EUROCONTROL · 2019-02-18 · of a future ATS route network on the airspace systems of Bulgaria,...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTREAIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATION

TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ROUTE NETWORKAND AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT IN THE

AIRSPACE OF BULGARIA, ROMANIA & TURKEY

EEC Report No. 293

EEC Task AF52EATCHIP Task ASM.ET1.ST02

Issued: January 1996

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should bereproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Report No. 293

Security Classification:Unclassified

OriginatorEEC - AMS(Air Traffic Control Model Simulations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP1591222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : (33-1) 69 88 75 00

SponsorEATCHIP Development DirectorateDED.4

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B-1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32-(0)2-729 90 11

TITLE:

AIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATION TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ROUTE NETWORK ANDAIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AIRSPACE OF BULGARIA, ROMANIA & TURKEY

AuthorR. Dowdall

Date

1/96Pages

viii + 30Figures

13+ 8 maps

Tables

10Appendix

1References

2

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

ASM.ET1.ST02

EEC Task No.

AF52

Task No. Sponsor Period

1994 to 1995

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: L. Sillard(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):AF52 - Airspace Model Simulation - ARN - ATC Tasks - Black Sea - Bulgaria FIR/UIR - EATCHIPDevelopment - Military Traffic - Romania FIR/UIR - Route Network - Sectorisation - Simferopol FIR/UIR -Top-Down Simulation - Traffic Flows - Turkey FIR/UIR - Ukraine FIR/UIR - Work Index

Abstract:This report describes a EUROCONTROL Airspace Model simulation study, using the top-down method,which was conducted on the airspace of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey on behalf of the EATCHIPDevelopment Directorate and with the full cooperation of the three States concerned.

The study assessed the impact of a solution to the Black Sea FIR boundary issue and the implementationof a future ATS route network on the airspace systems of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please reportto:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC

Table of Contents Page iii

EUROCONTROL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Report .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ivSummary .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vForeword .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. viii

1 INTRODUCTION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.1 The Top-Down Approach to Airspace Modelling .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.2 Objective of the Study .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.3 General Description of the Study .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.4 Traffic Samples Tested and Aircraft Performance Data .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31.5 Simulation Work Index .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4

2 REFERENCE ORGANISATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 52.1 Analysis of the Traffic Samples .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 52.2 Interaction of the Flows .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 92.3 Work Index .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 112.4 Summary of Results .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12

3 MILITARY SAMPLES ORGANISATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13

4 REVISED SCENARIO ORGANISATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 144.1 Sectorisation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 174.2 Distribution of Traffic .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 174.3 Interaction of the Flows .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 184.4 Work Index .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 214.5 Summary of Results .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22

5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.1 Reference Organisation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.2 Reference Organisation with the Military Samples Added .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.3 Revised Scenario .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24

Version française du sommaire et des conclusions (pages vertes) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26

Appendix A - Simulation Maps .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30


Abbreviations and Acronyms Page iv

EUROCONTROL

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THE REPORT

A/C AircraftARN ATS (Air Traffic Services) Route NetworkARR(S) Arrival(s)ATS Air Traffic ServicesATC Air Traffic ControlBUL BulgariaCNF(S) Conflict(s)DCT DirectDEP(S) Departure(s)DIR DirectionDOC DocumentEAM EUROCONTROL Airspace ModelEATCHIP European ATC Harmonisation and Integration ProgrammeECAC European Civil Aviation ConferenceEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreEUR-ANP European Air Navigation PlanFIR Flight Information RegionFL Flight LevelFLAS Flight Level Allocation SystemGAT General Air Traffic (civil)INTL InternationalNM Nautical mile(s)OAT Operational Air Traffic (military)ORG OrganisationROM RomaniaR/T RadiotelephonyTMA Terminal Control AreaTUR TurkeyUIR Upper Flight Information Region


Summary Page v

EUROCONTROL

EEC Report No. 293EEC Task AF52

EATCHIP Task Specification ASM.ET1.ST02Issued: January 1996

AIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATIONTOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ROUTE NETWORK

AND AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT IN THEAIRSPACE OF BULGARIA, ROMANIA & TURKEY

by

R. Dowdall

SUMMARY

As a result of the increase in traffic in the Bulgarian, Romanian and Turkish regions, complicated bythe situation in former Yugoslavia, and of the possibility of a solution to the Black Sea (Simferopol)FIR boundary issue, it was decided by EATCHIP Development to conduct an Airspace Model top-down simulation of the area to assess the impact of a future route network on the existing airspacesystems.

The top-down approach to airspace modelling examines the main flows of traffic (usually in verticalfree-profile) and how they interact with each other in any given multinational airspace system. It ispurely experimental: the development of an ideal airspace system not constrained by existingFIR/UIR boundaries or political elements.

The objective of the study was to assess an ATS route network (ARN) and supporting airspacesectorisation plan, regardless of current FIR boundary constraints, which:

l took full account of current and future civil and military airspace requirements;l had the capacity to match forecast demand;l was based on the agreed ARN route network plan and would be a building-block for its future

development;l offered full flexibility, in line with the concept of the flexible use of airspace;l reduced, to the extent possible, the route length for air transport;l met the full agreement of the civil and military representatives of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

Two main organisations were simulated:

l a reference organisation simulating the route network existing on the 15th/16th of July 1994(Friday/Saturday) and using the 24 hour actual traffic samples for each day;

l a future, ideal organisation not constrained by the Black Sea problem, which tested a routenetwork based on Version 2 of the European Air Navigation Plan (EUR-ANP), as depicted in Map2 (2 February 1995). Both traffic samples simulated for the reference organisation were amendedaccordingly. The samples were then further amended to take into account the recommendedflows contained in annex 8/chart 8B of the EATCHIP report "Route Network Development andAssociated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area" (EUROCONTROL Doc. 957005).

The airspace simulated was the TMA and en route sectors of the Bulgarian, Romanian and TurkishFIR/UIRs as well as that portion of the Simferopol FIR/UIR over the Black Sea affected by the routenetwork changes. The present-day FIR/UIR boundaries were used in both organisations.The simulation of the reference organisation showed that:


Summary Page vi

EUROCONTROL

l Of the three States simulated, the results indicated Romania as having the greatest amount ofpotential spare capacity.

l The areas giving the greatest problems were (see MAP3 in appendix A):

⇒ Bulgaria - MATEL to RIXEN and Bailovo (BLO) to Radovets (RAD);⇒ Turkey - ADELI to RIXEN, BERGO to Biga (BIG), Afyon (KFK) to KUMRU and Goynuk

(GOY) to PETAR.

l Apart from the wider use of the Black Sea airspace and the harmonisation of flows to relieve thecongestion over the Istanbul area, there was need to:

⇒ Dualise the U/G1 between Constanta (CND) and Istanbul.⇒ Dualise the UA4 between BLO and Istanbul.⇒ Use Chouchouligovo (CCO) for southbound and RODOP for northbound traffic and consider

the introduction of a Flight Level Allocation System where these flows intersect the UA4.⇒ Provide discrete inbound and outbound routeings for Burgas and Varna traffic via CND, and

also for Izmir and Antalya traffic.

Because the future Black Sea sectorisation is still unknown, the present-day FIR/UIR boundarieswere retained for the future organisation. The results of simulating the new flows and route network(including routes over the Black Sea) and retaining the present-day FIR/UIR boundaries showed that:

l The redistribution of aircraft led to a 17% decrease in Bulgaria's traffic and a 10% decrease inRomania's, with the figures for Turkey remaining virtually unchanged.

l The number of radar conflicts for the airspace as a whole was down by 40%, the biggest falloccurring in the number of opposite-direction conflicts, down 85%, due to the separation ofclimbing and descending opposite-direction flows.

l Romania was the only country to experience an increase in total radar conflicts - up by 60%, butfrom a relatively small base. Bulgaria and Turkey experienced decreases of 70% and 45%,respectively.

l Some problem areas still remained (see MAP6 in appendix A):

⇒ Bulgaria - BLO to RADS;⇒ Romania - The Galati (GLT) area and the Arad (ARD) to DOMNA route south of CND;⇒ Turkey - LTBAJ to RAD and ADORU to RDBAI;⇒ Black Sea - DOMNA.

Simulating the present-day FIR/UIR boundaries had the effect of understating the number of aircraftthat would have been controlled by Bulgaria and Romania under any new boundary arrangements.For Romania, any boundary change would mean the inclusion of DOMNA in its airspace and,therefore, the traffic through this point via KORAT or ANGOL. For Bulgaria, the boundary changeswould mean the inclusion of either the bi-directional Baglum (BAG)-DOMNA route on its own, or thesame route plus the busier unidirectional DOMNA to TALIK route.

In order to identify the influence of the new flows and route network in the context of any futureboundary changes, further analysis was carried out which showed that:

l The influence of the new route network and flows would be an overall reduction of 35% in thenumber of radar conflicts compared to the reference organisation.

l The results for Turkey would remain the same as for the future organisation.l The inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace and, therefore, the KORAT or ANGOL traffic

would mean an average reduction in aircraft numbers of 6% compared to the referenceorganisation.


Summary Page vii

EUROCONTROL

l Romania’s radar conflicts would almost double compared to the reference organisation (but froma relatively small base) due to the high number of crossing conflicts.

l For Bulgaria, including the bi-directional BAG-DOMNA route, on its own, would have little impact.

l The inclusion of the BAG-DOMNA route plus the busier DOMNA to TALIK route would lead to anaverage reduction in aircraft numbers of 5% compared to the reference organisation.

l Similar reductions in the number of radar conflicts found for Bulgaria in the future organisationwith the present-day boundaries would also be found with the inclusion of the two routes.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This simulation provides an overview of the aircraft loadings and conflicts on the routes which areproposed in Version 2 of EUR-ANP. As such, they depict an ideal system which does not take intoaccount the constraints currently imposed on planners as a result of the situation in formerYugoslavia and the political problem of the Black Sea FIR boundary delineation. Nevertheless, theresults can be used to plan improvements to the route network in the area.

The results show that the new flows and route network provide a more efficient organisation ofairspace in Bulgaria and Turkey, and should increase capacity. Romania will experience a moderateincrease in workload with the inclusion of DOMNA in the airspace.

Considerable benefit was derived from simulating the separation of climbing and descendingopposite-direction flows in Bulgaria and Turkey. To make this a reality and to permit a more flexibleuse of the airspace, closer cooperation between the civil and military authorities in both Bulgaria andTurkey will be required, as the results show that the civil/military interface is very clearly defined inboth countries.

In reviewing the final results, the important views of the Turkish delegation were not available as therepresentatives were unable to attend the meeting. Although the beneficial results of the study arequite clear, the absence of the opinions of such a pivotal State is regrettable. Also, it would bedesirable, though not necessary, to simulate the optimisation of the new route network in a furtherstudy. Should this be done, any significantly different views from Turkey or any other changes to theagreed network could also be included.

The simulation was carried out using a base 1994 traffic sample. During the course of the study,traffic in the area has increased. Should the Black Sea boundary issue remain unresolved while thetraffic continues to increase there will be a high loading on the Istanbul to JULIA/KEREK/KARILroutes. The solution to this problem will require the retention of the ARGES to Oradea(ORA)/KEREK route as an important offload for the parallel KOMAN-JULIA route.

Finally, the study concludes that Version 2 of the EUR-ANP will provide an overall better balanceddistribution of traffic and workload. It will reduce the loadings in the bottleneck areas and, therefore,should increase overall capacity. However, the full benefits of Version 2 are dependent upon theimplementation of the new routes over the Black Sea, so the consequential increases in capacity canonly be realised when these routes have been implemented. A resolution of the Black Sea FIRboundary issue is, therefore, an urgent necessity.


Foreword Page viii

EUROCONTROL

FOREWORD

In May 1994 the initial meeting for the study took place in Brussels at which the objective of theBulgaria, Romania and Turkey top-down simulation was defined. The study was given the EEC tasknumber AF52.

A number of subsequent meetings were held during the execution of the simulation betweenrepresentatives of the three States involved and the EUROCONTROL study team. The purpose ofthese meetings was to outline the simulation methodology, define the organisations and trafficsamples to be simulated, verify the input data, and review the interim results.

The final presentation of results took place in Romania in June 1995 and an intermediate report wasissued the following month.

This report analyses the results of the study and is organised into the following chapters:

Chapter 1 Objective and description of the study plus the input data used.

Chapter 2 Analysis of the results for the reference organisation.

Chapter 3 Analysis of the results for the addition of the military samples to the referenceorganisation.

Chapter 4 Analysis of the results for the new flows and route network simulated.

Chapter 5 Summary and conclusions.

Acknowledgements

The EUROCONTROL study team would like to thank the ATC administrations of Bulgaria, Romaniaand Turkey for the assistance given during the execution of this study. Thanks must also go to all theworking group members from the three States for the excellent facilities provided at each meeting.


Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 1

EUROCONTROL

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Top-Down Approach to Airspace Modelling

The top-down approach to airspace modelling examines the main flows of traffic (usually in verticalfree-profile) and how they interact with each other in any given multinational airspace system. It ispurely experimental: the development of an ideal airspace system not constrained by existingFIR/UIR boundaries or political elements.

By analysing the results of such a simulation in terms of aircraft flows and the radar conflictsproduced when these flows interact, the airspace under study can be significantly "deconflicted".Methods to achieve this include: alternative routeings leading to reductions in route lengths;dualisation of certain airways; level restrictions; and level-capping of city-pair flows.

Consideration must be given to the wider picture beyond the simulated area by ensuring theharmonisation of proposed route networks for the particular airspace with other network plans such asthe ATS Route Network (ARN). Other factors considered are future traffic demand of both en routeand arrival/departure traffic at major and secondary airports and, in order to be realistic, militaryairspace requirements.

1.2 Objective of the Study

The objective of this study of Bulgarian, Romanian and Turkish airspace was to assess an ATS routenetwork and supporting airspace sectorisation plan, regardless of current FIR boundary constraints,which:

l took full account of current and future civil and military airspace requirements;l had the capacity to match forecast demand;l was based on the agreed ARN route network plan and would be a building-block for its future

development;l offered full flexibility, in line with the concept of the flexible use of airspace;l reduced, to the extent possible, the route length for air transport;l met the full agreement of the civil and military representatives of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

1.3 General Description of the Study

The airspace simulated was the TMA and en route sectors of the Bulgarian, Romanian and TurkishFIR/UIRs as well as that portion of the Simferopol FIR/UIR over the Black Sea affected by the routenetwork changes.

Simulated Organisations

Two main organisations were simulated:

l a reference organisation simulating the route network existing on the 15th/16th of July 1994(Friday/Saturday) and using the 24 hour actual traffic samples for each day;

l a future, ideal organisation (called "revised scenario") not constrained by the Black Sea problem,which tested a route network based on Version 2 of the European Air Navigation Plan (EUR-ANP),as depicted in Map 2 (2 February 1995). Both traffic samples simulated for the referenceorganisation were amended accordingly. The samples were then further amended to take intoaccount the recommended flows contained in annex 8/chart 8B of the EATCHIP report "RouteNetwork Development and Associated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area"(EUROCONTROL Doc. 957005).



EUROCONTROL

A third organisation simulated the GAT samples used for the reference organisation withrepresentative military samples from each country added.

In each organisation, all arrivals were simulated down to their respective TMA exit points(approximately FL100) and all departures were treated from the runway upwards to ensure correctprofiles on entering en route airspace.

Separation Standards

In practice, separation standards varying from 3nm to 15 minutes are used in different parts of thesimulated airspace. As the application of these different standards (eight altogether) would haverequired major software modifications to the Airspace Model and may have led to possible difficultiesin meeting the simulation schedule, it was decided to apply a combination of the normal internal enroute radar separation used by each of the three countries and the radar or procedural separationrequired at each of the FIR/UIR entry/exit points.

Table 1 summarises the separation standards simulated.

FIR/UIR InternalSeparation

External FIR/UIR Separation

Bulgaria(LBSR/LBWR)

15nmRomania/TurkeyBelgrade (LYBA)

Simferopol (UKFF)Athens (LGGG)

20nm30nm

"10 minutes

Romania(LRBB) 20nm

BulgariaBudapest (LHCC)Belgrade (LYBA)

Lvov (UKLL)Kishinev (LUKK)Odessa (UKOO)

Simferopol (UKFF)

20nm"

30nm""""

Turkey(LTAA/LTBB) 20nm

BulgariaAthens (LGGG)Nicosia (LCCC)

Damascus (OSTT)Simferopol (UKFF)

Rostov (URRV)Teheran (OIIX)

20nm10 minutes

""""

15 minutesBlack Sea

(Revised Scenario)20nm Bulgaria/Romania/Turkey

Simferopol (UKFF)20nm30nm

Table 1

It was accepted that the internal separation used would produce more conflicts in the TMA areas thanwould, in reality, occur. However, the main analysis of the results excluded from the calculations allconflicts occurring below FL165 as not being relevant to the main objectives of the study.

Sectors

The ideal method of conducting a top-down simulation is to treat the complete simulated airspace asone sector. The benefit is that a true number of radar conflicts are detected. With multiple sectors,the conflicts occurring close to sector/centre boundaries, either vertically or horizontally, are recordedin both sectors/centres concerned. In the context of a detailed study of controller workload, thissituation is realistic as such radar conflicts are usually subject to radar handovers and are, therefore,an integral part of each sector/centre's workload.

A top-down approach, however, does not require this level of detail which, in fact, only makes theanalysis of the results more difficult. That said, where a difference exists in internal radar separationstandards then sectorisation is unavoidable. This was the case with this simulation (see table 1 ,above) but the sectorisation was kept to a minimum by making each country's airspace one completesector and ignoring any internal sectorisation.



EUROCONTROL

Each of the three sectors (four in the revised scenario organisation) was simulated from FL45 tounlimited. The analysis of the results excluded the duplicate radar conflicts recorded at the FIR/UIRboundary points.

1.4 Traffic Samples Tested and Aircraft Performance Data

The specifications of the study required the detailed simulation of two busy 24 hour samples takenfrom each country's GAT traffic records for 1994. The dates agreed between all parties were the15th/16th July 1994 (Friday and Saturday). A representative OAT sample for each country was alsosupplied.

GAT Traffic Sample

Eight GAT samples were received:

Friday Ankara 665 flightsIstanbul 1107 flightsBulgaria 1127 flightsRomania 905 flightsTotal 3804 flights - Resulting in 1702 simulated aircraft.

Saturday Ankara 681 flightsIstanbul 925 flightsBulgaria 1249 flightsRomania 1018 flightsTotal 3873 flights - Resulting in 1724 simulated aircraft.

The reduction of 55% from total flights to simulated aircraft on both days is due to the numbers offlights common to two or more of the original samples.

A more detailed analysis of the simulation samples can be found in the next chapter dealing with thereference organisation, starting on page 5.

OAT Traffic Samples

Three OAT samples were received containing military flights affecting civil airspace:

Bulgaria 124 aircraftRomania 336 aircraftTurkey 103 aircraftTotal 563 aircraft

This sample was added to both Friday and Saturday samples to assess the impact of these flights onthe existing civil route network.

Aircraft Performance Data

The airspace model recognises more than 200 different aircraft types. These types have beengrouped into 60 categories of aircraft performance. Detailed data on the cruising/climb/descentspeeds and the rates of climb/descent is available for each category of aircraft. The model can alsodistinguish between long, medium and short range flights.

The data has been derived from studies of aircraft performance, previous simulations, airlineoperating practices and particular characteristics observed by operational controllers in varioussimulated areas. The aircraft performance data is used to construct the requested and actual profileof each aircraft within the simulated airspace.



EUROCONTROL

1.5 Simulation Work Index

A normal airspace model simulation provides a detailed workload analysis by identifying andrecording all ATC tasks necessary to process each flight through the airspace system under study.These ATC tasks are grouped under five broad categories: flight data management; coordination;conflict search; routine R/T; and radar.

This level of detail, however, is not required in a top-down simulation. Instead, a work index iscalculated in order to:

l allow the results to be put into a readily understood context;l provide a basis for comparing the reference organisation with the revised scenario organisation;l identify implied spare capacity.

Note: It is important to understand that the work index is merely a simple indicator of the potentialwork involved in processing the simulated aircraft through the airspace system. It is not ameasure of the real workload that would be required in controlling the aircraft through a multi-sector environment nor can it be used to calculate capacity with any of the recognised methodsin use today.

Calculation of the Work Index

The work index is based on the major elements of two of the ATC task categories:

l Routine R/T: This part of the index takes into account the routine R/T work involved in the firstcall from an aircraft and the transfer of the aircraft to the next frequency.

l Radar: Radar interventions require the tactical alteration of an aircraft's heading, level orspeed in order to ensure minimum radar separation betweenaircraft at all times;

Radar supervisions involve the close monitoring of potential conflict situationsbetween aircraft without the necessity of tactical interventions.

The model identifies nine types of radar conflicts in evaluating interventions and supervisions:

Type 1 Same track, same level, both aircraft in cruise;Type 2 Same track, one in cruise, one in climb or descent;Type 3 Same track, both in climb or descent;Type 4 Crossing tracks, same level, both aircraft in cruise;Type 5 Crossing tracks, one in cruise, one in climb or descent;Type 6 Crossing tracks, both in climb or descent;Type 7 Opposite tracks, same level, both aircraft in cruise;Type 8 Opposite tracks, one in cruise, one in climb or descent;Type 9 Opposite tracks, both in climb or descent.

Over a range of simulations performed by the Airspace Model, there is an approximate taskexecution time ratio of 1:1:3 between first + last call to an aircraft, a radar supervision and a radarintervention. On this basis one point is allocated per aircraft worked, one point per radar supervisionrecorded and three points per radar intervention recorded.


Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 5

EUROCONTROL

2 REFERENCE ORGANISATION

This organisation tested the existing airspace structure using two 24 hour traffic samples for the15th/16th July 1994 (Friday and Saturday). The purpose of the reference organisation was:

l to determine the main flows of traffic and how they interact;l to highlight areas of difficulty;l to identify any implied spare capacity in the region simulated;l to provide a basis for comparison with the revised scenario organisation.

MAP 1 of appendix A shows the route network tested.

2.1 Analysis of the Traffic Samples

Category and Distribution of Traffic

The Friday sample contained 1702 aircraft and Saturday’s 1724 aircraft. Fig 1 shows the four flightcategories - domestic, international arrivals, international departures and transit - making up eachcountry's total number of flights (shown in blue) for the two days. The percentage of transit flights isshown in red in the appropriate part of each bar. No military flights were included in this organisation.

Flight Category Per CountryReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday

362 376

343 371

897

1088

180218

343

775943

324

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Romania Bulgaria Turkey Romania Bulgaria Turkey

Friday Saturday

Domestic Intl. Arrs. Intl. Deps. Transit

Fig 1

1141 a/c944 a/c 1247 a/c 1025 a/c 1274 a/c 1270 a/c

82%83%

26%

88%

85%

27%

The first point to note is the difference in the composition of traffic between Bulgaria and Romania onthe one hand, and Turkey on the other. Only 25% of Turkey's traffic was transiting, whereas morethan 80% of the traffic for the other two countries was overflying. In the case of Bulgaria 60% of itstransit flights were to/from Turkish airports and for Romania the figure was 45%.

On the Friday, Turkey had 32% more flights than Romania and 24% more on the Saturday. In allthree countries, domestic flights were reduced on the Saturday as compared to the Friday.



EUROCONTROL

Flight Level Usage

Fig 2 shows the distribution of cruising flight levels over the two days. As usual, FL330 was the clearfavourite, with FL370, FL350 and FL310 not too far behind, particularly on the Friday.

Analysis of Cruising Flight Levels UsedReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

<FL170

FL170

FL180

FL190

FL200

FL210

FL220

FL230

FL240

FL250

FL260

FL270

FL280

FL290

FL310

FL330

FL350

FL370

FL390

FL410

FL430

Number of A ircraft

Friday Saturday

Fig 2

Friday : 1702 aircraftSaturday : 1724 aircraft

Concerning the subject of free routeing in the future, the percentage of the traffic at FL370 and abovewas 20% on both days and at FL350 and above 35%, again on both days.

Aircraft Types

Fig 3 shows the ten most frequently occurring aircraft types for each day. In the traffic samplesreceived, very few of the B737s were categorised as to low-performance series 200 or high-performance 300/400/500. In order to reflect the reality of greater numbers of high-performanceaircraft in use today, three out of every four B737-200s (perhaps conservative) appearing in thesamples were recategorised as B737-300/400/500s. These high-performance aircraft appear in fig 3as "B73S".

264

172

134 130107

98 9488

7046

306

150 147135

109105 100 100

6156

Fig 3

Most Frequently Occurring Aircraft TypesReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday

Friday: 1702 aircraft Saturday: 1724 aircraft

Friday Saturday



EUROCONTROL

Evolution of the Traffic during the Day

Fig 4 gives a picture, hour by hour, of the number of aircraft in the system, i.e. in the airspace takenas one complete unit, during the Friday.

1141231351191301351641791952131891971981681621591561391151041031028637

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Count per Hourly Period of A ircraft in the SystemReference Organisation - F r iday 15th July 1994

Fig 400-

01

01-

02

02-

03

03-

04

04-

05

05-

06

06-

07

07-

08

08-

09

09-

10

10-

11

11-

12

12-

13

13-

14

14-

15

15-

16

16-

17

17-

18

18-

19

19-

20

20-

21

21-

22

22-

23

23-

24Tim e

Period

A ircra ft

Average per hourlyperiod: 143 aircra ft

Figures in red shownum bers of aircraft20% o r m ore above

the average .

The average count per hourly period was approximately the same for the two days, 143 and 148.The block in red on the chart indicates the counts of aircraft 20% or more above the hourly average.As can be seen from the aircraft figures on the bottom, these periods were well defined - 1100h to1700h. On the Saturday these periods were from 1000h to 1700h.

Fig 5 demonstrates the evolution of the traffic in each country's airspace during the same hourlyperiods for the Saturday. Aircraft counts 20% or more above each country's individual average areshown in red.

2150 47 50 63 66 59 53 57 64 60 69 76 64 60 47

52

7454 54

64 59 61 56 56

82

62 5761

7574 72

60

44

84

74

6177

87 73 76 82 80

99102

84 89 6870 78 82

87

99 8890107 1089997

11

889899 91100

84

12

122108 116120124

ROMANIA BULGARIA TURKEY

Evolution of Aircraft per Country during the DayReference Organisation - Saturday 16th July 1994

Fig 5 00-

01

01-

02

02-

03

03-

04

04-

05

05-

06

06-

07

07-

08

08-

09

09-

10

10-

11

11-

12

12-

13

13-

14

14-

15

15-

16

16-

17

17-

18

18-

19

19-

20

20-

21

21-

22

22-

23

23-

24

Time Period

Average perhourly period:Romania - 67Bulgaria - 69Turkey - 87

Figures in red shownumbers of aircraft20% or m ore above

the country’s average.



EUROCONTROL

The Saturday chart is marked by a consistent flow of traffic up to 1000h followed by a quick surge toa higher, steady flow until 1700h and then a fast return to the previous level of consistent traffic untilthe end of the simulation period. The busy periods were 1000h to 1700h for Romania, 1000h to1600h for Bulgaria and 1100h to 1600h for Turkey.

On Friday, there was a gradual build-up to the peak periods (0900h to 1600h Romania, 1100h to1600h Bulgaria, 1100h to 1700h Turkey) then a gradual tapering off before a small surge at the endof the day.

For Romania and Bulgaria the average aircraft per hour was 10% higher on Saturday, but for Turkeythe average was similar for both days. Turkey’s average was 30% higher than the other twocountries.

Significant Flows of Traffic

MAP 2 in appendix A shows all routes that had a significant flow of traffic (typically 24 aircraft ormore) during one or both days. The green routes indicate south- or eastbound flows and the bluenorth- or westbound. The thickness of each route segment is determined by the number of aircraft,as shown in the map legend. Each segment has a box attached indicating the number of aircraft -the upper figure for Friday and the lower for Saturday. Also included are the numbers of aircraftthrough each of the "internal" boundary points with blue and green indicating the direction of that flowand upper and lower figures indicating Friday and Saturday.

Note: As the map does not show all routes simulated, some inconsistencies will be found in theaircraft numbers before and after certain joining, leaving or boundary points. In the case ofSOMOV, for example, a small northbound flow for both days (16 and 9) is indicated, but neitherwas of sufficient size to be shown as a significant flow.

The more important route segments (92+ aircraft per 24 hours) are summarised in tables 2a and 2b(next page) and isolated in MAP 2A in appendix A.

Direction Route Segment Significant Traffic (in order of volume)

of Flow Origin Destination

BATOG-SOMOV-RAD Germany - UK - France/Switzerland -Austria

Turkey - Middle East - Far East

KAL-RAD Germany - France/Switzerland - UK -Amsterdam

Turkey - Middle East - Far East

RAD-EKI Germany - France/Switzerland - UK Istanbul - Izmir - Antalya -Dalaman

South & East TIKRU-CND Germany - Scandinavia Turkey - Bulgaria - Middle East

CND-DINRO-RIXEN Germany - Scandinavia - Former SovietUnion

Turkey - Bulgaria - Middle East

BKZ-YAA Istanbul - Germany Antalya - Middle East

YAA-KARGI-KFK Istanbul - Germany - UK - Scandinavia Middle East - Antalya

GOY-PETAR (BAG) Germany - Istanbul - UK -France/Switzerland

Ankara - Far East - Middle East

IMR-BIG Izmir - Dalaman Germany - Istanbul

North & West VESAR-MUT-KFK Middle East - Far East Germany - UK -France/Switzerland - Istanbul

KFK-KARGI-YAA Middle East - Antalya - Far East Germany - Istanbul - UK -France/Switzerland

YAA-BKZ-RIXEN Middle East - Antalya Germany - UK

Table 2a



EUROCONTROL

Direction Route Segment Significant Traffic (in order of volume)

of Flow Origin Destination

RIXEN-MATEL Turkey - Middle East - Far East Germany - UK - Scandinavia

MATEL-KOMAN-DVA Turkey - Middle East - Far East- Bulgaria

Germany - UK

DVA-ARPUX-JULIA Turkey - Middle East - Far East- Bulgaria - Greece

Germany - UK - Austria - Amsterdam

North & West(cont.)

RAD-BLO Turkey - Middle East - Far East Germany - France/Switzerland -Amsterdam

BLO-KAL Turkey - Middle East Germany - France/Switzerland -Amsterdam

BLO-OSTOV-BARIM Greece - Turkey Germany - Scandinavia -France/Switzerland

BARIM-DVA Greece Scandinavia - Germany

Table 2b

The most significant volume of international traffic (25%) was to or from Turkish airports. Next cameto/from Germany 17%, the Middle East 7%, Bulgaria 6% then France/Switzerland, Greece and theUK each with 5%.

2.2 Interaction of the Flows

Initially, all radar conflicts were analysed, in TMAs and above. However, as the study was onlyexamining the higher en route flows and because the use of en route sector separation in the TMAsresulted in a higher number of conflicts than would occur in reality, only the results for FL165 andabove will be dealt with.

Fig 6 gives the results for the radar conflicts at FL165 and above, subdivided into same direction,crossing and opposite direction conflicts.

3297

141

50123 10641

61

37

6541

115114

156

44

156

105

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Same Dir. Crossing Opposite Dir.

Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday

Fig 6

Friday Saturday

1141 a/c273 cnfs

944 a/c78 cnfs

1247 a/c341 cnfs

1025 a/c97 cnfs

1274 a/c302 cnfs

1270 a/c303 cnfs



EUROCONTROL

The clear difference between the number of conflicts for Romania and the numbers for Bulgaria andTurkey is quite evident from the chart. While the smaller number of aircraft was a factor, thedifference was due primarily to the system of unidirectional airways in Romania coupled with a higherincidence of traffic in cruise. Of the total number of conflicts for each day Turkey had 50%, Bulgaria40% and Romania 10% on the Friday and, on the Saturday, Turkey had 43%, Bulgaria 43% andRomania 14%.

There was a high number of opposite direction conflicts recorded for both Bulgaria and Turkey. Inthe case of Bulgaria, more than 50% of these conflicts concerned Istanbul arrivals or departures inevolution between RIXEN and MATEL. In the case of Turkey, 25% of the opposite direction conflictsalso concerned Istanbul arrivals and departures between RIXEN and ADELI. Both results suggestthe need to dualise the G1 airway between Constanta and Istanbul.

MAP 3, appendix A, shows the main conflict areas and tables 3a and 3b summarise these areas.

ROMANIAConflicts

FriSat

Comments

1 PELES 1812

All were CROSSING conflicts between the BATOG-TGJ and the NARKA-LOMOS flows.

2 DVA 1316

Mostly CROSSING conflicts involving the KOMAN-JULIA flow against the OSTOV-KEREK/KARIL flows.

3CND

-DINRO

416

Only 20% of the traffic here was landing Burgas or Varna but most conflicts involved one ofthese items (50% on Friday, 75% on Saturday) descending to FL290/270 by DINRO.

BULGARIA

4DINRO

-MATEL

1310

No particular pattern noticeable. 60% of conflicts for both days were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION. On the Friday, 60% of conflicts involved a Burgas or Varna arrival.

5 MATEL 3222

There were 433 aircraft over MATEL on the Friday, 479 on the Saturday. Same directionconflicts were the most common, almost all concerning northbound aircraft in climb afterRIXEN.

6

MATEL-

RIXEN

9391

The area with the highest number of conflicts on either day. 70% were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.Fri: 73 conflicts (82%) involved an Istanbul arrival or departure.Sat: 80 conflicts (88%) involved an Istanbul arrival or departure.

7 RIXEN 2629

The heaviest loaded point in terms of traffic - 470 aircraft (Fri), 493 aircraft (Sat). Mixture ofconflicts, the most common being SAME-DIRECTION.

8BLO

-CCO

1516

Mostly OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts involving LGxx arrivals and departures.

9 BLO2638

One of the busiest points in terms of aircraft numbers - 407 aircraft (Fri), 494 aircraft (Sat).Fri: 25 CROSSING conflicts - 20 involved an LGxx (7 deps/13 arrs).Sat: 33 CROSSING conflicts - 32 involved an LGxx (25 deps/7 arrs).

10BLO

-RAD

1534

50% SAME-DIRECTION, 50% OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts. Most conflicts occurrednear to RAD due to level adjustments being made.

11 RAD 3433

RAD was another heavily loaded point - 363 aircraft (Fri), 448 aircraft (Sat).Mixture of conflicts with the majority being CROSSING.

TURKEY

12RAD

-EKI

1528

Fri: mostly SAME-DIRECTION conflicts, all involving an Istanbul arrival.Sat: 60% OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts, all involving an Istanbul arrival versus one of theincreased Izmir/Dalaman departures.

13BIG

-BERGO

3027

All conflicts involved an Izmir arrival or departure. 19 conflicts on each day (63% and 70%)were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.

Table 3a



EUROCONTROL

TURKEY(cont.)

ConflictsFriSat Comments

14 RIXEN-

ADELI

5239

More than 80% of the conflicts were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION involving Istanbul arrivals anddepartures.

15 YAA 1313

Another heavily loaded point - 437 aircraft (Fri), 449 (Sat). Most conflicts were CROSSING,involving traffic from RAD and RIXEN heading south.

16 YAA-

KARGI

822

Even split between SAME- and OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts on both days. All conflictsinvolved an Istanbul departure or arrival.

17 GOY-

PETAR

3615

Fri: 28 (78%) of the conflicts involved an Ankara arrival.Sat: 14 (93%) of the conflicts involved an Ankara arrival.More than 60% of the conflicts were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.

18 KFK-

KUMRU

1538

Fri: 14 conflicts involved an Antalya arrival or departure, 10 were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.Sat: all conflicts involved an Antalya arrival or departure, 35 were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.

19 MUT-

VESAR

910

No pattern could be identified.

Table 3b

2.3 Work Index

Over a range of simulations performed by the Airspace Model, there is an approximate taskexecution time ratio of 1:1:3 between first + last call to an aircraft, a radar supervision and a radarintervention. On this basis one point was allocated per aircraft worked, one point per radarsupervision recorded and three points per radar intervention recorded. Fig 7 shows the work indexand number of aircraft for each country on both days.

1092

1688

1958

1202

18601913

9441141

12471025

1274 1270

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600


Work Index Aircraft

Aircraft & Work Index(Radar Conflicts FL165 and above)Reference Organisation - Friday / Saturday

Fig 7

Friday Saturday

Work Index Calculation:R/T = 1pt. per aircraft

Each Supervision = 1 pt.Each Intervention = 3 pts.

Romania's index was 55% of Turkey's on the Friday and 60% of Turkey's on the Saturday. If lookedat in terms of points per aircraft, the results are the same on both days for each country: 1.2 workindex points per aircraft for Romania, 1.5 for Bulgaria and 1.6 for Turkey.



EUROCONTROL

2.4 Summary of Results for the Reference Organisation

l There was a roughly equal mix of transit, international arrival and international departure traffic inTurkey. For both Bulgaria and Romania a high level of transit traffic was recorded (>80%), alarge proportion of which was landing or departing Turkey.

l The most significant volumes of traffic were those serving Turkish and German airports with 25%and 17% of the samples, respectively.


l The areas giving the greatest problems were:

⇒ Bulgaria - MATEL to RIXEN and BLO to RAD;⇒ Turkey - ADELI to RIXEN, BERGO to BIG, KFK to KUMRU and GOY to PETAR.

l Apart from the wider use of the Black Sea airspace and the harmonisation of flows to relieve thecongestion in the Istanbul area, the results showed the need to:

⇒ Dualise the U/G1 between Constanta and Istanbul.⇒ Dualise the UA4 between BLO and Istanbul.⇒ Use CCO for southbound and RODOP for northbound traffic and consider the introduction of a

Flight Level Allocation System where these flows intersect the UA4.⇒ Provide discrete inbound and outbound routeings for Burgas and Varna traffic via CND, and



Chapter 3 - Military Samples Organisation Page 13

EUROCONTROL

3 MILITARY SAMPLES ORGANISATION

Three OAT samples were received containing military flights affecting civil airspace:

l Bulgaria 124 aircraftl Romania 336 aircraftl Turkey 103 aircraft

Total 563 aircraft

Initially, this OAT sample was added to the Friday GAT sample to quickly assess the impact of theseflights. The results showed an overall increase of 10% in the number of radar conflicts, i.e. betweenmilitary and civil aircraft - conflicts between military aircraft were ignored. This was less thananticipated as the weekend route structure in the GAT samples ignored the military areas normallyactive during the week, so the OAT sample could have been expected to show a greater impact. Theoriginal intention was to change the GAT samples to reflect the midweek routes and to add the OATsamples but, as this would yield an even smaller increase in conflicts, it was decided by the workinggroup to apply the OAT sample to the GAT samples as they stood, and to highlight the majordifferences.

The results were similar for both days. Fig 8 shows the results for Saturday where the greatestimpact was found. The percentage increases in conflicts from the reference organisation are shownin red.

103124

336303302

97

324306

173

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Romania Bulgaria Turkey

Military F lights Conflicts - No Military Conflicts - W ith M ilitary

Saturday Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveM ilitary Sam ple AddedNon-M ilitary Reference Org. versus Reference Org. with M ilitary

Fig 8

+78%

+1%

+7%

Overall, there was an 11% increase in the total conflicts at FL165+ on the Friday and 14% onSaturday. The results for the Friday were: Romania +73%, Bulgaria virtually unchanged and Turkey+5%. Romania had the largest OAT sample and most of the increased conflicts occurred there.Four main areas were affected:

l CND-TND-GALIT;l TGJ-RASVA-OSTOV-LOPRA;l SA-FAGET;l CLJ-TGM.

The results for Turkey and Bulgaria indicate that the civil/military interface in both countries is veryclearly defined. They also suggest, together with the results for the reference organisation, that amore flexible use of the airspace could be made with increased cooperation between the civil andmilitary authorities in each country. The results for Romania, on the other hand, indicate a moreflexible approach between the authorities but one that requires more tactical coordination betweenthe controllers concerned.


Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 14

EUROCONTROL

4 REVISED SCENARIO ORGANISATION

This organisation tested a route network based on Version 2 of the EUR-ANP as depicted in Map 2 (2February 1995) and applied the recommended flows contained in annex 8/chart 8B of the EATCHIPreport "Route Network Development and Associated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area".

All aircraft were simulated in free vertical profile which necessitated the removal of level restrictionssuch as Istanbul departures to RIXEN climbing to FL240 until after RIXEN. No military flights weresimulated.

MAP 4, appendix A, shows the route network simulated. The routes shown in pink are the new routestested. Table 4 summarises the main changes.

Direction Route Segment Comments

ARD-DOMNA-TALIK-TBN-ERZ-BONAM Unidirectional until TALIK and again from ERZ to BONAM.Ankara arrivals route TALIK-ASTAL.

ERZ-VAN-BNMXX(-TBZ) Tested as a tactical contingency route in the event ofdifficulty in achieving 15 minutes separation at BONAM.

TGJ-IST-YAA-MUTTGJ-IST-YAA-KFK

Requires BULEN (ROM/BUL) to be moved to the west.

South & East

BLO-ADORU-EKIBLO-ADORU-DENIZ-LTBABLO-ADORU-BANDO-KFKBLO-ADORU-BANDO-MUT

ADORU is the intersection between BLO-YAA and RAD-EKI. BLO to ADORU is very close to Greek northernboundary.Via EKI for Izmir/Dalaman/Antalya arrivals only.

CND-LBWN/LBBG dct. For Burgas/Varna arrivals via CND. Tested to reduce theload between CND and MATEL.

CND-IST-CRDCND-IST-YAA-KFKCND-IST-YAA-MUT

Dualised U/G1.Via CRD for Antalya and Dalaman arrivals only.YAA-MUT dualised with MUT-BKZ.

CND-DOMNA-TALIK-TBN-ERZCND-DOMNA-BAG-MUT

DOMNA-BAG bi-directional.Ankara arrivals route TALIK-ASTAL.

PELES-CCO Requires LOMOS (ROM/BUL) to be moved to the west.Flight Level Allocation System applied to all Greek arrivals -level FL290/270 on crossing UA4.

DASIS-ERZ-TBN-TALIK-GLTGLT-JULIA (BKS)

Unidirectional until ERZ and again after TALIK.

BAG-ODESSABAG-DOMNA-GLTBAG-DWN-KOMAN

BAG-DOMNA bi-directional until DOMNA.

BKZ-DWN-KOMAN

North & West BKZ-DINRO-CND Dualised U/G1.

IMR-ADORU-RAD Dalaman and Izmir departures only.

AYT-KFK-YAA-BKZ TOMBI overflights and Antalya departures only.

MUT-BKZ Dualised with YAA-MUT.

RODOP-OSTOV'-TGJRAD-OSTOV'-TGJ

Requires OSTOV (BUL/ROM) to be moved to the west.Flight Level Allocation System for all Greek departures -level FL280/260 on crossing UA4.

Table 4

Using this route structure, the new recommended flows were applied. In applying these flows, NorthGermany was considered to be the Berlin FIR/UIR and all airports north of Düsseldorf, North UK wasconsidered to be all airports from Newcastle northwards, and Iran, UAE and Oman were included withthe Far East traffic.



EUROCONTROL

These flows are summarised in tables 5a (below) and 5b (next page). In keeping with the colourscheme used in chart 8b of the EATCHIP report mentioned above, the blue arrow indicates a south-or eastbound flow and the red a north- or westbound flow.

Note: DF = Frankfurt, DK = Köln, DL = Düsseldorf, DM = Munich, DN = Nürnberg, DS = Stuttgart.

FLOW ROUTE

Germany (S)UK (S)France

➨ Romania➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Ankara➨ Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East➨ Greece/Egypt

BATOGBATOG-BULENBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTALBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-BONAMBATOG-LOMOS-CCO

LuxembourgSwitzerland

Belgium

➨ Sofia➨ Istanbul➨ Izmir➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Middle East

KALKAL-ADORU-DENIZKAL-ADORU-EKI-BERGOKAL-ADORU-EKI-KULARKAL-ADORU-BANDO-TOMBIKAL-ADORU-BANDO-MUT-VESAR

➨ Greece/Egypt NARKA-LOMOS-CCO

Germany (N)

➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Istanbul➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Izmir➨ Ankara

TIKRU-CNDTIKRU-CND-ISTTIKRU-CND-IST-CRDTIKRU-CND-RIXNW-BIG-BERGOTIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTAL

➨ Romania➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Sofia➨ Greece➨ Istanbul

CATAL/SORETANGOL/BIKAR/CATAL/SORET-CNDSORET-SOMOVSORET-SOMOV-CCOBIKAR/CATAL/SORET-CND-IST

Former SovietUnion

➨ Istanbul➨ Ankara➨ Antalya➨ Egypt➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Middle East➨ Middle East

TALIK-ASTAL-SALGO-BKZTALIK-ASTALTALIK-BAG-AYTTALIK-BAG-AYT-TOMBITALIK-BAG-MUT-VESARTALIK-BAG-GAZ-TUSYRTUDEK-BUDAK-SIV-GEM-GAZ-TUSYR

Scandinavia

➨ Romania➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Istanbul➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Izmir➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Greece/Egypt

BUKOVBUKOV/TIKRU-CNDBUKOV/TIKRU-CND-ISTBUKOV/TIKRU-CND-IST-CRDTIKRU-CND-RIXNW-BIG-BERGOBUKOV/TIKRU-CND-IST-YAA-BANDO-TOMBINARKA-LOMOS-CCO

Austria

➨ Romania➨ Istanbul➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Izmir➨ Ankara➨ Middle East➨ Iran/UAE/Far East➨ Greece/Egypt

BATOGBATOG-BULEN-ISTBATOG-BULEN-IST-CRDBATOG-BULEN-RADE-BIG-BERGOBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTALBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-BAG-MUT-VESARBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-BONAMBATOG-LOMOS-CCO

Amsterdam

➨ Ankara➨ Middle East➨ Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East

TIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTALTIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-BAG-MUT-VESARTIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-BONAM

➨ Istanbul➨ Izmir➨ Antalya/Dalaman

KAL-ADORU-DENIZKAL-ADORU-EKI-BERGOKAL-ADORU-EKI-KULAR

Table 5a



EUROCONTROL

FLOW ROUTE

IranUAE

OmanFar East

➨ Turkey➨ Germany (N)➨ UK (S), Germany (S), France/Switzerland,

Amsterdam, Austria

DASISDASIS-TALIK-GLT-KARILDASIS-TALIK-GLT-JULIA (BKS)

Greece➨ Germany (DM/DN/DS), France/Switzerland➨ Germany (DF/DK/DL), UK (all), Austria,

Amsterdam➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia

RODOP-OSTOV-MOPUGRODOP-OSTOV-DVA-JULIA (BKS)

RODOP-OSTOV-DVA-KARIL

Middle East➨ Turkey➨ UK (S), France/Switzerland, Germany (S)➨ Amsterdam, Austria, Hungary

VESARVESAR-MUT-BKZ-RAD-KALVESAR-MUT-BKZ-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)

Cyprus/Israel

➨ Turkey➨ Germany (N)➨ Denmark, Norway, Sweden➨ Finland➨ Former Soviet Union

VESAR/DORENVESAR-MUT-BAG-DOMNA-GLT-KARILVESAR-MUT-BAG-DOMNA-GLT-KARIL/BUKOVVESAR-MUT-BAG-ODESAVESAR-MUT-BAG-TALIK

➨ UK (S), France/Switzerland➨ UK (N), Austria, Hungary

TOMBI-BKZ-RAD-KALTOMBI-BKZ-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)

➨ Iran/UAE/Far East➨ Middle East/Cyprus➨ Israel/Egypt

BONAMVESAR/DORENTOMBI

Istanbul ➨ Germany (S), UK (S), France/Switzerland➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Germany (N)➨ Austria/Amsterdam/Hungary

RAD-KALTBAJE-RIXNE-BGWNJ-KORATTBAJE-RIXNE-DINRO-GLT-KARILTBAJW-RIXWW-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)

DalamanIzmir

➨ Germany (S), UK (S), France/Switzerland➨ UK (N), Austria, Amsterdam➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia

IMR-ADORU-RAD-KALIMR-ADORU-RAD-OSTOV-DVA-JULIA (BKS)IMR-ADORU-RAD-OSTOV-DVA-KARIL

Antalya➨ Germany (S), France/Switzerland➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia➨ Amsterdam, Austria➨ Former Soviet Union

KFK-BKZ-RAD-KALKFK-BKZ-DINRO-GLT-KARIL/BUKOVKFK-BKZ-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)BAG-ODESA

Ankara➨ Germany (S), France/Switzerland➨ Germany (N)➨ Amsterdam, Austria

BUK-SALGO-BKZ-RAD-KALBUK-SALGO-RIXEE-BGDOJ-DINRO-GLT-KARILBUK-SALGO-RIXEE-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)

BurgasVarna

➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia➨ Germany (DF/DK/DL), UK (S)➨ Germany (DM/DN/DS), France/Switzerland

KORATDINRO-GLT-KARILKOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)OSTOV-MOPUG

Sofia➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Greece, Egypt, Italy, Spain➨ Germany (S), France/Switzerland, UK➨ Germany (N), Hungary, Austria

KORAT or SOMOV-SORETCCOKALOSTOV-DVA-KARIL

Bucharest

➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Iran/UAE/Far East➨ Middle East

CND-IST-YAA-KFK-TOMBICND-DOMNA-TALIK-TBN-BONAMCND-DOMNA-BAG-MUT-VESAR

➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Austria, Germany (DF), UK (S),

Amsterdam, Hungary, Belgium➨ France/Switz, Germany (DM), Italy, Spain

SORETJULIA (BKS)

MOPUG

Table 5b

In applying flows to a traffic sample there is always a risk of applying them too rigidly leading to asignificant flow being lost from a particular country. There was a certain element of that here and theRomanian delegation expressed its reservations about one specific flow - south UK to Turkishairports. In the reference organisation most of this traffic routed via BATOG but was simulated herevia KAL.



EUROCONTROL

4.1 Sectorisation

Because the future Black Sea sectorisation is still unknown, it was decided to simulate the FIR/UIRboundaries as they are today (1995) and to add a fourth sector ("Blacksea") for the revised scenario.The effect of this, however, was to understate the real number of aircraft that would have beencontrolled by Bulgaria and Romania under any new boundary arrangements.

For Romania, any boundary change would mean the inclusion of DOMNA in its airspace and,therefore, the traffic through this point via KORAT or ANGOL. For Bulgaria, the boundary changeswould mean the inclusion of either the bi-directional BAG-DOMNA route on its own, or the sameroute plus the busier unidirectional DOMNA to TALIK route.

The results are based on the 1995 boundaries. However, it was possible to calculate the influence ofthe new flows and network in the context of possible changes, and this is commented on whereappropriate.

4.2 Distribution of Traffic

The evolution of the traffic during each day was similar to that in the reference organisation. Fig 9shows the comparison between the number of aircraft controlled by each country in the revisedscenario and in the reference organisation for both days. The figures in red indicate the percentagechange.

0

12701274

1025

0

12471141

944

303

12651055

900

377

1253

931

859

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea

Reference Org. Revised Scenario

Distribution of Flights - Friday & SaturdayReference Organisation versus Revised Scenario

Fig 9

Friday Saturday

-9%

-18%

=-17%

-12%

=

The reductions in aircraft numbers occurred in Bulgaria and Romania only. In the context of theFIR/UIR boundaries remaining as they are, i.e. as simulated, these reductions were due entirely tothe application of the new flows and route network. This led to a better distribution of traffic betweenthe two States and also to the transfer of aircraft previously controlled to the Blacksea sector.However, as mentioned above, the percentage reductions are overstated if looked at in terms of anyfuture boundary changes.

In the case of Romania, aircraft numbers would be higher with the inclusion of the KORAT/ANGOLtraffic via DOMNA. Further analysis showed that, with this traffic included, the influence of the newflows and route network would be a percentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 3% on Friday and 9%on Saturday.

As far as Bulgaria is concerned, the inclusion of the bi-directional BAG to DOMNA route would havehad little impact on the results but the inclusion of the last named route plus the busier DOMNA to



EUROCONTROL

TALIK route would mean that the influence of the new flows and route network would be apercentage reduction in traffic of 4% on Friday and 6% on Saturday.

Significant Flows of Traffic

MAP 5, appendix A, shows all routes that had 24 aircraft or more during one or both days as well asthe numbers of aircraft for most of the new routes simulated.

The more important route segments (94+ aircraft per 24 hours) are listed in table 6 and shown inMAP 5A.

Direction Route Segment Comments

BATOG-DOMNA-TALIK New route taking all Ankara, Middle East and Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East trafficentering at BATOG.

TALIK-ASTAL All Ankara inbounds ex DOMNA route via TALIK to avoid a military area north-west of Ankara.

South & East TIKRU-CND-IST New route accommodating mostly Istanbul/Antalya/Dalaman arrivals fromnorthern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

KAL-BLO-ADORU Dualised UA4. Mostly Istanbul/Izmir/Dalaman/Antalya arrivals from centralEurope.

ADORU-RDBAI Mostly Istanbul arrivals.

VAN-BONAM Traffic via BAG and via TALIK meet at VAN for BONAM.

DASIS-ERZ Increased traffic from Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East to central and northern Europecrossing the Black Sea and avoiding the Istanbul area.

BUK-BKZ Mostly Ankara departures for Istanbul and central Europe via KAL.

LTBAJ-RAD-BLO-KAL Half of the traffic is departing Istanbul and joining Izmir/Dalaman traffic mostlyto KAL.

North & West IMR-ADOIM Izmir/Dalaman traffic northbound including Istanbul arrivals.

BGDOJ-BGWNJ Numbers increased to over 100 on the Friday by 13 Ankara departures viaSALGO to GLT unable to take advantage of the direct routeing BAG-GLT dueto the military area north-west of Ankara.

RODOP-OSTV1-DVA Northbound traffic was previously spread between RODOP and CCO. Trafficfrom RAD joins at OSTV1

DVA-JULIA (BKS) Traffic from KOMAN, RODOP and Bucharest join at DVA.

GLT-JULIA (BKS) New route with traffic for central Europe from the Black Sea

Table 6

4.3 Interaction of the Flows

Figs 10a and 10b (next page) give a comparison between the reference organisation and the revisedscenario for the radar conflicts at FL165 and above, one chart for each day.

The total number of radar conflicts FL165+ was down by 40% on both days. The largest fall was inthe number of opposite direction conflicts: down by 85% on both days. Same direction conflicts fellby a third, again on both days. However, it was not all good news; the total number of crossingconflicts rose by 35% on the Friday and 50% on the Saturday. This increase occurred in Romaniaand Turkey only, as Bulgaria had less crossing conflicts than in the reference organisation.

Bulgaria's total radar conflicts fell by 70%. Opposite direction conflicts were almost eliminated due tothe dualisation of the U/G1 and UA4 and the organisation of north/south flows at RODOP/CCO.Crossing conflicts were down by 60% due to the Flight Level Allocation System simulated for aircraftto/from Greece crossing the UA4 in the BLO area (FL280/260 northbound and FL290/270southbound).



EUROCONTROL

3297

141

23 5110541

6144

95 25

55

20

115

156

30

50

26

5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500



Friday Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveReference Organisation versus Revised Scenario

Fig 10a


1141 a/c273 cnfs

944 a/c78 cnfs

1247 a/c341 cnfs

859 a/c124 cnfs

931 a/c78 cnfs

1253 a/c190 cnfs

377 a/c25 cnfs

50123 106

3373 77

37

6541

118 2261

114156

23

0 612

10

7

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500



Saturday Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveReference Organisation versus Revised Scenario

Fig 10b


1274 a/c302 cnfs

1025 a/c97 cnfs

1270 a/c303 cnfs

900 a/c158 cnfs

1055 a/c101 cnfs

1265 a/c161 cnfs

303 a/c18 cnfs

Turkey's total conflicts fell by 45%. This was due to reductions of 25% in same direction and 80% inopposite direction conflicts with the separation of opposite climbing/descending flows such as theIstanbul, Antalya, Izmir and Dalaman traffic. Crossing conflicts increased, however, by 25% on theFriday and 50% on the Saturday, but no definite reason could be found for this. Two possibleexplanations are: firstly, the increase in the number of intersecting routes as a result of the new routenetwork and, secondly, a number of same direction conflicts becoming crossing conflicts with theseparation of the flows. Optimisation of the route network would help here. As a percentage of thetotal number of conflicts for Turkey, crossing conflicts amounted to 30% on Friday and 40% onSaturday.

Romania’s total conflicts increased by 60%. Crossing conflicts became the major problem,representing 75% of each day’s total. On the Friday these conflicts more than doubled in the revisedscenario and on the Saturday more than trebled, putting Saturday’s total radar conflicts for Romaniaalmost on a par with Turkey. They occurred in two main areas: the GLT area and the route segmentARD to DOMNA, in the area between CND and DINRO. In both cases, it was simply a matter of twomajor same-direction flows crossing each other.



EUROCONTROL

MAP 6, appendix A, shows the main conflict areas and table 7 summarises these areas.

ROMANIA

ConflictsFriSat

Comments

1ARD

-DOMNA

2537

Mostly CROSSING conflicts. 75% of them concerned traffic on the ARD-DOMNA routeversus traffic on the CND-IST route. 20% involved LBBG/LBWN arrivals or departures.

2 GLT 1619

Mostly all CROSSING conflicts. Two major westbound flows intersect: TALIK-GLT-JULIA(BKS) and CND-GLT-KARIL. Some conflicts also involved traffic to/from SORET.

BULGARIA

3BLO

-RADS

720

Almost all the conflicts were supervisions due to level adjustments being made before theboundary with Turkey, i.e. with aircraft not having the required 20nm separation at RADS.

TURKEY

4LTBAJ

-RAD

2217

Practically all conflicts concerned Istanbul departures in climb to their respective cruisinglevels. Some of these (10%) were CROSSING conflicts with Izmir arrivals from RIXNW orRADE having changed level with the change of direction at these two points.

5 RAD 1516

80% of the conflicts here were due to Izmir/Dalaman departures joining or crossing the mainflow.

6ADORU

-RDBAI

2210

All conflicts along this segment were due to Istanbul arrivals descending and in conflict withlower transit aircraft or with each other.

BLACKSEA

7 DOMNA 159

Mostly CROSSING conflicts between traffic to TALIK and traffic from KORAT.

Table 7

In the context of the revised FIR/UIR boundaries, the influence of the new route network and flowswould mean a reduction of 35% in the total number of radar conflicts. Similar reductions to thosefound when simulating the present-day boundaries in the revised scenario would also be found forboth Bulgaria and Turkey. However, in the case of Romania, which would include DOMNA and itsconflicts in the airspace, the total number of radar conflicts would almost double compared to thereference organisation. Again, the main problem with Romania would be the high number ofcrossing conflicts.

Other Results

It was decided not to simulate a Flight Level Allocation System in the DVA/PELES area for aircraftvia NARKA or KARIL to/from Greek airports as the distance from Athens is approximately 450nmand any such FLAS would be punitive. In the end, the crossing conflicts were slightly reduced forboth areas in the revised scenario, even after combining the conflicts for the two points, each, wherethe NARKA or KARIL flows intersect the now-split ARD or JULIA (BKS) flows, respectively: DVA areafrom 13 (Fri) and 16 (Sat) in the reference organisation to a combined 11 (Fri) and 14 (Sat) in therevised scenario; PELES area from 18 and 12 in the reference to 13 and 12 in the revised.

Because of the increased traffic routeing through BONAM (Turkey to Iran) and the need to establish15 minutes separation between aircraft at the same level, a tactical contingency route was simulatedfrom VAN direct to TBZ for use in cases where the 15 minutes could not be established, due to the"bunching" of aircraft, with the only option being to reclear the aircraft at an inefficient level such asFL270. On both days there were six occasions, representing 6% of the daily traffic, when this tacticalroute had to be resorted to.



EUROCONTROL

4.4 Work Index

Figs 11a and 11b, one chart for each day, compare the work index figures for the referenceorganisation with those calculated for the revised scenario. The number of aircraft is also included.

The biggest change occurred with Bulgaria which, over the two days, showed a reduction of 35% inthe index and a 20% decrease in traffic. Turkey's index fell by 20% with aircraft levels remaining thesame and Romania showed a slight increase on the Friday and a slight decrease on the Saturday foran average 10% fall in traffic. Also, there was an improved balance in the work index between thethree States (the standard deviation [dispersion about the mean value] fell by 33% on the Friday and50% on the Saturday). Romania and Bulgaria returned almost identical indices between them.

In terms of work index points per aircraft, Romania was up from 1.2 points to 1.3 in the revisedscenario, Bulgaria down from 1.5 to 1.2 and Turkey also down from 1.6 to 1.3.

416

1599

1092

1688

1958

0

1109 1067

377944 1141

1247859 931

1253

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600


Work Index Aircraft

Friday Aircraft and Work Index(Radar Conflicts FL165 and above)Reference Organisation versus Revised Scenario

Fig 11a


+2% -37% -18%



331

1556

1202

1860 1913

0

11921222

303

1025 1274 1270 9001055 1265

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600


Work Index Aircraft

Saturday Aircraft and Work Index(Radar Conflicts FL165 and above)Reference Organisation versus Revised Scenario

Fig 11b


-1% -34% -19%





EUROCONTROL

In the context of the revised boundaries, the inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace would haveled to increases in the work index of 13% on the Friday and 4% on the Saturday as compared to thereference organisation. Similarly, including the BAG-DOMNA and DOMNA-TALIK routes inBulgarian airspace would have led to a smaller, but still significant, reduction of 25% in Bulgaria’swork index from that recorded in the reference organisation.

4.5 Summary of Results for the Revised Scenario

Present-Day Black Sea FIR/UIR Boundaries

l Simulating the new flows and route network led to a 17% decrease in Bulgaria's traffic and a 10%decrease in Romania's, with the figures for Turkey remaining virtually unchanged.

l The total number of radar conflicts (including the Blacksea sector) was down by 40%, the biggestfall occurring in the number of opposite direction conflicts, down 85%, due to the separation ofclimbing and descending opposite direction flows.

l Romania was the only country to experience an increase in total radar conflicts - up by 60%.Bulgaria and Turkey experienced decreases of 70% and 45%, respectively.

l The work index for Bulgaria fell by 35%, for Turkey by 20% and was almost unchanged forRomania.

l Some problem areas still remained:

⇒ Bulgaria - BLO to RADS;⇒ Romania - GLT and ARD to DOMNA;⇒ Turkey - LTBAJ to RAD and ADORU to RDBAI;⇒ Blacksea - DOMNA.

Influence of the New Flows and Route Network with Possible FIR/UIR Boundary Changes

l The results for Turkey would remain the same as for the revised organisation.


l The inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace and, therefore, the KORAT or ANGOL trafficwould mean a percentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 3% on Friday and 9% on Saturday.

l Romania’s radar conflicts would almost double compared to the reference organisation due to thehigh number of crossing conflicts.

l The work index for Romania would increase by 13% on the Friday and 4% on the Saturday ascompared to the reference organisation.


l The inclusion of the BAG-DOMNA route plus the busier DOMNA to TALIK route would lead to apercentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 4% on Friday and 6% on Saturday from the referenceorganisation.

l Similar reductions in the number of radar conflicts found for Bulgaria in the revised scenario withthe present-day boundaries would also be found with the inclusion of the two routes.

l There would be a reduction of 25% in Bulgaria’s work index from that recorded in the referenceorganisation.


Chapter 5 - Summary of Results and Conclusions Page 23

EUROCONTROL

5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Reference Organisation

l There was a roughly equal mix of transit, international arrival and international departure traffic inTurkey. For both Bulgaria and Romania a high level of transit traffic was recorded (>80%), a largeproportion of which was landing or departing Turkey.

l The most significant volumes of traffic were those serving Turkish and German airports with 25%and 17% of the samples, respectively.


l The areas giving the greatest problems were:⇒ Bulgaria - MATEL to RIXEN and BLO to RAD;⇒ Turkey - ADELI to RIXEN, BERGO to BIG, KFK to KUMRU and GOY to PETAR.

l Apart from the wider use of the Black Sea airspace and the harmonisation of flows to relieve thecongestion over the Istanbul area, the results showed the need to:⇒ Dualise the U/G1 between Constanta and Istanbul.⇒ Dualise the UA4 between BLO and Istanbul.⇒ Use CCO for southbound and RODOP for northbound traffic and consider the introduction of a

Flight Level Allocation System where these flows intersect the UA4.⇒ Provide discrete inbound and outbound routeings for Burgas and Varna traffic via CND, and


5.2 Reference Organisation with the Military Samples Added

l Practically all of the radar conflicts between civil and military aircraft occurred in Romania,indicating a flexible approach between the civil and military authorities there but one that requiresmore tactical coordination between the controllers concerned.

l The results for Turkey and Bulgaria suggest that the civil/military interface in both countries isvery clearly defined. They also suggest, together with the results for the reference organisation,that a more flexible use of the airspace could be made with increased cooperation between thecivil and military authorities in each country.

5.3 Revised Scenario

Present-Day (1995) Black Sea FIR/UIR Boundaries

l Simulating the new flows and route network led to a 17% decrease in Bulgaria's traffic and a 10%decrease in Romania's, with the figures for Turkey remaining virtually unchanged.

l The total number of radar conflicts (including the Blacksea sector) was down by 40%, the biggestfall occurring in the number of opposite direction conflicts, down 85%, due to the separation ofclimbing and descending opposite direction flows.

l Romania was the only country to experience an increase in total radar conflicts - up by 60%.Bulgaria and Turkey experienced decreases of 70% and 45%, respectively.

l The work index for Bulgaria fell by 35%, for Turkey by 20% and was almost unchanged forRomania.



EUROCONTROL

l Some problem areas still remained:⇒ Bulgaria - BLO to RADS;⇒ Romania - GLT and ARD to DOMNA;⇒ Turkey - LTBAJ to RAD and ADORU to RDBAI;⇒ Blacksea - DOMNA.

Influence of the New Flows and Route Network with Possible FIR/UIR Boundary Changes

l The results for Turkey would remain the same as for the revised organisation.


l The inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace and, therefore, the KORAT or ANGOL trafficwould mean a percentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 3% on Friday and 9% on Saturday.

l Romania’s radar conflicts would almost double compared to the reference organisation due to thehigh number of crossing conflicts.

l The work index for Romania would increase by 13% on the Friday and 4% on the Saturday ascompared to the reference organisation.


l The inclusion of the BAG-DOMNA route plus the busier DOMNA to TALIK route would lead to apercentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 4% on Friday and 6% on Saturday from the referenceorganisation.

l Similar reductions in the number of radar conflicts found for Bulgaria in the revised scenario withthe present-day (1995) boundaries would also be found with the inclusion of the two routes.

l There would be a reduction of 25% in Bulgaria’s work index from that recorded in the referenceorganisation.

5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

This simulation provides an overview of the aircraft loadings and conflicts on the routes which areproposed in Version 2 of EUR-ANP. As such, they depict an ideal system which does not take intoaccount the constraints currently imposed on planners as a result of the situation in formerYugoslavia and the political problem of the Black Sea FIR boundary delineation. Nevertheless, theresults can be used to plan improvements to the route network in the area.

The results show that the new flows and route network provide a more efficient organisation ofairspace in Bulgaria and Turkey, and should increase capacity. Romania will experience a moderateincrease in workload with the inclusion of DOMNA in the airspace.

Considerable benefit was derived from simulating the separation of climbing and descendingopposite-direction flows in Bulgaria and Turkey. To make this a reality and to permit a more flexibleuse of the airspace, closer cooperation between the civil and military authorities in both Bulgaria andTurkey will be required, as the results show that the civil/military interface is very clearly defined inboth countries.

In reviewing the final results, the important views of the Turkish delegation were not available as therepresentatives were unable to attend the meeting. Although the beneficial results of the study arequite clear, the absence of the opinions of such a pivotal State is regrettable. Also, it would bedesirable, though not necessary, to simulate the optimisation of the new route network in a furtherstudy. Should this be done, any significantly different views from Turkey or any other changes to theagreed network could also be included.



EUROCONTROL

The simulation was carried out using a base 1994 traffic sample. During the course of the study,traffic in the area has increased. Should the Black Sea boundary issue remain unresolved while thetraffic continues to increase there will be a high loading on the Istanbul to JULIA (BKS), KEREK andKARIL routes. The solution to this problem will require the retention of the ARGES to ORA (KEREK)route as an important offload for the parallel KOMAN-BKS route.

Finally, the study concludes that Version 2 of the EUR-ANP will provide an overall better balanceddistribution of traffic and workload. It will reduce the loadings in the bottleneck areas and, therefore,should increase overall capacity. However, the full benefits of Version 2 are dependent upon theimplementation of the new routes over the Black Sea, so the consequential increases in capacity canonly be realised when these routes have been implemented. A resolution of the Black Sea FIRboundary issue is, therefore, an urgent necessity.

Rapport Final de la Simulation Top-Down pour la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Turquie CEE

Version française du sommaire et des conclusions Page 26

EUROCONTROL

Rapport CEE Nº 293Tâche CEE AF52

Tâche EATCHIP ASM.ET1.ST02Date : janvier 1996

VERSION FRANCAISE DU SOMMAIRE ET DES CONCLUSIONS

SIMULATION PAR MODELE ESPACE ETUDE TOP-DOWNDU RESEAU DES ROUTES ET DU DEVELOPPEMENT

DES ESPACES AERIENS DE LA BULGARIE, LA ROUMANIE ET LA TURQUIE

de

R. Dowdall

SOMMAIRE

En raison de l’accroissement du trafic en Bulgarie, en Roumanie et en Turquie, accentué par lasituation en ex Yougoslavie, et par l’éventualité d’une solution pour les limites de la FIR de la MerNoire (Simferopol), il a été décidé par le développement EATCHIP, de réaliser une simulationModèle Espace de ces régions afin d’évaluer l’impact d’un futur réseau de routes sur l’espace aériendéjà existant.

L’approche top-down de la modélisation d’un espace consiste à examiner les principaux flux de trafic(généralement libre-profil vertical) et la façon dont ils se mélangent au sein de n’importe quel espaceaérien multinational. L’idée purement expérimentale est de développer un système idéal d’espaceaérien qui ne subisse aucune contrainte quelle qu’elle soit, ni en raison des limites existantes de laFIR/UIR, ni de facteurs politiques.

Le but de cette étude était d’évaluer un réseau de routes ATS (ARN) en respectant la sectorisationaérienne, mais sans tenir compte des actuelles contraintes de limites de la FIR. Ce réseau devait :

l Tenir pleinement compte des demandes, en termes d’espace aérien, du trafic civil et militaire,qu’il soit actuel ou futur.

l Avoir la capacité de gérer les demandes futures du trafic.l Etre fondé sur le réseau de routes ATS (ARN) approuvé, et être une des composantes de son

futur développement.l Offrir une flexibilité totale, en accord avec le concept d’utilisation flexible de l’espace aérien.l Réduire dans la mesure du possible, la longueur des routes pour les compagnies.l Recevoir l’entière approbation des représentants civils et militaires bulgares, roumains et turcs.

Deux organisations principales ont été simulées :

l Une organisation dite de référence simulant le réseau des routes en vigueur au 15/16 juillet 1994(vendredi/samedi), utilisant un échantillon de trafic de 24 heures pour chaque jour.

l Une future organisation, idéale, sans contraintes liées au problème de la Mer Noire, testant unréseau de routes basé sur la Version 2 du plan de la Navigation Aérienne Européenne (EUR-ANP), tel que décrit en Carte 2 (2 février 1995). Les deux échantillons de trafic de l’organisationde référence ont été amendés en accord avec ce plan. Les échantillons ont été ensuite modifiésen tenant compte des flux conseillés dans l’annexe 8/tableau 8B du rapport EATCHIP "RouteNetwork Development and Associated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area"(EUROCONTROL Doc. 957005).

L’espace aérien simulé était la TMA et les secteurs en route des FIR/UIR de la Bulgarie, de laRoumanie et de la Turquie, ainsi que la partie de la FIR/UIR de Simferopol sur la Mer Noire qui étaitaffecté par les changements de routes. Les limites 1995 de la FIR/UIR ont été utilisées pour cesdeux organisations.



EUROCONTROL

La simulation de l’organisation de référence a montré que :

l Parmi les trois Etats simulés, les résultats indiquent que c’est la Roumanie qui a le plus importantpotentiel de capacité.

l Les zones présentant les problèmes les plus importants sont (voir Carte 3 en annexe A) :⇒ Bulgarie - MATEL à RIXEN et de Bailovo (BLO) à Radovets (RAD);⇒ Turquie - ADELI à RIXEN, BERGO à Biga (BIG), Afyon (KFK) à KUMRU et de Goynuk

(GOY) à PETAR.

l Mis à part la plus large utilisation de l’espace aérien au-dessus de la Mer Noire et l’harmonisationdes flux en vue de soulager l’encombrement de la région d’Istanbul, il était nécessaire de :⇒ Dédoubler l’U/G1 entre Constanta (CND) et Istanbul.⇒ Dédoubler l’UA4 entre BLO et Istanbul.⇒ Utiliser Chouchouligovo (CCO) pour le trafic vers le sud et RODOP pour le trafic vers le nord

et étudier l’introduction d’un système d’allocation de niveaux de vols (FLAS) à l’intersection deces vols avec l’UA4.

⇒ Donner des routes séparées pour les vols en provenance et à destination de Burgas et Varnavia CND, ainsi que pour ceux d’Izmir et d’Antalya.

Puisque la future sectorisation de la Mer Noire est toujours inconnue, ce sont les limites de 1995 desFIR/UIR qui ont été choisies pour la future organisation. Les résultats des nouveaux flux et dunouveau réseau de routes simulés (incluant les routes au-dessus de la Mer Noire) utilisant les limites1995 de la FIR/UIR, ont montré que :

l La redistribution des avions a résulté en une baisse de trafic de 17% pour la Bulgarie et unebaisse de 10% pour la Roumanie, alors que les chiffres demeuraient inchangés pour la Turquie.

l Le nombre de conflits radar pour l’espace tout entier a baissé de 40%, la plus forte baisseconcernant le nombre de conflits de direction opposée, qui a baissé de 85%, grâce à la séparationdes flux de direction opposée, en montée et en descente.

l La Roumanie a été le seul pays qui ait connu une augmentation du nombre total de conflits radar- jusqu’à 60%, mais sur une base très faible. La Bulgarie et la Turquie ont connu respectivementune baisse de 70% et de 45%.

l Quelques problèmes demeurent pour certaines régions (voir Carte 6 en annexe A) :⇒ Bulgarie - de BLO à RADS;⇒ Roumanie - la région de Galati (GLT) et la route de Arad (ARD) à DOMNA, au sud de

CND.⇒ Turquie - de LTBAJ à RAD et de ADORU à RDBAI;⇒ Mer Noire - DOMNA.

Simuler les limites 1995 de la FIR/UIR a entraîné une sous estimation du nombre d’avions quidevraient être contrôlés par la Bulgarie et la Roumanie dans le cadre de nouvelles frontières. Pourla Roumanie, n’importe quel changement de limite impliquerait d’inclure DOMNA dans son espace eten conséquence d’intégrer également le trafic qui passe par ce point via KORAT ou ANGOL. Pour laBulgarie, les changements de limites impliqueraient d’inclure soit la route bi-directionnelle Baglum(BAG)-DOMNA seulement, ou bien cette même route plus la route uni-directionnelle DOMNA àTALIK, plus chargée.

Afin de déterminer l’influence de ces nouveaux flux et réseau de routes dans le cadre d’éventuelsfuturs changements de limites, de plus amples études ont été menées et démontrent que :

l L’influence de ces nouvelles routes et nouveaux flux permettrait de réduire de 35% le nombre deconflits radar par rapport à l’organisation de référence.



EUROCONTROL

l Les résultats pour la Turquie resteraient les mêmes que dans l’organisation future.

l L’intégration de DOMNA dans l’espace aérien roumain, ce qui entraînerait l’inclusion du traficsurvolant KORAT ou ANGOL, générerait une réduction moyenne de 6% du nombre d’avions parrapport à l’organisation de référence.

l Les conflits radar de la Roumanie doubleraient presque par rapport à l’organisation de référence(mais sur une base relativement faible) en raison du nombre élevé de conflits de croisement.

l Pour la Bulgarie, l’intégration de la route bi-directionnelle BAG-DOMNA seulement n’aurait quepeu d’impact.

l L’intégration de la route BAG-DOMNA plus celle, plus chargée, de DOMNA à TALIK entraîneraitune réduction moyenne de 5% du nombre d’avions, par rapport à l’organisation de référence.

l Des réductions similaires dans le nombre de conflits radar se produiraient pour la Bulgarie dans lecadre de la future organisation simulée avec les limites 1995, ainsi que dans le cas del’intégration des deux routes.



EUROCONTROL

CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS

Cette simulation offre une vue d’ensemble de la charge de trafic et des conflits sur les routesproposées dans la version 2 de EUR-ANP. En tant que tel, c’est un système idéal qui ne tient pascompte des contraintes actuelles imposées aux planificateurs par la situation dans l’ex Yougoslavie,ni des problèmes politiques du tracé des limites de la FIR de la Mer Noire. Les résultats peuventnéanmoins être pris en compte pour l’amélioration du réseau de routes dans cette région.

Les résultats montrent que les nouveaux flux et les nouvelles routes engendreraient une organisationplus efficace de l’espace aérien en Bulgarie et en Turquie, et permettraient d’accroître la capacité.La Roumanie connaîtrait une augmentation modérée de la charge de travail avec l’intégration deDOMNA dans son espace aérien.

La simulation de flux séparés pour les descentes et les montées de direction opposée en Bulgarie eten Turquie a montré des avantages considérables. Pour faire de ceci une réalité et permettre uneplus grande flexibilité de l’utilisation de l’espace, une coopération plus étroite entre les autoritésciviles et militaires tant en Bulgarie qu’en Turquie serait nécessaire, les résultats montrant quel’interface civile/militaire est clairement définie dans ces deux pays.

Lors de la présentation finale des résultats, le point de vue de la délégation turque n’a pu êtreexposé, ses représentants n’ayant pu participer à la réunion. Bien que les avantages révélés parcette étude ne fassent aucun doute, l’absence d’un tel état pivot ne peut être que regrettable. Ilserait donc souhaitable, bien que non indispensable, de simuler l’optimisation du nouveau réseau deroutes dans le cadre d’une prochaine étude. Dans le cas où elle serait réalisée, tout différent pointde vue significatif émis par la Turquie, ou toute autre modification du réseau approuvé pourrait êtreprise en compte.

La simulation a été menée sur la base d’un échantillon de trafic de 1994. Pendant son déroulement,le trafic de cette région a augmenté. Si le problème des limites du secteur de la Mer Noire demeureirrésolu, alors que le trafic continue d’augmenter, une forte charge se produira sur les routesd’Istanbul à JULIA/KEREK/KARIL. Résoudre ce problème passera par le maintien de la route deARGES à Oradea (ORA)/KEREK comme une route de soulagement pour la route parallèle KOMAN-JULIA.

Enfin, l’étude conclut que la Version 2 de EUR-ANP produirait une distribution d’ensemble pluséquilibrée du trafic et de la charge de travail. Les goulots d’étranglement seraient réduits et lacapacité totale devrait être augmentée. Cependant les avantages de la Version 2 dépendent de lamise en place de nouvelles routes sur la Mer Noire, alors l’augmentation de capacité qui en découlene pourrait se produire qu’une fois ces routes mises en place. La résolution de la position des limitesde la FIR de la Mer Noire est une urgente nécessité.


Appendix A - Contents Page 30

EUROCONTROL

APPENDIX A

MAP 1 - Simulation Route Map Reference Organisation

MAP 2 - Significant Flows Reference Organisation

MAP 2A - Major Flows Reference Organisation

MAP 3 - Major Conflict Areas FL165+ Reference Organisation

MAP 4 - Simulation Route Map Revised Scenario

MAP 5 - Significant Flows Revised Scenario

MAP 5A - Major Flows Revised Scenario

MAP 6 - Major Conflict Areas FL165+ Revised Scenario

LRTR

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52

MAP 1SIMULATION ROUTE MAP

REFERENCE ORGANISATION

RAD

RIXEN

SOMOV DINRO

BULENOSTOVLOMOS

KOMANARGES

PINAR

DERYA

ADASAYTS

DALALPAY MUT

ADAWAYTEAYTADA

ADAE

GAZ

MILAS AIARRKABAN

BRONZ

KAVAK DAMLAKUMRU

ADANOKESA SEHIR

CRDNARLI

DIYTOROS SRTREDRA

OBRUKSITRU HISAR

ROBINIMR

ERH VANERHAN

KULARBAYIR

EZSKFK

BERGOGEM

TELVOHALIL

MARTIHAY BAKIR

KARGI

YUCELASKAM SIV

KUBERYAYLABUDAK

IGDIRBANDOERZ

IKINABAG

BEY GURBU

PETAR

ILHNSBUK

BIGGOY

ILHAN

SALGOYAA KAR

ASTALMNIDENIZ

ERSEN

LTAPJEKI

TBNBKZ

LTBA3

GOTAN

SMNLTBAJ ORMAN

ADELI

GERZEINB

LBUZJ SIN

PDV

ROMEOIVKINBOROV

TANGOSFTMS

BGTMSSFTMT BGD2

SFTMW BGD1 BGSWAK

BGD3 BGSNBLO

SOFSFD1SFD3BOZ

SFD2BGTME

LKWBGTMN MATEL

BGTMWWNTME

GOL WND2

SFTME GRNWND1

SFTMNTARGO DWN

WND3

WNTMNSAMIL

RUS

VALPA EFORIOMIDU

CNDEA RITOV

MOVILTANDI

FLORA FLR BSENILOV OTR

GALITBARIM

CETULTNDURZ

LOPRABRAVO

RASVA

CATALSEVER BABAD

STJ DANULDELUX

PNTBRTLCMZL

MOKRUTGJ

CAGNANDO

LUNCACSTME

IRMALGLTCRS PELES

TIMIS CROSA

SODNISBTME BRV

LUGOJKESIS

SASIBPNTAR SBTMWFAGET

BEIUS

ROTBADVABANAT

FOCSATALAKBATIN COPSA

LIPOVARD BLAJA

ARPUXSIGHI GORUN

TIRNA TASITRIMETBARUL TGMCRISA PADUR

TOMET BUCSA

BCU

MOLNAMOMIC

TURDA

CIMPA TOGANNAPOC SECUI

ROGANCLJROSIA

DECANANTAL

VADUL MIRONPANTI

DRAGUORA

BIBOR UNIRAIASDANAL PASCA

JIBOU LOZNA KULEN

SCVBMR

SAM

BADRA

VESARDOREN

TOMBI

BANRO

TUSYRLTBS

LTAILTAJ

LTAFLTAG

LTCHLTBV

ALRAM

LTCCLTCJ

BONAM

LTBJ

VEXOLLTAT

LTCILTCA

LTCKLTAHLTAU

DASIS

AMANI

LTBN

LTBFLTCD

LTBI

LTARLTCE

LTAC

LTBE

LTBGLTCF

LTAPGOLDO

LTBA LTCG

LTAQCCO

RODOP

LBUZ

LBPD

TALIK TUDEKLBGIVAKLA

LBSZLBBZ

LBBG

LBSF

KALANGOL

LBGO

LBWN KORAT

LBBK

ROMOR

LRCKLRBS

LROPVEG

LRTCMAVIT

LRCS

BIKAR

SORET

LRSB

MOPUG LRARBATOG

DOMBI

LRTM LRBC

JULIA

KOTEG POGAVLRCL

GARSI LROD

BEVARLRIA

KEREKNARKA

TIKRU LRBMLRSV

LRSM

KARIL

BUKOV

RUMUK

KEY

Internal Entry/Exit Point

Internal Intermediate Point

External Entry/Exit Point

Internal Boundary Point

VESAR

TOMBI

BONAM

CCO

TALIK

KAL

SORET

BATOG

NARKA

TIKRU

BUKOV

VESAR

TOMBI

DASIS

CCORODOP

TALIK

KAL

KORAT

MOPUG

JULIA

KEREK

KARIL

BUKOV

234246

230265

230265

236246

4056

5764

217221

74101

4959

3034

3034

2418

2042

2043

4133

1233

1525

1725

1433

1235

2429

3133

3522

4959

3947

260

4984

115118

102151

116117

141200

5486

3740

2519

75154

139143

106123

107123

116164

109149

144199

6951

6152

6262

6157

3558

3552

7892

7892

117150

114150

111148

108147

103140

9477

9477

7869

7667

8769

98124

98124

80156

2656

54100

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

RADRIXEN

SOMOV

DINROBULENOSTOVLOMOS

KOMAN

DALMUTAYT

MILAS BRONZKAVAK

KUMRU

OKESA

HISAR

IMR

VANKULARBAYIR

EZSKFK

BERGO GEM

MARTIKARGI

SIV

KUBER

BUDAK ERZBAG

GURBU

PETAR

BUKBIG GOY

SALGOYAA

ASTAL

ERSENEKI

BKZLTBAJ

ADELI

BOROV

BGS

BLO

LKWMATEL

TARGO DWN

CNDTANDI

FLR

GALITBARIM TND

MOKRUTGJ

CAGNANDO

GLT

PELES

BRVSA

DVABANAT

ARD

231240

ARPUX

TGMBCU

NAPOC

CLJ

VADUL

ORA

PASCA

SCV


MAP 2SIGNIFICANT FLOWS (23+/24hrs)


144199

184212

189209

263258

128166

6951

2825

1555

1555

3571

7677

8683

8582

7984

4733

2414

2413

4621

4921

5151

8081

5761

9287

8986

5962

8282

5660

7280 71

79

6978

5558

7185

7287

7387

2326

1826

2123

5989

4369

5989

1929

1842

2456

2758

2153

3033

7750

4229

4637

4046

3958

8371

2412

3537

8491

9379

4656

124167

101125

94104

8356

79109

79109

10895

10198

10198

158185

119158

161185 122

159

7585

106104

6166

2441

8151

165143

1525

xxxyyy

FridaySaturday

KEY

Southbound

Northbound

Line Thickness

Up to 50 aircraft

51 to 100 aircraft

101 to 150 aircraft

151 to 200 aircraft

201 to 250 aircraft

251 to 300 aircraft

340

4959

145202

218246

264258

206235

6951

144199

185215

00

00

9477

169

112131

80156

00

234246

230265

230265

236246

217221

74101

115118

102151

116117

141200

75154

139143

106123

107123

116164

109149

144199

7892

7892

117150

114150

111148

108147

103140

98124

98124

80156

54100

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

RADRIXEN

SOMOV

DINROOSTOV

KOMAN

MUT

IMR

KFK

KARGI

PETAR

BIG GOY

YAA

EKI

BKZ

BLO

MATEL

DWN

CNDTANDI

FLRBARIM TND

TGJCAG

PELES

BRV

DVABANAT

ARD

231240

ARPUX

TGM

NAPOC

CLJ

VESAR

KALKAL

BATOG

JULIA

TIKRU


MAP 2AMAJOR FLOWS (92+/24hrs)


144199

184212

189209

263258

128166

124167

101125

94104

79109

10895

10198

158185

119158

161185 122

159

106104

165143

xxxyyy

FridaySaturday

KEY

Southbound

Northbound

Line Thickness

92 to 150 aircraft

151 to 200 aircraft

201 to 250 aircraft

251 to 300 aircraft

145202

218246

264258

206235

6951

144199

185215

00

169

112131

80156

00

60

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

RIXEN

SOMOV

DINROBULENOSTOVLOMOS

KOMAN

MUT

KUMRU

KFK

BERGO

KARGI

BAGPETAR

BUKBIG GOY

YAA

BKZ

MATEL

CND

ARD

BONAM

DASIS

CCO

RODOP

TALIK

KAL

KORAT

SORET

BATOG

JULIA

KEREK

NARKA

TIKRU

KARIL

BUKOV


MAP 3MAJOR CONFLICT AREAS FL165+


FriSat

FriSat

XXXXX

KEY

Southbound

Northbound

Line Thickness

Up to 50 aircraft

51 to 100 aircraft

101 to 150 aircraft

151 to 200 aircraft

201 to 250 aircraft

251 to 300 aircraft

2629

3222

33

TOMBI

102

1313

VESAR

1534

1516

BLO

2638

RAD

3433

DVA

1316

PELES1812

1528

EKI3

14

3027

1538

822

910

416

1310

9391

3328

ADELI

1711

3615

MOPUG

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48


MAP 4SIMULATION ROUTE MAP

REVISED SCENARIO

KEY

Boundary Point with Blacksea

Internal Boundary Point

Internal Entry/Exit Point

Internal Intermediate Point

New Route

Existing Route

External Entry/Exit Point

DOREN

PINAR

DERYA

ADASAYTSDAL

ALPAY

MUTAYTE ADAWAYTADA

ADAE

GAZ

URFMILASKAVKE

BRONZKAVAK

DAMLAKUMRU

ADANOKESA SEHIR

CRD

DIYTOROS

OBRUKHISAR

ROBINMENIMR

ERH VANERHANKULAR

BAYIR

EZS MUSKSRKFK

BERGOGEM

TELVO

HALILMARTI

HAY BAKIRKARGI

KARGE YUCEL

ASKAM

SIVADOIM KUBERYAYLA

BUDAKBANDO

ERZBAG GURBUPETAR

ILHNSBUKBIG

GOY ILHANSALGO

YAA KARERIBA

ASTALMNI

DENIZ ERSENLTAPJEKI

ISTRDBAI TBNTOP

BKZGOTANSMN

LTBAJORMAN

ADELI TBAJEADORU TBAJW

GERZEINB

LBUZJ SINPDV

ROMEO

BOROVTANGO

RIXJBGTMSSFTMT

BGDOJBGD2

SFTMW BGSWAKBGD3

BGSNRPOVJBLO

SOFSFD1

SFD3BOZ

SFD2

BGTMELKWLSCCJ

BGTMNKALMATEL

LBWNJBGTMW

WNTMEGOL

BGWNJRDOVJ

WND2

SFTME GRN WND1SFTMN TARGO

DWN

UKRA

BGWNI

DOMNA

UKRCVALPA

EFORI

OMIDUCNDUKRBRITOV TANDI

FLORA FLRBSE

NILOVOTR

GALIT

BARIMCETULBARM1 TND

URZ

LOPRA RASVASEVER BABAD

STJDANULDELUX TLCMZLMOKRU

TGJDUNAVCAG NANDO

LUNCACSTME

GLTCRS PELES

TIMISCROSA SODNISBTME

BRVLUGOJ KESISSASIBPNTAR

SBTMWFAGETBEIUS

ROTBADVA

BANAT FOCSATALAKBATIN COPSA

LIPOVARD

BLAJAARPUX SIGHI GORUNTIRNA TASIT

BARUL ODESATGMCRISA PADUR

TOMET BUCSA

BCUMOLNA

MOMICTURDA

CIMPA TOGANNAPOC SECUI

ROGANCLJ

ROSIA DECANANTAL

VADUL MIRONPANTI

DRAGUORA BIBOR

DANAL PASCAJIBOU LOZNA

SCVBMR

SAM

VESAR

TOMBI

TUSYR

BONAM

VEXOLBNMXX

DASIS

AMANI

GOLDO

CCO

RODOP

VAKLA

MAVIT

BIKAR

SORET

MOPUGBATOG

DOMBI

JULIAPOGAV

GARSI

NARKA

TIKRU

KARIL

BUKOVRUMUK

RADS

RADRADE

RIXWWRIXNW

RIXENRIXNE

RIXEE DOMNS TALKW TALIK TUDEK

ANGOL

KORAT

BULN1

SOMOVDINRO

DINRW DINREBULEN

OSTV1CNDSLOMS1

OSTOVLOMOS ROMRS

KOMANROMRN

ARGES

CATLS

CATAL

LTBS

LTAILTAJ

LTAFLTAG LTCH

LTBV

LTCC LTCJLTAN

LTBJ

LTAT LTCI

LTBL LTCA

LTCKLTAHLTAU

LTBN

LTBFLTCD

LTBI

LTAR

LTADLTCE

LTAC

LTBE

LTBGLTCF

LTAP

LTBA LTCG

LTAQ

LBUZLBPD

LBGI

LBSZLBBZ

LBBG

LBSF

LBGO

LBWN

LBBK

LRCKLRBS

LROP

LRDVLRTC

LRCS

LRSB

LRTR

LRAR

LRTMLRBC

LRCLLROD

LRIA

LRBM

LRSV

LRSM

BGD1

ARD

RAD

DINRW

CNDSDINRE

BULN1

OSTV1LOMS1

KOMAN

DALMUTAYT

MILAS BRONZ

CRD

KAVAK

KAVKE

KUMRU

OKESA

HISAR

IMR

VANKULARBAYIR

EZSKFK

BERGO GEM

MARTIKARGI

BANDO

SIV

KUBER

TELVO

BUDAK ERZBAG

GURBUPETAR

BUKBIG GOYSALGO

YAA

ASTAL

INB

TBN

ERSEN

EKI

ADORU

AMANI

ADOIM

BKZLTBAJ

RDBAI

BGS

LKW

DOMNA

TARGO DWN

CND

TLC

TANDI

STJ

NILOVGALIT

BARIMBARM1 TND

TGJCAG

NANDO

CATAL

CATLS UKRB

UKRA

UKRC

ODESA

GLT

BEIUS

BRV

SIGHI

TOMET

SA

DVABANAT

ARDARPUX

TGMBCU

NAPOC

CLJ

VADUL

ORA

PASCA

SCV

VESAR VESAR

TOMBI TOMBI

BONAM

BNMXX

DASIS

CCO

RODOP

TALIK

KALKAL

KORAT

SORET

MOPUG

BATOG

JULIA

NARKA

TIKRU

KARIL

BUKOV BUKOV

IST

RADS

BLO

RPOVJ

SFTME

SFTMT

RDOVJ

OSTOV

SOMOVBULEN

RIXEN

LOMOS

LSCCJ

RADERIXWW

MATEL

BGWNJ

BGDOJ

BGTMS

BGWNI

RIXNWRIXNE

RIXEEDOMNS TALKW

DINRO

ROMRS

ROMRN

ADELI

TBAJE

TBAJW

PELES

DENIZ

KARGE

LBWNJWND1

7085

7285

5564

3527

93123

93123

1917

3727

86131

3344

3344

5777

5777

5779

5779

1333

1524

1724

1533

3346

165201

163210

168212

3322

129140

122125

8478

7677

7787

3444

3450

4332

4332

5261

3322

125121

122119

118118

118118

115116

86131

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

185195

109108

109108

109108

109108

136123


MAP 5SIGNIFICANT FLOWS

REVISED SCENARIO

5462

10671

7172

2440

2847

6469

10783

10783

2412

2412

4521

116

10279

231416

969

9557

179

2114

1715

2521

2921

2620

2822

2016

2420

1717 16

16

9196

99105

8387

4754

3031

1722

2726

5386

2726

5386

1624

1223

2654

3056

2454

7280

3131

8097

9365

148162

1129

6553

5387

5387

5687

3230

3421

3840

1524

xxxyyy

FridaySaturday

KEY

Southbound

Boundary with Blacksea

Internal Boundary

Northbound

Line Thickness

24 to 50 aircraft

Up to 23 aircraft

51 to 100 aircraft

101 to 150 aircraft

151 to 200 aircraft

201 to 250 aircraft

170205

170205

75106

72103

67107

5998

3955

3953

3039

3841

1131

2840

3347

199

199

3347

96103

96103

98104

2430

5127

1628

105148

2739

5065

3344

5261

79947994

7994

7167

7994

126121

128121

7268

1334

1533

1522

7887

7887

7887

2911

2911

7887

4421

2419

8587

7887

8387 77

87

66

196

94

94

94

136

136

1919

1414

1414

136

136

136

66

5089

5089

5285 118

118

3538

4074

4278

2028

81106

3421

2833

199

02

0283

80 6671

4675

1719

1215

2018

2929

2730

3945

4646

2515

2312

1818

1717

03

94

97

97

1010

10

22

10

93123

86131

165201

163210

168212

129140

122125

125121

122119

118118

115116

86131

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

RAD

DINRW

DINREOSTV1

IMR

VAN

ERZ

BUKSALGO

ASTAL

INB

ERSEN

ADORU

ADOIM

BKZLTBAJ

RDBAI

DOMNA

CNDTANDI

BARM1 TND

TGJCAG

GLT

BRV

SIGHI

DVA

ARD

185195

109108

109108

109108

136123

TGM

NAPOC

CLJ

BONAM

DASIS

RODOP

TALIK

KALKAL

BATOG

JULIA

TIKRU


MAP 5AMAJOR FLOWS (94+/24hrs)

REVISED SCENARIO

10671

10783

10783

10279

9557

9196

99105

8097

148162

xxxyyy

FridaySaturday

KEY

Southbound

Northbound

Line Thickness

94 to 150 aircraft

151 to 200 aircraft

201 to 250 aircraft

IST

170205

170205RADS

BLO

RPOVJ

SFTME

SFTMT

LSCCJ

75106

72103

67107

5998

BGWNJ

BGDOJ

RIXNW

96103

96103

98104

105148

7994

7994

126121

128121

118118

81106

LBWNJ

DINREBULN1

OSTV1LOMS1

KOMAN

BAG

BUK

YAA

BKZLTBAJ

RDBAI

BGS

DWN

CND

TGJCAG

CATAL

BEIUS DVA

ARD

VESAR

TOMBI

BNMXX

DASIS

CCO

RODOP

TALIK

KAL

KORAT

SORET

BATOG

JULIA

NARKA

TIKRU

KARIL

BUKOV

IST

RADS

BLO

RPOVJLSCCJ

RADERIXNW

DINRO

PELES

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

GLT

DOMNA

1619

159

ADORU84

RAD

1516

2537

2217


MAP 6MAJOR CONFLICT AREAS FL165+

REVISED SCENARIO

KEY

Southbound

Northbound

Line Thickness

24 to 50 aircraft

Up to 23 aircraft

51 to 100 aircraft

101 to 150 aircraft

151 to 200 aircraft

201 to 250 aircraft

146

720

XXXXXFriSat

FriSat

BONAM

MOPUG

EUROCONTROL · 2019-02-18 · of a future ATS route network on the airspace systems of Bulgaria,...

Documents

Transcript of EUROCONTROL · 2019-02-18 · of a future ATS route network on the airspace systems of Bulgaria,...