The 8th International Conference “RELIABILITY and STATISTICS in TRANSPORTATION and COMMUNICATION - 2008”
FUTURE OF AIR-TRAFFIC-MANAGEMENT: HOW TO OVERCOME
A POTENTIAL CAPACITY WALL?
Peter Waldinger
DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (1993-2007)
Technical University Darmstadt
Feldstraße 24 E, D-61352 Bad Homburg, Germany
Ph: +49 (0) 172 8473204. E-mail: [email protected]
Punctuality, safety, sustainability and efficiency (user charges) are the key performance indicators of air traffic management. They
are grounds for performance benchmarks, based on reporting systems and reliable statistics being more and more available.
In particular punctuality was not satisfying in the last decade. The so-called “punctuality crisis” was the catalyst of the “Single
European Sky” (SES) initiative and program, whose implementation we are experiencing now.
The political objectives associated to SES are ambitious. Main programmatic parts to achieve these goals are the creation of
“Functional Airspace Blocks” (FAB), the concept of “Flexible Use of Airspace” (FUA) and in particular the SESAR (SES ATM Research)
Program plus the harmonization of processes, roles, structures and systems in the EU.
In this paper the focus is on SESAR and the innovation it will bring to the European ATM network in terms of methods, operational
concept and technology.
Keywords: statistics of punctuality, growth in aviation, capacity-limits, Single European Sky (SES), SES-ATM-Research (SESAR), innovation
in air traffic management
1. Introduction
Air Traffic, Sea Traffic and Telecommunications are the drivers of globalisation; and they are driven
themselves by globalisation.
To be connected is a synonym to being able to participate. So mobility is not just a technological
challenge, mobility is a prerequisite to development: in science, in culture, in economy.
Today it is the access to the global air-traffic system being decisive for development in a region. Vice
versa, economical development drives the growth of air traffic. Air passenger traffic is the fastest growing mode
of transportation world-wide.
2. Limits to Further Growth
Experience, simulations and statistics clearly tell us: in a given system, there are limits of growth [1].
Consequently, if aviation should not be a limiting factor for future growth in economy and social welfare,
measures have to be taken proactively.
Growth in European Air Traffic
Æ In 2015 a „Capacity Wall“ to be expected
EUROCONTROL DIVISION DED4
1997
DATE:04/11/97
EUROCONTROL DIVISION DED4
1997
1997 FORECAST
Mean IFR Flights per day
in 6’ by 10’ rectangles
Flights
150 OR MORE
Flights
100 TO 150
Flights
50 TO 100
7.0 Mio Flights
2000
8.4 Mio Flights
DATE:04/11/97
2000
2000 FORECAST
Mean IFR Flights per day
in 6’ by 10’ rectangles
Flights
150 OR MORE
Flights
100 TO 150
Flights
50 TO 100
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FORECAST ASSUMING FLIGHTS ON DIRECT ROUTES
7 500 000 flights estimated
Based on STATFOR 97
EUROCONTROL DIVISION DED4
2010
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FORECAST ASSUMING FLIGHTS ON DIRECT ROUTES
8 600 000 flights estimated Based on STATFOR 97
DATE:04/11/97
2015
EUROCONTROL DIVISION DED4
2020
2010 FORECAST
Mean IFR Flights per day
in 6’ by 10’ rectangles
Flights
150 OR MORE
Flights
100 TO 150
Flights
50 TO 100
2025
16,1 Mio Flights
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FORECAST ASSUMING FLIGHTS ON DIRECT ROUTES
15 800 000 flights estimated Based on STATFOR 97
Flights p.h. 150 and more
Data based on “Challenges to Growth“ – 2004 Report
(EUROCONTROL); Szenario B – Business as Usual
Flights p.h. 100 to 150
Flights p.h. 50 to 100
Figure 1. Growth in European Air Traffic
339
CHART: DY_97_20
CHART: DY_97_10
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FORECAST ASSUMING FLIGHTS ON DIRECT ROUTES
11 900 000 flights estimated Based on STATFOR 97
DATE:04/11/97
2020 FORECAST
Mean IFR Flights per day
in 6’ by 10’ rectangles
Flights
150 OR MORE
Flights
100 TO 150
Flights
50 TO 100
2013
11,9 Mio Flights
CHART: DY_97_00
CHART: DY_97_97
Increasing
Delays
RelStat’08, 15-18 October 2008, Riga, Latvia
In the second half of the last decade, European aviation suffered from a punctuality crisis (see Figure 2).
These punctuality problems have been the catalyst for the Single European Sky Program, whose first
implementation steps are presently on the way forward and hopefully widely supported.
Figure 2 shows the development of punctuality in the European ATM System. Each colour represents one
year, whereas the small dots represent a week in the respective year. It can easily be identified that punctuality
and delay, respectively, are a function of the volume of traffic in the system; the closer the traffic volume
approaches the limits of the system, the steeper the increase in delays is. This indicates the need to expand the
limits of the system. The “queue theory” tells us: at the limits of the system one percent more in traffic results in
seven percent higher delays. This behaviour can not only be derived from the according statistics but also be
shown in simulations.
The same statistic reveals that from 2000 onwards punctuality has improved. One reason behind is the
September eleventh effect, resulting in a decline of traffic figures. Additionally to that, significant progress has
been made in adding capacity to the system: RVSM (reduced vertical separation minima) or EAM 04 (Eurocontrol Airspace Model 2004) is only two examples, yet perhaps the most prominent ones.
All in all these effects result in an improved punctuality situation. However a creeping increase in delays
again from 2005 onwards is clearly displayed on Figure 2. So again provisions have to be made to enlarge the
capacity of the system.
Single European Sky (SES) – the punctuality situation as catalyst
Average daily ATFM delay*
200000
150000
1999
100000
2000
1998
[2007] (until 10/07)
2001
[(61984 / 28154)]
1997
50000
2002
2003
2004
(40522 / 22203)
Data by
(40786 / 23258)
2006
(50279 / 26286)
2005
(48087 / 25244)
0
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
Flights
*per week2007/2008
(small signs) / per
Air Traffic Management and
Air Navigation
Services
– Winter Session
8- year
38 (big signs)
Average
daily
traffic*
Figure 2. The punctuality situation over Europe over the past ten years
This challenge is remarkable as can easily be demonstrated on the basis of some German facts figures
(see Figure 3).
Growth Needs Timely Innovation
Past Examples and Future Challenges
9
~9
Mio IFR
1994: Germany: Radarseparat. – Minima 8NM-->5NM
8
1996: Air Traffic Flow Control by CFMU
7
>2000: European Air-Space Model EAM 04
6
2002: RVSM above FL 290
5
……
~5
IFR Movements
4
Capacity
2,9
3
2
Target value „capacity“
higher than forecast
of „movements“ to
improve
flexibility/punctuality
1,1
1
0
1985
Greater need of
innovation in a
shorter period of
time
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Figure 3. Increase of IFR movements over the past years and according approaches to enlarge air-space capacity
340
The 8th International Conference “RELIABILITY and STATISTICS in TRANSPORTATION and COMMUNICATION - 2008”
As easily can be derived from Figure 3, the challenges cannot be met by just optimising incrementally the
existing system. Optimisation basically is not a wrong idea; but it will not be sufficient to meet the future
challenge. New philosophies, concepts and ways of doing things are needed.
3. Meeting the Challenges by the Single European Sky (SES) Program
Looking at the SES program in some more detail [2], it is leading to a lot of innovation and change in the
aviation industry, addressing far more actors than only the Air Navigation Service Providers. ATM (Air Traffic
Management) in the sense of SES legislation encompasses all: The airlines, the airports, the MET services, the
standardisation-bodies, and the equipment-industry [3]. It comes up with a holistic innovative approach,
covering all participants in the system as well as all aspects, not just operations and technology. Just some few
examples are given below.
Institutional Innovation
The EU now has the power to decide and to enforce decisions, while Euro-control always has to rely on
voluntarism.
Regulation (states) is now (at least functionally) separated from service provision. This paves the way to
distinguish more clearly in the future: What are responsibilities of states and what are more market-like services,
to be delivered by (private-law or even privately owned) “companies”?
The institutional change should not be underestimated. On the long run, it will change the ATM world in
Europe considerably. The institutional changes are the enablers for further innovation.
Technical and Operational Innovation
New basic technologies are mature enough to allow for novel operational concepts and procedures. Main
drivers are the intelligent aircraft (FMS; Flight Management System), the availability of global infrastructures,
such as GPS or soon Galileo, last but not least the dramatic progress in IT: band-width, computing power and
HMIs are no longer limiting factors. How would aviation have developed, if computers had been invented earlier
than the aircraft? Would today’s ATM – and ATC-systems be the same?
Market Innovation
Thinking in “services” will not only apply for future oriented system-architectures (SOA = Service
Oriented Architecture!); SOA strongly supports interoperability and consolidation. The design of the future
system along services is a starting point. The thinking and acting along services has to follow and will create
new business concepts and revolutionize the business model of Air-Traffic-Control (ATC) by converting ATC
from state-owned authorities with sovereignty mentality and monopolistic behaviour into a service oriented
business in a market with elements of competition.
3.1. SES: the Objectives and the Challenges
The
follows:
•
•
•
•
political expectations for 2020 as compared to 2005 and as formulated by the Commission are as
capacity: enlarge capacity by a factor of three;
safety: enhance safety by a factor of ten;
environment: reduce pollution by 10%;
efficiency: cut direct ATM-costs per flight down to 50%.
Different SES programs have to contribute, to reach these goals; in particular the
• “Functional Airspace Block” (FAB) program and the
• “Functional Use of Airspace” (FUA) concept.
The future operational concept and the enabling technologies are in the meantime defined by the SESAR
– Program [4]: Based on the professional expertise and judgment of the experts having worked together in the
SESAR – Consortium. SESAR as the “technical” part of SES promises to contribute
• 73% in capacity;
• factor 3 in safety;
• substantial contribution to environmental protection;
• substantial cost savings.
The comparison of these SESAR figures with the political SES expectations gives already a hint, that to
reach the SES objectives more action is needed than just SESAR. Success is also needed in the other areas of
SES, particularly from the “Functional Airspace Blocks” (FAB) approach. However SESAR has to contribute a
significant part.
341
RelStat’08, 15-18 October 2008, Riga, Latvia
3.2. SESAR: the “Technical” Implementation of SES
The SESAR definition phase has been completed on time; the implementation is going to be started under
the responsibility of the SESAR JU (Joint Undertaking). All stakeholders of the ATM system are invited to
contribute to make SESAR a success.
SESAR
¾SESAR supports the operationel Implementation of SES
¾SESAR defines the ATM Netzwork of the future und steers its
Implementation
SES
Legislation
SESAR Definition-Phase
2006
SESAR Implementation - Phases
2008
2013
2020
Figure 4. Main Phases of the SESAR Program
The outcome of the SESAR – Definition phase encompasses mainly the following four dimensions:
1. The SESAR operational concept
2. The SESAR architecture
3. The SESAR technological enablers
4. The SESAR master plan (roadmap)
The operational concept plus the architecture are the “SESAR Target Concept”.
The five pillars of the operational concept are [5] the following:
1. Trajectory based operations, in the air as well as on the ground
2. New methods of separation assurance
3. CDM: Collaborative Decision Making
4. Airspace – Organization and – Management
5. Airports integration into the ATM-System
The SESAR architecture approach is [6] as follows:
1. Development in phases
2. Methodological approach from business model to system specification
(e. g. SOA: Service Oriented Architecture)
3. SWIM: System Wide Information Management
4. Reference Data Models
5. Implementation Packages
The functional needs have been mapped against the SESAR technological enablers to find out the most
promising ones [6]. In this paper only few examples can be given:
C (Communication): swim-infrastructure, including the aircraft; Datalink; IP as transport-Layer; PENS:
Pan European Network.
N (Navigation): satellite based navigation, including augmentation systems
S (Surveillance): new surveillance technologies, including autonomous dependant surveillance broadcast
(ADS-B); situational awareness on board the aircraft and on the ground for all phases of flight; multilateration
(MLAT).
The enablers as such are not new, but new is, that a concerted action of all stakeholders combined with
the political will and power of EU have set out to make it happen.
The SESAR master plan provides the orientation, what to do until when. It helps to organize the
implementation properly along the timeline, proposing meaningful “Implementation Packages”.
4. How Could Technological and Operational Innovation Help?
Basically one may say: the limits of today’s ATM/ATC-system are defined by the (too large) tolerances
in the system [7], needed due to the necessary fault budgets because of
• limitations of underlying technologies/enablers,
342
The 8th International Conference “RELIABILITY and STATISTICS in TRANSPORTATION and COMMUNICATION - 2008”
•
•
poor (stochastic) process quality,
fragmentation nationally/geographically and of systems, of information, of processes as well as
between the “roles of players” in the system (e. g. airlines, airports, air-trafficmanagement/control).
Just some few examples:
• today’s ICAO flight-plans versus continuous 4-D-Trajectory;
• today’s distance based separation versus time-based clearances or trajectory-based clearances;
• today’s Radar-based surveillance versus ADS-B and MLAT;
• today’s variety of data-owners and databases versus harmonized SWIM databases per functional
domain plus CDM;
• today’s fragmented processes versus integrated processes, including all relevant roles;
• today’s variety of national, geographical and application-specialized networks versus SWIM
infrastructure, including PENS.
Conclusions
There is a good chance to obviate a capacity limit, which would cut growth in aviation and hence growth
of global prosperity. But it is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it needs concerted and timely action, in Europe, and
on the global level. In practice this means coordination on ICAO level (e.g. [8]) as well as with the NextGen –
program in the United States (e.g. [9]) is necessary.
For good reasons the way forward will be evolutionary, while the final result or goal instead will be
revolutionary compared to the systems, procedures, working methods and entrepreneurial or administrative rules
of today.
If so: aviation will remain not only a reliable (safe, punctual), sustainable and affordable means of
transportation. At the same time, it will be a great proof that people from all countries in the world are able to
work together in a peaceful way to achieve one common goal, regardless their mother-tongue, culture and the
nation, they stem from.
References
1. European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation EUROCONTROL; Challenges to Growth 2004
Report (CTG04). EATMP Infocentre. Brussels, 2004.
2. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport; Single European Sky, Report of the
High Level Group. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Brussels, 2000.
3. Commission of the European Communities; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament – The Creation of the Single European Sky, 51999DC0614 final. Brussels, 1999.
4. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport; The SESAR Programme: Making Air
Travel Safer, Cheaper and More Efficient (Memo). Strategy, Coordination, Information and Communication
Unit, DG Energy and Transport. Brussels, 2005.
5. SESAR Consortium; SESAR Concept of Operations, D3, WP2.2.2/D3, DLT-0612-222-01-00. Brussels,
2007.
6. SESAR Consortium; The ATM Deployment Sequence, D4, DLM-0706-001-02-00. Brussels (2008)
7. SESAR Consortium; Air Transport Framework – The Current Situation, D1, DLM-0602-001. Brussels,
2006.
8. ICAO; Global Air Traffic Management – Operational Concept, Doc 9854 AN/458. Secretary General.
Montreal, 2005.
9. Joint Planning and Development Office; Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation
System. Washington, 2007.
343