a number of local

o
o
o
o

o
the concept.
65 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
o
o
decisions

6.1.3 Exercise Results
6.1.3.1 Summary of Exercise Results
The KPI have finally not been measured during this exercise, as no significant MET-impact scenario
observed on the flights where the TOPMET tablet was on-board.
6.1.3.1.1 Results per KPA
This exercise has not allowed the computation of KPAs which have been assessed in EXE-0206-200,
using the end-to-end system including the ground segments.
6.1.3.1.2 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives
thresholds, contours, etc…). Further experiments will however be needed before reaching the
6.1.3.1.3 Unexpected Behaviours/Results

66 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
right actor)
6.1.3.1.4 Quality of Demonstration Results
In summary in Exercise EXE-0206-100 (Airline, Pilot-driven assessment):
o
o
o
o
have been removed.
6.1.3.1.5 Significance of Demonstration Results
The following points may be highlighted for Exercise EXE-0206-100:

o
the pilot has identified a relevant use of the tablet in the flight preparation phase, in
collaboration with the OCC staff. He has also confirmed a non relevant use of the
tablet during flight execution, due to the absence of in-flight connectivity.
6.1.4.1 Conclusions
The conclusions have been derived based on the joint analysis of the 3 executed exercises, and is
documented in section 8.1 below.
The recommendations have been derived based on the joint analysis of the 3 executed exercises,
and is documented in section 8.2 below.
67 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
This exercise addresses the improvement of the Airline KPIs, through the use and end-to-end process
involving both the Ground and the Pilot.
It aims at demonstrating the benefits of using advanced new MET products on Brussels Airlines
flights, in order to:
-
-
demonstrations
-
-
-
platform.
operational use of the “BEL ground and aircraft segments” (center and bottom right of the diagram).
68 of 103
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-200
Exercise Title
Edition 00.01.02
Actual
Exercise
execution
start date
Airline
to-end
assessment)
Actual
Exercise
execution
end date
29/08/2014
Actual
Actual
Exercise
Exercise end
start
date
analysis date
7/07/2014
19/09/2014
executed with the end-to-end airline process, triggered from the ground when MET hazards warnings
have been issued:
Date
From/To
City
04/07/14
04/07/14
04/07/14
23/07/14
24/07/14
24/07/14
25/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
30/07/14
31/07/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
22/08/14
NAP-BRU
BRU-BIO
LIS-BRU
BRU-FSC
BRU-GVA
EBBR-LEMD
EBBR-GMAD
EDI-BRU
LIRF-EBBR
BIO-BRU
LTBJ-EBBR
TLV-BRU
BRU-DLA
BRU-BJM
BCN-BRU
BCN-BRU
BRU-MAD
MLG-BRU
EBBR-UUDD
Naples
Bilbao
Lisbon
Figari
Geneva
Madrid
Agadir
Edinburgh
Roma
Bilbao
Izmir
Tel-Aviv
Douala
Bujumbura
Barcelona
Barcelona
Madrid
Malaga
Moscow
22/08/14
22/08/14
BCN-BRU
MLG-BRU
Barcelona
Malaga
69 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Demonstration Plan:

insertion in the current organization of BEL, and to take into account a number of local

o
o
o
o

o
the concept.

o
o
70 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
decisions

The results of the exercise are summarized in section 5.1.2, Table 14 above.
The results of the exercise are summarized in section 5.2, Table 16 above.


right actor)
In summary for exercise EXE-0206-200 (Airline, end-to-end assessment):
o
71 of 103
o
Edition 00.01.02
o
The following points may be highlighted for EXE-02026-200:

Operational significance: .
o
a detailed analysis has been conducted with BEL operational staff, to identify the
most representative MET-impact scenarios expected to be encountered during actual
operations.
o
A similar analysis has been conducted as well with DSNA in EXE-0206-300. The
trials have allowed to better assess the actual level of impact of those scenarios, and
to get an indication on their frequency of occurrence. The flights selected for the postanalysis correspond well to some of the “template scenarios” which have been
defined, hence are considered as operationally relevant. A longer trial period, would
have allowed capturing further types of scenarios of low or seasonal occurrence. Also
some of the considered “template scenarios” have been proved as having a much
lower impact as initially predicted (e.g. the use of in-flight de-icing devices, which has
finally a very limited impact on fuel consumption).

o
the number of statistical samples has been relatively low (less than 5 flights per
investigated scenario type). Hence the statistical representativeness has to be
considered as low. However, especially for MET-impact scenario S03 (in flight
rerouting), the few samples analysed have shown a relative consistency in their
statistical distribution.
6.2.4.1 Conclusions
72 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
This exercise addresses the improvement of the ANSP KPIs,
It aims at demonstrating the benefits of using advanced new MET products on flights overflying the
LFBB FIR, in order to:
-
-
demonstrations
-
-
-
platform.
operational use of the “DSNA ground segments” (upper right part of the diagram).
73 of 103
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-300
Exercise Title
FMP improvement
Edition 00.01.02
Actual
Exercise
execution
start date
1/05/2014
Actual
Exercise
execution
end date
31/08/2014
Actual
Actual
Exercise
Exercise end
start
date
analysis date
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
In total, 848 flights, executed during 12 days, have been taken into account in the post analysis.
The table below summarizes the list of the control days executed as per EXE-0206-300, when MET
hazards regulations have been issued:
DATE
Sectors
Duration
Delay
3:00
659'
0:17
102'
21-05
P123 15h/18h
23-06
L4 06h00/06h17
Tact posée à 14h29 Taux 42/47/53
MTO"CB"
Tact posée à 04h10 Taux 36 MTO
X4 06h/07h40
Tact posée à 04h09 Taux 43/40 MTO
1:40
195'
X4 09h00/11h00
Tact CNL à 08h40 Taux 43 MTO
0:00
47'
X4 19h20/20h40
1:20
219'
28-06
R4 16h00/17h15
1:15
464'
1:15
288'
Tact posée à 16h07 Cnl 19h00 Taux
35/39/43 MTO
2:29
1 199'
01-07
R3
16h00/17h15
X4
16h31/19h00
ZX414h30/15h0
6
ZX1
15h00/16h05
X4 15h40/16h44
0:36
907'
1:05
190'
1:04
267'
X4 19h00/21h20
0:00
171'
0:10
92'
03-07
07-07
X4 06h00/08h00
Tact posée à 16h00 Taux 41 CNL à
18h41 MTO
19-07
R4 08h20/15h00
Tact CNL à 10h10 Taux 40/44 MTO
1:50
524'
20-07
P3 15h50/18h00
2:10
843'
25-07
RL1
12h40/16h20
RL2
12h40/16h40
RL3
12h40/17h15
RL4
12h40/19h20
X4 18h20/20h00
3:40
466'
4:00
1050'
4:35
619'
6:40
1933'
Tact posée à 16h27 Taux 43 46 MTO
1:40
611'
NH4
16h00/18h40
Tact posée à 15h47 Taux 49/51/53 MTO
2:40
1106'
02 08
74 of 103
03 08
R4 10h20/12h00
X4 08h40/12h40
08 08
P123
16h20/16h40
ZX4
18h20/21h00
Edition 00.01.02
Tact posée à 09h10 Cnl à 10h18 Taux 44
MTO
47 MTO
Tact posée à 14h30 Taux 51 Weather
0:00
275'
0:40
311'
0:20
215'
Tact posée à 16h07 Taux 53 Cnl à 20h17
Weather
1:57
1623'
Demonstration Plan:


o
o
o

o

o
o
decisions
75 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
The results of the exercise are summarized in section 5.1.2, Table 15 above.
The results of the exercise are summarized in section 5.2, Table 16 above.


right actor)
In summary for exercise EXE-0206-300 (ATC/FMP):
o
o
The following points may be highlighted for EXE-0206-300::

76 of 103
o
Edition 00.01.02
a detailed analysis has been conducted with DSNA operational staff, to identify the
most representative MET-impact scenarios expected to be encountered during actual
operations. The trials have allowed to better assess the actual level of impact of those
scenarios, and to get an indication on their frequency of occurrence. The flights
selected for the post-analysis correspond well to some of the “template scenarios”
which have been defined, hence are considered as operationally relevant. A longer
trial period, would have allowed capturing further types of scenarios of low or
seasonal occurrence. Also some of the considered “template scenarios” have been
proved as having a much lower impact as initially predicted (e.g. the use of in-flight
de-icing devices, which has finally a very limited impact on fuel consumption).

o
then in EXE-0206-200 (> 800 flights) hence the statistical representativeness can be
considered as much greater.
6.3.4.1 Conclusions
77 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
7 Summary of the Communication Activities
Effective and dynamic communication is one of the key success factors behind all SESAR activities.
For this reason, the TOPMET consortium decided to develop a specific communication plan to build a
consistent and clear image of the TOPMET demonstration project, and to adapt TOPMET information
to different audiences (highlighting the benefits and rationale for each of its target groups).
Communication on the on-going work and dissemination of the project’s benefits has been conducted
regularly and consistently throughout project execution, in line with the communication plan and the
schedule defined and validated at the beginning of the project.
At this stage, all proposed communication tools have been developed as planned except for the
timing which was off schedule (due to delays with the trial flights). The communication actions
scheduled concerning the publication of results from the trial flights will be carried out between
September and November 2014.
In this report, each action is briefly described, outlining the targets, the schedule, the achievements,
etc.
The first part summarises the details of the initial communication plan and the main targets, the
expected action levels and the different proposed channels to communicate.
The second part explains the tools developed and gives a breakdown of the on-going and soon to be
finalised actions.
7.1 Initial communication plan
The main objective of the initial TOPMET communication plan was to propose the best way forward to
adequately communicate the objectives, activities and results of TOPMET and to show how to
disseminate TOPMET key messages to stakeholders.
7.1.1 Three communication stakes
ACCESSIBILITY
VALUE
MOBILISATION
Convey, share, explain, and enable targets groups to be aware of and
understand the TOPMET demonstration project, stakes, the experts’ knowhow, the objectives and the expected results, in order to build a consistent
and clear image.
Feature TOPMET information with notions of benefits and meaning to its
targets, and build a positive image.
Heighten public awareness of the project’s challenges, increase TOPMET
players’ influence over the different stakeholders, support the target
audiences, generate information exchange (especially with the media) and
play a bigger part in decision-making.
78 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
7.1.2 Three work areas (targets)
Three work areas have been defined:
-
Professionals, MET and aeronautical stakeholders involved in ATM;
-
Journalists which are the information liaisons between TOPMET partners, the professional
world and the general public (e.g. airline passengers) (the last target group).
At this stage, 70% of TOPMET communication actions targeted professionals, 20% targeted media
and 10% targeted the general public.
TOPMET
(SESAR)
The MET/ AERO
stakeholders
The general public
(passengers…)
The information
liaisons
(media…)
(Airlines, aircraft
manufacturers, ANSP,
experts, associations,
institutions…)
7.1.3 Three expected action levels for TOPMET
Three action levels for TOPMET with several diffusion channels were suggested at the beginning of
the project.
PROPOSED CHANNELS
SESAR JU and partners’ annual reports;
Power point presentation / General presentation;
TOPMET brochures;
TOPMET roll-up;
Short film introducing the project;
Communication campaign targeting passengers.
1
Introducing and
disseminating information:
The demonstration project’s
major stakes, the new MET
services, objectives, expected
results…






2
Animating and boosting
the TOPMET network
 Press relations (national and international);
 SESAR JU and partners’ websites + E-news;
 LinkedIn campaign.
3
Taking a prominent position
and creating contacts
 Professional congresses and other events.
79 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
7.1.4 Initial schedule
7.2 The developed communication tools
The part below concerns the communication tools that have been developed since the beginning of
the project.
Each action is briefly described. The deviations, negative or positive, from the initial communication
objectives are also justified below.
7.2.1 Synthesis- general presentation
The first tool developed was a general presentation of the project to explain the global context, the
global issues of such a project, to present the partners and the schedule of the first trials and the
expected benefits for each stakeholder.
Short description:

Power point presentation (15 slides);

A unique, uniform and harmonised presentation, designed for all of the partners, usable in
front of any audience;

A predefined argumentation that highlights the project’s key messages.
Targets: professionals and media.
80 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Progress:

Achieved;

Updated in September 2014 with the last results of the trial flights.
Context of its use / dissemination:

Visibility on the SESAR website (page dedicated to TOPMET);

Used to grant access to speeches by the partners. For example: speech of Dennis Hart from
Eurocontrol during the ICAO ATMRPP meeting in March 2014;
 120 copies distributed during the ICAO MET Divisional Meeting in Montreal in July 2014.
7.2.2 Brochures
TOPMET Brochures was an essential tool to introduce the project, to present TOPMET‘s outlines
attractively (stakes/ overall context in relation to SESAR, short description of the new meteorological
services, the experts, the expected benefits…).
Short description:

4 pages (A4 Paper format);
Progress:

Achieved;

Updated in September 2014 with the last results of the trial flights.


Dissemination of the TOPMET brochures during professional events:
-
World ATM Congress in Madrid in March 2014;
-
ICAO MET Divisional Meeting in Montreal in July 2014;
-
ATC Global in Beijing in September 2014.
500 copies distributed.
7.2.3 Roll-up
TOPMET roll-up constitutes a mobile support to generate a high visual impact at an exhibition
stand, to emphasise key messages and to present TOPMET partners
Short description:

A kakemono which can be rolled up (800×2000 mm).
81 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Progress: achieved.

Shown during main events:
-
World ATM Congress in Madrid (from 3 to 6 March 2014) ;
-
ICAO MET Divisional Meeting in Montreal (from 8 to 10 July 2014).
7.2.4 Poster
The poster was specifically designed for the Eurocontrol SESAR SWIM Days in Bretigny
(France, June 2014). It was a technical even that brought together the SESAR community to share
the latest developments in the area of the SWIM technical infrastructure (via demonstrations and
workshops).
Short description:

A0 paper format (841×1189 mm);

To present SWIM focus.
Targets: professionals.
Progress: achieved.

Displayed during the Eurocontrol SESAR SWIM DAYS in Brétigny (June 2014).
7.2.5 User Manuals
Three user guides have been developed targeting the main users of the TOPMET systems:
pilots, AOC and ATC. The goal was to explain simply how to use TOPMET infrastructures and the
MET products displayed.
Short description:

3 user guides targeting pilots, AOC and ATC;

Around 16 pages for each guide;

Contents:
82 of 103
-
Edition 00.01.02
How to use TOPMET AOC, application startup, general overview, toolbar, map view,
flight list, decision panel, MET data and display and other panels;
-
Description of each MET product: geographical coverage, refresh rate and validity
period, short description, attributes, technical specifications, severity threshold…
Progress:

Achieved;

It will be soon updated with the latest technical developments.

Used by the different stakeholders of the trial flights
7.2.6 Short film
The goal of this tool is to get an attractive communication support to be used during the main events
or be shared on the partners’ websites.
Short description:

Institutional film (4 minutes);

To clarify TOPMET’s messages and to make them readable and accessible;

To increase TOPMET’s visibility at exhibition stands or on the internet;

Content: the great technical, economic and environmental stakes, the overall SESAR context,
the TOPMET demonstration programme’s scope, the project’s objectives, the expected
results and interviews of experts involved in the project.
Targets: professionals + media.
Progress:

Forthcoming;

To be soon finalised (waiting for Brussels Airlines and DSNA specific footage). Several days
of shooting are planned in October 2014.

To be shown on the SESAR website;

To be shown during future main professional events at the SESAR and THALES exhibition
stands.
83 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
7.3 Diffusion channels
The following section concerns the description of the eight diffusion channels of the main
communication tools identified at the start of the project.
7.3.1 Partners’ annual reports
One of the first diffusion channels is the annual reports of the main partners. This is an external
communication support which can easily promote such programme to the greatest number of targets.
Concerning the annual reports published in 2014, a TOPMET article was included in:
 Météo-France annual report (2013);
 Météo-France R&D annual report (2013);
Regarding the other partners, most of them plan to publish a TOPMET article in their 2014 annual
reports published in 2015.
Progress:

Achieved;

Making a connection with the partners’ communication teams in the early 2015 (annual report
2014 of EUMETNET, DWD, Brussels Airlines, DSNA…);

Might be combined with TOPLINK project.
7.3.2 Partners’ E-News
The partners’ Newsletter, disseminated each month via E-mail is particularly an essential tool.
Several publications were scheduled in the SESAR (December 2013) and DSNA E-News.
It should be noted that a future presentation of TOPMET project is also scheduled in the monthly
video shown in all DSNA technical centres.
Progress:

Achieved;

See in October 2014 for a new publication in these both documents;
84 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
7.3.3 Partners’ Websites
TOPMET article was published on:
 The SESAR website (December 2013)400 unique views between January and July 2014 (on average two views per day);
 The DWD website;
 The Thales intranet site.
Thanks to these publications, when we search on google “TOPMET SESAR”, we find a lot of
information about this project and points of contact. The TOPMET visibility on the Web has
significantly increased.
Progress:

Achieved;

See in October 2014 for a publication on the websites of the other partners.
7.3.4 Professional network (LinkedIn)
The TOPMET visibility on the web has also increased thanks to the professional network, LinkedIn.
We have disseminated TOPMET information via:
 The personal web page of partners;
 The personal web page of SESAR communication team;
 The SESAR JU professional groups.
The SJU LinkedIn group has just under 4,500 members.
Progress:

Achieved;

See in September 2014 for a new publication.
7.3.5 Inflight magazines
With regard to the communication targeting passengers of Brussels Airlines, an article will be
published in three languages (Dutch, English and French) in the magazines offered on board
(European and African flights, October and November editions). Two magazines are concerned:
85 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
 b.spirit!- a Brussels Airlines' bi-monthly magazine distributed on the medium and long-haul
flights;
 b.there- a Brussels Airlines' monthly magazine distributed on the short haul flight.
About 25,000 copies of the magazine are printed monthly.
Targets: Passengers
Progress:

Future publication in the October and November editions.
7.3.6 Professional events (TOPMET demonstration)
The next part concerns the TOPMET demonstration and dissemination of brochures during the main
professional events:

SESAR FORUM of the DSNA in Toulouse (5 February 2014):

DSNA internal event;

Targeting all of the DSNA SESAR contributors, the SESAR affiliates and partners, the
SESAR French commitee and directions of DSNA entities;

TOPMET demonstration and explanations.

World ATM Congress in Madrid (from 3 to 6 March 2014):

TOPMET demonstration at the THALES exhibition stand (via the "Link by Thales");

Roll-up and brochures displayed at the exhibition stands (SJU+THALES), press room
and meeting rooms;

THALES press meeting (about a dozen journalists) with a TOPMET demonstration;

TOPMET article published in the ATM magazine.

EUROCONTROL SESAR SWIM Day in Bretigny (22 May 2014):

Yearly technical event brings together the SESAR community to share the latest
developments in the area of SWIM technical infrastructure (demonstrations and
workshops);

4 TOPMET demonstrations in real time during the workshop;

TOPMET poster displayed in the meeting room.
86 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
DSNA SWIM DAYS with EUROCONTROL in Toulouse (6 June 2014):

DSNA internal event;

Targeting the whole of the DSNA SESAR contributors, the SESAR affiliates and
partners, the SESAR French commitee and directions of DSNA entities;

TOPMET demonstration and explanations.

ICAO MET DIVISIONAL MEETING in Montreal (from 8 to 10 July 2014):

Participation of Member States and invited international organisations,

Objectives: providing the international civil aviation community the opportunity to
address, as a whole, issues vital to the current and future provision of aeronautical
meteorological services;

A dozen TOPMET demonstrations and explanations at the THALES exhibition stand;

150 copies of the TOPMET brochures distributed;

120 copies of the general TOPMET presentation distributed.
Targets: professionals

TOPMET brochure dissemination in :

ATC Global in Beijing (from 17 to 19 September 2014) in the SESAR and THALES
exhibition stands;

MET Technology World Expo in Brussels (from 21 to 23 October 2014).
Targets: professionals
Future events to be validated:

AEROMART (International Business Convention for Aerospace Industries) in Toulouse (from
2 to 4 December 2014);

GLOBAL AVIATION TRAINING AND TRAINAIR PLUS SYMPOSIUM in Dakar (organised by
ICAO and ASECNA) (form 9 to 12 December 2014);

WAC in Madrid (from 10 to 12 March 2015);

AERO (International event for aviation) in Friedrichshafen in Germany (April 2015);

CANNES AIR SHOW (international exhibition for general aviation and business) in Cannes
(June 2015);

SIAE (Aeronautical and spatial international exhibition) in Bourget (from 15 to 21 June 2015);

AIRPLUS ISTANBUL (Exhibition of Technologies and equipment for aviation) in Istanbul
(June 2015);

ATC Global 2015 (September 2015);
87 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
MET Techno World Expo 2015 in Brussels (October 2015).
7.3.7 Press relations
7.3.7.1 Initial schedule (communication targeting media)
It should be noted that we were not able to conduct the phase n°1 and n°3 because the trial flights
were deferred to June 2014. Because of vacations, the summer period was not an ideal period to
disseminate TOPMET information to journalists. The final phase (final report) remains the best
communication opportunity to disseminate TOPMET information targeting journalists.
7.3.7.2 Achievements
Concerning the communication actions targeting the media, the main achievements at this stage
are:

Press mailing list implemented (European media);

TOPMET demonstration during the World ATM Congress in Madrid with around 10 journalists
in the THALES exhibition stand;

Météo-France expert interview at the end of 2013 with ATM Magazine;

TOPMET article published in the special ATM magazine in March 2014 (during the WAC);
88 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
Forthcoming:

Future TOPMET article to be published at the end of 2014 in the ATM magazine (publication
of a meteo special report);

Press release in October 2014 (for the publication of the final report);

AERONEWS TV report probably in October 2014 (to be confirmed).
7.4 The final communication schedule
The overall schedule of the last year is displayed below.
The forthcoming actions are indicated in red. This concerns essentially the on-going actions to
promote the trials’ results or project conclusions.
It should also be noted that a TOPMET event organisation (by the end of 2014) targeting ATM and
airspace users is currently being discussed.
89 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
8 Next Steps
8.1 Conclusions

members,






environment
90 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
8.2 Recommendations
8.2.1 Overview


To improve the operational procedure on how to use the tools and how they can be inserted
in the daily operational processes of BEL and DSNA

To implement the above described changes in the TOPLINK LSDA trials (in the relevant use
cases involving BEL and /or DSNA)

To take the lessons learned into account in the other TOPLINK LSDA use cases, with other
Airline partners (Air France, Air Corsica, ENAC for GA) or ANSP partners (Croatia Control,
Austrocontrol)


Apart of those changes, some limited “fine tuning” adjustments may be introduced on:

The overall operational concept

The definition of KPIs and metrics

The definition of demonstration objectives
8.2.2 Recommended system evolutions
8.2.2.1 Provision of MET information:
The main recommendations to improve the MET information would be:

To have a unified picture per Weather hazard type (CAT, icing, convection…). The
differences btw multiple products addressing the same phenomena (e.g. ASPOC vs. RDT vs.
CB forecast UK, Icing UK vs Icing DWD, etc…) is perceived as potentially confusing

To refine the impact thresholds for each phenomenon (i.e., what are the values to
discriminate btw:
o
light: no impact, should not even be displayed
o
moderate: possible impact- analysis to refine; may depend on aircraft type and pilot’s
own experience
o
severe: to be avoided without any discussion
91 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
To improve the forecast horizon (3 h absolute mandatory, 6 to 12h desired), and ensure a
seamless transition between observations & forecast

To improve the accuracy of the vertical information (i.e. to enable pilots answering
consistently the question: “considering my current FL, am I concerned or not by this weather
hazard?”)

To improve the reliability of the MET forecasts by reducing the false alarm rate for MET
hazards.
This should be reached through the use of the new WP11.2 prototype of the MISC (4DWxCube) to be
delivered in 2015, which as far as possible should take into account the previous recommendations.
8.2.2.2 Supporting tools for Airline AOC (ground):
The main recommendations to improve the NM OCC tools would be:

To refine the selection of the most relevant MET information, having an impact on flight
operations , based on OCC feedbacks

To improve the “look & feel”, HMI, ergonomics, … of the AOC application according to
detailed NM OCCs feedback

To refine
the operational procedures (especially the interaction between OCC, Flight
Dispatch, and Pilots)

To interface with Flight planning & Flight monitoring tools already in place
8.2.2.3 Supporting tools for Airline pilots:
The main recommendations to improve the Pilots tools would be:

To include in-flight connectivity to enable for in-flight update of the MET situation and uplink of
suggested avoidance routes

operations, based on Pilot’s feedback

To improve the “look & feel”, HMI, ergonomics, … of the Tablet application according to
detailed pilot’s feedback

To refine
the operational procedures (especially the interaction between OCC, Flight
Dispatch, and Pilots)
8.2.2.4 Supporting tools for ATC / FMPs:
The main recommendations to improve the FMP tools would be:

operations, based on Pilot’s, OCC, and FMPs feedback

To improve tuning of thresholds & decision algorithms according to FMP, NM OCCs and
Pilots feedback
92 of 103

Edition 00.01.02
To improve the “look & feel”, HMI, ergonomics, … of the FMP application according to
detailed FMPs feedback

To refine the operational procedures (especially the interaction between FMPs, ATCOs,
Pilots,…)
93 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
9 References
9.1 Applicable Documents
[1] EUROCONTROL ATM Lexicon
https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://atmlexicon.eurocontrol.int/en/index.php/SESAR
9.2 Reference Documents
[1] AATM Master Plan
https://www.atmmasterplan.eu
[2] TOPMET Demonstration Plan, Edition 00.01.01, contractual deliverable D01, issued
18/12/2012
[3] TOPMET Demonstration Objectives, Edition 00.01.01, non contractual deliverable D002,
issued 26/07/2013
[4] TOPMET Technical Specification, Edition 00.01.01, non contractual deliverable D003,
issued 26/07/2013
[5] TOPMET Verification report, Edition 00.01.00, non contractual deliverable D004, issued
29/09/2014
94 of 103
Appendix A
Edition 00.01.02
KPA Results
The KPA results are summarized in the table below.
Details on their computations are provided in Appendix D.
95 of 103
KPA
EFFICIENCY
(FUEL)
EFFICIENCY
(COST)
SAFETY
Objectiv
e ID
Measuring Process
and Criteria
Expected Benefit
TOPMET Results
Comparison between
actual and hypothetical
flight data
Reduce by 20% the
additional fuel
consumption due to MET
consumption reduced from 2356 kg to
1751 kg, over 4 flights)
.
MET, based on EXE-0206-200, S01 MET-impact
Comparison between
flight data
Reduce by 20% the
additional fuel
consumption due to MET
consumption reduced from 4700 kg to
1000 kg, over 1 flight).
Comparison between
flight data
Reduce by 10% the
additional flight cost due
to MET
Cumulated additional flight cost due to MET based
on EXE-0206-200, S01 MET-impact scenario
(diversion)
Comparison between
flight data
Reduce by 10% the
to MET
Cumulated additional flight cost due to MET based
on EXE-0206-300,
Comparison between
flight data
Reduce by 10% the
to MET
Severe
turbulence
impacting PAX
comfort
Cumulated period of flight with vertical/horizontal
acceleration above threshold, , based on EXE0206-200, S12 MET-impact scenario (high
turbulence)
Comparison between
flight data
Reduction of at least 10
%
OBJ0206-300
Extra flight
delay due to
MET
rerouting)
Comparison between
flight data
Reduce by 20% the
additional time delay due
to MET
OBJ0206-700
Extra flight
delay due to
MET
Cumulated unexpected delays induced by MET
over FIR (vs initial flight plans), based on EXE0206-300,
Comparison between
flight data
Reduce by 20% the
additional time delay due
to MET
OBJ0206-100
OBJ0206-200
OBJ0206-400
KPI
Edition 00.01.02
Extra fuel
consumption
due to MET
Extra flight
cost due to
MET
PREDICTA
BILITY
Metric
MET, based on EXE-0206-200, S03 MET-impact
19% reduction (MET-induced extra cost
reduced from 1937 € to 1561 €, over 4
flights)
.
73% reduction (MET-related extra cost
reduced from 3748 € to 1020 €, over 1
flight – not taking into account the
indirect cost –related to PAX).
18 % reduction (from 488 k€ to 399 k€
cumulated cost, over 12 days, for 848
flights, i.e. in average 104 € gain per
flight).
trials period
33% reduction (MET-induced extra flight
duration reduced from 9 mn to 6 mn,
over 4 flights)
days, for 848 flights, i.e. in average 3
mn gain per flight
96 of 103
Appendix B
Edition 00.01.02
Communication material
B1- Synthesis- general presentation
B2- Brochures
97 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
B3- Roll-up and poster
B4- User Manuals
B5- Short film
98 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
B6- Partners’ E-News and Websites
B7- Professional network (LinkedIn)
99 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
B8- Inflight magazines
B9- Professional events (TOPMET demonstration)
B10- Press relations
100 of 103
Appendix C
Edition 00.01.02
TOPMET Demonstration Exercise Report
See document: D02 Appendix C - TOPMET Demonstration Exercises Report, Edition 00.01.00.
101 of 103
Appendix D
Edition 00.01.02
TOPMET Performance Synthesis Report
See document: “D02 Appendix D - TOPMET Performance Synthesis Report, Edition 00.01.00.
102 of 103
Edition 00.01.02
-END OF DOCUMENT-
103 of 103
D02 Appendix C - TOPMET
Demonstration Exercises Report
Project Title
TOPMET
Project Number
02.06
Project Manager
THALES AIR SYSTEMS
Deliverable Name
D02 Appendix C - TOPMET Demonstration Exercises Report
Edition
00.01.00
Template version
01.00.00
Task contributors
THALES Avionics
Abstract
to improved flight efficiency and improved airspace capacity. This report details the
execution of the flight trials, performed respectively with Brussels Airlines in JulyAugust 2014, and with DSNA, between May and August 2014.
Edition 00.01.00
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
TR6 Contributor
24/09/2014
24/09/2014
BEL contributor
24/09/2014
Pieter STEURBAUT / Brussels Airlines
BEL contributor
24/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Project Coordinator
24/09/2014
24/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
None
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Project Coordinator
EUMETNET & UKMO
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
None
None.
Document History
Edition
Date
Status
Author
Justification
00.00.01
18/08/2014
Initial Draft
D. Muller
New Document
00.00.02
24/09/2014
Final Draft
D. Latge
Updated document
00.01.00
29/09/2014
First Issue
D. Latge
2 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Table of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT............................................................................................................... 6
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................................... 6
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1
2.1.4 Project scope ................................................................................................................................ 12
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
4.1
DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE EXE-0206-100 .................................................................................... 41
4.1.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 41
4.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise .......................................................................................... 41
4.2
4.2.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 42
4.3
4.3.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 54
4.3.2 Conduct of Demonstration exercise EXE-0206-300 ............................................................... 54
5
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 60
5.1
5.2
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS................................................................................................................... 60
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. 60
List of tables
Table 4: Scenarios / Decisions matrix ................................................................................................... 30
Table 5: Exercises execution/analysis dates ........................................................................................ 33
Table 6: Exercise EXE-0206-100 summary .......................................................................................... 35
3 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
List of figures
4 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Executive summary
capacity.

members,









5 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
1 Introduction
This document provides the Demonstration Exercises report for the TOPMET project. It describes the
results of demonstration exercises defined in the “TOPMET Demonstration Plan”, version 00.01.01,
issued on 18/12/2012, and refined in the “TOPMET Demonstration Objectives”, version 00.01.01,
issued on 26/07/2013, and how they have been conducted.

The SESAR Joint Undertaking, since this document describes the details of the results
obtained from the demonstration trials;

execution phase.
-
-
-
-
Section 4 presents the exercise reports for each demonstration exercise.
NA
Term
Definition
ATM
DOD
E-ATMS
E-OCVM
6 of 61
Term
Edition 00.01.00
Definition
OFA
SESAR
SESAR Programme
SJU
Undertaking Agency.
4DWxCube
A-CDM
ACC
Area Control Centre
ADD
AIRMET
ANSP
AOP
APOC
APP
ATCO
ATM
CAT
Category
CONOPS
DCB
DOD
E-ATMS
E-OCVM
EOBD
Estimated Off-Block Date
EOBT
Estimated Off-Block Time
ETA
Estimated Time of Arrival
FIC
7 of 61
Term
Edition 00.01.00
Definition
FOC
ICAO
iCWP
IP
INTEROP
IRS
KPA
LVC
LVP
MET
METAR
METSP
NMSP
NOP
OFA
OI
OPS
Operational
OSED
PAC
Operational Package
QFE
QNH
RVT
SARPS
SESAR
SESAR Program
SIGMET
8 of 61
Term
Edition 00.01.00
Definition
SJU
SJU Work Program
Agency.
SPC
SPR
SUT
System Under Test
SWIM
TAD
TAF
TBS
TREND
Landing forecast
TS
TWR
UDPP
VALP
Validation Plan
VALR
Validation Report
VALS
Validation Strategy
VP
Verification Plan
VR
Verification Report
VS
WDS
WMO
WOC
WP
Work Package
WV
Wake Vortex
Wx
Weather
9 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
SESAR Programme
capacity.





regions.
10 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Temperature,…).
and beyond.

members,




11 of 61

Edition 00.01.00

environment
2.1.4 Project scope

TOPMET trials

12 of 61
Edition 00.01.00

o
o


400),




August 29, 2014.
13 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Brussels Airlines
OFA addressed
ground data sharing
14 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Brussels Airlines
OFA addressed
ground data sharing
specific analyses)
15 of 61
DSNA
OFA addressed
Edition 00.01.00
DNM.
KPI assessment)
16 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
platform.

Activity 1.1:

Activity 1.2:

Activity 1.3:
and processes

Activity 1.4:
reference [5]).
17 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
18 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
ACC.
trained, pilot.
19 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Roles
Time
TOPMET
coordinator
BEL TOPMET
Ground PoC
BEL TOPMET
Pilot
BEL fuel
efficiency
Manager
- Connect TOPMET
based on TOPMET
Flight Report in
TOPMET Tablet
Day N
(Preflight)
- Depending on MET
evolutions during
based on TOPMET
Day N
(Execution)
If severe situation
confirmed:
scenario type;
- report actual
decision taken
Report in TOPMET
Tablet
Day N
(Post-flight)
When tablet is back
in BEL OCC:
- consolidate Pilot
feedback reports
- upload reports in
TOPMET Data
Center
20 of 61
Post-flight
daily
Edition 00.01.00
- download & check
in Data Center
- trigger TOPMET
- recover missing
paper info, scan &
download into Data
Center
consolidation
(D+1)
is complete
Post-flight
weekly
consolidation
Consolidate all
information &
compute estimated
KPIs
Check validity of
estimated KPIs
21 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Roles
Time
TOPMET
coordinator
- Monitor alerts in
TOPMET OCC tool
- If impacting MET
event detected,
prepare "trigger"
report including
proposed decision
to BEL PoC on duty
by email
Execution
Day N
BEL TOPMET
Ground PoC
BEL Pilot
BEL fuel
efficiency
Manager
- Monitor alerts in
TOPMET OCC tool
- assess the actual
severity of the MET
situation using
TOPMET OCC Tool,
and other available
means in OCC
confirmed, contact
Pilot via ACARS
(S1-S13);
- report
recommended
decision taken by
pilot
If contacted by BEL
PoC:
based on visual &
WXR
- feedback BEL PoC
by ACARS on actual
status & decision
taken
report and Pilot
feedback
- upload
consolidated event
report in TOPMET
Data Center
22 of 61
Post-flight
daily
Edition 00.01.00
- check all actions
performed
-download & check
all data reports
- trigger TOPMET
consolidation
(D+1)
- recover missing
paper info, scan &
download into Data
Center
Check all
information are
complete
Post-flight
weekly
consolidation
Consolidate all
information &
compute estimated
KPIs
Check validity of
estimated KPIs





23 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
assessment.
positive benefits.
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
Target:
24 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Related SESAR KPI:
Safety
Performance Index:
above threshold
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Target:
20% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (cost)
Performance Index:
Target:
10% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
compared to plan
Target:
20% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Safety
Performance Index:
above threshold
Target:
10 % reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Capacity (Airspace)
Performance Index:
Target:
3% gain (tbc)
25 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Related SESAR KPI:
-
Performance Index:
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
Target:
3% reduction (tbc)
(Unchanged)
Related SESAR KPI:
Capacity (Airspace)
Performance Index:
Target:
3% gain
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
Target:
20 % reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Cost efficiency
Performance Index:
Target:
10 % reduction
26 of 61
Edition 00.01.00

reduce loss »):
o
en-route
o
en-route
o
o

gain »)
o
o
(wind/temp, …)
27 of 61

Edition 00.01.00
o
grounded


aircraft de-icing
o
not
o

o
shear…
o

o
high winds…
o

o
28 of 61

Edition 00.01.00
o

o
dispatcher & pilot

o

o

o

o

o

o
29 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Divertion
/ MET @ ARR
Holding
/ MET @ ARR
/ MET En Route
De-icing in-flight
Sub-optimal ER
profile
Sub-optimal climb /
descent profile
TOT change
/ MET @ DEP
TOT change
/ aircraft de-icing
TOT change
/ re-tanking
Fl. Duration Change
/ MET En Route
TOA change
/ MET @ ARR
MET-related PAX /
crew discomfort
MET-related
Pilot stress
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S07a
S07b
S08
S09
S10
S11
S12
S13
table below:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


S13)
o

o
30 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Extra cost of
flight as it
occurred.
Potential TOPMET
saving
Extra cost would
TOPMET decision
have been used.
Cost of flight if
meteo phenomenon
did not occur.
This is a
hypothetical
OFP).
Hypothetical
flight
Real
flight
Hypothetical
flight


flight:

Situation report:

MET situations:
31 of 61

Edition 00.01.00
Flight Plans

Flight Tracks



tools.
32 of 61
Edition 00.01.00



NOP)

associated features

Exercise ID
EXE-0206-100
EXE-0206-200
EXE-0206-300
Exercise Title
Actual
Exercise
execution
start date
Airline
improvement
1/07/2014
(pilots-driven
assessment)
Airline
to-end
assessment)
Actual
Exercise
execution
end date
Actual
Actual
Exercise
Exercise end
start
date
analysis date
1/09/2014
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
29/08/2014
7/07/2014
19/09/2014
31/08/2014
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
33 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
executed with the pilot using the TOPMET tablet (in total 79 flights):
Date
From/To
City
01/07/14
01/07/14
02/07/14
02/07/14
02/07/14
04/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
08/07/14
08/07/14
08/07/14
09/07/14
09/07/14
10/07/14
10/07/14
16/07/14
16/07/14
16/07/14
17/07/14
17/07/14
17/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
24/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
30/07/14
30/07/14
31/07/14
04/08/14
04/08/14
BRU-RAK
RAK-BRU
BRU-CPH
BRU-GOT
GOT-BRU
FCO-BRU
BRU-MAN
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
MAN-BRU
BRU-MXP
MXP-BRU
BRU-MXP
MXP-BRU
BRU-BIO
BIO-BRU
BRU-BMA
BRU-FSC
FSC-BRU
BMA-BRU
BRU-SXB
SXB-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-MAD
MAD-BRU
BRU-SVQ
BRU-OSL
BRU-GOT
GOT-BRU
BRU-EDI
OSL-BRU
EDI-BRU
BRU-BSL
BSL-BRU
Marrakech
Marrakech
Copenhagen
Goteborg
Goteborg
Roma
Manchester
Geneva
Geneva
Geneva
Geneva
Manchester
Milano
Milano
Milano
Milano
Bilbao
Bilbao
Stockholm
Figari
Figari
Stockholm
Strasbourg
Strasbourg
Lyon
Lyon
Madrid
Madrid
Seville
Oslo
Goteborg
Goteborg
Edinburgh
Oslo
Edinburgh
Basel
Basel
34 of 61
04/08/14
07/08/14
07/08/14
08/08/14
08/08/14
11/08/14
11/08/14
12/08/14
21/08/14
21/08/14
21/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
23/08/14
24/08/14
25/08/14
25/08/14
27/08/14
27/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
29/08/14
29/08/14
30/08/14
30/08/14
30/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
BRU-LIN
BRU-BMA
BMA-BRU
BRU-FLR
FLR-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-LYS
BRU-GOT
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
GOT-BRU
BRU-VCE
VCE-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-LYS
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
BRU-BIO
BIO-BRU
BRU-FCO
FCO-BRU
BRU-BLQ
BLQ-BRU
BRU-SVQ
SVQ-BRU
BRU-BIO
BRU-MLA
MLA-BRU
BIO-BRU
BRU-CDG
CDG-BRU
BRU-MRS
MRS-BRU
BRU-OSL
BRU-BCN
BCN-BRU
BRU-FLR
FLR-BRU
OSL-BRU
BRU-GOT
Edition 00.01.00
Milano
Stockholm
Stockholm
Florence
Florence
Lyon
Lyon
Lyon
Goteborg
Lyon
Lyon
Goteborg
Venice
Venice
Lyon
Lyon
Lyon
Geneva
Geneva
Bilbao
Bilbao
Roma
Roma
Bologna
Bologna
Seville
Seville
Bilbao
Malta
Malta
Bilbao
Paris
Paris
Marseille
Marseille
Oslo
Barcelona
Barcelona
Florence
Florence
Oslo
Goteborg
35 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
have been issued (in total 21 flights):
Date
From/To
City
04/07/14
04/07/14
04/07/14
23/07/14
24/07/14
24/07/14
25/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
30/07/14
31/07/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
22/08/14
NAP-BRU
BRU-BIO
LIS-BRU
BRU-FSC
BRU-GVA
EBBR-LEMD
EBBR-GMAD
EDI-BRU
LIRF-EBBR
BIO-BRU
LTBJ-EBBR
TLV-BRU
BRU-DLA
BRU-BJM
BCN-BRU
BCN-BRU
BRU-MAD
MLG-BRU
EBBR-UUDD
Naples
Bilbao
Lisbon
Figari
Geneva
Madrid
Agadir
Edinburgh
Roma
Bilbao
Izmir
Tel-Aviv
Douala
Bujumbura
Barcelona
Barcelona
Madrid
Malaga
Moscow
22/08/14
22/08/14
BCN-BRU
MLG-BRU
Barcelona
Malaga
36 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
hazards regulations have been issued (in total 12 days):
DATE
Sectors
Duration
Delay
3:00
659'
0:17
102'
21-05
P123 15h/18h
23-06
L4 06h00/06h17
MTO"CB"
X4 06h/07h40
1:40
195'
X4 09h00/11h00
0:00
47'
X4 19h20/20h40
1:20
219'
28-06
R4 16h00/17h15
1:15
464'
1:15
288'
35/39/43 MTO
2:29
1 199'
01-07
R3
16h00/17h15
X4
16h31/19h00
ZX414h30/15h0
6
ZX1
15h00/16h05
X4 15h40/16h44
0:36
907'
1:05
190'
1:04
267'
X4 19h00/21h20
0:00
171'
0:10
92'
03-07
07-07
X4 06h00/08h00
18h41 MTO
19-07
R4 08h20/15h00
1:50
524'
20-07
P3 15h50/18h00
2:10
843'
25-07
3:40
466'
4:00
1050'
4:35
619'
6:40
1933'
02 08
RL1
12h40/16h20
RL2
12h40/16h40
RL3
12h40/17h15
RL4
12h40/19h20
X4 18h20/20h00
1:40
611'
2:40
1106'
03 08
NH4
16h00/18h40
R4 10h20/12h00
MTO
47 MTO
0:00
275'
0:40
311'
0:20
215'
Weather
1:57
1623'
X4 08h40/12h40
08 08
P123
16h20/16h40
ZX4
18h20/21h00
37 of 61
Edition 00.01.00

o
o


o
o
o
o

o
38 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
the concept.

o
o
decisions



o
o
o

39 of 61
o
Edition 00.01.00

o
o
decisions
40 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.1 Demonstration Exercise EXE-0206-100
See section 2.1.5.
4.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise
See section 3.1.
See section 3.2, Table 6.
See section 3.3.1.
41 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
See section 2.1.5.
See section 3.1.
A selection of the most relevant flights has been made to support further post-analysis. The sections
below provide more details on the selected flights.
4.2.2.2.1 Flight BEL1FS / SN3581 – 16 July 2014
4.2.2.2.1.1 General information
Flight ID
BEL1FS / SN3581
EOBD
16072014
EOBT
1130
ETA
1340
EBBR – LFKF
4.2.2.2.1.2 Situation description
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
In Flight
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
EN route
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
TBC
The flight could found some ASPOC en route close to departure airport.
For this flight we received a feedback from the pilot:
“CB and RDT over Southern Alps (near Nice)...
Indeed, location was very much correct, with TOPMET giving a pretty good indication of the top of
cloud, allowing us to make a decision whether to climb or to turn...
Eventually it turned out to be impossible to climb above, so turns were initiated based on visual and
wx radar info to avoid (extra track miles).”
42 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.1.3 Trajectory SN3581 screenshot.
4.2.2.2.1.4 Screenshots – SN3581 – 16/07/2014 – Network Manager Profile
(Eurocontrol data)
43 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.2 Flight BEL82C / SN3582– 16 July 2014
Flight ID
BEL82C / SN3582
LFKF – EBBR (FSC-BRU)
EOBD
16072014
EOBT
1420
ETA
1615
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
In Flight
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
EN route
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
TBC
For this flight we recived a feedback from the pilot:
“Same situation as with SN3581 above, but CBs now matured... same avoiding action taken.”
44 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
(Eurocontrol data)
45 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.3 Flight BEL9GV / SN2719 – 24 July 2014
Flight ID
BEL9GV / SN2719
EOBD
24072014
EOBT
1145
ETA
1300
EBBR – LSGG A319
RFL=310
TAS=411
N0411F310 ROUSY UT27 GTQ UN852 MOROK/N0391F230 UZ24 AKITO
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
In Flight
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
EN route
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
TBC
“•
Crew indeed encountered some CB/TS along the route to GVA, if they recall well, ca 80 NM
prior to LIRKO (located ca 25NM NW of GVA), so ca +100NM before GVA
•
They circumnavigated this WX by a 30° course change to the right for ca 60NM (rough figures,
but pretty much what is done in real life)
•
Approach into GVA was started 20NM from LIRKO, they then got an AKITO 2R arrival from
ATC (see att for chart)
•
Followed by another ATC clearance direct to SPR VOR, and a straight-in for an approach on
RWY23 (see att for chart)
Based on the facts, the following findings could be made so far
•
The scheduled time of this flight was 01h15 (Commercial Schedule Times)
•
Effective time flow was 01h14 (Note: FPL route and planned duration of the flight at this
moment unknown to me)
•
A small deviation of the intended route was performed
•
Decision was not based on Topmet or OAC tool
•
S02 Holding Pattern was not performed
•
The “Operational Decision Possibilities D03b an D04b” seem not the best ones to me
•
WX picture at moment at 100NM to GVA would certainly help, CB’s an TS can move and grow
fast”
46 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.3.3 TopMet AOC screen shot
4.2.2.2.4 Flight BEL14Z/SN3714 – 29/07/2014
Flight ID
BEL14Z / SN3714
EOBD
2907
EOBT
1300
ETA
1340
LEBB – EBBR (BIO-BRU)
47 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
Close to EBBR
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
Deviation to
LGG
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
Holding S2
Message from BEL OCC:
“I have just learned that an AVRO BEL14Z (BIO-BRU) has diverted to EBLG (Liège).
The OCC send an ACARS message to the flight crew showing that the situation was already
doubtfull:
The MET situation around Brussels airport was tough, a lot of thunderstorms around the airport area,
as show in the picture below (at 14h00Z):
48 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.4.3 Trajectory screenshot.
The flight path shows that the flight avoid Brussels,
go into some holding patterns around Liège, and
than land on LGG.
The vertical profile shows also the changes and almost 45 minutes of holding and diversion to LGG.
49 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.4.4 Screenshots –Network Manager Profile (Eurocontrol data)
50 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.2.2.2.5 Flight BEL99D / SN2064 – 29/07/2014
Flight ID
BEL99D / SN2064
EOBD
2907
EOBT
1300
ETA
1440
EGPH – EBBR (EDI-BRU)
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
Close to EBBR
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
Holding around
BRU + long
vectoring
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
Holding S2
“One holding near AFI (West of EBBR) + long vectoring for the approach”.
51 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
The flight path shows that the flight enter on holding
just before BRU, and than a long vectoring trajectory
to retrieve the STAR.
The vertical profile shows also the changes and the long way tromp Top of Descent to the airport
(almost one hour).
52 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
See section 3.3.1.
53 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
See section 2.1.5.
This exercise addresses the improvement of the ANSP KPIs,.
4.3.2 Conduct of Demonstration exercise EXE-0206-300
See section 3.1.
The trial period represents 12 experimentation days.
The total delay due to weather regulations on the period is 14 376’ for 1512 regulated flights.
In total, 848 flights have been actually delayed, and have been further taken into account in the post
analysis.
The next sections provide for each experimentation day where a MET-induced regulation has taken
place, a screen shot of the MET situation based on ASPOC representation for each important event in
the regulation lifecycle (creation, cancellation etc…).
4.3.2.2.1 Day 1 – 21st May 2014
A regulation is set at 14h29 on P123 sectors starting at 15h00 up to 18h00.
The regulation rate is 42 for a monitoring value at 47 for this groups sector.
The MET situation at 14h29 is represented in the screen shot below.
During the regulation period Bordeaux FMP has made some adjustments in the regulation rate:
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
Creation
14h29
42
Update
15h15
47
Update
16h40
53
The regulation captured 82 flights for 49 delayed generating 659 minutes of delay.
54 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.3.2.2.2 Day 2 – 23rd June 2014
Four regulations are created.
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Delayed
Flights
8
Avg Delay
per Aircraft
102'
Nb of
Regulated
Flights
17
L4
06h00/06h17
X4 06h/07h40
0:17
1:40
195'
56
22
8,9
X4
09h00/11h00
X4
19h20/20h40
0:00
47'
15
5
9,4
1:20
219'
47'
17
12,9
12,8
The X4 regulation is cancelled before the T0 at 8h40. Nevertheless due to the ATFCM process, some
aircraft are captured in the regulation, generating delays (47 minutes for 5 delayed aircrafts).
4.3.2.2.3 Day 3 – 28th June 2014
Three regulations are created for this day.
R4
16h00/17h15
R3
16h00/17h15
X4
16h31/19h00
Duration
Delay
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
464'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
52
1:15
24
19,3
1:15
288'
51
20
14,4
2:29
1 199'
89'
57
21,0
The regulation on X4 is changed:
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
Creation
16h07
35
Update
17h15
39
Update
18h54
43
Cancel
19h09
55 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
4.3.2.2.4 Day 4 - 1st July 2014
One regulation is created for this day.
Duration
ZX4
14h30/15h06
0:36
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
907'
78
Number of Delayed
Flights
56
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
16,2
The regulation on ZX4 is changed:
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
12h27
Creation
13h24
Update
15h06
Cancel
55
59
43
4.3.2.2.5 Day 5 – 3rd July 2014
ZX1
15h00/16h05
X4
15h40/16h44
X4
19h00/21h20
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
1:05
190'
48
16
11,9
1:04
267'
83
26
10,3
0:00
171'
40
17
10,1
4.3.2.2.6 Day 6 – 7th July 2014
X4
06h00 / 08:00
Duration
Delay
0:10
92
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
36
Number of Delayed
Flights
11
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
8.4
The X4 regulation beginning at 06h00 is created by FMP with a regulation rate of 43. It is cancelled at
06h10, 10 minutes after regulation T0.
4.3.2.2.7 Day 7 – 19th July 2014
R4
08h20 / 15:00
Duration
Delay
1:50
524'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
47
Number of Delayed
Flights
29
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
18,1
The R4 regulation beginning at 8h20 is created by FMP at 05:02 in the morning with a regulation rate
of 40.
The regulation on R4 is changed:
56 of 61
Update Type
Creation
Update
Cancel
Time
05:02
07:20
10h10
Edition 00.01.00
New regulation rate
40
44
The regulation captured 47 flights, delayed 40 of them, for a total of 524 minutes of delay.
4.3.2.2.8 Day 8 – 20th July 2014
P3
15h50/18h00
Duration
Delay
2:10
843
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
66
Number of Delayed
Flights
48
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
17,6
The P3 regulation beginning at 15h50 is created by FMP at 13h50 with a regulation rate of 50.
The regulation on is unchanged.
.
4.3.2.2.9 Day 9 – 25th July 2014
Four regulations are created for this day.
RL1
12h40/16h20
RL2
12h40/16h40
RL3
12h40/17h15
RL4
12h40/19h20
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
3:40
466'
74
24
19,4
4:00
1050'
59
44
23,9
4:35
619'
61
32
19,3
6:40
1933'
177
121
16,0
The regulation on RL1 is changed:
Update Type
Creation
Update – End Time + 1 hour
Cancel
Time
12:27
13:53
16:05
New regulation rate
39
39
Update Type
Creation
Time
12:29
13:53
New regulation rate
41
41
57 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
Update Type
Creation
Update – End Time 17:40
Update – End Time 19h00
Time
New regulation rate
41
41
43
43
12:29
13:53
16:01
17:14
Update Type
Creation
Time
New regulation rate
48
48
50
50
12:29
13:53
16:01
17:23
19:11
The regulations are upgraded and extended from 15:40 to 16:40 for RL1 and RL2, and from 15:40 to
17:40 for RL3 and RL4, showing a major disruption due to meteo situation.
4.3.2.2.10
Day 10 – 2nd August 2014
Two regulations are created for this day.
Duration
X4
18h20/20h00
NH4
16h00/19h20
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
1:40
611'
51
37
16,5
2:40
1106'
53
45
24,6
Both regulations are created around 16h00.
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Cancel
Time
New regulation rate
43
16:31
17:48
18:31
19:18
46
Period
18:20-20h00
18h20-21h40
18h20-21h00
The regulation on NH4 is changed:
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Update
4.3.2.2.11
Time
New regulation rate
49
51
53
15h46
16:34
16:58
17:11
Period
16h00-19h00
16h00-20h00
18h20-21h00
18h20-18h40
Day 11 – 3rd August 2014
R4
10h20/12h00
X4 8h40/12h40
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
0:00
275'
29
14
19,6
0:40
311'
57
25
12,4
58 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
The regulation over X4 is created at 4h55 and cancelled at 9h20 for 40 minutes of effective regulation
period from 8h40 to 9h20.
4.3.2.2.12
Day 12 – 8th August 2014
Two regulations are created.
Duration
Delay
0:20
215'
1:57
1623'
P123
16h20/16h40
ZX4
18h20/21h00
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
36
108
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
15
14,3
86
18,9
The 123 regulation changed as follow:
Update Type
Creation
Cancel
Time
14:36
16h40
New regulation rate
51
Period
16h00-19h00
New regulation rate
53
Period
18h20-21h00
21h40
21h00
The ZX4 regulation changed as follow:
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Cancel
Time
16:07
17h11
18:35
20h15
See section 3.3.2.
59 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
5 References
18/12/2012
issued 26/07/2013
issued 26/07/2013
29/09/2014
60 of 61
Edition 00.01.00
-END OF DOCUMENT-
61 of 61
D02 Appendix D - TOPMET Performance Synthesis Report
Edition 00.01.00
D02 Appendix D - TOPMET
Performance Synthesis Report
Project Title
TOPMET
Project Number
02.06
Project Manager
THALES AIR SYSTEMS
Deliverable Name
Edition
00.01.00
Template version
01.00.00
Task contributors
THALES Avionics
Abstract
to improved flight efficiency and improved airspace capacity. This report details the
execution of the flight trials, performed respectively with Brussels Airlines in JulyAugust 2014, and with DSNA, between May and August 2014, and provides the results
of the post-analyses conducted on the collected data.
1 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
TR6 Contributor
24/09/2014
24/09/2014
BEL contributor
24/09/2014
Pieter STEURBAUT / Brussels Airlines
BEL contributor
24/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Project Coordinator
24/09/2014
24/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
None
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Project Coordinator
EUMETNET & UKMO
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
29/09/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
None
None.
Document History
Edition
Date
Status
Author
Justification
00.00.01
18/08/2014
Initial Draft
D. Muller
New Document
00.00.02
24/09/2014
Final Draft
D. Latge
Updated document
00.01.00
29/09/2014
First Issue
D. Latge
2 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Table of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................... 6
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................................... 6
ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1
2.1.4 Project scope ................................................................................................................................ 12
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
EXERCISES RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 41
4.1
SUMMARY OF EXERCISES RESULTS ................................................................................................... 41
4.1.1 EXE-0206-100 (airline benefits, pilot-driven assessment) ..................................................... 41
4.1.2 EXE-0206-200 (airline benefits, end-to-end assessment) ..................................................... 42
4.1.3 EXE-0206-300 (ANSP benefits, FMP-driven assessment).................................................... 44
4.2
METRICS AND INDICATORS PER KPA ................................................................................................. 45
4.3
SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION CONDUCT ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................... 47
4.3.1 Results per KPA ........................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.2 Impact on Safety, Capacity and Human Factors ..................................................................... 47
4.3.3 Description of assessment methodology .................................................................................. 47
4.3.4 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives ................................................. 47
4.4
ANALYSIS OF EXERCISES RESULTS ................................................................................................... 48
4.4.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results ................................................................................................ 48
4.5
CONFIDENCE IN RESULTS OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES............................................................. 48
4.5.1 Quality of Demonstration Exercises Results ............................................................................ 48
4.5.2 Significance of Demonstration Exercises Results ................................................................... 49
5
5.1
DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE EXE-0206-100 .................................................................................... 51
5.1.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 51
5.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise .......................................................................................... 51
5.2
5.2.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 53
3 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3
5.3.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 71
5.3.2 Conduct of Demonstration exercise EXE-0206-300 ............................................................... 71
5.3.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 106
6
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 107
6.1
6.2
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS................................................................................................................. 107
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................ 107
APPENDIX A
COMMUNICATION MATERIAL ..................................................................................... 108
List of tables
Table 4: Scenarios / Decisions matrix ................................................................................................... 30
Table 5: Exercises execution/analysis dates ........................................................................................ 33
Table 9: Scenario EXE-0206-100: Summary of Demonstration Exercises Results ............................. 41
List of figures
4 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Executive summary
capacity.

members,









5 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
1 Introduction
This document provides the Performance Synthesis report for the TOPMET project. It describes the
results of demonstration exercises defined in the “TOPMET Demonstration Plan”, version 00.01.01,
issued on 18/12/2012, and refined in the “TOPMET Demonstration Objectives”, version 00.01.01,
issued on 26/07/2013, how they have been conducted, and how the collected data have been
analysed.

The SESAR Joint Undertaking, since this document describes the details of the results
obtained from the demonstration trials;

execution phase.
-
-
-
-
Section 4 presents the exercise reports for each demonstration exercise.
NA
Term
Definition
ATM
DOD
E-ATMS
6 of 109
Term
Edition 00.01.00
Definition
E-OCVM
OFA
SESAR
SESAR Programme
SJU
Undertaking Agency.
4DWxCube
A-CDM
ACC
Area Control Centre
ADD
AIRMET
ANSP
AOP
APOC
APP
ATCO
ATM
CAT
Category
CONOPS
DCB
DOD
E-ATMS
E-OCVM
EOBD
Estimated Off-Block Date
EOBT
Estimated Off-Block Time
ETA
Estimated Time of Arrival
7 of 109
Term
Edition 00.01.00
Definition
FIC
FOC
ICAO
iCWP
IP
INTEROP
IRS
KPA
LVC
LVP
MET
METAR
METSP
NMSP
NOP
OFA
OI
OPS
Operational
OSED
PAC
Operational Package
QFE
QNH
RVT
SARPS
SESAR
SESAR Program
8 of 109
Term
Edition 00.01.00
Definition
SIGMET
SJU
SJU Work Program
Agency.
SPC
SPR
SUT
System Under Test
SWIM
TAD
TAF
TBS
TREND
Landing forecast
TS
TWR
UDPP
VALP
Validation Plan
VALR
Validation Report
VALS
Validation Strategy
VP
Verification Plan
VR
Verification Report
VS
WDS
WMO
WOC
WP
Work Package
WV
Wake Vortex
Wx
Weather
9 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
SESAR Programme
capacity.





regions.
10 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Temperature,…).
and beyond.

members,




11 of 109

Edition 00.01.00

environment
2.1.4 Project scope

TOPMET trials

12 of 109
Edition 00.01.00

o
o


400),




August 29, 2014.
13 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Brussels Airlines
OFA addressed
ground data sharing
14 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Brussels Airlines
OFA addressed
ground data sharing
specific analyses)
15 of 109
DSNA
OFA addressed
Edition 00.01.00
DNM.
KPI assessment)
16 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
platform.

Activity 1.1:

Activity 1.2:

Activity 1.3:
and processes

Activity 1.4:
reference [5]).
17 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
18 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
ACC.
trained, pilot.
19 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Roles
Time
TOPMET
coordinator
BEL TOPMET
Ground PoC
BEL TOPMET
Pilot
BEL fuel
efficiency
Manager
- Connect TOPMET
based on TOPMET
Flight Report in
TOPMET Tablet
Day N
(Preflight)
- Depending on MET
evolutions during
based on TOPMET
Day N
(Execution)
If severe situation
confirmed:
scenario type;
- report actual
decision taken
Report in TOPMET
Tablet
Day N
(Post-flight)
When tablet is back
in BEL OCC:
- consolidate Pilot
feedback reports
- upload reports in
TOPMET Data
Center
20 of 109
Post-flight
daily
Edition 00.01.00
- download & check
in Data Center
- trigger TOPMET
- recover missing
paper info, scan &
download into Data
Center
consolidation
(D+1)
is complete
Post-flight
weekly
consolidation
Consolidate all
information &
compute estimated
KPIs
Check validity of
estimated KPIs
21 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
assessment)
Roles
Time
TOPMET
coordinator
- Monitor alerts in
TOPMET OCC tool
- If impacting MET
event detected,
prepare "trigger"
report including
proposed decision
to BEL PoC on duty
by email
Execution
Day N
BEL TOPMET
Ground PoC
BEL Pilot
BEL fuel
efficiency
Manager
- Monitor alerts in
TOPMET OCC tool
- assess the actual
severity of the MET
situation using
TOPMET OCC Tool,
and other available
means in OCC
confirmed, contact
Pilot via ACARS
(S1-S13);
- report
recommended
decision taken by
pilot
If contacted by BEL
PoC:
based on visual &
WXR
- feedback BEL PoC
by ACARS on actual
status & decision
taken
report and Pilot
feedback
- upload
consolidated event
report in TOPMET
Data Center
22 of 109
Post-flight
daily
Edition 00.01.00
- check all actions
performed
-download & check
all data reports
- trigger TOPMET
consolidation
(D+1)
- recover missing
paper info, scan &
download into Data
Center
Check all
information are
complete
Post-flight
weekly
consolidation
Consolidate all
information &
compute estimated
KPIs
Check validity of
estimated KPIs





23 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
assessment.
positive benefits.
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
Target:
24 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Related SESAR KPI:
Safety
Performance Index:
above threshold
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (fuel)
Performance Index:
Target:
20% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Efficiency (cost)
Performance Index:
Target:
10% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
compared to plan
Target:
20% reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Safety
Performance Index:
above threshold
Target:
10 % reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Capacity (Airspace)
Performance Index:
Target:
3% gain (tbc)
25 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Related SESAR KPI:
-
Performance Index:
Target:
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
Target:
3% reduction (tbc)
(Unchanged)
Related SESAR KPI:
Capacity (Airspace)
Performance Index:
Target:
3% gain
Related SESAR KPI:
Predictability
Performance Index:
Target:
20 % reduction
Related SESAR KPI:
Cost efficiency
Performance Index:
Target:
10 % reduction
26 of 109
Edition 00.01.00

reduce loss »):
o
en-route
o
en-route
o
o

gain »)
o
o
(wind/temp, …)
27 of 109

Edition 00.01.00
o
grounded


aircraft de-icing
o
not
o

o
shear…
o

o
high winds…
o

o
28 of 109

Edition 00.01.00
o

o
dispatcher & pilot

o

o

o

o

o

o
29 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Divertion
/ MET @ ARR
Holding
/ MET @ ARR
/ MET En Route
De-icing in-flight
Sub-optimal ER
profile
Sub-optimal climb /
descent profile
TOT change
/ MET @ DEP
TOT change
/ aircraft de-icing
TOT change
/ re-tanking
Fl. Duration Change
/ MET En Route
TOA change
/ MET @ ARR
MET-related PAX /
crew discomfort
MET-related
Pilot stress
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
S07
S07a
S07b
S08
S09
S10
S11
S12
S13
table below:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


S13)
o

o
30 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Extra cost of
flight as it
occurred.
Potential TOPMET
saving
Extra cost would
TOPMET decision
have been used.
Cost of flight if
meteo phenomenon
did not occur.
This is a
hypothetical
OFP).
Hypothetical
flight
Real
flight
Hypothetical
flight


flight:

Situation report:

MET situations:
31 of 109

Edition 00.01.00
Flight Plans

Flight Tracks



tools.
32 of 109
Edition 00.01.00



NOP)

associated features

Exercise ID
EXE-0206-100
EXE-0206-200
EXE-0206-300
Exercise Title
Actual
Exercise
execution
start date
Airline
improvement
1/07/2014
(pilots-driven
assessment)
Airline
to-end
assessment)
Actual
Exercise
execution
end date
Actual
Actual
Exercise
Exercise end
start
date
analysis date
1/09/2014
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
29/08/2014
7/07/2014
19/09/2014
31/08/2014
1/07/2014
19/09/2014
33 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
executed with the pilot using the TOPMET tablet (in total 79 flights):
Date
From/To
City
01/07/14
01/07/14
02/07/14
02/07/14
02/07/14
04/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
07/07/14
08/07/14
08/07/14
08/07/14
09/07/14
09/07/14
10/07/14
10/07/14
16/07/14
16/07/14
16/07/14
17/07/14
17/07/14
17/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
18/07/14
24/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
30/07/14
30/07/14
31/07/14
04/08/14
04/08/14
BRU-RAK
RAK-BRU
BRU-CPH
BRU-GOT
GOT-BRU
FCO-BRU
BRU-MAN
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
MAN-BRU
BRU-MXP
MXP-BRU
BRU-MXP
MXP-BRU
BRU-BIO
BIO-BRU
BRU-BMA
BRU-FSC
FSC-BRU
BMA-BRU
BRU-SXB
SXB-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-MAD
MAD-BRU
BRU-SVQ
BRU-OSL
BRU-GOT
GOT-BRU
BRU-EDI
OSL-BRU
EDI-BRU
BRU-BSL
BSL-BRU
Marrakech
Marrakech
Copenhagen
Goteborg
Goteborg
Roma
Manchester
Geneva
Geneva
Geneva
Geneva
Manchester
Milano
Milano
Milano
Milano
Bilbao
Bilbao
Stockholm
Figari
Figari
Stockholm
Strasbourg
Strasbourg
Lyon
Lyon
Madrid
Madrid
Seville
Oslo
Goteborg
Goteborg
Edinburgh
Oslo
Edinburgh
Basel
Basel
34 of 109
04/08/14
07/08/14
07/08/14
08/08/14
08/08/14
11/08/14
11/08/14
12/08/14
21/08/14
21/08/14
21/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
22/08/14
23/08/14
24/08/14
25/08/14
25/08/14
27/08/14
27/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
28/08/14
29/08/14
29/08/14
30/08/14
30/08/14
30/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
31/08/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
01/09/14
BRU-LIN
BRU-BMA
BMA-BRU
BRU-FLR
FLR-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-LYS
BRU-GOT
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
GOT-BRU
BRU-VCE
VCE-BRU
BRU-LYS
LYS-BRU
BRU-LYS
BRU-GVA
GVA-BRU
BRU-BIO
BIO-BRU
BRU-FCO
FCO-BRU
BRU-BLQ
BLQ-BRU
BRU-SVQ
SVQ-BRU
BRU-BIO
BRU-MLA
MLA-BRU
BIO-BRU
BRU-CDG
CDG-BRU
BRU-MRS
MRS-BRU
BRU-OSL
BRU-BCN
BCN-BRU
BRU-FLR
FLR-BRU
OSL-BRU
BRU-GOT
Edition 00.01.00
Milano
Stockholm
Stockholm
Florence
Florence
Lyon
Lyon
Lyon
Goteborg
Lyon
Lyon
Goteborg
Venice
Venice
Lyon
Lyon
Lyon
Geneva
Geneva
Bilbao
Bilbao
Roma
Roma
Bologna
Bologna
Seville
Seville
Bilbao
Malta
Malta
Bilbao
Paris
Paris
Marseille
Marseille
Oslo
Barcelona
Barcelona
Florence
Florence
Oslo
Goteborg
35 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
have been issued (in total 21 flights):
Date
From/To
City
04/07/14
04/07/14
04/07/14
23/07/14
24/07/14
24/07/14
25/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
29/07/14
30/07/14
31/07/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
01/08/14
22/08/14
NAP-BRU
BRU-BIO
LIS-BRU
BRU-FSC
BRU-GVA
EBBR-LEMD
EBBR-GMAD
EDI-BRU
LIRF-EBBR
BIO-BRU
LTBJ-EBBR
TLV-BRU
BRU-DLA
BRU-BJM
BCN-BRU
BCN-BRU
BRU-MAD
MLG-BRU
EBBR-UUDD
Naples
Bilbao
Lisbon
Figari
Geneva
Madrid
Agadir
Edinburgh
Roma
Bilbao
Izmir
Tel-Aviv
Douala
Bujumbura
Barcelona
Barcelona
Madrid
Malaga
Moscow
22/08/14
22/08/14
BCN-BRU
MLG-BRU
Barcelona
Malaga
36 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
hazards regulations have been issued (in total 12 days):
DATE
Sectors
Duration
Delay
3:00
659'
0:17
102'
21-05
P123 15h/18h
23-06
L4 06h00/06h17
MTO"CB"
X4 06h/07h40
1:40
195'
X4 09h00/11h00
0:00
47'
X4 19h20/20h40
1:20
219'
28-06
R4 16h00/17h15
1:15
464'
1:15
288'
35/39/43 MTO
2:29
1 199'
01-07
R3
16h00/17h15
X4
16h31/19h00
ZX414h30/15h0
6
ZX1
15h00/16h05
X4 15h40/16h44
0:36
907'
1:05
190'
1:04
267'
X4 19h00/21h20
0:00
171'
0:10
92'
03-07
07-07
X4 06h00/08h00
18h41 MTO
19-07
R4 08h20/15h00
1:50
524'
20-07
P3 15h50/18h00
2:10
843'
25-07
3:40
466'
4:00
1050'
4:35
619'
6:40
1933'
02 08
RL1
12h40/16h20
RL2
12h40/16h40
RL3
12h40/17h15
RL4
12h40/19h20
X4 18h20/20h00
1:40
611'
2:40
1106'
03 08
NH4
16h00/18h40
R4 10h20/12h00
MTO
47 MTO
0:00
275'
0:40
311'
0:20
215'
Weather
1:57
1623'
X4 08h40/12h40
08 08
P123
16h20/16h40
ZX4
18h20/21h00
37 of 109
Edition 00.01.00

o
o


o
o
o
o

o
38 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
the concept.

o
o
decisions



o
o
o

39 of 109
o
Edition 00.01.00

o
o
decisions
40 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
4 Exercises Results
4.1 Summary of Exercises Results
The table below summarizes the results obtained against each of the success criteria identified above.
4.1.1 EXE-0206-100 (airline benefits, pilot-driven assessment)
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-100
Airline
improvement
(pilot-driven
assessment)
Demonstration
Objective ID
OBJ-0206-100
OBJ-0206-200
Reduce flight cost.
OBJ-0206-300
OBJ-0206-400
flyability
Success Criterion
reduction
Additional flight cost due to MET:
10% reduction
flight plan: 20% reduction
above threshold: 10 % reduction
Exercise Results
Demonstration
Objective Status
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
41 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
4.1.2 EXE-0206-200 (airline benefits, end-to-end assessment)
Exercise ID
Demonstration
Objective ID
OBJ-0206-100
EXE-0206-200
OBJ-0206-200
Reduce flight cost.
Success Criterion
reduction
10% reduction
Airline
improvement
(end-to-end
assessment)
OBJ-0206-300
plan: 20% reduction
OBJ-0206-400
flyability
above threshold 10 % reduction
Exercise Results
Demonstration
Objective Status
S03 MET-impact scenario (in-flight rerouting): 26% reduction
alternate airport): 79% reduction
extra cost reduced from 1937 € to 1561
€, over 4 flights)
OK
OK
OK
alternate airport): 73% reduction (METrelated fuel consumption reduced from
3748 € to 1020 €, over 1 flight – not
taking into account the indirect cost –
related to PAX)
extra flight duration reduced from 9 mn
to 6 mn, over 4 flights)
Not measurable during the trials, No
relevant “S12” MET-impact scenario
observed during the period of the trials
OK
OK
Not measured
42 of 109
Exercise ID
Demonstration
Objective ID
Improve safety of flight
Edition 00.01.00
Success Criterion
(Avoid any MET-related event
impacting the safety of flight)
Exercise Results
Was not expected to be encountered
during the trials period.
The post-analysis of an incident due to
strong turbulences occurred on April 27,
2014 in Luanda on SN359 (8 injured,
significant airframe damages) provides
some indications showing that the
TOPMET tools might have allowed to
avoid the incident. No more details can
be provided at this stage considering the
on-going investigation report.
Demonstration
Objective Status
OK (to be
confirmed)
43 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
4.1.3 EXE-0206-300 (ANSP benefits, FMP-driven assessment)
Exercise ID
EXE-0206-300
FMP
improvement
Demonstration
Objective ID
OBJ-0206-500
Improve Airspace capacity
OBJ-0206-600
reduce ATCO workload
OBJ-0206-700
Cumulated unexpected delays
induced by MET over FIR (vs initial
flight plans): 20 % reduction
OBJ-0206-800
Reduce cost-impact of MET-related
network delays
Cumulated cost-impact on Airlines of
unexpected delays induced by MET
over FIR (vs initial flight plans): 10 %
reduction
Success Criterion
Exercise Results
IFR movements per airspace volume
Gain not measurable during the trials,
/ unit time based on NM
Entry/Occupancy count: 3% gain
Demonstration
Objective Status
Not measured
N/A
N/A
OK (objective
nearly achieved)
OK
44 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
4.2 Metrics and Indicators per KPA
The final indicators, metrics and the results obtained from the analysis are summarized in the table below, synthetized per KPA.
The KPA for which no measurements have finally been provided are not reminded here (capacity).
KPA
EFFICIENCY
(FUEL)
EFFICIENCY
(COST)
Objective
ID
OBJ-0206100
OBJ-0206200
KPI
Extra fuel
consumption
due to MET
Extra flight
cost due to
MET
Measuring Process
and Criteria
Expected Benefit
TOPMET Results
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
additional fuel
consumption due to
MET
to 1751 kg, over 4 flights)
.
MET, based on EXE-0206-200, S01 METimpact scenario (diversion)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
additional fuel
consumption due to
MET
to 1000 kg, over 1 flight).
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 10% the
due to MET
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 10% the
due to MET
based on EXE-0206-300,
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 10% the
due to MET
Metric
MET, based on EXE-0206-200, S03 METimpact scenario (in-flight rerouting)
over 4 flights)
.
73% reduction (MET-related extra
over 1 flight – not taking into
account the indirect cost –related to
PAX).
18 % reduction (from 488 k€ to 399
k€ cumulated cost, over 12 days, for
848 flights, i.e. in average 104 €
gain per flight).
45 of 109
SAFETY
OBJ-0206400
Severe
turbulence
impacting
PAX comfort
OBJ-0206300
vertical/horizontal acceleration above
threshold, , based on EXE-0206-200, S12
MET-impact scenario (high turbulence)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduction of at least
10 %
Extra flight
delay due to
MET
rerouting)
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
due to MET
Extra flight
delay due to
MET
Cumulated unexpected delays induced by
MET over FIR (vs initial flight plans), based on
EXE-0206-300,
Comparison between
actual and
hypothetical flight
data
Reduce by 20% the
due to MET
PREDICTA
BILITY
OBJ-0206700
Edition 00.01.00
trials period
flight duration reduced from 9 mn to
6 mn, over 4 flights)
days, for 848 flights, i.e. in average
3 mn gain per flight
46 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
4.3 Summary of Demonstration Conduct Assumptions
4.3.1 Results per KPA
See sections 5.1 and 5.2.
4.3.2 Impact on Safety, Capacity and Human Factors

Safety: Even if a positive impact on safety was expected in the deployment of TOPMET, it
was not expected to provide any evidence on safety benefits during the course of the project;
and actually, no safety-related event has been observed during the trials period. However, the
post-analysis of an incident due to strong turbulences occurred on April 27, 2014 in Luanda
on flight SN359 (8 injured, significant airframe damages) provides some indications showing
that the TOPMET tools might have allowed to avoid the incident. No more details can be
provided at this stage considering the on-going investigation by the Belgian Authorities.

Capacity: the expected impact on the sectors capacity was expected to be analysed in
exercise EXE-0206-300 (FMP). However the considered metrics appeared to be not
appropriate and unable to properly reflect the impact of MET on sector capacity, and its
possible improvement through the introduction of the TOPMET concept. Other KPIs related to
predictability and cost efficiency for Airlines appeared to be more powerful to measure the
potential impact of the TOPMET concept on Flow Management performances.
.

Human Factors: this KPA was out of the scope of the project. However a specific effort has
been undertaken to take HF into considerations in the design of end-users applications for
Pilots, OCC and FMP ground operators. Much feedback has been gained during the project
on HF aspects, which will be valued in the preparation of follow-on activities.
4.3.3 Description of assessment methodology
See sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.5 above.
4.3.4 Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives
47 of 109
©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the
SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly
acknowledged.
Edition 00.01.00
4.4 Analysis of Exercises Results
See section 4.1 and 5.2 for the general analysis of the results for each exercise and objective. See
also section 6 for more detail regarding the rationale for the results.
4.4.1 Unexpected Behaviours/Results
The deviations from the initial demonstration plan are listed in section 4.3.


right actor)
4.5 Confidence in Results of Demonstration Exercises
4.5.1 Quality of Demonstration Exercises Results
In summary:

In Exercise EXE-0206-100 (Airline, Pilot-driven assessment):
o
o
o
o
have been removed.
48 of 109

Edition 00.01.00
In Exercise EXE-0206-200 (Airline, end-to-end assessment):
o
o
o

In Exercise EXE-0206-300 (ATC/FMP):
o
o
4.5.2 Significance of Demonstration Exercises Results

o
In Exercise EXE-0206-100, the pilot has identified a relevant use of the tablet in the
flight preparation phase, in collaboration with the OCC staff. He has also confirmed a
non relevant use of the tablet during flight execution, due to the absence of in-flight
connectivity.
o
In Exercise EXE-0206-200, a detailed analysis has been conducted with BEL
operational staff, to identify the most representative MET-impact scenarios expected
to be encountered during actual operations. A similar analysis has been conducted as
well with DSNA in EXE-0206-300. The trials have allowed to better assess the actual
level of impact of those scenarios, and to get an indication on their frequency of
occurrence. The flights selected for the post-analysis correspond well to some of the
“template scenarios” which have been defined, hence are considered as operationally
relevant. A longer trial period, would have allowed capturing further types of
scenarios of low or seasonal occurrence. Also some of the considered “template
scenarios” have been proved as having a much lower impact as initially predicted
49 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
(e.g. the use of in-flight de-icing devices, which has finally a very limited impact on
fuel consumption).
o
A similar analysis has been conducted as well with DSNA in EXE-0206-300.Similar
considerations can be derived.

o
In Exercise EXE-0206-200, the number of statistical samples has been relatively low
(less than 5 flights per investigated scenario type). Hence the statistical
representativeness has to be considered as low. However, especially for MET-impact
scenario S03 (in flight rerouting), the few samples analysed have shown a relative
consistency in their statistical distribution.
o
(> 800 flights) hence the statistical representativeness can be considered as much
greater.
4.5.3.1 Conclusions
See section 8.1
See section 8.2
50 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.1 Demonstration Exercise EXE-0206-100
See section 2.1.5.
5.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise
See section 3.1.
See section 3.3.1.
See section 4.1.1, Table 9.
This exercise has not allowed the computation of KPAs which have been assessed in EXE-0206-200,
using the end-to-end system including the ground segments.
See Section 4.3.4.
See Section 4.4.1.
51 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
See Section 4.5.1.
See Section 4.5.2.
5.1.4.1 Conclusions
See section 8.1 of the Final Demonstration Report
52 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
See section 2.1.5.
See section 3.1.
A selection of the most relevant flights has been made to support further post-analysis. The sections
below provide more details on the selected flights.
5.2.2.2.1 Flight BEL1FS / SN3581 – 16 July 2014
Flight ID
BEL1FS / SN3581
EOBD
16072014
EOBT
1130
ETA
1340
EBBR – LFKF
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
In Flight
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
EN route
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
TBC
“CB and RDT over Southern Alps (near Nice)...
Indeed, location was very much correct, with TOPMET giving a pretty good indication of the top of
cloud, allowing us to make a decision whether to climb or to turn...
Eventually it turned out to be impossible to climb above, so turns were initiated based on visual and
wx radar info to avoid (extra track miles).”
53 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
(Eurocontrol data)
54 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.2.2.2.2 Flight BEL82C / SN3582– 16 July 2014
Flight ID
BEL82C / SN3582
LFKF – EBBR (FSC-BRU)
EOBD
16072014
EOBT
1420
ETA
1615
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
In Flight
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
EN route
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
TBC
For this flight we recived a feedback from the pilot:
“Same situation as with SN3581 above, but CBs now matured... same avoiding action taken.”
55 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
(Eurocontrol data)
56 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.2.2.2.3 Flight BEL9GV / SN2719 – 24 July 2014
Flight ID
BEL9GV / SN2719
EOBD
24072014
EOBT
1145
ETA
1300
EBBR – LSGG A319
RFL=310
TAS=411
N0411F310 ROUSY UT27 GTQ UN852 MOROK/N0391F230 UZ24 AKITO
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
In Flight
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
EN route
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
TBC
“•
Crew indeed encountered some CB/TS along the route to GVA, if they recall well, ca 80 NM
prior to LIRKO (located ca 25NM NW of GVA), so ca +100NM before GVA
•
They circumnavigated this WX by a 30° course change to the right for ca 60NM (rough figures,
but pretty much what is done in real life)
•
Approach into GVA was started 20NM from LIRKO, they then got an AKITO 2R arrival from
ATC (see att for chart)
•
Followed by another ATC clearance direct to SPR VOR, and a straight-in for an approach on
RWY23 (see att for chart)
Based on the facts, the following findings could be made so far
•
The scheduled time of this flight was 01h15 (Commercial Schedule Times)
•
Effective time flow was 01h14 (Note: FPL route and planned duration of the flight at this
moment unknown to me)
•
A small deviation of the intended route was performed
•
Decision was not based on Topmet or OAC tool
•
S02 Holding Pattern was not performed
•
The “Operational Decision Possibilities D03b an D04b” seem not the best ones to me
•
WX picture at moment at 100NM to GVA would certainly help, CB’s an TS can move and grow
fast”
57 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.2.2.2.3.3 TopMet AOC screen shot
5.2.2.2.4 Flight BEL14Z/SN3714 – 29/07/2014
Flight ID
BEL14Z / SN3714
EOBD
2907
EOBT
1300
ETA
1340
LEBB – EBBR (BIO-BRU)
58 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
Close to EBBR
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
Deviation to
LGG
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
Holding S2
“I have just learned that an AVRO BEL14Z (BIO-BRU) has diverted to EBLG (Liège).
The OCC send an ACARS message to the flight crew showing that the situation was already
doubtfull:
59 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The flight path shows that the flight avoid Brussels,
go into some holding patterns around Liège, and
than land on LGG.
The vertical profile shows also the changes and almost 45 minutes of holding and diversion to LGG.
60 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
61 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.2.2.2.5 Flight BEL99D / SN2064 – 29/07/2014
Flight ID
BEL99D / SN2064
EOBD
2907
EOBT
1300
ETA
1440
EGPH – EBBR (EDI-BRU)
Airline Phase
when issues are
identified
Close to EBBR
Met hazard
Location
MET hazards type
Info support
means used
Abnormal
scenario
Holding around
BRU + long
vectoring
ASPOC / CB'S
TOPMET AOC
Holding S2
“One holding near AFI (West of EBBR) + long vectoring for the approach”.
62 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The flight path shows that the flight enter on holding
just before BRU, and than a long vectoring trajectory
to retrieve the STAR.
The vertical profile shows also the changes and the long way tromp Top of Descent to the airport
(almost one hour).
63 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
See section 3.3.1.
See section 4.1.2, Table 10.
See Section 4.2, Table 12
Detailed analyses are provided below for the flights documented in section 5.2.2
5.2.3.1.1.1 Flight BEL1FS / SN3581 – 16 July 2014
This flight is recognized as an occurrence of MET-impact scenario S03: (Avoid) Extra track miles
due to MET phenomenon.
64 of 109
Basic data
Edition 00.01.00
OODW
C
Aircraft registration
Departure IATA
BRU
Planned Destination IATA
FSC
Assessment of the actual flight:
Source
Item
Pilot/GPS data/Flight Data
Additional fuel burn due to extra track miles
Additional time flown due to extra track miles
Extra track miles due to MET
Actually flown
Value
Units Remark
389
(kg)
2 (min)
11 (NM)
Extra cost spent due to MET
(€)
389,19
Assessment of the optimized flight:
The red track is the actual one, the green track shows that by anticipating the TS area avoidance (Decision D03 a
or b) the pilot could add only 8 miles to his reference track instead of 11,
The outcome would be:
Source
Item
Extra track miles due to MET Achievable if D03 had been taken
Resulting extra cost spent due to MET
Value
Units
Remark
283
(kg)
1
(min)
8
(NM)
283,04
(€)
65 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Assessment of the potential benefit:
An improved knowledge of the MET situation could lead to a more direct route of 2 extra track miles, by avoiding
the CB’s on the east side.
This route requires the cooperation from AOC and from ATC.
Source
Item
Extra track miles due to MET Potential gain
Value
Units
Remark
71
(kg)
0
(min)
2
(NM)
Resulting extra cost reduction
106,17
(€)
5.2.3.1.1.2 Flight BEL82C / SN3582– 16 July 2014
This flight is recognized as an occurrence of MET-impact scenario S03: (Avoid) Extra track
miles due to MET phenomenon.
Basic data
OODWC
Departure IATA
FSC
BRU
Source
Item
Extra track miles due to
MET
1 (min)
Actually flown
4 (NM)
Value
Units Remark
142
(kg)
110,78
(€)
The flight trajectory is quite direct, and at this point the avoidance is not really required, and the 4 extra track
mileages could not be improved.
66 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
None
5.2.3.1.1.3 Flight BEL9GV / SN2719 – 24 July 2014
This flight is recognized as an occurrence of MET-impact scenario S03: (Avoid) Extra track
miles due to MET phenomenon.
Basic data
OOSSB
Departure IATA
BRU
GVA
Source
Item
Extra track miles due to MET Actually flown
Value
Units Remark
395
(kg)
1 (min)
10 (NM)
317,23
(€)
67 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The analysis shows that by anticipating the TS area avoidance (Decision D03 a or b) the pilot could
add only 8 miles to his reference track instead of 10.
Source
Item
Value Units Remark
316
(kg)
1 (min)
Extra track miles due to MET Achievable if D03 had been taken
8 (NM)
Resulting extra cost spent due to MET
(€)
253,79
An improved perfect knowledge of the MET situation could lead to a more direct route of 2 extra track miles, by
avoiding the CB’s by the east.
This route requires the cooperation from AOC and somehow from ATC.
Source
Item
Value
Units
79
(kg)
1
(min)
2
(NM)
Extra track miles due to MET Potential gain
Remark
(€)
63,44
5.2.3.1.1.4 Flight BEL14Z/SN3714 – 29/07/2014
This flight is recognized as an occurrence of MET-impact scenario S01: (Avoid) Diversion due to MET
phenomenon.
Basic data
Departure IATA
OODWL
BIO
BRU
Source
Item
Value
Units
Blue One
Alternate used IATA
LGG
Blue One
Real fuel burn to alternate
1100
(kg)
Blue One
Real flight time to alternate
20
(min)
OFP
Planned fuel burn to destination
2100
(kg)
OFP
Planned flight time to destination
20
(min)
Ground Ops
Handling cost ALT
OFP ALT-> Destination
Fuel burn alternate to original destination
Flight time alternate to original destination
600
(€)
1500
(kg)
32
(min)
Remark
68 of 109
Overfly charges
Edition 00.01.00
(€)
750
3548,75
(€)
Note that the cost of the diversion is an underestimated value, which does not take into account the
over cost due to passengers transfer from LGG to BRU.
The analysis shows that anticipating the MET situation at BRU could have allowed to make the
decision D01 (with a 30 mn delayed take-off), potentially reinforced by D02 (slow-down in flight) in
order to avoid the diversion at arrival.
The conditions to ensure this would be achievable are:

A forecast up to 2 hours at least

The permanent connectivity on board

A situation survey at some important airports (alerts around BRU)
A 30 minutes delay at BIO would result in a cost 1020,00€, and would avoid the issue of diverting the
flight at arrival.
2528,75
(€)
5.2.3.1.1.5 Flight BEL99D / SN2064 – 29/07/2014
This flight is recognized as an occurrence of MET-impact scenario S02: (Avoid) holding
pattern due to MET phenomenon.
Basic data
OODWD
Departure IATA
EDI
BRU
Source
Item
Value
Units
Pilot/GPS data/Flight
Data
Pilot/GPS data/Flight
Data
Real fuel burn of holding
106
(kg)
Real flight time of holding
4
(min)
Remark
69 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
117,26
(€)
The analysis shows that anticipating the MET situation at BRU could have allowed to make the
decision D02 (slow-down in flight) in order to avoid the holding pattern at arrival.
However considering the low cost induced by the holding, the alternative option does not appear
worth of being implemented.
See Section 4.3.4.
See Section 4.4.1.
See Section 4.5.1.
See Section 4.5.2.
5.2.4.1 Conclusions
70 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
See section 2.1.5.
This exercise addresses the improvement of the ANSP KPIs.
5.3.2 Conduct of Demonstration exercise EXE-0206-300
See section 3.1.
The trial period represents 12 experimentation days.
The total delay due to weather regulations on the period is 14 376’ for 1512 regulated flights.
In total, 848 flights have been actually delayed, and have been further taken into account in the post
analysis.
The next sections provide for each experimentation day where a MET-induced regulation has taken
place, a screen shot of the MET situation based on ASPOC representation for each important event in
the regulation lifecycle (creation, cancellation etc…).
5.3.2.2.1 Day 1 – 21st May 2014
71 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.2.2.2 Day 2 – 23rd June 2014
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Delayed
Flights
8
Avg Delay
per Aircraft
102'
Nb of
Regulated
Flights
17
L4
06h00/06h17
X4 06h/07h40
0:17
1:40
195'
56
22
8,9
X4
09h00/11h00
X4
19h20/20h40
0:00
47'
15
5
9,4
1:20
219'
47'
17
12,9
12,8
5.3.2.2.3 Day 3 – 28th June 2014
R4
16h00/17h15
R3
16h00/17h15
X4
16h31/19h00
Duration
Delay
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
464'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
52
1:15
24
19,3
1:15
288'
51
20
14,4
2:29
1 199'
89'
57
21,0
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
Creation
16h07
35
Update
17h15
39
Update
18h54
43
Cancel
19h09
72 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.2.2.4 Day 4 - 1st July 2014
Duration
ZX4
14h30/15h06
0:36
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
907'
78
Number of Delayed
Flights
56
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
16,2
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
12h27
Creation
13h24
Update
15h06
Cancel
55
59
43
5.3.2.2.5 Day 5 – 3rd July 2014
ZX1
15h00/16h05
X4
15h40/16h44
X4
19h00/21h20
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
1:05
190'
48
16
11,9
1:04
267'
83
26
10,3
0:00
171'
40
17
10,1
5.3.2.2.6 Day 6 – 7th July 2014
X4
06h00 / 08:00
Duration
Delay
0:10
92
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
36
Number of Delayed
Flights
11
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
8.4
5.3.2.2.7 Day 7 – 19th July 2014
R4
08h20 / 15:00
Duration
Delay
1:50
524'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
47
Number of Delayed
Flights
29
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
18,1
of 40.
73 of 109
Update Type
Creation
Update
Cancel
Time
05:02
07:20
10h10
Edition 00.01.00
New regulation rate
40
44
5.3.2.2.8 Day 8 – 20th July 2014
P3
15h50/18h00
Duration
Delay
2:10
843
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
66
Number of Delayed
Flights
48
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
17,6
The regulation is unchanged.
.
5.3.2.2.9 Day 9 – 25th July 2014
RL1
12h40/16h20
RL2
12h40/16h40
RL3
12h40/17h15
RL4
12h40/19h20
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
3:40
466'
74
24
19,4
4:00
1050'
59
44
23,9
4:35
619'
61
32
19,3
6:40
1933'
177
121
16,0
Update Type
Creation
Cancel
Time
12:27
13:53
16:05
New regulation rate
39
39
Update Type
Creation
Time
12:29
13:53
New regulation rate
41
41
74 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Update Type
Creation
Time
New regulation rate
41
41
43
43
12:29
13:53
16:01
17:14
Update Type
Creation
Time
New regulation rate
48
48
50
50
12:29
13:53
16:01
17:23
19:11
5.3.2.2.10
Duration
X4
18h20/20h00
NH4
16h00/19h20
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
1:40
611'
51
37
16,5
2:40
1106'
53
45
24,6
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Cancel
Time
New regulation rate
43
16:31
17:48
18:31
19:18
46
Period
18:20-20h00
18h20-21h40
18h20-21h00
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Update
5.3.2.2.11
Time
New regulation rate
49
51
53
15h46
16:34
16:58
17:11
Period
16h00-19h00
16h00-20h00
18h20-21h00
18h20-18h40
R4
10h20/12h00
X4 8h40/12h40
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
0:00
275'
29
14
19,6
0:40
311'
57
25
12,4
75 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.2.2.12
Duration
Delay
0:20
215'
1:57
1623'
P123
16h20/16h40
ZX4
18h20/21h00
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
36
Number of Delayed
Flights
108
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
15
14,3
86
18,9
Update Type
Creation
Cancel
Time
14:36
16h40
New regulation rate
51
Period
16h00-19h00
New regulation rate
53
Period
18h20-21h00
21h40
21h00
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Cancel
Time
16:07
17h11
18:35
20h15
See section 3.3.2.
See section 4.1.3, Table 11 for the overall synthesis.
The detailed analysis of the weather regulation shows that several actions are available to reduce the
regulation period, based on an improved weather monitoring and forecast:
 Avoid creating a regulation which will be cancelled before the T0 due to a wrong initial
assessment of the MET evolution
 Better anticipate the need for a regulation and avoid the creation of “last minute” regulation
(i.e. less than 30 mn before T0)
 Improve the forecast accuracy and better predict the start and end times of the MET
disturbance on the considered sector.
The corresponding gains (G1, G2, G3 respectively) have been estimated and are summarized in the
table below
Date
Sectors
Duration
Delay
21-mai
P123 15h/18h
3:00
659'
23-juin
L4 06h00/06h17
0:17
102'
X4 06h/07h40
1:40
195'
G1
G2
G3
Total
66'
66'
132'
0'
20'
20'
76 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
X4 09h00/11h00
0:00
47'
X4 19h20/20h40
1:20
219'
0'
R4 16h00/17h15
1:15
464'
0'
R3 16h00/17h15
1:15
288'
0'
X4 16h31/19h00
2:29
1 199'
01-juil
ZX414h30/15h06
0:36
907'
03-juil
ZX1 15h00/16h05
1:05
190'
0'
X4 15h40/16h44
1:04
267'
0'
X4 19h00/21h20
0:00
171'
171'
171'
07-juil
X4 06h00/08h00
0:10
92'
84'
84'
19-juil
R4 08h20/15h00
1:50
524'
204'
204'
20-juil
P3 15h50/18h00
2:10
843'
25-juil
RL1 12h40/16h20
3:40
466'
47'
47'
RL2 12h40/16h40
4:00
1050'
105'
105'
RL3 12h40/17h15
4:35
619'
62'
62'
RL4 12h40/19h20
6:40
1933'
193'
193'
X4 18h20/20h00
1:40
611'
NH4 16h00/18h40
2:40
1106'
R4 10h20/12h00
0:00
275'
275'
275'
X4 08h40/12h40
0:40
311'
242'
242'
P123 16h20/16h40
0:20
215'
ZX4 18h20/21h00
1:57
1623'
406'
44:23
14376'
1429'
28-juin
02 août
03 août
08-août
Total Mai-Aug
47'
47'
120'
120'
240'
91'
91'
0'
111'
61'
61'
111'
221'
0'
406'
703'
468'
2 600'
The cumulated delay of 14376 mn could then be reduced by 2600 mn, i.e. an improvement ratio of
approximately 18%.
Based on the same analyses as used in exercise EXE-206-200, the resulting cost of the ground delay
is 488 784, 00 € for 848 delayed aircraft.
A total gain of 88 388, 10 € would be achievable, representing an average gain of 103,75 € per
delayed aircraft due to weather regulation.
The section below summarizes the analyses conducted on each regulated day, to assess the
achievable improved tuning of the regulations, which could be available with improved MET
information.
Note : the history of regulation settings is reminded, to make the interpretation of the analysis more
readable.
77 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.3.1.1 Day 1 – 21st May 2014
During the regulation period Bordeaux FMP has made some adjustments in the regulation rate:
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
Creation
14h29
42
Update
15h15
47
Update
16h40
53
78 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
At 16h00 the situation is still complicate; the regulation is kept with a rate of 47.
Situation at 17h00
79 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Situation at 18h00
On this day, the regulation could have started one hour later, but as then situation is not improving,
the rate and the end of the regulation period cannot be changed.
5.3.3.1.2 Day 2 – 23rd June 2014
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Delayed
Flights
8
Avg Delay
per Aircraft
102'
Nb of
Regulated
Flights
17
L4
06h00/06h17
X4 06h/07h40
0:17
1:40
195'
56
22
8,9
X4
09h00/11h00
X4
19h20/20h40
0:00
47'
15
5
9,4
1:20
219'
47'
17
12,9
12,8
The meteo situation at 04h00 is represented in the screen shot below.
80 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
A better forecast of the MET situation would prevent the creation of such a regulation, and 47 minutes
of delay would be avoided.
The MET situation at 8h40 is shown in the screen shot below.
81 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.3.1.3 Day 3 – 28th June 2014
R4
16h00/17h15
R3
16h00/17h15
X4
16h31/19h00
Duration
Delay
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
464'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
52
1:15
24
19,3
1:15
288'
51
20
14,4
2:29
1 199'
89'
57
21,0
Update Type
Time
New regulation rate
Creation
16h07
35
Update
17h15
39
Update
18h54
43
Cancel
19h09
The meteo situation at 19h00, at the end of the regulation, shows that the ASPOC is no longer in the
X4 sector. The regulation can be cancelled.
In this situation, a better forecast of the MET evolution is a key element to cancel the regulation. In
this particular case, the cancel decision could have been taken 30 minutes earlier.
82 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.3.1.4 Day 4 - 1st July 2014
Duration
ZX4
14h30/15h06
0:36
Delay
907'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
78
Number of Delayed
Flights
56
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
16,2
At the regulation creation the MET situation is:
83 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Update Type
Creation
Update
Cancel
Time
New regulation rate
12h27
13h24
15h06
55
59
43
The meteo situation at 15h05 shows that the ASPOC is no longer in the ZX4 sector. The regulation
can be cancelled.
In this situation, a better forecast of the MET evolution is a key element to cancel the regulation. In
this particular case, the cancel decision could have been taken earlier, and may be no regulation is
needed.
84 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.3.1.5 Day 5 – 3rd July 2014
ZX1
15h00/16h05
X4
15h40/16h44
X4
19h00/21h20
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
1:05
190'
48
16
11,9
1:04
267'
83
26
10,3
0:00
171'
40
17
10,1
The X4 regulation beginning at 19h00 is created by FMP at 16h00 with a regulation rate of 41. It is
cancelled at 18h41, 19 minutes before regulation T0.
85 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The MET situation at 16h00 shows some ASPOC on X4 sectors
The evolution of ASPOC shows that some ASPOC remains in the X4 sector, but the activity seems
not so strong as it was foreseen at the 16h00.
Below a screen shot at 16h45.
When the decision to cancel the regulation is taken, the MET situation is quiet, and the regulation
could have not been created according to a better forecast of MET activity between 19h00 and 21h00.
86 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Some CB’s are present, but the level of activity is not so strong (situation at 18h40).
Even if the regulation is cancelled, it captured 40 flights and 17 flights were delayed for a total of 171
minutes.
The cancellation is too late to release these flights, and a better forecast could have helped the FMP
in taking the right decision: do not create a MET regulation between 19h00 and 21h00. In this case,
171 minutes of delay are easily avoidable with a good air situation display and analysis tool.
5.3.3.1.6 Day 6 – 7th July 2014
X4
06h00 / 08:00
Duration
Delay
0:10
92
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
36
Number of Delayed
Flights
11
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
8.4
MET situation at 6h00 shows that CB’s activity is not so strong, and the regulation may be cancelled.
The decision is taken at 06h10.
87 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Nevertheless, by construction, some flights are captured in this regulation, generating delay.
On this specific day 92 minutes of delay could have been avoided according to a better forecast of the
MET situation.
5.3.3.1.7 Day 7 – 19th July 2014
R4
08h20 / 15:00
Duration
Delay
1:50
524'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
47
29
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
18,1
of 40.
Update Type
Creation
Update
Cancel
Time
05:02
07:20
10h10
New regulation rate
40
44
At 6h00 the MET situation reveals some ASPOC in the R4 sectors.
88 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
MET situation at 8h00 shows that CB’s activity is not so strong, and the regulation may be cancelled.
The decision is taken at 10h10.
At 10h10, the MET situation is clear.
89 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Obviously, the forecast leading to the creation of the regulation was too pessimistic, and may be, the
regulation was not mandatory, unless, others issues linked with the MET forecast were also foreseen
(general capacity problem, demand in excess).
According to the MET situation, a better forecast could easily lead to a gain of 204 minutes by
changing the end time of the regulation.
5.3.3.1.8 Day 8 – 20th July 2014
P3
15h50/18h00
Duration
Delay
2:10
843
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
66
Number of Delayed
Flights
48
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
17,6
The regulation on is unchanged.
At 13h50 the MET situation reveals some ASPOC in the P3 sectors.
90 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
At 15h00 the MET situation is getting worse on the south border of the P3 sector, the regulation is
maintained to protect P3, and to protect the south sectors L3/L4 and T3/T4 from north flows.
The situation is still fuzzy in the south of P3 sectors, and the regulation is maintained with the same
regulation rate.
91 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
On this case, the MET situation was a real summer thunderstorm situation with its high level of
uncertainty on where the CB’s are going to develop.
The regulation here has a real role of gatekeeper and protects the south sectors of the LFBB area.
The rate cannot be raised, or the regulation cannot be cancelled at any time of the regulation period.
92 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
To complete the analysis, the whole day was quite a nightmare over France as shown in the screen
shot (MET situation at 18h00).
.
5.3.3.1.9 Day 9 – 25th July 2014
RL1
12h40/16h20
RL2
12h40/16h40
RL3
12h40/17h15
RL4
12h40/19h20
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
3:40
466'
74
24
19,4
4:00
1050'
59
44
23,9
4:35
619'
61
32
19,3
6:40
1933'
177
121
16,0
Due to changes in the meteo data server, we don’t have the meteo situation at 12h40.
Update Type
Creation
Cancel
Time
12:27
13:53
16:05
New regulation rate
39
39
Update Type
Creation
Time
12:29
13:53
New regulation rate
41
41
93 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Update Type
Creation
Time
12:29
13:53
16:01
17:14
New regulation rate
41
41
43
43
Update Type
Creation
Time
12:29
13:53
16:01
17:23
19:11
New regulation rate
48
48
50
50
Nevertheless, at 14h30, the situation shows several ASPOC with high severity in the R and L sectors,
and meteo bad situation at the south of R sectors.
The regulation in place looks necessary, and the delay due to weather during this period is justified.
94 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
At 16h20, the regulation in RL1 is modified; the situation is calming down on RL1 according to meteo
situation and demand. The RL1 regulation is cancelled at 16:05.
On upper level (LR2, 3 a,d 4), the situation is still problematic, and a decision to extend the regulation
is taken by the FMP up to 19:00 for RL3 and RL4.
For RL2, 10 minutes later, the regulation is over, and for the same reason as for RL1, the regulation is
not extended.
95 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
RL3 follows the same diagnostic at 17h15 the decision is to shorten RL3 by changing the end of the
regulation period from 19h00 to 17h15. The situation is under control..
The last action on RL4 is to shorten the regulation by moving the end date from 20:40 to 19:20.
The meteo situation is really calm.
The experimentation with current TopMet feature does not allow us to gain delay on this day,
nevertheless, with a good forecast, and simulations tools, a gain of 10% in delay is feasible.
96 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The management of Meteo information requires further experimentation on how to translate a specific
meteo situation into regulation or scenarios.
For this day the figures are:
5.3.3.1.10
Sectors
Delay
Gain
RL1
466'
47'
RL2
1050'
105'
RL2
619'
62'
RL4
1933'
193'
Duration
X4
18h20/20h00
NH4
16h00/19h20
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
1:40
611'
51
37
16,5
2:40
1106'
53
45
24,6
The meteo situation is described in the screen shot below, at 16h00 in the afternoon.
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Time
16:31
17:48
18:31
New regulation rate
43
46
Period
18:20-20h00
18h20-21h40
18h20-21h00
97 of 109
Cancel
Edition 00.01.00
19:18
Update Type
Creation
Update
Update
Update
Time
15h46
16:34
16:58
17:11
New regulation rate
49
51
53
Period
16h00-19h00
16h00-20h00
18h20-21h00
18h20-18h40
The screen shot below show the situation at 16h20, just before the begin date of NH4 regulation.
A strong CB’s activity is detected, and has a real influence on traffic. The regulation is extended (+
one hour), with a small increase of the regulation rate.
98 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The meteo situation is evolving, and at 18h20, most of the CB’s activity is moving east to Aix FIR.
Some ASPOC remain over N4 and H4 sectors.
At 18h40, NH4 regulation is over, and no extension of the regulation is decided.
The situation over X4 sector is also calming down and a first small reduction of 40 minutes is decided
according to the situation.
99 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
Later in the day at 20h00, the meteo is stable. And the severity of the ASPOC is decreasing strongly
over H4, while no CB’s are present in the X4 sector.
The experimentation with current TopMet feature does not allow us to gain delay on this day,
nevertheless, with a good forecast, and simulations tools, a gain of 10% in delay is feasible.
The management of Meteo information requires further experimentation on how to translate a specific
meteo situation into regulation or scenarios.
5.3.3.1.11
Sectors
Delay
Gain
X4
611
61
NH4
1106
111
R4
10h20/12h00
X4 8h40/12h40
Duration
Delay
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
0:00
275'
29
14
19,6
0:40
311'
57
25
12,4
The meteo situation is described in the screen shot below, at 4h55.
100 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
The regulation on R4 is created at 9h10 (screen shot), and cancelled at 10h18, 2 minutes before the
official regulation T0.
As shown in the screen shot, the R4 situation is quiet, and the major part of ASPOC activity has
moved east more quickly than expected. At 10h20, the regulation is cancelled.
101 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
According to this case, the major information is that the meteo situation evolved in a better way than
the plan at 5h00. The regulations are cancelled, but produced delay due to regulation process.
This delay could easily avoided by using a real good forecast of the meteo situation.
5.3.3.1.12
Sectors
Delay
Gain
R4
275
275
X4
311
242
P123
16h20/16h40
ZX4
18h20/21h00
Duration
Delay
0:20
215'
1:57
1623'
Nb of
Regulated
Fligths
36
108
Number of Delayed
Flights
Avd Delay per
Aircraft
15
14,3
86
18,9
Update Type
Creation
Cancel
Time
14:36
16h40
New regulation rate
51
Period
16h00-19h00
New regulation rate
53
Period
18h20-21h00
21h40
Update Type
Creation
Update
Time
16:07
17h11
102 of 109
Update
Cancel
18:35
20h15
Edition 00.01.00
21h00
At 14h30, the situation is:
P123 in the north is under the threat of huge CB’s area on the west. Depending on the evolution, the
P123 must be regulated.
The south part of the ACC is also close to a bad ASPOC area, but no decision is taken now.
103 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
At 16:00, the situation has changed:
The south ASPOC area is moving north towards ZX4, and to protect the sectors a regulation is
created.
A first decision point about P123 regulation appears, and according to the demand, the regulation
could be cancelled.
At 16h40, the P123 regulation is cancelled. Meanwhile the regulation over ZX4 is extended.
104 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
At 20h00, all the major ASPOC activity has moved east, and the ZX4 regulation can be removed.
According to this case, the major information is that the meteo situation evolved in a better way than
the plan for ZX4 sectors. The ZX4 regulation could have been stopped earlier according to the last
picture of the MET situation..
5.3.3.1.13
Sectors
Delay
Gain
P123
215
0
ZX4
1623
406
Results per KPA
See Section 4.2, Table 12
5.3.3.1.14
Results impacting regulation and standardisation initiatives
See Section 4.3.4.
5.3.3.1.15
Unexpected Behaviours/Results
See Section 4.4.1.
5.3.3.1.16
Quality of Demonstration Results
See Section 4.5.1.
5.3.3.1.17
Significance of Demonstration Results
See Section 4.5.2.
105 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
5.3.4.1 Conclusions
106 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
6 References
18/12/2012
issued 26/07/2013
issued 26/07/2013
29/09/2014
[6] TOPMET Demonstration Exercise Report, Edition 00.01.00, non contractual deliverable
D005, issued 29/09/2014
107 of 109
Appendix A
Edition 00.01.00
Communication material
108 of 109
Edition 00.01.00
-END OF DOCUMENT-
109 of 109

View - SESAR

Transcription

Similar documents

THALES AN/PRC-148

Single European Sky Air Traffic Management

Please use one form per client, send the filled booking form back to

the set of presentations

See you in the air

The Liberty™ Multiband Land Mobile Radio, the first multiband LMR

making changes to your flight

Procedures for Air Navigation services -Airspace Design

secoia 1407-‐1