DLT 0607 322 00 07 - T322 - D2

WP3.2.
2/D2
SESAR Definition Phase - Task deliverable
Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT
Identification of limits-Blocking
points for Airport
SESAR Definition Phase
WP3.2.2/D2
DLT-0607-322-00-07
DOCUMENT CONTENT & PURPOSE:
VALIDATION Name Date

Content Integration Team Paul Bosman
R-Level Olaf Dlugi
Quality Manager
APPROVAL Name Date
R-Level, Content Integration Team, Project
Director (for multi-stage task deliverable
only)
Issued by the SESAR Consortium for the SESAR Definition Phase Project co-funded by the European Commission and EUROCONTROL
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

WP3.2.2/D2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
This document is delivered in support of WP3.2, targeting SESAR Milestone 2 (Market

requirements). "The end-product of WP 3.2 will consist in a planning of the activities for the
implementation of short-term improvements (ATM and airport operation), which will deliver
benefits while ensuring continued return on investment: which solution to be implemented where,
and when. In the path leading to this objective, tasks 3.2.1 (ATM) and 3.2.2 (Airports) give an
outline of the solutions in D2 that have the potential to resolve the blocking points of the current
operations in the short timeframe. Subsequent tasks of the work-package will take over these results
to perform a trade-off of the various alternatives, assess the costs associated with the implementation
and identify and stimulate the required standardisation activities."
1.1 SCOPE
The objectives of Task 3.2.2 in D2 are to identify
- the potential short-term solutions for the blocking points in airport related operations
highlighted in D1;
- related possible implementation risks; and
- to suggest a way forward.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The assessment of the initiatives was based on the following criteria:
• Severity of and potential impact on associated blocking points
• Time to implement
• Ease of implementation
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Environmental impact
• Expected value for the different stakeholders
Where available, data (cost benefit analysis, detailed reports, etc) were used to support the rating of
the initiatives. Otherwise the rating was based on expert judgment (a peer group review of airport
operators, airlines and ANSPs). The most promising initiatives were selected as “group champions.”
The WP3.2.2. team fully recognised that measurable improvements, in line with SESAR
performance expectations, should drive the selection. The list of KPA set by the SESAR WP2.1
(Performance framework) 1 was used to structure our work. In this perspective, the primary emphasis
was put on Capacity, Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency.
1.3 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
Safety
Improving Safety is, and must be, a continuous process for the industry. Despite the rapid and
constant growth in air traffic, accident rates have been reduced by over 50% during the past 20 years.
However the forecast of an increasing level of complex traffic (aircraft and vehicles) on the runway,
taxiways and apron will lead to a disproportionate increase in risk especially during low surface
visibility conditions. Doubling traffic will quadruple risk. The most critical airfield safety issues
are runway incursions with currently more than one runway incursion per day within the ECAC
region 2 (albeit the recent increase may reflect improved reporting and the risks associated with every
report are not necessarily in the most severe category). Consequently most of the larger airports have
recently invested in enhanced surveillance (A-SMGCS) and runway incursion prevention measures.
In addition they are reviewing their procedures in the light of the advice contained in the European
Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions (EAPPRI).
1
Relevant KPIs still have to be defined
2
Study by Eurocontrol Airport Operations Unit
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Short Term Recommendation
• Implement A-SMGCS – Levels I and II in coordination with EAPPRI (European Action

Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions) - Mature
• Implement as soon as possible the EUROCONTROL SAFREP report’s recommendations,

as recommended by PRC (PRR5). - Mature
Capacity
Almost 80% of the airports reported in the CTG04 3 study indicate that, without adding extra
runways, they will be unable to achieve the same capacity as the best performing airport with a
comparable runway configuration. The most frequently cited reasons for this were physical site and
infrastructure limits (two thirds of airports with constraints), followed by environmental issues (half
of the airports), and physical constraints related to surrounding airspace and geography (one third).
However, due to the huge legislative and environmental constraints, constructing new runways is
one of the most difficult and lengthy processes within today’s aviation industry. A situation that is
especially true for the European Core Area. It is thus necessary to seek out other initiatives and best
practices (diffusion of best practices) to unlock latent capacity in addition to long term planning for
the development of new runways. Local initiatives focused on increased runway utilization (e.g.
additional exits, parallel approaches, mixed mode operations) should therefore be promoted. At
present, the Eurocontrol ACE project, offers a methodology for addressing this option. Recent
implementation of the ACE methodology at a number of European airports has shown runway
capacity increases of up to 20%.
There are a number of software tools, which are considered to be valuable enablers for both the
enhancement of arrival / departure streams and ground movement planning and management. These
3
Challenge to growth, ECAC / Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
are especially of interest for airports, which already have largely exploited best existing practices as
well as for airports that suffer a large capacity impact due to extreme weather conditions.
• Apply ACE methodology to implement recommended best practices. - Mature
• Implement or complement/support airport management airside, AMAN / DMAN -

Mature
• Implement SMAN – Surface Management Tool – Promising
• Develop and implement Time Based Separations (TBS) and controller supporting tools –
Promising
Efficiency
Operational efficiency improvements within SESAR will rely on a seamless operation over the entire
network (ref. SES IOP regulation). It is predicated on extensive cooperation / collaboration between
all stakeholders and includes full integration of airports within the network. It should be noted that
this extends beyond the specific ATM process to the turnaround process for the Airline / Airport and
support organisations. It also affects the ability to meet service expectations and contractual
agreements with the end customers, passengers and cargo. To establish this collaborative spirit is a
real challenge.
Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) will improve airport operations through better co-operation
between the airport actors. Improving the efficiency at an airport site requires a common
understanding of problems and collaborative solutions, supported by appropriate enablers. Until
now, efficiency has arisen from improving individual operations rather than considering the airport
users as a coherent team.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The EEC Report No 371 states: Experience gathered so far through airport CDM show that an
important source of benefits for reducing delays as a whole in Europe and achieving the best use of
scarce resources relies on improving the reliability and predictability of a very reduced set of data
in the airport
Regional CDM
Airport CDM, extended to include interconnected regional airports is Regional CDM. Incorporating
data interchange with the CFMU, this will enhance the network benefit and improve the flow
management process. The Eurocontrol E-conferencing has now become the main platform for air
traffic flow coordinated, management (ATFCM) oriented CDM activities.
The DMEAN case study at Maastricht UAC in 2005 indicates that average delivered capacity
increased by 26% through the application of ATFCM-oriented CDM activities. This increase was
essentially on en-route operations without the airport contribution that this work-package strongly
supports.
Improving weather forecast
In almost every case where capacity reduction is expected due to extreme weather conditions flow
control (CFMU) measures are enforced to prevent that too many aircrafts are fed into a holding
pattern or need to divert. Inaccurate weather forecasts, especially at airports where the available
runway capacity is strongly dependent on the actual weather conditions, could result in restrictions
that were too tight, which means they were imposed and not necessary, and situations where flow
restrictions should have been imposed but not taken A more reliable and accurate weather forecast is
therefore required.
• Implement Airport CDM and, through the DMEAN program (also a 3.2.1 champion),
develop incentives for airports and carriers who contribute to this process - Mature
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Implement / support regional CDM aligned with ATFCM-oriented CDM activities. -

Mature
• Initiate and support R&D initiatives focused on improving aviation weather forecasts
- R&D
• Support the development of the MET strategy and enlarge the scope to include the
ground movements – R&D
Environment and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency
Environmental issues (noise, air quality and pollution by run-off liquids) are major challenges for
most of the European airports. The local community is increasingly able to constrain or delay airport
expansion and airspace changes and may block any potential increase in the annual movement rate
due to operational improvements. Thus a collaborative environmental management involving ATC,
aircraft operators, neighbouring communities and the airport management is a necessity.
Collaboration has to be accompanied by a greater transparency toward the communities if mutual
trust is to be ensured. Building an internal awareness of the issues among the airport community is
vital. An example of best practice, with a proven track record, is the local Flight Operational
Performance Committee (FLOPC) hosted by BAA.
According to the findings of the Constraints to Growth Study of 2004 (CTG04), improving fuel
efficiency is the most potentially rewarding mitigation approach to directly reducing or
limiting air transport’s climatic impacts in the near to medium term (2005–2010), Early action to
reduce carbon dioxide over the long term is also essential. 4D Trajectory operations opens
possibilities to increases the operational efficiency for all involved parties but especially for the
commercial operators, airports and airlines. Trials indicate that optimal trajectories can save 200-
500kgs per flight or $155,000 to $195,000 per airframe/year with an assumed fuel cost of
$595/metric tons. (Rotterdam spot price for kerosene type jet fuel in late September 2006,
www.eia.doe.gov).
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
At the same time these fuel saving measures have a positive effect on the airspace users cost base.
• Support Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) between ATC, users, airport

and surrounding communities - Promising
• Support further development of procedures/related technical enablers which improve

flight efficiency, (CDA, A-CDA, P-RNAV/RNP, GBAS, leading to 4D trajectory
operations). RNP-RNAV is a very promising next step enabling curved approaches with
vertical guidance down to CAT I. - Promising
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION RISK
A characteristic of the airport initiatives is that they are generally well established as operational
trials on an individual basis. However there is always a risk that the commitment necessary to launch
the initiatives over a sufficiently wide scope will be lacking. Therefore the initiatives must be
business driven for the airspace users. To reduce investment costs, equipment and procedures must
be harmonised to the greatest possible extent as the airspace users utilise a multitude of
geographically wide spread airports.
In summary there are some common implementation risks for the short-term improvements:
• State or local legislation that inhibits the implementation of recommended initiatives because
of the perception that capacity increase is incompatible with sustainability goals;
• Political interests that distort fair competition between different modes of transport (e.g.
subsidies for other modes of transport);
• Social opposition due to environmental issues and lack of an objective forum and analysis tools
to gain a true picture of the potential outcomes;
• Industrial practices / lack of common expectations of the workforce and fear of change;
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Costs. (Costs and benefits may be distributed unequally among the aviation community.
Potentially the facilities for a “standard” Cost Benefit Analysis tool, centrally provided, would
highlight the global pay-off and give a justification for external financing);
• Lack of development support e.g. access to professional staff to undertake analysis of relevant
safety cases, or the production of local P-RNAV procedures (especially true for regional
airports);
• Lack of resources to implement the necessary infra-structure for CDM and lack of agreement
between the partners to ensure that the resources are forthcoming;
• Unwillingness of airport partners to involve in the CDM because of fear to share the relevant
data.
As the overall implementation risks are essentially local in character, potentially one of the most
helpful aspects would be for SESAR to provide a good comparative tool set with credible standing.
With this the diverse players could undertake meaningful peer-to-peer analysis; where in some cases,
peer-to-peer will be between airport operator and users, and for others between operators and the
local community or between airport partners.
1.5 THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE SHORT TERM
To facilitate the implementation of the short-term recommendations airports have to:
• Agree on a common and unambiguous terminology for system use.
• Define clear performance targets, review and monitor them on an on-going basis. This
will develop a better understanding of the factors relating to performance and how they can
be addressed to improve the operation.
• Demonstrate feasibility through “high level” simulation and ensure the establishment of
performance cases (safety, business, environmental, etc.) before implementing changes.
• Create, validate and agree an implementation plans.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Create a strong partnership amongst the actors of the airport domain.
o It must be recognized that cost minimization by any one actor of the airport domain
can reduce the overall system efficiency. The network is complex and for optimal
performance, a re-evaluation of the economic principles is needed at both the level
of strategic investment and tactical operations.
o This requires a common tool set, available to all, to explore the cost and benefit
implications of operational changes associated with the move toward an integrated
network approach.
• Create a data base containing
o operational best practices
o simulation results for selected case studies
o environmental best practises and local initiatives
o safety related data
Operators can develop best practices by making meaningful comparisons between airports.
• Develop incentives schemes
o At a local level the financial savings after implementation constitute genuine

incentives for change. However such expected benefits must be readily identifiable.
o Alternative incentives should be considered where the network, rather than the
investor, would benefit from the initiative.
• Support the creation of strong and effective European aviation safety regulatory
mechanisms with appropriate executive and regulatory powers.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
2 CONTENTS LIST
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
BACKGROUND 2
1.1 SCOPE 2
1.2 METHODOLOGY 2
1.3 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES 3
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION RISK 8
1.5 THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE SHORT TERM 9
2 CONTENTS LIST 11
3 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK 13
3.1 AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT 13

3.2 IDENTIFIED BLOCKING POINTS 17
3.3 IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREAS 19
3.4 SCOPE OF WORK AND OBJECTIVES 21
4 METHODOLOGY 24
4.1 INVENTORY OF INITIATIVES 24

4.2 EVALUATION OF INITIATIVES 28
4.3 PERFORMANCE AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS 29
4.4 MAPPING INITIATIVES TO BLOCKING POINTS 30
5 ASSESSED INITIATIVES 31
5.1 SAFETY 33
5.2 AIRPORT CAPACITY (RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY CAPACITY) 40
5.3 EFFICIENCY 69
5.4 ENVIRONMENT 85
5.5 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES 98
5.6 UNCOVERED BLOCKING POINTS 100
5.7 IMPLEMENTATION RISKS 103
6 THE WAY FORWARD 105
6.1 KEY MESSAGES 106
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
6.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 110
8 REFERENCES 111
9 APPENDICES 112
9.1 APPENDIX 1 112

9.2 APPENDIX 2 115
9.3 APPENDIX 3 221
9.4 APPENDIX 4 227
10 RECORD OF REVISIONS 238
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT
3.1.1 Ownership
“Airport ownership throughout Europe embraces a wide spectrum of scenarios, ranging from
individual single airports to multiple airport ownership (within the same state or across different
states) to single City airport systems. These ownerships can be government/state ownership,
local/regional government ownership within a state or city/town, private company ownership or a
joint private/public body ownership. Private ownership can also be varied including single
company/private individuals to single state/multi-national consortiums.”
“These ownership scenarios present challenges for the engagement with ATM related decision
making processes – whether initiated at the airport level or from the ATM system provider or
regulator. These engagements can be complicated further by the sometimes variable point of
contact at the airport depending on the nature of the issue. Medium/larger airports/airport
groupings will usually have different points of contact for e.g. airfield operations and licensing,
environmental, financial, strategy, development, etc. Any one of these areas of contact from an
airport perspective may have a need for ATM engagement and whilst internal airport
communication would normally expect to overcome differences in internal priorities it can often lead
to confusion with external bodies in terms of who to link with.”
(SESAR: WP 1.2.1 (2006) MECHANISMS AND TRIGGERS FOR ATM DECISION MAKING
AIRPORT OPERATOR PERSPECTIVE)
3.1.2 Processes
Airports, as nodes of the Air Transport Network, represent the aircraft management process and the
passenger (& cargo) management process. They are a complex system where a great number of
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
agents must interact, aligning their activities with a common objective, to collectively meet the
agreed schedule of operation.
Currently airport operators, ANSPs, airlines, other airspace users, and third parties (e.g. handling
agents, government services, etc), use different planning data, do not share a common view of the
flight evolution and take their decisions based on different objectives: this in spite of managing a
single, common, set of aircraft which must be loaded and unloaded with a unique contracted number
of passengers and goods. The target should be to work with one single and unambiguous data set.
The data set residing in the aircrafts FMS is a possibility as this is the one to which the flight itself is
ultimately controlled.
The infrastructure and services at the airport are central to the safe and punctual operation of flights
at the airport. However it is rare for all services to be provided from one source. Generally the
various flight support services will be provided by the airport operator, by service providers
authorized by the airport, by the carriers themselves or by their agents and by STATE bodies.
The airport infrastructure, both terminal and airside (taxiways, runways, aprons, stands and
navigational infrastructure) together with its processes, determines the theoretical capacity for
passenger, freight and flight movements.
The operational concept at an airport, which is its preferred use of the existing infrastructure, has a
direct influence on its capacity and thus on the ATM network operation. As a network node, the
airport is a key resource for the ATM network and the airport processes are critical to the stability of
the whole ATM network. Any blocking points in these processes necessarily influence the overall
ATM network operations.
Flight related ground services could be divided into:
• Passenger services (check-in, security, boarding)
• Baggage services (check-in, security, loading)
• Aircraft services (servicing, cleaning, fuelling, catering, maintenance etc.)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Cargo services.
The main partners in the chain of processes responsible for stable operations are:
• Airspace users
• Airport Operators
• Airport Ground Service providers (Ground handling)
• Local air traffic manager
• En-route traffic manager (with CFMU)
• Customs, boarder control, state police, security etc.
Because of the complexity of services required to dispatch a flight, well-organized workflow

patterns have to be designed and followed.
This requires
• Transparent management systems,
• Effective means of communication, and
• Collaborative procedures that provide the necessary guidance and flexibility for non-standard
situations.
At present the interface between the airport and the en-route network is activated during the period
“closure of a/c doors” and “off-block”. The airport traffic service must plan and manage this time
interval in order to assure a take-off time that meets the requirements of the en-route network
Managing the capacity of the taxiway system and the runways under both normal and abnormal
conditions (Contamination, Weather) is a feeder function to the en-route network. Runways,
taxiways and aprons used to their physical limitations this will certainly be one of the limiting
factors. In order to develop an optimum feeding system operational knowledge (aircraft
performance, flight procedures etc) is absolutely necessary. Only a mutual understanding of the
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
capabilities of the individual players (ATC, cockpit, ground staff and airport) will lead to an optimal
operation. Non-coherent procedures and/or incorrect application of procedures will inevitably reduce
the capacity of the airport and/or penalise the performance of the ATM system.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3.2 IDENTIFIED BLOCKING POINTS
In Deliverable 1 from task T3.2.2, the blocking points for the airport environment have been
identified. Originally the blocking points were organised in five groups; Operational, Organisational,
Legislative, Social and Environmental. In Appendix 1 the full list of Airport Blocking Points as
identified by T322-D1 is presented. The largest number of blocking points is in the area of airport
operations. The operational blocking points are aggregated and presented according to their position
in the process chain (Arrival, Taxi and turn around, Departure, Safety and General).
Airport Operations Blocking Points Area
Arrival Flow
Arrival
Runway Capacity and Infrastructure
Process
Technological Enablers and Procedures
Airport Ground Infrastructure
Taxi Management
Taxi and Turnaround Process
Turnaround and terminal
Accommodation of NLA
Pushback Process
Departure Process Taxi out
Departure Capacity / Infrastructure
Situational Awareness
Safety Related Issues
Harmonization
Planned Runway Capacity
Tactical Runway Capacity

General
Departure runway – demand characteristics
Adverse Weather and other disruptions
Table 1, BP - Operational
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The blocking points for Organisational/Legislative/Social areas are so few that all of them are
included in the table together with the severity decided by airports and aircraft operators.
Organisational, Legislative, Social Blocking Points Area
Coordination between local (airports) management of traffic,

and the En Route constraints managed by CFMU
Organisational
Difficult cooperation between partners on the airport
No harmonised control methods to manage high traffic flows
No detailed and shared figures about status of aircraft handling
Planning Requirements
Legislative Planning new infrastructure
Security regulations
S lifting index
Social
Screening baggage
Table 2, BP - Organisational, Legislative, Social
The blocking points for the Environmental area have been grouped under Noise, Air and Water
where airports and aircraft operators have decided the severity.
Environmental Blocking Points Areas
Operating restrictions
NOISE
Local community
Exhaust fume quota

AIR POLLUTION
Every issue that increases taxi time and holding
Use of de-icing products

WATER POLLUTION
Snow removal
Table 3, BP - Environmental
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3.3 IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREAS
The analysis of blocking points has identified particular problem areas in the airport environment.
Safety and Surface movements
Airfield Safety is a very important part of the overall ATM safety network. Air traffic controllers and
airport operators are facing the difficult task of guaranteeing a safe and effective management of
surface traffic, which includes aircrafts as well as a variety of vehicles. When taxiing on the
movement area of large hub airports, the pilot is usually confronted with a complex taxiway layout
and a high traffic density. This, in combination with the constantly rising traffic volume (air and
surface) leads to an increasing risk. To guarantee the current target level of safety for ground
movement there is the need to at least maintain or even increase the safety of individual elements.
The most critical airfield safety issue identified in D1 is Runway Incursions with currently more than
one runway incursion per day within the ECAC region 4.
Runway capacity
The shortage of runway capacity, especially at major hub airports, has an increasingly negative
impact on the ATM network system and will become a future major blocking point. To achieve the
maximum runway capacity it is necessary to manage the arrival sequence in order to lessen the
impact of vortex wake separation requirements between aircraft types. In anticipation of this
requirement, the scheduled mix of traffic should be pre-planned to facilitate the controller’s task.
Lack of collaboration between different stakeholders
Lack of collaboration between the different stakeholders at the airports, whereas they are acting
independently rather than in unison can also create capacity problem. For example, a handling agent
may leave equipment in an unsafe position on a stand. This delays the arrival onto stand of the
following flight, a problem for another handler.
4
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Non-integrated air traffic flow (first come first served – Scheduled driven)
The air traffic network is an integral aspect of SESAR and its focus. Historically the airport
operators have planned air traffic flow in parallel with the services of the ANSPs rather than in a
fully integrated approach.
The biggest concern, stated by several airports, is the fact that while airports plan to an agreed
schedule they are forced to react to the flow of inbound aircraft as determined by the airspace users
and the air navigation service providers. Specifically, the airport assumes a schedule driven process,
the ANSP follows the ICAO guidelines of first come-first served. Consequently airports have a
minimal influence on the arrival flow and in the near term, operate on the estimated arrival times
provided by airlines and ATC. Arrival congestion occurs at many airports because of aircraft flying
at maximum speed into the TMA to get to the front of the queue. Such early arrivals delay other
flights arriving on schedule in the TMA. This behaviour leads to a poor predictability of the aircraft
arrival time, resulting in a sub-optimal usage of airport resources (runways, parking positions, etc.).
Flying off-schedule can also reduce runway capacity by presenting a non-optimal mix of traffic in
the context of the deviation of the wake-vortex mix from that assumed in planning runway capacity.
Current aircraft navigation capabilities would allow aircraft, through speed adjustments in the en-
route phase, to meet a specific expected approach time (EAT) and as a consequence would also
reduce the overall fuel-burn compared with present practice.
Security
Future regulations may dictate implementation of more stringent screening and security procedures.
This will, in the near future, slow down the security process at airports, and will have an increasingly
negative impact on the ATM system and thus become a major blocking point. It will potentially
increase the investment requirement for further infrastructure (additional counters and screening
units to maintain the present throughput). Enhanced and innovative screening devices must be
developed and implemented to prevent a further slow down of the current screening process. At the
airport the impact of more stringent screening and security procedures can be minimised by
additional infrastructure and/or an increase in the Minimum Connecting Time (MCT) together with
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
earlier check-in. At the level of a State, the decision makers may be unaware that lack of investment
can create operational problems. For example at present the instant at which flight clearance will be
obtained from the US Transportation Safety Agency is an unknown. It may occur well after push
back and even after the planned take-off time. This reduces the predictability of the system and may
affect efficiency.
Environment
Environmental issues (noise and air quality) are major concerns for airports within Europe;
especially as the local community is increasingly able to constrain or delay both airport expansion
and airspace changes, and may inhibit an increase of the number of annual movements that could
otherwise be achieved though operational improvements.
3.4 SCOPE OF WORK AND OBJECTIVES
3.4.1 Scope of work
This document is the result of the D2-activities performed under the Task 3.2.2 of the SESAR
project. The immediate objectives of this report are to identify a portfolio of potential short-term
solutions for the improvement of the airport operations.
The report assessed current initiatives (best practices and ongoing initiatives) relevant to airport
operations. The goal is to list those that address in the short and medium term (2013) the bottlenecks
previously found as a result of the Task 3.2.2-D1 activities.
The scope for Task 3.2.2 is the Airport environment. Similar work has been done for Airspace
environment in Task 3.2.1. Initiatives affecting the interface between Airport and Airspace have
been assessed and / or coordinated by both tasks.
It is however important to recognise the over-arching issue of the environment in which SESAR will
seek to implement these initiatives. Given the changes to the established focus at the airport, such
future issues as the strategic communication between airports, the network manager, the local ANSP
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
and the airspace users need to be addressed now, if they are to be in place by the time that the
longer-term initiatives recommended by SESAR come to fruition.
D1 recommendations
This report should also reflect and support the recommendations from D1:
ATM #4
Fragmentation, at all levels, of the European ATM System will have to be eliminated prior to the
implementation of SESAR defined ATM enhancements – present system inefficiencies shall not be
compensated for by technological solutions alone.
ATM #5
ANSPs, in conjunction with their systems’ suppliers, address the lack of flexibility in their current
systems to find ways of providing varying levels of operational ATM capacity in real-time to resolve
potential demand / capacity imbalances.
ATM #6
The relationship between airports and en-route be emphasised (e.g. to ensure delays in one are not
“masking” potential delays in the other).
Overall #3
There is a need for one simplified European framework together with a performance-based
approach, which satisfies all airspace user requirements. States and Industry all have a role to play in
ensuring that Europe’s ATM System is progressively modernised to cope safely with the expected
traffic growth. Business as usual is not an option.
3.4.2 Objectives
The objective is to define short-term improvements, which would pave the way towards achieving
the global expectations set in SESAR. The essence of SESAR is the introduction of a new concept in
ATM with a focus on the operation of the overall ATM network. However the necessity for the
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
overall integration of the airport operations with the en-route sector has only recently been identified.
When the ATM2000+ initiative originally introduced the concept of Gate to Gate, the influence of
the network was, precisely, bounded by the border between the terminal and the aircraft passenger
door. Only recently have the CDM initiatives of Eurocontrol challenged the nature of this en-
route/airport interface. CDM is essentially a bottom up project tracing all the relevant data flows
associated with the operation.
The historical lack of strategic interaction by the European Airports is reflected in the difficulty that
ACI-Europe has had to persuade their membership of the need for a fully resourced permanent
interface with Eurocontrol. The same isolationism ensured that while the major airports developed
sophisticated capacity planning tools and derived the appropriate schedules to utilise the theoretical
capacity, they ignored the conflicts inherent in the operational rules of their partner ANSPs. Airports
developed operational plans that relied on schedule adherence; ANSPs managed the traffic flow with
the rule “First Come First Served” in the absence of any knowledge of the implied contract for
schedule adherence made when an airline was awarded a slot at a regulated airport
At a highly congested airport off-schedule arrival can distort planned stand usage. An early arrival
whose intended stand has yet to be vacated either waits off-stand and blocks the taxiway system, or
comes to an unplanned stand with no ground handling resource available, or leads to an unplanned
stand / gate (exit) swap, which complicates the whole Terminal process.
At the extreme, there are two approaches. On the one hand the airports could provide surplus
capacity in order to meet the local peaks of demand; wherever they occur - runways, stands, terminal
and aprons. On the other hand there could be rigid control of the arrival stream. While the final
outcome will be a compromise, the rules underlying the compromise decisions – so far avoided in
discussions – must be addressed.
At present collaborative decision making (CDM), discussed later in the text, addresses this from a
bottom-up perspective. As such, it is faced with such external rules as ‘First Come First Served’ that
are defined outside the local context.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 INVENTORY OF INITIATIVES
All identified initiatives are listed below.
The first part of the table contains the research initiatives chosen by the group, from the work of task
2.2.1, as significant in the airport context. The second part includes all local initiatives, state funded
projects and best practices of which the members of the group were aware. The third part, containing
the environmental initiatives, uses another structure.
Environmental initiatives are classified into 3 packages of solutions as used in task1.1.4:
• Collaborative work addressing noise, gaseous and particulate pollution
• Contributions to a better transparency (community)
• Other enablers to reduce pollution
There are also initiatives found in the list from 2.2.1 that have been superseded by later initiatives /
projects and there were a few that the group found to be irrelevant to the airport operations.
Table 4, List of initiatives
Nr. Category Initiative
RESEARCH (from Task 2.2.1)

R-1.1 SAFETY Airport Safety Nets (GCAS)
R-1.2 SAFETY Wakenet
A01: A-SMGCS - Advanced - Surface Movement Guidance Control System – Levels I

R-2.1 Surface Movement
and II
R-2.2 Surface Movement A24: EMMA (Airport Movement Management by A-SMGCS)
R-3.1 Avionics A04: Airport Navigation (Onboard Airport Navigation System)

R-3.2 Avionics A07 : Area Navigation/ Required Navigation Performance (RNAV/RNP)
A14: CASCADE - Cooperative ATS Through Surveillance & Communications
R-3.3 Avionics
Applications Deployed In ECAC
R-3.4 Avionics A33: Improved Utilisation of Flight Management System (FMS) functionalities
R-3.5 Avionics A35: GNSS Landing System (GLS)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-3.6 Avionics A37: Head Up Display/Enhanced Vision System (HUV/EVS)

R-3.7 Avionics A49: NUP II - NEAN Update Programme Phase 2 (NUP2+)
R-4.1 Rwy Cap A05: AMAN/DMAN - Arrival Manager and Departure Manager
R-4.2 Rwy Cap A11: Brake To Vacate (BTV)
A51: Optimised Procedures and Techniques for Improvement of Approach and Landing
R-4.3 Rwy Cap
(Optimal)
R-4.4 Rwy Cap A54: Planned Spacing Tool
R-4.5 Rwy Cap A58: Tailored Arrival (4D trajectory management)
R-4.6 Rwy Cap CREDOS: Crosswind Reduced Departure Separations
R-5.1 CDM A09: CDM Airport - Airport Collaborative Decision Making

R-5.2 CDM A40: LEONARDO - Linking Existing On Ground, Arrival and Departure Operations
R-5.3 CDM SPADE: Supporting Platform for Airport Decision-making and Efficiency Analysis
R-6.1 Concepts A12: Cooperative ATM (C-ATM)

R-6.2 Concepts A13: CAMES - Co-operative ATM Measures for a Single European Sky
R-6.3 Concepts A19: Dynamic Management Of The European Airspace Network (DMEAN)
A36: GtG - Validation of a European Gate to Gate Operational Concept for 2005-2010,
R-6.4 Concepts
ref: SESAR 3.2.1
R-6.5 Concepts A38: Innovative Future Air Transport System (IFATS)
R-6.6 Concepts A50: Operational Concept Document (OCD – The vision)
Nr. Category Initiative
LOCAL INITIATIVES(Local research & Potential best practice) + STATE

FUNDED PROJECTS + WORK GROUPS
I-1.1 SAFETY EAPPRI -( Runway Incursions)
I-2.1 Surface Movement Perimeter taxiways

I-2.2 Surface Movement SMAN
I-2.3 Surface Movement ILS tuning
I-2.4 Surface Movement Datalink Application for Surface Movement Planning
I-4.1 Rwy Cap DTOP - Dual Threshold Operations with High Approach Landing System
I-4.2 Rwy Cap A-Man/D-MAN Local Practice
I-4.3 Rwy Cap Additional RETs and Entries
I-4.4 Rwy Cap Additional / better placed runway crossing
I-4.5 Rwy Cap CRDA / DCIA Converging Runway Display Aid
I-4.6 Rwy Cap Independent Parallel departures
SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite Direction Runway Operations (In use at Sydney
I-4.7 Rwy Cap
and proposed for new runway at Brisbane)
I-4.8 Rwy Cap PRM Precision Radar Monitoring
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.9 Rwy Cap Time Based Separation

I-4.10 Rwy Cap ACE
I-4.11 Rwy Cap CAPMAN - Runway Capacity Management Tool
1-4.12 Rwy Cap SLOT Management
1-4.13 Rwy Cap PICAP
Visual conducted approaches instead of IFR operations when appropriate visual
I-4.14 Rwy Cap
conditions prevail.
I-4.15 Rwy Cap Dependent and independent parallel instrument Arrivals
I-5.1 CDM Gatelink

I-5.2 CDM CDM Trial op SPL
I-7.1 Airport infrastructure Boeing 747-800 Airport Compatibility Group (BACG)

AACG A380 Airport Compatibility Group. Recommendations for the handling of A380
I-7.2 Airport infrastructure
aircraft at existing airports / infrastructure
A380 at Alternate Airports. Recommendations from AACG for the handling of A380 at
I-7.3 Airport infrastructure
alternate / diversion airports
I-7.4 Airport infrastructure AOC best practices
I-7.5 Airport infrastructure Airport Operational forums
1=Safety, 2=Surface Movement, 3=Avionics, 4=Rwy Cap, 5=CDM, 6=Concepts,
7=Airport Infrastructure
1. Collaborative work Environment
E-1.1 Airport widespread adoption of EMS following the principles of international standards
E-1.2 Airlines widespread adoption of EMS
E-1.3 ANSP widespread adoption of EMS
2. Community
E-2.1 Better relations to neighbours
E-2.2 Noise monitoring system and flight tracking
E-2.3 Air quality monitoring system
E-2.4 Noise Control and construction planning
E-2.5 Germany Quiet Air Traffic II project
E-2.6 Introduction of a noise protection program
E-2.7 Germany aerospace research project
Noise and Air efficient

3.
operations
3.1 Operations
E-3.1.1 CDA and A-CDA (e.g. Green Approach)
E-3.1.2 Ref. R-3.2 P-RNAV
E-3.1.3 Ref.R-3.2 RNP-RNAV PROCEDURES
E-3.1.4 Curved approach
E-3.1.5 Different ILS interception, mandatory airspace for landing and T/O, ref: SESAR 3.2.1
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3.2 Noise
E-3.2.1 Charges regimes
E-3.2.2 Night noise management regimes
E-3.2.3 Phase out noisiest aircraft
E-3.2.4 Noise budget
E-3.2.5 ICAO noise abatement procedures
E-3.2.6 Noise limitation on the ground
E-3.2.7 Noise preferential use of runway and runway combination
3.3 Air
E-3.3.1 Taxiing on one engine/towing to/from runway
E-3.3.2 Airlines best practices in APU use
E-3.3.3 Airport restrictions APU use and best practices
E-3.3.4 Airport design and operation to reduce the queue and taxiing
E-3.3.5 Exchange of vehicles
E-3.3.6 Higher energy efficiency
3.4 Water
E-3.4.1 De-icing operation
E-3.4.2 Technical solutions
E-3.4.3 Collecting water polluted with glycol
E-3.4.4 De-icing stations
E-3.4.5 Airlines best practices for anti icing
E-3.4.6 Reduces use of dangerous chemicals
Superseded by later projects

4.10 Datalink A10: ASSTAR
4.2 Datalink A2: ADS Programme - Automatic Dependent Surveillance Programme
4.18 Datalink A18: DADI-2 - Datalinking Of Aircraft Derived Information
4.20 Datalink A20: DOVE - Datalink Operational Validation Experiments
4.25 Datalink A25: EOLIA - European Pre-Operational Data Link Applications Project
4.22 A22: EMERALD - EMErging RTD Activities of Relevance for ATM concept Definition
4.27 A27: ERATO (En Route Air Traffic Organiser)
4.31 A31: FARAWAY - Fusion of Radar & ADS-B data through two WAY data link
4.3 Avionics A3: AFAS - Aircraft in the Future ATM System
4.23 A23: EMERTA - Emerging Technologies Opportunities, Issues And Impact On ATM
4.41 A41: LINK 2000+ - The Link 2000+ Program (evaluated in 3.2.1)
4.42 A42: M-AFAS (More Autonomous Aircraft in the Future ATM System)
Not relevant
4.15 A15: CTPC - Common Trajectory Prediction Capabilities
4.17 A17: CoSpace - Towards the use of spacing instructions
4.29 A29: FALBALA
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
4.2 EVALUATION OF INITIATIVES
A large number of on-going initiatives (research projects and local practices) have been identified.
To better view the comparative goals and objectives, initiatives have been clustered into logical
groupings. These clusters are:
• Safety
• Surface Movement
• Avionics
• Runway Capacity and Airport Infrastructure
• Airport CDM
• Airport Concepts
• Environment
The assessment of the initiatives was based on the following criteria:
• Severity of and potential impact on associated blocking points
• Time to implement
• Ease of implementation
• Environmental impact
• Expected value for the different stakeholders
Where available, data (CBA, detailed reports) were used to support the rating of the initiatives.
Otherwise the rating was based on expert judgment (a peer group review of airport operators, airlines
and ANSPs). The most promising initiatives were selected as “group champions.”
The evaluation templates for each initiative can be found in Appendix 2.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
To assess the potential benefits the selected initiatives were mapped against the key performance
areas defined in WP 2.1. (Relevant KPIs still have to be defined). Whilst Safety and Environment
are of fundamental importance, the operational performance KPAs Capacity, Cost Effectiveness
and Efficiency directly influence the business of the stakeholders involved.
4.3 PERFORMANCE AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS
Performance and associated benefits can be addressed in many ways, however for most of the
initiatives a clear Cost Benefit Analyse (CBA) does not exist or is not readily accessible. It is not the
responsibility of T322 to undertake CBAs for each of the identified initiatives, especially as the
scope and implementation possibilities covers a wide and sometimes undefined range. Also the
possible cost and benefits differ from location to location, as does the ease of implementation.
Moreover the necessity is not equal for all airports and states. Local (legal) regulations as well as
operational procedures strongly determine the final outcome of a CBA and the decisions made from
that analysis.
To have an insight into possible benefits of the identified initiatives, an indication is given (Shown in
appendix 2) for a limited number of Key Performance Areas (KPA) namely
- Safety,
- Operational (capacity/cost effectiveness/efficiency/flexibility/predictability)
- Environment
A qualitative rating is given for the expected contribution of each initiative to the KPA. (-- =
substantial negative impact, - = negative impact, 0 = neutral, + = positive impact, ++ = substantial
positive impact).
For the most strongly recommended initiatives an extended mapping to all KPA’s is shown in
Appendix 3.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Environmental benefits are difficult to express. Initiatives, which reduce delay, taxi time and/or
holding time, will reduce fuel consumption and will have a positive environmental benefit on air
pollution. However most of these initiatives will also increase capacity and so more aircraft
movements will make use of the runways / airport, decreasing the absolute benefit for the
environment. However there will still be an environmental benefit if the gains are placed in the
perspective of emissions (air pollution) per flight. For the indication of environmental benefit the
gains per aircraft movement is used.
4.4 MAPPING INITIATIVES TO BLOCKING POINTS
All identified initiatives are related to one or more blocking points (see T322 – D1). In Appendix 4,
the relation between the initiatives and the blocking points is presented. It is evident that a large
number of initiatives will relate to one or more blocking points and that a blocking point may be
affected by more than one initiative, often from different clusters.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5 ASSESSED INITIATIVES
With the objectives of SESAR in mind, emphasis is given both to initiatives that can be implemented
around European airports/airspace and to initiatives whose adoption requires a high level of
European political support.
An airport is by nature unique and therefore each potential implementation of an initiative will
reflect this. To be successful each initiative has to be implemented in a local customer-focused way.
It is certain that not all initiatives promoted by SESAR will suit every airport. Equally there may be
initiatives, excluded from short-term support by SESAR, which will suit local conditions and will be
locally implemented. For example the initiatives, such as CRDA/DCIA or HALS/DTOP will not be
of general interest other than for a very limited number of airports. From a SESAR perspective these
would not be classified among the ones of general interest. Note that this does not reflect a negative
attitude towards these initiatives (They are all highly beneficial for the specific
airports/organizations) merely that SESAR work/priorities are directed toward areas of general
application.
gate to gate
No local initiative, for which airlines

and aircraft operators have to invest En-route A
in specific onboard equipment and /

Take -off Landing
or procedures, can be successful if no departure ABD arrival ABA
G G
positive CBA exists. Airport A A Turn Turn A
T around around T Airport B
E E
The process has been looked at from arrival ABA departure ABD
an en-route-to-en-route perspective Landing Take -off
as this includes all the airports

En-route B
processes such as gate-to-gate, turn
en-route to en -route
around, passenger and baggage
handling. From an airport point of
view gate-to gate does not reflect all airport processes.
Figure 1, En-Route to En-Route and G2G
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Due to the nature of the initiatives they have been grouped under four KPA’s:
• Safety
• Capacity
• Efficiency
• Environment
Many of these initiatives could be mapped to more then one KPA, i.e. CDM will improve efficiency,
environmental constraints and capacity (see appendix 3). For the allocation of the initiatives to a
KPA the most logical one has been chosen.
Definitions:
Promoted
• Strongly promoted (class 1, indicated green): believed to deliver most benefit in short-term
and to effectively address blocking points
• Promoted (class 2, indicated yellow): Either built on top of “class 1” initiatives or believed
to be in line with “class1” but needs more R&D, or can not be implemented / deliver benefits
in the short term
• Not supported (class 3, indicated orange): Believed to be beneficial for only a very limited
number of airports or the implementation / delivery of benefits is expected to be in the long
term
Maturity
• R&D: Concept initiation / definition phase. Prove of concept still to be made
• Promising: Positive prove of concept, Trials being initiated or carried out for operational
implementation
• Mature: Proven technologies / concepts. Already implemented or being implemented at some

airports (could also be one airport, locally optimized / proven)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.1 SAFETY
5.1.1 The Challenge
One of SESAR’s high-level goals is up to tenfold safety improvement depending on the increase in
capacity. Airports face a challenge in maintaining or improving current safety levels in the context of
increasing movements and traffic complexity. Safety assessment indicates that when traffic doubles,
the risk increases by a factor of four, while when traffic triples the risk increases by a factor of nine 5.
5.1.2 The Obstacles / limitations
The complex traffic (aircraft and vehicles) on the runway, taxiways and apron leads to an increasing
risk especially during low surface visibility conditions. The most critical airfield safety issue is
runway incursions with currently more than one runway incursion per day within the ECAC region 6
(albeit the recent increase may reflect improved reporting and the risks associated with each report
are not necessarily severe).
Section 7 of D1, describes blocking points directly related to the airfield.
The most important of them are:
• Lack of or poor quality of surveillance
• Lack of situational awareness in the cockpit
• Insufficient runway incursion prevention measures (stop bars, wigwags, signage)
• Congested ground frequencies
5
EUROCONTROL (2006) INFORMATION PAPER SCG/2/IP01)
6
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.1.3 Related Challenges
More than 100 ECAC airports have, fully or partly, implemented 70-100% of the recommended
actions of EAPPRI 7. This has lead to a decreasing number of class A and B incidents 8 but a proof of
evidence is nevertheless difficult unless a “just culture” for incident reporting is introduced and
legally supported on a global scale. We encourage a harmonized safety management system
(EASA). The PRC recommendation (PRR 2005) supports the EUROCONTROL SAFREP report’s
recommendations, which should be implemented as soon as possible. Specific actions should be
urgently undertaken to assist individual States/ANSPs in meeting their safety reporting obligations.
5.1.4 Available Solutions
The initiatives related to safety are split up in 2 groups:
a) Initiatives purely addressing safety (e.g. runway incursion prevention, wake vortex detection)
• Runway Incursion Prevention

CFMU data shows that in 2002 there were more than 15 million air traffic movements in the
ECAC region. The most critical Safety Issue identified in D1 is runway incursions. A study
undertaken by the EUROCONTROL Airport Operations Unit shows that, in that year, there were
350 runway incursions reported. There was one incursion every day and one serious incursion
every 14 days.
Most of the larger airports have recently invested in enhanced surveillance and runway incursion
prevention measures. However, many medium size and small airports still have deficits in this
area. In view of the high-density traffic from 2010 to 2020, and the greater risk of runway
incursions, a harmonised European wide approach is necessary.
7
European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions, EAPRI, Eurocontrol
8
Category A: Very serious risk incidents; Category B: Significant risk incidents; source EAPPRI, Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Figure 2, Proportion of reported incidents in risk categories
The figure shows that almost two thirds of the reported incidents are of the lower risk categories
C and D 9. The recent increase of those minor incidents can partly be attributed to an improved
reporting. While they generally do not present an immediate danger, the reporting of these
incidents helps to detect weaknesses in the respective airport’s layout / procedures. Eurocontrol
has launched an initiative called European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions
(EAPPRI). It contains a variety of measures covering training and awareness campaigns, the
introduction of new harmonized procedures and technologies as well as certification issues. It
contains 56 recommendations including General Principles, Aerodrome Operator Issues, Aircraft
Operator Issues, ANSP Issues, Communications, Data Collection and Lesson Sharing,
Regulatory Issues, Aeronautical Information Management and Future Work.
Additional Information can be found on:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/runwaysafety/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html
In addition to this established initiative there are further research projects such as Airport Safety
Nets (GCAS). This research project contains a number of measures to prevent collisions on the
9
source EAPPRI, Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
ground and especially runway incursions. While still R&D, this initiative aims at one integrated
system and shows a path for the future.
• Prevention of Wake-Vortex Encounters
It is widely recognized that wake vortices represent one of the most critical safety hazards in the
vicinity of airports. In consequence there are several projects and initiatives throughout Europe
with the aim of preventing wake-vortex encounters. One of these initiatives is Wakenet, an
expert group that meets on a regular basis to discuss wake-vortex related issues. This is regarded
as an important forum and should be continued. However, there are currently no immediate
implementation projects resulting from this initiative in the next 2-3 years, and therefore it is not
supported in the context of Task 3.2.2 short term initiatives.
b) Initiatives that also contain a management / optimization aspect (e.g. A-SMGCS)
• SMGCS
With the prospect of constantly growing volume of air-traffic the management of surface traffic
is becoming more and more safety critical. As described in the previous section the increasing
aircraft and vehicular traffic on airfields has an impact on ground movement safety. In addition it
also affects the usage of airfield resources (runways, taxiways, stands…) and the quality of
service (ground delays).
Most of the larger airports (Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London, Paris, Vienna, Zurich, etc.) have
recently invested in enhanced surveillance, A-SMGCS and other runway incursion prevention
measures. They are reviewing their procedures in the light of the advice contained in the
European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions (EAPPRI). EAPPRI includes
recommendations, which will enhance safety and involve actors from Airports, ANSP and
Airspace users. While many of the medium size and smaller airports are still struggling with the
high costs of such surface management systems, there are alternatives. Depending on the traffic
volume of the respective airport, SMR (Surface Movement Radar) in combination with other
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
sensors may be a cheaper alternative. There are also other technical solutions available such as
ADS-B and even multilateration when combined with surveillance in the TMA (I.e. Innsbruck
airport).
5.1.5 Supporting facts
• SMGCS
In the draft version of Eurocontrol’s “Generic Cost Benefit Assessment of A-SMGCS” two different
scenarios are evaluated:
Scenario A; medium-sized airports with expected levels of weather related delay of 50k
minutes annually
Scenario B; large airports with expected levels of weather related delay of 100k minutes
annually.
For these two scenarios the following costs and benefits are expected:
Total one-time Annual Total Annual Benefit / Cost

Scenario
costs Operating costs Benefits Ratio
Scenario A 3.47 - 3.87 M€ 0.30 - 0.68 M€ 0.64 - 0.90 M€ 1.3 - 1.5
Scenario B 4.54 - 6.64 M€ 0.05 - 0.12 M€ 0.13 - 0.65 M€ 2.4 - 3.0
The following map, taken from the Eurocontrol A-SMGCS Project, shows that A-SMGCS Level 1
& 2 systems are currently installed at 20 European airports:- Amsterdam, Brussels, Budapest,
Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Geneva, Innsbruck, London Heathrow, Madrid, Milan Malpensa, Munich,
Palma de Majorca, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Paris Orly, Prague, Riga, Roma, Toulouse, Vienna,
Zurich.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Figure 3, A-SGCM level I and II currently installed
The A-SMGCS programme advocates a European wide introduction of Level 1 and 2 systems,
incorporating the experience of those airports that have already implemented such technology.
Currently Dublin, Oslo and Stockholm are candidates for the implementation of A-SMGCS with
potentially more airports to follow. On a Europe wide scale some of the Level 1 & 2 technologies
and functionalities have been validated in the scope of the EMMA (European Airport Movement
Management by A-SMGCS) project.
Two very important issues to be addressed are the harmonization of the associated procedures (such
as usage of Mode-S transponder on ground) and the certification procedures for A-SMGCS and the
personnel operating the systems. The solution of these open issues is a pre-requisite for the
introduction of the more advanced functions & technologies of Level 3 and 4, (currently under
investigation in the R&D project EMMA II)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
For more information:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/APT_emma.html
http://www.dlr.de/emma/
5.1.6 Recommendations for the short term
• Implement A-SMGCS – Levels I and II coordinated with EAPPRI (European Action Plan
for the Prevention of Runway Incursions) -Mature
Initiative to be strongly promoted

Time to Ease of
Nr Initiative Maturity
implement Implementation
EAPPRI -( European Action Plan for Limited

I-1.1 1-2 years Mature
the Prevention of Runway Incursions) Constraints
Some
R-2.1 A-SMGCS – Levels I and II 1-2 years Mature
Constraints
Initiative to be promoted
Time to Ease of
Some
R-1.1 Airport Safety Nets (GCAS) > 4 years R&D
Constraints
Initiative not to be supported in the short term

Time to Ease of
R-1.2 Wakenet n.a. n.a. R&D
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.2 AIRPORT CAPACITY (RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY CAPACITY)
5.2.1 The challenge
SESAR D1 states, “Existing airport capacity in Europe is capable of absorbing a maximum of twice
the traffic demand of 2003. (At the current demand growth rate ) …a total capacity barrier would be
reached around 2017 …. Consequently, in order to meet the SESAR challenge and break through
this (capacity) barrier, sufficient capacity in the basic ATM infrastructure (..) including airports
must be created.”
5.2.2 Obstacles / limitations
Within the ATM system, the airports are the main blocking points and especially their main
resources the runways. At busy and congested airports a major challenge is to maintain peak hour
capacity during bad weather conditions or other unforeseen situations.
While the most logical solution for the increase of capacity would be the addition of new runways,
there are huge legislative and environmental constraints in such work. Constructing new runways is
one of the most difficult and lengthy processes within today’s aviation industry. This is especially
true for the Core Area.
Parallel to the development of new runway infrastructure it is also necessary to focus on initiatives
aimed to unlock latent capacity at the airport (more efficient usage of existing or easily adapted
airport/runway infrastructures). The benefits from these initiatives can be gained within relatively
short timeframes. However these initiatives must not delay the development of new airport/runway
infrastructure. It is absolutely essential that future development of additional airport/runway
infrastructure is kept on track. This is required to cope with the expected tripling of air transport
demand and the required reduction in delays and operational costs.
To expect full use of an existing airport layout by requiring operators to align their performance with
the best performing airport with a comparable runway configuration would also lead to
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
disappointment. Almost 80% of the airports reported in the CTG04 10 study indicate that they will be
unable to achieve the capacity of the best in class. The most frequently cited reasons for this were
physical site and infrastructure limits (two thirds of airports with constraints), followed by
environmental issues (half of the airports), and physical constraints related to surrounding airspace
and geography (one third).
5.2.3 Related challenges
In line with the European goal of “sustainable development”, environmental aspects must be
integrated at the earliest stage of any future capacity enhancements project. Moreover, the time
required for social acceptance or cultural change should not be underestimated.
Several initiatives, based on a specific problem at an airport, have been identified in Europe.
However local and often autonomous development of these initiatives may result in non-standard
solutions with an inefficient use of resources (fragmentation). The industry depends on international
harmonisation, thus any local initiatives that focus on the interaction between users (airlines, pilots)
and providers (ANSPs, airport operators) must be unambiguous and reflect international standards.
Many initiatives will have a potential application beyond Europe. Their endorsement will not only
depend, on the operational benefits and the safety gains, but also on the human interaction.
Perception is far more important than the quality of the algorithms. Common acceptance, based on
harmonisation of the interaction between all users (Airlines, ANSP and Airport Operators) is a main
focus for SESAR.
5.2.4 Available solutions
The main Airport Capacity Initiatives identified in T3.2.2. /D2 can be grouped into several packages.
• Slot management
10
Challenge to growth, 2004, ECAC / EUROCONTROL
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Optimum arrival, departure and surface movement sequence planning (management)
• Accurate arrival and departure time / separation
• Optimum / efficient use of existing infrastructure and available capacity (“diffusion of best
practices”)
• Additions / changes to airport infrastructure
• Optimum use of onboard devices / systems (Avionics)
• Local initiatives (operational procedures and equipment)
5.2.4.1 Initiatives for optimum Slot Management
Currently Slot Management is certainly not optimal. Not only can airlines freely switch flights
between their allocated slots (which can create a capacity imbalance due to shifting fleet mix,
departure directions/routes etc), but at some airports, carriers also request more slots than they
actually need. Over bidding for slots could be for such reasons as fleet availability (delay in
delivery), market changes and even the intentions to deny their competitors access to the airport.
Where a large part of the allocated slots is not used the airport (slot allocator) subsequently will
assign more slots than available. This can result in increased congestion or wasted slots – both
unacceptable outcomes.
Close management of slot abuse, already instituted at some airports, is necessary to prevent the loss
and misuse of valuable slots and ensure equitable access by all airlines. Harmonization of the slot
assignment process, in combination with incentives / penalties for the use / non-use of allocated
slots, is a necessity. New economic ways for optimising capacity could be regarded, such as a
secondary slots trading or other innovation in operational slot management. However, the current
situation, with grandfather rights and large interests of the airlines, will make changes to the Slot
Allocation system as well as an improved consistency between airport slots and AFTM slots a long
and difficult process. The existing EC slot legislation, focusing on the competitive elements of
airport access, is not necessarily an ideal enabler for optimal operation.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.2.4.2 Optimum surface management and arrival and departure sequence planning
• Surface Manager (SMAN)
In addition to such safety related functions as surveillance and conflict alert there is a need for
adequate surface movement planning tools. Today the flight plan of an aircraft describes and
regulates its entire flight from take-off via the en-route sectors to the approach at the destination
airport. But once the aircraft is on the ground the management of the traffic is no longer based on a
plan but happens in an ad-hoc way based on all the other external factors and the controller’s
experience. Today, in the absence of adequate planning tools, controllers can only react to the
inbound traffic and the partly random outbound start-up sequence.
In the framework of optimal network management, the interval between the managed arrival stream
(AMAN) and the optimised departure stream (DMAN) should be filled by a surface management
tool (SMAN). Predicting the taxi times and routing of incoming and outgoing traffic, the SMAN tool
can provide stable and reliable planning times and is a prerequisite for pre-departure sequencing and
an optimised usage of the departure runway (DMAN). However, the full benefit of such a tool can
only be achieved if the “First Come First Served” principle for arrival and start-up sequences is
replaced by a more rational planning based on delivery to the runway by the agreed CFMU departure
window or other target time.
In a further step the information gap between the cockpit and the ground (ANSP) has to be filled by
data link applications providing the pilot with such planning information as his position in the
departure queue and his target take-off time.
• Arrival and Departure Manager (AMAN/DMAN)
To optimize the overall performance of the airport, apparently independent sequencing tools such as
AMAN and DMAN, should be coupled and integrated with the surface management tools (SMAN,
A-SMGCS etc). Current development of these tools points towards this direction.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Taxi delay reduction, as well as reduction of fuel consumption and air pollution, can only be
achieved if the start-up and pushback has been tuned with the expected departure clearance.
Otherwise AMAN / DMAN will only be a tool to optimize in the last / first phase of the arrival /
departure process near the runway.
5.2.4.3 Initiatives for accurate arrival and departures time / separation
Accurate delivery of the aircraft at the approach fixes will result in increased capacity. Time based
spacing/separation instead of distance based spacing will reduce the fluctuation of capacity due to
the effect of weather (headwinds) and a more stable capacity can be maintained. Accurate departure
separation will also maintain capacity and ease the task of controllers in the first airborne sector.
• Planned spacing tool
A tool has been developed by NATS to improve the human-machine interface. It presents the
controller with a moving target, representing the required position of the aircraft. The controller’s
task is to direct the aircraft onto the target. Separation is currently based on wake-vortex rules but the
tool has the potential to change the underlying rules separating the targets from distance to time
based criteria.
• Time Based Separation
With the current use of distance separation for final approach, the landing capacity reduces when
operating in heavy head wind conditions. The reduced ground speed increases the time to cover the
distance separating two aircraft and thus decreases the arrival flow rate. Separations based on time
intervals could therefore be solution to maintain arrival capacity during extreme wind conditions.
Not only a scientifically based conversion of the well known distance separations to time separations
is necessary also a tool to assist the controllers in using time base separations needs to be developed.
• Tailored Arrival
A Tailored Arrival is an ideal and customised, dynamic arrival trajectory managed by the aircraft
system that enables a smooth, efficient and often continuous descent from cruise altitude to runway.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
At many locations throughout the world continuous descent approach techniques are being manually
flown for the environmental benefits and the reduced cost of lower fuel consumption. Additionally
lower thrust-setting means, less noise and less air pollution. The environmental aspects of a Tailored
Arrival (CDA, Green approach) are described in chapter 5.4 “environment”. The Tailored
Arrival 11, 12, 13 studies, focussing on the benefits of modern avionics, not only minimise fuel
consumption but also improve the predictability of runway arrival times.
5.2.4.4 Initiatives for optimum use of existing airport infrastructure and available capacity
In many cases the available (latent) capacity of the infrastructure is not fully used. This differs from
airport to airport and each airport has its own reasons for it. However a range of local initiatives do
take place to improve the use of their existing infrastructure. Reducing runway occupancy times by
increased awareness of pilots, adaptation of braking procedures or even changes to exit layout are a
few examples. Such best practices from airports, not only European, can and must be used to
increase the effective use of existing infrastructure (“diffusion of best practices”) where applicable.
• Airport Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
The ACE project of Eurocontrol is intended to make the users (airlines, aircraft operators) as well as
the airport operators and local ATC aware of this latent capacity. The program has developed a
structured methodology that enables airports to assess airside capacity and to maximize runway
throughput. It is focused on the best (efficient) use of existing infrastructure and takes many
initiatives, used throughout the world into account. Initiatives related to the use of runways
(including parallel runway operations, mixed mode operations etc), optimum-braking
procedures/techniques (pilot awareness, Runway Occupancy Time reduction techniques). Airport
Operational Fora and the use of exits, entries and runway crossing are currently covered within the
program. The ACE project is not yet intended to recommend changes or additions to infrastructure
but could evolve toward that in the near future.
11
Tailored Arrivals, Avionics magazine 2005, www.avionicsmagazine.com,
12
Boeing Co, Issued Jan. 31, 2005
13
Tailored Arrivals: Idling Down to the Final Approach, Aviation Today, May 1, 2005
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Brake to Vacate
The Brake to Vacate (BTV) initiative is lead by Airbus and comprises a joint study with DSNA and
ADP for the ATM impact. BTV is avionics oriented and should bring immediate improvements with
availability on A380 at EIS and on the A320 family and A330/A340 by the end of 2008. Retrofit
solutions will be available. Benefits are expected not only for maintenance (operational cost
reduction for the operator) but also for the ATM system. These benefits could be:
- guarantee to vacate at the assigned exit
- optimize braking for minimum runway occupancy time
- a predictable runway occupancy time
The development of brake to vacate should also consider the full range of economic trade-offs –
operational benefits, airframe maintenance and wear and environmental impact. Environmental
pollutants such as particulates from brake and tyre wear, emissions from the engines operating in
reverse thrust and engine noise are part of the overall operational cost benefit analysis from an
airport operators perspective – environment underpins the “licence to operate.”
• Airport Operational Fora
Airport Operational (Pilot) Fora are already in use at a number of airports around Europe and this
subject is also covered within the ACE project, These fora are a good means to discuss operational
issues with the airspace users and are an enabler for many initiatives, not only related to runway
capacity and airport infrastructure. Implementation of these fora for the European airports must be
strongly promoted.
• Visual contact approaches instead of IFR operations when appropriate visual conditions prevail.
In contrast to Europe where the use of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) is commonly required even
when good visual conditions prevail, visual separation during the final approach is common practice
within the United States. In such conditions the responsibility for in-trail separation in the final phase
of the approach is hereby switched from controller to the pilot. The use of “land after procedure”
becomes easier which translates in less go-arounds and a higher movement rate for the landing
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
runway.
• Dependent and Independent Parallel Instrument Arrivals
The use of parallel instrument runways is regulated by ICAO. In the past the minimum distance
between parallel instrument arrival runways was defined by ICAO to be at least 1500 meters. This
distance has been reduced to 1035 meters, however the use of a high update radar system (or
equivalent) together with additional procedures is necessary. It opens the possibility to use
independent parallel instrument approaches at a number of airports with runways separated between
1035 and 1500 meters. Dependent parallel approaches to runways separated less than 1035 meters
are also possible with a reduced runway capacity.
• CREDOS Crosswind Reduced Departure Separations
Wake Vortex separations have a large effect on departure capacity. Studies have suggested that more
than 50% of the time, these separations can be modified because of cross winds that blow the
vortexes out of the path of the following aircraft. As reduced departure wake vortex separations can
only be used during favourable crosswind conditions, the implementation cannot be used to increase
declared capacity.
5.2.4.5 Initiatives for addition / changes to airport infrastructure
Changes or expansion of airport infrastructure (runways and taxiways) is specific to particular

airports / locations. Some minor change will improve the situation, such as improving connection
infrastructures between taxiways and taxi lanes. But it is too easy to say that adding concrete will
solve the capacity problem. Many airports do not have space for adding new runways or taxiways or
must pass through extensive legal and environmental processes, which will take years and
sometimes decades. As changes to local infrastructure may improve local performance, they also
have network implications.
Software tools can be used for infrastructure capacity simulation, such as TAAM, SIMMOD or The
Airport Machine. Some system providers organize fora with several airports to identify difficulties
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
and best practices in a simulation process. These tools will help to identify the best solutions for
additional airport infrastructures, but they still have to be improved, in order to deliver criteria for
complex decisions, and to provide accurate information for a Cost Benefit Analysis.
Changes and additions to runway exits, entries and crossing are incorporated in airport capacity
development plans. It is therefore not surprising that there is a strong relation between these airport
infrastructure initiatives and the ACE project of Eurocontrol (see initiative I-4.10)
• Additional RETs and Entries
Appropriate runway exits should be provided for the aircraft mix using the runway. “Growing”
airports may face an almost continuous change in actual fleet mix. However additional pilot training
and Standard Airline Operating Procedures can generally provide significant improvements.
In some cases, where for example backtracking after landing is required or new aircraft types at an
airport cannot use existing high-speed exits, infrastructure improvements may be needed. But the
decision to build new high-speed exits is based on a complex Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as
revised exit use may also change circulation patterns on the ground. Standard CBA tools are not
available as the implications of changes to runway exits differ for each airport.
Multiple runway entries and a wide holding area can help to optimize the sequencing process for
departing aircraft and can generate significant operational benefits during periods of traffic
congestion.
An important aspect with the construction of new exits and entries is the runway incursion risk (OP-
29). Every new taxiway connected to the runway, will add to the risk of runway incursions. Special
attention should be given to mitigate this risk.
• Additional Better Placed Runway Crossings
Runway crossings have a negative effect on runway capacity. Runway capacity (movement rate) is
dependent on the location of the crossing with respect to the runway threshold and the start of take-
off roll. Reducing this dependency can increase runway capacity. Both ICAO and the European
Action Plan to Prevent Runway Incursions (EAPPRI) discourage the frequent use of runway
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
crossings. Adding additional runway crossing points is contrary to the above. However preventing
runway crossings is not always possible. A well accepted balance between additional runway /
taxiway capacity and runway incursion risk (mitigation measures) must be found.
• Perimeter Taxiways
From a safety perspective, perimeter taxiways are a preferred solution to reduce the risk related with
runway crossings. Besides the positive effect on runway incursion risk there are also capacity and
efficiency benefits. Only very few airports have land available for taxiways around the runway ends.
Local constraints (planning rules) often inhibit expanding airport boundaries, relocating runways or
even change runway use.
• AACG recommendations for the handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) at existing airports /
infrastructure
The A380 is the first ICAO code F aircraft that will be routinely operated on commercial air routes.
ICAO has developed International Standards and recommended practices for Code F aircraft
(wingspan 65 meters up to but not including 80 meters). For a large number of airports these
requirements mean huge changes to the airside infrastructure.
The A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG) is an informal group consisting of a number of
European Aviation Authorities, Airport and Industry Representatives. It was formed to agree and
promote a common position on infrastructure and operations at existing major European airports that
do not meet the ICAO requirements with respect to the A380.
While for airports with a significant number of daily A380 operations, the infrastructure changes
could be economically justifiable, for airports with a small number of A380 movements (less than 1
daily) or airports that will handle the A380 only in case of a diversion, these changes mean a huge
investment without any return.
The A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG) has provided a document with a checklist and
possible solutions for airports that will have to handle the A380 only on diversion (planned as well
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
as unplanned). This document serves only as a guideline for the operators as to the minimum level of
infrastructure requirements at possible alternates. Operational approval of these potential solutions
has to be obtained by the airports through their national authorities.
• SPADE
SPADE aims to create a fully integrated computational platform to deal with airport efficiency and
capacity issues, not only for the current situation but also for the (near) future. The platform
integrates tools ranging from airport infrastructure capacity simulation and noise calculation to
aggregated landside and regional planning models. The results will provide stakeholders and other
airport policy makers with useful date for an integrated impact analysis of strategic and
tactical/operational level decision-making related to airport planning, development and operations.
• ILS Tuning
ILS Tuning is aimed at the reduction of the ILS sensitive area in CAT II/III. This seems even more
important with the introduction of New Large Aircraft (NLA) and their effect on the ILS signal
when taxing near/parallel to the landing runway. Creating smaller ILS sensitive areas will also mean
that a landing aircraft will “free” the runway earlier for the next arrival and thus will increase runway
capacity during already limiting visibility conditions.
For this the quality of ILS signal must be adequate and reliable. Changes to the ILS antenna, as well
as to the ILS interception procedures (due to smaller angle of localizer beam) are therefore
necessary. Currently studies are carried out to determine the possibilities of ILS tuning and reduction
of the ILS sensitive area. Tuning the ILS could be achieved at a fairly low price but contains
certification and acceptance issues. This will need more research and trials before it can be applied
on a European scale considerably delaying the implementation
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.2.4.6 Initiatives to optimize the use of onboard devices / systems (Avionics)
The key message regarding avionics is to make better use of the existing onboard devices and
systems and to integrate them into the whole chain of airspace and airport management. The FMS,
GPS, and other available systems are able to increase the safety, flexibility and the fluidity of the
traffic, if the information available in the cockpit can also be used in an efficient manner by ATC.
• Improved utilisation of FMS functionalities
The FMS already includes navigation and aircraft performances databases with highly accurate
calculation software allowing the aircraft to fly predefined flight paths with demonstrated level of
precision (lateral, vertical) for:
- noise abatement profiles, Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA)
- trajectories taking into account a required time of arrival (RTA) and corresponding accuracy
- tailored arrival, 4D trajectory management
There is a significant number of RNP approach trials and even operational implementation at various
locations around the world. While there are a number of trials for RNP approaches, these
possibilities are currently not generally employed by ATC. Each aircraft, whatever its performances,
is required to fly an ATC defined (radar controlled) pattern, according to ATC separations, controller
capabilities, and runway management.
The intent of this initiative is to downlink the equipment status offered by each aircraft, allowing the
controller to make the best use of this potential and include it in his decisions and instructions. The
goal is a reduced workload for controllers who are helped by the aircraft capabilities. This will
finally result in capacity gains for both arrivals and departures
Tests conducted in Melbourne and in Stockholm, demonstrate the possibilities of this concept. After
initial obstruction from controllers in Stockholm related to an expected increase in workload (check
of aircraft capabilities in addition to “normal” control work), they finally admitted that knowing the
aircraft performances, possible ETA, climb or descent capabilities, is of great assistance in airspace
management. Very often the flow of aircraft tends to be naturally segregated due to different aircraft
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
performances and entry time in terminal sector area, which has already a reducing impact on
controller’s workload.
• GNSS landing System
This initiative implies the use of GPS for Precision Approaches, using a Ground Based
Augmentation System (GBAS) and Differential GPS (DGPS) technology to increase the stability
and integrity of signals. The GBAS ground station uplinks waypoint data for the approach to be
flown.
The main benefit should be the increased runway capacity in poor weather conditions as the glide
path and azimuth signals will face hardly any interference from previous landing aircraft or other
obstacles.
In that respect, the airports restrictions (LVP / LVO) caused by ILS critical and sensitive areas, will
be reduced and may even disappear, offering the potentiality to perform CAT II and III approaches,
without the additional low visibility margins between aircraft. This will maintain approach capacity
independently of visual conditions, although poor surface visibility may introduce ground-
manoeuvring constraints.
Operational benefits could also be found in the environmental area. GNSS / GBAS could be a
facilitator for curved approaches and noise abatement procedures
Other potential benefits could be found in the area of installation and maintenance cost. One ground
station can serve multiple runway ends and could even provide service to adjacent airports. In
addition there may be reduced requirements for flight inspection and GBAS will have better
resistance to extreme weather (storm damage, no snow removal need as for ILS).
DFS, Airbus, Rockwell Collins, Eurocontrol and a German carrier are together preparing flight trials
in Bremen. The goal of these trials is to achieve Global Landing System (GLS) Operational
Approval from the LBA (German Authority). German approval should facilitate implementation in
France or Great Britain, even if there is no local validation of the procedure. A European common
and optimised approach of validation principles should be implemented.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
GLS avionic equipment will be certified from 2006/07, whilst the ground station certification
process is not yet as mature (mid-2008 at the earliest). Cat I approaches will be possible in the short
term with Cat III approach certification as final aim.
• Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B)
ADS-B is a technique that replaces secondary radar with a position report broadcast from an aircraft
or a ground vehicle (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=7131).
“In addition to improved safety in the sky, ADS-B will help reduce the risk of runway incursions.
Both pilots and controllers will see the precise location on runway maps of each aircraft and even
equipped ground vehicles, along with data that shows where they are moving. These displays are
clear and accurate, even at night or during heavy rainfall.
ADS-B will also increase capacity, because the more accurate tracking means aircraft will be able
to fly safely and more predictably with less distance between them. And, because ADS-B accuracy
also means better predictability, air traffic controllers will be better able to manage the air traffic
arriving and departing from congested airports, resulting in even more gains in capacity”.
The FAA has identified safety benefits and cost savings if secondary radar is replaced with ADS-B.
Because this equipment has lower setup and operational costs it will bring new standards to smaller
airfields. While the full implementation of ADS-B is expected to take up to twenty years, the
design of operational procedures is on-going both in general airspace
(http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/capstone/me
dia/ADSBCapstonestatement%206%202%202006.doc) and by a specialist carrier
(UPS) operating into dedicated airfields.
5.2.4.7 Local initiatives
Local initiatives take place or are in development at many airports.

While such initiatives have been developed for a specific airport
and may not provide general benefits throughout Europe, others
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
may have a broader applicability. Although not formally supported, the adaptation of these
initiatives at a very limited number of airports may have network implications and should therefore
be considered in SESAR.
• PRM Precision Radar Monitoring / Precision Approach Monitor
PRM is primary intended to increase the capacity of close(r) spaced parallel runways. With PRM,
parallel runways with a separation down to 1035 meters and a respective staggering can be used
independently for instrument (IFR) approaches. The same technology and procedures can however
also be used for parallel departure runways (see also I-4.6: Independent Parallel departures) and
could increase outbound capacity as well as enhance safety.
Advantages of PRM:
- Increase capacity of parallel arrival runways during low visibility conditions
Figure 4, PRM
Disadvantages of PRM:
- additional controllers, special procedures, additional training
- high update radar required
PRM consists of a high update radar system with a separate controller who monitors the Non
transgression zone and has the capability to interfere when necessary. The technical equipment exists
and is readily available on the market. The necessary procedures has been developed, trialled and
assessed.
• DTOP Dual Threshold Operations
Dual Threshold Operations (DTOP) with a High Approach Landing System (HALS) is developed at
Frankfurt Airport. The DTOP consist of several changes to the runway infrastructure.
- Dual ILS (glide path) antenna / system
- Dual threshold markings, threshold lights and approach light systems
- Dual touch down zone lights
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The dual (approach) light system must be clear and quickly recognizable as part of the assigned
approach path so that errors and associated safety issues are prevented.
Due to the high investment cost of dual installations, HALS / DTOP requires a cost benefit analyses
which is unique for each airport willing to implement such a system. The benefit is dependent on a
large / significant amount of “Heavy” aircraft in the arrival stream as the main intention of HALS /
DTOP is to minimize the use of the larger wake vortex separation behind these aircraft.
• CRDA / DCIA Converging Runway Display Aid / Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches
The CRDA tool (Converging Runway Display Aid) will assist the controller with the use of DCIA
(Dual Converging Instrument Approaches). The arrival capacity of two converging runways will
increase. However the capacity increase is limited as both approaches are dependent and often larger
in-trail separations needs to be used. The capacity of DCIA / CRDA is somewhere between the
capacity of a single (independent) arrival runway and the capacity of two independent arrival
runways dependent on runway configuration and the visibility conditions.
The CRDA tool and the DCIA procedure are only of interest for airports with converging runways
together with a large probability of Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Within Europe there will
be a limited number of airports that can benefit from this initiative.
Recently, new thoughts in the use of the CRDA technique have arisen, not in the context of
converging landing runways, but for parallel landing runways. With the same ghosting technique it
should be possible to guide CDA approaches towards parallel runways. Ghosting technique should
ensure safe guidance (to the controller) for the runway centreline interception where due to the CDA
approaches 1000ft vertical clearances cannot be met.
• Independent Parallel Departures
The preceding sections have discussed dependent approaches, specific to only a few airports. For
many airports the blocking point is more related to various restrictions on the operation of dual
departure runways. One of the reasons could be environmental as the most effective routes
(diverging according to ICAO criteria) will be limited due to populated areas being overflown. In
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
those cases use of (more) parallel departure routes could be a solution to gain permission for the use
of parallel departure runways and to increase peak hour (departure) capacity.
The intention is to have the departure routes more parallel over a certain distance after runway end to
prevent residential areas to be over flown. The departure routes would be guided between build-up
areas and would be diverging there after.
Advantages of parallel departure routes:
- Better distribution of noise (overlap of arrival noise contours with departure noise contours 14)
- Better use of environmental capacity
Disadvantage of parallel departure routes:
- (Could) make operations on both departure runways dependent on each other (capacity
reduction)
- Requires additional surveillance systems to maintain peak hour capacity
- Requires additional / change of operational ATC procedures
- Requires change of thinking within ATC (human factor/interpretation)
• SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite Direction Runway operations
For certain airports opposite direction runway operations could be an advantage. With a low traffic
volume this operation could be done on a single runway (as was the case with Schiphol in the past).
For airports with a parallel runway (or even better diverging runways) a SODPROPS operation like
at Sydney or proposed at Brisbane could be used to prevent the airport for being closed during the
night.
The advantage of SODPROPS could be:
- Airport environmental capacity during night time
14
The overlap of noise contours will indeed reduce the extend of noise affected areas, but it will concentrate noise in these areas thus increasing noise
exposure in the affected areas. Dependent on the local situation (distribution of houses around the airport) , this could lead to an increase in the
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
- No night time closure
Disadvantage of SODPROPS are:
- Low runway capacity
- Special procedures (for pilots as well as controllers)
- Operations could face strong tail and crosswind components
Use of High Update Radar (as with PRM) could be beneficial for this operation as deviation from
prescribed / assigned route can be detected much faster.
5.2.5.1 Initiatives for optimum Slot Management
Eurocontrol’s Air Traffic Flow Management ATFM action plan (ATFM LA7) seeks to improve the
consistency between Airport Slots, Flight Plans and ATFM slots. The benefits will be found in slot
adherence, delay reduction and ultimately cost efficiency. Closer adherence to slots will form the
basis for many other initiatives intended to reduce delays and increase capacity. Slot management is
therefore an initiative that should be strongly promoted by SESAR even if possible solutions are still
in the R&D stage and future implementation will see significant constraints.
Additional information can be found on:
http://www.slotcoordination.nl/frameset.asp?w=1024
5.2.5.2 Optimum surface management and arrival and departure sequence planning
• Surface manager
number of people affected by aircraft noise
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Initial SMAN functionalities, together with modern A-SMGCS systems, have already been installed
in new Asian airports like Seoul. In Frankfurt a first stage of SMAN is currently under development.
The tool makes use of Mode-S and ground radar surveillance data to plan the outbound traffic and to
update and optimise the departure sequence of DMAN. It will be deployed together with the DMAN
tool in March 2007.
• Arrival and Departure Manager (AMAN/DMAN)
Several European airports (Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Madrid) have
already implemented AMAN/DMAN systems, although in different stages. The technology itself is
mature and readily available off the shelf. While different providers exist, and capabilities differ in
detail, they have a largely common functionality.
At Zurich Airport, the DMAN implementation took about 5 years. Much initial research and fine-
tuning had to take place, resulting in exceeding time planning and budget (final cost is foreseen to be
approx. two digit millions CHF (ref. Zurich Airport).
The DMAN implementation at Munich Airport, in combination with Airport CDM has already
achieved a reduction in process time between off-blocks (ABD) and airborne (ATA) of 10% to 15%.
Apart from the benefits of less delay and a reduced fuel consumption (less air pollution) there is also
a more efficient use of resources (stands, ground equipment etc).
http://www.eurocontrol.int/phare/public/standard_page/Arrival_Mgt.html
http://www.fraport.com/cms/company/dok/81/81490.dman.htm
http://www.munich-airport.de/cdm
5.2.5.3 Initiatives for accurate arrival and departures time / separation
• Planned spacing tool
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
A real time simulation has been used for validation and shows that the tool can support future
advanced spacing techniques. Implementation and training has been held up due to budgetary
priorities
• Time Based Separation
Time based separation is a potential replacement for the distance criteria currently used to separate
the trailing aircraft on the approach beyond the wake vortex of the leading aircraft. An unpublished
study in August 2004 showed a capacity reduction of 6 to 7 movements per hour during strong
headwind conditions (30kts ground speed and 40kts at 3000ft) using distance based separation on
the approach to a segregated runway. This causes significant delays to a heavy arrival schedule.
Time based separation, also the subject of a current Eurocontrol project, generates a traffic density
on the approach independent of the headwind. A more sustainable runway capacity and traffic flow
can be achieved resulting in less delays and increased schedule predictability when using time based
separation. No immediate increase in declared capacity is expected but the flow it self will be more
sustainable.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/APT_time_based.html
http://www.eurocontrol.fr/Newsletter/2003/December/Time_Based/Note1_Capacity_nowind
_5.htm#_Toc59008752
• Tailored Arrival
Facts related to the benefits of tailored arrivals (like CDA, Green approaches) can be found in
chapter 5.4. “Environment”.
Additional information on tailored arrivals can be found on:
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/news/2005/q1/nr_050131a.html
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0505&file=tailoredarriv
als.htm
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.2.5.4 Initiatives for optimum use of existing airport infrastructure and available capacity
• Airport Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
ACE has already brought about measurable benefits at a number of places in Europe, with up to 20%
expected runway capacity increase in average.
Airport Impact of ACE implementation
Brussels Several capacity assessment and enhancement studies has been done between 1999-2002. Through ACE they
were able to unlock latent capacity between 14-17% 14% for arrival and 17% for departure.
Prague After implementing phase I of the ACE method declared capacity could be increased from 34 to 38 movements
an hour. On test base 40 movements an hour during peak times has been achieved following phase II
analysis. When proven sustainable, this capacity level will become the declared capacity figure.
Lisbon The recommendation of the ACE study should be ready by end of 2006. It is expected that the declared
capacity will increase from 30 to 40 movements and hour in the medium term.
London ACE launched a focused study to create a holding area so as to reduce backtracking influences on
City both arrivals and departures. Significant increase in runway capacity has been achieved.
Vienna With implementing the ACE method punctuality increased from 88 to 90% and capacity by 20% (i.e. from 37
to 44 movements an hour) is expected. ACE method will be implemented with a view to increase capacity by
20% (i.e. from 37 to 44 movements) and improve punctuality by 2 points (i.e. from 88% to 90%).
Budapest ACE exercise phase I has started in Budapest - final report to be expected Dec 2007.
Next airports to come for the ACE initiative are Milan Malpensa, Rome Fuimicino, Istanbul, Antalya, Zurich, Paris CDG,
Copenhagen, Madrid and Barcelona
http://www.eurocontrol.int/airports/public/standard_page/projects_ace.html
• Brake to Vacate
A large part, if not all, of the benefits of Brake to Vacate can also be achieved by adaptation of
braking procedures. Therefore Brake to Vacate, be it an interesting initiative for the avionics part,
will be better classified as a second term initiative within the SESAR project. Implementation will
depend on the cost models used by the operators not on European regulations / initiatives.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?ite
mid=4254&ModuleId=2156&Tabid=256#search=%22brake%20to%20vacate%20airbus%22
• Airport Operational Fora
For facts related to the Flight Operations Performance Committee (BAA) and Pilot Forum (NATS);
see chapter 5.4. “Environment”.
• Visual contact approaches instead of IFR operations when appropriate visual conditions prevail.
A capacity gain of approximately 10% can be gained, dependent on actual fleet mix. To have an
increasing effect on declared capacity it is necessary that this type of VFR procedures would be
legally available for IFR traffic in Europe.
A significant benefit in declared capacity can only be achieved at airports with a low probability of
Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and Low Visibility Procedures (LVP). Unfortunately
this is not the case for a number of European airports. Although not having a direct effect on
increasing declared capacity a significant reduction in delay and thus fuel consumption can be
expected.
• Dependent and Independent Parallel Instrument Arrivals
At airports where parallel or even near parallel runways are existent but not used for simultaneous
approaches, the efficiency of the available capacity can be increased as probably also the peak hour
capacity itself. This is strongly dependent on local circumstances and the number of airports within
Europe where this initiative could be implemented is limited. If applicable the initiative will be
identified as an outcome of ACE.
• CREDOS Crosswind Reduced Departure Separations
The benefits of this initiative can be found in reduced delays (increased punctuality) and less fuel
burn (increased air quality).
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/credos/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html
5.2.5.5 Initiatives for addition / changes to airport infrastructure
• Additional RETs and Entries
At Amsterdam Airport two new exits for runway 36C were built. The declared runway capacity for
the runway combination, that includes the landing runway 36C, is increased by 5 landing movements
per hour, showing the potential capacity gain from adding RETs. The cost for the exits was
approximately 2 million euro per exit. The two rapid exits at Munich cost 3,2 million euros each and
the one in Gatwick cost over 5 million euro due to the necessity of construction works during night
time.
• Additional Better Placed Runway Crossings
The capacity gain from a well-placed runway crossing, close to the departure threshold, could be in
the range of 1 to 5 movements per hour; these benefits derive from the prevention of runway
capacity loss as ground movement and thus runway-crossing frequency increases.
• Perimeter Taxiways
Dependent on local circumstances a reduction in movement rate due to high frequency runway
crossings could easily reach -5 to -10 movements (arrivals and or departures) an hour. Adding
perimeter taxiways will increase the actual runway capacity to a level equal with an independent (not
crossed) runway. Perimeter taxiways are in use at Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Denver, and are
proposed for Dallas FW.
• AACG recommendations for the handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) at existing airports /
infrastructure
A potential reduction in investment cost can be achieved with the AACG recommendations for
infrastructure dimensions and mitigating measures. The amount of savings is of course dependent on
local situations and is different for each airport. For a large Hub airport the savings could easily add
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
up to 300 - 500 million Euros especially if large changes to runway and taxiway dimensions /
separations can be avoided.
http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/index.php
http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/article.php3?id_article=22
http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/article.php3?id_article=31
5.2.5.6 Local initiatives
• PRM Precision Radar Monitoring / PAM Precision Approach Monitor
PRM and independent IFR approaches to parallel runway spaced at 1035 meters are in use at Sydney
Airport and at St Louis USA. The benefit for Sydney airport is that it can maintain arrival capacity
during low visibility (IFR) conditions; otherwise arrival capacity would be that of single runway
operation. For several airports in Europe PRM / PAM could be useful to better use existing parallel
runways or to plan new runways (e.g. Frankfurt, Amsterdam). Other future use of PRM / PAM could
be found in the area of closely spaced departure routes or missed approach routes in complex TMA
structures.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/projects/prm/default.asp
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/projects/prm/pilotsguide.asp
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/dap/SSYRM01-102.pdf
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/dap/SSYRM02-101.pdf
http://www.fraport.com/cms/company/dok/82/82538.pam.htm
• DTOP Dual Threshold Operations
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The first phase of DTOP implementation will see the use of a displaced threshold together with the
“normal” threshold of the close spaced parallel runway. Ultimate implementation is the use of both
thresholds (normal and displaced) at the same runway. A well implemented and accepted HALS /
DTOP procedure / installation could significantly increase the arrival capacity (approximately + 5
landing movements an hour) of the single runway if an appropriate share of heavy aircraft is within
the arrival stream.
http://www.fraport.com/cms/company/dok/81/81482.halsdtop.htm
• CRDA / DCIA Converging Runway Display Aid / Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_transfer/crda.html
http://as.nasa.gov/aatt/wspdfs/Carnes.pdf#search=%22Converging%20Runway%20Display
%20Aid%22
• Independent Parallel Departures
Experiences at a large environmentally constraint airport showed that unintended deviations (mainly
caused by high crosswind) from one of the departure routes towards the other can take place and
therefore the procedure has been changed. Headings are now given with the take-off clearance and
pilots are expected to maintain that heading (or as soon as possible) after take-off. The same take-off
capacity can be maintained (or even increased) but over flying of residential areas has been increased
resulting in the reduction of environmental capacity.
At Paris CDG departure routes to the east are at least parallel for 7NM distance and being used
simultaneously and independent for many years now.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Figure 5, Independent Parallel Departures
• SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite Direction Runway operations
At Sydney airport SODPROPS is in operation for many years. It is the only runway combination
allowed to be used during night period (expect for emergency situations). In case of Sydney the
SODPROPS operation results in approaches and departures over the bay, preventing densely
populated areas being over flown. The operation is implemented to prevent the airport from being
fully closed during night time. Flight operations may however be faced with strong tail and
crosswind components.
For Brisbane airport SODPROPS is proposed to be the main runway operation mode during the
night and off-peak traffic period. It will be implemented after the proposed new parallel runway
becomes operational. At Brisbane however it will be the preferred mode of operation during night
time, NOT the only mode of operation as at Sydney.
http://www.newparallelrunway.com.au/files/pdf/Fact%20Sheet%2009.pdf
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Figure 6, SODPROPS
• Implement Eurocontrol ACE recommended best practices
• Implement or complement / support airport management airside, AMAN / DMAN /

SMAN Arrival, Departure and Surface Manager (including apron management and stand
/gate management)
• Develop and implement Time Based Separations (TBS) and controller supporting tools
Initiative to be strongly promoted:

Time to Ease of
Significant
I-4.12 SLOT Management 4 > years R&D stage
Constraints
AMAN / DMAN Arrival Manager and Some

R-4.1 2 – 3 years Mature
Departure Manager Constraints
Some
I-2.2 SMAN – Surface Management Tool 2-3 years Promising
Constraints
R-4.4 Planned Spacing Tool 2 – 3 years Limited Promising
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Time to Ease of
Constrains
Some
I-4.9 Time Based Separation 2 – 3 years Promising
Constraints
No significant
I-4.10 ACE 1 -2 years Mature
issues
No significant
R-4.2 Brake to Vacate Procedure 1 year Mature
issues
No significant
Flight Operational Performance & issues
I-7.5 Immediate Mature
Pilot Fora
Additional RETs and Entries Some

I-4.3 1 – 2 years Mature
(Being considered within ACE) Constraints
Additional Better Placed Runway
Some
I-4.4 Crossings 1 – 2 years Mature
Constraints
(Being considered within ACE)
Technically
< 1 year
Improved Utilisation of FMS Significant
R-3.4 Human Mature
functionalities Constraints
management
> 3 years
No significant
R-3.5 GNSS 2 years Promising
issues
Initiative to be promoted:
Nr Initiative Time to Ease of Maturity

CAPMAN – RWY Capacity Some

I-4.11 4 > years Promising
Management Tool Constraints
EMMA II (Airport Movement Some

R-2.2 3-4 years R&D
Management by A-SMGCS) Constraints
Some
R-4.5 Tailored Arrival 4 > years R&D
Constraints
I-4.14 Visual contact approaches instead of 2 – 3 years Mature

Significant
IFR operations when appropriate
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
visual conditions prevail. Constraints

Dependent and Independent Parallel Several Major
I-4.15 4 > Years Mature
Instrument Arrivals Constraints
Some
R-4.2 Brake to Vacate Avionics 4 > years R&D
Constraints
CREDOS Crosswind Reduced Significant
R-4.6 4 > years R&D
Departure Separations Constraints
Some
I-2.1 Perimeter Taxiways 2-3 years Mature
Constraints
I-7.1 AACG recommendations for the Some

handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) 2 – 3 years Mature
I-7.2 at existing airports / infrastructure Constraints
AACG recommendations for the Limited

I-7.3 handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) < 1 year Mature
Constrains
at alternate / diversion airports
R-5.3 SPADE II 3-4 years Some Constraints R&D
Some
I-4.8 PRM Precision Radar Monitoring 2 – 3 years Mature
Constraints
Initiative not to be supported in the short term
Time to Ease of
Significant
I-2.3 ILS Tuning 4 years R&D
Constraints
Significant
I-4.1 DTOP Dual Threshold Operations 2 – 3 years Promising
Constraints
CRDA / DCIA Converging Runway Some
I-4.5 Display Aid / Dependent Converging 3 – 4 years Promising
Instrument Approaches Constraints
Significant
I-4.6 Independent Parallel Departures 2 – 3 years Mature
Constraints
SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite Some

I-4.7 1 – 2 years Mature
Direction Runway operations Constraints
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.3 EFFICIENCY
5.3.1 The Challenge
Operational efficiency improvements within SESAR will rely on a seamless operation over the entire
network (ref. SES IOP regulation). It is predicated on extensive cooperation / collaboration between
all stakeholders and includes full integration of airports within the network. It should be noted that
this extends beyond the specific ATM process to the turnaround process for the Airline / Airport and
support organisations. Operational decisions of individual actors at airports may often be incorrect,
or be omitted. Partners, including network management, may make contradictory decisions as the
result of poor information, lack of common understanding and / or conflicting goals. The result is a
degrading of the airport capacity and sub-optimal network operation. Efficient operation requires
the common goals of CDM.
The challenges of airport operations are to reduce delays, improve the predictability of events and
optimise the utilisation of resources.
Until now, despite of individual actors’ efforts, efficiency has been based on improving individual
operations rather than considering airport stakeholders as a team. But operating as a team is
changing the perception of airport interactions. In the following paragraphs the necessity for a
cultural change is identified. This addresses a network wide collaboration as well as challenging the
concept of first come first served in favour of more sophisticated concepts of equity and ensuring
that the resources to give credibility to the new rules are properly resourced.
CDM is gaining acceptance as a process to resolve short-term tactical issues. However the tactical
applications must be very much a milestone on the way to a wider application that embraces the
overall strategic management of the airport 15.
15
Peter Eriksen, Head of Airport Research at the Eurocontrol Experimental Centre as ”Total Collaborative Airport Management ”
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
What is strategic management?
The first aspect is for an integrated approach between the planning and the delivery of airport
capacity. At the moment all coordinated airports publish an expected capacity, based on particular
assumptions, and this is then allocated between the airport users through the allocation of slots. On
the day of operation the schedule is ignored in favour of “First Come First Served” and thus the
assumed airport capacity (that is itself a balance of infrastructure - runway, apron and terminal
capacities – and manpower availability) is reduced. This creates delays and they contribute to system
inefficiencies and, inevitably, increase the environmental impact.
The second aspect is shorter term, but concerned with the nature of the different trade-offs. Imagine
a weather condition that has significantly curtailed runway capacity. To limit the delays a number of
hub airlines are asked to cancel some flights. Clearly cancellation may not be feasible for out-of-area
carriers so that they will not be impacted by the primary strategy but they may be expected to take a
delay. This raises the hitherto unexplored issue of equity: - How to balance cancellations by a hub
carrier with the delay experienced by others.
To track the equity balance between airport users, as it develops over the year, implies the
availability of good tools. These requirements fall outside the current goals of airport IT
departments and potentially there would be extensive implementation delays while, for example,
they were integrated with a system more normally focused toward the provision of common user
terminals or passenger information systems..
A significant risk is either a lack of commitment or a lack of resources by the different stakeholders
at airports necessary to implement an infrastructure for CDM (Collaborative Decision Making).
Another major risk is the unwillingness of airport partners to share data because of their (perceived)
commercial value.
To encourage the development of CDM so that it generates the greatest benefits requires: -
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Development of web based commercial-off-the-shelf tools to support the full strategic

application of CDM, while not demanding significant changes to the planned development of
the airport IT.
• Access to a network view so that local trade-offs can be made in the context of system-wide
benefits.
• A commonly accepted basis for the equitable trade-off of dissimilar elements.
To achieve a better collaborative environment there must also be a change in the current general
airport perception that air traffic management has only a remote impact on the airport business.
There is a need to bring all airport stakeholders into the ATM-network and eventually to broaden the
scope to include interaction with other airports (regional / inter airports CDM).
With the physical expansion of air traffic capacities (on the ground and in the air) it has become
clear that stakeholders have to work on an integrated basis and be network driven to optimise the
existing resources. This approach has many facets, but first of all it needs a collaborative and
integrated system view with regard to planning, data exchange, decision-making and operational
implementation.
Given the broad acceptance of CDM the current blocking points are those arising from the lack of
supporting tools. Ideally the partners in CDM should have the ability to review their options and
assess the trade-offs. However there is no dedicated software that can form a common core to their
deliberations.
It is true that the software for creating a good human interface and presentation is now well
established but while the modelling technology is also well defined, it has not been applied to this
use.
In the context of the potential internal difficulties of redefining the scope and goals of airport IT,
ADP has demonstrated that a web-based approach can exist in parallel with the current IT
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
infrastructure of airports and, incidentally, that AMAN /DMAN and SMAN supports CDM and vice
versa.
Planning and Operations
The basic unit of Air Traffic Management is a single flight – a single aircraft. Everyone in the
handling and management process needs to know when and where the aircraft will be during all
flight phases (including airport operation). Achieving the On Time Performance of daily operation is
highly dependent on the quality of these planning processes. Therefore while every sub-process has
its own management, all of them need integration and a common situational awareness. The more
accurate the planning information, the better will be the quality of management decisions during
system operation, including disruption, e.g. extremely low visibility operation.
Data Exchange & Sharing
Reliable and frequent planning updates are important; and transparency of the operational status quo
is essential for all parties involved in ATFM and aircraft handling. Within the limitations of the data
protection laws, the information that is generated by different stakeholders has to be made instantly
available to all parties to whom it is relevant. Therefore stakeholders have to agree on the
information exchanged. The actors have to define and adopt protocols for data exchange and data
formats. Planning, data exchange and decision-making systems have to be harmonized and system
wide interoperability is critical for the future ATFM-System.
The system wide data interchange within CDM will permit greater flexibility and coordinated
response to unplanned events (tactical). It is also of strategic value fostering improved predictability.
The potential savings are high. For example, one minute of strategic buffer for an A320 is estimated
at € 49. The Performance Review Report (2005) estimated that, employing better predictability of
operations during the scheduling phase, and reducing the duration of 50% of scheduled flights by an
average of 5 minutes would be worth some € 1000M per annum.
Decision-making
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The faster and more reliable the exchange of information, the better the decisions. This brings
benefits for every stakeholder. However what is optimal for the one is not necessarily advantageous
for the others. The aviation business is highly interdependent; therefore every decision will have
local implications on others and potentially beyond into the whole ATM system. Decisions have to
be made collaboratively in order to avoid negative system impacts.
Within this task several initiatives and best practices under the heading of "Collaborative Decision
Making" (CDM) have been identified as solutions to ease the expected capacity gridlock.
These CDM programs are:
• LEONARDO (Linking Existing On Ground Arrival and Departure Operations)
• A-CDM (Airport - Collaborative Decision Making)
5.3.4.1 LEONARDO (to be incorporated into A-CDM)
LEONARDO is a European 5th Framework project initiated in November 2001 and finished by
2004. Its main operative objective was to define a method, and demonstrate the feasibility, of
integrating airport traffic planning and management tools. This objective was achieved by
performing an initial operational integration of existing tools for arrival and departure planning
management, together with tools derived for the planning and routing function of the ground
movement concept. The study was complemented by test bench evaluation. In this context, a full-
scale integration of the management and planning system at airport was experimentally implemented
under real operating conditions. The results of the operational assessment of the co-ordination
between arrival, ground movement, and departure provided a quantifiable measure of the benefits in
terms of the safety, capacity and efficiency of the system.
The bench test for a Multi-agent version with Collaborative Decision Making (CDMMA) was set up
for evaluation.
Additional information can be found on: http://leonardo.aena.es/
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.3.4.2 A-CDM
A-CDM is the title of the Eurocontrol Programme for Airport CDM.
The objective of the Airport CDM project is to improve the overall efficiency of operations at an
airport, with a particular focus on the aircraft turn-round procedures. This is achieved by sharing of
up-to-date relevant information thus enhancing the decision-making process. The nature of decisions
takes into account the preferences, available resources, and the requirements of those who are
involved at the airport (i.e. airline operators, air traffic control, handling agents, and the airport
management).
Airport CDM allows an Airport CDM Partner to contribute to the overall operation by making
decisions in collaboration with other Airport CDM Partners, knowing not only their preferences and
constraints but also being aware of the actual situation and the predicted outcome.
The Airport CDM concept is divided in the following Elements:
• Sharing of pertinent operational airport information
• A clear identification of the Turn-around Process (Milestones Approach)
• Variable Taxi Time Calculations
• Collaborative Management of Flight Updates
• Collaborative Pre-departure Sequencing
• CDM in Adverse Conditions
• Advanced CDM
5.3.4.3 DMEAN
Future concepts will require a close integration of the airport operator with the network. The concept
initiatives that best foster an opportunity to develop this interface are those that already have a broad
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
community input and, without prejudice to the final selected concept, both DMEAN and C-ATM are
worthy of support. The former is a mature programme that has direct potential benefits and the latter
concept is a good model of the requirements for a closer airport/network that will certainly be a
future requirement. Encouraging airport operators to work with the Episode 3 development of C-
ATM would facilitate the inevitable changes required by the concept choice made by SESAR.
DMEAN and C-ATM have both noted new network requirements in terms of the financial
arrangements between the parties. For example in DMEAN the expected net present value to the
users will be about 2 billion euros 16 - but this will imply capital investment and increased running
costs for both the ANSPs and, to a lesser degree, the airport operators. To change the current
structure of cost recovery will require a new financial structure and this in turn implies a cultural
change in the degree of airport operator input to the network strategy. Because both DMEAN and C-
ATM represent a continuum of effort from this point forward, they will promote an early discussion
at a strategic level within the airports consistent with the governance issues raised in work package
4.1.
Apart from the opportunity to review the financial structure, both concepts offer a bridge between
“First Come First Served” and “Serve to Schedule”. The opportunity to generate a dialogue between
the partners is inherent in both proposals. C-ATM envisages a portfolio of rules to control operation
in a disrupted network and thus a forum to debate the development of these rules and the acceptance
of a concept of equity other than first come first served. DMEAN will provide early leverage by the
opportunity that it provides for priority flight switching within an airline and the exposure to the
network benefits of alternative and potential wider application between carriers.
Finally via CDM there is an emerging dialogue between the airport and CFMU; with a better
comprehension by the CFMU of the local airport constraints (e.g. three North bound departures
reduce capacity). DMEAN provides a platform for improving this dialogue.
16
DMEAN CBA, Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
To summarise, the preferred concepts, with their on-going development and strong basis within the
community, will contribute to:
• airport operator involvement in developing an optimal funding for the network,
• an opportunity for airport operators to contribute to a reappraisal of the traditional, and

limited view of, the “equity” constraints on operation, and
• a more realistic understanding of the balance between scheduled slots and the CTOT
operational time.
5.3.4.4 Improving weather forecast
Severe weather conditions (Low visibility, strong wind, ice and snow etc) have a strong negative
effect on airport capacity. In almost every case where capacity reduction is expected due to extreme
weather conditions flow control (CFMU) measures are enforced to prevent that too many aircraft are
fed into a holding pattern or need to divert. Enforcing flow restrictions under these conditions is an
undesired but necessary measure. It has a significant influence on efficiency and punctuality, not
only for the flights directly involved but also for successive flights later during the day (reactionary
delay). E.g. current operational practice at Amsterdam Airport, shows that the accuracy of the
forecast on extreme weather conditions (low visibility, storm etc) is about 30%, resulting in 10 to 15
situations a year where flow restrictions were too tight which means they were imposed and not
necessary and situations where flow restrictions should have been imposed but not taken. A more
reliable and accurate weather forecast is therefore required. As no initiatives to improve aviation
weather forecasts for the short term are known at present, the initiation of research and development
supported by EC funding must be strongly promoted and supported. However there is an initiative
for the medium / long term where ICAO Europe, in cooperation with Eurocontrol is developing a
long term (2015 - 2020) MET strategy to enhance the meteorological forecasts in support of the
CNS/ATM concept.
It is foreseen that the capabilities of the MET forecast will include:
− surface wind including head- and cross wind component
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
− surface visibility
− cloud base
− turbulence in the approach
− icing in the approach
− severe weather phenomena
− runway conditions (wet, dry, snow covered)
− wind field in the approach area
− friction index
The development of the MET strategy is an ongoing initiative. It covers the arrival and the departure
of the gate-to-gate concept. We strongly believe that the MET strategy should not be limited to the
arrival and departure only but should also take into account the ground handling aspects (for
example de-icing, fuelling restrictions during thunderstorm alerts etc.)
5.3.5.1 A-CDM
The expected benefits to partners of Airport CDM 17 are:
For ATC:
• Flexible pre-departure planning

• Reduced apron and taxiway congestion
• Smooth flow of traffic reducing ATCOs workload
For Aircraft Operators:

• Daily programme of flight operations and turn-around times on schedule
17
Sources: Airport CDM Implementation Manual. EUROCONTROL. Version 2 April 2006 and Airport CDM Applications Guide.
EUROCONTROL. July 2003
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Potential schedule disruptions predicted

• Preferences and priorities taken into account during operational disruption
• Fuel and time savings by reducing taxi and holding time
For Ground Handling Agents:

• Enhanced punctuality of operations
• Maintaining Service Level Agreements
• Optimised resource management
For CFMU:
• Enhanced CTOT compliance
• Optimum utilisation of available capacity, reducing sector overloads
For the airport operational functions:

• Increased departures and arrivals punctuality and airport slot adherence
• Efficient use of infrastructure
• Accelerated operational recovery in adverse conditions or other disruptions
• Reduced environmental nuisance (noise and emissions)
Airport CDM is based on the voluntary cooperation of the various partners, as a consequence of the
mutual recognition of the common benefits.
In order to ensure reliable and consistent operations, the roles and responsibilities of all partners
need to be formalised in a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding and, where applicable,
Service Level Agreements.
The implementation of Airport CDM is a short and medium term objective (up to 2007) of the ATM
2000+ Strategy. Airport CDM is also an essential element in DMEAN and SESAR programmes.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
CDM Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) 18
A generic EUROCONTROL CBA report can be found on the European Airport CDM Portal
(www.euro-cdm.org) and covers Airport CDM Level 1 elements. The next step is to develop and
deliver in 2006 (probably by December) the CBA for Level 2 & 3 elements, as well as a
consolidated Airport CDM CBA covering results from level 1 element.
A summary of the main results obtained from Eurocontrol’s CBA report that includes data from
seven airports (Barcelona, Brussels, Helsinki, Lisbon, London Heathrow, Milan Malpensa, and
Stockholm Arlanda) is shown in the following two tables.
• Costs
Figure 7, Total estimated costs (€) for all CDM airports, Eurocontrol
Note: These cost estimations are likely to represent a lower bound, as there are still several unknowns in how airports
will adapt existing information systems. However, given the scale of the benefits, even with costs a factor of 10 higher,
there would still be a compelling business case.
The first two year’s average costs are shown, with an average annual cost from year 2 to year 14.
18
Source: Airport CDM CBA Report 2005. Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Benefits
Figure 8, Estimated benefits (€) for CDM airports, Eurocontrol

The first two year’s benefits are shown with an average annual benefit from year 3 to year 15
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The environmental benefits may be summarized in terms of a reduction in emissions:
Figure 9, Estimated emissions reductions for CDM airports, Eurocontrol
Benefit/Cost ratio
Figure 10, Proportion of total annual benefits for each stakeholder after full CDM implementation i.e. 2-14 yrs,
Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Some CDM Facts:

• European Airports currently in the process of either developing or fully applying CDM:
London Heathrow; Milan Malpensa; Stockholm Arlanda; Brussels Zaventem; Barcelona;
Zurich; Budapest; Munich; Lisbon; Paris CDG; Helsinki; Amsterdam Schiphol; Athens (13
airports). Other European airports are in planning process.
• Most of them are carrying out Local Procedure Trials. E.g. Munich airport has published in
AIC the CDM procedures Trial Phase II on the 11th of May 2006. Operational Trials Phase II
(to all IFR flights) started on the 10th of July 2006. It is planned to be operational on the 20th of
December 2006. Munich is one of the first airports to implement the whole CDM procedure.
www.munich-airport.de/cdm
www.euro-cdm.org
• A FAA study has shown an increase of on-time departures by 15% with the implementation of
CDM
• FAA Report/Total minutes of savings due to compression 19 benefits as of April 30, 2006 20:
- Since 09/08/98 (start of “all airports”): 33,872,853 minutes
- Associated Estimated Cost benefit to NAS Users ($50/minute of start of prototype
operations): $1,710,252,400
• In September 1998, CDM prototype operations were expanded to all US airports. In June
2000, CDM GDP (Ground Delay Programme) moves out of prototype to operational status.
19
Compression, also known as bridging substitutions, is a CDM process whereby unusable arrival slots are shifted in time so the owner can again use
that slot. Say, for example, an airline has 2 flights scheduled to arrive in EWR; flight 1 at 1300 and flight 2 at 1500. After a GDP is run, flight 1 is
assigned a 1400 arrival slot and flight 2 receives a 1700 arrival slot. If flight 1 is cancelled, flight 2 can't make use of the 1400 arrival slot because it
occurs before its scheduled arrival time of 1500. Compression will allow the vacated slot to move down to where flight 2 can make use of it.
20
Source: US CDM web site: http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/index.html
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.3.5.2 DMEAN
The DMEAN case study presented at Maastricht UAC in 2005 indicates that average delivered
capacity increased by 26%.
The results of a cost benefit analysis for DMEAN 21 show substantial benefits from the use of the
conditional routes (CDRs) that will be available under the new operational concept. While these are
generally benefits to en-route operation, they do identify a successful initiative. Airports will thus
perceive involvement with DMEAN as being uncontroversial and of low risk.
Table 5, Benefits from increased usage of CDRs, Eurocontrol
5.3.6 Recommendations for the Short Term
• Implement Airport CDM- Mature
• Support the DMEAN programme and implement their recommended best practices as a
way of building further bridges between the airport and the network operations-Mature
21
DMEAN CBA, Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Initiate and support R&D initiatives focused on improving aviation weather forecasts -
R&D
• Support the development of the MET strategy and enlarge the scope to include the ground
movements
Initiative to be strongly promoted:
Time to Ease of
Some no-
R-5.1 Airport CDM (A-CDM) 1–2 years technical Mature
constraints
DMEAN - Dynamic Management Of
R-6.3 Constraints Mature
The European Airspace Network
Improving weather forecasts 3-4 years Constraints R&D
Initiatives to be promoted:
Time to Ease of
As a research
project this is
immature but
R-1.1 C-ATM – Cooperative ATM Constraints airports
should review
the
assumptions
Initiative on MET strategy > 5 years Constraints R&D
Initiatives not to be supported in the short term:

Time to Ease of
CAMES - Co-operative ATM
R-6.2
Measures for a Single European Sky
GtG - Validation of a European Gate
I-2.3 to Gate Operational Concept for 2005-
2010
IFATS - Innovative Future Air
I-2.3
Transport System
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.4 ENVIRONMENT
5.4.1 The Challenge
There is a clear tension between the growth of air traffic and a reduction of the environmental impact
of air travel. Environmental issues (noise, air quality, climate change and pollution by run-off
liquids) are major challenges for most of the European airports. Capacity increase brings values for
passenger and local employment or economical activities, but with environmental disturbance. This
trade-off has to be tackled in a global perspective.
Global improvements are needed in order to reach the target set by the European Commission to
reduce the environmental effect of aircraft by 10% in 2020.
On the one hand the local community is increasingly able to constrain or delay airport expansion and
airspace changes 22, on the other there is a lack of transparent and accurate trade-off assessment
leading to the imposition of non-optimum operations and constraints. It follows that a conservative
community will weigh the overall environmental impact and may find that a 10% reduction is only
acceptable if it refers to the total aeronautical impact and not by individual aircraft movements.
Environmental awareness among ATC, users and the airport community is important. But
meaningful collaboration with the local community is the critical key to maintaining the license to
operate from both the local community and the State.
The greatest risk in building a culture of collaborative environmental decision-making can be the
perception of the local community. Their community leaders can be vociferous and driven by a
subjective political agenda rather than an objective appraisal of the options. They may not fully
understand the interactions between the environment and airport operation and their technical
22
CTG,2004 , Page 51, ECAC / EUROCONTROL
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
competence may not alert them to the potential for positive trade-offs between operational
procedures and the environments.
Credibility of the airport authority and the ANSP can also be an issue. For example, local residents
will not automatically accept the accuracy of the positional information available from radar, if they
believe they have seen an aircraft off-track. The French national assembly set up an independent
authority to demonstrate the accuracy of the measurement system and audit new ATM procedures in
the interest of the third parties.
A significant risk is the airspace users lack of understanding of community perceptions, and their
unwillingness to commit management effort or resources 23. E.g. Management pilots will only attend
meetings at all airports on their route structure if they are persuaded of the clear benefits of working
with the local community. Research project have to be carried out, such as the US Transportation
Research Board proposal to understand community attitude to aircraft noise (August 2006, project 2-
05)
Another risk is the lack of ability of the airport management to respond effectively to the local
concerns. There may be no guidance, a skill shortage in terms of data acquisition and interpretation,
poor communication with the locality, etc.
As indicated above, the most difficult issues to address can be the perception of the local
community. There is a need for greater community communication, consultation and negotiation to
avoid sub- optimal operations and constraints.
CEM requires an objective standard against which to test the assumptions of all parties in the debate.
There is no commonly accepted tool that enables local residents and councils to “own” a source of
evidence that
23
SESAR task 1.1.4
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
CEM requires, an objective standard against which to test the assumptions of all parties in the
debate. There is no commonly accepted tool to meet the need for local residents and councils to
have the ability to own a source of evidence that:
• Provides accurate and objective information,
• Is readily accessible and
• Addresses the wide portfolio of local initiatives (e.g. the benefits of fixed ground power and
conditioned air, the true trade off associated with repositioning the departure routes – greater
radii permit faster climb and generate less emissions, etc).
The recommendations from 3.2.2/D1 were to focus on environmental initiatives in the operational
field and on those that contribute to a better transparency towards the local community.
The main environmental initiatives identified in 3.2.2/D2 can be classified into 3 packages of
solutions:
• improving collaborative work
• contributing to a better transparency
• reducing noise and gaseous and particulate pollution.
It is also important for the airport community to break their sense of isolationism. Development of
an emission-trading scheme, for example, might be suggested as a method of managing the
environmental impact of operations 24. This introduces an economic instrument, recognisable to the
community, as an enabler to meet the environment objectives.
24
SESAR Task 1.1.4
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.4.4.1 Improving collaborative work between ATC, users and airport
A collaborative environmental management between ATC, users and airport is an important

initiative to be promoted. It will facilitate continuous improvement by a coordinated approach and a
“just culture”. Relevant indicators will help target the right decisions, and audit results, so that staff
can be convinced of change. A complete description package should be set out about how to
implement different levels of collaborative work.
Figure 11, CEM process schematic
The only way to effectively manage the environmental issues around airports is by operational
stakeholders acting collaboratively. The airport operator, usually the 'accountable' body for the
environment, is the main conduit with the local community and planning authorities and also
operates the airport's environmental monitoring system. Air navigation service providers (ANSPs)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
facilitate aircraft operations and are the conduit with the safety regulator while aircraft operators
perform the operations and are the main conduit with industry. The actions of each can significantly
affect the others. Only when a common vision is achieved and each of these elements is fully
coordinated, will environmental performance be optimised.
Figure 12, CEM development model
http://www.eurocontrol.int/epr/gallery/content/public/docs/skyway_summer_2005/full.pdf#search=
%22SOPHOS%20EUROCONTROL%20ENVIRONNEMENT%22
As a first step to facilitate this collaborative work, all ATM operational stakeholders should adopt a
robust sustainability policy supported by appropriate ATM relevant management systems to
facilitate standard setting, monitoring and continuous improvement. Sharing best practices, e.g.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
between the operational departments of local airlines, could be helpful to achieve this first step.
Stakeholders could develop a data repository for environmental best practices (IATA does that for
Airlines).
5.4.4.2 Better relations to neighbours
• Contributing to a better transparency towards community

Some initiatives have been identified in order to tackle the huge blocking point of the local
community relationship. They won’t solve the blocking point, but better transparency will help
improving this relationship. Other long-term initiatives for sustainability are described in WP 1.1.4,
such as the social or economic contribution of air transport and new ways for decision-making.
ATM stakeholders have to improve their understanding of the existing and emerging perceptions,
and needs and expectations of society, especially in terms of the management of adverse socio-
environmental impacts. Research programs are currently carried out, such as the project of the US
Transportation Research Board on Community Attitudes to Aircraft Noise.
Initiatives such as monitoring (noise, tracks, air emission…) are widely implemented but can still be
improved in order to provide more accurate, relevant and accessible information. Scientific
programmes are currently carried out, such as the AIRPUR programme on particulate emissions.
Impacts and interdependency (including trade-offs) have to be assessed, using commonly agreed
methodologies that reflect perceived impacts. These initiatives contribute to a better understanding
of the real disturbance and to improvements in the decision-making, including a better consultation
process.
• Local community impact management

In France, for the 10 main airports, the local community is consulted on each major ATM
modification via two public committees: the CCE (Consultative Commission for the Environment)
and the CCAR (Consultative commission for insulation programme to local residents). The CCE is
composed of three main bodies: aeronautical professionals, local authorities and associations, and is
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
consulted on any issue relating to airport planning and operations. The CCAR is consulted about the
content of the noise disturbance and the allocation of funding for minimising noise pollution
(acoustic insulation). Moreover, any plan to modify IFR departure and /or arrival IFR tracks below
FL 65 has to be the subject of a public enquiry. The increasing level of public consultation is also
applied in other States, and although conducted to help mitigate adverse effects it can be considered
a potentially serious blocker to growth of air traffic in the future.
5.4.4.3 Reducing noise and pollution by operational improvements
The operational pillar of the ICAO balanced approach has to be further developed and supported for
the short term, whereas the three other pillars have already been widely implemented or will be
implemented on a long term perspective (reducing noise at source, restrictions, land use planning).
Operational initiatives have a broad scope for potential implementations throughout Europe, with a
significant improvement in noise, fuel consumption and air pollution. Two major initiatives are
strongly encouraged: Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) and P-RNAV procedures.
P-RNAV is recommendable as an intermediate short-term step to more advanced RNAV techniques

in the future, such as RNP-RNAV.
Based on such existing enablers as; B-RNAV, P-RNAV, compliance with RNP 0.3 and barometric
VNAV some planned technical developments are very interesting.
For the short term, horizontal RNP with a precision < 0.3 Nm has been studied. In New Zealand,
Tests were completed in 2005 for RNP 0.15 in approach, and RNP 0.1 is planned by 2007 for
certification. Based on studies in New Zealand and implementation in the US, development of RNP-
RNAV should be promoted in Europe.
For the medium to long term, the vertical RNP concept can also be introduced with SIDs and STARs
defined with margins for obstacles and aircraft separation and linked with FMS vertical profile to
manage wind fluctuations. There is a need for a 3D RNP corridor initially based on barometric
VRNP to reduce margins and fluctuation.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The benefits of RNAV concepts are:
• Air traffic safety and capacity improvement. It is possible to shorten the approach phase
allowing reduced flight time and less fuel consumption.
• Clean environmental approach paths, reduced noise level and emissions, – although the
accuracy with which paths are flown may exacerbate the impact for those directly under the
route.
• Curved approaches (environmental friendly), avoiding densely populated areas
The planned evolutions maturity is: -
• Existing FAA performances-based approach concept based on RNP.
• Vertical aspects of RNP and compatibility with other systems to be addressed.
In this respect, SESAR should seek the implementation of performance based navigation procedures
and greater accuracy for RNP, VRNP, and 4D RNP for ATM in Europe.
CDA and P-RNAV are mature technical enablers. In order to take full advantages of these enablers,
airspace configuration and procedures have to be adapted and training syllabi developed by ANSPs
and airspace users. In order to achieve the benefits of these initiatives, a European framework has to
be set that establishes harmonised procedures for CDAs as far as possible throughout Europe. This
framework will be customized to local blocking points, such as night flights or flights over densely
populated areas. The customization could be carried out in a two-step approach: gaining experience
for controllers during low-density traffic, followed by a progressive implementation in higher
density traffic.
Other initiatives in the ground segment of the flight should be promoted by SESAR in order to
reduce gaseous emissions, fuel consumption and the adverse impact due to de-icing fluid run-off
during winter. For instance, they might address the policy for the use of aircraft auxiliary power
units (APUs), fixed electrical ground power or conditioned air on stand, taxiing with an engine off or
better coordination between stakeholders. Initiatives for winter operations could concern
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
infrastructures, such as de-icing pads next to the runways, or operational procedures such as the
winter crisis centre at Paris-CDG.
5.4.5.1 Improving collaborative work between ATC, users and airport
An example of the benefits in such a first step in collaborative environmental management is the
local Flight Operational Performance Committee (FLOPC) hosted by BAA. Here the environmental
performance (compliance to operational procedures) is discussed and results show clearly the
benefits of involving the appropriate actors. The table below tracks the improving environmental
performance for BAA Gatwick. These figures have been produced by the Flight Evaluation Unit that
supports the monthly Flight Operations Performance Committee.
Percentage
2001/02 2005/06
Reduction
Noise infringements – Day 42 infringements of limit 26 infringements of limit 38%
Noise infringements – Night 22 infringements of limit 10 infringements of limit 55%
Track deviations (*) (&) 5.06% off track (1998) 0.55% off track (2003) 89%
Continuous descent (**) approach 13.5%

74% CDA 84% CDA
(core night) Improvement
14.7%
Continuous descent approach (day) 68% CDA 78% CDA
Improvement
1000ft requirement 253 aircraft below 1000ft 23 aircraft below 1000ft 91%
Table 6, Flight Operations Performance Committee, BAA, Gatwick

Remarks * The procedure for monitoring track deviations changed at the end of February 2003. Until that time all the Gatwick NPRs were
monitored to an altitude of 3000ft. Four of the NPRs are now monitored to an altitude of 4000ft.
& The discussions at FLOPC centred on the management of the turn, the quality of data in the FMS and involved actual trials of
modified procedures. The FEU was actively involved in support.
** Current compliance varies from 90% for the dominant carrier, 92% for the best carrier in the top three down to 45% for the
lowest carrier in the 20 fleets with the highest movement rates.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.4.5.2 Reducing noise and pollution by operational improvements
As an example British Airways reported that a continuous descent approach (CDA) from 6000ft to
touchdown reduces fuel consumption on the approach to Heathrow between 200kg and 400kg
(depending on aircraft size) compared to the previous practice. Further CDA trials demonstrated that
noise reduction of up to 6dB could be achieved at track distances more than 5 NM to touch down
(the noise reduction potential varies between different aircraft types) 25.
It is important to use existing technical enablers in different concepts. ANSPs and airspace users
have to create procedures based on onboard FMS-systems and ground based
communication/navigation tools such as P-RNAV and data links. One good example is the ‘Green
Approach’ performed by SAS and ANS (ATCC) at Stockholm-Arlanda airport. Here the aircraft
uses a combination of P-RNAV, FMS and Data link communication to fly a 4D trajectory (A-CDA)
meeting tight constraints, which is the time over threshold.
The benefits are:

• Less fuel consumption
• Less noise, less emission
• Better punctuality
25
Noise mitigation by altered aircraft approach procedures, P87, Helsinki university of Technology
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Fuel savings [SEK/year] SEK= 0.1€
14 000 000
12 000 000
10 000 000
8 000 000
[SEK/year]
6 000 000
4 000 000
100%
2 000 000
75%
50% Part of landings using
- PRNAV STAR
25%
[ARN/GOT/MMX/LLA ]
0%
25% 0%
50%
75%
Part of landings using GA 100%
[ARN/GOT/MMX/LLA ]
Figure 13, Fuel savings, Green Approach, LFV-ANS
These calculations are based on 30,000 SAS flights approaching Arlanda. The savings are
approximately 100 kg fuel per flight. This is approximately 50€ savings per flight against the
investment necessary to modify/upgrade the avionics for each aircraft of around 50,000€. The
aircraft type used for the flight tests was a 737-800. With an average operation of 2000 flights a year
the investments are being capitalised in less than one year.
Greater flight efficiency can bring mutual benefits. According the findings of the CTG04 study 26, in
the near to medium term (2005–2010), improving fuel efficiency is the most potentially rewarding
mitigation approach to directly reducing or limiting air transport’s climate impacts, although early
action to reduce carbon dioxide over the long term is also essential. Trials indicate that optimal
trajectories can save 200-500kgs per flight or $155,000 to $195,000 per airframe/year with an
indicative fuel price, as at September 2006, of $595/metric tonne.
26
Challenge to growth, ECAC / Eurocontrol
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The A-CDA’s (4D Trajectory operations) enables a new level of collaborative work between users,
airports and ANSP, increasing the operational and environmental efficiency. It should be noted that
this also extends beyond the specific ATM process to the turnaround process for the Airline / Airport
and support organisations.
The surface impact issues are mainly those of local water pollution, arising from chemical and fuel
run-off, and air pollution from gas and particulates.
Depending on the proximity vicinity of water resources and protected areas, there is a huge pressure
from local authorities to reduce the pollution arising from de-icing operations. This can be
responsible for more than 80% of water pollution (source: Aéroports de Paris). Air France at Paris-
CDG will test new procedures in 2006-2007 in order to reduce pollution during winter without
affecting capacity and safety. These initiatives have strong links with general capacity initiatives that
facilitate landside operations and reduce taxiing and queuing. For instance, initiatives such as CDM
have a high potential to reduce air pollution at ground level (see chapter 5.3.5: benefits of CDM) and
to minimise the impact of de-icing products. (Paris-CDG best practice: introducing a de-icing
manager in the CDM to optimize the de-icing sequence). Such capacity initiatives or best practices
will reduce taxi time, such as rapid exit taxiways, optimization of the sequence, CDM… These
initiatives will improve operation efficiency: the cost of taxiing can range from $25.00 per minute
for medium twin to $ 50.00 per minute for a four engines heavy (ref: ICAO circular n°303/AN16).
• Stakeholders should adopt a challenging and robust sustainability policy, based on official
standards such as ISO14001 or similar, achieving the optimum possible balance between
social, environmental and economic impeditive
• Implement Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) between ATC, users,

airport and surrounding communities – concept is mature, the processes are less mature
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Develop credible tools for CEM-partners to explore, with their local community, the real
trade-offs associated with the balance between the environment and the local mode of
operations – concept is mature
a) Implement procedures, based on existing technical enablers in current aircraft, which

improve flight efficiency, (CDA, P-RNAV/RNP, GBAS, leading to 4D approaches) –
mature to promising
Initiatives to be strongly promoted:
Time to Ease of
Effective collaboration between Limited
operational stakeholders in a just
Constrains
E1 culture - supported by 1 - 5 years Promising
environmental management
systems
Better relations to neighbours Limited new
(trusted information platform, initiatives
Constrains
E2 aircraft noise commission, 3 - 5 years currently in
community council, advisory R&D or
commission,…) promising
Support Limited
Noise monitoring system and flight
previous 3 years constraints Mature
tracking
initiative
Limited new
Introduce a "Air quality monitoring
Support constraints initiatives
system" and assess the amount of
previous 3-5 years currently in
airport related versus external
initiative R&D or
pollution
promising
Limited mature (need
CDA or local customization such as
E-3.1 3 years airspace
green approach Constrains
adaptation)
R-3.2 / E- Limited constraints

P-RNAV (intermediate short term step) 3 years mature
3.1
R-3.2 / E- Limited constraints

RNP-RNAV (mid term step) 5 years mature
3.1
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Initiatives to be promoted:
Time to Ease of
Optimize fuel consumption and Limited constraints

emissions in the ground segment of the
flight for all aircraft (reducing queue
3 years mature
and taxiing, APU policy, engine off,
E-3.3 procedure by each stakeholders and
coordinated by CDM…)
De icing operations (CDM, avoiding Limited constraints

E-3.4 3 years mature
returns for re-icing…)
5.5 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES
The ongoing initiatives and best practises evaluated produced a list of the most valuable ones. When
implemented individually or, if feasible, in packages, they will produce considerable short-term
improvements:
• Install A-SMGCS – Levels I and II coordinated with EAPPRI (European Action Plan for
the Prevention of Runway Incursions)
• Implement Eurocontrol ACE recommended best practices
• Implement or complement / support airport management airside, AMAN / DMAN /

SMAN Arrival, Departure and Surface Manager (including apron management and stand
/gate management)
• Implement Airport CDM
• Support the DMEAN programme and implement recommended best practices as a way of
building further bridges between the airport and the network operations.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• Initiate and support R&D initiatives focused on improving aviation weather forecasts -
R&D
• Support the development of the aviation MET forecast and enlarge the scope to include
the ground movements
• Stakeholders should adopt a challenging and robust sustainability policy.
• Implement Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) between ATC, users,

airport and surrounding communities
• Develop credible tools for CEM-partners to explore, with their local community, the real
trade-offs associated with the balance between the environment and the local mode of
operations
• Implement procedures, based on existing technical enablers in current aircraft, which

improve flight efficiency, (CDA, A-CDA, P-RNAV/RNP, GBAS, leading to 4D
approaches)
Initiatives to be strongly promoted

Time to Ease of
EAPPRI -( European Action Plan for the
I-1.1 1-2 years Limited Constraints Mature
Prevention of Runway Incursions)
R-2.1 A-SMGCS – Levels I and II 2-3 years Some Constraints Mature
I-2.2 SMAN – Surface Management Tool 2-3 years Some Constraints Promising
I-4.12 SLOT Management 4 > years Significant Constraints R&D stage

AMAN / DMAN Arrival Manager and Departure
R-4.1 2 – 3 years Some Constraints Mature
Manager
R-4.4 Planned Spacing Tool 2 – 3 years Limited Constrains Promising
I-4.9 Time Based Separation 2 – 3 years Some Constraints Promising

I-4.10 ACE 1 -2 years No significant issues Mature
R-4.2 Brake to Vacate Procedure 1 year No significant issues Mature
I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) Fora 1 year Some Constraints Mature
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Time to Ease of
I-4.3 Additional RETs and Entries (within ACE) 1 – 2 years Some Constraints Mature
Additional Better Placed Runway
I-4.4 1 – 2 years Some Constraints Mature
Crossings (within ACE)
Tech. < 1 yr
R-3.4 Improved FMS Significant Constraints Mature
Hum. mgt > 3 yr
R-3.5 GNSS 2 years No significant issues Promising
Some no-technical
R-5.1 Airport CDM (A-CDM) 1–2 years Mature
constraints
DMEAN - Dynamic Management Of The European
R-6.3 Constraints Mature
Airspace Network
Effective collaboration between operational Limited
E-1 stakeholders in a just culture - supported by 3 - 5 years Promising
Constrains
environmental management systems
E-2 Better relations to neighbours (trusted information Limited
R&D or
platform, aircraft noise commission, community 3 - 5 years
Constrains promising
council, advisory commission,…)
Noise monitoring system and flight Limited constraints
3 years mature
tracking
Introduce a "Air quality monitoring Limited constraints
R&D or
system" and find out amount of airport 3-5 years
promising
related/independent pollution
E-3.1 CDA or Green approach of A-CDA 3 years Limited Constrains mature
R-3.2
P-RNAV (intermediate short term step) 3 years Limited constraints mature
E-3.1
R-3.2
RNP-RNAV (mid term step) 5 years Limited constraints mature
E-3.1
5.6 UNCOVERED BLOCKING POINTS
The blocking points not covered by any initiatives are:
• ENV-6 Snow removal-Water Pollution
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• LEG-3 Security regulations
• SOC-1 S lifting index
• SOC-2 Screening baggage
These blocking points are related to environmental, security- and social-area. There are no initiatives
for short-term solutions.
Security
As discussed in 3.3 future regulations may dictate implementation of more stringent screening and
security procedures. While the impact of more stringent screening and security procedures can be
minimised by the airport operator and airlines by additional infrastructure and/or an increase in the
Minimum Connecting Time (MCT) together with earlier check-in, there is a concern that lack of
sufficient investment at State or local level could create problems in increasing uncertainty in the
system.
Recommendation
The states should ensure the investment to provide security processing efficiency be
determined in the light of a model of the overall system cost and benefits. (Influence of aviation
on GDP)
Social 27
The 1.7.3 results linked to the 3.2.2 results have a focus on how the social dialogue in a wider sense
can facilitate the technical, procedural and organizational change process taking place at an airport.
Structural change
27
Reference SESAR Task 1.7.3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
To create a common understanding of the current state, the future state, and the transitional path,
needs care. There must be a clear and supportive management and leadership styles facilitating the
changes and guiding the employees; communication structure must allow boundary-breaking
channels; reward systems have to support the new optimal behaviour; employees must be able to
work (act, communicate, share ideas and knowledge) across organizational boundaries.
Quality input and buy-in
Prospective changes, affecting large groups of employees, where the nature of the change is not well
defined and there are unknown outcomes concerning the future work situations need care and
competence to be successful. This knowledge and competence must be developed by managers, and
the implications of the change made explicit through participation, influence, developing insights in
decisions etc.
Steps towards inter-organizational collaboration
Each organization needs both informal “boundary spanners” and formal policy makers. Boundary
spanners are personnel with the same interests that share ideas, solutions, knowledge etc. working at
any organizational level. Parallel to this, high-level policy makers state and revise the new formal
policies supporting the cultural and structural change.
Strengthen the daily operations
This brings us to empowerment, self-leadership, and autonomous work teams. This encompasses a
complex dynamic of power, ability to make decisions, accountability, responsibility, role, and
training. It does not necessarily reduce individual’s authority. The purpose is that the right (most
knowledgeable and competent) person should take the right decision at the right time for the good of
the organization(s)’ productivity and efficiency.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5.7 IMPLEMENTATION RISKS
A characteristic of the airport initiatives is that they are generally well established as operational
trials on an individual basis. However there is always a risk that the commitment necessary to launch
the initiatives on a sufficiently wide basis will be lacking.
Nevertheless there are some common implementation risks for the short-term improvements:
• State or local legislation that inhibits the implementation of recommended initiatives because
of the perception that capacity increase is incompatible with sustainability goals;
• Political interests which distort fair competition between different modes of transport (e.g.
subsidies for other modes of transport);
• Social opposition due to environmental issues and lack of an objective forum and analysis tools
to gain a true picture of the potential outcomes;
• Industrial practices / lack of common expectations of the workforce and fear of change;
• Costs. (Costs and benefits may be distributed unequally among the aviation community.
Potentially the facilities for a “standard” Cost Benefit Analysis tool, centrally provided, would
highlight the global pay-off and give a justification for external financing);
• Lack of development support e.g. access to professional staff to undertake analysis of relevant
safety cases, or the production of local P-RNAV procedures (especially true for regional
airports);
• Lack of resources to implement the necessary infra-structure for CDM;
• Unwillingness of airport partners to involve in the CDM because of fear to share the relevant
data.
As the overall implementation risks are essentially local in character, potentially one of the most
helpful aspects, SESAR must provide a good comparative tool set with credible standing so that the
diverse players can undertake meaningful peer-to-peer analysis; where in some cases, peer-to-peer
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
will be between airport operators, for others between operators and the local community or between
airport partners.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
6 THE WAY FORWARD
A solution must be found that combines the reach of ACI Europe, in terms of connecting with the
member airports, with sufficient resources to be able to effectively promote the preferred initiatives.
Rather than choosing a partner that represents all candidate airports but has restricted strategic
interest in the topic, SESAR should seek to support and develop a focus group of airports with a
dedicated interest in the strategic development of the network and the ability to further these
initiatives (a grouping of congested airports with a common interest in early harmonization)
supported by Eurocontrol where appropriate.
To facilitate the implementation of the short-term recommendations airports have to:
• Agree on a common and unambiguous terminology for system use
• Define clear performance targets, review and monitor them
• Establish a performance measurement culture in order to drive improvements
This will develop a better understanding of the factors relating to performance and how they can be
improved.
• Demonstrate feasibility through “high level” simulation, or ask for it
• Create, validate and agree an implementation plan
• Create a data base containing
o results of best practises
o simulation results
o environmental best practises and local initiatives
o safety related data
Operators can develop best practises by making meaningful comparisons between airports.
• Create a strong partnership amongst the actors of the airport domain
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
o It must be recognized that cost minimization by any one actor of the airport domain
can reduce the overall system efficiency. The network is complex and for optimal
performance, a re-evaluation of the economic principles is needed at both the level
of strategic investment and tactical operations
o This requires a common tool set, available to all, to explore the cost and benefit
implications of operational changes associated with the move to an integrated
network approach.
• Develop incentives schemes
o Even so financial savings after implementation constitute genuine incentives for

change.
o Develop further incentives.
• Support the creation of strong and effective European aviation safety regulatory
mechanisms with appropriate executive and regulatory powers.
• Ensure the establishment of performance cases (safety, business, environmental, etc.)

before implementing changes.
6.1 KEY MESSAGES
The potential savings are high
The Performance Review Report (2005) estimated that reducing the duration of 50% of scheduled
flights by an average of 5 minutes thanks to a better predictability of operations during the
scheduling phase would be worth some € 1000M per annum.
An airport is by nature unique
There will be no consistent view of most recommendations. Each initiative will be viewed in a local
context and not all recommended initiatives promoted by SESAR would appeal or be efficient to all
airports.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Large airports have already implemented many recommended initiatives
For the large European airports, which are capacity constrained, the value of the evaluated short term
improvements is not as significant as for the medium, fast growing airports.
Others solutions and concepts must be looked at for congested airports, such as market segmentation
and new partnership together with the construction of new runways and terminals.
Operations at an airport are an inter-organizational operation
To facilitate cooperation and collaboration there needs to be a change in values and attitudes.
Changes affecting large groups of employees, changes with uncertain input information and
unknown outcomes in the work situations, e.g. CDM and environmental issues, need broad and
specific knowledge and competence to be successful.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the findings of SESAR D1 airports are the biggest blocking point. These airport-
oriented initiatives therefore offer a great potential to improve the current performance of the ATM-
system. The recommended initiatives will improve the operational key performance areas, such as
capacity, efficiency and predictability, as well as the environment and economical key areas. Some
of these initiatives will also improve safety and are strongly promoted by the group. Which KPA
each initiative is influencing is described in appendices 3.
These initiatives have the potential to, among others, bring savings about several million €
yearly, increase capacity, increase punctuality and reduce emissions (CO2, CO, NOx, and
PM10s). To be able to deal with the problems today and the predicted increase of capacity, at
the same time benefit economically, the airport community should, together with ANS and
airspace users, start to implement these initiatives. In the report there is a list of about 20 more
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
initiatives (locally, best practices and research) that we recommend airport stakeholders to
implement. Find also in the report information about which airport location has implemented /
tested what initiatives. This is the short-term future for the airports.
Together with the recommended initiatives the group also suggest to:
Establish a performance measurement culture in order to drive improvements
This will develop a better understanding of the factors relating to performance and how they can be
improved. From the perspective of an airport operator, the performance requirements of the future
operational concept of the ATM system are to operate at the highest safety standard and:
1) minimise the environmental impact,
2) match the flow demand to the system capacity,
3) react robustly to the variability caused by external factors (weather, security, technical)
4) maximise the network efficiency.
Bring all airport stakeholders into the ATM network
The effectiveness of SESAR, from an airport perspective, will be critically dependent on changing
the current general airport perception that air traffic management has only a remote impact on the
airport business. It is also important to understand that airport business has a large impact on the
total air traffic management. SESAR must take into account both the need for a global en-route-to-
en-route integration and the need to bring airports into the ATM network. The most significant of the
short-term initiatives will be those that address this issue.
Accompany collaboration by a greater transparency toward the communities, provide

objective impact data to facilitate mutual trust (“just culture”)
National goals for sustainability and local pressures to contain noise footprints and gas and
particulate emissions naturally focus on the airport operator. Airport operators therefore have a role
to reflect the concerns of the community and to minimise the environmental impact if they are to
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
maintain their license to operate; otherwise they are at risk of movement caps, operational curfews or
other restrictions
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figures
Figure 1, En-Route to En-Route and G2G .......................................................................................... 31
Figure 2, Proportion of reported incidents in risk categories.............................................................. 35
Figure 3, A-SGCM level I and II currently installed .......................................................................... 38
Figure 4, PRM..................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 5, Independent Parallel Departures.......................................................................................... 65
Figure 6, SODPROPS ......................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 7, Total estimated costs (€) for all CDM airports, Eurocontrol............................................... 79
Figure 8, Estimated benefits (€) for CDM airports, Eurocontrol ........................................................ 80
Figure 9, Estimated emissions reductions for CDM airports, Eurocontrol......................................... 81
Figure 10, Proportion of total annual benefits for each stakeholder after full CDM implementation i.e
2-14 yrs, Eurocontrol .................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 11, CEM process schematic..................................................................................................... 88
Figure 12, CEM development model .................................................................................................. 89
Figure 13, Fuel savings, Green Approach, LFV-ANS........................................................................ 95
Table 1, BP - Operational.................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2, BP - Organisational, Legislative, Social ............................................................................... 18
Table 3, BP - Environmental............................................................................................................... 18
Table 4, List of initiatives ................................................................................................................... 24
Table 5, Benefits from increased usage of CDRs, Eurocontrol .......................................................... 83
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Tabell 6, Flight Operations Performance Committee, BAA, Gatwick ............................................... 93
8 REFERENCES
1. European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions, EAPRI, EUROCONTROL
2. SAFREP, EUROCONTROL
3. The Performance Review Report (2005)
4. Challenge to growth, CTG04 study, ECAC / EUROCONTROL
5. INFORMATION PAPER SCG/2/IP01), (2006), EUROCONTROL
6. SESAR: WP 1.2.1 /D1 (2006) MECHANISMS AND TRIGGERS FOR ATM DECISION
MAKING AIRPORT OPERATOR PERSPECTIVE
7. SESAR WP 1.7.3 / D2 (2006)
8. Tailored Arrivals, Avionics magazine 2005, www.avionicsmagazine.com
9. Tailored Arrivals, Boeing Co, Issued Jan. 31, 2005
10. Tailored Arrivals: Idling Down to the Final Approach, Aviation Today, May 1, 2005
11. EEC Report No 371
12. Airport CDM Implementation Manual, EUROCONTROL. Version 2 April 2006
13. Airport CDM Applications Guide. EUROCONTROL. July 2003
14. Airport CDM CBA Report 2005, EUROCONTROL
15. US CDM web site: http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/index.html
16. Noise mitigation by altered aircraft approach procedures, Helsinki university of Technology, 27th
of May 2004, Author Samu Tuparine
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
9 APPENDICES
9.1 APPENDIX 1
List of Airport Blocking Points as identified by T322-D1
ID Title
OP-1 First come first served principle in network operation vs. Airport schedule
Poor information of expected arrival time leading to tardy arrival of agents, and
OP-2
handling equipment, at gate
OP-3 The effective reduction in the arrival stream density when operating into a headwind
OP-4 Runway arrival capacity (especially for converging runways)
Lack or wrong position of Rapid Exit Taxiways (RET) for High Intensity Runway
OP-5
Operations (HIRO)
OP-6 Highly variable runway occupancy times
Substantial reduction of runway capacity in bad weather when operating under CATII
OP-7
and CATIII procedures
Quality of surveillance and wake-vortex-prediction limiting in-trail and diagonal
OP-8
separation especially in low visibility
Absence of arrival sequencing tools reduces runway capacity and increases airborne
OP-9
holding
OP-10 Insufficient apron capacity (stand & gate)
OP-11 Inadequate taxiway layout leading to delays
OP-12 Aircraft taxi or towing movements involving crossing of active runways
OP-13 No advance planning for taxi process
OP-14 Poor predictability of taxi process
OP-15 No recognition of the preferences of airport operators and airlines in taxi process
OP-16 No integration of turnaround in overall planning process
OP-17 Stand and Gate allocation process
Deficiencies in passenger and baggage process (check-in, security, border control,
OP-18
boarding)
Complex and costly adaptation of airside and landside infrastructure (incl. Terminal) to
OP-19
accommodate NLA
OP-20 Complex traffic management procedures for NLA traffic
OP-21 Insufficient warning time for pushback due short notice calls on pushback frequency
No adequate pushback planning to optimise departure sequence due to ‘first come first
OP-22
serve’ principle
OP-23 Increased line-up times due to ILS holding points during LVP
OP-24 Lack of space and multiple line-up points at runways to allow sequence changes
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
OP-25 Poor departure sequencing tools producing unnecessary high separation and thus delay
OP-26 Lack or bad quality of surveillance
OP-27 Congestion of ground voice communication frequencies
OP-28 Lack of situational awareness in the cockpit
OP-29 Insufficient Runway Incursion prevention measures
OP-30 Lack of compliancy with ICAO provisions
OP-31 Lack of harmonized signage
OP-32 Lack of harmonized stand entry guidance systems
OP-33 Incorrect assumptions in planned runway capacity leading to operational delay
OP-34 Insufficient coordination between airport ground processes and CTOT
OP-35 Unplanned ad hoc traffic leading to delays
OP-36 Demand out of balance with departure runway capacity (A/C mix, CTOT,…)
Inconsistent use of slots (e.g. slots planned for Medium aircraft suddenly used by
OP-37
Heavy aircraft)
Lack of collaborative contingency planning for different disruption scenarios (severe
OP-38
weather, incidents, accidents, security, etc. )
OP-39 No contingency planning for network effects
Poor prediction of bad weather duration leads to excessive regulation reported to
OP-40
CFMU
ID Title
ENV-1 Operating restrictions-Noise

ENV-2 Local community-Noise
ENV-3 Exhaust fume quota-Air Pollution
ENV-4 Every issue that increases taxi time and holding-Air Pollution
ENV-5 Use of de-icing products-Water Pollution
ENV-6 Snow removal-Water Pollution
Coordination between local (airports) management of traffic, and the En Route

ORG-1
constraints managed by CFMU
ORG-2 Lack of cooperation between partners on the airport.
ORG-3 No harmonised control methods to manage high traffic flows
ORG-4 No detailed and shared figures about status of aircraft handling.
LEG-1 Planning Requirements

LEG-2 Planning new infrastructure
LEG-3 Security regulations
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
SOC-1 S lifting index

SOC-2 Screening baggage
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
9.2 APPENDIX 2
Evaluation Templates of initiatives
Categories
1. Safety
2. Surface movement
3. Avionics
4. Runway Capacity
5. CDM
6. Concepts
7. Airport Infrastructure
8. Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
1 Safety
R-1.1
Airport Safety Nets (GCAS)
Ground Collision Avoidance System
Short description Blocking point addressed
A ground collision avoidance system is an integrated safety net that prevents an aircraft or vehicle from using a runway that is already occupied.
OP-7, OP-12, OP-28, OP-29, OP-
There is a recognized need to develop a totally integrated system to provide warning and resolutions of conflicts.
30, OP-31, OP-35,
While the system does not yet exist the requirement for GCAS will be fulfilled through the further development of A-SMGCS (i.e. the further
ORG-3
development of A-SMGCS Level 2’s control function, which currently focuses on the runway only, giving warnings only to ATC).
Criteria Rating Rationale
Severity of associated BP 5 Accidents and incidents do occur due to lack of Pilot, Driver and ATCo situational awareness
Time To implement 1 GCAS requires integration of newly developed stand alone systems and the development of appropriate procedures between organisations.
Ease of implementation 3 The need to facilitate different stakeholder interfaces to achieve this safety net makes the task complex.
Potential impact on Planned and managed reduction of runway capacity in bad weather when operating under CATII and CATIII procedures, Improved
Blocking point 4 management of Aircraft taxi or towing movements involving crossing of active runways, Improved situational awareness in the cockpit,
environmental impact 3 neutral
USERS 5 Positive
expected value Airport 5 Positive
per
stakeholder ANSP 5 Positive
Industry 5 Positive
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Contribution to Key Performance Areas (KPA):

KPA Rationale Rating
Safety Avoids Ground collisions and provides resolutions for detected conflicts +
Operational No efficiency target, may improve taxi delay 0
Environment No impact 0
TRL level: 2 Concept and Research
Related initiatives: EAPPRI, A-SMGCS, SMAN, Datalink
Additional information:
Local Best Practices: none
R-1.2
Wakenet
Ground Collision Avoidance System
Working Group of European and American experts discussing and addressing several wake vortex related problems and technologies / systems.
OP-8
Currently there are no plans to implement concrete initiatives out of Wakenet
Severity of associated BP 5 Safety relevant
Time To implement n.a. Currently no initiatives to be implemented
Ease of implementation n.a. Currently no initiatives to be implemented
Potential impact on
Blocking point 3 Regular exchange of expert knowledge will have positive impact on solution of vortex related problems
environmental impact n.a. Currently no initiatives to be implemented
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
USERS 4 Likely to improve wake situation in the future

expected value Airport 3 Neutral
per
stakeholder ANSP 4 Likely to improve wake situation in the future
Industry 3 Neutral
Safety Regular exchange of vortex related knowledge contributes to improvement of wake-vortex situation at airports +
Operational No impact 0
TRL level: 2 Concept and Research
Related initiatives: EAPPRI, A-SMGCS, SMAN, Datalink
I-1.1
EAPPRI
European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions
The European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions contains 56 recommendations about how to prevent runway incursions. It is
OP-28, OP-29, OP-30,
accepted with the EUROCONTROL member states and a strong part of the ICAO action on Runway Safety. Includes the European wide
OP-31, ORG-2
introduction of safety related procedures on the ground as well as harmonization of signage and procedures.
Accidents do occur due to runway incursions being undetected and not actively mitigated. Over 1 incursion takes place per day in the ECAC
Severity of associated BP 5 area.
Time To implement 4 Many of the recommendations are amplifying what is already agreed by ICAO and relatively easy and low cost to implement.
Ease of implementation 4 The need to facilitate different stakeholder interfaces to achieve safety makes the task complex.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Potential impact on Improved situational awareness in the cockpit, Adequate Runway Incursion prevention measures, Improved compliance with ICAO provisions,
Blocking point 4 Harmonized signage, Cooperation between partners on the airport, Planning new infrastructure with fewer latent traps.
USERS 5 Enhancement of ground movement safety. Standardization of procedures and equipment at different airports.
expected value Airport 5 Enhancement of ground movement safety. Most initiatives involve relatively low investments
per
stakeholder ANSP 5 Enhancement of ground movement safety
Industry 5 Positive
Safety Prevention of runway incursions, increasing ground movement safety ++
Operational Harmonization of procedures +
TRL level: 4 Mature – partly implemented at many airports
Related initiatives: A-SMGCS, EMMA
EAPPRI contains a variety of measures covering training and awareness campaigns, the introduction of new harmonized procedures and technologies
as well as certification issues. It contains 56 recommendations including General Principles, Aerodrome Operator Issues, Aircraft Operator Issues,
ANSP Issues, Communications, Data Collection and Lesson Sharing, Regulatory Issues, Aeronautical Information Management and Future Work.
Many of those recommendations have already stated in various regulations like ICAO but as of today there are too many local variations. EAPPRI is
partly implemented at almost 100 ECAC airports in the range of 70-100% of the recommended actions. This lead to a decreasing number of class A
and B incidents but a proof of evidence is nevertheless difficult unless a “just-culture” is introduced and legally supported on a global scale. In addition
to this established initiative there are further research projects such as Airport Safety Nets (GCAS). This research project contains a number of
measures to prevent collisions on the ground and especially runway incursions. While still R&D, this initiative aims at one integrated system and shows
a path for the future.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
2 Surface movement
R-2.1
A-SMGCS
Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Level I and II
The general objective of an Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS) is to ensure the safety and efficiency of airport
surface traffic with the increasing density of traffic and in all weather conditions down to CAT III landing. It allows complete situational awareness
under all conditions and enables controllers to detect aircraft and vehicles diverting from given clearances.
Level I - surveillance:
Gives positional information on movement area about moving and static traffic.
Level II- adds control: OP-12, OP-14, OP-26, OP-29
Detects conflicts, gives resolutions and provides alerts runway incursions or other restricted areas; (two classes of alert: information and
alarm). Use of safety net for runway or any restricted area = level II.
Based upon existing aircraft system, the expected benefits are important for safety. Requires both cooperative and non cooperative sensors: mode S
or ADS-B and Surface Movement Radar. Specific uses of A-SMGCS include: detection of intruders, monitoring compliance with ATC instructions,
detection of hazardous situations on the runway.
Severity of associated BP 5 Enhancement of ground movement safety and optimisation of ground traffic
Technology and procedures are available. Currently 20 European airports have already Implemented A-SMGCS Level I and II. Others are
Time To implement 4 planning implementation or have already begun
Ease of implementation 4 Implementation of sensors needed, vehicles to be equipped. Depending on the scale of implementation it can involve considerable costs
Potential impact on Enhanced surveillance leads to an improved situational awareness for the controller and thus enhancement of ground movement safety.
Blocking point 4 Optimisation of traffic flow and reduction of delays
environmental impact 4 contributes to mitigate the environmental impact of noise and gaseous emissions by better taxiing time and less holding,
expected value
per
USERS 5 delay reduction, diversion avoidance and reduction of taxi time
stakeholder Airport 5 Prevention of runway incursions and reduction of taxi time
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
ANSP 5 enhances controller's situation awareness and improves overall ATC safety
Industry 5 delay reduction, diversion avoidance and reduction of taxi time
Safety Increasing ground movement safety, increase of situational awareness, avoids conflicts and runway incursions ++
Operational Assists ground movement controller in managing taxi traffic more efficiently. Leads to reduction of taxi delays especially in poor visibility +
Environment No direct impact. May slightly reduce ground emissions and noise +
TRL level: 4 Mature – Technology and procedures available and proven with positive CBA
Related initiatives: EAPPRI, EMMA
Local Best Practices:
A-SMGCS Systems Level 1 & 2 is currently installed in 20 European airports:
Amsterdam, Brussels, Budapest, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Geneva, Innsbruck, London Heathrow, Madrid, Milan Malpensa, Munich, Palma de Majorca, Paris Charles
de Gaulle, Paris Orly, Prague, Riga, Roma, Toulouse, Vienna, Zurich.
Other airports such as Dublin, Oslo and Stockholm are potential candidates. Many of the above airports have taken a stepwise approach as they have used SMR for
ground traffic control before adding other technologies and sensors as e.g. multilateration.
R-2.2
EMMA
European Airport Movement Management by A-SMGCS
EMMA (European airport Movement Management by A-SMGCS) aimed at solving the airport bottleneck problem within the future
Air Transport System.
EMMA aims at maturing and validating the A-SMGCS concept as an integrated air-ground system, seamlessly embedded in the OP-12, OP-13, OP-14, OP-26, OP-
overall ATM system. 29
In a two-phase approach, EMMA will first consolidate the surveillance and conflict alert functions, and in the successor project of the
second call focus on advanced onboard guidance support to pilots and planning support to controllers
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Severity of associated BP 4 Based on existing A-SMGCS EMMA targets mainly optimisation of ground traffic
Time To implement 2-3 Depending on stage of implementation of A-SMGCS at respective airport
Ease of implementation 3 Adaptation of procedures, certification and ATCO training issues
Potential impact on Enhanced surveillance leads to an improved situational awareness for the controller and thus enhancement of ground movement safety.
Blocking point 4 Optimisation of traffic flow and reduction of delays
environmental impact 4 Potential reduction of taxi times and therefore also ground emissions and noise
USERS 5 delay reduction, diversion avoidance and reduction of taxi time
expected value Airport 5 Prevention of runway incursions and reduction of taxi time
per
stakeholder ANSP 5 enhances controller's situation awareness and improves overall ATC safety
Industry 5 delay reduction, diversion avoidance and reduction of taxi time
Safety Increasing ground movement safety, increase of situational awareness, avoids conflicts and runway incursions +
More efficient use of runways (e.g. Brake to Vacate) and taxiways by enhanced surface movement control. Contributes to enhance capacity of taxiway
Operational
system and to reduce taxi times and taxi delay ++
Environment Reduction of taxi times and therefore also ground emissions and noise +
TRL level: 2-3 Research – Validation of first applications in EMMA I
Related initiatives: A-SMGCS Level I and II, EAPPRI, SMAN, Brake to Vacate
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/APT_emma.html
http://www.dlr.de/emma/
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-2.1
Perimeter Taxiways

Goal/purpose
Reduce number of active runway crossing, taxi delay, runway incursion risk and increase taxi predictability. Extensive runway crossing not only
reduced the capacity of the runway being crossed by taxing aircraft it also increases the taxi time, taxi delay and has a negative effect on the
predictability of the whole taxi process. A side effect is that crossing active runways increases the risk of runway incursions. A possible solution is to OP-2, OP-4, OP-11, OP-12, OP-14,
design taxiway sin such a way that crossing of active runway becomes unnecessary. Those taxiways will be located behind the end of the landing OP-29, ENV-4, LEG-2
runway (behind ILS LLZ antenna) and or in front (or is it behind??) the beginning of the take-off runway. Use of these taxiways is independent of
operations on the runway. As these taxiways are near the airport boundary, the name “perimeter Taxiways” is given. Perimeter taxiways are in use at
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (since the year 2003) and Frankfurt Airport
Crossing an active runway by taxiing and/or towing aircraft has a negative effect on the landing or take-off capacity of that runway.
Severity of associated BP 3 It also increases the risk of runway incursion (Safety aspect). Reduction of runway crossing is a measure mentioned in EAPPRI
Adding new taxiways could last several years. Dependent is the fact if the new taxiway is inside or outside the existing airport boundary. If
Time To implement 3 outside time consuming process for obtaining permission and land acquisition can take place. This is dependent on local (state) situations
Ease of implementation 3 See above
Potential impact on Dependent on local airport situation. Perimeter taxiways could solve the whole crossing problem for a specific runway. In case of AMS the
Blocking point 4-5 perimeter taxiways solved the crossing problem (reduced landing or takeoff capacity) for the centre runway.
No impact other than due to the perimeter taxiways more landings or take-off can take place on the specific runway with effect that more
environmental impact 3 flights take place over residential areas within the noise zone of that runway.
USERS 5 More runway capacity
expected value 1 High investment cost
per
Airport 3 5 More runway capacity
stakeholder ANSP 5 Lower workload due to no runway crossings
Industry 5 See users
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety Avoids runway crossings ++
Operational Reduces taxi delays and Increases predictability of taxi times +
TRL Level: 3 Cost benefit could be different for all airports
4 principle / design itself is ready for commercialization
Related initiatives: EAPPRI
Additional information
Perimeter taxiways are in use at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol for about three years. They are only located around the middle runway of the three parallel runways. As
no runway crossings of this active centre runway are necessary any more ATC increase the declared capacity of this runway from 25 arrivals/hour to 35 arrivals/hour.
Advantages are increased runway capacity, increased taxi time predictability, reduced taxi delay and a reduced runway incursion risk.
Main Disadvantages are the high investment costs (additional taxiway of appr. 8 km. perimeter taxiway on both ends/thresholds of the runway) and longer (but more
predictable) taxi times.
Perimeter taxiways around other runways are subject of study
I-2.2
SMAN
Surface Management Tool
SMAN is a planning tool for surface movements.
In a Gate-to- Gate context SMAN closes the gap between AMAN and DMAN on the planning side. The aim is the prediction of inbound and
OP-13, OP-14, OP-15, OP-21, OP-
outbound movements with a link to the airport's operational database (Confirmed and Target Off-Block) as well as CDM tools and A-SMGCS.
22, OP-34
SMAN is planning the inbound traffic in order to optimize the usage of aircraft stands. On the outbound side it is doing an Off-Block planning in
order to help DMAN to achieve the optimum sequence at the departure runway (pre-departure sequencing)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Severity of associated BP 4 Planning the taxi process is on missing part of the Gate-toGate concept
Software is partially available
Time To implement 3-4 To have the full system benefits the introduction of new procedures is necessary (e.g. start-up planning instead of “first come first served”.
Link to other systems AMAN, DMAN; CDM necessary
Ease of implementation 3 See above
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 Taxi process currently completely unplanned

USERS 5 Higher predictability, improved slot adherence
expected value Airport 5 Significant improvement of taxi process
per
stakeholder ANSP 4 Improved pre-departure sequencing, improved slot adherence
Industry 5
Safety No impact on safety 0
Reduces taxi delays and Increases predictability of taxi times.
Operational
Increases runway capacity by off-block management and subsequent pre-departure sequencing (DMAN) ++
TRL level: 3 Promising – First applications will be operational in early 2007
Related initiatives: A-SMGCS Level I and II, Datalink Application for Surface Movement Planning EAPPRI, EMMA
Local Best Practices:
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-2.3
ILS Tuning

During Low visibility operations the quality of the ILS signal has to be protected. For this reason ILS sensitive and protection areas has been
determined. Within these areas no aircraft may present, being taxiing and/or holding. The size of the sensitive area is determined by the type of the
OP-4, OP-7, OP-12, OP-23
ILS system, The size of the aircraft near the runway, as well as the location of other reflecting objects (buildings). If the size of the sensitive area can
be reduced without negative effect on the CAT II / III capability of the ILS, runway capacity during Low Visibility Conditions can be increased
ILS restrictions are valid during low visibility conditions. Fortunately these conditions only occur during a low number of days annually.
Severity of associated BP 4 However when it occurs the capacity (especially arrival) is reduced dramatically. The size of the sensitive area is one of the items to blame
Changes to the ILS system or even other navigations systems takes a long time to be implemented (internationally accepted and prove of safe
Time To implement 1-2 operations)
Ease of implementation 1-2 See above
Potential impact on If the influence of reflections or disturbance of the ILS signal can be reduced additional landing as well as take off and taxiway capacity can be
Blocking point 4 achieved
environmental impact 4 Less holding in the air and on the ground. Fewer diversions to alternate airports. Less fuel consumption ---> les air pollution
USERS 5 Lower fuel burn, less diversions, More capacity during LVP
expected value Airport 5 More capacity during LVP
per
stakeholder ANSP 5 Lower workload (less aircraft in stacks, fewer diversions, Less need for contingency operations
Industry 5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety No negative impact on safety 0
Operational Can increase runway capacity in CAT II/III by reducing ILS protection zones and thus arrival sequencing +
Environment Less holdings in CAT II/III +
TRL level: 2 Research and certification needed
Related initiatives:
The introduction of New Large Aircraft (like A380) does have impact on the ILS signal. The huge tail surface is a large reflection item. To prevent unacceptable
reflections / disturbance of to ILS signal (Due to the large metal object as an NLA is) the sensitive area needs to b enlarged. This has a negative effect on runway
capacity (landing aircraft is for a longer time period within the sensitive area) but also on taxiway capacity (certain taxiways ca not be used as they are now within the
sensitive area)
Possible solutions are
1. Special Operational procedures only when the A380 is arriving
Advantages
- Low investment cost
Disadvantage
- Only acceptable when a small number of A380 movements visit the airport
2. Change the taxiway infrastructure; enlarge distance between runway and taxiway
Advantage
- Not dependent on number of movements
Disadvantage
- Very high investment cost
- No solution for increased line-up times
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3 Changes to the ILS LLZ signal. Reduce / switch off clearance signal (use of RNAV to guide the aircraft for ILS interception), reduce angle of ILS LLZ signal
by increasing the number if arrays... Etc....
Advantage
- Acceptable investment cost
- reduced sensitive area (also for airports without A380 operations)
- reduced line up times and reduced in trail separations during LVP ---> increased capacity
Disadvantage
- Not proven (yet)
Study at Zurich Airport with an ILS LLZ antenna with increased arrays to reduce the width of the ILS signal
R-2.4
Datalink Application for Surface Movement Planning

An initiative from the German National Aviation Research Program (LUFO IV)
The aim of the project is to close the information gap between the ground and the cockpit. The project evaluates the usage of Datalink for the
transmission and display of operational planning data to the cockpit. This enables the pilot to see Target Times (Offblock, Take-Off) raising the OP-14, OP-15, OP-21, OP-22, OP-
awareness not only for the current traffic but also for the current planning. The pilot will be informed about his position in the queue and can thus 27
contribute himself to a planned surface traffic rather than a "first come first served" approach.
The concept is based on the availability of an SMAN (I-2.2) and OANS (R-3.1)
Severity of associated BP 4 Planning the taxi process is on missing part of the Gate-toGate concept
Research Project
Time To implement 1-2 Implementation of Taxi Display (OANS) or Electronic Flight Bag necessary to get full benefit.
Installation of onboard systems necessary. Change of procedures to support planning based traffic.
Ease of implementation 3 Certification needed.
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 Closing information gap between ground an cockpit
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

USERS 4 Contributes to better slot adherence
expected value Airport 4 Higher predictability, reduces frequency congestion
per
stakeholder ANSP 4 Contributes to better pre-departure sequencing
Industry 4
Safety No impact on safety 0
Reduces taxi delays and Increases predictability of taxi times.
Operational
Increases runway capacity by off-block management and subsequent pre-departure sequencing (DMAN) ++
TRL level: 2 research but partially validated
Related initiatives: A-SMGCS Level I and II, SMAN, EAPPRI, EMMA
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3 Avionics
R-3.1
A04: Airport Navigation (Onboard Airport Navigation System)

The OANS provides improved airport navigation function to the flight crew through a display showing the airport map and current aircraft position.
Airport Navigation is a complementary means that will be used to assess aircraft position on the airport. It is not a guidance system. Displayed
information must be correlated by the pilot with outside world. No change in current taxi procedures. Benefits:
primary: OP-28, OP-29
- Improved situational awareness in the cockpit (OP-28)
secondary: OP-7, ENV-4
- measure against runway incursion (OP-29)
- less events of wrong taxiing (OP-7, ENV-4)
increased capacity - less pollution
Increased awareness of the situation for crews, with all related aspects: safety, smooth operations ….The runway incursions are one of the
Severity of associated BP 5 main problems on big airport with a lot of traffic. It is emphasized in case of bad met conditions, with an heavy traffic.
Very easy for new aircraft as they are already provisioned with such devices. Much more longer for old aircraft. Quick training for pilots, very
Time To implement 4 user friendly. Only 30% of aircraft could be equipped very fast. For the others, retrofit is more costly and timely.
See above. The main problem is to set up the ground services to check up and to update the airport data-base, in a coherent way with the flight
Ease of implementation 4 documentation.
Potential impact on The impact is very strong on runway incursions, for equipped aircraft. Less actions on other blocking points.
Blocking point 3
The best situation awareness for crews leads to a faster taxiing process with less hesitations, reducing the fuel consumption.
environmental impact 3
Safety is a major parameter, and in that respect, OANS is offering the best insurance against runway incursion.
USERS 4
expected value For airports, the system will help to optimise the present infrastructure.
per
Airport 5
ANSP will handle more reliable customers-aircraft, this will help to decrease workload.
stakeholder ANSP 5
Industry 4 Systems sell and airport database maintenance, which insures regular incomes from the industry.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety This is the major point for OANS. But all aircraft won’t be equipped in the next months…. +
Operational Secondary order regarding operations gains. 0
Environment This is also a small contribution to fuel consumption reduction. 0
R-3.2
A07 : Area Navigation/ Required Navigation Performance (Rnav/Rnp)

BRNAV Basic area navigation, PRNAV Precision Area Navigation compliance, RNP 0.3 in approach capable, barometric VNAV Vertical
navigation
Planned evolutions:
- short term: RNP<0.3 (exercise in New Zealand completed in 2005 for RNP 0.15 in approach, RNP0.1 in approach certification planned by 2007)
- medium to long term: vertical RNP; concept: SID/STAR defined with margins for obstacle and aircraft separation + FMS vertical profile
fluctuation depending on wind and optimized fuel -> need for 3D RNP corridors initially based on barometric VRNP to reduce margins and
fluctuation
Benefits ENV-2
- air traffic safety and capacity improvement
- improved airport access
Maturity of planned evolutions:
- FAA performance-based approach concept based on RNP
- vertical aspects of RNP and compatibility with other concepts to be addressed
Expectation from SESAR:
Performance based navigation concept and role of lower value of RNP, VRNP and 4D RNP for ATM in Europe
Severity of associated BP 4
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Time To implement 4
Ease of implementation 4
Potential impact on
Blocking point 3
USERS
expected value Airport
per
stakeholder ANSP
Industry 4 Product improvement adding value for customer
The safety of an RNAV route or procedure is achieved through a combined use of aircraft navigation accuracy; air traffic radar monitoring and
Safety
communications; and route separation ++
Operational Decreased taxi times, decrease departures delays, improves better slot coordination departures, improved flight profiles, reduce flight distances ++
Environment less noise impact, less fuel consumption , less gasses emissions ++
R-3.3
A14: CASCADE - Cooperative ATS Through Surveillance & Communications Applications Deployed In ECAC

Controller pilot data link communications (CPDLC) and downlinking aircraft derived data are being implemented by the LINK 2000+ and Mode S OPS-26 lack or bad quality of
Enhanced Surveillance programmes. CASCADE (Co-operative ATS through Surveillance and Communication Applications Deployed in ECAC) surveillance
will exploit in more detail the huge potential of air ground data links. The CASCADE programme addresses the next generation of data link OPS-27 congestion of ground voice
applications and services to improve further the air traffic control sector productivity. com frequencies
The objective of the CASCADE programme is to plan and co-ordinate the implementation of the first set of ADS-B (1) applications and additional OPS-29 insufficient Runway
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
CPDLC (2) and D-FIS(3) services in the 2008-2011 timeframe within the ECAC area. CASCADE’s ADS-B applications provide quality surveillance Incursion prevention measures
at a low cost and situational awareness in the cockpit. CASCADE’s CPDLC and D-FIS services provide timely, clear, readable messages in an OPS-30 lack of compliancy with
unintrusive manner to pilots and controllers, reducing their communication workload. This initiative presents potential external interoperability issues ICAO provisions
(advantages and/or concerns), which should be taken into consideration.
Time To implement 3
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
USERS
per
stakeholder ANSP
Industry
Safety Reduce communications will improve safety, and avoid level bust +
Operational less work load on the cockpit +
Environment CASCADE facilitates shorter routes flying in areas where there was no surveillance before (ADS-B in a non-radar environment). (Evaluated by 3.2.1) +
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-3.4
A33: FMS (Flight Management System) Improved Utilisation of FMS functionalities

Short term FMS improvements proposed by Airbus.
New performance-based operations, e.g. capacity to fly:
- predefined trajectories with demonstrated levels of performance (lateral, vertical), Noise Abatement Profiles, Continuous Descent Approaches
OP-2 poor prediction of arrival time
(CDA)
OP-4 limited RWY capacity
- trajectories with all flight phases single Required Time of Arrival (RTA) and a required accuracy
ENV-2 local community noise
- Tailored arrival, 4D trajectory management incl. trajectory downlink
ENV-4 air pollution in holdings
Benefits:
- air traffic safety and capacity improvement, noise and fuel consumption reduction
Related activities:: OPTIMAL, C-ATM Episode 3, Tailored Arrival projects
Severity of associated BP 5 Airports are identified as the main ATM bottle-neck. The most valuable airport resource, the runway, has to be used more efficiently
Time To implement 3
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
USERS
per
stakeholder ANSP 4
Industry 4 Product improvement
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Will permit the use of 4D- trajectories
Safety
Improvement ATM and Aircraft navigation system ++
Operational reducing workload for the crew and controllers ++
Environment less distance to flight reducing noise and emissions ++
R-3.5
A35: GNSS Landing System (GLS)

Precision approach capability using Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) / Differential GPS (DGPS) technology. The GBAS ground station
uplinks approach waypoint data. Benefits:
- One ground station will serve multiple runway ends and could provide service to adjacent airports
- Elimination of ILS obstacle free zones (OP-23)
- Increased runway capacity
- Facilitator for curved approaches and noise abatement procedures (ENV-2)
- Improved positioning for ASMGS, ADS-B etc (incl. for ground vehicles)
OP-23, ENV-2, LEG-2
- GBAS is more robust from storm damage and does not require snow clearance as for ILS
- Reduced requirements for flight inspection of Ground Equipment
- Potentially lower installation and maintenance costs
DFS, Airbus, Rockwell-Collins, Eurocontrol and a German Carrier are joining to prepare for flight trials in Bremen. The goal of these trials is to
achieve GLS Operational Approval from the LBA (German Authority). Whereas on the airborne side the GLS equipment is certified as of 2006/07
onwards, the ground station certification process is not yet as mature (mid 2008 at the earliest). First step is Cat I approach (achievable at short term)
with Cat III being the final target. See also OPTIMAL initiative.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Severity of associated BP
Time To implement 2
Potential impact on
Blocking point 3
USERS
expected value Airport 5
per
stakeholder ANSP 4
Industry 4
Safety improve in a more precision data in the approach and landing phase ++
Operational independency of the ground radio signal, and better spacing of the aircraft ++
Environment lees flight time and less emissions to the air +
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-3.6
A37: Head Up Display/Enhanced Vision System (HUV/EVS)

Head Up Display (HUD) is currently under certification for all Airbus production aircraft. First availability will be from 2007. Enhanced Vision
Systems are under study.
Benefits:
Major benefits for the HUD are seen as improvement in manual flight control during take off and landing phases, no head down - head up transitions,
better situational awareness. The HUD will be a platform for future technologies such as display of EVS, SVS or surface guidance cues.
In Europe proposed regulations covering the use of the HUD (NPA-041) have been published. For landing these give similar credits for the HUD as
for Automatic Landing Systems. The main proposed benefits are: OP-7 Reduction of capacity in bad
- reduction of RVR to 400 m for CAT I operations weather operation
- allowed to perform CAT II operations on a runways without touch down zone or centre line lighting (DH 100ft RVR 350m)
- allow manually flown CAT IIIA approach
Since these credits apply equally to aircraft equipped with autoland they will benefit mainly turboprop and commuter aircraft not fitted with autoland.
For the EVS the major benefits are again seen as improvement in safety. Operational benefits are also covered in NPA-041. This will allow a CAT I
approach to be continued lower than the normal DH of 200ft down to 100ft. Visual contact with the ground must be established without the use of
EVS by 100ft.
Severity of associated BP
Time To implement 3
Potential impact on
Blocking point 3
expected value USERS
per
stakeholder Airport
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
ANSP
Industry 4 Product improvement in line with customer expectation
Safety Improve the runway incursion situation, and the of collision when taxiing
Operational all weather operations, optimization of runway occupancy / taxi time, visibility, awareness
Environment No impact on environment
R-3.7
A49: NUP II - Nean Update Programme Phase 2

The NUP II project shall establish an European ADS-B network based on global standards supporting certified applications and equipment in
synergy with the European ATM concepts providing benefits to ATM stakeholders. The network includes both the air and ground components in OPS-26, OPS-27, OPS-29, OP-30
various forms including integration into ATC systems components and aircraft architecture.
Time To implement 3
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
per
stakeholder Airport
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
ANSP
Industry
Safety Great benefits to safety at the conclusion of the program ++
Operational Improve Aircraft Operations (AO) ,Airport Operations, and (APO) Separation Assurance (SA) ++
Environment less fuel consumption as consequent of better management of the air space, and airports +
The NUP Phase II project is based on the TEN-T research project called North European ADS-B Network or NEAN, conducted between 1995 and 1998 the NEAN
Update Program was launched in 1999. Whilst NEAN was looking at understanding the potential benefits and assessing the supporting technologies and operational
procedures of ADS-B, the NUP Project was targeting an operational introduction. The project was and is based on a European technological invention, which has been
transformed into a global ICAO standard. NEAN provided the partners as well as the European community with early evidence that ADS-B is feasible and can be used
for ATM from gate to gate. For practical reasons the NUP project was divided in two phases, I and II. The first phase mainly devoted to defining the basis for an
operational system and developing specifications and equipment as well as preparing the necessary certification and regulatory frameworks in Europe. The second
phase will continue the operational and technical developments as well as validating the applications in the context of European ATM development. This will be done
both by practical trials, simulations and analysis. Eurocontrol has identified that ADS-B is a main contributor in 30% of the most promising improvement areas for
increased ATM capacity in Europe.
Cluster A:
Validation and eventually implementing ADS-B in
non-radar environment(s).
Cluster B:
Use of ADS-B for helicopter off-shore operations.
Cluster C:
Continuation of the Surface Enhanced Visual Acquisitions
and A-SMGCS application being looked at in phase I.
Cluster D:
ADS-B for air-to-air applications such as station keeping,
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
enhanced visual acquisition etc..

Cluster E:
ATC Integration: transmission of airborne derived data
(ADD) and investigation of impact on ground based functions.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
4 Runway Capacity
R-4.1
A05: AMAN/DMAN
Arrival Manager and Departure Manager
AMAN/DMAN is a Decision Support Tool (DST) that will provide the controller with information for an optimized sequence for arrival and
departure runways. AMAN will provide an optimal arrival sequence within the rules constraining the separation of arriving aircraft. D-MAN is the
OP-1, OP-2, OP-4, OP-9, OP-13,
provision for an optimized departure sequence that adheres to the separation rules associated with wake vortex, speed differentials and route
OP-14, OP-15, OP-16, OP-22,
interactions between adjacent departing aircraft. Both provides for a full observation of the rules and thus will improve safety.
OP-25, OP-36, OP-38, ENV-1,
At many locations throughout Europe AMAN / DMAN development and implementation initiatives take place. Focus for AMAN / DMAN
ENV-2, ENV-4, ORG-1, ORG-2
implementation should be on the standardization of interface with the users. Interoperability within Europe is a MUST and interoperability with
AMAN / DMAN systems is strongly advised.
Airport capacity is identified as one of the major bottle necks in the ATM capacity chain. ATFM delays at airports are increasing and the need
Severity of associated BP 4 to enhance airside capacity is clear.
A more efficient use of the main and most important airport resource, the runway, can solve / relieve a important / major blocker.
Validation tests and implementation plans are running at several European airports. A first operational AMAN/DMAN tool was installed at
Time To implement 3 Zurich airport in 2002. Implementation time can vary significantly between airports. The rating 3 must be seen as a average of several local
practices
Training, change of procedures, possible high infra cost (additional holdings) and possible large disadvantages on environment (air pollution)
Potential impact on Blocking points related to runway capacity and delay could be improved significantly. Level of improvement will differ from airport to airport
Blocking point 4
Reduction of fuel consumption (less air pollution) due to harmonized arrival % departure flow. Environmental advantages could be lost due to
environmental impact 4 larger queues at holding. However environmental benefits could be achieved if AMAN/DMAN is implemented in combination with an SMAN
(surface management) to optimize / reduce taxi and holding times.
expected value If not used for capacity increase advantage will be less delays and less fuel consumption
per USERS 5 If used for capacity increase advantage is more flights (market share). In both cases AMAN / DMAN, in combination with a surface
stakeholder management system (SMAN, A-SMGCS) will increase predictability and on time performance of flights.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
If not used for capacity increase advantage will be less delays and less fuel consumption
If used for capacity increase advantage is more flights (market share). In both cases AMAN / DMAN, in combination with stand/gate
Airport 5 management system and a surface management system (SGMAN, SMAN, A-SMGCS) will increase predictability and on time performance of
flights.
If not used for capacity increase advantage will be less delays and less fuel consumption
ANSP 5 If used for capacity increase advantage is more flights (market share). In both cases AMAN / DMAN, in combination with a surface
management system (SMAN, A-SMGCS) will increase predictability and on time performance of flights.
Industry 5 System / technological development
Safety No negative effect on safety. An AMAN/DMAN could however reduce the risk with respect to wake vortex encounters 0/+
A more efficient arrival and/or departure flow will reduce Air and Ground delays as landing and departure intervals will be optimized within fixed separation
Capacity criteria. Reduction of intervals will increase runway movement rate 1 to 4 movements an hour. This is however strongly dependent on local circumstances ++
(runway lay-out; are there sufficient exits as well as entries?) and the actual fleet mix.
A reduction is fuel consumption (translates in less air pollution) will be achieved due to the due to harmonized of especially the arrival stream (AMAN) but
Environment also the departure stream (DMAN). More environmental benefits could be achieved if AMAN/DMAN is implemented in combination with an SMAN +
(surface management) to optimize / reduce taxi and holding times.
Rating in template is for the ‘simple’ AMAN / DMAN concept as in use / trial at several European airports
TRL level: 4 For simple versions of AMAN / DMAN
2 For more expended versions that have a connection / input from surface management systems like SMAN
and A-SMGCS applications
Related initiatives: CDM, SMAN, A-SMGCS, LEONARDO, MAESTRO, DARTS
Linked to G2G concept, Planned Spacing Tool,
AMAN/DMAN systems are in operation or in trial at several airports within Europe (Zurich, Frankfurt, Vienna, Paris-CDG and Munich). However these applications
can be better classified as “simplified” version as it does not take into account the sequencing possibilities and necessities during earlier phases of the arrival (en route)
and departure (start-up and taxi) process. Development of especially the later is related to future implementation of Surface movement detection and guidance and
control management systems like A-SMGCS and SMAN. With these further enhancements of AMAN/DMAN additional benefits (especially on the reduction fuel
consumption --> better environment) will be gained. Due to the relation with other developments (surveillance, guidance techniques) implementation time will be
much more dependent on the result of academic research than on practical development
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
The enhanced DMAN concept will provides support to a planning process accomplished before the aircraft goes off-blocks. The DMAN supports the controller in
bringing together constraints and preferences on departure planning. The aim is to satisfy users’ preferences and to reach punctuality. Optimization depends on how to
find an optimum and how to express the appreciation of a sub-optimal solution for a constrained departure sequence. This is realized by the DMAN tool that uses
preference functions for each preference aspect of each flight, and this allows the user to monitor the decision making and to analyze the critical factors that contribute
to the outcome of the sequencing process. On-line monitoring facilities will support the required transparency of this process. The enhanced AMAN concept,
calculates times for aircraft to arrive at designated fixes and in particular at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF). In the process of calculating sequences, AMAN also
calculates what time to lose (TTL) may be required and this information can be displayed in one or more concerned sectors.
Local Best Practices: Frankfurt

DMAN: While DFS is already operating an AMAN tool called “4D-Planer” in Frankfurt, FRAPORT (the Airport Operator) is currently pushing together with DFS
and Lufthansa for an Implementation of DMAN in Frankfurt. The tool is developed by the same manufacturer as the darts system in Zurich and the implementation is
planned for March 2007. Requirements in the local DMAN are taken into account operational aspects e.g. de-icing-procedures, stand & gate management, ATC-slots,
MDI, separation criteria, return to stand, remote holding and updates about status of ground handling. The system also contains an interface to an A-SMGCS (in FRA:
TACSYS/CAPTS) to check taxiing process with the planned takeoff sequence and acting as a first stage of an SMAN tool. DMAN is build-up modular to be prepared
for further developments like coupling AMAN/DMAN/SMAN.
CAPMAN - Runway Capacity Management Tool (State funded Research Project LUFO III). Runway Capacity Manager to optimize the usage of runways as a
function of the incoming an outgoing traffic (output of AMAN / SMAN /DMAN). Features; prediction of disruption effects (severe weather) as well as pre-operational
planning scenarios to adjust planned runway capacity. The first stage of the tool will become operational in the second half of 2007.
Local Best Practices: Munich

At Munich Airport a DMAN has been introduced. The COB procedure (Confirmed Off Block time) uses a sequence planning tool to optimize departures sequences
while reducing delay (holding near departure runway). The system/procedure was introduced in November 2002 and all relevant users (airlines, ANSP, Airport as well
as ground handlers and General Aviation) participate. Participations is mandatory so new entrants, be it airlines, ground handlers or General aviation firms/flights must
comply with the procedure. The COB procedure was developed based on the following drivers:
- Define a fixed start-up sequence,
- reduce holding times near departure runway,
- preplanning and management of departure runway capacity for ANSP,
- reduce engine runtimes (fuel burn - air quality),
- higher accuracy of planning and handling process for all stakeholders
- better usage of resources (gate / stand management)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
- SLOT accuracy
During the last years the COB procedure has developed into a fully implemented Airport CDM-system. It has been on-line with CFMU since July 2006
Local Best Practices: Zurich

Since 2003 Zurich Airport has an AMAN/DMAN system in operation. The system DARTS is a joint development of DFS (Deutsche Flug Sicherung) and Delair Air
Traffic Systems Gmbh. The main drivers for implementing DARTS were:
- Optimization of arrival sequence,
- Better calculation of (individual) landing times,
- efficient handover from APP to TWR,
- determination of optimal departure runway as well as departure sequence
- determination of optimal start-up and pushback time,
- better predictability of turn-around process for all stakeholders,
- higher accuracy of daily planning for all stakeholders,
- higher runway capacity,
Implementation at Zurich took about 5 years as a lot of research and fine tuning had to take place. It is expected that future installations at other airports will take less
time (estimated; 2 years) as experience from the “pioneers” can be used.
Local Best Practices: Madrid (AENA)

AENA is currently carrying out the implementation of the AMAN tool at Madrid airport. Prototypes were already tested with SACTA (Spanish Automated Air Traffic
Control System) within the Leonardo project. Work in progress includes the development of the runway allocation function according to the arrival/departure
procedure. This phase will end by September 2006, when operational. Next development phase is the implementation of the arrival sequencing function, expecting be
finish by January 2007. Advanced AMAN is expected by 2008
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-4.2
A11: Brake To Vacate (BTV)
Avionic enabler
Landing aircraft can make optimal use of existing exits (RETS or other) by adapting their braking techniques. During blue sky situations the pilot can
adapt its braking as he can see the exit from quite a distance. During low visibility conditions this will become more difficult and longer ROTs will OP-3, OP-4, OP-5, OP-6,
occur. Assisting the pilot in optimal braking techniques will result in lower ROTs (especially during reduced visibility conditions) and thus OP-7, OP-28,
increasing capacity. The BTV initiative is lead by Airbus. It is the development of an onboard tool (avionics) that controls the deceleration of the ENV-3, ENV-4
aircraft to a fixed speed (10 kt) at the selected exit..
Airport capacity is identified as one of the major bottlenecks in the ATM capacity chain. ATFM delays at airports are increasing and the need to
Severity of associated BP 4 enhance airside capacity is clear.
A more efficient use of the main and most important airport resource, the runway, can solve / relieve an important / major blocker.
As this initiative implies systems (software update) in the aircraft, implementation in such a way that the expected benefits can be used to its full
extends strongly depends on the number of aircraft that can and will make use of it. Full advantage can only be achieved if the ROT is
Time To implement 2 predictable for ATC. Otherwise they cannot reduce landing intervals without a potential increase of go-arounds.
Needs a substantial level of fit before it would benefit the airports and its users in a significant scale.
System / technology has been developed and tested. Will be implemented as option within new aircraft next years. For existing aircraft an
Ease of implementation 5 upgrade will be needed. No real implementation issues other than usual certification process (certification for Airbus in 2007 and 2008).
BTV reduces the variation in runway occupancy time and will be a facilitator for High Intensity Runway Operations.
Potential impact on 4 Increase in arrival capacity due to more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Advantage can be in the range from 1 to maybe 3 or 4 move/hour,
Blocking point dependent on local conditions (lay-out of runway exits).
Reduction in number of go-arounds. Better / efficient and probably less use of reverse thrust will be beneficial to the reduction of air pollution
Increased runway capacity. Fewer go-arounds. Less brake and tire wear expected. Less missed exit events. Increased passenger comfort.
USERS 3 Benefit for airlines also depends on airport/ANSPs willingness to honour shorter RWY occupancy times (performance based services).
expected value Increased runway capacity. Better use of existing facilities, fewer go-arounds
per
Airport 4
Increased runway capacity. Better use of existing facilities, fewer go-arounds
stakeholder ANSP 4
Product improvement
Industry 5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety Increased Safety due to reduction in number of go-arounds +
Better / efficient deceleration during landing roll-out. Less brake and tire wear expected.
Capacity
Potential increase on landing capacity or reduction in arrival delay only possible if Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) will significantly be reduced. +
Environment Probably less use of Reverse Thrust. Will reduce fuel consumption (reduction of Air Pollution) as well as a reduction of noise +
TRL level: 3 validations for some aircraft types (manufacturer dependent)
4 Commercialization currently on Airbus only.
Related initiatives: ACE initiatives, reduction of ROT, Balanced location and design of RETs
Braking procedure Changes
The Brake to Vacate (BTV) initiative is lead by Airbus and comprises a joint study with DSNA, Air France and ADP for ATM impact of BTV.
BTV brings improvements in the short term with availability on A380 at EIS and on A320 family and A330/A340 by the end of 2008. Retrofit solution is available.
The objective of this initiative is to contribute to the increase of runway capacity through pilot's selection of the BTV braking mode at landing. This mode allows
- to guarantee to vacate at the assigned exit
- to optimize breaking for minimum runway occupancy time
- to predict the expected runway occupancy time
Brake to Vacate passes control of braking to the aircraft. It should enable optimum braking profiles constrained by differing threshold weights, ground speeds and
weather conditions. Exit design is not harmonized with exit radii, stopping distances available after the turn and surface friction varying between airports. The goal of
a smooth (and automated braking to) exit speed with minimum runway occupancy with exit speed at either the ICAO recommended side load for passengers comfort
(0,1g) or less to come to an early stop can therefore be difficult.
Implementation on Airbus aircraft is foreseen on the A380 at EIS, on A320 family and A330/A340 as of 2008 onwards. Retrofit solution is provided by manufacturer.
For other manufacturers no information is available.
However a large part of the benefits can also be achieved by adaptation of braking procedures. Therefore Brake to Vacate be it an interesting initiative for the avionics
part, will be better classified as a second term initiative within the SESAR project. Implementation will depend on the cost models used by the operators not on
European regulations / initiatives.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-4.3
A51: Optimized Procedures and Techniques for Improvement of Approach and Landing (Optimal)
Optimal is a project / program that encourages the development of Approach Procedures for aircraft and define new/enhanced operational procedures
for approach and landing for aircraft and rotorcraft in order to increase capacity, efficiency, and safety, and decrease noise exposure, using advanced
navigation functions and enhanced ATM; assess, in full-scale/real-size, the near-term approach and landing procedures and functions (airborne and
on ground); and study and experiment longer term functions (airborne and on ground).
Optimizing approach and landing techniques could have a positive effect on noise, but mostly for communities at some distance from the airport. The
final approach segment will hardly change. For airlines an advantage will be in reduction of fuel burn as flight path (and required engine / power
setting) can be optimized on this aspect. A CDA approach can be placed in this content.
For a single flight these techniques are in fact readily available and implementation for approaches to low used airports / runways will in fact be no
problem. At certain airports (for example Amsterdam) CDA approaches are already in use during night time when traffic volume is low.
For airports where traffic volume is large and the runway is already operated at maximum capacity, flight path optimization for fuel burn reduction
will almost certainly result in reduction of capacity. Thos is of course dependent on the local situation
Related initiatives Rnav/Rnp, FMS, GNSS, Tailored Arrival, CDM ,CDA approaches
As Optimal is can be seen as covering project/ program where many other initiatives come together, it is decided not to evaluate / rate the Optimal project / program as
a separate initiative
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-4.4
A54: Planned Spacing Tool
The aim of the Planned Spacing Tool is to provide controller (Airport and TC Approach) assistance in planning and optimizing the delivered
spacing between aircraft on final approach. The Planned Spacing Tool is also required to facilitate improved co-ordination between Tower and OP-2, OP-3, OP-4, OP-8, OP-9,
Approach operations, and to enable the introduction of more advanced spacing polices such as time-based separations for arrivals that will provide ENV-3
improved landing rate resilience, reduce delays, and optimize runway capacity.
Airport capacity is identified as one of the major bottle necks in the ATM capacity chain. ATFM delays at airports are increasing and the need to
Design and implementing new tools for ATC needs several years for validation and certification / commissioning. However trials (real time
Time To implement 3 simulations) in UK have already taken place and other locations / ANSPs could take advantage of this development.
(Extensive) training of controllers is required before actual operation of new tools. Currently implementation and training within UK has been
Ease of implementation 4 held up due to budgetary priorities within NATS.
More optimal arrival intervals will increase the efficient use of existing / available runway capacity. Increase in arrival capacity is dependent on
Potential impact on local circumstances and can differ from airport to airport. Advantage is probably between 1 to 4 movements an hour, where the lower range is
Blocking point 4 probably valid for the larger busy (and already congested) airports
Maintain safety while increasing capacity
No large environmental impact. However due to less delays (holding in the Air) as well as a fewer go-arounds a reduction in Air pollution per
environmental impact 3 aircraft movement can be expected
Additional capacity
USERS 5
expected value Additional capacity
per
Airport 5 Better / efficient use of existing infrastructure
Additional capacity, less go-arounds, better performance
stakeholder ANSP 5
System and technology development
Industry 5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety Increased Safety due to reduction in number of go-around +
More accurate arrival spacing / intervals will reduce the deviation on these spacing / intervals resulting in more efficient use of existing
Capacity infrastructure and a reduction of Air delays. Less deviation on spacing / intervals could increase the runway landing rate with 1 to 4 arrivals ++
hour. This is however strongly dependent on local circumstances (runway lay-out; are there sufficient exits?) and the actual fleet mix.
Environment Reduction in fuel consumption due to less delay (holding in air) and a reduction in the number of go-around. +
TRL level: 2 Concept definitions for many locations/airports/ANSPs
3 Cost benefit, Evaluation, Validation, Safety Case in case of NATS (UK)
Related with Initiatives: AMAN / DMAN initiatives, Time based separation
The planned spacing tool was developed by NATS to improve the human machine interface of earlier tools. This tool presents the controller with a moving target,
representing the required position of the aircraft. The controller’s role is to direct the aircraft onto the target. In an approach stream the separations for the targets are
calculated with reference to the current rules for wake vortex separation. The tool has the potential for future capacity enhancement because the underlying algorithm
can be enhanced to accommodate more wake vortex categories or time based separation without changing the role of the controller; i.e. to guide the aircraft onto the
target irrespective of the underlying separation rules
Progress
The tool has been developed within NATS in close collaboration with NATS operational controllers, and has been prototyped and subject to real time simulations for
both Gatwick single runway mixed mode operations and Heathrow dual runway segregated mode operations.
The Planned Spacing Tool includes:
- Support for tactical delivery of the arrivals onto the glide slope to the planned spacing in the form of Planned Spacing Indicators
- Support for the delivery of the arrivals into the RMA in the form of a sequence display on the radar display with an indication of the planned spacing
required between each arrival pair
- Support for the approach co-ordination activities with Tower Operations around the arrivals/departures interleaving policy and changes to the
arrivals/departures interleaving policy
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
- Support for the approach co-ordination activities with Tower Operations around minimum spacing requirements for packed arrival pairs, the spacing
requirements for gapped arrival pairs, and changes to the spacing requirements
- Support for the automatic dissemination of the arrivals/departures interleaving policy, the spacing policy, and the planned spacing required between arrivals
pairs
Validation Results
The results of the real time simulations have indicated that the use of the tool will successfully support current operations, and the spacing delivered through the use of
the tool matches the ability of the controllers to deliver (the accurate) spacing against current operational practice. This indicates that the tool can successfully support
advanced spacing. The tool has been designed to support paper based operations, and trials have indicated that there is a minor increase in workload to the controllers
in maintaining the system spacing and sequence information.
R-4.5
A58: Tailored Arrival
The “Tailored Arrival” study / project focuses on optimized descent and arrival flight paths / profiles in which fuel consumption and predictability of
landing time are the main drivers. The concept is based on the downlink to the ANSP of actual aircraft information (like weight, speed, weather etc)
and the uplink of a cleared route (descent profile) calculated by the ANSP.
Primary OP-4, ENV-2, ENV-3
This procedure is a kind of CDA (Continuous Decent Approach) in which descent is made mostly on idle power. The objective is to minimize fuel
Related OP-2, (OP-27)
consumption (operating cost) as well as noise production.
In an operating environment with low traffic volume these optimized approaches can easily be made (as already been done at several airports
worldwide, especially during night time) but in case of high traffic volume the concept has still to be proven.
Environmental restrictions are a significant/major blocker for many airports.
The concept of optimized flight paths is still in development. It has been proven and can most probably be used at low density airports / areas
Time To implement 1 within a short time frame. A wide implementation of the concept / technique at high traffic volume airports / airspace has still to be developed
and will most probably take more than 5 years.
See above. Prove of concept for high volume airports and airspace not finished. Phased implementation
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
If applicable at high traffic volume airports and airspace, significant reduction in operating cost (fuel burn) and delays. Advantages can still be
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 reached in near term at pioneer airports when in the start-up phase Tailored Arrivals are introduced at low density airports / areas or during low
traffic hours
Reduction of fuel consumption is main environmental benefit --> less air pollution.
environmental impact 4 Idle descent (CDA) could also result in less noise be it that the advantage of the noise reduction can only be found at some distance from the
airport
Less fuel burn, reduction in operating cost
USERS 5
expected value Better environment --> positive on image
per
Airport 4
Less workload
stakeholder ANSP 3
Enabler for the development of systems and techniques (CDA approaches)
Industry 5
For the single flight it self no change in safety will take place, however the safety case for the use of optimised approach and landing procedures like CDA in
Safety
a busy/congested and complex airspace environment (i.e. multiple landing runways in use) must still be made. -/0
Efficiency of the approach and landing phases of a single flight will increase (less fuel burn) however it is still questionable if capacity levels could be
Capacity maintained if these optimised procedures and techniques would be mandatory for all flights within a busy and congested complex airspace. In those cases -/0
capacity could even be reduced.
Optimized Procedures and Techniques for Improvement of Approach and Landing will have a positive effect on fuel burn (less Air Pollution) and noise. For
Environment noise however these benefits will mostly be encountered at some distance from the airport where in normal situation horizontal flight paths are flown for +
(ILS) glide path interception.
TRL level: 1 Blue sky research for some parts of tailored arrival
2 Concept definition for CDA implementation at busy airports / airspaces
Related initiatives: Optimal, Rnav/Rnp, FMS, CDA approaches, GNSS landing system, CASCADE
From 221 D1
Joint activity Boeing/Australia/ATA with concept & trials in 2004/5, prototyping & trials in 2006/7
Use of existing aircraft FANS 1/A functions:
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
- ground generated clearance prior to Top of Descent (adjusted 2D path + altitude/speed) based upon initial aircraft proposal (FMS 2D path + altitude/speed)
to meet a Target Time adjusted on IAF (with spacing via speed instruction);
- Voice or data link, en route descent advisor (FMS replication with current wind/temperature at cruising level, gross weight/speed envelop at TOD).
Pros & Cons
- optimization of sequencing and spacing at arrival, compatible with 4D trajectory / target time management in C-ATM
- data bases not consistent, speed/Mach transition issues
Local Best Practice: BAA (London)

At London Heathrow CDA are in operation covering the flight segment after exit from holding. Between Aug 2000 and Dec 2004 the three month rolling average
figures for non-CDA approach dropped from 20% to approximately 8%. This has a significant effect on environmental issues, especially air pollution as the use of
CDAs will reduce fuel burn. At the 2005 Heathrow Flight Operations Performance Committee Pilot Seminar an induction of differences in fuel burn between a typical
(“normal”) and ideal descent profiles was given by the Captain Tim Steeds, (then Head of Quality and Regulations - Flight Operations, British Airways). The typical
descent profile includes level sections at FL200, FL150 and at FL80 in the hold. For a typical LAX-LHR arrival, the ideal descent (CDA) of a B747-400 from 350FL
would burn 1217 kg, generating 3847kg of CO2. A typical descent burns 1715kg (+41%) with an associated 5412kg of CO2 (+41%).
Local Best Practice: Australian Tailored Arrival (TA)

Phase 1: Flown Apr - Sep-04 in non-congested conditions. Airservices Australia, Qantas, Boeing, Air Traffic Alliance
2 747 SYD-SIN, 2 A330 Perth-MEL, ~80 flights. TA = adoption of an idle thrust descent using the current capabilities of existing aircraft flight
management computers to provide enhanced and more predictable ATM arrivals
TA concept
• meet a computed time at an entry fix (then seamless transition to STAR)
• arrival clearance with TOD, speed and time at each WPTs is "tailored“ to
- The specific aircraft’s optimal descent trajectory based on down linked parameters (weight at TOD, temp, wind, …)
- Current winds and temperatures at various levels
- Current traffic and necessary speed, altitude and routing constraints
• arrival clearance contains also alternate arrival routes for ATC flexibility
• uplink of tailored descent path through FANS A data link before TOD
• FMS uses uplinked clearance to predict arrival time
• no voice COM
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
First results from phase 1: 181 to 363 kg fuel savings per flight (~100 k$/year/plane)
Phase 2: Development of a TA prototype clearance generator
Phase 3: - Multiple-aircraft arrival capabilities, mixed fleet (FANS or not)
- Integration of TA with tactical flow and metering systems
- Enhancement of controller tools (critical path)
Local Best Practice: Idle Thrust CDA Noise Abatement Procedure (UPS)
Noise abatement procedures working group ( MIT, Boeing, FAA, NASA, Louisville Airport, UPS)
• decent path till touchdown laterally fixed and permanently stored in FMS
• ATCO calculates TOD taking into account a/c data and wind at different altitudes
• clearance through voice COM
• FMS manages flight path, speed, altitude, rate of descent, waypoint passage and runway approach times
Sep-04, 125 CDAs, results for below 3000 ft:

767 757
Carbon monoxide CO - 12.7 % - 20.1 %
Hydrocarbons - 11.0 % - 25.1 %
NOx - 34.3 % - 34.3 %
Fuel - 165 kg - 54 kg
Descent procedure time - 147 s - 118 s
Noise up to - 6dB
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-4.6
CREDOS: Crosswind Reduced Departure Separations
Study and validation of a concept of operations allowing reduced Wake Vortex (WV) separations between departures under suitable crosswind
conditions. Study will use collected meteorological and WV measurements to compute minimum required crosswind component to clear flight path.
The Concept it self is relatively simple. However It is not yet known what safety margins will be required to allow for the stochastic nature of WV OP8, OP25
behaviour.
CREDOS is a 3 year project leading to concept validation. Thereafter start-up of local implementation projects would be required.
Changing operational rules with respect to wake vortex and crosswind has a safety related aspect. It will therefore take a long time to obtain
Time To implement 1 sufficient information (measurements) to prove that the proposed operational rules (reduction of separation) can be justified
See above. Many data required. Obtaining approval from local and international authorities (ICAO) can be a long way to go.
Potential impact on CREDOS will lead to improvements in the predictability of WV risk in different weather conditions leading to the reduction and probable
Blocking point 4 removal of the BP under suitable conditions. Additional take-off capacity can be gained during extreme weather (wind) conditions
Less air pollution due to reduction in delay and holding near take-off runway during suitable weather (wind) conditions.
Increased departure rate during suitable weather conditions. More sustainable capacity during strong crosswind conditions. Improves safety by
USERS 5 providing awareness of the WV position.
Increased departure rate during suitable weather conditions. More sustainable capacity during strong crosswind conditions
per Increased departure rate during suitable weather conditions. More sustainable capacity during strong crosswind conditions. Improves safety by
stakeholder ANSP 5 providing awareness of the WV position.
Industry 3 Requires integration of meteorological data into traffic information.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Improves safety by providing Wake Vortex position awareness. Reduces the risk with respect to wake vortex encounters
Safety +
Due to predictability of Wake Vortex risk in different weather conditions (especially crosswind) an optimization of the take-off intervals can take place.
Under suitable weather conditions this will lead to reduced intervals with a positive effect on delays and runway departure rate. As this effect will not occur
Capacity
during more prevailing weather conditions (of course dependent on local circumstances) with head wind or low crosswind, the impact on declared capacity is 0/+
rather small or even non-existent.
Reduction in delay and holding near departure runway will reduce fuel burn (less Air pollution), however only during suitable weather conditions
Environment
(crosswind) +
TRL level: 1 Blue Sky research
Related initiatives Wakenet, ACE
Wake Vortex separations have a large effect on departure capacity. Studies have suggested that more than 50% of the time, these separations are not required because
of favourable meteorological conditions. At busy airports restricted take-off capacity can be a significant blocking point, especially during extreme weather conditions
which can have a high occurrence probability at specific airports.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.1
DTOP - Dual Threshold Operations with High Approach Landing System
(State funded Research Project LUFO III) (FRA
Arrival runway capacity is defined by the necessary wake-vortex separation between two aircraft following each other in the final approach. Behind
large (Heavy) aircraft a large separation (normally 4 to 6 nm) is required. Behind small this separation (normally 2.5 to 3 nm = radar separation) is
significantly smaller. Due to the actual mix of aircraft in the approach the average separation could well be above 4 nm. To increase arrival capacity
reducing the average separation to 3 or even 2.5 nm is worthwhile.
The HALS / DTOP use two approach paths to the same runway. The normal approach path to the threshold at the beginning of the runway is used by
the large / heavy aircraft. The second approach path, to the offset threshold further down the runway is used by small to medium aircraft. Installation OP-4, OP-8, ENV-2, ENV-3
of a second significantly displaced threshold on an arrival runway incl. a dedicated ILS. Related BP : OP-5
Using this displaced threshold a medium type aircraft will fly above the glide path of a preceding heavy on a closely spaced parallel flight path and
thus avoid its vortices.
Operating both thresholds simultaneously (DTOP) will provide an increase in arrival capacity while guaranteeing full operational flexibility with
regard to runway assignment.
HALS / DTOP is a project carried out at Frankfurt Airport
Besides large infrastructural changes (second threshold, Dual ILS GP antenna, Dual approach lights system etc), the development of appropriate
Time To implement 3 procedures are necessary as well as sufficient guidance and training. Implementations can therefore take some years. However a very large part
of this work has already been done at FRA and this experience can be used
Legal approval from the local aviation authorities can be a large obstacle. All major issues (operational, procedural, legal) has to be solved and
Ease of implementation 2 proved safe before commissioning.
Potential impact on If procedures are all approved the arrival capacity of the runway can increase significantly (appr. + 5 movements / hour dependent on fleet mix).
Blocking point 4 Initiative is however only useful at airports with a significant share of Heavy traffic
Although the final approach flight path for approximately half of the flights will be higher above noise sensitive areas (if existed in the approach)
environmental impact 3 the difference in noise level is not significant. Environmental benefit can be found in shorter holding times in air/stack. Less air pollution per
aircraft movement.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Less delay, less fuel consumption.

USERS 5 More arrival capacity
expected value Additional arrival capacity ---> more income
per
Airport 5
Additional runway capacity, Less aircraft in stack --> less workload for stack controller. Better ATC performance Development of new approach
stakeholder ANSP 5 procedures.
Industry 5
A positive effect on safety is expected due to the risk reduction with respect to wake vortex encounters; however increased risk due to confusion with respect
Safety
to the dual thresholds and approach lighting systems on the same runway is possible. 0/+
Reduction in average landing separation / interval reduce delays and increases runway landing rate. An additional increase runway arrival rate of 5
Capacity
movements an hour is expected, however this is strongly dependent on the actual fleet mix. Where there is only medium aircraft the advantage is negligible. ++
Environmental benefits could be found in reduction of Air delays and holding which results in less fuel burn (air Pollution).
Environment
Reduction in noise due to higher flight path is however negligible +
TRL level: 3 Safety case / Validation
Related initiatives: Location and design of RETs, Wakenet,
HALS / DTOP require changes to infrastructure like:
- Dual ILS (glide path) antenna / system
- Dual threshold markings, threshold lights and approach light systems
- Dual touch down zone lights
The dual systems (lights) requires to be easily understandable and being quickly recognized as being part of the assigned approach path. Misunderstanding and related
unsafe situations must be prevented. Due to the high investment cost of dual installations HALS / DTOP must be subject of a cost benefit analyses which is unique for
each airport willing to implement such system. Cost benefit is dependent on a large / significant amount of large (Heavy aircraft in the arrival stream. First phase will
use the displaced threshold together with the “normal” threshold of the close spaced parallel runway. Ultimate implementation is the use of both thresholds (normal
and displaced) at the same runway (DTOP). This procedure is currently under investigation in the framework of the German State funded Research Project LUFO III
with a special focus on the involved human factors and workload aspects for pilots and controllers. A well implemented and accepted HALS / DTOP procedure /
installation could significantly increase the arrival capacity of s single arrival runway if an appropriate share of Heavy aircraft is within the arrival stream
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.3
Balanced RETs and Entries
(optimal location, additional with respect to previous airport design)
Runway occupancy time (ROT) is a main factor for the determination of the runway capacity. Not only the ROT itself but also the predictability of
the ROT determines if ATC can and will reduce the landing intervals. The ROT as well as the predictability is based on the number of exits, the
OP-4, OP-5, OP-6, OP-24, OP-29,
design/shape of the exit, the location with respect to the landing threshold as well as pilot/airline behaviour/policy (combination of airline practice,
OP-36,
individual flight crew familiarity, the intended terminal and, sometimes, a poor RET/aircraft combination). Finding a well accepted balance between
ENV-4, LEG-1, LEG-2
number, shape and location is necessary. The fleet mix as well as prevailing weather conditions are important factors. Departure capacity is mostly
Related OP-11, ORG-3
defined by the possibility of the TWR controller to build up an efficient sequence. As this can not always be done on the taxi route to the runway
there is a need to make use of more than one runway entry to optimize the sequence. Adding runway entries will therefore increase runway capacity
Severity of associated BP 4 enhance airside capacity is clear. A more efficient use of the main and most important airport resource, the runway, can solve / relieve a
important / major blocker.
Design of RETs and additional entries can be done with in a relative short time frame. Implementation time is more dependent by the time to
Time To implement 4 design the new entries/exits, the time to build as well as the time frame to take the runway out of use. (if limited to night time construction will
take longer). The rating 4 must be seen as a average of several local practices
Strongly depending on local (legal) situation; Infrastructure improvements may require local planning approval and even consultation. May
Ease of implementation 1 to 5 need to work when runway closed (especially on airports with a single runway)
Potential impact on Additional arrival / departure capacity
Blocking point 4
• Less holding (air and ground), less delays --> less air pollution per aircraft movement
environmental impact 4 • Environmental advantage (shorter taxi distance), strongly dependent on local situation (Example Lisbon)
• Construction of further movement areas has an impact for ground water, higher part of paved areas, additional contamination
expected value
per
USERS 5 More runway capacity, less delay, cost reduction (fuel)
stakeholder Airport 5 More runway capacity, Efficient use if existing infrastructure
ANSP 4 More runway capacity, but also more attention to runway incursions
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Neutral
Industry 3
Positive effect on Safety as additional RETs could reduce ROT and will reduce the number of go-around. Additional entries could have a negative effect on
Safety safety as more runway entries increase the risk runway incursions. This increased risk can however be mitigated by other measures like taxiway lay-out, 0/+
markings and signs as well as a Runway Incursion Alert Systems (RIAS)
Reduction of Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) as well as better predictability of ROT and runway use could result in a reduction of intervals, with a positive
Capacity effect on delays and runway movement rate. An additional 1 to 4 movement could be expected, strongly dependent on local situation. On runways where ++
normally back-tracking is required, provision of additional exits or entries could even have a much larger effect on runway movement rate.
If runway movement rate increases holding delay reduces with a positive effect on fuel consumption (less air pollution).
Environment
Shorter taxi distances could also be a benefit (less taxing, less fuel consumption, less air pollution) however this is strongly dependent on local situation. +
TRL level: 4 Commercialization
Related Initiatives: ACE, Brake to vacate
Additional remarks
Appropriate exits should be provided for the aircraft mix using the runway. “Growing” airports may experience special problems as well as an almost continuous
change in actual fleet mix. However training and Standard Operating Procedures can generally provide significant improvements. In some cases, for example where
back tracking is required or new types run beyond current exits, improvements may be needed – but the decision is usually a complex cost benefit analysis as revised
exit use may change circulation patterns on the ground. Access for sequencing and for recovering from the effect of aircraft that become “technical” at the hold or
during pre-take off (line-up) can give significant benefits during periods of congestion. An important aspect with the construction of new exits and entries is the
runway incursion risk (OP-29). Every new taxiway connected to the runway, will add to the risk of runway incursions. Special attention should be given to mitigate for
this risk. Additional stop bars and markings are required as well as attention to the taxiway design and logical taxi routing. The possibilities for changing and adding
exits and entries are strongly depending on local (legal) situation. Some airports / states requires an extensive planning approval procedure and even local consultation
while at other locations changing or even construction of new exits and entries is possible within a few months as long as no new land acquisition is required.
Local Best Practices: Amsterdam

This year two new runway exits as well as a new runway entry have been built at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The time between initiation of the project and
operation of the exits/entry is approximately 9 months. Construction it self was only 3 weeks. Most of the time goes into design, obtaining internal approval and
logistic planning. Construction of the exits took place during planned maintenance for which the runway was 3 weeks out of service. As Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
has 5 runways, loss of one runway during summertime is not a big burden.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.4
Additional / better placed runway crossing
Although crossing an active runway is not recommended, at many airports worldwide it can not be avoided. Lay-out of taxiway system as well as
location of runways with respect to the terminal/apron area can make frequent use of runway crossing necessary.
The effect on runway capacity is dependent on the location of the runway crossing. A crossing can only take place when the landing or the departing
aircraft has past the crossing location. If the crossing is located far from the threshold, it will take longer for an arriving or departing aircraft to pass OP-4, OP-6, OP-7, OP-12, OP-14,
this crossing location. To allow the taxing aircraft to cross the runway a longer interval between successive arrivals or departures must be used, OP-15, OP-29, OP-34, ENV-4,
reducing the capacity of the runway. LEG-1, LEG-2
If the crossing location is closer towards the runway threshold or beginning of the take-off role, crossing the runway can start earlier and will (partly) Related OP-11
overlap with the runway occupancy time of the arrival or departure.
Crossing capacity can be increased by adding more (parallel) crossing locations to allow more than one aircraft to cross between to successive
arrivals/departures
Design of runway crossings can be done with in a relative short time frame. Implementation time is more dependent by the time to design the
Time To implement 4 new runway crossing, the time to build as well as the time frame to take the runway out of use. (If limited to night time construction will take
longer). The rating 4 must be seen as a average of several local practices.
Strongly depending on local (legal) situation;
Ease of implementation 1 - 5 Infrastructure improvements may require local planning approval and even consultation. May need to work when runway closed (especially on
airports with a single runway)
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 Higher runway capacity as well as taxiway capacity (more aircraft can cross the runway)
• Less holding (air and ground), less delays --> less air pollution per aircraft movement
environmental impact 4 • Environmental advantage (shorter taxi distance), strongly dependent on local situation (Example Lisbon)
• Construction of further movement areas has an impact for ground water, higher part of paved areas, additional contamination
expected value USERS 5 More runway capacity, less delay, cost reduction (fuel)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
per More runway capacity,

stakeholder
Airport 5 Efficient use if existing infrastructure
More runway capacity, but also more attention to runway incursions (rated 4 for relocation of existing runway crossings, rated 1 to 2 if new
ANSP 4 crossing are added; safety would be seriously affected)
Neutral
Industry 3
Runway crossings are assigned as runway incursion sensitive infrastructure and therefore not promoted. However it is not always possible to abandon the use
Safety
of runway crossings and therefore relocation of runway crossings could have a positive effect on safety as the total runway incursion risk could be reduced -/0
Additional and/or better placed runway crossings will increase the movement rate of the runway as well as the number of aircraft that can cross the runway.
Capacity
The gain in movement rate is however strongly dependent on local situation (airport lay-out, procedures, fleet mix) +
Less holding in the air as on the ground will reduce taxi time, delays and thus fuel consumption and air pollution
Environment +
TRL levels: 4 Commercialisation
Related Initiatives: ACE, EAPPRI, Perimeter Taxiways
Runway crossings have a negative effect on runway capacity. Runway capacity (movement rate) is dependent on location of crossing with respect tot runway threshold
and start take-off role. Reducing this dependency can increase runway capacity. The frequent use of runway crossing is discouraged by ICAO as well as in the
European Action Plan to Prevent Runway Incursions (EAPPRI). Adding additional / more runway crossings are contrary to the above. However preventing runway
crossings is not always possible. Only a few airports does have space (land) available for building perimeter taxiways (taxiways around the runway ends) and changing
runway use or relocating runways is due to local situations (legal planning rules) quite often not possible (LEG-1, LEG-2). A well accepted balance between additional
runway / taxiway capacity and runway incursion risk (mitigation measures) must be found (OP-29)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.5
CRDA / DCIA Converging Runway Display Aid
The use of converging landing runways can not be used independent, especially during reduced / low visibility conditions and non UDP. A tool
(Converging Runway Display Aid) for the controller has been developed to assist in the safe use of dependent Dual Converging Instrument
OP-4, OP-7, OP-9, ENV-1, ENV-3,
Approaches (DCIA). The intention of the tool is to mirror the position of the aircraft on the other approach and visa versa. Separation must be kept in
ENV-4
respect to the mirror (ghost). CRDA will make it possible to make more and better use of converging landing runways in reduced visibility conditions
where otherwise only a single landing runway could be used.
Severity of associated BP 4 enhance airside capacity is clear. A more efficient use of the main and most important airport resource, the runway, can solve / relieve an
Implementation of a tool into an existing and operational ATC environment will take a long time. Validation must take place as well as the
Time To implement 2 development of human interfaces
Prove of safety and reliability has to be given before commissioning can be granted by local Authorities. Also the training of sufficient ATC
Ease of implementation 3 staff will take a long time
Improvement of CRDA / DCIA is strongly dependent on local circumstances (converging runways as well as the occurrence of reduced
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 visibility conditions). Most benefits of CRDA will be achieved due to the fact that the use of converging approaches can be maintained during
reduced visibility
Use of two runways (be it with reduced capacity) instead of one during low visibility conditions will reduce holding time, delays and therefore
environmental impact 4 reduce Air pollution.
Add capacity during low visibility conditions. Reduction of delays, holding, fuel burn thus better operating cost
USERS 5
expected value Add capacity during low visibility conditions without adding / investing in new runway infrastructure.
per
Airport 5 Efficient use of existing infrastructure
Add capacity during low visibility, however will also increase controller workload/ Better ATC performance
stakeholder ANSP 5
Mainly neutral. ATM system development
Industry 3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

The use of CRDA tool for converging landing runways during low/reduced visibility conditions will theoretically increase safety however practically due to
Safety
the safety concern converging landing runways are not used during low /reduced visibility conditions. 0
The ability to maintain the operation of two (dependent) landing during conditions with low/reduced visibility will maintain runway arrival rate and reduce
Capacity
delay. +
Reduction in holding (air) delay will reduce fuel consumption (less air pollution)
Environment +
TRL level: 3 Evaluation, Validation, Cost benefit
Related Initiatives: Planed spacing tool, tailored arrival and OPTIMAL (CDA approaches on parallel arrival runways for which
CRDA could be a tool for separation)
Additional remarks
Dependent on the lay-out of the two converging runways the use of DCIA (Dual Converging Instrument Approaches) assisted with the tool CRDA (Converging
Runway Display Aid) will add runway capacity. However the increase in capacity is limited as both approaches are dependent and large in-trail separations needs to be
used. Those separations can often be larger than the required separations due to wake vortex. Capacity of DCIA / CRDA is somewhere between the capacity of a single
(independent) arrival runway and the capacity of two independent arrival runways dependent on runway configuration and the visibility conditions. To use the CRDA
tool, the controllers need to be trained and also need to use the tool in practice.
Local Best Practice: Amsterdam

Amsterdam Airport has converging runways and therefore CRDA could be of benefit. However the CRDA tool is only necessary for converging landing operations
during reduced visibility conditions (vis < 5 km or clb < 1000ft). These conditions occur during app. 20% of time. Since 2002, with the opening of the new (fifth)
runway, independent parallel approaches can be used from both the north and the south direction. The need for CRDA became less and also the possibility for the
controllers to be trained and kept current on the procedures. For this reason CRDA has not been implemented yet at Schiphol Airport. For other airports, where the use
of CRDA will be more frequent, implementation of the tool can be interesting. Shortly, new interest has for the use of CRDA techniques has come to life, not for the
use of converging landing runways but for parallel landing runways. With the same ghosting technique it should be possible to guide CDA approaches towards parallel
runways. Ghosting technique should ensure safe guidance (to the controller) for the runway centreline interception where due to the CDA approaches 1000ft vertical
clearances can not be met. However this operation of parallel runways will be a dependent one and capacity will reduce.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.6
Independent Parallel departures
Simultaneous use of two departure runways will increase the departure capacity and reduces ground holding delay. The highest capacity increase can
be achieved if both departure runways are operated fully independent. Current regulations require diverging departure routes as soon as possible. If
the two departure runways it self are already diverging there is hardly any problem, however divergence of departure routes should also be
implemented if the two departure runways are parallel. In many cases (local circumstances at the airports) parallel departure routes (runway heading)
OP-7, OP-8, OP-25, ENV-1, ENV-2
are required to prevent densely populated areas to be over flown. This makes both parallel departure runways dependent on each other and reduces
the departure capacity. To achieve the maximum capacity accurate (update rate) surveillance systems could be installed. Precision Radar Monitor
(PRM) as used for parallel arrival runways, could also be used for parallel departure runways and departure routes. Procedures for this kind of use of
PRM have to be developed.
Defining acceptable procedures and installing effective (surveillance) systems will take at least 2 to 3 years
Time To implement 3
You have to deal with the “feeling” of controllers that diverging routes are always better (safety wise). Human factor/acceptance can be a
Ease of implementation 2 significant constraint. Safety case has to be made before independent parallel departure routes can and will be commissioned
No improvement on take-off capacity. Surveillance systems and additional procedures must ensure that for parallel departure routes the same
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 take-off capacity can be reached as for diverging departure routes. However for some airports the use of parallel departure runways will only be
allowed if the departure routes do not diverge directly after take-off. The capacity benefits for these airports could be very large.
As the departure routes could be defined more on the basis of noise criteria, less houses will be overflown
Higher (environmental) capacity, however strongly dependent on local situation.
USERS 4
Higher (environmental) capacity, however strongly dependent on local situation.
Airport 4
expected value Mainly neutral
per
ANSP 3
Avionics implementation and development ADS-B / ATSAW application
stakeholder Industry 4
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Lack of immediate divergence of the departure routes would imply a reduction in safety level due to possible deviation and convergence of flight paths., This
Safety
reduction in safety level could be mitigated with existing ATC tools (PRM) and on board equipment (Rnav) -/0
No significant impact on take-off capacity is expected as it is assumed that parallel instead of diverging departure routes are not used if this would decrease
Capacity
capacity 0
As the departure routes could be defined/designed without the requirement of immediate divergence, by-passing of noise sensitive area could be more
Environment
optimized +
TRL level: 3 Validation, Safety Case
Related initiatives PRM, Rnav/Rnp
For ATSAW and ADS-B see CASCADE project
Above mentioned initiative is related to the use of parallel departure routes. This is very specific for a few airports. For many airports the blocking point is more
related to not being able to operate dual departure runways for several reasons. One of the reasons could be environmental as the most effective routes (diverging
according to ICAO criteria) will be limited due to populated areas being over flown. In those cases use of (more) parallel departure routes will certainly increase peak
hour capacity

At Amsterdam airport Schiphol parallel departure runway are used to increase the take-off capacity. The distance between the parallel departure runways is at least
2100 meters. When the use of parallel departure runways was started it was intended to use parallel departure routes for a certain distance after runway end to prevent
residential areas to be over flown. The departure routes would be guided between build-up areas would be diverging their after.
Several unintended deviations (mainly caused by high crosswind) from one of the departure routes towards the other made that this procedure has been changed.
Headings are given with the take-off clearance and pilots are expected to follow that heading direct (or as soon as possible) after take-off. The same take-off capacity
could be maintained but over flying of residential areas has been increased. Also the noise zone was designed for parallel departure routes and not for diverging routes.
Environmental capacity (annual movements) was therefore reduced. Advantages of parallel departure routes:
- Better distribution of noise (overlap of arrival noise contours with departure noise contours). Is of course dependent on local situations
- Better use of environmental capacity
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Disadvantage of parallel departure routes

- (Could) make operations on both departure runways dependent on each other (capacity reduction)
- requires additional surveillance systems to maintain peak hour capacity (PRM?)
- requires additional / change of operational ATC procedures
- requires change of thinking within ATC (human factor/interpretation)
No parallel departure routes are in use at the moment.
Local Best Practice: Paris CDG

At Paris CDG departure routes to the east are at least parallel for 7NM distance.
I-4.7
SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway
The SODPROPS operation is the opposite use of two parallel runways. For example landing on runway 18L and simultaneous departures from
runway 36L. Of course special procedures are required to prevent aircraft coming to close to each other. In practice the departure routes diverge
direct after take off (in this example left turn). ENV-1, ENV-2
SODPROPS has been developed to have an operational and environmentally acceptable runway combination where other wise the airport had been
closed (night time restrictions)
Environmental restrictions are a significant/major blocker for many airports.
Already implemented at other airport(s). Procedures for local situation can be developed, tested and certified within 1 to 2 years. Extensive
Time To implement 4 training of controllers is required
Although procedures can be designed safely and fully accepted by the local aviation authorities the use of these procedures by ATC and / or
Ease of implementation 3 pilots can sometimes face strong opposition. Human factor (safety feeling) within ATC and pilot community can be strong.
Potential impact on Capacity during periods with strong environmental restrictions (for instance Night time) could be increased significantly. Capacity increase is of
Blocking point 4 course strongly dependent on local situation
Better noise distribution
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
USERS 5 Additional capacity during restricted periods of the day. Can be used to prevent full closure of the airport during night period
expected value Airport 5 Additional capacity during restricted periods of the day. Can be used to prevent full closure of the airport during night period
per Could be contrary with safety feeling of controllers and policy of ANSP. Will increase controllers workload.
stakeholder ANSP 1 Additional procedures and systems (surveillance, PRM?) required
Neutral, no benefits or added value for industry
Industry 3
Safety could be reduced as standard radar separations (horizontal as well as vertical) or not maintained close to the runway. However this
Safety
increased risk could be mitigated with existing ATC tools (PRM) and on board equipment (Rnav) -/0
For noise restricted airports this kind of operation could make it possible to reduce noise impact and prevent night time curfews, resulting in
Capacity
better accessibility of the airport during night time or late evening/early morning. SODPROPS will have NO impact on declared capacity 0
Environment Better noise distribution around the airport 0/+
TRL level: 3 Safety Case
Related initiatives: PRM Precision Radar Monitoring
For certain airports opposite direction runway operations could be an advantage. With low traffic volume this operation could be done on a single runway (as was the
case with Schiphol in the past). For airports with a parallel runway (or even better diverging runways) a SODPROPS operation like at Sydney or proposed at Brisbane
could be used to prevent the airport being closed during the night.
Advantage
- Airport environmental capacity during night time
- No night time closure
Disadvantage
- Low runway capacity
- Special procedures (for pilots as well as controllers)
- Operations could face strong tail and crosswind components
Use of High Update Radar (as with PRM) could be an advantage for this operation as deviation from prescribed / assigned route can be detected much faster.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Local Best Practice: Sydney

SODPROPS is in operation at Sydney airport. It is the only runway combination allowed to be used during night period (expect for emergency situations). In case of
Sydney the SODPROPS operation result in approach and departure over the bay, preventing densely populated areas being over flown. The operation is implemented
to prevent that the airport is fully closed during night time. Flight operations may however be faced with strong tail and crosswind components.
Local Best Practice: Brisbane

For Brisbane airport SODPROPS in proposed to be the main runway operation mode during the night period and will be implemented after the proposed parallel
runway becomes operational. At Brisbane however it will be the preferred mode of operation during night time, NOT the only mode of operation as at Sydney.

In the past a kind of (S)OD(P)ROPS operation was in use at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. During night time landing on 06 and take off from runway 24 was used (of
course not simultaneously), as the area southwest of the airport is less populated. With the increase of traffic during the night period this operation could not be
maintained as it resulted in high controllers workload and restricted capacity (less than demanded). With the opening of the new runway an additional runway for night
operations became available which fully excluded the need for opposite direction operations.
I-4.8
Precision Radar Monitoring
(PRM / PAM applications)
At several airports certain parallel runway combinations are limited in use due to the (relative) small distance between those runways. The limitations
are especially valid for reduced visibility conditions in which instrument approaches are required. For closer parallel runways (down to 1035 m
separation) the dependent use could be solved by introducing Precision Radar Monitoring. This consists of high update radar as well as a dedicated
controller who monitors the aircraft on both approaches. If one of the aircraft tends to fly into the Non Transgression Zone (NTZ) between the two
parallel approaches, the dedicated controller can and will intervene.
OP-4, OP-7, OP-8, ENV-1, ENV-2
A dedicated controller has been chosen as both runway controllers are notable to monitor the approaches continuously. The runway controllers also
has to monitor and control the runways, exits, runway entries and certain dependencies with converging or crossing departure runways. Continuous
monitoring of the NTZ by the runway controller could therefore be a risk / hazard.
In the future continuous monitoring of the NTZ could be automated. Advanced surveillance technology as well as trajectory prediction could replace
the controller from this monitoring function however it is still questionable if any possible conflict could be solved by automated rules without human
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
input
Installing equipment (high update radar, additional radar screens for the NTZ monitoring function), designing procedures, employ additional
Time To implement 3 controllers as well as training can take a long time. However necessary equipment is available on the market and procedures (for specific airport)
has been developed.
Acceptance of operations could be faced with opposition from controllers. Operations should prove safe and robust towards local authorities
Ease of implementation 3 before certification / commissioning can take place.
Additional training for controllers as well as (extensive) briefing for pilots
Potential impact on Additional arrival capacity during reduced visibility conditions. Better use of existing facilities.
Blocking point 4 More reliable / predictable runway capacity
environmental impact 3 Reduction of delays (Air holding) will reduce air pollution
USERS 5 Additional arrival capacity especially during low visibility conditions. Increased safety
expected value Airport 5 Additional arrival capacity especially during low visibility conditions. Increased safety
per Additional arrival capacity especially during low visibility conditions. Increased safety
stakeholder ANSP 5 Investment for High Update radar, radar screens as well as additional controllers
Enabler : ADS-B / ATSAW application
Industry 4
Theoretically safety is reduced as approaching aircraft are brought closer to each other. The increased risk is mitigated with the use of PRM (high update
Safety
radar as well as a specific monitoring controller) -/0
Increase movement rate during weather conditions where otherwise the use of only a single landing runway would be possible. Reduction in delay.
Capacity +
Reduction in delay results in less fuel consumption (less air pollution)
Environment +
TRL Level: 3 Cost Benefit, Validation, Safety Case
4 Commercialization as necessary equipment (high update radar, radar screens) is readily available
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Related with Initiatives: Independent parallel arrivals, Independent Parallel Departures, SODPROPS,
PRM is primary intended to increase the capacity of close(r) spaced parallel runways. With PRM, parallel runways with a separation down to 1035 meters can be used
independently for instrument approaches.
The same technology and procedures can however also be used for parallel departure runways (see also I-4.6: Independent Parallel departures) and could increase
outbound capacity as well as enhance safety.
Advantages:
- Increase capacity of parallel arrival runways during low visibility conditions
Disadvantages:
- additional controllers, special procedures, additional training
- high update radar required
Local Best Practice: Sydney

PRM and independent IFR approaches to parallel runway spaced at 1035 meters are in use at Sydney Airport.
Local Best Practice: PAM Trials in Frankfurt

FRAPORT and DFS conducted a PAM (Precision Approach Monitor) trial at Frankfurt from 2002 to 2004. The goal of the trial was the usage of Wide-Area Multi
lateration to provide enhanced surveillance for Frankfurt’s terminal airspace in order to optimise the inbound traffic. As Frankfurt’s 2 parallel runways (07/25 L/R)
only have a lateral spacing of 518 m independent parallel approaches are not possible even with enhanced surveillance. Therefore no monitoring of a NTZ was needed.
However ATC Controllers considered it a big advantage that the PAM picture has a much higher update rate than the conventional picture (update every second vs.
update every 5 seconds). This enables controllers to make better use of the existing capacity especially when feeding aircraft in the arrival stream.
At a later stage it will be examined if the technology allows for a reduction of the diagonal separation from today 2.5 NM (2.0 NM after the outer marker) to 2.0 NM
(1.5 NM after OM).
The infrastructure of the trial consisted of 5 Mode-S receiver antennas mounted on existing infrastructure (telecom towers) on elevated terrain and one reference
transponder. The antennas were placed in a semi-circle around the airport mainly covering the pre-dominant approach direction 25. However, approaches from 07 as
well as departures in all directions were also received with slightly reduced precision.
After the positive results of the trial DFS is now planning the installation of an operational PAM system covering the complete terminal airspace starting in 2007.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.9
Time Based Separation
Time based separation is an option to replace the distance criteria currently used to separate the trailing aircraft on the approach beyond the wake
vortex of the leading aircraft. Time based separation generates a traffic density on the approach that is independent of the headwind. When the
separation is based on distance, the reduced runway capacity associated with the lower approach density in strong headwinds is can be considerable. OP-3, OP-4, OP-8, OP-38, ENV-3
Research is required to assess the balance between the degree to which the turbulence in strong winds increases the rate of vortex decay and the
reduced time interval for the following aircraft reaching the leader’s vortices.
The TBS project (UK) expects to complete a validation of Time-based separations by mid-2008. Thereafter the start-up of a local
Time To implement 3 implementation project is required. Equipment modifications in the ATC system are required
Requires development of a safety case before commissioning of system and procedures can be granted
Expect to be able to recover most of the capacity lost under strong wind. Strong headwind conditions can reduce the arrival rate by 4-5
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 movements per hour.
Some capacity increases expected due to application of a spacing tool.
Less delays, less air pollution.
Sustainable capacity. Increased Schedule predictability. Less delays, less cost
USERS 5
expected value Sustainable capacity. Better predictability, better performance
per
Airport 5
Sustainable capacity. Better predictability, better performance. The required changes needs to be assessed
stakeholder ANSP 5
Development of new systems and technology. enabler : ADS-B / ATSAW application
Industry 5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety Increased Safety due to less go-arounds and better predictability of arrivals +
Capacity Ability to recover part/most of the capacity loss during strong (head) wind conditions. Maintain normal movement rate. +
Environment Reduction in delay will result in less fuel consumption (less Air pollution) +
TRL level: 2 Concept definition
Related initiatives: Planned spacing tool,
With the current use of distance separations for the final approach landing capacity reduces when operating in heavy head wind conditions. As ground speed goes
down the time intervals at threshold passage will increase. For example in a spring month at LHR, 76% of weather related delays were associated with headwinds that
created over 32,000 delay minutes.
Separations based on time intervals could therefore be a solution to maintain arrival capacity especially during extreme wind conditions Not only a scientifically based
conversion of the well known distance separations to time separations is necessary also a tool to assist the controllers in using time base separations needs to be
developed. At least 3 to 4 years are necessary for the development and validation of the use of time-based separations for arrivals under all conditions in order to
recover the capacity lost under strong headwinds. A safety case must be carried out to obtaining permission for the use of time based separation as well as the
associated time intervals between specific aircraft sizes / classes.
Local Best Practice: NATS (UK)

Current NATS view on implementation timescales:
Definition and research ready to start process for seeking ICAO approval: 2008.
The Approval process it self will take about 2 years (rough estimate) and operational use will be somewhere between 2010 and 2013, dependent on the development
and deployment strategy of the necessary tools for Time Based Separation.
NATS is working together with Eurocontrol for further progress of Time Based Separation as at this moment NATS lacks the required budget as well as the necessary
expertise to progress the R&D effort to bring Time Based Separation to a stage where regulatory approval (ICAO) can be gained.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.10
Airside Capacity Enhancement ACE
The objective of the Eurocontrol Airport airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) project is to support airports to release latent airside capacity by OP-4, OP-5, OP-6, OP-7,
implementing guidelines for runway, taxiway and apron operations. The ACE project is a package of guidelines (procedures and management tools) OP-12, OP-13, OP-14,
for possible implementation on several airports. The guidelines support a portfolio of best practices that have been developed at European airports. It OP-15, OP-24, OP-33, OP-36,
is very much the development of an environment in which the interaction of community members is highlighted and is an initiative to be run in ORG-2, ORG-3
parallel with CDM Related OP-10, OP-11, OP-29,
The main purpose of ACE is to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and to open up latent capacity readily available on several airports. LEG-2
This initiative is concerned with driving awareness and presenting relevant metrics. It is very much a project whose success is determined by the
Time To implement commitment of the stakeholders (players). ACE initiatives are already successfully implemented at several airports in Europe. Strongly
4 dependent on local situation (could easily be rated 5 for some airports)
Limiting factors could be the availability of (human) resources and lack of commitment from all the required stakeholders.
Potential impact on The ACE project has led to capacity increases of nearly 20% at some airports during peak times and similar results may be expected at many
Blocking point 4 other airports but is dependent on local circumstances
ACE implementation will reduce delay (air holding) and can also lead to reduced taxi times. Less fuel -> consumption reduction of air.
Additional runway capacity. Less go-arounds, Enhance safety
USERS 5
expected value Additional runway capacity. Efficient use of existing infrastructure
per
Airport 5
Additional runway capacity. Less go-arounds, Enhance safety
stakeholder ANSP 5
Neutral
Industry 3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Increased Safety due to less go-arounds.
Safety +
Better and efficient use of existing infrastructure will lead to an increase of runway capacity. Dependent on local circumstances a capacity gain of nearly 20%
Capacity
is achievable ++
Reduction of delay (holding) as well as reduction of taxi times will lead to less fuel consumption (Less air pollution)
Environment +
TRL level: 3 Cost benefit / Safety case for airports where ACE in newly introduced. However experience of ACE
initiatives on several airports around Europe is available and may be used
Related initiatives: Brake to Vacate, CREDOS, Balanced RETS, better placed runway crossings, CDM, Pilot Fora
The Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) project is a EUROCONTROL EATM Project within the DAP/ Airport throughput (APR) Business Division. ACE has
developed a structured methodology that enables airports to assess airside capacity and to maximize runway throughput. The ACE project has identified a number of
Best Practices that are applicable to all airport stakeholders. A number of techniques and methods have been developed in the form of:
- Guidelines and Manuals 1) Capacity enhancement, 2) Capacity assessment, 3) Capacity planning, 4) Slot management, 5) Pilot runway occupancy time reduction
- Analysis and modelling tools
In addition, to maximize the effectiveness of the ACE methodology, it is essential for there to be a high-degree of collaboration between the airport operator, key
airlines and ATC. The ACE team consists of airport ATC, pilots and runway capacity analysis experts with experience in evaluating and enhancing capacity at a
significant number of airports. The Ace project is ongoing, with a plan to address the top 100 most constraining airports over the next four years. However, results at
specific airports will be realised throughout this period.
Local Best Practice: Eurocontrol input, ACE benefits

At several locations / airports benefits are gained with the implementation ACE guidelines:
Brussels International Airport
They have done several capacity assessments between 1999-2002. Efficiency decreased mainly because traffic demand dropped drastically (11 Sep 2001 and the
bankruptcy of Sabena). Through ACE's help they were able to unlock latent capacity between 14-17% 14% for arrival and 17% for departure.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Prague
Starting point 34 mvts/hour. They increased their declared capacity to 38 mvts/hour after phase I of the ACE method. On test they increase it to 40 mvts/hour at
peak times. When sustainable this will become the declared capacity figure.
Lisbon
Want to increase declared capacity from 30 to 40 mvts/hour in the medium term. Recommendation of the ACE study should be ready by end 2006.
London City
ACE launched a focused study to create a holding area so as to reduce backtracking influences on both arrivals and departures.
Vienna
Aims to increase punctuality by 2 points from 88 to 90% and capacity by 20% i.e. from 37 to 44 mvts/hour.
Budapest
ACE exercise phase I has started in Budapest - final report to be expected Dec 2007.
In order to considerably reduce the delays initial contacts are established at Milan Malpensa, Rome Fiumicino, Istanbul and Antalya. Next to come are Zurich, Paris
CDG, Copenhagen, Madrid and Barcelona.
Local Best Practice: Spain AENA

PICAP is an analysis methodology being implemented by AENA for the capacity assessment of Spanish airports. The methodology consists of three different phases:
1. DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS.
The proposed method consists of an initial process of "in situ" data collecting, based on a specific software (ASTRAM), which registers all the factors involved in the
airport operations: Runway's geometry and configuration; ATC procedures; runway real time occupation; aircraft type and model; weather conditions; local influence
factors. The attained operational real data are stocked in a database, in order to be analyzed by self-designed analysis software. The aim of the operational analysis is to
identify the critical aspects both in ATC procedures and techniques, aircraft operational procedures and in the infrastructures and facilities so as to put forward
measures for runway optimization.
2. SIMULATION PROCESS
A working method, based on a fast simulation, has been developed so as to determine the maximum number of operations that could be scheduled, in a time interval,
so that the level of Service Quality remains within the required punctuality parameters.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for improvement of the airside process will be made up from the above analysis of the current operation and simulations of current and proposed
operations.
PICAP Methodology and Data Acquisition are being implemented at several airports around Spain. Results will come within the next year(s) with the evaluation (and
Validation) of the acquired data
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-4.12
SLOT management
Convergence of airports and CFMU slots together with local airport slot monitoring process in order to improve consistency on a daily basis and to OP-1, OP-10, OP-17, OP-33, OP-34,
reduce delays. To ensure realistic scheduling to meet airline demands in line with capacity declaration. OP-35, OP-36, OP-37, ENV-1, ENV-2,
ENV-3
Time To implement
1
4
Reliant on support by all stakeholders
Ease of implementation
2
3
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
USERS
4
5
expected value
per stakeholder
Airport 5
ANSP 5
Industry 5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

No significant change in safety level
Safety 0
Better and efficient use of existing slot and airport infrastructure will lead to a reduction in delay and less slot abuse (more movements annually)
Capacity +
Less delays and holding times will reduce fuel consumption (less air pollution)
Environment +
TRL level: 4
Related initiatives: CDM
I-4.14
Visual conducted approaches instead of IFR operations when appropriate visual conditions prevail
In Europe approaches to runways are mostly operated under Instrument Flight Rules. This means that the ANSP (Air Traffic Controller) is
responsible to maintain the required radar and wake vortex separation. However the pilot himself is very capable of maintaining separation with the
OP-4,
leading aircraft in the approach during good visibility conditions (VMC). Experiences, especially within the United States show that this will increase
runway capacity significantly.
Severity of associated BP 4 enhance airside capacity is clear. A more efficient use of the main and most important airport resource, the runway, can solve / relieve an
Changing operating procedures / routines can not be done from one day to another.
Time To implement 3
Safety case must be made. Training of controllers to adapt to new procedures / routines
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Potential impact on Increase in runway capacity. Less go-arounds

Blocking point 4
Less delay, less fuel burn --> reduction of Air pollution.
Increased runway capacity, less delay. Less go-arounds
USERS 5
Increased runway capacity, less delay. Less go-arounds. Better / efficient use of existing infrastructure
Airport 5
expected value Increased runway capacity, less delay, less go-arounds, better ANSP performance
per
ANSP 5
Neutral
Increase in Safety level due to “see and be seen” principle. Less go-arounds.
Safety +
Efficient use of existing infrastructure. Less delay and holding. Increase in runway movement rate
Capacity +
Reduction in delay results in less fuel consumption (Less air pollution)
Environment +
TRL level: 2 For many airports / states this will be in the stage of concept and safety case definition
4 On the other hand, on several locations (especially United States) procedures are in use
Local (Best) Practice: Amsterdam

At Amsterdam Airport IFR operations are in use, however on certain runways visual approaches are the only way to operate. These visual approaches however are not
the main operation and only needs to be used for a small number (percentage) of movements.
Changing to VFR operations during VMC is not a main goal for the airport / airline / ANSP community. This type of operation can only be used during a small
percentage of time. The benefits gained from this type of operation are therefore limited and does not weight against the necessary operational changes.
Reduced visibility occurs about 30% of time. Also the simultaneous (and mostly) independent use of three or more runways occurs during at least 10 hours a day. A
common/standard operation is therefore preferred.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Local (Best) Practice: Frankfurt

The 2 parallel runways 07/25 R/L at FRA have a lateral spacing of only 519 m and can therefore only be operated dependently. They are operated in mixed mode in
order to achieve the maximum capacity and flexibility. As the (transversal) runway 18 is used for departures only the vast majority of movements on the parallel
runways are arrivals. To avoid crossings of the northern runway if possible most aircraft parked in the eastern part of the airport (Terminal 2 and beyond) will use the
southern runway and then taxi via taxiway C between the two runways to the perimeter taxiway B to bypass the northern runway.
AMAN and soon also DMAN tools are used to optimise the traffic. A runway capacity optimisation tool CAPMAN is planned in a first stage for the second half of
2007.
I-4.15
Dependent and Independent Parallel instrument Arrivals
The best way to increase runway capacity is to make use of more runways. Many airports do have more than one runway and in many cases these
runway are parallel to each other.
Normal operation on these runways is a segregated one, which means one runway for landing and the other runway for departures. During arrival OP-4, OP-7, ENV-1, ENV-2, LEG-
peak hours additional arrival capacity can be gained by using both runways for arrival for which one runway in mixed mode (also for departures). 1, LEG-2
Airports which already have parallel runways but does not use them for simultaneous arrivals could use this “latent” capacity by implementing
procedures (and infrastructure).
The simultaneous use of existing parallel runways can be implemented in a relative short time frame. In most cases building exits and installing
Time To implement 3 equipment (app. Lights, ILS etc) can be done in one (to two) years.
The legal planning process for the proposed new use of existing parallel runways can take years especially if the proposed operation is quite
Ease of implementation 3 different from what has been done in the past or is done present.
Potential impact on Increase in runway capacity.
Blocking point 4
Less delay, less fuel burn --> less air pollution
environmental impact 3 Other flight paths, more houses under flight paths --> more noise disturbance (of course dependent on local situation)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Increased runway capacity, less delay.

USERS 5
Increased runway capacity, less delay.
Airport 5 Better / efficient use of existing infrastructure
Increased runway capacity, less delay, better ANSP performance
expected value ANSP 5
per
Neutral
Theoretically safety is reduced as approaching aircraft are brought closer to each other. The increased risk is mitigated with the use of PRM (high update
Safety
radar as well as a specific monitoring controller) -/0
As dual arrival runways can be used, capacity increases significantly ranging between 25 – 40 % for dependent parallel arrival runways, to 80 – 100% for
Capacity
independent arrival runways ++
Less delay results in less fuel consumption (air pollution); positive effect on environment.
Environment Additional flight path could create new /more noise effected areas
++
-/0
TRL level:
Related initiatives: CRDA/DCIA, Independent parallel departures, PRM, ACE, DTOP
The use of parallel instrument runways is regulated by ICAO. In the past the minimum distance between parallel instrument arrival runways was given by ICAO as
1500 meters. This distance has been reduced to 1035 meters. For this reduced distance the use of a high update radar system (or equivalent) and additional procedures
are necessary.
Local (Best) Practice: BAA (London)

At London Heathrow both runways are used in segregated mode. For many years now the airlines are for mixed mode operation on both runways as mixed mode
operation could increase runway capacity with a few movements an hour. This operation requires the simultaneous (and independent) use of parallel approaches.
Besides environmental impact (segregated use and operation switch during the day is a measure at LHR to reduce noise impact) also operational / procedural changes
must take place. These changes, if required, can take years before being implemented.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Local (Best) Practice: Amsterdam

In the late 80’s the simultaneous use of more than one landing runway become obvious. However due to the fact that in those days all landing runways were
converging the simultaneous use could only be done during good visibility conditions. For reduced visibility conditions the use of parallel (and independent) arrival
runways was required. Two runways were (and still are) parallel but could not be use for parallel arrivals due to the lack of exits, approach lights and ILS. Also
environmental reasons restricted the use of one of the parallel runways for approaches from the north. For parallel approaches from the south additional exits, approach
lights and an ILS has been installed. The time necessary for these changes were about 5 years for which most of the time was used for the Environmental Impact Study
and the legal processes.
Initiative on MET strategy

Accurate and reliable MET information is not only important for the safety of flight but also to deal with possible flight interruption .
Severe weather conditions (Low visibility, strong wind, ice and snow etc) have a strong negative effect on the airports capacity. This is especially true
for these airports where the probability for these conditions is very low. Implementing and maintaining facilities/equipment for de-icing and snow
removal is for those airports hardly possible, in contrary to airports in the Nordic countries that faces these “normal” winter conditions for several
successive months.
In almost every case where capacity reduction is expected due to extreme weather conditions flow control (CFMU) measures are enforced to prevent
that too many aircraft are in the holding pattern or need to divert. Implementing flow restriction only at the moment that severe weather conditions OP-40
really takes place, is to late as many if not all flights are already on their way. The needs for these flow control measures are all based on weather Related: OP30, OP-38
forecasts to enforce them approximately 3 hours in advance. Most flights from European destinations can be hold at their origin, creating runway
“space” for intercontinental flights already on the way.
Enforcing flow restrictions is an undesired but necessary measure. It has an enormous influence on efficiency and punctuality, not only for the flights
directly involved but also for successive flights later on the day. Next to realistic interpretation, accurate and reliable weather forecast is therefore
required.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
A more efficient use of the main and most important airport resource, the runway, can relieve an important / major blocker.
Time To implement 2
Potential impact on More sustainable flow and capacity
Blocking point 4
less fuel burn --> less air pollution
Increased predictability, less delay, less fuel consumption, less cost
USERS 5
Increased predictability, less delay
Airport 5
expected value Increased predictability, less delay, reduced workload
per
ANSP 5
Neutral
Safety
Capacity
Environment
TRL level: 1
Related initiatives: A-CDM
Based on the CNS/ATM concept for the EUR region a subgroup of the meteorological group of EUR ICAO is together with Eurocontrol developing a MET strategy to
support this CNS /ATM concept for the EUR region. In this concept it is foreseen that the capabilities of MET for the arrival and departure phase of a flight would be:
forecasts of
• surface wind including head- and cross wind component
• visibility
• cloud base
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
• turbulence in the approach

• icing in the approach
• severe weather phenomena
• runway conditions (wet, dry, snow covered)
• wind field in the approach area
This information would be in the area of an airport with heavy traffic in the order of a spatial resolution of 1km and in a temporal resolution for 5minutes.
The development of the MET strategy is still ongoing. However this initiative covers the arrival and the departure part of the so called gate to gate concept, not the
operation on the ground. If this is necessary to be covered from the operational point of view an initiative could be taken to cover also those aspects.
A further part is also not covered by this initiative. It is the forecast of RVR, this is part of a second initiative which is discussed also in this meteorological group and
was brought on the global level of ICAO for further development
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
5 CDM
R-5.1
Airport CDM - Airport Collaborative Decision Making / TRL 3-4
The CDM manager collects data from different sources on the airport and dispatched an integrated and improved information. It enables a common
situational awareness on operations progress. The objective of the Airport CDM (Collaborative Decision Making) project is two fold:
• To improve the overall efficiency of operations at an airport, with a particular focus on the aircraft turn-round procedures. This is achieved by
enhancing the decision-making process by the sharing of up-to-date relevant information and by taking into account the preferences, available
resources, and the requirements of those who are involved at the airport (such as airline operators, air traffic control, handling agents, and the airport
management).
• To fill the ground gap of the fragmented aircraft management process, by effectively linking the loose airborne segments with the airport ground
managements.
Initial results from these trials have already identified an improvement in stand and gate allocation, resource management, and slot adherence which
OP-1,2,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,
can lead to a reduction in costs, delays and passenger complaints on displayed flight information. CDM aims to implement appropriate methods and
21,22,25, 27, 34,35,37,38, 39, 40;
means for: level 1-milestones turn-around process control, level 2-better ATFM information about flight updates and better management of real taxi
ENV-3,4;
times by ATFM, level 3- presequencing according to airlines preference, adverse situation management support. Several projects and companies in
ORG-1,2,3,
Europe and USA are working in the definition, implementation and validation of CDM processes. The concept of Airport CDM endeavours to bring
all the main airport partners (ATC, Aircraft Operator, Airlines, CFMU and Ground Handlers) together and share operational data in a transparent
way. Information sharing is essential for achieving common situational awareness. Enhancing decision making processes will lead to achieving
maximised operational efficiency and best use of the available airport infrastructure and resource management. EUROCONTROL Airport CDM has
both developed and trialled a number of Airport CDM elements (below) and is currently proactively encouraging other European airports to
implement Airport CDM locally. Airport CDM is not just a system, hardware or software, meeting or telephone call; it involves culture change,
handling of sensitive data (available somewhere), procedural changes and building confidence and understanding of each partners operational
processes. Airport CDM elements: Airport CDM Information Sharing, The Turn-round Process (Milestones Approach), Variable Taxi Time
Calculation, Collaborative Management of Flight Updates, Collaborative Pre-departure Sequence, CDM in Adverse Conditions
Severity of associated BP 4-5 After having analysed the severity of each BP, we come to the conclusion the majority of BPs are in the rated as High severity.
Time To implement 4-5 It is already fully or partially implemented in some airports (12 European airports and planned on 13 within DMEAN framework). The required
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
implementing time is around 12 months

Technical constraints are not a major issue. Difficulties in implementation are organisational and resistance to change.
Ease of implementation 3-4 Very dynamic and multi-partner involving culture change what makes it very challenging.
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 Airport CDM can significantly suppress a number of BPs and have some / significant improvements on others.
Decreased emissions and noise of taxiing aircraft due to less waiting times in the taxiways and on the holding points, both for arrivals and
environmental impact 4 departures.
On Time Performance. Improved Predictability
USERS 4-5 Reduction of delays, Fewer missed connections, Enhanced services during disruptions periods
On Time Performance. Improved Predictability. Optimum use of airport resources
expected value
Airport 5 Enhanced use of existing infrastructure (unlock latent capacity), • Airport Slot compliance, • Potential revenue enhancements (additional flights
& passengers), • Operational recovery in times of disruption and delay, • Airport Image (passengers perception of smooth operations)
per
stakeholder Reduce frequency use. Better adherence to CTOT. Improved timeliness and accuracy in departure estimates
ANSP 4 Accurate planning information for controllers, Flexible pre departure planning, Reduced Apron and Taxiway congestion, Reduced Apron and
Taxiway congestion, Enhanced situational awareness during times of disruption and delay
Airport CDM may generate business opportunities to industry as system interoperability is key for enabling Information Sharing. System
Industry 3-4 designed taking into account the CDM requirements facilitate implementation at local airports and decrease the costs involved.
R-5.2
LEONARDO / TRL-3
LEONARDO, Linking Existing On Ground, Arrival and Departure Operations is a research project promoted by the European Commission, with the
participation of companies from France (ADP, DSNA and Air France), The Netherlands (NLR), Italy (Sicta) and Spain (Aena, Iberia, Indra, Ineco
and Isdefe), together with Eurocontrol. OP-1,2,4,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,
The objective of Leonardo is to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) processes supported by the 21,22,25,33,34,35,37,38,39;
integration of existing tools for arrival (AMAN), departure (DMAN), surface (SMAN), stand allocation and turn-around management. Indeed, at ENV-4
national and local level, there are numerous systems that prevent optimal use of the available capacity, Consequently, operations involving arrival, ORG-1,2
departure and ground movements need to be developed and integrated in a system that manages the traffic flow more efficiently around and within
the airport. The integration of these decision supporting tools promotes the information sharing among airport stakeholders and makes it possible to
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
provide the airlines, the airports and the air traffic service providers with early and reliable planning updates. In order to achieve these objectives,
systems integrating the afore mentioned planning tools were developed and tested at Madrid-Barajas airport and at Paris-Charles de Gaulle airport.
The results of Leonardo experiments give evidence of the benefits achievable applying CDM procedures at the airport level. It has been demonstrated
that the airport operator and the airlines improve the safety and the efficiency of their ground processes using ATC planning updates and that the
ATC improve air traffic management thanks to the information provided by the airport and the airlines. This paper begins with the description of the
concept of CDM implemented and tested by Leonardo. Then, the paper reports in detail the results of the experiments carried out, highlighting figures
for the benefits achievable and finally, the paper concludes with an overview of what has been developed and achieved. LEONARDO contributes to
establish a common model of integration and co-ordination of airport traffic planning and management tools at the European level.
Severity of associated BP 5 See CDM, AMAN/DMAN
Time To implement 3-4 Although Leonardo is a mock-up to prove the feasibility of a concept, a partial implementation exists in some airports
Ease of implementation 2-3 Leonardo is not intended for implementation. However no technological constraints
Potential impact on The aim of CDM is to recover from deviations in airport schedules, by setting collaborative procedures which allow timely reaction to be taken
Blocking point 4 by the best positioned actor at each aircraft status Improvement in predictability of operations and better management of existing resource
environmental impact 4 Reduction in gaseous emissions is obtained by reducing taxi-times; i.e. reducing aircraft engine time
USERS 3 Leonardo is not intended for implementation
expected value Airport 3 Leonardo is not intended for implementation
per
stakeholder ANSP 3 Leonardo is not intended for implementation
Industry 3 Leonardo is not intended for implementation
TRL level: 3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-5.3
SPADE: Supporting Platform for Airport Decision-making and Efficiency Analysis
Development of a (software) Supporting Platform for Airport Decision-making and Efficiency Analysis for airport stakeholders and policy makers to
support decisions in airport development, planning and operations.
LEG-1; 2; ORG-2; 4; OP-4; 10; 11;
It enables integrated impact and trade-off analyses with respect to variety of performance measures (capacity, delay, level-of-service, safety,
13; 17
environment, cost-effectiveness, efficiency ...).
Project included at the 6th EC Framework Program, currently starting Phase 2.
Nowadays we have a relevant lack of tools capable of comprehensively managing the different effects and trade-offs among the airport related
Severity of associated BP 3 activities
Time To implement 4-5 According to the current results of SPADE project, it is expected that the software will be fully developed by implementation phase
Ease of implementation 5 According to the current results of SPADE project, it is expected that the software will be fully developed by implementation phase
Potential impact on The decision making would be improved, by simplifying the data collection and processes, but the scope of the decisions to be managed would
Blocking point 3 be limited (to the previously defined "use-case" scenarios)
environmental impact 3 No direct effect on environment
USERS 3
expected value Airport 4 The involved decision making processes consider main airport activity related issues
per
stakeholder ANSP 4 The involved decision making processes consider some ANSP activity related issues
Industry 3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-5.1
Gatelink
Wireless gatelink is a system that utilizes Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) technology to transmit data throughout an airport environment,
enabling instant sharing of data between aircraft, passenger terminals, maintenance operations, baggage handling, ground-support equipment and
more. Such instant sharing of data would help airlines to increase operational efficiency and improve on-time performance. The concept of high
bandwidth communications with aircraft at or near the gate is not new (Gatelink only provides air-ground communications at or near the gate). Over
the years a number of technologies have been considered including the use of fibre-optic links, microwave links and more recently the currently
emerging Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) solutions. A number of airlines and equipment manufacturers have shown considerable interest in
the Gatelink concept. In 2000, Eurocontrol published an in depth study into Wireless Airport Communications Systems (WACS), which considered
potential WLAN solutions for Gatelink. The three main Wireless LAN candidate technologies which could be used for Gatelink are:
Systems operating at 2.4GHz conforming to IEEE 802.11b standards:
- 2.4 GHz FHSS / DHSS
- 2.4 GHz DSSS HDR OP-2, 15, 17, 18, 21, 27, 28, 34, 37,
High Performance Radio Local Area Network (HiperLAN) according to ETSI HiperLAN standards: 38;
- 5.2 and 5.8 GHz HiperLAN/1 and HiperLAN/2 ORG-2;
- 17.1 GHz HiperLAN LEG-1, 3
Systems conforming to Digital European Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) standards.
Trials already conducted have shown that 2.4 GHz technology is usable in an airport environment using either DSSS or FHSS modulation. Systems
operating at 5 and 17 GHz are less well developed. While these systems have the potential to offer improved data throughput, they do so at the
expense of usable range. Gatelink offers a huge potential for Airline Operational Communications (AOC), Airline Administrative Communications
(AAC) and Air Passenger Correspondence (APC). The role in Air Traffic Control is less clear. The deployment of Gatelink to support non-safety
services is likely to be driven by local business cases and as enabler may support Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) applications and
applications involving the (re)allocation of CFMU slots, but the additional burden of supporting ATC is likely to increase costs and timescales. The
adoption of a mature system, some years after deployment, to support ATC in the presence of alternative communications means should be
considered. The deployment of gatelink is considered to be a local issue between aircraft and airport operators. The approximate cost of a wireless
LAN system is given by the Eurocontrol Wireless Airport Communication System (WACS) Study.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Severity of associated BP 3 Alternative datalink technique between cockpit and ATC. Initially envisaged to provide a datalink between Aircraft Operator and cockpit
Time To implement 4-5 Installed or near to be installed at some airports: Brussels, Frankfurt?, Changi terminal 2 (under test). Mature system for aircraft operators.
Ease of implementation 3 Strong competitors like VDL 2
Potential impact on
Blocking point 2 Depending on scope of applications
environmental impact 3-4 Only some associated improvements derived from CDM applications
USERS 3 Role in airport ATC is not clear.
expected value Airport 3 Role in airport ATC is not clear
per
stakeholder ANSP 3 Role in airport ATC is not clear
Industry 3 Role in airport ATC is not clear
I-5.2
CDM Trial at SPL
Sharing information about the process and especially the predicted / expected disruptions for the (very) short time frame can optimize the process of
all partners (Airlines, Airport and ANSP). If disruption occurs or tends to occur, immediate action can be take by all partners. For example, the
airlines (Users) could change their schedules (priority to certain flights), ground handlers could increase their workforce (change shifts), etc. OP-1, OP-15, OP-16, OP-38, OP-39,
Most limiting factor is the will to share all information as also to accept that some one else its process could be more important than yours. OP-40, ORG-1, ORG-2, ORG-4
During extreme disruptions priorities will change, not only within the own organisation but towards other.
To see and accept these changes / shifts, timely and accurate information is a must
Inefficient use of restricted capacity during extreme weather conditions and traffic/flow disruptions is an important blocking point. Reliability
Severity of associated BP 4 and continuity of operation\ is under strong pressure
CDM principles (sharing information and combined decisions) can be implemented immediately (if wanted). Optimizing these exchange of
Time To implement 4/5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
information and combined priorities is an continuous process

Finding the will by each partner to share information and delete the policy that ones own process is the most important can cost some time.
Ease of implementation 4 Often shortly after a large disruption minds are ready to take action.
Potential impact on Sharing information and making combined / shared decisions can and will reduce the impact of disruptions. However CDM will never totally
Blocking point 4 suppress the blocking point
On average non, however CDM will reduce delays during extreme disruptions. During these conditions for aircraft on the ground the engines
environmental impact 3 will mostly be switched off.
Better and efficient process during extreme disruptions. Less operational cost
USERS 5
Better and efficient process during extreme disruptions. Less operational cost
per Better and efficient process during extreme disruptions. Less operational cost.
stakeholder ANSP 5 Better ATM performance
Industry TBD
TRL level : 4
Related initiatives R-5.3 Spade
After the extreme problems with the de-icing process 2 years ago, the need for better information and better / efficient cooperation became efficient. The availability of
necessary resources was insufficient mostly because different partners were not aware of the problems playing part with other partners. Solving the bottle neck was
only possible by implementing unpopular but very necessary measures. The partners became aware that timely sharing information is a must, as also accepting the
problems of other and finding combined solutions. For the next de-icing season, the process was already improved as each partner was aware of the others limitations
and was willing to account for these limitations.
An other CDM example is the shift of inbound priority during circumstances with reduced (arrival) capacity. Normally ATC handles the traffic according the first in
first out principle. However with reduced arrival capacity the hub carrier can change this priority for its own flights. Specific flights are tagged by the hub carrier
because of the large share of transfer traffic on these flights. These flights will get a higher priority in the arrival stream while flights with a smaller or no share in the
transfer streams will be delayed or even have to diverse.
Priority sharing is only possible with flights of the same airline. In the future priority sharing could also be used for flights of the same alliance
The hub carrier (KLM) has set up an information tool (still a trial) in which the available runway capacity can be predicted. A certain possibility (chance %) is given
for disruption. If this percentage passes a certain level flight operations could decide to alter the schedule and make priority handling (priority tags) active
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Information on the trial for better prediction of available runway capacity can be found on the internet:
http://cdm.klm.com/cps/default.asp
This information system is still a trial, and is used by KLM to optimize their Hub operation at Schiphol Airport.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
6 Concepts
R-6.1
A12: Cooperative ATM (C-ATM)

Cooperative Air Traffic Management (C-ATM) is a research project of the European Commission’s 6th Framework Programme, aimed at defining
solutions that can be operationally implemented from 2012 to improve the efficiency and predictability of the European Air Transport System. The
C-ATM concept focuses on increased collaboration in an integrated air and ground ATM system, supported by 4D capable avionics, creating a more
predictive ATM system whose goal is to consistently deliver aircraft according to planned user schedules and agreed traffic sequences. Pre-defined
scenarios will cater for degraded situations. The design of these scenarios could form an important element in the transition from a rule of “first come OP-1, OP-2, OP-14 Op-22, Op-34,
first served” to “serve to schedule”. (There is a parallel with the FAA CO-ATM system that has already identified a possible transition path in line OP-38, OP-39, ORG-3
with ongoing research at NASA Ames addressing the integration of trajectory based operations and airborne separation assistance (ASAS)). The
ATM system must disseminate high quality information, contained in a Network Operations Plan, to achieve the C-ATM concept goals. The
‘network plan’ will cover strategic planning, scheduling, flow, air traffic, airport, military, airline and aircraft information, and 4-dimensional flight
data.
Time To implement 2 (1) It can be operationally implemented from 2012 (more than 4 years since the end of SESAR D Phase)
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4 (5) I would say that with C-ATM the majority of related BPs would be completely suppressed
Improvements due to greater predictability reduced block times & improved aircraft profiles.
expected value
per
USERS 5
stakeholder Airport 5
ANSP 5
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Industry TBD
R-6.2
A13: CAMES - Co-operative ATM Measures for a Single European Sky

CAMES is the operational application of the FAM (Functional Airspace Management) concept and tools. The project will trial real time Traffic
Synchronization measures on the selected candidate axis with the objective of operating on real traffic flows to a pre-operational level. The proposed
study axis connects the ATS units of Rome, Milan, Geneva, Aix-en-Provence with Barcelona and Palma. The project will demonstrate, for a given
field of play, the feasibility of implementing Traffic Synchronization techniques that will foster inter-centre co-operation in Europe. This project tries
ORG-1, OP-34, OP-39, OP-35,
to develop operational procedures and tools, that will enable the air traffic control centres, airports and aircraft operators, to work together in a
OP-25
dynamic manner, to maximize the efficiency of the System from Gate to Gate. These procedures mainly use existing technologies, and therefore need
not require any major technological shift. On the other hand, because of their very nature (that is, one organisation providing co-operative, added
value services to another), they will need an institutional and economic framework to be defined. The first phase of the project is a feasibility study
involving the EEC, CFMU, ENAV, AENA, DGAC/SCTA, Skyguide and Boeing ATM .
Time To implement 2
Potential impact on
Blocking point 3
per
stakeholder Airport
ANSP
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Industry 3
R-6.3
A19: Dynamic Management Of The European Airspace Network (DMEAN)

The implementation of DMEAN brings together a number of important EUROCONTROL initiatives in airspace design, collaborative decision-
making, Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA), and Air Traffic Flow & Capacity Management (ATFCM) improvements from the Central Flow
Management Unit. DMEAN will be consistent with the Single European Sky (SES) mandates and with the overall Single European Sky framework.
Within 5 years DMEAN will provide
• Improved planning and demand/capacity balancing through improved accuracy of demand and capacity
• Integration of airspace, flow and capacity management at network, regional and local levels
• Improved links with airport operations
• Dynamic airspace structures consistent with demand LEG-01, 03, 04, 10, 20,
• Extensive information sharing and support of collaborative decision making. OPS-1,2,3,4,5, 6,7,8,9,
An improved interface, in particular with those airports that are close to their capacity limit and/or generate a lot of traffic will allow optimal use of 10,11,12,13,14,
available information, take into account actual airports capacity constraints, and deal in a better way with (e.g. weather) events that impact both the 15,16,17,18,19,20,36, EFF-1
airport and the network. Airport CDM and the use of best practices to support airport capacity are important components within this approach This
initiative presents potential external interoperability issues (advantages and/or concerns), which should be taken into consideration
In summary the airport related initiatives are:-
• Supporting Airport Capacity improvements where critical to Network Operations (25 significant airports)
• Airport CDM
• Airport/Network (CFMU) Integration
• Evaluation of Airport Operations
implemented by 2010
Time To implement 4
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Commitment is critical
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
User & Service providers participation (mil and civil) through stakeholder consultation process
USERS 5
expected value CDM
per
Airport 4
stakeholder ANSP 4
Industry 3
R-6.4
GtG - Validation of a European Gate to Gate Operational Concept for 2005-2010

The project, scheduled from May-02 till Oct-06, defines and describes a Candidate European gate-to-gate Integrated Operational Concept ( G2G
IOC), consistent with other on-going ATM European Programmes, and with stakeholders strategic plans, for progressive implementation, from 2010
onwards.
WP1:
Objective is to increase runway and departure sector throughput whilst increasing safety on the airport ground using advanced planner and
tactical support tools.. The concept configurations will progress from:
- GS/AS applications and a basic DMAN , through OP-2 OP-9 , OP-22 , OP-25 ,
- CDM, improved planning of departure operations and coordination with AMAN, and finally ORG-2
- Enhanced integration of departure and arrival management with IRM and FASA.
WP2:
Objective is to increase sector and resources throughput whilst increasing (or at least keeping) the safety levels. The expected benefits thus relate
mainly to Operability, Safety, Capacity and Efficiency.
. The concepts in WP2 are
- Dynamic Resectorisation (DR)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
- Multi-Sector Planner (MSP)

- Automation and ASAS en-route (Auto)
- ASAS applications for en-route (ASAS)
WP3:
The operational concept proposed for the arrival phase
represents a large number of modifications to current operations.
These range from improvements to controller working positions and procedures to the introduction of an ASAS application that is integrated with
the Arrival Manager in order to delegate the aircraft spacing from initial descent to final approach to the cockpit. The use of datalink services to
support these changes is also envisaged Validation of 4 Key Concepts of Operation (KCO):
- arrival management improvements
- improvements to ATCO CWP and procedures
- E-TMA and TMA co-ordination
- ASAS applications.
The geographic areas to be used are Paris and Rome ETMA/TMA.
Time To implement 1
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
USERS 4
per
stakeholder ANSP
Industry 3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-6.5
A38: Innovative Future Air Transport System (IFATS)

IFATS is a European Commission funded project under the FP6 program. It proposes to study a revolutionary concept for a future air transportation
system by adding as much onboard automation and autonomy to the aircraft as necessary to fulfil the overall requirements of improved efficiency OP-1,2,6,9,13,14,22,25,26,28;
and safety of air transportation. Current pilots and controllers tasks are deeply modified as the elements of the system communicate digitally: pilots ORG-1,
can be removed from the cockpit and controllers work is transformed into system monitoring actions.
Very innovative Operational Concept (this is not a short term initiative, but long-term)
Time To implement 1
Lots of deep changes (responsibilities, technological,
Potential impact on
Blocking point 4
Saving of fuel and so reduced emissions with this new Concept.
USERS
per
stakeholder ANSP
Industry
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
R-6.6
A50: Operational Concept Document (OCD – The vision)

The OCD is encompassing all the elements of the operational environment (therefore a relatively high number of blocking points addressed above). It
OP-
assures coherence between the various operational processes, demanding each system element to fulfil it's particular role, leading to increased system
1,2,3,9,13,14,16,17,22,33,34,36,38
efficiency through improved predictability and capacity/demand balancing. The OCD shall be seen as the target for all activities undertaken in the
ENV-2,4,5 ORG-1,2,4
short, as well as medium term activities
The implementation of the OCD through will lead to a more coherent and efficient air transport system, assuring that system elements function
Severity of associated BP 3 correctly together
Transition towards the OCD requires a number of system elements to change
Time To implement 1
The OCD itself is not an issue, some of the system elements may constrain
Potential impact on Only a common OCD will assure synergy between the proposed solutions for the Blocking points
Blocking point 4
The higher efficiency and predictability will lead to reduced environmental load, e.g. reduced taxi time and holding time
USERS 4 Higher efficiency, better predictability and capacity/demand balancing
expected value Airport 4 Higher efficiency, better predictability and capacity/demand balancing
per
stakeholder ANSP 3 Better predictability (in airport departure flows)
Industry 4 Improved visibility on required technical performance, harmonised operational requirements
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
7 Airport Infrastructure
I-7.2
AACG recommendations for the handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) at existing airports / infrastructure
ICAO has developed international standards and recommended practices for aircraft with a wingspan of 65 m up to but not including 80 m. However
these requirements are very difficult to fulfil especially on large existing (read older) airports like LHR, FRA, AMS etc. Changes to infrastructure
(runways, taxiways etc...) would require billions of euros. To overcome this problem a number of European aviation authorities, airports and industry
representatives formed an informal group to analyze the possible problems with non compliance of the airside infrastructure to ICAO requirements.
OP-19, OP-20, LEG-1, LEG-2
AACG has developed a number of recommendations to adapt the infrastructure at existing airports for A380 operations within a limited investment
volume. Main drive for these recommendations is risk evaluation and an acceptable level of risk. Although initiated for the operation of the Airbus
A380, the AACG recommendations could provide appropriate mitigation measures, if required, at aerodromes unable to meet ICAO standards for
other code F aircraft like the B747-800.
Criteria Rating Rationales
Operations of Code F aircraft at airport which are not designed for these large aircraft, could result in additional operationally complex air traffic
Severity of associated BP 3 management procedures with a (temporary) negative effect on the airports capacity. To solve these potential problems by implementation full
ICAO regulations will have large impact on infrastructure planning, airport and ground operations as well as financial status of the airport
Changes to airside infrastructure are on many airports necessary even if AACG recommendations are taken into account. These changes can
Time To implement 3 take time to implement from 1 to several years. Legal approval from authorities can take a large part of this time frame
Ease of implementation 3 Approval by local authorities will be the most limiting constraint
Potential impact on Blocking Large potential impact as airport will be capable to handle the A380 aircraft with a reasonable investment volume and hardly any negative
point 4 operational impact
environmental impact 3 No direct environmental impact, but indirect the new generation engines (which will be fitted on NLA) with produce less noise and emissions
expected value Airport will be capable for handling A380 without a large increase in operational cost (fees)
per
USERS 5
stakeholder Airport will be capable for handling A380 without large investment cost and without a large increase in operational cost (fees). Large economic
Airport 5 impact/benefit for airport as well as communities
Due to implementation of AACG recommendations there will be no large differences in operations of NLA compared to other traffic. Wake
ANSP 4 vortex turbulence however has to be investigated
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Industry 5 More airports capable for A380 operations

No negative impact on safety as it is mandatory to assess all possible safety related issues and mitigating measures before implementing / making use of
Safety
AACG recommendations with respect to Airside / airport infrastructure changes for NLA 0
With smaller changes, existing non ICAO code F complying airports will be capable for handling NLA.
Capacity 0
No significant environmental impact
Environment 0
TRL level: 3 Safety Case
Related initiatives: AACG recommendations for the handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) at alternate / diversion airports
The A 380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG) is an informal group consisting of a number of European Aviation Authorities, Airport and Industry Representatives.
It was formed to agree and promote a common position among the group members on the application of ICAO requirements with respect to the A380, for
infrastructure and operations at existing major European airports that do not meet the requirements. Recognising that the ideal for A380 operations would be to provide
a level of aerodrome infrastructure at least equal to the generic ICAO Requirements (contained within ICAO Annexes and ADM), the AACG should, in particular:
- Agree and promote that any deviations from these ICAO Requirements should be supported by appropriate aeronautical studies and relevant risk analyses;
- Report its work and findings to ICAO through the appropriate channels so that the latter may use such data for the development of future provisions and
enable the work of the group to be disseminated globally;
- Seek to promote the application of the agreed lesser requirements for the A380 aircraft within national regulatory frameworks;
- Co-operate with other international organisations and working groups dealing with NLA operations
On the ECAC website more information on New Large Aircraft and its effect in airport operations can be found. Both the AACG main document (recommendations
for the operation of A380 aircraft on existing airports), as well as the AACG document on A380 operations at alternate airports, are available on this website.
NLA Forum : http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/index.php
Common Agreement Document of the A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG), AIRBUS - ACI - CAA UK - CAA GERMANY - CAA NETHERLANDS -
CAA FRANCE - AIRPORTS (UK-GERMANY-NETHERLANDS-FRANCE): http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/article.php3?id_article=22
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
I-7.3
AACG recommendations for the handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft ) at alternate / diversion airports

AACG recommendations constitute a sound basis on which to plan the adaptation of their regulations. The Airports nominated regularly for use as
alternate must meet a defined standard, which many states require being similar to that of the scheduled destination. For those used very infrequently,
A380 operations at alternate airports are described in a document proposed by the French DGAC as best practices. It provides alternative measures,
operational procedures and operating restrictions that can be implemented to cope with the occasional movement of the A380 without the burden of OP-19, OP-20, LEG-1, LEG-2
high investment cost and infrastructure charges. The final safety based decisions at a particular airport remains the responsibility of the provider State
and the airport operator. Although initiated for the operation of the Airbus A380, the AACG recommendations could provide appropriate mitigation
measures, if required, at aerodromes unable to meet ICAO standards for other code F aircraft like the B747-800.
Operations of Code F aircraft (for example the A380) at airport which are not designed for these large aircraft, could result in additional
operationally complex air traffic management procedures with a (temporary) negative effect on the airports capacity. To solve these potential
Severity of associated BP 3 problems by implementation full ICAO regulations will have large impact on infrastructure planning, airport and ground operations as well as
financial status of the airport, especially for airports that will only see code F aircraft as unplanned diversions.
As the ideas are mostly operational related suggestions, the implementation should be possible within 12 months. Most of the time will be
Time To implement 5 spend to prove applicability and to get approval from the local authorities. The required procedures to be written are not a huge investment
(both time and financially)
Approval from local authorities will be the most time consuming constraint. Necessary procedures and restrictions have to be determined and
Ease of implementation 4 approved
Potential impact on Blocking (alternate) airport will be capable to handle the low numbers of A380 movements without huge investment cost or changes to infrastructure
point 4
No environmental impact
expected value More airports capable as alternate/diversion destination. No specific benefits in day to day operations at normal destination airports.
per
USERS 5 Common operational procedures will help to maintain the level of operational safety.
stakeholder Become A380 compatible for diversion flights or even low number of annual flights without huge investment cost. Common operational
Airport 5 procedures will help to maintain the level of operational safety.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Sometimes special procedures are required which could increase Controllers workload. However nothing different than current occasional
ANSP 3 operation / visit of other very large aircraft like AN124 and AN225 (and for some airports even B747 and C5). Common operational procedures
will help to maintain the level of operational safety.
Slightly more possibilities for future A380 operations
Industry 5
No negative impact on safety as it is mandatory to assess all possible safety related issues and mitigating measures before implementing / making use of
Safety
AACG recommendations with respect to procedures and operations for New Large Aircraft 0
More airports will be capable to act as alternate, which will enhance the possible route structure and operating conditions for New Large Aircraft
Capacity 0
No significant environmental impact
Environment 0
TRL Level; 3 Safety Case
Related initiatives: AACG recommendations for the handling of NLA (New Large Aircraft) at existing airports / infrastructure
The A380 is practically the first code F aircraft than will be very frequently operated on commercial air routes. ICAO has developed International Standards and
recommended practices for Code F aircraft (wingspan 65 meters up to but not including 80 meters). For a large number of airports these requirements mean huge
changes to the airside infrastructure. For airports with a large number of daily A380 operations, these changes could be economically and certainly operationally
worthwhile however for airports with a small number of A380 movements ( less than 1 daily) or airports that will see the A380 only as a diversion operation, these
changes means a huge investment without any return.
The A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG) has made a document with a kind of checklist and possible solutions for airports that will see the A380 only as a
(planned as well as unplanned) diversion. This document is guidance for the operators and States in combination with the minimum level of infrastructure
requirements at possible alternate and even lower frequency use airports
As the possible solutions are only ideas and suggestions the airport itself is responsible to get the approval from the appropriate authority for implementation.
On the ECAC website more information on New Large Aircraft and its effect in airport operations can be found. Both the AACG main document (recommendations
for the operation of A380 aircraft on existing airports), as well as the AACG document for A380 operations at alternate airports, are available on this website.
NLA Forum : http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/index.php

Common Agreement Document of the A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG), AIRBUS - ACI - CAA UK - CAA GERMANY - CAA NETHERLANDS -
CAA FRANCE - AIRPORTS (UK-GERMANY-NETHERLANDS-FRANCE): http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/article.php3?id_article=22
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
AIRBUS A380 OPERATIONS AT ALTERNATE AIRPORTS: http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/article.php3?id_article=31
I-7.5
Airport Operational (Pilot) fora
Communication is essential to secure the potential benefits of the ACE program. The typical airline representation at an airport is through a station
manager who is not closely aware of the flight procedures of the airline he/she represents. Both the airport operator/authority as the ANSP could OP-4, OP-5, OP-27, OP-29, OP-31,
organize meetings focused on encouraging peer group discussion, and sometimes break into type related subgroups to exchange type specific ideas of OP-32; ENV-1, ENV-2, ENV-3,
best practice. It will also be a learning experience for the airport in improving their appreciation of infra-structure shortcomings e.g. where should ENV-4
signage be improved?, what is the priority for upgrading stand entry guidance systems?, etc:
There are no legal restrictions to immediate implementation
Time To implement 5
Successful review requires objective data. While special studies can be set up, automatic data collection from the radar is preferable. The
Ease of implementation 3 Eurocontrol role of encouraging harmonisation in the ASTERIX protocol is helpful
Potential impact on Potentially significant enabler for operational procedures. Efficient use of existing infrastructure. Less differences between airline operations.
Blocking point 4 Reduced delay, less fuel burn
Potentially significant enabler for operational procedures with environmental benefit (CDA and noise reduction)
Access to peer experiences
USERS 5
expected value Effective mechanism to promote best in class practices. Significant insights into operational infra-structure
per
Airport 4
Access to users
stakeholder ANSP 4
Neutral
Industry 3
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Safety Could lead to an increase in safety level due to a better awareness and understanding of pilots and controllers 0/+
Potential significant enabler for implementation of new operational procedures
Capacity
Efficient use of existing infrastructure will lead to less delay and holding times and could lead to an increase in runway capacity +
Less delays will lead to less fuel consumption (less air pollution)
Environment
Potential significant enabler for operational procedures with (large) environmental impact +
TRL level: 4
Related initiatives: Airside Capacity Enhancement ACE, Brake to Vacate, CREDOS, Balanced RETS, better placed runway crossings,
CDM
Local Best Practice: BAA (London)
At the London Airports Pilot Fora (Peer meetings) are organized for at least 8 years. Two types of meetings are practiced to improve relevant communication between
Airport and pilot community as well as between ANSP and pilot community.
BAA hosts a monthly flight operations meeting with representation open to all senior pilot managers whose fleets operate into the airport with an agenda to review;
Safety, Track keeping, CDA Performance, 1000ft Monitoring, Noise infringements and complaints, Runway Occupancy and Runway Incursions.
In addition the ANSP holds an annual forum to review airport and airspace issues with a high profile invitation and professional presentations.
Both meetings focus on encouraging peer group discussion, and sometimes break into type related subgroups to exchange type specific ideas of best practice. It is also
a learning experience for the airport in improving their appreciation of infra-structure shortcomings e.g. where should signage be improved? What is the priority for
upgrading stand entry guidance systems? Etc:
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Example of environmental performance (compliance to operational procedures) being discussed in Pilot fora of BAA and NATS
Figures from environmental performance for BAA Gatwick, These figures have been produced by the Flight Evaluation Unit that supports the monthly Flight
Operations Performance Committee
2001/02 2005/06 Percentage Reduction
Noise infringements – Day 42 infringements of limit 26 infringements of limit 38%
Noise infringements - Night 22 infringements of limit 10 infringements of limit 55%
Track deviations (*) (&) 5.06% off track (1998) 0.55% off track (2003) 89%
Continuous descent (**) approach (core night) 74% CDA 84% CDA 13.5% Improvement
Continuous descent approach (day) 68% CDA 78% CDA 14.7% Improvement
1000ft requirement 253 aircraft below 1000ft 23 aircraft below 1000ft 91%
* The procedure for monitoring track deviations changed at the end of February 2003. Until that time all the Gatwick NPRs were monitored to an altitude of
3000ft. Four of the NPRs are now monitored to an altitude of 4000ft.
& The discussions at FLOPC centred on the management of the turn, the quality of data in the FMS and involved actual trials of modified procedures. The FEU
was actively involved in support.
** Current compliance varies from 90% for the dominant carrier, 92% for the best carrier in the top three down to 45% for the lowest carrier in the 20 fleets with
the highest movement rates.
From the above table it can be seen that there has been a variance in the perceived benefits of pilot fora. The figures illustrate the history of environmental
improvements that attribute to these initiatives. It also shows that, when well run with appropriate support, such meetings are merely environmentally neutral. It also
demonstrates that there are wide variances between the practice of even simple procedures and that, without the benefits of peer group pressure; one cannot assume
that pilots universally follow best practice.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
8 Environment
The main environmental initiatives identified in 3.2.2/D2 can be classified into 3 packages of solutions:
- improving collaborative work
- contributing to a better transparency
- reducing noise and pollution
1. Collaborative work between ANSP, Users and Airports

An effective collaboration between operational stakeholders in a just culture has to be promoted supported by
appropriate ATM relevant management system.
E-1.1 Airport widespread adoption of EMS following the principles of international standards
The goal of this strategy is to manage the operation and onward development of an airport in such a way as to effectively curb the
facility’s impact on the environment. The airport company have therefore to introduce a modern, long-term environmental
management system certified to DINISO 14001 and / or EMAS 761/2001. This management system creates the foundations for a
comprehensive and all-encompassing approach to environmental policy: By continuously documenting the resources consumed and
airport emissions, Airports are able to track the effects on the environment systematically, set specific target figures, and build on
these, to roll out further initiatives to ease the burden on the environment.
Airports have to publish data on their environmental performance at regular intervals to ensure that their environmental policy is
transparent. Openness and a willingness to engage in dialogue with the general public are crucial to operating an environmental
policy that is both reliable and engenders trust. It is also important to involve company employees by keeping them informed about
the latest advancements and initiatives in the area of environmental stewardship. This is extremely important to get consent from
the public to built additional capacity. Beside others MUC, FRA, ADP as well 95% of AENA Airports have already implemented
such a system. However it´ is highly important to implement such a policy throughout the airport community to achieve a generally
better environmental respect.
Safety Neutral 0
Operational Neutral 0
Environment Part of a collaborative management between different stakeholders ++
E-1.2 Airlines widespread adoption of EMS following the principles of international standards
Sharing best practices will be helpful for an effective collaboration

Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E-1.3 ANSP widespread adoption of EMS following the principles of international standards
Sharing best practices will be helpful for an effective collaboration

Safety
Operational
Environment
2. Better transparency towards community

E-2.1 Better relations to neighbours
At Stockholm Arlanda Airport, we work a lot with our relations with the neighbours. One example is when we took our third
runway in use there was a strong reaction from people who lived under the approach. We started a project to see if we could find
things to do to lower the noise levels they were exposed to. In the project the neighbours took a part in meetings to listen to our
ideas and to give ideas by themselves. The ideas that come up were all evaluated in environmental, economic and technical terms.
We got a brut list of more than 20 ideas and we ended up with working with four of them. The project is now permanent as a going
process. Another example is the work with a new area for building restrictions. In that work we invited the closest municipalities to
take part in workshops discussing what rules we should work with in the different parts of the restriction area. The workshops were
not decisive but work as advisory
Research programs are currently carried out, such as the project of the US Transportation Research Board on Community Attitudes
to Aircraft Noise.
Safety 0
Operational 0
Environment ++
E-2.2 Noise monitoring system and flight tracking

Gain and give objective information to the public / community about actual noise levels. Create mutual faith / confidence with
respect to actual noise levels and disturbance, and the way certain measures work out Many airports worldwide does have an
operational noise and flight track monitoring system. In some cases the information from this system is published on the internet and
publicly available. Information is also used to collect statistical information about the effectiveness of measures like (changes to)
noise abatement procedures. Adaptation or tuning of measures / procedures can be done.
Safety 0
Operational 0
Environment Helps to better transparency +
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Introduce a "Air quality monitoring system" and find out amount of airport related/independent
E-2.3
pollution
Airport operations create a range of airborne pollutants. The main pollutants are carbon dioxide, nitrogen monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. The primary sources of pollutants at airports are aircraft and motor vehicles. About
half of all automobile pollution comes from vehicles picking up or dropping off passengers. The rest is caused by service vehicles
involved in airport operations and by airport employees’ and visitors’ cars. The airport’s own power generating facilities, aircraft air-
conditioning systems, and refuelling operations also play a role, but to a much lesser extent. Whereas air traffic causes around three-
quarters of all carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, motor vehicles are the main source of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons. Airports should therefore monitor air quality constantly through a network of stationary and mobile air pollutant
measuring stations. The measuring station should be located on the airport’s perimeter because the primary purpose of monitoring
pollutant levels is to protect local residents in neighbouring towns and villages. The stations should measure concentrations of
sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM 10 (respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter), ozone and BTX hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene and xylene). A biomonitoring program, for example, should track the
accumulation of soot deposits in plants, and mobile measurements of pollutant levels should be taken to determine whether aviation
or motor traffic causes the greater number of air pollutants.
Safety 0
Operational 0
Environment Helps to better transparency ++
E-2.4 Noise Control and Construction planning (setup protection areas)
Incorporated with" better transparency towards community"

The degree of protection against noise needed by the population has generally increased, Bavaria’s regional development program
reclassified the noise control area around Munich Airport and issued revised construction regulations.
The goal of noise protection zones is to avoid, or at least minimize, noise nuisance, particularly in areas with a primarily residential
or leisure purpose. Thus Airport’s should classify noise protection area for example into three zones, A, B, and C based on specific
noise exposure levels. These zones should also be based on airport forecasts of the equivalent continuous noise levels caused by
aircraft.
The major advantage of these zones is to define a commonly agreed development path for both the airport and its infrastructure as
well as for the surrounding communities
Safety 0
Operational 0
Environment +
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E-2.5 Germany- Quiet Air Traffic II project

Incorporated with "better transparency towards community" as local R&D program
The goal of this research program is to find
concrete and realistic solutions to lessen the noise (whether aircraft related or in general)
in the environment of airports. From a technical point of view it must be the prime approach to reduce the noise at its source cause
this offers the biggest potential in the long run. On the other hand the development of noise reduced flight procedures offers the
greatest potential in the short and medium term. To lessen the noise impact on areas neighbouring to airports a specific modelling is
necessary which needs a following assessment of interactions with other means of transportation. The result of the research project
will be the basis for further development activities like:
- noise reduced approach and departure procedures.
- amendment of the German noise protection law
- Implementation of the EU-Noise protection law
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-2.6 Introduction of a noise protection program (e.g. adjustment of anti noise windows for neighbours)
Incorporated with "better transparency towards community"
The goal of this initiative is to reduce noise emission for neighbouring residents and to find acceptance for airport extension
programs As part of airport zoning procedure specific noise-control targets for the protection of local communities have to be set up
to exceeded even existing statutory requirements governing compensation and entitlement to protection against noise. Local
residents in designated protection zones qualify for noise protection if arriving and departing aircraft cause exceeding specific noise
levels in living rooms and bedrooms when the windows are closed.
Safety
Operational
Environment

Incorporated with "better transparency towards community" as local R&D program
This is a industry research program with the involvement of airports. The goal is to develop emission and noise reduced aircraft
engines. Low-NOx Combustor Development pursued within the scope of the Engine 3E German national research program in a
cooperative effort among engine Manufacturer MTU, University of Kalrsruhe and DLR German Aerospace Research Centre
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3. Noise and Air efficient operations

These operations include initiatives with positive impact on Noise, Air and water pollution
3.1 Operations
E-3.1.1 CDA or local customization such as green approach
CDA is a Continuous Descent Approach aimed to give the aircraft a most optimum descend from decided altitude and distance to
go to minimize noise. CDA procedures can be effective at reducing aircraft noise around airports. Advanced CDA (RNAV CDA)
involves a predefined trajectory of a series of waypoints with altitude and/or speed targets as required. These have to be
programmed into a RNAV equipment such as FMS (Flight Management System). Flight trials in the US have demonstrated noise
savings of up to 6.5 dBA.
Safety 0
Operational Needs to be promoted +
Environment Noise savings ++
E-3.1.2 Green approach

Incorporated with CDA as local best practice (Arlanda)
Green Approach are developed inside NUP2+ with goals too take advantage of the 4DT generated from the aircraft FMS in to the
ground system.4DT are a “contract from FMS” that the aircraft will control too vertically, horizontal, height and time.
FMS are set in a mode so that the aircraft can perform an optimal descent with clean aircraft all the way from top of descent via
PRNAV-STAR to touchdown or stabilization on glide path Aircraft will follow more or less a 3 degree glide path during descent.
need relevant on-board equipment.

Safety
Operational
Environment
E 3.1.3 PRNAV (Precision Area Navigation)

Text from Deliverable T3.2.1./D1.
P-RNAV allows aircraft to fly tracks more accurately, enabling procedure designers to plan approach and departure procedures
with less horizontal separation. The operational benefits lead to capacity gains for an airport. The use of P-RNAV ensures that noise
abatement procedures (tracks) are flown with a high degree of precision, so that densely populated areas can be avoided
predictably. However, P-RNAV routes can also, because of the precision of this type of navigation, have the effect of concentrating
all noise on particular areas, which then become ‘noise sinks’.
Safety 0
Operational More precise trajectories and accurate separations ++
Environment Useful to avoid when possible high density urban areas +
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E 3.1.4 RNP-RNAV procedures

Text from Deliverable T3.2.1./D1
Qualified aircrews flying RNP certified aircraft may fly published RNP procedures, allowing optimised departure and arrival
procedures (curved approaches are possible) with less noise footprint on urban areas, although the point regarding noise
concentration above must be taken into account. RNP application will allow in particular capacity opportunities because of the high
degree of accuracy through closely spaced routes flown autonomously, as well as deconfliction of arr/dep by design.
Safety Improvement of navigation +
Operational More precise trajectories and accurate separations ++
Environment Useful to avoid when possible high density urban areas +

Incorporated with RNAV
Curved Approach is a RNP-RNAV approach using fully the equipment on the aircraft.
RNP-RNAV stars are in operation mostly when terrain makes it impossible to use ground based landing equipment. Curved
approach via RNP-RNAV can intercept final around 5 nm out.
Safety
Operational
Environment
3.2 Noise
E-3.1.6 Different ILS interception Mandatory airspace area for landing and take off
Incorporated with Noise and Air efficient operations
Different ILS interception: the height of ILS glide path interception is increased by 300m to 600m to reduce the noise below the
approaching aircraft.
Mandatory airspace area: some environment protection volumes are associated to departure and arrival procedures within which the
flight is to be contained with "entry" or "exit" limits
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E-3.2.1 Charges regimes / environmentally friendly landing fee policy

Reducing the number of environmentally unfriendly aircraft to increase the overall (environmental) capacity
To make the charges / landing fees for a specific flight dependent on the environmental impact, an incentive could be given for
airlines to operate with less noisy or polluting aircraft. With different landing fees /charges it is also possible to shift (some) night
flights to environmentally friendlier hours of the day.
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-3.2.2 Night noise management regimes (including restrictions and operational procedures
Night noise management regimes will reduce aircraft noise during the night and could increase total airport (daytime) capacity
Night noise management regimes are more or less a compilation of many separate noise reducing measures. Those measures will be
in force during a certain period of the night, the so called night curfew. Possible measures for night curfew are:
• No noisy aircraft allowed
• Operational restrictions (for example no reverse thrust allowed)
• Noise preferential use of runways (certain runway directions closed for take-off)
• Noise abatement procedures (special climb procedures, CDA etc)
• The most stringent form of a night noise regime is closure of the airport during (part of) the night.
• Night noise quota
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-3.2.3 phase out of noisiest aircraft

Phasing out noisier aircraft will reduce the noise levels around the airport. When a noise zoning policy or even a noise budget
policy is in use, more aircraft can be operated annually
Reducing the number of flights by noisy aircraft can be done by a ban on these aircraft or by financial incentives (lower landing
fees). A ban on noisy aircraft needs however a legally accepted enforceable basis. International regulations and agreements do not
always allow banning certain aircraft. It can also have an impact on the operations of the home carrier who can be faced with
restrictions at out-stations due to the regulations. Financial incentives are therefore the best solution if no international (European)
regulation exists
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2

Different systems of noise budget are in force at several airports:
- global noise quota for the whole airport (CDG)
- noise quota per QFU or at several points around the airport (Schiphol)
- noise account for each airline
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-3.2.5 ICAO Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP 1 & 2)

ICAO have developed aircraft operating procedures, Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 1 (NADP 1) and Noise Abatement
Department Procedure 2 (NADP 2), for the take-off climb to ensure that the necessary safety of flight operations is maintained
whilst minimizing exposure to noise on the ground.
NADP1 is intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensitive areas in close proximity to the departure end of the runway.
NADP 2 provides noise reduction to areas more distant from the runway end
Safety
Operational
Environment
E3.2.6 Noise limitation on the ground

Besides noise restrictions for airborne aircraft exist noise restrictions on the ground. It means: limitation of APU use, engine test
forbidden at night, specific building of noise deflectors, no reverse thrust, etc…Noise budget is allowed to the airport and noise
monitoring stations measure aircraft noise in flight and at ground.
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E-3.2.7 Noise preferential use of runway and runway combinations

Incorporated with Noise and Air efficient operations. Reduce the amount of aircraft noise around the airport. Certain direction of
operations (for example landing from the south) does have a lower (noise) impact to the surroundings. It can therefore be
interesting to make use of these operation directions as much as possible. Especially airports with more than one runway a noise
preferential use of these runways can reduce the (noise) impact. A number of runway combinations can be made for which a
sequence can be defined based on environmental impact. If Weather conditions permit the first runway combination from the list
will be used.
Safety
Operational
Environment
3.3 Air
E-3.3.1 Taxiing on one engine off-Towing aircraft to/from the runway

Reduce the air pollution and noise disturbance of taxiing aircraft The air pollution caused by taxiing aircraft could be reduced by
taxiing at less than all engines or even by towing the aircraft t/from the runway with all engines off. The share of taxiing aircraft in
the total air quality in the surrounding of the airport is however small (and sometimes negligible) but with a relatively high
political concern.
Landside transport (roads and highways) near the airport takes a much higher share in the local/regional air quality. However new
car technology and the more frequent use of public transport will reduce this share and makes the aviation part of air pollutions
more dominant. Discussions about taxiing on less than all engines or even towing the aircraft to and from the runway will start
over again not only because of air quality issues but also due to the ever increasing fuel cost.
Safety
Operational
Environment
Incorporated with Noise and Air efficient operations. APU management can yield significant savings: less fuel consumption and
less polluting emissions. Best practices in APU use include Use fixed electrical installation and PCA when available or GPU if
not. Switch off APU when the crew leaves the aircraft.( according to the turn around time). Maintenance performed on the aircraft
with ground power unit. See ICAO doc 303 and see IATA best practices guidelines
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E-3.3.3 Airport restrictions on APU and best practices (400Hz, PCA,...)

Reduce the air pollution and noise disturbance of aircraft parked at the stand/gate Restrictions on the use of APU will increase the
air quality especially at and around the aprons. However these restrictions can only be applied if replacement systems are available
(fixed 400 Hz and PCA connections). At some airports these systems are owned by the airport authority and not by the airlines /
ground handler. Fees for use of the systems will therefore be an important aspect as well as cost benefit analyses for owner and
user of the systems.
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-3.3.4 Airport design and operation to reduce the queue and taxiing
Reduce the air pollution of taxiing aircraft.
The air pollution caused by taxiing aircraft could be reduced by optimizing the airport taxiway design and the associated
procedures. Dual taxi routes could separate inbound and outbound traffic. New taxiways and RET could reduce taxi time and
delays (for instance perimeter taxiways). (impact of perimeter taxiways to be checked)
Also new procedures could lead to the reduction of taxi time and/or emissions. Procedures like:
• Preferential runway use.
• Standard routing
• SMAN, DMAN, CDM
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Exchange of own vehicles, particular filter, hydrogen or gas powered vehicles, public transport
E-3.3.5
system and strategy, staff mobility schemes, speed limit Strategy for ground transportation
Incorporated in Noise and Air efficient operations. The target is to reduce emissions that effect climate change and local air quality
through different improvements. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides are significant issues at Stockholm Arlanda Airport. In order to
achieve the target different measures are performed. For green cabs, environmental cabs, there is a separate line which was initiated
December 2005. The number of green cabs has increased fro m 35 to about 400 since the start, about 20% of the taxi movements are
green cabs. A program of own light vehicles was initiated 1997. The number of light vehicles has been reduced by 50% and
gradually exchanged to small fuel efficient cars and alternative fuel cars. Some buses are also exchanged to biogas buses. A t airside
vehicle permits, there is an environmental discount (75%) provided for environmentally clean vehicles (electric, biogas, ethanol,
hybrid) and 30% discount for vehicles which meets the 2005Swedish environmental class (=Euro4) standards. LFV Group and
Sigtuna municipality together influence the oil companies to increase the offering of renewable fuels at the airport. So far there is
also biogas at the petrol station. Development of public transport is important to increase the number of people travelling to Arlanda
by public transports. Staff surveys are carried out to get more information about the situation. There is a working group with Sigtuna
municipality and public transport operators to develop public transports services around the airport. For instance there have been
changes in time tables for buses to be suitable for early working hours and some of operators have changed some airport buses into
alternative fuel buses. To encourage employees sharing cars there is a website for car sharing where you log in and fill in a form with
your working hours etc to find a car sharer.
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-3.3.6 Higher energy efficiency at airport installation

Energy efficiency could be implemented at airport installation, for instance:
- equipment for cooling terminals,
- solar and Eolic power plant,
- high performance technology for energy production,
- green light program (European program to reduce light consumption
- AENA participate in this European commission initiative and state Agencies of Energy aiming to promote the energy
saving and efficiency by improving the use of building lighting. Reductions of 50% can be achieved for each airport
building and thus, reducing GHG emissions.
- This program is volunteer.
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
3.4. WATER POLLUTION
E-3.4.1 De icing operation (CDM, avoiding returns for re-icing…)

CDM can be used for de-icing via a de-icing manager. It is a tool kit allowing Airport and ANSP to know the flights needing to de-
ice. The list of flights is updated and those without de-icing treatment needed are able to taxi without waiting for a start up clearance.
It helps to manage more efficiently the de-icing station.
Safety 0
Operational Better taxiing management +
Environment Positive environmental impact using specific pads ++
E-3.4.2 Technical solutions bio-degradation de-icing fluids

Incorporated in de icing operation
The main goal of biodegration of de-icing fluids is to reduce the contamination level of ground water. Around the taxiways, de-icing
runoff could be biologically degraded in an underground system. Along the length of slightly inclined taxiways, an approximately
20-meter-wide band of sealing fabric can be laid in the ground at a depth of one meter.
Alternating banks of gravel and sand should be added on top of this impervious layer to slow the flow of the runoff. This gives
soilbacteria in the system sufficient time to turn the de-icer into water and carbon dioxide. The water draining into the ground at the
end of the fabric layer is harmless.
Safety
Operational
Environment

Reduce the amount if water pollution due to airport operations
De-icing of aircraft is necessary during certain weather conditions. This is a safety related aspect. De-icing fluids are spread out over
the wing and tail surfaces of the aircraft. A large part of these fluids will drop of the aircraft at the de-icing stand. If the fluid from
the stand is not collected and treated, pollution of ground and surface water will happen.
Creation of de-icing locations where the fluids, spoiled on the apron, can be collected and treated, will reduce the amount of water
pollution. At a large number of airports special de-icing locations/stands are operational during winter season. These locations are
central located within the terminal area.
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
E-3.4.4 De icing stations

Reduce the amount if water pollution due to airport operations
De-icing of aircraft is necessary during certain weather conditions. This is a safety related aspect. De-icing fluids are spread out over
the wing and tail surfaces of the aircraft. A large part of these fluids will drop of the aircraft at the de-icing stand. If the fluid from
the stand is not collected and treated, pollution of ground and surface water will happen.
Creation of de-icing locations where the fluids, spoiled on the apron, can be collected and treated, will reduce the amount of water
pollution. At a large number of airports special de-icing locations/stands are operational during winter season. These locations are
central located within the terminal area.
Safety
Operational
Environment

Paris – CDG airport presents de-icing bays at each threshold where the glycol-based effluents are collected and sent to an industrial
treatment plant. The airport is now working with Air France to improve the anti-icing treatment the company operates for their
aircrafts at the stands (for exploitation fluidity) in order to reduce the amount of glycol released in the stormwater.
The main actions are :
- close communication between the company and the airport about the treatments operated,
- reduced operating team and enhanced formation for the agents,
collection of the product on the stands pavement with small sucking engines
Safety
Operational
Environment
E-3.4.6
Reduces use of dangerous chemicals collecting and sorting system for reusable materials
The LFV group has organized a project group with 5 people who are working with evaluating chemicals that is used on the airports.
The group points out if the chemicals are dangerous to man or to the environment and if the chemical are harmful in a long term or if
it is acute dangerous. The aim with the work is that we over time shall know very well hat chemicals are in use at the airports and
that we shall face out the most dangerous and harmful ones. The group has now evaluated 30% of the different chemicals used at the
airports.
Safety
Operational
Environment
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
9.3 APPENDIX 3
Mapping of Initiatives to Key Performance Areas (KPA)
Rating
-- = substantial negative impact
- = negative impact
0 = neutral
Initiative + = positive impact
Maturity
++ = substantial positive impact
Bold initiative to be (strongly) NA = Not Applicable
ID promoted {blank} = No rating given (yet) Comment on operational KPA
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Italic initiative not supported in the
Access-Equity
Predictability
Environment
Participation
Flexibility
Efficiency
short term
Capacity
Security
Safety
SAFETY
R-1.1 Airport Safety Nets (GCAS) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ NA 0 R&D No efficiency target, may improve taxi delay
R-1.2 Wakenet No Rating
SURFACE MOVEMENT
A01: A-SMGCS - Advanced - Surface
Assists ground movement controller in managing taxi traffic more efficiently. Leads to reduction of taxi delays especially in poor
R-2.1 Movement Guidance Control System – + + + 0 + ++ NA + Mature
visibility
Levels I and II
A24: EMMA (Airport Movement More efficient use of runways (e.g. Brake to Vacate) and taxiways by enhanced surface movement control. Contributes to enhance
R-2.2 + + + 0 + + NA + R&D
Management by A-SMGCS) capacity of taxiway system and to reduce taxi times and taxi delay
AVIONICS
A04: Airport Navigation (Onboard Airport
R-3.1 No Rating
Navigation System)
A07 : Area Navigation/ Required
R-3.2 0 + + + 0 + NA + Mature More precise trajectories enabling consistent CDAs and accurate separations between paths.
Navigation Performance (Rnav/Rnp)
A14: CASCADE - Cooperative ATS Through
R-3.3 Surveillance & Communications No Rating
Applications Deployed In ECAC
A33: FMS (Flight Management System)
R-3.4 Improved Utilisation of FMS 0/+ + + + 0 0/+ NA 0/+ Mature
functionalities
R-3.5 A35: GNSS Landing System (GLS) + + + + + 0 + NA + Promising The main benefit for should be the increased runway capacity in poor weather
A37: Head Up Display/Enhanced Vision
R-3.6 No Rating
System (HUV/EVS)
A49: NUP II - Nean Update Programme
R-3.7 No Rating
Phase 2
RUNWAY CAPACITY
A more efficient arrival and/or departure flow will reduce Air and Ground delays as landing and departure intervals will be
A05: AMAN/DMAN - Arrival Manager optimized within fixed separation criteria. Reduction of intervals will increase runway movement rate 1 to 4 movements an hour.
R-4.1 ++ + + 0 + 0/+ NA + Mature
and Departure Manager This is however strongly dependent on local circumstances (runway lay-out; are there sufficient exits as well as entries ?) and the
actual fleet mix.
Better / efficient deceleration during landing roll-out. Less brake and tire wear expected. Potential increase on landing capacity or
A11: Brake To Vacate (BTV) Mature /
R-4.2 + + + 0 + + NA + reduction in arrival delay only possible if Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) will significantly be reduced. Predictability with respect
Procedures / avionics R&D
to ROT is improved
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Rating
- = negative impact
0 = neutral
Maturity
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
Environment
Participation
Flexibility
Efficiency
short term
Capacity
Security
Safety
A51: Optimised Procedures and Techniques
R-4.3 for Improvement of Approach and Landing No Rating
(Optimal)
More accurate arrival spacing / intervals will reduce the deviation on these spacing / intervals resulting in more efficient use of
existing infrastructure and a reduction of Air delays. Less deviation on spacing / intervals could increase the runway landing rate
R-4.4 A54: Planned Spacing Tool ++ + + 0 0 + NA + Promising
with 1 to 4 arrivals hour. This is however strongly dependent on local circumstances (runway lay-out; are there sufficient exits?) and
the actual fleet mix.
Efficiency of the approach and landing phases of a single flight will increase (less fuel burn) however it is still questionable if
R-4.5 A58: Tailored Arrival -/0 0 ++ -/0 + -/0 NA + R&D capacity levels could be maintained if these optimised procedures and techniques would be mandatory for all flights within a busy
and congested complex airspace. In those cases capacity could even be reduced.
Due to predictability of Wake Vortex risk in different weather conditions (especially crosswind) an optimization of the take-off
CREDOS: Crosswind Reduced Departure intervals can take place. Under suitable weather conditions this will lead to reduced intervals with a positive effect on delays and
R-4.6 0/+ 0 + + 0 + NA + R&D
Separations runway departure rate. As this effect will not occur during more prevailing weather conditions (of course dependent on local
circumstances) with head wind or low crosswind, the impact on declared capacity is rather small or even non-existent.
CDM
CDM permits: increased airport efficiency (improved punctuality and reduced delays, improved usage of airport infrastructure;
A09: CDM Airport - Airport optimised turn-round time); optimise the use of available capacity (e.g. increasing and optimising the runway throughput and take-
R-5.1 ++ 0/+ ++ + 0 ++ + NA + Mature
Collaborative Decision Making off sequence and departure flow by using Variable Taxi Times); improved airport slot adherence; improved predictability of
operations and better compliance with ATFM measures
A40: LEONARDO - Linking Existing On
R-5.2 No Rating
Ground, Arrival and Departure Operations
SPADE: Supporting Platform for Airport Improvements in efficiency, quality of service, capacity and cost-efficiency could be obtained from SPADE thanks to the assessment
R-5.3 + + + 0 0 + NA + R&D
Decision-making and Efficiency Analysis and analysis of operations
CONCEPTS
R-6.1 A12: Cooperative ATM (C-ATM) + 0/+ + ++ + + 0 NA 0 R&D
A13: CAMES - Co-operative ATM Measures
R-6.2 No Rating
for a Single European Sky
A19: Dynamic Management Of The DMEAN provides a structure for better integration of airport and en-route and widens the scope of CDM to encompass global system
R-6.3 + + + + ++ 0 0 NA + Mature
European Airspace Network (DMEAN) goals. It provides a short term bridge to common elements of the potential future concepts
A36: GtG - Validation of a European Gate
R-6.4 No Rating
to Gate Operational Concept for 2005-2010
A38: Innovative Future Air Transport
R-6.5 No Rating
System (IFATS)
A50: Operational Concept Document (OCD
R-6.6 No Rating
– The vision)
LOCAL INITIATIVES (Local research & Potential best practice) + STATE FUNDED PROJECTS + WORK GROUPS
SAFETY
I-1.1 EAPPRI -( Runway Incursions) -/0 -/0 -/0 0 0 ++ NA 0 Mature
SURFACE MOVEMENT
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Rating
- = negative impact
0 = neutral
Maturity
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
Environment
Participation
Flexibility
Efficiency
short term
Capacity
Security
Safety
I-2.1 Perimeter taxiways + -/0 0/+ 0 + ++ NA 0 Mature Reduces taxi delays and Increases predictability of taxi times
Reduces taxi delays and Increases predictability of taxi times. Increases runway capacity by off-block management and subsequent
I-2.2 SMAN + 0 + + + 0 NA + Promising
pre-departure sequencing (DMAN)
I-2.3 ILS tuning No Rating Can increase runway capacity in CAT II/III by reducing ILS protection zones and thus improve arrival sequencing
Datalink Application for Surface Reduces taxi delays and Increases predictability of taxi times. Increases runway capacity by off-block management and subsequent
I-2.4 0/+ + + + + + NA + R&D
Movement Planning pre-departure sequencing (DMAN). Reduction in R/T load which will be reflected in increased safety level
RUNWAY CAPACITY
Reduction in average landing separation / interval reduce delays and increases runway landing rate. An additional increase runway
DTOP - Dual Threshold Operations with
I-4.1 No Rating arrival rate of 5 movements an hour is expected, however this is strongly dependent on the actual fleet mix. Where there is only
High Approach Landing System
medium aircraft the advantage is negligible.
I-4.2 A-Man/D-MAN Local Practice No Rating
Reduction of Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) as well as better predictability of ROT and runway use could result in a reduction of
intervals, with a positive effect on delays and runway movement rate. An additional 1 to 4 movement could be expected, strongly
I-4.3 Additional RETs and Entries ++ + + + + 0/+ NA + Mature
dependent on local situation. On runways where normally back-tracking is required, provision of additional exits or entries could
even have a much larger effect on runway movement rate.
Additional and/or better placed runway crossings will increase the movement rate of the runway as well as the number of aircraft that
Additional / better placed runway
I-4.4 + + + + + -/0 NA + Mature can cross the runway. The gain in movement rate is however strongly dependent on local situation (airport lay-out, procedures, fleet
crossing
mix)
CRDA / DCIA Converging Runway The ability to maintain the operation of two (dependent) landing during conditions with low/reduced visibility will maintain runway
I-4.5 No Rating
Display Aid arrival rate and reduce delay.
No significant impact on take-off capacity is expected as it is assumed that parallel instead of diverging departure routes are not used
I-4.6 Independent Parallel departures No Rating
if this would decrease capacity
For noise restricted airports this kind of operation could make it possible to reduce noise impact and prevent night time curfews,
SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite
I-4.7 No Rating resulting in better accessibility of the airport during night time or late evening/early morning. SODPROPS will have NO impact on
Direction Runway Operations
declared capacity
Increase movement rate during weather conditions where otherwise the use of only a single landing runway would be possible.
I-4.8 PRM Precision Radar Monitoring + + ++ 0 + -/0 NA + Mature
Reduction in delay.
I-4.9 Time Based Separation + + + + + + NA + Promising Ability to recover part/most of the capacity loss during strong (head) wind conditions. Maintain normal movement rate.
Better and efficient use of existing infrastructure will lead to an increase of runway capacity. Dependent on local circumstances a
I-4.10 ACE ++ ++ + + + + NA + Mature
capacity gain of nearly 20% is achievable
CAPMAN - Runway Capacity
I-4.11 + + + + + 0 NA + Promising
Management Tool
Better and efficient use of existing slot and airport infrastructure will lead to a reduction in delay and less slot abuse (more
I-4.12 SLOT Management + + + + + 0 NA + R&D
movements annually)
I-4.13 PICAP No Rating
Visual conducted approaches instead of
I-4.14 IFR operations when appropriate visual + + + 0 0 + NA + Mature Efficient use of existing infrastructure. Less delay and holding. Increase in runway movement rate
conditions prevail.
Dependent and Independent Parallel As dual arrival runways can be used, capacity increases significantly ranging between 25 – 40 % for dependent parallel arrival
I-4.15 ++ + ++ + + -/0 NA 0/+ Mature
Instrument Arrivals runways, to 80 – 100% for independent arrival runways
x-x.xx Initiative on MET strategy No Rating
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Rating
- = negative impact
0 = neutral
Maturity
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
Environment
Participation
Flexibility
Efficiency
short term
Capacity
Security
Safety
CDM
I-5.1 Gatelink No Rating
I-5.2 CDM Trial op SPL No Rating
AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Boeing 747-800 Airport Compatibility
I-7.1 No Rating Combined with I-7.2
Group (BACG) (FRA)
AACG recommendations for the handling
I-7.2 of NLA at existing airports / 0 ++ 0 + 0 0 NA 0 Mature With smaller changes, existing non ICAO code F complying airports will be capable for handling NLA.
infrastructure
AACG recommendations for the handling More airports will be capable to act as alternate, which will enhance the possible route structure and operating conditions for New
I-7.3 0 ++ 0 + 0 0 NA 0 Mature
of NLA at alternate / diversion airports Large Aircraft
I-7.4 AOC best practices No Rating
Potential significant enabler for implementation of new operational procedures. Efficient use of existing infrastructure will lead to
I-7.5 Airport Operational forums + + + + 0 0/+ NA + Mature
less delay and holding times and could lead to an increase in runway capacity
ENVIRONMENT
1. Collaborative work
Effective collaboration between
operational stakeholders in a just
0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 NA ++ Promising
culture - supported by environmental
management systems
Airport widespread adoption of EMS
E-1.1 following the principles of international
All (E-1.1 / E-1.3) combined in the main document under the heading “Effective collaboration between operational
standards
E-1.2 Airlines widespread adoption of EMS stakeholders in a just culture - supported by environmental management systems”
E-1.3 ANSP widespread adoption of EMS
2. Community
Better relations to neighbours (trusted
information platform, aircraft noise
E-2.1 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 NA + R&D
commission, community council, advisory
commission…)
Noise monitoring system and flight
E-2.2 Mature
tracking Support previous initiative
E-2.3 Air quality monitoring system R&D
E-2.4 Noise Control and construction planning
E-2.5 Germany Quiet Air Traffic II project
E-2.6 Introduction of a noise protection program
3. Noise and Air efficient operations
3.1 Operations
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Rating
- = negative impact
0 = neutral
Maturity
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
Environment
Participation
Flexibility
Efficiency
short term
Capacity
Security
Safety
E-3.1.1 CDA (e.g. Green Approach) 0 + + -/0 + 0 NA + Promising
See Initiative R-3.2
E-3.1.2 P-RNAV
Area Navigation/ Required Navigation Performance (Rnav/Rnp)
See Initiative R-3.2
E-3.1.3 RNP-RNAV PROCEDURES
Area Navigation/ Required Navigation Performance (Rnav/Rnp)
Different ILS interception, mandatory
E-3.1.5
airspace for landing and T/O
3.2 Noise
E-3.2.1 Charges regimes
E-3.2.2 Night noise management regimes
E-3.2.3 Phase out noisiest aircraft
E-3.2.5 ICAO noise abatement procedures
E-3.2.6 Noise limitation on the ground
Noise preferential use of runway and
E-3.2.7
runway combination
3.3 Air
Optimize fuel consumption and emissions
in the ground segment of the flight for all
aircraft (reducing queue and taxiing, APU -/0 0 + 0 -/0 0 NA ++ Mature
policy, engine off, procedure by each
stakeholders and coordinated by CDM…)
Taxiing on one engine/towing to/from
E-3.3.1
runway
Airport restrictions APU use and best
E-3.3.3
practices Rating see above
Airport design and operation to reduce the All (E-3.3.1 / E-3.3.6) combined in main document under the heading “Optimize fuel consumption and emissions in the ground
E-3.3.4
queue and taxiing segment of the flight for all aircraft (reducing queue and taxiing, APU policy, engine off, procedure by each stakeholders and
E-3.3.5 Exchange of vehicles coordinated by CDM,…)”
E-3.3.6 Higher energy efficiency
3.4 Water
De icing operations (CDM, avoiding
0 0 + 0 0 0 NA +
returns for re-icing…)
E-3.4.1 De-icing operation
E-3.4.2 Technical solutions
Rating see above All (E-3.4.1 / E-3.4.6) combined in main document under the heading “De icing operations (CDM, avoiding returns for re-icing…)”
E-3.4.4 De-icing stations
E-3.4.6 Reduces use of dangerous chemicals
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
9.4 APPENDIX 4
Mapping of Airport Blocking Points versus Initiatives
Ranking of relevant KPI (1= most related, 2-11 less or least related)
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Ranking of relevant KPI
(1= most related, 2-11 less or least related)
Cost Effectiveness
Blocking Point - Airport
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Environment Identified Initiatives

Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices
R-4.1 AMAN/DMAN Arrival Manager and

Departure Manager
First come first served
I-4.12 SLOT Management
principle in network
OP-1 4 1 3 4 2 5 R-5.1 A-CDM
operation vs. Airport
R-6.1 Cooperative ATM (C-ATM)
schedule
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-6.5 IFATS
R-3.4 Improved Utilisation of FMS
functionalities
Departure Manager
Poor information of
R-4.4 Planned Spacing Tool
expected arrival time
R-4.5 Tailored Arrival
OP-2 leading to tardy arrival of 2 3 2 2 1
R-5.1 A-CDM
agents, and handling
equipment, at gate
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-6.4 Validation of Gate-to-Gate operational
concept
R-6.5 IFATS
The effective reduction in R-4.2 Brake to Vacate (BTV)
the arrival stream density R-4.4 Planned Spacing Tool
OP-3 1 2 3 3
when operating into a I-4.9 Time Based Separation
headwind R-6.2 DMEAN
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices

functionalities
Departure Manager
R-4.2 Brake to Vacate (BTV)
I-4.1 DTOP: Dual Threshold Operations with
High Approach Landings System
I-4.3 Balanced RETs and Entries
I-4.4 Additional / better placed runway crossings
I-4.5 CRDA/DCIA Converging Runway Display
OP-4 Runway arrival capacity 1 2 3 3 Aid
I-4.8 Precision Radar Monitoring (PRM / PAM)
I-4.9 Time Based Separation
I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
I-4.14 Visual conducted approaches instead of
IFR operations when appropriate visual
conditions prevail
I-4.15 Dependent and independent Parallel
Instrument Arrivals
I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) Fora
R-5.1 A-CDM
R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
Lack or wrong position of I-4.1 DTOP: Dual Threshold Operations with
Rapid Exit Taxiways High Approach Landings System
OP-5 (RET) for High Intensity 1 2 3 4 3 I-4.3 Balanced RETs and Entries
Runway Operations I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
(HIRO) I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) Fora
R-6.2 DMEAN
Highly variable runway
OP-6 1 2 3 2 3 I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
occupancy times
R-5.1 A-CDM
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-6.5 IFATS
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices
R-3.1 Airport Navigation (onboard Airport

Navigation System)
R-3.6 Head Up Display / Enhanced Vision
System
Substantial reduction of
runway capacity in bad
OP-7 weather when operating 1 2 3 3 3
Aid
under CATII and CATIII
I-4.6 Independent Parallel Departures
procedures
Instrument Arrivals
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-4.6 CREDOS: Crosswind Reduced Departure
Quality of surveillance and Separations
wake-vortex-prediction I-4.1 DTOP: Dual Threshold Operations with
OP-8 limiting in-trail and 1 2 2 3 High Approach Landings System
diagonal separation I-4.6 Independent Parallel Departures
especially in low visibility I-4.8 Precision Radar Monitoring (PRM / PAM)
I-4.9 Time Based Separation
R-6.2 DMEAN
Departure Manager
Absence of arrival I-4.5 CRDA/DCIA Converging Runway Display
sequencing tools reduces Aid
OP-9 1 3 4 2 5 4
runway capacity and R-5.1 A-CDM
increases airborne holding R-6.2 DMEAN
concept
R-6.5 IFATS
Insufficient apron capacity
OP-10 1 2 3 2 R-5.1 A-CDM
(stand & gate)
R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
Inadequate taxiway layout
OP-11 1 3 3 3 I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
leading to delays
R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices

Aircraft taxi or towing
OP-12 movements involving 2 3 2 2 1
R-5.1 A-CDM
crossing of active runways
R-6.2 DMEAN
Departure Manager
No advance planning for
OP-13 2 4 2 3 1 R-5.1 A-CDM
taxi process
R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-6.5 IFATS
Departure Manager
Poor predictability of taxi I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
OP-14 2 4 2 1 2
process R-5.1 A-CDM
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-6.5 IFATS
No recognition of the Departure Manager
preferences of airport I-4.4 Additional / better placed runway crossings
OP-15 2 2 1 1 3
operators and airlines in I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
taxi process R-5.1 A-CDM
R-6.2 DMEAN
No integration of Departure Manager
OP-16 turnaround in overall 1 2 2 2 R-5.1 A-CDM
planning process R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
Stand and Gate allocation R-5.1 A-CDM
OP-17 3 4 2 2 3 1
process R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
Deficiencies in passenger
R-5.1 A-CDM
and baggage process
OP-18 1 2 2 R-5.3 SPADE
(check-in, security, border
R-6.2 DMEAN
control, boarding)
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices
I-7.2
AACG recommendations for the handling
of New Large Aircraft at existing airports /
Complex and costly
infrastructure
adaptation of airside and
I-7.3 AACG recommendations for the handling
OP-19 landside infrastructure 3 1 2 2
of New Large Aircraft at alternate /
(incl. Terminal) to
diversion airports
accommodate NLA
R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
R-6.2 DMEAN
Complex traffic of New Large Aircraft at existing airports /
OP-20 management procedures for 4 1 3 2 2 infrastructure
NLA traffic I-7.3 AACG recommendations for the handling
diversion airports
Insufficient warning time
for pushback due short
OP-21 3 3 2 1 R-5.1 A-CDM
notice calls on pushback
frequency
Departure Manager
No adequate pushback
R-5.1 A-CDM
planning to optimize
R-5.3 SPADE
OP-22 departure sequence due to 3 3 3 1 2 4
‘first come first serve’
principle
concept
R-6.5 IFATS
Increased line-up times due
I-2.3 ILS Tuning
OP-23 to ILS holding points 1 2 1 2
R-3.5 GNSS landing system
during LVP
Lack of space and multiple
OP-24 line-up points at runways to 2 2 1 2
allow sequence changes
Departure Manager
R-4.6 CREDOS: Crosswind Reduced Departure
Poor departure sequencing
Separations
tools producing
OP-25 2 2 1 I-4.6 Independent Parallel Departures
unnecessary high
R-6.2 CAMES
separation and thus delay
concept
R-6.5 IFATS
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices
R-3.3 CASCADE
Lack or bad quality of R-3.7 NEAN Update Program II
OP-26 2 2 1
surveillance R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.5 IFATS
R-3.3 CASCADE
Congestion of ground voice R-3.7 NEAN Update Program II
OP-27 2 2 3 4 5 1
communication frequencies R-4.5 Tailored Arrival
Lack of situational Navigation System)
OP-28 3 2 2 3 3 1
awareness in the cockpit R-4.2 Brake to Vacate (BTV)
R-6.5 IFATS
Navigation System)
R-3.3 CASCADE
Insufficient Runway
R-3.7 NEAN Update Program II
OP-29 Incursion prevention 3 2 1
measures
Lack of compliancy with R-3.3 CASCADE
OP-30 3 2 1
ICAO provisions R-3.7 NEAN Update Program II
Lack of harmonized
OP-31 2 3 2 1 1 I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) Fora
signage
Lack of harmonized stand
OP-32 2 3 2 1 1 I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) Fora
entry guidance systems
Incorrect assumptions in I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
OP-33 planned runway capacity 3 2 1 I-4.12 SLOT Management
leading to operational delay R-5.3 SPADE
Insufficient coordination I-4.12 SLOT Management
OP-34 between airport ground 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 R-5.1 A-CDM
processes and CTOT R-6.1 Cooperative ATM (C-ATM)
R-6.2 CAMES
Unplanned ad hoc traffic
OP-35 3 3 3 1 1 R-5.1 A-CDM
leading to delays
R-6.2 CAMES
Departure Manager
Demand out of balance
with departure runway
OP-36 2 1 2 I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
capacity (A/C mix,
CTOT,…)
R-5.1 A-CDM
R-6.2 DMEAN
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices
Inconsistent use of slots

(e.g. slots planned for I-4.12 SLOT Management
OP-37 4 2 3 3 2 1 3
Medium aircraft suddenly R-5.1 A-CDM
used by Heavy aircraft)
Lack of collaborative R-4.1 AMAN/DMAN Arrival Manager and
contingency planning for Departure Manager
different disruption I-4.9 Time Based Separation
OP-38 4 3 1 2 3 4 2
scenarios (severe weather, R-5.1 A-CDM
incidents, accidents, R-5.3 SPADE
security, etc. ) R-6.1 Cooperative ATM (C-ATM)
R-5.1 A-CDM
No contingency planning R-5.3 SPADE
OP-39 4 3 3 1 2 3 3
for network effects R-6.1 Cooperative ATM (C-ATM)
R-6.2 CAMES
Poor prediction of bad
weather duration leads to
OP-40 3 2 2 3 2 5 1 6 R-5.1 A-CDM
excessive regulation
reported to CFMU
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices

Departure Manager
Aid
I-4.7 SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite
Direction Parallel Runway Operations
Operating restrictions- I-4.12 SLOT Management
ENV-1 3 2 4 3 1
Noise I-4.15 Dependent and independent Parallel
Instrument Arrivals
R-6.2 DMEAN
I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) For a
E-3.2.1Charges regimes/environmentally friendly
policy
E-3.2.2Night noise management regimes
E-3.2.3Phase out of noisiest aircraft
E-3.2.4Noise budget
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices
R-3.2 Area Navigation / Required Navigation

Performance (RNAV / RNP)
functionalities
Departure Manager
I-4.7 SODPROPS Simultaneous Opposite
ENV-2 Local community-Noise 2 2 2 1 Direction Parallel Runway Operations
Instrument Arrivals
I-7.5 Airport Operational (Pilot) fora
E-3.1.1CDA
E-2.1 Better relation to neighbours
E-3.1.3PRNAV
E-2.2 Noise and track monitoring system
E-3.2.7Noise preferential use of runway
E-3.2.6Noise limitation on the ground
R-5.3 SPADE
Aid
Exhaust fume quota-Air I-4.9 Time Based Separation
ENV-3 3 2 1
Pollution I-4.12 SLOT Management
E-2.3 Air quality monitoring system
E-3.3.1Taxiing on one engine off
E-3.3.2Airlines best practices in APU use
E-3.3.3Airport restrictions on APU and best
practices
R-5.1 A-CDM
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices

Navigation System)
functionalities
Departure Manager
Every issue that increases R-4.2 Brake to Vacate (BTV)
ENV-4 taxi time and holding-Air 2 3 3 1 I-4.3 Balanced RETs and Entries
Pollution I-4.4 Additional / better placed runway crossings
Aid
E-3.3.4Airport design and operations to reduce the
queue and taxiing
R-5.1 A-CDM
R-5.3 SPADE
E-3.4.1De-icing operation
E-3.4.2Technical solutions bio degradation de icing
Use of de-icing products- fluids
ENV-5 3 1 1
Water Pollution E-3.4.3Collecting water polluted with glycol
E-3.4.4De-icing stations
E-3.4.5Airlines best practices for de-icing
Snow removal-Water NO initiatives identified
ENV-6 2 1 1
Pollution for this Blocking Point
Coordination between local R-4.1 AMAN/DMAN Arrival Manager and
(airports) management of Departure Manager
ORG-1 traffic, and the En Route 1 3 2 3 4 2 R-5.1 A-CDM
constraints managed by R-6.2 CAMES
CFMU R-6.5 IFATS
Lack of cooperation Departure Manager
ORG-2 between partners on the 2 2 2 4 3 1 I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
airport. R-6.4 Validation of Gate-to-Gate operational
concept
No harmonized control I-4.10 Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)
ORG-3 methods to manage high 3 1 1 2 3 4 1 R-5.1 A-CDM
traffic flows R-5.3 SPADE
No detailed and shared

ORG-4 figures about status of 1 1 2 3 3 R-5.3 SPADE
aircraft handling.
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
Ranking of relevant
KPA-Airport
Cost Effectiveness
Interoperability
Access-Equity
Predictability
ID
Environment
Participation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Capacity
Security
Safety
&
Best Practices

Instrument Arrivals
LEG-1 Planning Requirements 1 2 1 3
infrastructure
diversion airports
R-5.3 SPADE
R-6.2 DMEAN
Instrument Arrivals
LEG-2 Planning new infrastructure 2 2 2 1 3 I-7.2 AACG recommendations for the handling
infrastructure
diversion airports
R-5.3 SPADE
NO initiatives identified
LEG-3 Security regulations 2 2 3 1
for this Blocking Point
SOC-1 S lifting index 2 3 1 1
SOC-2 Screening baggage 2 1
CONFIDENTIAL

WP3.2.2/D2
10 RECORD OF REVISIONS
Rev. Date Modifications Responsible Change

# request
#
01 2006-09-11 First draft Andreas Brehme
Second draft, updated with
02 2006-09-25 information about environment, Andreas Brehme
CDM, Airport capacity.
03 2006-10-08 Includes comments / changes from Andreas Brehme
all airports, Eurocontrol
04 2006-10-25 Includes comments / changes from Andreas Brehme
MUC, ADP, DSNA, FRA, R-level,
Schiphol, Eurocontrol
05 2006-11-06 Includes comments from Andreas Brehme
Eurocontrol, AND-LFV, Air France
and Olaf
06 2006-11-10 Includes a new initiative (improving Andreas Brehme
weather forecast) and comment
from Olaf
07 2006-12-19 Added reference for improved noise Andreas Brehme
levels when using CDA.
CONFIDENTIAL

DLT 0607 322 00 07 - T322 - D2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DLT 0607 322 00 07 - T322 - D2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP3.2.

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

DOCUMENT CONTENT & PURPOSE:

VALIDATION Name Date

R-Level Olaf Dlugi

Page 1 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

This document is delivered in support of WP3.2, targeting SESAR Milestone 2 (Market

The objectives of Task 3.2.2 in D2 are to identify

- related possible implementation risks; and

- to suggest a way forward.

The assessment of the initiatives was based on the following criteria:

• Severity of and potential impact on associated blocking points

Page 2 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

• Expected value for the different stakeholders

1.3 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES

Page 3 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

Short Term Recommendation

• Implement A-SMGCS – Levels I and II in coordination with EAPPRI (European Action

• Implement as soon as possible the EUROCONTROL SAFREP report’s recommendations,

Page 4 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

Short Term Recommendation

• Apply ACE methodology to implement recommended best practices. - Mature

• Implement or complement/support airport management airside, AMAN / DMAN -

• Implement SMAN – Surface Management Tool – Promising

Page 5 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

Improving weather forecast

Short Term Recommendation

Page 6 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

• Implement / support regional CDM aligned with ATFCM-oriented CDM activities. -

Environment and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency

Page 7 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

Short Term Recommendation

• Support Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) between ATC, users, airport

• Support further development of procedures/related technical enablers which improve

1.4 IMPLEMENTATION RISK

Page 8 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

1.5 THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE SHORT TERM

To facilitate the implementation of the short-term recommendations airports have to:

• Agree on a common and unambiguous terminology for system use.

• Create, validate and agree an implementation plans.

Page 9 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

• Create a strong partnership amongst the actors of the airport domain.

• Create a data base containing

o operational best practices

o simulation results for selected case studies

o environmental best practises and local initiatives

o safety related data

• Develop incentives schemes

o At a local level the financial savings after implementation constitute genuine

Page 10 of 238 SESAR Consortium 2006

Document Number: DLT-0607-322-00-07 Status: DRAFT

3 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK 13

3.1 AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT 13