AOC Meeting
49
AOC Meeting 9th January 2018
Transcript of AOC Meeting
AOC Meeting9th January 2018
2
Agenda
2
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
3
Agenda
3
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
CPH Flight Safety
Safety & Crisis Management
4
Speed on final is used to separate aircraft
Expect minimum 180/6, 160/4
If unable to comply with speed -> inform ATCo
the sooner the better
Do not reduce on your own
If final approach speed differs from ”expected/normal” behaviour-> Inform ATCo
AIP-text: ”If unable to comply with speed instructions inform ATC”.
5
Speed on final
Deviation from cleared taxi route at Copenhagen airport (EKCH)Fact: Since 2014 Copenhagen airport has set particular focus on the safety scenario, where aircraft taxies through a different taxi route than the cleared taxi route given by ATCo. In the past three years CPH has improved both markings and signages at the airport; our ANSP has been training their ATCOs to make pilots more aware of potential wrong taxi-routes when giving taxi clearance.
CPH needs pilots’ input
CPH aims to verify the effectiveness of the implemented improvements and identify further improvement opportunities to better control this type of safety risk.
We therefore encourages pilots, who flies to/from EKCH, to report an ASR of any episode when aircraft uses a taxi route, which is different from the cleared taxi route given by ATCo and share with [email protected] (CPH).
6
SPI 1 – Runway Safety
7
Numbers of Runway incursions Numbers of Crossing of lit stopbar
SPI 2 – Foreign Object Debris (FOD)
FOD reported by pilots/Naviair 0
Aircraft damage from FOD 0
FOD Inspectors qualified vs. FOD 91/91Inspectors tested
8 Trends shown as number from this month 2017 vs. last month 2017.
SPI 3 – Near-misses involving aircraft(per 10.000 ops)
Reported near-misses 9.95
Near-misses involving 1.11avoiding actions
9 Trends shown as number from year-to-month 2017 vs. year-to-month 2016.
Numbers of reported near-misses
SPI 4 – Aircraft Damage (per 10.000 ops)
Reported aircraft 1.11damage
Reported aircraft 0.00damage involving CPH
10 Trends shown as number from year-to-month 2017 vs. year-to-month 2016.
Numbers of a/c damage on ground
SPI 5 – CNS
SPI 5 measures the following functionalsystems
Ground Radar
Naviagation Aids
Runway- and taxiway ligthing
Tactical- and Operational information
Metoerological aids
Afleveringssted på NITOS strip viste TWY K2, der var lukket.
Call sign confusion
11
SPI 6 – Birdstrikes
Total identified birdstrikes 4
Birdstrikes with high risk 1species
% birdstrikes reported by 100%pilot
12 Trends shown as number from year-to-month 2017 vs. year-to-month 2016.
Sølvmåge(Herring gull)
Stormmåge(Common gull)
SPI – 7 Reporting culture
% reportable incidents 100%reported to CPH
Reportable incidents 2received within CNS domain
13 Trends shown as number from year-to-month 2017 vs. year-to-month 2016.
SPI – 8 Improper parking of aircraft on stands
Number of improper 1parking on stands
G18
14 Trends shown as number from year-to-month 2017 vs. year-to-month 2016.
15
Agenda
15
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
16
Security update – 9th January by/Johnnie Müller
17
Performance report week 48 - 52
18
Waiting time at CSC (in peak) – DEC 2017
0 days in December where waiting times exceeded 15 minutes (KPI 90%).
19
Waiting time at CSC (all day) – DEC 2017
There was 1 day in December with waiting times more than 20 minutes
(KPI 99%)
Sunday 17-12-2017 (KPI 97,7%):
We experienced extended waiting times between 11.00 – 13.00 caused by fewer lanes available
(opened) than required according to forecast. This was due to lack of staff on the day shift (staff
sickness). Furthermore we had an increased number of passengers (approx. + 400 pax).
Longest waiting time measured in T2 = 28 minutes and T3 = 25 minutes.
Gatekeeper Remote Operations
Rashid Ali - Security Staff & Area Service (SSA)
Ann Karina Farsig - Projektleder
20
Project timeline and Milestones
21
April May SeptemberJune Julyweek 12
System updateafterPilot
Hardware installation
Systems development – user end
Systems development – backend
Handler meeting
- Project status - Procedure review
Project execution
Systemintegrationin gate
Augustweek 9-11
Project analysis
S
y
s
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5Idea ModningAnalysis &
Planning
Project
Execution
Commencement
& CompletionOperations
P
i
l
o
t
Handler meeting
- Follow up - Pilot test
14. july 14. sept.
Handler workshop
- Project intro.- Process review &Procedure inputs
Handler meeting
Installation statusFollow up on procedure
3.
Maj
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
22.
juni
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
7.
july
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
12.
july
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
19.
july
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
27.
august
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
1 s
epte
mber
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
Last gateinstalled
OctoberNovember/December
Hypercare
Optimization & Bugfixes
14.
sept.
Sta
tus m
ail
to G
round
Handle
r
Handler Meeting 16/10
Project follow up
Ground handler/Stakeholderinvolvement/Meeting
Ground handler/stakeholderstatus mail
Gatekeeper Project Review with AOC Member.
Project Design and Implementation
Regular Handler meetings have been held, to involve stakeholders in key project decisions.
Regular project status emails to involved stakeholders.
Handling agents invited to participate in Mock-up pilot test. Evaluation of the Mock-up pilot test held with handling agents, with the purpose of correcting systems faults before launch date.
Gatekeeper project review with AOC member – Tom de Voss, 13th December 2017.
Project Status
Remote Gatekeeper Operations launched, and in operation pr. 14th September 2017.
Follow up meeting with involved Stakeholders/Ground Handlers held 16th October 2017, one month into new Gatekeeper Remote Operations.
Continues adjustments of software/hardware, to correct faults and optimize concept.
23 CCTV Cameras have been replaced with a new type, after project launch, to optimize remote sweep process
Feedback and Concerns from AOC meeting 5th December 2017
Concerns over waiting time during remote sweep, panel activation and door opening.22
Average waiting time – TotalRemote sweep, gatepanel activation and door opening
23
Data source: system log
Remote sweep processprocess after ‘afslut’ is pushed on the gate panel, untill gate is remotesweeped and gate is set to neturalstatus.
Gatepanel activation, from Panel is activated, until SOC accepts and operates gatemanager
Door opening – status 3time from card reader is activateduntill door is opened, and SOC monitores passing via CCTV.
00:01:11
00:02:58
00:01:32
00:02:58
00:01:44
00:00:00
00:00:43
00:01:26
00:02:10
00:02:53
00:03:36
Ave
rag
e i
n M
in:S
ec
September October November Dec.
Average waiting timeRemote Sweep process pr. gate
24
00:00:00
00:00:43
00:01:26
00:02:10
00:02:53
00:03:36
00:01:3700:01:42
00:01:46 00:01:47 00:01:51 00:01:52 00:01:5500:02:03
00:02:15
00:03:08 00:03:11
00:03:32
C26 C10 C33 C32 C29 C28 C37 C30 C35 C34 C36 C39
Ave
rag
e i
n M
in:S
ec
Data source: system log
• Waiting time varies due to gate design, and number of CCTV cameras to be viewed during remote sweep process.
Procedure after ended Status 3 – Critical Arrival Best Practice
25
CPH ID
card
Airline Representative / Ground Handler
SOC Gate
Manager
Gate Panel
Gate Neutral
During remote sweep the door between gate and jet bridge is locked – in order to complete a secure status change.
Airline representative / Airline can still access lounge during remote sweep.
Recommendations
End the Arrival operation on the gate panel, as soon as the last passenger & crew has left the Aircraft/Gate, to minimize waiting time.
After ended remote sweep, activate gate panel and initiate Boarding, this opens all doors including service stairway on the jet bridge.
Security Awarness - contact SOC if in doubt.
Estimated waiting time 2-5 minutes(depending on gate)
Remote Sweep Operations Security Operations Center (SOC) Gate Manager System is operated by 3 desks at SOC.
Once a gate panel is activated by an Airline Representative / Ground Handler, SOC cross-checks the arrival with the traffic program, and pushes the relevant operation to the gate panel.
If a call from a gate panel isn’t serviced within 30 seconds at SOC, it generates an acoustic alarm and flashing light, at all 3 desks.
Remote door opening is operated by 4 desks.
Cameras associated with remote sweep are all placed in a standardized sequence, to speed up sweeping process.
26
Stakeholder involvement CPH Project Manager – Ann Karina Farsig, [email protected]
CPH Security – Morten Lyngbæk, [email protected]
The following ground handlers have been involved in project meetings, Pilot test and project status emails:
27
Company Contact
SGH Nicolai Musante Larsen
SGH Helle Nordsted
SGH Jesper Hansen
SGH Jens Jensen
Aviator Brian Enghusen
Aviator Michelle Christensen
Menzies Jacob Andersen
CFS Tommy Jonnson
Falck Birger Post
28
Questions
29
Agenda
29
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
30
Service Level AgreementPerformance Update 9 January 2018
Week 43-52
Departure - CPH
CSC in peak (<15 min. 90%): Performed above target all weeks
CSC all day (<20 min. 99%): One week not meeting target
Major Emergency Procedure: No calls during the period
Check-in Take Away Time in peak: Performed above target all weeks
Baggage outbound (20 min. Before STD 96%): Performed above target all weeks
Availability - self-service bagdrop application (> = 99%): Performed above target all weeks
Service Level Agreement | Performance update | Oct-Dec31
Departure - Airlines
Check-in waiting time (< 15 min. 90%):
SGH performing above targets all weeks and CFS and Menzies above targets all but one and two weeks.
Aviator performance was below target all weeks.
Service Level Agreement | Performance update | Oct-Dec32
Turnaround / Arrival - CPH
Baggage transfer (0% points according to starting point): Performed above targets all weeks
Stand Functionality (> = 95%): Performed above target all weeks
Baggage inbound off-loading in peak: Performed above target all but two weeks
Service Level Agreement | Performance update | Oct-Dec33
Turnaround - Airlines
Baggage transfer from on-block to barcode read (< -3% points according to starting point):
SGH performance above target all weeks
Aviator and Menzies performance above target all but one and two weeks
Service Level Agreement | Performance update | Oct-Dec34
Arrival - Airlines Baggage arrival first bag (< 25 min. 95%):
CFS performed above target, Menzies met met tartgets six out of ten weeks, whereas SGH and Aviator struggled to meet targets
Baggage arrival last bag narrow body (< 30 min. 90%):
CFS, SGH and Menzies performed well most weeks, whereas Aviator did not meet targets during the period
Baggage arrival last bag wide body (< 50 min. 90%):
SGH performed above target most weeks, Menzies met targets in six out of ten weeks, while Aviator was unable to meet target
Service Level Agreement | Performance update | Oct-Dec35
36
Agenda
36
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
37
Border Control UpdateAOC Update9 January 2018
Border Control
Application of green foil in front of the 4 new extra passport control boxes
Adjusting the wording on the green foil in front of the ABC Border Control
Continuous review of the flow through the Border Control to keep up an optimized Border Control as much as possible
Removal of glass wall in Terminal F to increase the visibility of the passport box round the back for arriving passengers
38
Changes to the Ground Operations Arrival Process
• New baggage arrival handling process for Non-Schengen designed and
implemented in cooperation with SGH, Aviator, Menzies and CFS
• The process is active during Non-Schengen arrival peak hours 12:00-14:00
• Stand D1 is used for temporary storage of Non-Schengen arriving baggage
awaiting “Go” signal
• Priority Baggage and Transfer is delivered right away
• Remaining Baggage delivery “Go” given based on calculated PAX arrival time
in Baggage Reclaim and when First BAX are ready
• The process is expected to be required potentially until June 2018
Mainly Non-Schengen
Mainly Schengen
39
Key Factors Impacting Ground Operations Performance
40
Police Manning of
Border Control
Non-Schengen PAX and
BAX Volume
Non-Schengen
Arrival Times
GroundHandler Manning
Update since last meeting
D1 process notification changed to “First BAX ready”
New version of Ground Handler app with automatic “Go” when First BAX and PAX are ready
Estimated PAX arrival time in Baggage Reclaim has been automated using door sensors, walking distance and Xovis data
Stable performance during December
41
Next Steps
Continuous monitoring of process and on-going dialog
with Ground Handlers
Additional improvement initiatives incorporated in BRP2-2
Program, such as:
Allocation algorithm
Airside “Traffic lights”
Offloading queue measurements
Baggage Reclaim screens
Capacity improvements
Implement digitalized and automated solutions, such as:
Red/Green Traffic Lights for entering Offloading area
Remote orchestration
42
43
Agenda
43
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
44
Flight ventilation systemby/Jesper Rasmussen
45
Flight ventilation system
In CPH we have three types of flight ventilation systems:
Centralized ventilation system where an even temperature is delivered to the stands and the flow to the aircraft is regulated due to signal from a flight sensor (Finger A west, A18-A23)
Decentralized ventilation system with central cooling/heating system with signal from air sensor/outdoor temperature
Decentralized ventilation system with separate cooling/heating systems with air sensor/outdoor temperature signal (found on E70 - E89)
46
Flight ventilation - a little background
Regulates based on signals from:
Flight sensor placed inside the aircraft
Outdoor temperature and an "experience curve“
Why two methods?
Disruption of PAX flow when placing sensor
Some airlines are not interested in having the flight
sensor inside the aircraft
If the sensor is not placed in the aircraft wrong
temperature measurement!
The 3 operating modes:
Summer operation mode (cooled when temp is higher than 20°C)
Neutral operation mode (Fresh air is added when temp is 14 - 20°C)
Winter operation mode (air is heated when the temp is lower than 14°C)
47
Where are we now and what are we working on?
Where are we right now?
Finger A west: We have had challenges that the system reacted very slowly. Here we have changed the regulating
valves and the control this autumn so that it reacts quickly and this has improved the situation significantly. The unit itself
is quite old and we will make an analysis of this issue sometime during spring 2018.
Finger C: We have a challenge of delivering the correct temperature, especially on stand C39.
On some Finger C-stands we have no flight sensors installed and are therefore regulating on the basis of outside
temperature combined with an “experience curve”. We are currently optimizing the “experience curve” and expect that
this will improve our ability to deliver the right temperature.
On stand C39 the problem (among others) relates to the fact that temperatures increase significantly during
“transportation” from cooling units to the aircrafts. We are currently analyzing this issue and will be able to provide more
details at a later stage. Furthermore, we will install a flight sensor on C39, which should improve our ability to provide
correct temperature.
What is important?
To use the flight sensor where they are installed
That we receive feedback from the customer so we can do something about it and give them a good experience.
Challenges with temperatures inside the aircraft- even temperature is distributed to all aircrafts regardless of how hot/cold the climate inside a specific aircraft is
48
Questions
49
Agenda
49
Welcome
Minute from last meeting
Reports from sub-committees
Information from CPH including updates on following issues:
Safety
Security
Status on progress Gate keeper at C-Pier
SLA
Baggage handling and Non-Schengen Border Control
Flight ventilation system
Miscellaneous
