WE FREE Demonstration Report Document information Project Title
WE FREE
Project Number
01.09
Project Manager
Air France
Deliverable Name
WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition
00.00.06
Template version
01.00.00
Task contributors DSNA, ENAV, Skyguide Air France, Hop!, Alitalia
This document describes the Final report of the WE FREE project that involves DSNA Skyguide, ENAV as ANSP and Air France, Alitalia and HOP! as Airspace Users. The WE FREE demonstration scope was defined as En route optimization mainly in the lateral dimension, with possible vertical optimization as well, for flights departing from Paris CDG airport and having a destination in Italy during Weekend operations. Main objectives of the demonstration activities were to evaluate up to which extends Free Route concept could be implemented on Weekend in busy airspace. A benefice of 20 tons of CO2 saved per day was evaluated.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Authoring & Approval Prepared By - Authors of the document. Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Gwénaël Vern skyguide
OPS expert
12/02/2014
Hervé Robert/DSNA
Head of OPS Division
28/02/2014
Daniela Di Febo Alitalia
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Antonello Bologni ENAV
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Enrico Lucini ENAV
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Laurent Galindou DSNA
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Vital Bride DSNA
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Russell Olivier HOP regional
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Alan Quemere HOP britair
Project contributor
28/03/2014
Sandra Laloux Air France
Project Manager
28/03/2014
Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Pascal Latron/ skyguide
skyguide project leader
25.02.2014
Alain Bougin DSNA
Project contributor
07/05/2014
Carlo Pacenti Alitalia
Project contributor
07/05/2014
Laurent Renou
Project Leader
07/05/2014
Jean Claude Serres HOP britair
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Claudio Cannavicci ENAV
Project contributor
07/05/2014
Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project.
Reviewed By - Other SESAR projects, Airspace Users, staff association, military, Industrial Support, other organisations. Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
Alain Bougin DSNA
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Gwénaël Vern skyguide
OPS expert
16/05/2014
Carlo Pacenti Alitalia
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Antonello Bologni ENAV
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Pascal Latron Skyguide
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Laurent Galindou DSNA
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Russell Olivier HOP regional
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Vital Bride DSNA
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Jean Claude Serres HOP britair
Project contributor
16/05/2014
Laurent Renou Air France
Project Manager
16/05/2014
Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company
Position & Title
Date
2 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Rational for rejection None.
3 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Document History Edition
Date
Status
Author
Justification
00.00.00
25/09/2012
Draft
Sandra LALOUX
New document
00.00.01
05/10/2012
Draft
Sandra LALOUX
00.00.02
29/04/2014
Draft
Sandra LALOUX
00.00.03
07/05/2014
Draft
Sandra LALOUX
00.00.04
20/05/2014
00.00.05
Submitted to SJU for Approval Included SJU comments
Sandra LALOUX
Initialisation of chap 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Insertion of all partners inputs Final version for Partner validation and submission to SJU Validated version by partners
Sandra LALOUX
Intellectual Property Rights (foreground) This deliverable consists of SJU foreground.
4 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 8 1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
2
CONTEXT OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS............................................................................................. 13 2.1
3
SCOPE OF THE DEMONSTRATION AND COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE SESAR PROGRAMME .......... 13
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 15 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4
4
PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................... 9 INTENDED READERSHIP......................................................................................................................... 9 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT........................................................................................................... 9 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................................... 9 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 9
ORGANISATION.................................................................................................................................... 15 W ORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE....................................................................................................... 18 DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................................................... 22 RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 23
EXECUTION OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES ............................................................................ 26 4.1 EXERCISES PREPARATION.................................................................................................................. 26 4.1.1 WE FREE route design (WP2) ................................................................................................... 26 4.1.2 Publication (WP2) ........................................................................................................................ 41 4.1.3 Validation tests of the WE FREE design (WP2) ...................................................................... 41 4.1.4 Safety assessment ....................................................................................................................... 42 4.1.5 Preparation of the Trial (WP3) ................................................................................................... 46 4.2 EXERCISES EXECUTION ...................................................................................................................... 50 4.3 DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 50
5
DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES REPORTS ....................................................................................... 52 5.1 DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE EXE-01.09-D-101 REPORT................................................................ 52 5.1.1 Exercise Scope............................................................................................................................. 52 5.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.09-D-101 ......................................................... 52 5.1.3 Exercise Results ........................................................................................................................... 53 5.1.4 Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................... 79
6
SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 80
7
NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................. 81 7.1 7.2
8
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................... 81 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 83
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 85 8.1 8.2
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS................................................................................................................... 85 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. 85
APPENDIX A
KPA RESULTS .................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
A.1 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY ...................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A.1.1 Realised flight repartition ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.1.2 AF and HOP! Analysis ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.1.3 AZ Analysis ......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.1.4 AF/HOP! and AZ specific analysis on OKEPI MOKIP: ..............Error! Bookmark not defined. A.1.5 AF/HOP! actual data analysis .......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.1.6 Fuel transport Study .......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.2 COST EFFICIENCY ......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A.2.1 Air France .........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
A.2.2 Alitalia ...............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.3 CAPACITY ...................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A.3.1 ENAV ................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.3.2 SKYGUIDE .......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.3.3 DSNA ................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.4 SAFETY.......................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A.4.1 Skyguide ...........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.4.2 DSNA ................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.4.3 ENAV ................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A.4.4 AIRLINES .........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX B
OPERATIONAL DOCUMENTATIONS ........................................................................... 86
APPENDIX C
COMMUNICATION DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................ 87
C.1
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................ 88
C.2
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................................... 103
List of tables Table 1: Exercises overview ................................................................................................................. 14 Table 2: Exercises execution/analysis dates ........................................................................................ 50 Table 3: Summary of exercice results ................................................................................................... 54 Table 4: Summary of schedule flight per week end on WE FREE destination ......Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: WE FREE realised flight repartition per WE FREE routings ..... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6: summary of WE FREE savings per routing for AF/HOP!.......... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 7: Summary of WE FREE savings for AF/HOP! for the trial ......... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 8: summary of WE FREE savings for AZ per routing ................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 9: Summary of WE FREE savings for the Trial for AZ .................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 10: ATC charge study for AF ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 11: ATC charge study for AZ ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of figures Figure 1: Consortium organisation ........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 2: Work Package structure ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 3: Current preferential routings for WE FREE destinations ....................................................... 27 Figure 4: RAD restrictions on current routings ...................................................................................... 28 Figure 5: AZA/AFR WE FREE proposal vs current situation ................................................................ 29 Figure 6: PARIS ACC OKEPI MOKIP DCT proposal ........................................................................... 30 Figure 7: Reims – Zurich ACC exchange flows and analysis of AO route proposal............................. 31 Figure 8: Reims WE FREE routing proposal ........................................................................................ 32 Figure 9: Geneva ACC We-Free routings ............................................................................................. 35 Figure 10: Zurich ACC We-Free routings ............................................................................................. 36 Figure 11: WE FREE routings ............................................................................................................... 39 Figure 12: CDG FCO (LIRF) routings ................................................................................................... 39 Figure 13: CDG LIN (LIML) routings ..................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: CDG VCE (LIPX) Routings .................................................................................................. 40 Figure 15: KALMO TINKU shortcut ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 16: definition of horizontal deviation ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 17: Illustration of Horizontal deviation improvement with WE FREE ..........Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 18: Comparison of "planned trip fuel" and "realised trip fuel" for AF in the baseline .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Figure 19: Comparison of "planned trip fuel" and "realised trip fuel" for AF in the WE FREE week end ................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
7 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Executive summary The WE FREE demonstration scope was defined as En route optimization mainly in the lateral dimension, with possible vertical optimization as well, for flights departing from Paris CDG airport and having a destination in Italy during Weekend operations. As so, WE FREE project is an instantiation of the SESAR project P7.5.3 called User Preferred Routing in a high traffic density area. The focus areas addressed by the WE FREE project are the Free Routing (OFA 03.01.03) and the Trajectory Management Framework (OFA 03.01.01). To manage this project, WE FREE consortium is composed of:
3 ANSP, two of FABEC – DSNA and Skyguide – and ENAV
4 airlines: Air France, Alitalia, HOP!
Those seven partners worked together to design new strategic planning of cross border direct between CDG and Italian destinations (i.e. FCO, NAP, VCE, LIN, TRN, VRN, BLQ, GOA, PSA) and evaluate the feasibility of their implementation. The project studied in particular the feasibility to design those directs from SID exit point to STAR entry point. Two trial week-ends were run in November 2013 and the feedbacks of all partners were very positives. The project showed that, thanks to WE FREE routings, 925 NM, 140 min, 6,5 tons of Fuel, 20 tons of CO2 could be saved per day and that there is an horizontal deviation reduction of 1% compared to the current horizontal deviation. ENAV, Skyguide and DSNA Reims are studying the implementation of WE FREE routes with a step wise approach. For the moment, a winter implementation is foreseen for most of the routings. This option is strongly supported by the AO.
8 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the document This document provides the Demonstration report for WE FREE, focusing on Free Route OFA. It describes the results of demonstration exercises defined in WE FREE Demonstration Plan 00.01.00 th of December 05 , 2012 and how they have been conducted. In particular, this document summarizes all design, trial execution and post analysis activities. The route design will be described per segment by each responsible ANSP. Results of the exercise will be conjointly described by the ANSP (for the implementation feasibility part) and Airlines (for the flight efficiency part, with the support of ANSP).
1.2 Intended readership The intended readership for this document is the WE FREE stakeholders and the SESAR community (ANSP, FAB, Airlines).
1.3 Structure of the document This document is organized in 9 parts. After an introduction, it describes the context of the demonstrations, the programme management and the execution of demonstration exercises. Then it presents the exercises results, the demonstration exercises reports, a summary of the communication activities, next steps and annexes. As WE FREE has only one exercise, the chapter 5 has been deleted as intended by the template.
1.4 Glossary of terms N/A
1.5 Acronyms and Terminology Term
Definition
ACC
Area Control Centre
AIP
Aeronautical Information Publication
AIRE
Atlantic interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions
ANSP
Air Navigation Service Provider
AO
Airline Operator
AOM
Airspace Organisation and Management
ASMSG
AirSpace Management Sub Group
ATCO
Air Traffic Controller
ATC
Air Traffic Control
9 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report Term
Edition 00.00.06
Definition
ATM
Air Traffic Management
ATS
Air Traffic Service
BLQ
Bologna Airport
CDG
Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport
CFMU
Central Flow Management Unit
COP
Coordination Point
CRAM
Conditional Route Availability Message
DCT
Direct
DOD
Detailed Operational Description
DSNA
Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne, French ANSP
E-ATMS
European Air Traffic Management System
E-OCVM
European Operational Concept Validation Methodology
EU-ETS
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
ECAC
European Civil Aviation Conference
ENAV
Italian ANSP
ETA
Estimated Time of Arrival
FAB
Functional Airspace Block
FABEC
Functional Airspace Block Europe Central
FCO
Roma Fiumicino Airport
FDPS
Flight Data Processing System
FIR
Flight Information Region
FL
Flight Level
FMS
Flight Management System
FPL
Flight Plan
FRA
Free Route Airspace
FRAM
Free Route Airspace Maastricht, Project
FUA
Flexible Use of Airspace
10 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report Term
Edition 00.00.06
Definition
GOA
Genao Airport
GCD
Great Circle Distance
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organisation
KPA
Key Performance Area
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
LIN
Milan Linate Airport
LOA
Letter of Agreement
NOP
Network Operation Plan
NORACON
North European and Austrian Consortium, consisting of Swedavia (Swedish airports) and eight European ANSPs: Austro Control (Austria) and the North European ANSPs (NEAP) including AVINOR (Norway), EANS (Estonia), Finavia (Finland), IAA (Ireland), ISAVIA (Iceland), LFV (Sweden) and Naviair (Denmark)
OFA
Operational Focus Areas
OFP
Operational Flight Plan
OI
Operational Improvement
PCP
Pilot Common Project
PM
Project Manager
POC
Point of Contact
PRR
Performance Review Report
PRU
Performance Review Unit
PSA
Pisa Airport
RAD
Route Availability Document
RFL
Requested Flight Level
RNDSG
Route Network Development Sub Group
SESAR
Single European Sky ATM Research Programme
SESAR Programme
The programme which defines the Research and Development activities and Projects for the SJU.
SID
Standard Instrument Departure (Route)
11 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report Term
Edition 00.00.06
Definition
SJU
SESAR Joint Undertaking
SJU Work Programme
The programme which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint Undertaking Agency.
Skyguide
Swiss ANSP
STA
Schedule Time of Arrival
STAR
Standard Arrival Route
TRN
Turino airport
TMA
Terminal Control Area
VCE
Venice Airport
VRN
Verona Airport
WE FREE
Week-End Free route project
WBS
Work Breakdown structure
WP
Work Package
12 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
2 Context of the Demonstrations 2.1 Scope of the demonstration and complementarity with the SESAR Programme Scope of the demonstration: The WE FREE demonstration scope was defined as En route optimization mainly in the lateral dimension, with possible vertical optimization as well, for flights departing Paris CDG airport and having a destination in Italy during Weekend operations. For the purpose of WE FREE project, Cross border directs was designed. The feasibility to design those directs from SID exit point to STAR entry point was studied (Obj-0109-05).
WE FREE in the context of SESAR programme: The focus areas (OFA) addressed by the WE FREE project were the Free Routing (OFA 03.01.03) and the Trajectory Management Framework (OFA 03.01.01). The Free Route OFA principal aim is to allow Airspace Users to fly their preferred business trajectories without the need to adhere to a predefined route structure. The Trajectory Management Framework OFA focus on enhanced flexibility and predictability and on provision of more optimised flight trajectories and profiles, thus reducing ATM related costs WEFREE project was also aligned with the objectives of the PCP ATM Function 3 “Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route which targets full implementation of Direct Routing from FL310 at network level for 2017.
Geographical coverage: WE FREE trial occured in high density traffic of the core area. The city pairs concerned by the trial were:
CDG-FCO CDG-VCE CDG-LIN CDG-TRN CDG - VRN CDG - BLQ CDG-GOA CDG-PSA Three ANSPs were involved in the city-pairs: DSNA, skyguide and ENAV. For any city pairs, 3 ACCs are involved among Paris, Reims, Geneva, Zurich, Milano, Roma and Padova.
13 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Summary of exercises: The WE FREE project focused on one exercise summarized in the following table:
Demonstration Exercise ID and Title Leading organization Exercise Level
EXE-01.09-D-101 : WE FREE Exercise
Air France Live flight trials to validate the feasibility of concept of Free route.
Demonstration exercise objectives
The WE FREE objectives were:
Assess CO2 reduction, Flight cost (including Fuel cost, overflight fees and time cost) on planned and realised data
Evaluate impact of WE FREE on flight punctuality
Evaluate impact of WE FREE on surrounding traffic
Evaluate the possibility of implementation of Free route on Weekend operations between CDG and Italy for En route phases, and potentially from SID exit and STAR entry
Evaluate if WE FREE implementation has an impact on ATCO workload (more coordination)
Evaluate impact of WE FREE on sector capacity, traffic complexity conflicts management.
and
potential
Assess this impact on Safety
OFA addressed Applicable Operational Context
Demonstration Technique Number of trials
OFA 03.01.03, OFA 03.01.01 The exercise will be executed in a nominal weekend day of operations (no severe weather, drop of capacity…) Live trials 128 realised trial flights (and 609 trial flights participating only to the OKEPI MOKIP trial)
Table 1: Exercises overview
14 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
3 Programme management 3.1 Organisation
Figure 1: Consortium organisation
Air France acted as the Consortium leader and as the project manager. On one side, DSNA, Skyguide and ENAV, as ANSPs, and on the other side Alitalia, Hop! as Airspace Users, will act as project contributors for both the project specification and the run of CDG to Italy Free Route flight trials. EUROCONTROL, as network manager, provided operational support for solution design and trial execution. Roles and responsibility in the WE FREE project are sum up in the following table: Company
Category
Contract
Air France
Airspace User
Consortium Leader
Alitalia
Airspace User
Contributor
Hop!
Airspace User
Air France subcontractor
DSNA
ANSP
Contributor & Technical leader
ENAV
ANSP
Contributor
Skyguide
ANSP
Contributor & Technical leader
EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL
Project associate (with no contractual obligation)
The team structure was composed by Air France, Alitalia, Hop!, DSNA, ENAV and skyguide grouped into a consortium. Air France was acting as the Coordinator; Alitalia, DSNA, ENAV and skyguide were acting as Contractors ; Hop! was a subcontractor of Air France. Air France acted as the project manager and technical leader for airlines activities; Skyguide and DSNA were technical leaders for specific ATC activities.
15 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Although EUROCONTROL was not part of the consortium, they provided operational support for solution design and trial execution as network manager. Expectations of each contributor were defined in the demonstration plan and are:
Stakeholder Participating Airlines_exp_001
External / Internal Internal
Involvement Concept/ validation/ Trial
Why it matters to stakeholder
Performance expectations
New route design for flight optimization
Exercise Identifier
EXE-01.09Environment Flight Efficiency: D-101 Fuel savings, time savings No additional regulation SID/STAR shall remain untouched (not to jeopardize savings) EXE-01.09D-101
Participating Airlines_exp_002
Internal
Concept/ validation/ Trial
To have flights concerned by Free Route implementation in Europe
Participating Airlines_exp_003
Internal
Concept/ validation/ Trial
To get a clearer view on how Free Route can be implemented in Europe especially in FABEC and during weekend
EXE-01.09D-101
Participating Airlines_exp_004
Internal
Concept/ validation/ Trial
To participate and give an impulse on the Free Route implementation in Europe
EXE-01.09D-101
Participating Airlines_exp_005
Internal
Concept/ validation/ Trial
EXE-01.09D-101
Non-Participating Airlines_exp_001 Non-Participating Airlines_exp_002
External
N/A
External
N/A
Improvement of cooperation and communication between stakeholders about airspace Benefit of new route design Benefit from best practices of WE FREE project and potential extension to other city pairs in Europe.
Participating ANSP_exp_001
Internal
Participating ANSP_exp_002
Internal
Participating ANSP_exp_003
Internal
Concept/ validation/ Trial Concept/ validation/ Trial Concept/ validation/
New route design
EXE-01.09D-101 EXE-01.09D-101
Environment Flight Efficiency
EXE-01.09D-101
Evaluate the impact of WE FREE on capacity
EXE-01.09D-101
Evaluate the impact on traffic complexity and
EXE-01.09D-101
16 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report Stakeholder
External / Internal
Involvement Trial
Participating ANSP_exp_004
Internal
Non-participating ANSP_exp_001
External
Concept/ validation/ Trial N/A
Network “consultat Concept/ manager_exp_001 ive” validation/ Trial Military External N/A authorities_exp_00 1
Edition 00.00.06
Why it matters to stakeholder on potential conflict management Evaluate the impact on intercentre coordination Benefit from best practices of WE FREE project and potential extension to other city pair in Europe.
Performance expectations
Exercise Identifier
EXE-01.09D-101 EXE-01.09D-101
To be able to validate the flight plan
EXE-01.09D-101
Not be impacted by Free route concept on weekend operations
EXE-01.09D-101
Regulatory Authorities_exp_0 01
External
N/A
Benefit from best practices of WE FREE project and potential extension to other city pairs in Europe.
EXE-01.09D-101
Aircraft manufacturers_ex p_001
External
N/A
EXE-01.09D-101
Flight planning system provider_exp_001
External
N/A
To clarify needs and feasibility relative to Free Route concepts (in particular FMS) To clarify needs and feasibility relative to Free Route concept
EXE-01.09D-101
17 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
3.2 Work Breakdown Structure Work Breakdown Structure was described in the demonstration plan section 3.2. No major change in this structure happened during the project. However, this section has been updated with the realisation of the project.
Work Package Breakdown description:
The project is divided into six work packages. WP0: WP0: Management Management and and Communication Communication
WP1: WP1: Demonstration Demonstration & & Communication Communication Plan Plan
WP2: WP2: Design Design of of the the solution solution WP3: WP3: Preparation Preparation of of the the flight flight trials trials WP4: WP4: Performance Performance of of flight flight trials trials
Phase 1
WP5: WP5: Validation Validation Project Project Results Results
Phase 2
D2D2-Final Report
D1D1-Demonstration Plan
Figure 2: Work Package structure
WP 0 - Management and communication Leading Partner
AF
WP Description The coordination task encompasses the following activities:
Co-ordination of the project partners,
Arrangement and conduct of meetings,
Organisation of workshops where appropriate,
Progress monitoring and reporting,
Consolidation and presentation of results,
Liaison with SESAR-JU,
Quality control. The objective of the Communication achievements is to increase awareness and inform the aviation community and general public about the aim and status of the proposed validation project in support to the AIRE Initiative to reduce emissions and improve the flight efficiency. Expected Outputs (deliverables) Minutes of Meetings, Quarterly report, communication releases
18 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
WP 1 – Demonstration and Communication Plan Leading Partner
AF
WP Description The demonstration plan refined the technical proposal in providing in particular :
The description of the current situation and the objectives of the validation (demonstration) project in terms of operational, environmental and economic benefits,
The description of the operational environment and conditions to perform the flight trials,
The specification of the type of support means needed to inform the operational staffs that will be involved (air traffic controller, pilot, …),
The main leads and KPI to be used for measurement and analysis specification,
The main lead and expected means to be used for data collection, the expected tools adaptation and technical set up if needed.
The number of trials, the duration of each trial and when the flight trials will take place.
The definition of the scenario and exercise will be deeper addressed during WP 2 (solution design) and will come out in detailed solution and a validation plan WP 3 (preparation of flight trials).
The objective of the communication plan is to detail who, when, on what and how, the different partners involved and SJU representatives will communicate and promote the validation project. It will propose:
The detailed description of the activities and material to be edited,
The detailed description of the events to be organized.
Finally, a Risk Management Plan was developed based on a standard risk management process that follows a 3-step approach: Identify, Analyse and Treat. Demonstration Plan, Communication Plan and Risk Management Plan are part of the first deliverable to SJU. Expected Outputs (deliverables) th
1.09 WE FREE demonstration plan v00.01.00 of December 05 , 2012
19 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
WP 2 – Design of the solution AF for Airlines,
Leading Partner
DSNA and Skyguide for ANSP
WP Description The objective of this work package was to design the solution to be deployed in order to technically perform the flight trials. In details, the work done was:
Review the SESAR project P7.5.3 step1 OSED as well as SESAR Project 4.2 material and learn from flight trials already performed,
Design the Weekend Route network necessary to perform the flight trials,
Assess impact (economical, workload, efficiency, safety, environmental…) and perform necessary updates, improvements and modifications required for the trial (procedure and/or system),
Issue accurate and precise procedures between relevant control centers in order to establish all responsibilities within the stakeholders.
In particular, safety assessments were performed by each partner following their own methodology. However, best practices were shared and safety assessment outcomes were took into account into route design when relevant (See section 4.1.1). All safety assessments were finished on planned schedule and so the trials were run on expected schedule. Expected Outputs (deliverables) Safety assessment (ATC, airlines), Solution design, temporary LOA amendment (procedures)
WP 3 – Preparation of flight trials AF for Airlines,
Leading Partner
DSNA and Skyguide for ANSP
WP Description The objective of this work package was to ensure that everything is ready in order to start the flight trials.
Agree on a baseline against which to compare the results,
Brief pilots, flight dispatchers and Air Traffic Controllers,
Plan extra operational staff during the flight trials periods if necessary
Distribute feedback sheet for debriefing of flight trials,
List types of data to be recorded and saved for flight efficiency analysis and implementation study,
Expected Outputs (deliverables) procedures, feed back sheets (for data and feed back collection)
20 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
WP 4 – Performance of flight trials AF for Airlines,
Leading Partner
DSNA for ANSP
WP Description The objective of this work package is to perform the flight trials as prepared in WP3. Each flight trial is supposed to be a proof-of-concept of the adapted ATC procedures and Route Network design to improve flight efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. Expected Outputs (deliverables) Realized Data, operational Feed Back on procedures.
WP 5 – Validation of project results
Leading Partner
Alitalia for Airlines results analysis and AF for B1 production Skyguide for ANSP results analysis
WP Description The objectives of this work package were:
To process and analyse in-depth the data collected during the different flight trials,
To measure and compare achieved results with initial objectives for each demonstration,
To provide when possible a generalisation of flight trials’ results, i.e. what-if perspective against a possible full deployment of initiatives,
To detail what could be the possible deployment scenarios,
To produce a detailed report (B1) on achieved flight trials
Expected Outputs (deliverables) B1
21 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
3.2 Deliverables The WE FREE partners commit to completing the project within 24 months. The project was punctuated by the 3 following milestones:
The project start date T0, formalized by the project Kick Off Meeting.
45 days after T0, the project partners deliver the Deliverable 1 – Demonstration and Communication Plan (A1). This delivery closes phase 1 of the WE FREE project.
before T0+24 months, project partners present their results and conclusions and deliver the Deliverable 2 – Demonstration Report (B1). This represents the closure of the project.
Deliverable name
Date
KOM (T0)
25/09/2012
Demonstration Plan (A1)
Submitted: 08/11/2012; Final approval: 05/12/2012
Demonstration Report (B1)
Submitted: 30/06/2014
Another deliverable was the presentation done during the Critical Project review and the gate report associated to this presentation. Deliverable/Milestone name
Date
Critical Project review meeting (with SJU)
27/11/2013
This meeting was held in Lisbon November 27th 2013. At that time, the trials over two week-ends of were performed and a first set of preliminary results was delivered. The project received a green status from the SESAR JU with the following comment:
The work undertaken is in line with the project’s scope and expectations and good progress has been noted. I have high expectations that this trailed solution gets implemented rapidly if no safety issues are reported Finally, WE FREE project delivered quarterly progress reports as expected by the SJU. Please see the following table which sums up the delivery schedule.
Reporting period
Deadline
Q4 2012
15th Jan 2013
Q1 2013
15th Apr 2013
Q2 2013
15th Jul 2013
Q3 2013
15th Oct 2013
Q4 2013
15th Jan 2014
Q1 2014
15th Apr 2014
22 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
3.4 Risk Management In the table below, all the identified risks are gathered in the demonstration plan. All those risks have been weighted and mitigation actions have been put in place. Those risks were monitored during the project life and were assessed at each project steering meeting (monthly project steering review).
Risks
Probability of occurrence
Level Impact
Lack of Capacity
Medium (3)
High (4)
of
Risk assessment
Mitigation Actions
12
A1 comments: Scenario has been reduced to Weekend only (no military entities were involved in the project). If necessary, time window within weekend hours could be set Updated Comments for Final Report:
Trial Preparation: No time window was applied on WE FREE trial. Indeed, no lack of capacity was foreseen as trial dates were decided to be in winter operations (before the ski scenarios).
Trial realisation: issue during the trial
Drop of Capacity
Low (2)
High (4)
8
no
A1 comments: To postpone flight trials Updated comments:
no major issues reported during the first week end and therefore the second week end was run (more detailed study on capacity in section Error! Reference source not found.) Safety risk
High (4)
Very High (5)
20
A1 comments: As seen as the major risk in this project, Safety assessment for each Airline and ANSP will be done during the solution design phase. Any outcome will be taken into account into
23 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06 solution definition.
and
procedures
Updated Comments: no major issues reported during the first week end and therefore the second week end was run (more detailed study on WE FREE routes safety assessment in section 4.1.4 and in section Error! Reference source not found.) Operational not ready
procedures
Low (2)
High (4)
8
A1 comments: Work anticipation/ Progress monitoring
Project
Updated Comments: Operational procedures were ready for the trial Airlines Schedule change
Medium (3)
Low (1)
3
A1 comments: Work share on flight execution is to be redistributed between all airline partners Updated comments: Only 5 flights were cancelled (+ one flight didn’t use the WE FREE routing) Total flight trial number is up to 134 (contractual minimum number of 50 is overpassed)
Experimentation conditions are not met
Low (2)
High (4)
8
A1 comments: Selection of Weekends avoiding conflict with ATC scenario (example: ski scenario) In case of adverse weather conditions, flight trials will be postponed Updated commments: First week end faced strong winds but the experimentation were run without issues. However, it showed the necessity to adapt the procedure for severe weather case Second week end
weather
24 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06 situation was more regular
25 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4 Execution of Demonstration Exercises 4.1 Exercises Preparation 4.1.1 WE FREE route design (WP2) 4.1.1.1 Current Routings In the following table are summed up the current week end “preferential routings” used by the Airlines of the consortium at the beginning of the WE FREE project Solution design start. Those routings (and restriction) were the inputs of the work design between the Airlines and the ANSP.
y pairAir
Current Routings
Length in NM
LFPG OKASI UL612 MILPA UM730 BEROK UQ705 XIBIL LIRF No FL restriction
690NM
LANVI UN491 BEGAR UL15 RIPUS UN850 ODINA UM727 KARPI UQ705 XIBIL No FL restriction
693NM
LANVI UN491 DEGES UN871 MADEB.UM738.ADOSA.UL612.ALBET > FL 330 at DEGES
558NM
LFPG LANVI UN491 BEGAR UL15 RIPUS UN850 GERSA UN850 ODINA LIML No FL restriction
467NM
LFPG OKASI2A OKASI UL612 MILPA UM135 TOP TOP1W LIML > capping FL 310
462NM
OKASI UL612 MILPA UM135 VEROB UM135 TOP UM730 TESTO > capping FL 310
508NM
OKASI UL612 MILPA /N0430F290 UM135 TOP UL50 KONER > capping FL 310
584NM
518NM
(operated by HOP!)
OKASI UL612 MILPA UM135 TOP UM730 GEN UM859 LUPOS > capping FL 310
CDG VRN (LIPX) via LANVI
OKASI UL612 SRN UL615 ELTAR > capping FL 310
468NM
CDG FCO (LIRF) via OKASI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG FCO (LIRF) via LANVI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG VCE (LIPZ) via LANVI (operated by AF)
CDG LIN (LIML) via LANVI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG LIN (LIML) via OKASI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG GOA (LIMJ) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
CDG PSA (LIRP) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
CDG BLQ (LIPE) via OKASI
(operated by HOP!)
26 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
CDG TRN (LIMF) via OKASI
Edition 00.00.06
OKASI UL612 MILPA UM135 VEROB > capping FL 310
343NM
(operated by HOP!) Figure 3: Current preferential routings for WE FREE destinations
RAD restrictions that were applicable at that time were:
LF4068
Paris Group, LFOB to Milano Group, Padova Group, LIRP/RQ
Not above FL315 except via BEGAR/UQ217 between 03.00 (02.00) and 23.00 (22.00) Times quoted are Winter time, Summer times in Brackets ()
LS2501
Swiss
From/to: Resia Restriction: Not available for traffic 1. ARR LSZS With Y-FPLs When Z50 is not available 2. ARR LIP* (except LIPR/PY) Above FL295 3. ARR EDDS/PA/SB/SW/TB/TH/TL/TM/TN/TO/TX/TY, ETAR, LFGA/GB/GG/SB/SM, Zurich Area . Above FL325 4. ARR LSZS Above FL185 Goals:
LILS1019
LS2522
To prevent traffic leaving IFR on the border of a TSA when the military is active. Leaving prior to RESIA is possible. 2. LoA between Padova and Zurich ACCs To keep traffic below LSAZM4 sector 3. To segregate descending traffic from overflying traffic. To keep traffic below LSAZM4 sector. LoA between LIPPACC and LSAZACC 4. LoA between LIPPACC and LSAZACC LURAG Not available for traffic 1. ARR LIP* (Except LIPZ), LIMJ/QS/RP/RQ/RZ, Ajaccio Group, Bastia Group, LFKT Above FL335 2. ARR LIM* (Except LIMF/MJ/MW/MZ), LFMD/MN/TH/TZ, LSZA/ZL/ZS Above FL295 3. ARR LIMF/MW/MZ Above FL255 MOKIP Not available for traffic 1. ARR LSGS/MS Above FL255 2. ARR LIMF/MW/MZ a. Above FL355 b. Below FL345 if RFL is above FL345 before MOKIP in
27 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
LSLI1000
LILS1021
LSLI1014
Edition 00.00.06 LFFFLMH Between 06.00-21.00 (05.00-20.00) PERAK BARAX Not available for traffic 1. ARR LFKT/MD/MN/TH/TZ, LIE*, LIPE/QS/RP/RQ, Ajaccio Group, Bastia Group, Milano Group 2. DEP Geneva Area, Geneva Group BARAX SRN Not available for traffic 1. ARR LIM*, LIEA/EO/QS/PE/RP/RQ, LSZA/ZL/ZS, LFK* 2. ARR LIP* (except LIPZ) Above FL335 ODINA Not available for traffic 1. ARR LIME/ML Above FL275 2. ARR LIMF/MJ/MZ/PO/PX Above FL315 3. ARR LIE* Above FL315 Except via SRN UM858 GEN UNITA ELB 4. ARR LIMP Above FL295 5. DEP EDNY/TD/TM, LSGC/MA/MD/ME/MU/ZC/ZB/ZG/ZH/ZR Above FL315
Figure 4: RAD restrictions on current routings
Note:
A week end route for CDG VCE is available in production via RESIA but, because of the FL limitation at 290, this route is not used.
LF4068 was replaced by LSLF4121 in the framework of the project
28 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.1.2 Feasibility study of direct routing from South’sSID As an input of solution design study (in addition of current routings), Airlines provided “reference routings” calculation defining the maximum improvement achievable on the Enroute part for the WE FREE scope. There were “exit of SID” to “Entry of STAR” great circle calculation done in the flight planning tool (disregarding vertical constraints). Analysis of AFR/AZA proposal: As you can see in the below figure, AO route proposal (SID direct to STAR) would have created new crossing points partly in Paris ACC airspace, partly in Reims ACC airspace, requiring capacity restrictions and an important increase of ATC workload caused by the multiple coordination calls needed. Moreover this routing would have implied the creation of a new COP (instead of MOKIP) which is very complex and costly for the partners.
Figure 5: AZA/AFR WE FREE proposal vs current situation
Paris Route proposal: PARIS ACC’s route proposal consists in extending the opening period of an existing night ATS route. During the live trial period, the concerned night ATS route, named UQ219 OKEPI MOKIP (single segment), was opened 24/24h above FL325 at the flight planning stage. Consequently, the usual routing going through OKEPI-MOU-MOKIP, on ATS route UL612, was closed above FL325. Thus, flights with a requested FL (RFL) above FL325 will be forced on UQ219.
29 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Figure 6: PARIS ACC OKEPI MOKIP DCT proposal
In addition, following a safety recommendation, PARIS ACC decided to open UQ219 to all traffic during the trial. The goal was to avoid “flagged traffic” which makes the traffic management more complex.
30 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.1.3 Feasibility study of direct routing from East’sSID Analysis of AFR/AZA proposal: Initial proposition made by AZA and AF based on DCT SID /STAR concept was studied by Reims ACC staff. Several reasons (technicals and operationals) led Reims ACC to make counterproposals. In the current situation, flights from LFPG inbound LI** are exchanged between Reims and Zurich ACCs on BEGAR via BUBLI-LUVAL-EPL-LASAT-BEGA (red line in map below).
2 Reims ACC ---FL345---Paris ACC
1 3 4
-Violet dotted line: SID DCT STAR -Bold Black line: boundary between Paris and Reims below FL345 -Black dotted line LSAG/LSAZ boundary
Figure 7: Reims – Zurich ACC exchange flows and analysis of AO route proposal The main operational constraints/effects linked to AO proposal were:
DCT was entering a new group of sectors in Reims and Geneva ACC instead of Zurich ACC DCT was too close from boundary between Paris and Reims ACC from RLP to REKLA (area 1 on Figure 7: Reims – Zurich ACC exchange flows) New points of conflict with existing network : o with traffics on UL613 : green lines o with both flows via MOROK and to Paris area (orange lines).
In addition, new crossings are located at the boundary with Paris and Swiss airspace. It would result in an increase of complexity in Reims sectors and workload for ATCOs. It could have also an impact on other sectors/centers. This proposal was not operationally acceptable and it appeared to be necessary to move new routing eastward.
31 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06 1
Moreover, the initial route design would have implied the creation of a new COP . It appeared that the creation of a new COP will not be possible in terms of complexity and costs for partners for the WE FREE routings. The option to use existing COPs was more relevant. Reims Route proposal: Horizontal routing: Both LUMEL and HOC were available for the new design and were also connected to existing routes in Switzerland. However, routing via LUMEL was too close to the limit between Geneva ACC & Zurich ACC (Area 4 in Figure 7: Reims – Zurich ACC exchange flows). It would have increased coordination and would have changed current procedures. Following previous constraints a proposition was made from LUVAL to HOC (existing COP between Zurich and Reims and far enough from Geneva/Zurich boundary). In addition, the design had to take into account a constraint from French FDPS. Indeed, during Week End, all flights plans are rerouted from BUBLI-LUVAL to LASIV-LANVI (shorter CDR which is opened during night and WE and in week days when TSA200 is not active). It was not possible to remove this constraint for the trial even though for Italian destination, it would have been shorter via LUVAL. Thus, decision was taken to start from LANVI the DCT direct to HOC in order to given a valid flight plan to the crew Vertical constraints: Vertical profiles were impacted by RAD restriction and so used flight level were limited at FL310 for traffics inbound LIML (LIN), LIMF (TRN), LIPX (VRN) between Reims and Zurich (please see details in sections For the trial, all restrictions were removed: flights were exchanged at cruising FL. Minimum flight level was determined at FL310 to avoid interactions in Reims airspace with traffics inbound Zurich airport (LSZH).
Route description summary : All traffics from CDG to FCO / BLQ / VCE / VRN / LIN / GOA used LANVI-HOC with a minimum flight level of 310 and no FL restriction apply between Reims and Zurich
Figure 8: Reims WE FREE routing proposal 1
The exchange and delivery to adequate ATCOs of flight plan data between 2 centers is possible via a COP 32 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.1.4 En route Segment in Skyguide Analysis of AFR/AZA proposal: The optimal route for airlines was a direct from the exit point of the SID to the entry point of the STAR without level capping. Unfortunately, it was not possible to consider these optimal routes as skyguide had to face some important constraints: 1. COP The existing Flight Data Processing systems behaviour is using known referenced COPs Even if it was possible to upgrade the Flight Data Processing system and therefore to gain flexibility to support optimal route from exit point of SID to entry point of STAR, it was considered, in the project framework, that the benefits would not be enough to cover the development cost. Moreover, COP creation follows local implementation of European process (ESARR6 in particular for requirements, development, testing, integration and deployment). It would have been really difficult to fit this process in project timeframe. Basically for such a trial to be performed in a short time period manual processing (if needed) is much more convenient and cost efficient to be put in place (also operational staff to perform manual processing is available during winter season). 2. Existing route network The existing route network is designed to separate and de-conflict traffic either stable, in vertical or horizontal evolutions. So the direct route can only be given when vertical evolutions are limited, therefore from a defined en-route FL (e.g. FL310) that limits these vertical evolutions. 3. Geneva / Zurich border Geneva and Zurich ACCs are in the high-density core area and have a relatively small size. Designing routes from exit point of SID to entry point of STAR would have made some routes close to the ACC borders between Geneva and Zurich. This is considered as unsafe because time to detect the potential conflicts would be reduced and therefore airspace to solve these conflicts would be as well limited. As a conclusion, it has been decided to use the existing points and COPs including the ones from the actual night route network (and so routes will be by definition further away from the border). FL restriction was studied also by city pair. Skyguide’s route design The route designs have been guided by the following principles:
Horizontal routing as direct as possible using the existing COP and known points
Vertical routing without level capping as long as operationally manageable
Limited the number of new routings to be handle by the controllers
1. Geneva ACC All concerned flights are coming from Paris ACC via OKASI OKEPI MOKIP. Following routes have been designed:
CDG – FCO (Rome Fiumicino – LIRF) OKASI OKEPI MOKIP LURAG XIBIL Routing as direct as possible using the night network point LURAG as exit point. In Geneva ACC, the flight is planned from entry direct to exit points. There is no vertical profile restriction (as per current operations).
33 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
CDG – PSA (Pisa – LIRP) OKASI OKEPI MOKIP MOBLO LURAG-FL350 KONER This routing illustrates a flight with a vertical en route constraint (leading to an early descent). Route is designed to join the existing route network at MOBLO dedicated to evolving traffic. Vertical constraint was raised from below 315 (Current restriction, see section 4.1.1.1) to below FL355 at MOBLO.
CDG – TRN (Turin – LIMF) OKASI OKEPI MOKIP MOBLO LURAG FL250 VEROB It is the same horizontal routing as LIRP. However, LIMF is close to the Swiss-Italy border and the flight needs to descend early enough for flow separation (inboud/outbound). The flight level restriction max FL250 at LURAG was kept as for today operation.
CDG – GOA (Genao – LIMJ) OKASI OKEPI MOKIP MOBLO LURAG-FL310 MIRAX TESTO It is the same horizontal routing as LIRP. LIMJ is close to the Swiss-Italy border and the flight needs to descend early enough for flow separation (inbound/outbound). The flight restriction max FL310 at LURAG is the same as today.
CDG – LIN (Milan Linate – LIML) via OKASI OKEPI MOKIP MILPA UBIMA BIBAN FL310 BARAX SRN This route design has been discussed a lot internally from a safety perspective (See sections4.1.4.2 and 4.1.4.3 for respectively Skyguide and ENAV safety assessment). The proposed route could create conflict with LIMC/LIME/LIML (LIM*) departure flights that could climb up to FL300 in Italian airspace without prior coordination with Swiss control (CDG LIN flow still under Geneva control at that stage). The issue has been resolved in having flights high enough at exit point (FL310 at BIBAN) and leaving Milano ACC in charge to separate departures from LIM* and arrivals to LIML. From a flight execution point of view, it was essential to let the flight descent right after BIBAN otherwise extra-mileage would have been necessary to reach the destination (or usage of flight techniques that would have impacted the flight efficiency). To be noted that UBIMA has been added on request of the airlines in order to be able calculate an optimal TOD to respect FL310 at BIBAN (otherwise, the descent would have started at MILPA, anticipating the descent of more than 30NM and therefore making the routing inefficient).
34 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
The following picture illustrates the possible routings in Geneva ACC.
Figure 9: Geneva ACC We-Free routings
2. Zurich ACC All flights are coming from Reims ACC via LANVI HOC. Following routes have been designed
CDG – FCO (Rome Fiumicino – LIRF) via LANVI LANVI HOC ODINA XIBIL Routing as direct as possible from entry to exit point using the existing COP ODINA. There is no vertical profile restriction (as in current operations).
CDG – BLQ (Bologna – LIPE) via LANVI LANVI HOC ODINA ROBAS LUPOS Stable in ZRH ACC The particularity of this routing is that the horizontal routing used ODINA COP which is normally dedicated to transit flight (not the case of LIPE as close to the Swiss – Italian border). A particular effort has been done on the FL as there is no Flight Level restriction during the trial while in today operation the flight goes through Milano ACC (max FL310).
CDG – VCE (Venice – LIPZ ) via LANVI LANVI HOC RESIA ADOSA ALBET Routing as direct as possible from entry to exit point using the existing COP RESIA. A particular effort has been done on the FL as there is no Flight Level restriction. LIPZ is
35 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
considered as a transit from a Zurich point of view and could be delivered to Padova ACC at cruising level.
CDG – VRN (Verona – LIPX) LANVI HOC RESIA ELTAR Same as LIPZ
CDG – LIN (Milan Linate – LIML) via LANVI LANVI HOC ODINA SRN Routing as direct as possible from entry to exit point using the existing COP ODINA. No FL restriction was asked to AO. LoA between Zurich and Padova was defined at 250 (as in current operation) but the pilot could request “descent at pilot discretion”.
The following picture illustrates the possible routings in Zurich ACC.
Figure 10: Zurich ACC We-Free routings
36 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.1.5 Feasibility study of direct routing to Italian STAR ENAV methodology: ENAV feasibility study was conducted considering main objectives of WE-FREE project in terms of DCT drom SID to STAR first and vertical optimisation then. As provider of last part of trajectories, DCTs were discussed with previous ANSP’s (GENEVA Area Control Centre and ZURICH Area Control Centre) taking into account any of the possibilities to shorten, as far as practicable, DCTs segments themselves. Due to technical constraints and cost constraints, pre-existing COPs were used to transfer trial flights in between ACCs. The only exception was the use of BIBAN waypoint that was enabled as COP for flights from CDG to LIN (point between GENEVA ACC and MILANO ACC). The Step approach was:
1.
to plot straight trajectories from entry point to beginning of related STAR
2. to evaluate increase of potential conflicts with already existing flows of air traffic, military areas avoidance, traffic load of sectors concerned, possible increase of ATCOs workload 3. to adjust trajectories using pre-existing waypoints to minimize impact of new routes on standard airways network and other second step points. 4. To select usable altitude minima for each part of new segments relatively highest airway minima in surrounding airspace, and set temporarily modified FLAS according distance from entry FIXs to beginning of STARs. Please note that a complete Safety assessment was conducted according ENAV standardized internal procedures.
CDG FCO (LIRF):
option A coming from Zurich - ODINA XIBIL (no FL Constraint) option B coming from Geneva - LURAG XIBIL (no FL Constraint) For this route, the initial ENAV proposal was LURAG DCT DEVOX DCT XIBIL. But as this routing was closed to the LIP3 military zone, it was replaced by LURAG DCT XIBIL.
CDG LIN (LIML):
option A - ODINA SRN (Max FL 250) option B - BIBAN BARAX SRN (Max FL 310)
CDG VCE (LIPZ)
RESIA ADOSA ALBET (no FL Constraint) to Entry of the STAR A particular effort has been done on flights to VCE by PADOVA ACC with no FL constraint when FL 250 is often requested to ZURICH ACC to manage arrival sequence properly. No FL restriction becomes predictable in low demand period only.
CDG TRN (LIMF)
ENAV applied no changes on CDG TRN as it is very close to boundary Horizontal route changes were in SWISS and FRANCE airspaces.
CDG GOA (LIMJ)
LURAG MIRAX TESTO (Max FL 310) LIMJ is close to boundary. No changes were applied on current FL restriction.
37 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
CDG VRN (LIPX)
RESIA ELTAR No change in the horizontal routing compared to the current situation. Vertical routing authorized up to FL 350
CDG PSA (LIRP)
LURAG TOP KONER (No FL Constraint) Horizontal routing was the same as current. Vertical profile was refined. ENAV foresees that max FL 350 restriction instead of current FL 310 can be easily evaluated implementable as far as management of MILANO UIR AIRSPACE will be shortly handled by MILAN ACC.
CDG BLQ (LIPE)
ODINA ROBAS LUPOS No FL Constraint
4.1.1.6 Summary of WE FREE per City pair In the following table are summed up the WE FREE routing agreed between the partners as well as the savings in NM, fuel and time linked to those routings.
City pair
CDG FCO (LIRF) via OKASI
WE FREE routes
Length in NM
Comparison with existing routes Gain in NM
Gain in Fuel
Gain in minutes
OKEPI MOKIP LURAG XIBIL
645NM
34NM
210kg
5 min
LANVI HOC ODINA XIBIL
670NM
23NM
160kg
4 min
LANVI HOC RESIA ADOSA ALBET
529NM
29NM
180kg
5min
LANVI HOC ODINA
434NM
33NM
160kg
4 min
OKEPI MOKIP MILPA UBIMA BIBAN BARAX SRN > FL310 à BIBAN
436NM
26NM
160kg
4 min
(operated by AF and AZ)
CDG FCO (LIRF) via LANVI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG VCE (LIPZ) via LANVI (operated by AF)
CDG LIN (LIML) via LANVI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG LIN (LIML) via OKASI (operated by AF and AZ)
38 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
CDG GOA (LIMJ) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
CDG PSA (LIRP) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
CDG BLQ (LIPE) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
CDG VRN (LIPX) via LANVI (operated by HOP!)
CDG TRN (LIMF) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
Edition 00.00.06
OKEPI DCT MOKIP MOBLO/N0430F310 DCT LURAG DCT MIRAX DCT TESTO
498NM
10NM
80kg
0 min
OKEPI DCT MOKIP MOBLO/N0430F350 DCT LURAG DCT TOP DCT KONER
574NM
10NM
120kg
-1 min
LANVI DCT HOC DCT ODINA DCT ROBAS DCT LUPOS
476NM
42NM
360kg
6 min
LANVI DCT HOC DCT RESIA DCT ELTAR
468NM
53NM
415kg
6 min
OKEPI DCT MOKIP DCT MOBLO DCT LURAG FL250 DCT VEROB
331NM
12NM
80kg
2 min
Figure 11: WE FREE routings
In the following pictures are showed the current “preferential routing” and the WE FREE routings for AF and AZ (HOP! had no tool to draw those pictures).
Figure 12: CDG FCO (LIRF) routings
39 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Figure 13: CDG LIN (LIML) routings
Figure 14: CDG VCE (LIPX) Routings
40 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.2 Publication (WP2)
Aeronautical publication
Each ANSP was free to decide if they wanted or not to publish WE FREE routing in Aeronautical publication (RAD update and AIP Sup). On one side, Skyguide, ENAV and Reims ACC decided not to publish the routing via those media in order to avoid intruders (flights using the WE FREE routing without being part of the project) and to avoid confusion for other airlines. It was particularly relevant for Skyguide as being in charge of en-route segments where many flights could have been eligible (e.g. coming from England). Preparation of the trials was done with assumption that there is a limited number of flights and that they are all known. Actually, to limit data processing effort, some flights trigged some manual processing at pre-flight and coaching was organised in the ACC, it was then necessary to make sure that only list of known aircraft will be participating. The consequence of this decision for the flight planning stage is that NM had to validate the flight plan manually for each WE FREE route. On the other side, Paris ACC decided to open the OKEPI MOKIP night ATS route to all traffic following a recommendation of their safety assessment – please see section 4.1.4.1.1– Paris ACC safety Assessment. So, an official AIP sup (ref 185/13) was published with an AIRAC cycle notice period to inform all airspace users of the trial on OKEPI MOKIP (Please see document in Appendix A)
LoA
Amendments to current LoA or temporary LoA were written between each ANSP in interface in order to define the conditions of flight transfert. Those documents can be found in the Appendix A
4.1.3 Validation tests of the WE FREE design (WP2) As NM has to validate manually the flight plans, the WE FREE project was asked to list the conditions of validation of the routing. For each city pair, the following items were described:
Authorized DCT (use hours, FL) Restrictions/PTR to be applied or to be ignored Authorized flights In addition, participating flight list was given to NM and ANSP and a remark in the field 18 was filled. In order to avoid issue for the day of the trials, validation tests were done by NM and the partners. Two tests sessions were run (one in Brussels in June, one in October) Those validation tests had two main objectives:
Check if the flight plan filed can be validated by NM Check that the flights are going through the right control sector in other to check on sector load The details of WE FREE route definitions are in the Appendix A. Those tests were very useful to adjust the details on the routing and also to adjust the NM procedure for the day of trial. In addition, tests were also performed to check distribution of data within Reims ACC sectors and th between Reims and Zurich 25 of October to check exchanges of data on LANVI-HOC routing.
41 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.4 Safety assessment Each design has been evaluated from a safety point of view by each partner.
4.1.4.1 DSNA Safety Assessment 4.1.4.1.1 Paris ACC For Paris ACC, two hazards were identified and studied:
Hazard #1: Conflict between an aircraft flying OKEPI – MOKIP segment and a Geneva arrival. o
o
Prevention mitigation means:
Five letters waypoint PIPOM was created on ATS route UM975 to provide a reference point to Paris ACC ATCO(s) regarding Geneva arrival (check of vertical profile);
OKEPI-MOKIP segment visualizes on radar screen;
Identification of eligible WE-FREE flights through consistent stripping (AO filled field 18 of Flight plan with a remark “Flight WE FREE”);
Airlines Operators and pilots information thanks to appropriate AIP SUP;
Operational instruction.
Protection migration means:
Safety reports;
Live trials feedback.
Hazard #2: ATCO(s) provided with false data. o
o
Prevention migration means:
Validation tests in CFMU;
Validation tests in Paris ACC.
Protection mitigation means:
CHMI potential reconfiguration;
Safety reports;
Live trials feedback.
4.1.4.1.2 Reims ACC During safety assessment, 2 hazards were identified:
Unexpected flight penetrates a sector (CTL do not have any information)
Overload on sector due to increase or creation of new points of conflicts and extra coordination.
Several usual means of prevention were used: definition of a work method for ATCO, definition of OPS note, information (via briefing) towards OPS staff (ATCOs, supervisor and FMP). In addition, technical tests confirmed the appropriate distribution of data to controllers on new WE FR DCT. Another important risk prevention mean was the definition of trial period in November outside ski week ends and for a limited number of flights. The choice made for planning guaranteed also a better
42 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
control of number of flights on WE FR DCT. Management of “extra workload” for ATCOs and monitoring for FMP staff were easier.
4.1.4.2 Skyguide Safety assessment Skyguide has conducted a safety assessment according to its internal safety process. The Safety Assessment workshop has been conducted with Geneva and Zurich ACCs and stakeholders (ATCOs, Flight Data Operators, project members and safety experts). During project design, some mitigation means were already introduced: some floorwalkers will be available in the ACC to facilitate WE FREE flights management, winter season (before ski season) has been selected to reduce risks, and intruders are not possible (manual acknowledgement of flied flight plan on WE FREE routes). Two items were nevertheless highlighted:
Arrival to LIML via Geneva: it might be in conflict with departure flights from Milano area as these flights could be levelled at FL300 without coordination between Swiss and Italia which could lead to a hazardous situation.
Winter season doesn’t systematically mean absence of peaks or abnormal situations. WE FREE flights may impair situation awareness because of additional workload. As additional mitigation means were then put into place to
In order not to penalize Milano departure flights on one hand and to ensure separation between Milano arrival and departure flights on the other hand, the Geneva ACC exit Flight Level is set to FL310 and the separation was entirely left on Milano ACC responsibility
The ACC supervisor was in charge to closely monitor the used capacity and could decrease the published capacity by 10% in case of problem.
4.1.4.3 ENAV safety assessment WE-FREE Project has been classified as MINOR CHANGE according P-SMS 07 internal procedure. Risk Assessment identified nine main Hazards to be mitigated by means of the implementation of several Safety Requirements: 1. Delay in first radio contact with inbound Target aircraft; 2. Missed or delayed coordination regarding Target aircraft; 3. Mismatch about planned routing and FDP data distribution; 4. Overload; 5. ATCOs not familiar with implemented network; 6. Conflict between Target and non-Target aircraft; 7. Conflict between Target aircraft; 8. Missing in Radar identification/transfer of control; 9. Conflict with Military activities or P,D,R /TSA violation. Main mitigation action put into place were: - All italian and foreign involved units were adequately informed about WE-FREE flight trials - Pilots, flight dispatchers and ATCOs were briefed accurately about WE-FREE flight trials procedures - ATCO's were informed 15 days in advance about the project with internal communication plan and properly briefed during days of trial - SPVs and FMP managers were briefed to support ATCOs during week-end of WE-FREE trials
43 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report -
-
Edition 00.00.06
It was underlined that, for any possible safety reason, one or more trial flights could have been managed as usual flight at any moment. FLIGHT DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM (FDP) was enabled and tested to support WE-FREE flights. Close coordination between ENAV and ITALIAN AIR FORCE was activated to ensure that military zones interested by flight trials trajectories were effectively not active as scheduled for week-ends. A list of P.O.C. was available in any of italian involved ACC Ops Room to quick coordinate if needed. A full traffic volume analysis was done to allocate WE-FREE flight trials in a low demand period. A back-up week end was established to prevent possible unusual events in order to reach sufficient flight number for validation. -Flight planning was done manually in coordination with CFMU to prevent possible intruders flights. Usual traffic capacity including flight trials was respected in all italians ACC.
Simulation was considered not necessary to evaluate impact of flight trials in current operational environment. The only simulation used by ENAV was (according to the evidence of our risk assessment) realized to test the capacity of our FDP to handle all the information related to the new trajectories implemented for WE FREE.
4.1.4.4 Air France Safety assessment AF ran a safety assessment on the WE FREE routings procedure in close collaboration with A320 fleet’s « Pôle technique» and Safety department The safety assessment focused on the OKEPI MOKIP Flight level restriction. Indeed, the direct was only authorized from FL325. If FL330 was not reached by the flight at OKEPI, the flight was regulated and sent to MOU until it reaches the proper flight level to be turned. The trajectory could be therefore extended up to 8MN (corresponding to 50kg additional fuel burn). At the flight planning stage:
If FL330 was not reached at OKEPI, therefore the routing in flight plan was OKEPI MOU MOKIP
If FL330 was reached at OKEPI, the direct OKEPI MOKIP was planned Two main items could lead to a discrepancy between flight plan and actual operation
Higher load: On those specific flights, load variation was not considered with high occurrence. Meteorological situation (Stronger tailwind): the pilot managers agreed to use of contingency fuel in order to cover this case (contingency fuel for those short flights are calculated with the 5% rule and are between 150kg and 250kg). Thus, no additional Fuel transport was planned. In order to avoid confusion for pilots, OKEPI MOKIP point was not detailed in the operational procedures giving in each flight brief.
4.1.4.5 Alitalia Safety assessment Alitalia led his own safety assessment on the WE FREE routings procedure. The working group was composed by Airbus Flight Operations Reference Pilots, Navigation/Flight Dispatcher and Fuel Management representatives (within the Flight Operation department). They have assessed the WE FREE routings and the only parts that needed to be highlighted to the crew was concerning the CDG LIN routing. They were defined to crews as followings:
At BIBAN: keep the vertical constraints at FL310. The CDG-FCO routing has not been mentioned because the assessment didn’t point out any remark.
44 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.4.6 HOP! - Safety assessment The safety assessment run has revealed no specific danger and no change compared with HOP! current exploitation. The risk is determined as acceptable, nevertheless, the following points has been requested: - Send a detailed memo to the pilots, - Send a detailed memo to the operations and dispatchers
45 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.5 Preparation of the Trial (WP3) 4.1.5.1 Data collection preparation Capacity Study: For all ANSP, sectors or group of sectors involved in WE FREE were closely monitored by ACC supervisor and FMP. They could have adapted rates and capacities if needed. For Reims, specific forms are available for ATCO/Supervisor and FMP to report any event. Project member were also present during trial to notice remarks or feedback from OPS staff on WE FR trial. Every Monday a meeting gather all information or reports related to WE FREE trial. Safety Study: All partners followed very carefully any feedback from the operational staff about safety. Several means were put into place to get the feedbacks from the operation staff (depending on the organization). There were:
feedback questionnaires ASR incident reports feedback directely gathered by FMP, Supervisor or floorwalkers Flight Efficiency study: Fuel and time savings have been studied on filed data using the flight planning calculator (manual process). In particular, AZ Dispatchers ran: an optimisation of the flight plan on current routings – this scenario showed the results of “what if” we had to use our current routings for that particular flights an optimisation on WE FREE routings The comparison of those both results showed actual fuel savings showing the scenario (provided by LIDO) “what if” we performed the company route instead of the WE FREE route However, AF and Hop! dispatchers could not commit to do this additional task. Therefore, the calculation of savings on planning data had to be done on statistical data (season weather, average payload). Results are described in section 6 and are aligned with Alitalia results. Realised data were studied via airlines dataware and via radar data coming from ANSP.
46 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.1.5.2 Definition of operational procedures To ensure the good running of the trial, a POC list was created and distributed to project partners as well as operational staff. Moreover, project members were available during the WE FREE week ends in case of questions. Each partner was responsible for its operational procedures and defined either the media and the content that was relevant for its operations. DSNA: Reims ACC: ATCO Staff, supervisor and FMP involved in trial have received briefing describing operational changes and new procedures. An operational note was published. In addition, list of flights were available on FMP and supervisor desk and also on CWP. Paris ACC: ATCO staff, supervisors, FMP, people involved in trial have been provided with an operational document (reference°: 13CTE007) summarizing WE-FREE airspace design and procedures, which are summarized below°:
The WE-FREE live trial occurs during the four weekends of AIRAC cycle 13/12: o
Saturday the 16th and Sunday the 17th of November 2013
o
Saturday the 23rd and Sunday the 24th of November 2013
o
Saturday the 30th of November and Sunday the 1st of December 2013
o
Saturday the 07th and Sunday the 08th of December 2013
Concerned traffic is extended to all flight going through OKEPI with RFL>FL325; Opening period extension for night ATS route UQ219, OKEPI-MOKIP, above FL325; OKEPI-MOU-MOKIP UL612 segment closed above FL325 consequently; Possible radar vectoring heading MOU in case traffic with RFL>FL325 can’t reach FL330 at OKEPI / traffic conflicting LSGG arrivals;
Stripping will be consistent with flights planned routes; In case of radio failure, the concerned flights follow the route corresponding to its flight plan (OKEPI – MOKIP segment if RFL is above FL325, OKEPI – MOU – MOKIP if RFL is below FL325). For Paris ACC, no capacity reduction during the live trials was proven necessary through the safety case.
ENAV: -All italians and foreign involved units were adequately informed about WE-FREE flight trials; -Pilots, flight dispatchers and ATCOs were briefed accurately about WE-FREE flight trials procedures -ATCO's were informed 15 days in advance about the project with std internal communication plan and properly briefed during days of trials -SPVs and FMP managers were briefed to support ATCOs during week-end of WE-FREE trials -It was underlined that for any possible safety reason one or more trial flights could have been managed as usual flight at any moment. -FLIGHT DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM (FDP) was enabled and tested to support WE-FREE flights.
47 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
-Close coordination between ENAV and ITALIAN AIR FORCE was activated to ensure that military zones interested by flight trials trajectories were effectively not active as scheduled for week-ends. -A list of P.O.C. was available in any of italian involved ACC Ops Room to quick coordinate if needed. -A full traffic volume analysis was done to allocate WE-FREE flight trials in a low demand period. -A back-up week end was established to prevent possible unusuals events in order to reach sufficient flight number for validation. -Flight planning was done manually in coordination with CFMU to prevent possible intruders flights. -Usual traffic capacity including flight trials was respected in all italians ACC. ENAV specific instructions were to let flights trial fly planned WEFREE routes in order to properly test new design implementation feasibility. Skyguide: The staff involved in the trials has received particular instructions detailed in a Service Order. The personnel involved are ATCOs and Flight Data Operators. The Service Order describes the instructions for manual processing performed by the Flight Data Operators, the routing and levels for the WE FREE flights. The list of flights and the Service Order were printed and available at the ACCs. In addition, some floorwalkers were available in Geneva ACC. The floorwalkers are active ATCOs who were particularly trained to support WE FREE live trials. Finally, a procedure was available to reduce capacity of 10% compared to the published capacity in case of any problem.
Air France: For flight planner: All participating airlines were asked to add a remark in the field 18 of the flight plan in order for NM and ANSP to identify the authorized flight on WE FREE routes. Note: For the use of OKEPI MOKIP only (week end November 30th/December 01st of 2013 and December 07th/08th of 2013). In AF, all flight planning for short/medium haul is done automatically. To bypass this issue, the defined process was:
WE FREE routes are automatically used on the expected city pair by the flight planning calculator
Automatic filing of the flight plan IFPS team rejected the flight using WE FREE routes without the remark in field 18 AF flight planning team analysed and treated the rejection from EUROCONTROL and add in field 18 the expected remarks
For the flight crew: No additional action was asked to the crew as the WE FREE routes were filed so no personal briefing to the crew was giving. Crews were advised on the CDG LIN to be announced to controller their optimal Flight level at ODINA (transfer point between Swiss land and Italy) in order to make controller aware and to go for a continuous descent.
48 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
All information was giving via an operational communication document inserted in all concerned flight briefs. Both, Flight crews and flight planner were asked to provide feedbacks, when necessary.
HOP! Instructions have been given to pilots and flight operations through exploitation memos, to describe the project, to specify the route differences and the expected savings (NM, fuel, time…). A report sheet has been given to pilots to collect fuel consumption, weather/wind encountered, times, and comments / feelings. We collected 100% of these reports. For HOP! Regional, one flight was put under monitoring with an ACARS link between FOC and cockpit.
Alitalia For Trial preparation, some days before, were distributed two operational guidelines for the two operative areas, Dispatcher and Pilots. For flight planner: Select (manually) the WE FREE routing ,previously upload in LIDO
Delete the restrictions i.e. remove the specific flight from the AOS (RPL) in order to plan manually (recalc).
Control the Restriction Viewer.
Fill the field 18 of the FPL ATS with the specific wording: “WE FREE DEMO FLT”.
Write the remark in the OFP remarks section “WE FREE DEMO FLT”, in order to make the pilot aware.
Verify that the specific aircraft is not affected by MEL fuel/FL/performance related.
In case of difficoulties in planning the WE FREE flight , the dispatcher is asked to contact the responsible that would be in charce to communicate the anomaly to the ANSP and to EUROCONTROL.If the problem still remain, the dispatcher can plan a Company Route.
Furthermore, the dispatcher, for each planned WE FREE flight, is request to run a what if simulation, that means to calculate the Company Route as well and send it . This make an accurate saving calculation be possible.
For the flight crew: Few additional actions are asked to the crew as the WE FREE routes were filed. The main task is related to the manual upload of the routing in the FMS, as it’s not in the database. The pilot can read the field 18 and the remark on the flight plan for double check and have the confirmation about the FREE ROUTE routing. Crews were advised on the CDG LIN to be announced to controller their optimal Flight level at ODINA (transfer point between Swiss land and Italy) in order to make controller aware and to go for a continuous descent. Other operation are the standard ones, Cost Index is the same as usual. Crew is furthermore asked to pronounce the on board announcements for passengers; the wording was already agreed and distributed. All information was giving via an operational communication document inserted in all concerned flight briefs.
49 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
4.2 Exercises Execution WE FREE project defined one exercise that was performed during two week end in November for all WE FREE routes. OKEPI MOKIP direct in Paris ACC was also tested during two additional week end. The details of this schedule are gathered in the figure below.
Exercise ID
Exercise Title
EXE-01.09-D-101
WE FREE Exercise
EXE-01.09-D-101
WE FREE Exercise
WE FREE Exercise for Paris ACC only WE FREE Exercise EXE-01.09-D-101 for Paris ACC only EXE-01.09-D-101
Actual Exercise execution start date
Actual Exercise execution end date
November 16th ,2013 November 23rd ,2013 November 30th ,2013 December 07th ,2013
November 17th ,2013 November 24th ,2013 December 01st ,2013 December 08th ,2013
Actual Actual Exercise Exercise end start analysis date analysis date November 18th,2013 November 25th,2013 December 02nd ,2013 December 09th ,2013
th
April 28 , 2014 th April 28 , 2014 th April 28 , 2014 th April 28 , 2014
Table 2: Exercises execution/analysis dates The steps of the trial scenario were:
The aircraft operator filled a Flight Plan for the designated city-pair applying the optimal WE FREE route as defined during the design phase for the concerned city-pair. Each flight trial indicated in field 18 of the Flight Plan that it is a WE FREE flight (this mention is reported on the strip).
Each flight plan with the WE FREE mention and from the authorized flight, Flight Plan was processed and accepted manually by the CFMU.
The Flight Plan was disseminated to the concerned stakeholders (ACCs).
The Flight Plan was received by the ACCs concerned by the flight and if rejected by the local Flight Plan system, it was treated by the FMP or Flight Plan operator and disseminated to the concerned ACC sector positions.
Therefore, the ATCOs in charge of the concerned flight all along the route were aware that it is a trial flight and they will apply the normal operation procedure to ensure separation with other flights in their sectors (please see details of operational procedures in section 4.1.5.2).
Coordination with adjacent ACC centres was also performed according to normal operation procedure
Flight brief handing over to Pilot highlighted the fact that the flight was a WE FREE trial flight
The Pilot was aware of condition of his/her flight (no additional actions were acted to pilots)
Flight is released
Whole Flight was executed using the WE FREE FPL.
4.3 Deviations from the planned activities The deviations compared to the planned activities as described in the demonstration plan are:
Technical issue: creation of new COPs has not been considered (ratio cost/benefit, resources availability) for a small period of time (see 4.1.1).
Technical issue for use of BUBLI LUVAL during WE: French FDPS modification was not relevant in regard of a temporary trial (cost/benefit and complexity, impact on other traffics…).
Time issue: because of time constraint and tension on expert availability, CDG NAP was not studied as it was operated only by 4 flights per week end (even though Skyguide made an
50 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
initial route proposal). This decision had no negative impact on the project success as the number of required flights was over passed (67 potential flights per week end without CDG NAP).
Budget issue: due to unplanned communication activities (Jane’s Award, SESAR Forum France, Fuel efficiency Seminar in AF) and due to the fact that WE FREE budget was really tight, WE FREE consortium asked SJU not to do the video about the project.
“Ass_0109_008: SID and STAR design shall be untouched by WE FREE project” was bypass in Italy. Indeed, in order to provide greater NM gain (in particular for destination where there were not so much “EN Route” savings), ENAV proposed STAR shortcut.
51 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5 Demonstration Exercises reports 5.1 Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.09-D-101 Report 5.1.1 Exercise Scope Please see section 2.1 of this document
5.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.09-D-101 5.1.2.1 Exercise Preparation Please see section 4.1 of this document
5.1.2.2 Exercise execution As required, this section should describe the reference scenario and the solution scenario. The reference scenario is the current operational situation. This means that the routes used by the AO to go to the WE FREE destinations are the current routings (See their description in section th 4.1.1.1). The chosen reference weekends are November 2nd/3rd and 9th/10 . They are used to define the data baseline for performance analysis. The solution scenario is defined in section 4.2 of this document. Details on Results are given in section 5.1.3
5.1.2.3 Deviation from the planned activities Please see section 4.3 of this document
52 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3 Exercise Results 5.1.3.1 Summary of Exercise Results The results of the Demonstration Exercises are summarized in the following tables. Each result is compared to the concerned success criteria, identified within the Demonstration Plan per Demonstration Objective. The results are assessed according to the following criteria: •
OK: the concerned result achieved the expectations (expressed by means of the success criteria associated to the Validation Objective);
•
NOK: the success criteria associated to the Validation Objective should be further investigated, in the sense that the concerned results do not achieve the expectations or no clear results are obtained.
Exercise ID
Demonstration Objective Title
Demon stratio Demonstrati n Success Criterion on Objective Objecti Status ve ID
EXE01.09-D101
Assess the CO2 emission and Fuel Obj_01 Assessment is consumption reduction 09_01 done Assessment based on Planned data.
OK
EXE01.09-D101
Assess the CO2 emission and Fuel Obj_01 Assessment is consumption reduction 09_02 done Assessment based on Actual data.
OK
EXE01.09-D101
EXE01.09-D101
Evaluate impact of WE FREE on flight Analysis of AFTM punctuality Obj_01 delay has been OK 09_03 done. Evaluation has been done during Evaluate impact of WE FREE on Obj_01 solution design 09_04 and thanks to surrounding traffic feedback questionnaire
OK
Feasibility have been studied and validated during WP 2: solution design.
EXE01.09-D101
Evaluate the possibility of implementation of Free route on Obj_01 A safe and flyable Weekend operations between CDG and border OK 09_05 cross Italy for En route phases, and potentially directs are from SID exit and STAR entry. designed. Flight trials have been conducted on those directs successfully.
53 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Exercise ID
EXE01.09-D101 EXE01.09-D101
EXE01.09-D101
EXE01.09-D101
Demonstration Objective Title
Edition 00.00.06
Demon stratio Demonstrati n Success Criterion on Objective Objecti Status ve ID
Evaluate if WE FREE implementation Evaluation any has an impact on ATCO workload (more additional task of Obj_01 coordination) ATCO compared 09_06 to existing process has been done. Evaluate impact of WE FREE on sector Obj_01 Evaluations have capacity, traffic complexity and potential 09_07 been done conflicts management. Procedures and route design are compliant with safety recommendation coming from safety Obj_01 assessment that Assess this impact on Safety 09_08 will be done in WP2. In addition, feedback questionnaires were studied( as well as ASR) Analysis of three main cost criteria Evaluate impact of WE FREE on Cost of Obj_01 will be done: Fuel 09_09 flight cost, time cost, overflight fees.
OK
OK
OK
OK
Table 3: Summary of exercice results
Results per objective are given in the next section.
54 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3.1.1 Results per KPA The following table sums up the results per KPA and per objective as defined in the demonstration plan: Objective ID
KPA (key SESAR Programme concepts and technical enablers)
Success Criterion / Expected Benefit
Result of the demonstration
Obj_0109_01
Efficiency
Analysis of Fuel savings is done based on:
WE FREE routes saved an average 6 tons of Fuel per day corresponding to~ 20 tons of CO2 reduction per day). OKEPI MOKIP use brought 3,5 tons of Fuel savings per day of trial and so 10 tons of CO2 emission reduction per day
Planned Horizontal route length
Planned level
Higher
Flight
Planned Trip Fuel Obj_0109_2
Efficiency
Analysis of Fuel savings is done based on:
Actual length
Actual Higher Flight level
Horizontal
route
In the tactical operations, the use of WE FREE routings reduce Horizontal deviation by 1% compared to the current tactical situation.
Actual Trip Fuel Obj_0109_3
Capacity
Impact on analysed:
punctuality
is
No impact on punctuality
AFTM delay history
Obj_0109_4
Capacity
Analysis on traffic was done
Obj_0109_5
N/A
Feasibility of WE FREE implementation was done
ENAV, Skyguide and DSNA Reims gave a positive feedback on WE FREE routing implementation as winter routings (some refinement on vertical profile are foreseen) PARIS ACC proposed to study another design than implementing OKEPI MOKIP which causes safety issue. Please see the details in section 7.1
Obj_0109_6
Capacity
ATCO workload was analysed
No significant increase of workload during the trial
Obj_0109_7
Capacity
Impact on capacity, traffic complexity and potential conflict management was
No impact on capacity
Surrounding
No impact on surrounding traffic
55 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
assessed Obj_0109_8
Safety
Impact on assessed
Obj_0109_9
Cost effectiveness and Flight efficiency
Analysis of flight cost
safety
was
WE FREE routings are considered safe in the operational conditions of the trial. However, some safety concerns were raised for CDG LIN (LIML) via Geneva and for OKEPI MOKIP. Therefore, those routings won’t be implemented. WE FREE trial also pointed out the necessity to add severe weather scenario in the LoA for WE FREE routings. Cost analysis done by AF shows: > a difference in overflitght cost repartition between ATC > a reduction of overflight fees of 2% for CDG FCO via BUBLI and of 6% for CDG LIN via BUBLI.
Table 3: Summary of metrics and indicators per objective Detailed results per KPA are given in the next paragraph.
5.1.3.1.2 Results for Flight Efficiency 5.1.3.1.2.1 Realised flight repartition The potential of trial flights was of 67 scheduled flights per week end, spread out between the airlines as detailed in the following table:
Airlines
Potential Flight number per weekend
AZA
15
AFR
30
HOP
22
Total
67
Table 4: Summary of schedule flight per week end on WE FREE destination
56 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
During the trial, 5 flights were cancelled and 1 didn’t plan the WE FREE routing. So the total amount of realised flight is of 128 flights. On FCO (LIRF) and LIN (LIML), two routings were designed. The realised flight repartition is defined in the below table:
City pair
Total number of flights for the trial
CDG FCO (LIRF) via OKASI
26
(operated by AF and AZ)
CDG FCO (LIRF) via LANVI
12
(operated by AF and AZ)
CDG VCE (LIPZ) via LANVI
19
(operated by AF)
CDG LIN (LIML) via LANVI
10
(operated by AF and AZ)
CDG LIN (LIML) via OKASI
20
(operated by AF and AZ)
CDG GOA (LIMJ) via OKASI
8
(operated by HOP!)
CDG PSA (LIRP) via OKASI
8
(operated by HOP!)
CDG BLQ (LIPE) via OKASI
14
(operated by HOP!)
CDG VRN (LIPX) via LANVI
8
(operated by HOP!)
CDG TRN (LIMF) via OKASI
3
(operated by HOP!) Table 5: WE FREE realised flight repartition per WE FREE routings
In addition of the 128 WE FREE flights, 609 trial flights were realised on OKEPI MOKIP (please see section Error! Reference source not found.)
57 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3.1.2.2 AF and HOP! Analysis AF and HOP! made a complete analysis on fuel and time savings of the WE FREE routings using the flight planning tool with:
Statistical weather data (or no weather for HOP! Britair) Statistical weight per city pair (and per aircraft type) The results of this analysis is summed up in the following table:
City pair
CDG FCO (LIRF) via OKASI
WE FREE routes
Length in NM
Comparison with existing routes
Gain in NM
Gain in Fuel (kg)
Gain in minutes
OKEPI MOKIP LURAG XIBIL
645NM
34NM
210kg
5 min
LANVI HOC ODINA XIBIL
670NM
23NM
160kg
4 min
LANVI HOC RESIA ADOSA ALBET
529NM
29NM
180kg
5min
LANVI HOC ODINA
434NM
33NM
160kg
4 min
OKEPI MOKIP MILPA UBIMA BIBAN BARAX SRN > FL310 à BIBAN
436NM
26NM
160kg
4 min
OKEPI DCT MOKIP MOBLO/N0430F310 DCT LURAG DCT MIRAX DCT TESTO
498NM
10NM
80kg
0 min
(operated by AF and AZ)
CDG FCO (LIRF) via LANVI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG VCE (LIPZ) via LANVI (operated by AF)
CDG LIN (LIML) via LANVI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG LIN (LIML) via OKASI (operated by AF and AZ)
CDG GOA (LIMJ) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
58 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
CDG PSA (LIRP) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
CDG BLQ (LIPE) via OKASI
Edition 00.00.06
OKEPI DCT MOKIP MOBLO/N0430F350 DCT LURAG DCT TOP DCT KONER
574NM
10NM
120kg
-1 min
LANVI DCT HOC DCT ODINA DCT ROBAS DCT LUPOS
476NM
42NM
360kg
6 min
LANVI DCT HOC DCT RESIA DCT ELTAR
468NM
53NM
415kg
6 min
OKEPI DCT MOKIP DCT MOBLO DCT LURAG FL250 DCT VEROB
331NM
12NM
80kg
2 min
(operated by HOP!)
CDG VRN (LIPX) via LANVI (operated by HOP!)
CDG TRN (LIMF) via OKASI (operated by HOP!)
Table 6: summary of WE FREE savings per routing for AF/HOP!
It is to be noted that OKEPI MOKIP is a 8NM shortcut and so represented respectively 65% and 80% of TRN and GOA/PSA horizontal improvement.
59 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
For AF and HOP!, the total savings realised by WE FREE for the two week end is therefore: City pair
AF and HOP! flights
Savings in NM
Savings in Fuel (kg) Savings in time (min)
CDG FCO (LIRF) via OKASI
7
238 NM
1470 kg
35 min
CDG FCO (LIRF) via LANVI
12
276 NM
1920 kg
48 min
CDG VCE (LIPZ) via LANVI
19
551 NM
3420 kg
95 min
CDG LIN (LIML) via LANVI
5
165 NM
800 kg
20 min
CDG LIN (LIML) via OKASI
16
416 NM
2560 kg
64 min
CDG GOA (LIMJ) via OKASI
8
80 NM
640 kg
0 min
CDG PSA (LIRP) via OKASI
8
80 NM
960 kg
-8 min
CDG BLQ (LIPE) via OKASI
14
588 NM
5040 kg
84 min
CDG VRN (LIPX) via LANVI
8
424 NM
3320 kg
48 min
CDG TRN (LIMF) via OKASI
3
36 NM
240 kg
6 min
Total
100 realised 2854NM saved 20 tons of Fuel flights saved
392 min saved
Table 7: Summary of WE FREE savings for AF/HOP! for the trial
60 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3.1.2.3 AZ Analysis Dispatchers ran: A calculation on current preferred routing A calculation on WE FREE preferred routing The comparison of those both results showed actual fuel savings showing the scenario (provided by LIDO) “what if” we performed the company route instead of the WE FREE route The results are summed up in the following table. City Pairs
Realised flights
Nautical miles savings
Time savings per flight
Fuel savings per flight
trip time trip time trip time trip Fuel trip Fuel trip Fuel saved in saved in saved in saved in saved in saved in minimum average maximum minimum average maximum (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) CDG - Roma Fiumicino CDG - Milano Linate
City Pairs
19
34
5
6
7
147
220
269
9
26
4
4
6
143
160
185
Realised CO2 saved per flight flights
CO2 saved %
CO2 saved in average (kg) CDG - Roma Fiumicino CDG - Milano Linate
19
693
6%
9
504
6%
Table 8: summary of WE FREE savings for AZ per routing
As you can see, they are very close to the results given by the statistical method applied by AF/HOP! which validate the method. For AZ, the Total savings during the global trial are of: City Pairs CDG - Roma Fiumicino CDG - Milano Linate Total For the trial
Realised flights
19 9 28
Total NM saved
646 234 880
Total time saved
Total Fuel saved
Total CO2 saved
114 36 150
4180 1440 5620
13167 4536 17703
Table 9: Summary of WE FREE savings for the Trial for AZ
61 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
Based on AZ and AF/HOP! Analysis (and on the current schedule to WE FREE airports), the global savings linked to the WE FREE project for those operators are of:
Average savings per day 6,5 tons of fuel 20 tons of CO2
5.1.3.1.2.4 AF/HOP! and AZ specific analysis on OKEPI MOKIP: th
Paris ACC decided to run the “OKEPI MOKIP” trial during 4 week-ends (November 16 /17th ,2013; rd th November 23 /24th ,2013; November 30th ,2013 and December 01st ,2013; December 07 /08th ,2013) Also, following a safety recommendation, the direct OKEPI MOKIP was opened to all traffic. During the trial, 688 flights planned the OKEPI MOKIP (79 flights were part of WE FREE routings). The flight repartition was of 350 flight trial on the first two week- ends (shared the rest of the WE FREE consortium) and 338 on the two second week ends (where only Paris ACC was participating). Therefore 5504 NM where saved by Airlines thanks to OKEPI MOKIP direct during the trial and so ie80tons of CO2 reduction was achieved. It is to be noted that Paris ACC analysis of actual data that OKEPI MOKIP was flown as planned in 91% of the case.
62 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3.1.2.5 AF/HOP! actual data analysis Unfortunately the weather of trial week ends was very different from the baseline (for the first and second week end). Therefore, comparison of realized fuel on WE FREE routings with realized fuel on baseline routings was not relevant. However, it was still possible to study the actual WE FREE flights compared to baseline week ends thanks to a horizontal trajectory study made via radar data. Baseline was defined using flights to the WE FREE destinations for the week ends of November nd rd th th 2 /3 and 9 /10 The horizontal deviation was studied on WE FREE flights and on baseline flights. In this study, horizontal deviation was defined as a comparison of NM actually flown and NM that would have been flown on a direct routing (please see the above picture).
Figure 15: definition of horizontal deviation
Please note that the 40NM area around the airports were excluded and therefore some improvement from ENAV (shortcut on STAR) are not highlighted in the following figures. On the following figure is compared the horizontal deviation during a baseline Week end on the WE FREE city pairs and the horizontal deviation during WE FREE week ends.
63 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
8% 6% 4%
Horizontal deviation Baseline
2%
Horizontal deviation WE FREE
0% LIMF LIMJ LIML LIPE LIPX LIPZ LIRF LIRF LIRP OKASI OKASI LANVI LANVI LANVI LANVI LANVI OKASI OKASI Figure 16: Illustration of Horizontal deviation improvement with WE FREE
we can see that the horizontal efficiency was improved by an average of 1% by the WE FREE routings compared to the baseline. So thanks to WE FREE, actual flown trajectory get closer to direct routings compared to the current situation (and this despite the tactical directs already given in flight today).
Remarks:
LIML (LIN) via BIBAN could not be studied as there were not baseline data (all baseline flights were on LANVI SID).
LIRP (PSA): This result was particularly studied by the consortium. All the radar data were looked at. No major discrepancies were seen to explain why there is not horizontal improvement on this city pair (no flight extension more significant than on baseline routings). In particular, a check on the OKEPI MOKIP were made showing that the discrepancies in LIRP was not linked to it. Please see the detail below:
Date
flight number
departure destination
Aircraft type
OKEPI MOKIP Direct cleared
Comments
16/11/2013 AFR068E
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
On planned direct OKEPI MOKIP
16/11/2013 AFR1166
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
On planned direct OKEPI MOKIP
17/11/2013 AFR068E
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
Direct before OKEPI
17/11/2013 AFR1166
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
No
regulation on OKEPI MOU MOKIP but turned before MOU
23/11/2013 AFR068E
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
On planned direct OKEPI MOKIP
23/11/2013 AFR1187
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
Direct before OKEPI
24/11/2013 AFR068E
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
On planned direct OKEPI MOKIP
24/11/2013 AFR1166
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
No
regulation on OKEPI MOU MOKIP but turned before MOU
30/11/2013 AFR1166
LFPG
LIRP
CRJ7
Yes
On planned direct OKEPI MOKIP
As you can see, there were only to flights that got a longer routing that planned. This situation is pretty regular situation compared to the baseline. Unfortunately, WE FREE consortium can’t explain this number. Higher number of flights might have been helpful to have a larger sample of data and so confirm (or not) this tendency.
64 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
However, if there is not an improvement on the actual horizontal trajectory compared to the current situation, it is to keep in mind that WE FREE routing on PSA was at FL350 instead of FL310. This is a major improvement for HOP and brings benefit to the company.
5.1.3.1.2.6 5.1.3.1.2.7 Fuel transport Study AF study: AF studied the difference between “planned trip Fuel and realised trip Fuel’ in the baseline situation and in the WE FREE week ends. The comparison of “planned” and “realised” trip fuel (realised trip fuel is meaning actually burnt trip fuel) hightlights:
Either an overconsumption if the result is negative Either an underconsumption if the result is positive This indicator is used to show discrepencies between the planned and realised trajectory. This indicator has been calculated for WE FREE week ends and for baseline week ends. It is showed on the two following figures. Reminder: Week end of Baseline were defined using flights to the WE FREE destinations for the nd rd th th week ends of November 2 /3 and 9 /10
‘in kg) 200
Baseline "Planned trip Fuel" - "Realized trip fuel"
160
120
80
Total
40
0 FCO
LIN
VCE
Figure 17: Comparison of "planned trip fuel" and "realised trip fuel" for AF in the baseline
65 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
‘in kg)
Edition 00.00.06
WE FREE "Planned trip Fuel" - "Realized trip fuel"
200 160 120 Total
80 40 0 FCO
LIN
VCE
Figure 18: Comparison of "planned trip fuel" and "realised trip fuel" for AF in the WE FREE week end
As you can see on above figures, thanks to WE FREE, trip fuel is closer to actual used fuel. Data dispersion is reduced almost by half on CDG LIN, by 4/5 on CDG VCE (for CDG FCO, figures seem steady). For airlines, this is a clear benefit as they transported a trip fuel closer to the actual relevant flown trajectory. It meant that flown trajectory was very close to their flight plan and this is important for Pilots to trust the flight plan. This could lead pilots to reduce the “additional fuel” they take in order to cover trajectory hazards (additional fuel is in addition of 5% or 3% contingency fuel).
Predictability: For ANSP, having tactical direct in the flight plan brings better predictability because the actual flight is closer to plan flight plan and so this improves sector load prediction. Indeed, tactical direct creates today discrepancies for the time (of several minutes) and the position the flight may enter the next sector. Those discrepancies are then carried on until the end of the flight (particular impact for CDM airport). Plus as you can see in the previous figure, there is still a difference of fuel between the actual burnt fuel and the planned one. This mean that, for WE FREE specific case, some tactical directs are still available for the ATC to de-conflict traffic if necessary (this assumption is also supported by the fact that some ATCO provided even greater direct than the WE FREE planned ones).
66 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
AZ study: The objective of this study is to show how much “transport Fuel” is saved thanks to WE FREE. For that matter, it is to be understood that additional fuel (called here “transport fuel”) is needed in the aircraft for each ton of fuel that an airline carries (no matter if this fuel is used or not). This is described by the weight factor. The weight factor is defined as the amount of fuel (in kg) that is burnt when carring one ton of fuel. In the following table, weight factor of 50 kg means that 50kg is burnt for one ton of fuel that Airlines carry. What is described in the following table is that, WE FREE routings allow lpwer trip fuel and thus “transport fuel” is lower.
Realised flights
weight factor (kg)
fuel burnt saved per flight in average (kg)
CDG - Milano Linate
19 9
50 33
11,0 5,3
Total For the trial
28
City Pairs CDG - Roma Fiumicino
257
“Transport Fuel” saved during the trial by Alitalia is of 260 kg.
67 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3.1.3 Results for Cost Efficiency Unfortunately HOP! is not equipped to do this study. However, AZ and AF did the study on their city pairs.
5.1.3.1.3.1 Air France Please note that the calculation have been done using LIDO tool and for a specific average weight per city pair.
CDG FCO via OKASI (A321 70 tons)
CURRENT ROUTE
TOTAL ATC CHARGE
1035,52 EUR
CDG FCO via BUBLI
CURRENT ROUTE
(A321 70 tons) TOTAL ATC CHARGE
1169,15 EUR
CDG VCE via LANVI
CURRENT ROUTE
(A320 61 tons) TOTAL ATC CHARGE
763,71 EUR
CDG LIN via OKASI
CURRENT ROUTE
(A320 58 tons) TOTAL ATC CHARGE
549,14 EUR
CDG LIN via LANVI
CURRENT ROUTE
(A320 58 tons) TOTAL ATC CHARGE
PREFERENTIAL
WE FREE
1033,59 EUR
PREFERENTIAL
WE FREE
1139,54 EUR
PREFERENTIAL
WE FREE
761,46 EUR
PREFERENTIAL
WE FREE
548,02 EUR
PREFERENTIAL
620,61 EUR
WE FREE
586,61 EUR
Table 10: ATC charge study for AF
Overflight fees seem steady even with introduction of WE FREE routings except routes CDG FCO and CDF LIN via BUBLI which produces an overflight fee reduction of 30 or 40EUR which represents respectively 2% and 6% reduction of total overflight fees.
68 of 115 ©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by Air France 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.
Project Number 01.09 WE FREE Demonstration Report
Edition 00.00.06
5.1.3.1.3.2 Alitalia
City Pairs
Realised flights
ATC costs saved
19 9
1€
