SESAR Innovation Days - SESAR Joint Undertaking · Key note briefing SID 2015 2.2 B 0.8 B 2.0 B 3.5...

SESAR Innovation Days

Key note briefing SID 2015Challenges and opportunities for innovation

Xavier FRONEUROCONTROL

Performance Coordinator

01/12/2015

Topics

� A bit of history� What is the current situation?� Why do we need to act? � Key challenges and opportunities for innovation� Final word

Key note briefing SID 2015 2

Some innovations in ATC

� Surveillance� 30’s-40’s: Radar, identification (IFF)

� Accidents, safety requirements (Normandie liner, 1935)� MIL requirements: WW II

� 70’s: Digitalisation, radar processing� Technology opportunities (computers, signal processing)

� NAS, CAUTRA III in 70’s

� TCAS� Developed in US after collision (Grand Canyon, 1956)� Standardised in ICAO� Mandated in US from 1/1/1993 after collision (San Diego, 1978)

� Central Flow Management� Implemented in US after US controllers’ dismissal (1981)� CFMU implemented (1995) following delay crisis at end of 80’s


4

ANS in the European aviation context (1/2)

≈ 6% of Airline operating costs (Europe)

Source: AEA

Air transport delay (2013)All ≈ 9 min. per flight

ANS-related ≈1 min. per flight

≈ 6% of aviation related CO2 emissions (0.2% of total emissions)

Safety No accident with ANS contribution since 2011

Reported incidents in 0.3% of flights

Although ANS is comparatively small in aviation context….

GDP from Air Transport in EU ≈ €121 B

Source: ATAG

Air Navigation Services ≈ €7.5 B

Key note briefing SID 2015

5

ANS in the European aviation context (2/2)

ANS generates….

� Value…..� Aviation Safety

� Efficient flow of air traffic

� Environmental impact

� Emissions, noise

� Costs ….� Ground economic cost ≈ € 10.5 B

� Direct ANS provision costs (user charges)

� Indirect service quality related costs

� Airborne ANS costs (€2.5B p.a. for 10 years?)

� High penalties to economy if disrupted

� Daily loss of some €1.5B per day (volcano)

… but the stakes are still high!


2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B

TotalUser cost(ground)

€ 10.5 B

Flight-efficiencyEn-route: 1.0 BTMA, taxi: 1.2 B

ATFM DelaysER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3

ATCO

Other costsECTL, MET, NSA

UserCharges

€7.5 B

Estimated TEC 2012 (SES)

Support costsOther staff

Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation

Cost of capital1.2 B

Airborne ANS

Performance improvements


European policies bring improvements in 3 KPAs while maintaining safety at acceptable levels

No fatal ANS-related accidents since 2011

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Nu

mb

er

of

acc

ide

nts

ANS-related accidents and accidents with ANS contribution in

Commercial Air Transport (CAT), (fixed-wing, weight > 2 250 kg)

Fatal

Non-Fatal

Accidents with

ANS Contribution

Source: EASA

6

Flight-efficiency improving faster than traffic (carbon neutrality)

Improvements in both unit costs and delaysFurther improvements driven by SES

KEP(FlightPlan)

KEA(Actualroute)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

€2

00

9 p

er

kil

om

etr

e

En-route unit costs (€2009/km)

Traffic in km (index: 1990=1)

En-route delay (summer)

All States in Route Charges system

Source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, NM (delay)

Min

utes

of e

n-ro

ute

AT

FM

del

ay p

er fl

ight

and

traf

fic in

dex

How does European ANS system compare?

High unit costsSimilar Punctuality

2011 ATM/CNS provision costs (€/flight hour)

+50%

(SES)

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Departures (<=15min.) Arrivals (<=15min.)

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

On-time performance compared to schedule

(flights to or from the 34 main airports)

Europe US (CONUS)

Source: CODA; PRC analysis Source: ASPM data

Acceptable Safety levelson both sides of Atlantic

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

+100%

Similar environmental impact


Increasing focus on economic efficiency

Why do we need to act?

� Performance is improving� But major challenges remain in ANS…

� Opaqueness in Safety� Risk measure, safety built in new concepts

� Environmental impact of aviation� Emissions, noise� Politically sensitive, at EU, national and local levels

� High ANS costs� Poor productivity of a labour intensive industry� Rigid service provision� Fragmentation of airspace, service provision, infrastructure

� Organisational/governance issues� Monopolies, little competition, weaknesses in oversight� Human resource and social issues� Airspace users bear all ANS costs, have little say� Complex decision making

� … and new challenges are emerging� Volatile economy, air traffic demand� High demand for R/F spectrum� Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)

8Key note briefing SID 2015

9

25

2035-10%

-5%

5%

Flig

hts

in E

urop

e (M

illio

n)

Ann

ual G

row

th

20302020201520102005200019951990198519801975197019651960 2025

15

0

20

10

5

-5

IFR traffic in Europe1960-2012 historical figures2013-2035 forecast

0%

Long-TermTrend before 2009

Long-Term Trend

=

AnnualGrowth

ActualTraffic

Long-TermAverage Growth

ForecastTrafic

Key challenges - Air Traffic predictability

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

% c

han

ge o

ver

year

(R

PK

s)

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

% c

hang

e o

ver

year

(G

DP

)

Global RPKs (left scale)

World GDP (right scale)

Growth in global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) a nd Revenue Passenger Kilometres (RPK)

sources:GDP: data and forecasts - EIU, RPK: data 1971-2009 - ICAO, RPK: estimate and forecasts 2010-2016 - IATA December 2010

• Traffic foreseen for 2020 may happen in 2035!• Highly volatile economic growth• Air traffic closely linked with economic growth� Wide uncertainties in traffic forecasts• Flexibility to remain efficient in different scenarios!


Driving ANS Safety Performance

10

- ICAO USOAP audits

- SES targets for RP2

Compliance based

- Accidents

- Serious Incidents

- Other measures?

Risk based

Adequate KPIs, incentives

and regulations

Behaviors

1

2

3


Airspace design and management

� Aviation ENV objectives � ACARE: emissions halved in 2050,

Carbon-neutral in 2020

� Environmental impact� Free routes implemented

in 30/65 ACCs (AF 3)� KEA: Improving faster than traffic� En-route already Carbon-neutral!

� Economic impact� Economic cost estimate: €2.2B � No heavy infrastructure required,

unlike train, road� A key area for further improvement

� Improving performance further� SES-wide free routes� Advanced FUA� Sequencing and TMA (RTA, etc)� Key role of Network Manager� Innovations?

2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B


€ 10.5 B



ATCO


UserCharges

€7.5 B



Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation


Airborne ANS


Sequencing and TMA

� Much room for improvement� Fuel, flight, economic efficiency� TMA/Runway throughput� Safety

� But very challenging� ENV constraints� Interactions with airport, airlines operations� Hundreds of very different airports� Weather, wake vortex, etc

� Real challenges and opportunities for innovation


2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B


€ 10.5 B



ATCO


UserCharges

€7.5 B



Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation


Airborne ANS

Predictability of operations

� Strong links between airline, airport and ATC operations� A tightly coupled network� Added value of better predictability on Aviation GDP (~€120B)

and passenger value of time

13

Network Management

Runway capacity

Taxi-in

Turn-around

ATFM slots

Taxi-out

ATC - Departure

ATC En-route

ATC - Arrival Arrival

Departure


• Staff: an essential part of ATM• Essential role in delivery• 2/3 of costs (€ 4B p.a.)• 43 500 workers

• Research on productivity, human factors• Shifting the labour/capital balance?

Human resources (5th pillar)

2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B


€ 10.5 B



ATCO


UserCharges

€7.5 B



Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation


Airborne ANS

2011 data US SES areaUS vs. SES

Flights 16.0 M 9.4 M +70%

ATCO staff 13 300 14 300 -7%

Other staff 22 200 29 200 -24%

Total 35 500 43 500 -18%

Flight per staff 450 216 +108%

14

48%

52%

Exceptional Items0.8%

Cost of capital7.2%

Staff costs62.5%

Non-staff operating costs

18.0%

Depreciation costs11.5%

ATCOs in OPS employment costs

Other staff employment costs

Contributions to social security scheme and

taxes8.2%

Pension contributions

14.5% Gross wages and salaries

75.4%

Other staff related costs or

benefits1.9%


Ground infrastructure, airborne equipment

� Highly fragmented, disparate, costly ground infrastructure� Difficult to synchronise evolutions (e.g. data-link)� Blocks rapid progress� High capital expenditure and maintenance costs

� Book value approx. €6B (RDPS, FDPS, CWP, etc)� €2-3B annual costs

� Minimising the cost of Airborne equipment� How to ensure interoperability, synchronisation,

while minimising air/ground infrastructure cost and fostering innovation?� Industry standards, mandates� Leaving room for initiative, innovation� Balance is needed

2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B


€ 10.5 B



ATCO


UserCharges

€7.5 B



Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation


Airborne ANS

15

Lower Airspace

Lower Airspace

FDP system suppliersAerotekhnikaBespokeCS SOFTIndraLockheed MartinNorthrop GrummanRaytheonSI ATMSelexThales


ANSP fragmentation, monopolies

� Airlines � Strong incentives for innovation with de-regulation � Learnt to minimise costs, adapt capacity to demand

� ANSPs� Designated by States, mostly monopolies� Fragmented service provision, infrastructure� 90% of ANS costs� Economic surplus: 10% in average, up to 20%

� Driving behaviours of providers, users� SES Performance/charging Regulations� Incentives, e.g. modulation of revenue?� Opening the market?

� Industrial organisation� A rich scientific corpus: Nobel prize (Jean Tirole)� Application to ANS


2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B


€ 10.5 B



ATCO


UserCharges

€7.5 B



Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation


Airborne ANS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

130

260

390

520

650

780

910

1 040

1 170

1 300

DS

NA

DF

S

Ae

na

NA

TS

(C

on

tin

en

tal)

EN

AV

DH

MI

Sk

yg

uid

e

Uk

SA

TS

E

Av

ino

r (C

on

tin

en

tal)

LFV

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

LVN

L

RO

MA

TS

A

Be

lgo

con

tro

l

HC

AA

PA

NSA

MU

AC

NA

V P

ort

ug

al

(Co

nti

ne

nta

l)

AN

S C

R

NA

VIA

IR

IAA

Hu

ng

aro

Co

ntr

ol

Cro

ati

a C

on

tro

l

BU

LAT

SA

SM

AT

SA

Fin

avi

a

LPS

DC

AC

Cy

pru

s

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

Oro

Na

vig

aci

ja

LGS

Alb

con

tro

l

EA

NS

MA

TS

Mo

ldA

TS

A

M-N

AV

AR

MA

TS

M€

Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (in M€) Cumulative share ATM/CNS provision costs

56.0% of total European

gate-to-gate ATM/CNS

provision costs

36.1% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS

provision costs

7.9% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS

provision costs

Employment

costs for

ATCOs in OPS

€2 442 M

Composite flight-

hours

18.2 M

ATCO in OPS

hours on duty

22.6 M

ATM/CNS

provision costs

€7 937 M

Support cost ratio

3.3

ATCO-hour

Productivity

0.81

ATCO employment

costs per ATCO-hour

€108

Financial

cost-effectiveness

indicator

€436

EUROCONTROL/PRU

Support costs

€5 495 M

Support costs per

unit of output

€302

ATCOs employment

costs per

unit of output

€134

ATCO productivity

� Average productivity (flight-hours/ATCO-hours) � Very low (0.8), less than 1 aircraft under control per ATCO on duty!� Improves slowly

� Ambitious targets in SESAR 2020: Innovation required!

17

0.73 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.81

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Co

mp

osi

te f

lig

ht-

ho

ur

pe

r A

TC

O-h

ou

r

on

du

ty

30%

70%

2013


Matching en-route capacity with demand

� ATC capacity tends to be very rigid� Better matching ATC capacity with demand

� Gaining on both capacity costs (charges) and delays� Impact on some €2.5B p.a.

� Addressing traffic variability

� More flexible en-route capacity� Flexible rostering (e.g. Maastricht UAC)� Virtual centres, Industrial partnerships � Business drivers (e.g. modulation of user charges, ANSP revenues, SATURN)� Innovation: new concepts, e.g. Flight-centric ATC

18

Sectors

Cap

acity

Offered

Unused CapacityUsed

Capacityshortfall

Delay costs

Time

2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B


€ 10.5 B



ATCO


UserCharges

€7.5 B



Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation


Airborne ANS


New operational concepts

Time of day

Cap

acity

Offered

Used

� Flight-centric ATC � Separation responsibility allocated per flight, not per sector

� ATC load is more stable and predictable: much better use of resources� Capacity is much more scalable, not locked in small sector silos

� Full use of trajectory-based concept of SESAR� Flight-centric is trajectory based, makes full use of 4D� SESAR 1 concept perpetuates weaknesses associated with sectors,

does not use full 4D potential

� Other concepts: Room for innovation!

Sectors

Cap

acity

Offered

Unused CapacityUsed

Capacityshortfall

Delay costs

Time


Flight-oriented view

P: Piloting, S: Separation

Current SESAR 1 Flight-centric

Delegatedseparation

RPAS

Sectors Flight-oriented view

Air P P P P P P P S

Ground S S S S S Flow, Police P S

20

� Flight-centric ATC � Both piloting and separation functions have flight-oriented view

� Separating own aircraft against all others

� Delegated separation � Piloting and separation both airborne, both flight-oriented view

� RPAS� Piloting and separation on the ground, both flight-oriented view

� Flight-oriented view • Would ease productivity, integration of RPAS, delegation of separation


RPAS

� Wide variety � From toys to high-end aircraft

� Big challenges and opportunities� Integration or segregation?� Mass market� R/F spectrum� etc


Efficient use of Radio Spectrum

� Aviation has significant radio spectrum allocations� VHF band (Voice, NAV, VDL)� L, S bands (Radar, DME, shared with military)� C band (MLS)

� High value, high demand for spectrum� High demand, e.g. 4G networks� A licence for a 5 MHz band in a large State can be worth some € 2B…

� Active spectrum management� Spectrum-efficient technology exists, but high retrofit costs for aviation� 8,33kHz, VDL2 are low efficiency, low capacity technologies� New Spectrum requirements, e.g. Data/Link, mainly RPAS

� Opportunity for use of new CNS technology � e.g. addressed COM for flight-centric


Key challenges and opportunities for innovation

• Improvements in performance, but much room for further improvements• Opportunities from crises, technology, …• A volatile world, high uncertainties• Safety: measuring, controlling risk• Enhanced environmental efficiency• Sequencing and TMA• Predictability of operations• Human factors, behaviours, culture� Deployment: Balance between standards/plans and innovation� Industrial organisation

� Research, Incentives, Partnerships, ANSP governance…

� Step change in productivity, flexibility � New concepts, e.g. flight-centric ATC� RPAS: mass market power� Spectrum efficient CNS, technology supporting new concepts


Conclusions

� Plenty of challenges and opportunities for innovation� Some hints


SESAR Innovation Days - SESAR Joint Undertaking · Key note briefing SID 2015 2.2 B 0.8 B 2.0 B 3.5...

Documents

Transcript of SESAR Innovation Days - SESAR Joint Undertaking · Key note briefing SID 2015 2.2 B 0.8 B 2.0 B 3.5...