US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational...

Federal AviationAdministration

EUROCONTROL

US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational performance

January 19, 2010

Dave Knorr

• ATO Liaison to DFS

• Eurocontrol & CANSO Support

USF Transportation Research Seminar

2Federal AviationAdministration

EUROCONTROL

Performance Focus Areas for ANSPs

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance

Flight EfficiencyTemporal Efficiency

2008

Financial CostEffectiveness

Productivity

FAA-DFS comparison draft Nov20-08


EUROCONTROL

KPA: Safety

• FAA/ATOKPI Category A or B OE‘s per 1,000,000 operations

– Based on % of vertical and lateral separation distance lost

– Measured automatically

– Target (2008): < 2.15 Category A or B OE’s per 1,000,000 Ops

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity



EUROCONTROL

KPA: Safety

• DFS (BU CC)

KPI Number of significant and very significant separation minima infringements per 100,000 flights

– Based on scoring system taking into account subjective and quantitative inputs

– Reported by ATCOs– Target (2008):

< 2.28 significant and very significant separation minima infringements per 100,000 flights

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

KPA: Safety

• Comparison– Both DFS and ATO use

Operational Error rates as primary measure

– FAA/ATO and DFS Categorization of Operational Errors is Significantly Different

– Categorization has an impact on findings derived from measures

Very Signif icant(57) Signif icant

(323) Not Signif icant(484)

A (9)

B (217)

C (638)

24

186

428

29

132

56

450

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

DFS

Ope

ratio

nal E

rror

s (S

ampl

e)

DFS KPI

FAA

KPI

Severity of ErrorsDFS Data using FAA and DFS Methodology

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

Continental IFR Flight Hours per Continental ATCO in Operationsby Region

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Americas 1,630 1,716 1,940 1,846 1,994

Asia Pacific 1,786 1,773 1,788 1,239 1,367

Europe 798 824 821 838 879

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

DFS


2008


Productivity

(from CANSO 2007 data)

KPA: Cost-Effectiveness Focus Area: Productivity

Why do FAA/ATO data show a productivity nearly twice that of DFS/Europe?

Sample (2006):

• FAA/ATO: 1,845

• DFS: 1,003


EUROCONTROL

Factors to consider when comparing Productivity

• Hours worked per ATCO• Seasonality of traffic• Changes in traffic during the week• Traffic Density and Complexity• % of Upper versus Lower Airspace• Level of Automation• Operating Philosophy (i.e. 1 person sectors)

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

DFS


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

ANSP Service Quality - Objective & ScopeOBJECTIVES• Provide a high-level comparison of operational performance between the US and

Europe Air Navigation systems.• Initial focus on the development of a set of comparable performance for high level

comparisons between countries and world regions. SCOPE • Predictability and Efficiency of operations

• Link to “Environmental sustainability” when evaluating additional fuel burn. • Continental airspace (Oceanic and Alaska excluded)• Focus on data subset (traffic from/to top 34 airports) due to better data quality (OEP

airports) and comparability (general aviation). • Commercial IFR flights

NOT in SCOPE• Safety, Cost effectiveness, Capacity• Trade-offs and other performance

affecting factors (weather, etc.)


EUROCONTROL

Overview Comparing USA & Europe

[1] Eurocontrol States plus the Estonia and Latvia, but excluding oceanic areas and Canary Islands.[2] Area, flight hours and center count refers to CONUS only. The term US CONUS refers to the 48 contiguous States located on the North American continent south of the border with Canada, plus the District of Columbia, excluding Alaska, Hawaii and oceanic areas.[3] All facilities of which 280 are FAA staffed and 223 contract towers.

Calendar Year 2007 Europe[1] USA[2] Difference

Geographic Area (million km2) 11.5 10.4 -10%

Number of en-route Air Navigation Service Providers 38 1

Number of Air Traffic Controllers 17 000 17 000 0%

Total staff 56 000 35 000 -38%

Controlled flights (Instrumental flight rules IFR) (million) 10 18 +80%

Share of General Air Traffic 4% 18% x4.5

Flight hours controlled (million) 14 25 +79%

Average length of flight (within region) 548 NM 490 NM -11%

Nr. of en-route centers 66 20 - 70%

En-route sectors at maximum configuration 684 955 +40%

Nr. of airports with ATC services 450 503[3] (280) +12%

Of which are slot controlled > 73 3

Source Eurocontrol FAA/ATO


EUROCONTROL

Airspace Density Comparison (CONUS & European Centers)

Density (flight Hr per Sq.Km)< 1< 2< 3< 4< 5>= 5

*Note due to Mercator projection, northern areas appear larger

• Actual sizes are comparable (USA 10.4 vs Europe 11.5 M km2)• Relative density (flight hours per km2) is 1.2 in Europe and 2.4 in

US


EUROCONTROL

Some facts about the main airports in the US and in Europe

Main 34 airports in 2007 Europe US Difference US vs. Europe

Average number of annual movements per airport (‘000) 267 441 +65%Average number of annual passengers per airport (million) 25 32 +28%Passengers per movement 94 72 -23%Average number of runways per airport 2.5 4.0 +60%Annual movements per runway (‘000) 108 110 +2%Annual passengers per runway (million) 10.0 8.0 -20%

• Traffic to/from the main 34 airports represents some 69% of all IFR flights in Europe and 64% in the US.

• The share of general aviation to/from the main 34 airports is more comparable with 4% in the US and 1.6% in Europe.

• Average number of runways (+60%) and the number of movements (+65%) are significantly higher in the US;

• Number of passengers per movement in the US (-23%) are much lower than in Europe.


EUROCONTROL

Average seats per scheduled flight in the US and in Europe

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

avg.

sea

ts p

er fl

ight

Top34/Intra-European

Intra-European

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

US - 'OEP34/CONUSUS-domestic (CONUS)

Intra-European Domestic US (conus)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis

• Average seat size per scheduled flight differs in the two systems with Europe having a higher percentage of flights using “Large” aircraft than the US.


EUROCONTROL

Air traffic growth in the US and in Europe (IFR flights)

• Until 2004, growth rates evolved in similar ways• Notable decoupling since 2004

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

USA Europe


EUROCONTROL

On-time performance in the US and in Europe

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

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

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

On-time performance compared to schedule(flights to/from the 34 main airports)

Intra-Europe US (conus)

Source: E-CODA Source: ASQP data

Similar pattern in US and Europe with a comparable level of arrival on time performance; The gap between departure and arrival punctuality is significant in the US and quasi nil in Europe suggesting differences in flow management strategies

Arrivals/ departures delayed by more than 15 minutes versus schedule


EUROCONTROL

Airline Scheduling: Evolution of block times

Europe: Block times remain relatively stable (left side) US: In addition to decreasing on time performance (previous slide), there is a clear increase in scheduled block times (right side)Seasonal effects are visible in the US and in Europe

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4Ja

n-00

Jan-

01

Jan-

02

Jan-

03

Jan-

04

Jan-

05

Jan-

06

Jan-

07

Jan-

08

min

utes

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Jan-

00

Jan-

01

Jan-

02

Jan-

03

Jan-

04

Jan-

05

Jan-

06

Jan-

07

Jan-

08

Europe US (conus)

Source: FAA/PRU

Evolution of Scheduled Block Times (flights to/from 34 main airports)

Scheduled block times compared to the long term average at city

pair level.


EUROCONTROL

Efficiency: Trends in the duration of flight phases

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan-

03

Jul-0

3

Jan-

04

Jul-0

4

Jan-

05

Jul-0

5

Jan-

06

Jul-0

6

Jan-

07

Jul-0

7

Jan-

08

Jul-0

8

min

utes

DEPARTURE TIMESTX-OUT TIMESAIRBORNE TIMESTX-IN TIMESTOTAL

Data Source: CODA/ FAA

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan-

03

Jul-0

3

Jan-

04

Jul-0

4

Jan-

05

Jul-0

5

Jan-

06

Jul-0

6

Jan-

07

Jul-0

7

Jan-

08

Jul-0

8

EUROPE US

Trends in the duration of flight phases(flights to/from main 34 airports)

Europe: performance is driven by departure delays with only very small changes in the gate-to-gate phase. US: in addition to a deterioration of departure times, there is a clear increase in average taxi times and airborne times.

Actual times are compared to the

long term average for each city pair.


EUROCONTROL

Schedule Growth Shifts Delays

Up 8% Compared to 2000Down 9% Compared to 2000

October-July

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007D

elay

s pe

r Tho

usan

d O

pera

tions

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Cha

nge

in O

pera

tions

sin

ce 2

000

OEP31 EWR,JFK,LGA,PHL

Traffic Change Delayed Flights


EUROCONTROL

Predictability: Variability of flight phases

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Departure time(compared to

schedule)

Taxi-out + holding Flight time (cruising+ terminal)

Taxi-in + waiting forthe gate

Arrrival time(compared to

schedule)

min

utes

US - (80th – 20th)/2 EU - (80th – 20th)/2

Gate-to-gate phase Source: FAA/PRC

Variability of flight phases (flights to/from 34 main airports)

• Predictability is measured in from the single flight perspective (i.e. airline view) as the difference between the 80th and the 20th percentile for each flight phase. Arrival predictability is mainly driven by departure predictability. With the exception of taxi-in, variability for all flight phases is higher in the US.


EUROCONTROL

What We are Measuring Today (w/ Large Data Sets)

FAA/ATO and PRU both establishing consistent measures

100

nm

40 n

m

Feb 15th 20080h01-23h59

GATE-to-GATEDEPARTUREANS-related

Holding at theGate (ATFM/

EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

IFR flightsTo/fromMain 34 airports

Efficiency In last

100NM

Taxi-inefficiency

IFR flightsTo/fromMain 34 airports

Continuous Descent Arrival

Standard Arrival


EUROCONTROL

Efficiency: ANS-related departure delays

2007 En-route related(EDCT/ATFM)

Airport related(EDCT/ATFM)

IFR

flights (M

)

% of flights delayed

delay per flight (m

in.)

delay per delayed flight

(min.)

% of flights delayed

delay per flight (m

in.)

delay per delayed flight

(min.)

US 9.7 0.2% 0.1 53 1.7% 1.1 68Europe 5.7 7.8% 1.4 18 6.8% 1.4 21

US: En-route delays are much lower per flight, but the delay per delayed flight is significantly higher; Europe: Higher share of flights affected (than US) but with a lower average delay. In the US, ground delays (EDCT) are used when other options are not sufficient, whereas, in Europe ground delays (ATFM) are the main ATM tool for balancing demand with capacity



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Oct-06

Nov-06

Dec-06

Jan-0

7Fe

b-07

Mar-07

Apr-07

May-07

Jun-0

7Ju

l-07

Aug-07

Sep-07

EDC

T D

elay

s (m

in)

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

EDC

T D

elay

s (F

light

s-Th

ousa

nds)

En Route Delayed Flights

En Route Delays (min)

En Route Driven Ground Delays (ATO)


EUROCONTROL

Excess Taxi Fuel Burn Calculation Methodology

• Calculate taxi-in/taxi-out delay from ASPM/ASQP-using actual taxi time and nominal taxi time from ASPMNominal taxi time statistically calculated by APO-Taxi-delay = actual time – nominal time-Negative delay truncated to zero

• Derive excess fuel usage from taxi-in/taxi-out delay– Excess fuel used in kg = taxi delay in minute * fuel burn kg/min– Assuming all engines on at idle power for entire delay period– Alternative to truncate delay at maximum of 30 minutes– Idle power from ICAO Emissions databank


EUROCONTROL

Excess time in the taxi out phase

0

5

10

15

20

Lond

on(L

HR

)R

ome

(FC

O)

Lond

on(L

GW

)Fr

ankf

urt

(FR

A)

Par

is (C

DG

)

Mad

rid(M

AD

)B

arce

lona

(BC

N)

Mun

ich

(MU

C)

Ista

nbul

(IST)

Am

ster

dam

(AM

S)

Mila

n (M

XP

)

Dus

seld

orf

(DU

S)

Man

ches

ter

(MA

N)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)Zu

rich

(ZR

H)

Osl

o (O

SL)

Cop

enha

gen

(CP

H)

Par

is (O

RY

)

Bru

ssel

s(B

RU

)S

tock

holm

(AR

N)

min

utes

per

dep

artu

reEurope Top 34 Average (3.7 min.)

05

101520

New

Yor

k(J

FK)

New

ark

(EW

R)

New

Yor

k(L

GA

)P

hila

delp

hia

(PH

L)A

tlant

a(A

TL)

Chi

cago

(OR

D)

Min

neap

olis

(MS

P)

Det

roit

(DTW

)B

osto

n(B

OS

)C

harlo

tte(C

LT)

Sal

t Lak

eC

ity (S

LC)

Las

Veg

as(L

AS

)H

oust

on(IA

H)

Pho

enix

(PH

X)

Den

ver

(DE

N)

Was

hing

ton

(IAD

)S

anFr

anci

sco

Dal

las

(DFW

)Lo

sA

ngel

esO

rland

o(M

CO

)

US OEP 34 Average (6.8 min.)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis/ CODA/ CFMU

Average excess time in the taxi out phase(Top 20 in terms of annual movements in 2007 are shown)

Excess times in the taxi out phase are higher in the USFor the US, excess times also include delays due to local en-route departure and miles in trail restrictions. .



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL

En-route flight Efficiency: Approach

40 NM

Airport A

Airport B

GD

A En-route extension

Actual route(A)

Great Circle(G)

Direct Course(D)

Direct route extension

TMA interface

• Indicator is the difference between the length of the actual trajectory (A) and the Great Circle Distance (G) between the departure and arrival terminal areas.

• Direct route extension is measured as the difference between the actual route (A) and the direct course between the TMA entry points (D).

• This difference is an ideal (and unachievable) situation where each aircraft would be alone in the sky and not subject to any constraints (i.e. safety, capacity).

•Focus on horizontal flight efficiency•Distance based approach



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL

Flight efficiency: Direct Route Extension

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%

0-199 NM 200-399 NM 400-599 NM 600-799 NM 800-999 NM >1000 NM

Great Circle Distance between 40NM circles (D40-A40)

Dire

ct ro

ute

exte

nsio

n (%

)

Europe USA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0-199 NM 200-399 NM 400-599 NM 600-799 NM 800-999 NM >1000 NM

% o

f all

fligh

ts

Direct en-route extension ((A-D)/G)(flights to/from the 34 main airports 2007)

US OEP 34 average (2.9%)

European top 34 average (4.0%)

• Direct route extension is approximately 1% lower in the US• US: Miles in trail restrictions are passed back from constrained airports• Europe: Fragmentation of airspace, location of military airspace



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL

Impact of Military Airspace SW of Frankfurt

• Military airspace is a significant driver of excess distance• Area southeast of Frankfurt is a major contributor• Adjoining French Military airspace further increases problem



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL

Sample „Inefficient“ DFS Routes


EUROCONTROL

Boston (BOS) to Philadelphia (PHL) Flights

Great Circle Distance: 242 nmiAverage Excess Distance: 102 nmiPercent Excess Distance over

Great Circle: 42.1%

Average excess distance per stage:First 40 nmi: 12 nmi40 to 40 nmi circles: 63 nmiLast 40 nmi: 27 nmi



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM

July 2007


EUROCONTROL

IAD to FLL

Number of Flights 1488Direct Flight Indicator Total (A-G) 41.9

Direct Between TMA (A-D) 20.3TMA Interface (G-D) 21.5


EUROCONTROL

Efficiency: Excess time in the last 100NM

• Time based measure• Captures type of A/C• ARC Entry point and

runway configuration• Nominal derived from

20th percentile• Excess – time above

nominal for each category

100 nmi

40 nmi

x

ArrivalAirport

Arrival Fix

Actual Route

Notional OptimalRoute

2.5%

Direction of

Flight


EUROCONTROL

Excess time within the last 100NM

0123456789

10

Lond

on(L

HR

)Fr

ankf

urt

(FR

A)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)M

adrid

(MA

D)

Lond

on(L

GW

)M

unic

h(M

UC

)Zu

rich

(ZR

H)

Rom

e(F

CO

)D

usse

ldor

f(D

US

)

Mila

n (M

XP)

Man

ches

ter

(MAN

)B

arce

lona

(BC

N)

Paris

(OR

Y)

Par

is (C

DG

)

Osl

o (O

SL)

Brus

sels

(BR

U)

Cop

enha

gen

(CPH

)Am

ster

dam

(AM

S)Is

tanb

ul(IS

T)St

ockh

olm

(AR

N)

min

utes

Average Excess Minutes within the last 100NM miles(only top 20 airports in terms of movement 2007 are shown)

Europe Top 34 Average (3.2 min.)

0123456789

10

New

ark

(EW

R)

Phila

delp

hia

(PH

L)N

ew Y

ork

(JFK

)N

ew Y

ork

(LG

A)C

harlo

tte(C

LT)

Det

roit

(DTW

)At

lant

a(A

TL)

Chi

cago

(OR

D)

Bost

on(B

OS)

Was

hing

ton

(IAD

)M

inne

apol

is(M

SP)

San

Fran

cisc

oO

rland

o(M

CO

)D

enve

r(D

EN

)P

hoen

ix(P

HX)

Dal

las

(DFW

)La

s V

egas

(LAS

)Lo

sA

ngel

esH

oust

on(IA

H)

Salt

Lake

City

(SLC

)

min

utes

US OEP 34 Average (2.5 min.)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis

Average excess time for main 34 airports is higher in EuropeMainly driven by London Heathrow (LHR) which is clearly an outlierPerformance at LHR is consistent with the 10 minute average delay criteria agreed by the airport scheduling committee.



EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL

Estimated total benefit pool

Estimated excess time on flights to/from the main 34 airports (2007)

TIME per flight(minutes) Predictability

EUR US

Gate/ departure holdings

en-route-related 1.4 0.1 Low

airport-related 1.4 1.1 Low

Taxi-out phase 3.7 6.8 Medium

Horizontal en-route flight efficiency 2.2-3.8 1.5-2.7 High

Terminal areas (ASMA/TMA) 3.2 2.5 Medium

Total estimated excess time per flight 11.9-13.5 12.0-13.2

• The benefit pool represents a theoretical optimum. Safety and capacity constraints limit the practicality of ever fully recovering these “inefficiencies”

• Similar total estimated excess times in US and Europe but with differences in the distribution along the phase of flight. Inefficiencies have a different impact (fuel burn, time) on airspace users, depending on the phase of flight (airborne vs. ground) and the level of predictability (strategic vs. tactical).


EUROCONTROL

Vertical Inefficiency - Continuous Descent Arrival

CDA is an arrival procedure designed to eliminate level segments flown below cruise altitude, thus minimizing fuel burn, emissions and noise.

In a CDA, these level segments would be flown at cruise altitude

Continuous Descent Arrival

Standard Arrival


EUROCONTROL

EUR US

Fuel / Flight %* Fuel / Flight %*

Horizontal Flight Efficiency 160 kg 3.6% 115 kg 3.0%

Vertical Flight Efficiency 25 kg 0.6% 31 kg 0.7%

TMA transit (Airborne Delay)

76 kg 1.6% 98 kg 2.5%

Taxi Delay 30 kg 0.8% 62 kg 1.6%

Total Flight Efficiency** 6.6% 7.8%

Comparisons of US and European Fuel Inefficiency Estimates

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity

*Share of total aviation emissions in European or US airspace

•VERY PRELIMINARY

Very Preliminary


EUROCONTROL

Sample Data from CANSO Participants

R E A D Y T O S T A R T W H E E L S -U P

P U S HB A C K

T A X I

R U N W A Y G A T E

N O M IN A L2 5 m in u te s

1 0 m in s 1 5 m in s

R E Q U E S T C L E A R A N C E

D E L A Y? 1 5 m in s

E X C E S S

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 Sample Data Summary for CAAS Singapore Measures CAAS Singapore Total Departures 110,310 Flight Hours Delays (minutes) 178,680 Sum of delay for delayed flights (minutes) 47,782 Delayed Flights 2,388 Delay per Delayed Flight (minutes) 20.01 Delay/All Flights (minutes) 1.62 Percent Delayed 2.16% Source: CAAS Singapore 2007


EUROCONTROL

Sample Data on Delay Causes – CANSO ANSP

2007 ATFM Delay Causes for ANSP-3

ATC Equipment, 0.3%

Aerodrome Capacity, 4.6%

Accident Incident, 0.5%

ATC Staffing, 10.4%

ATC Capacity, 13.1%Other, 0.7%

Weather, 70.2%


EUROCONTROL

Conclusions

• High value in global comparisons and benchmarking in order to drive performance and identify best practice;

• Arrival punctuality is similar in the US and in Europe, albeit with a higher level of variability in the US.

• Overall, the estimated average excess time in the US and Europe appear to be similar, but with notable differences in the distribution along the phase of flight.

• Inefficiencies have a different impact (fuel burn, time) on airspace users, depending on the phase of flight (airborne vs. ground) and the level of predictability (strategic vs. tactical). Further work is needed to assess the impact of efficiency and predictability on airspace users.

• A more comprehensive comparison of service performance would also need to address Safety, Capacity and other performance affecting factors such as weather and governance.


EUROCONTROL

Next Steps

• Data analysis on underlying capacities driving performance differences– Variability in weather driving performance in US?– Impact of slots– Uniqueness of US situation…

• Collect data from additional CANSO ANSPs• Develop better understanding of other factors

driving performance– Congestion– Complexity of traffic– Military airspace constraints


EUROCONTROL

World-wide Airspace Map for ATC Service Providers


EUROCONTROL

FAA-DFS comparison draft Nov20- 08

Backup Slides


EUROCONTROL

Time Fuel

Horizontal Flight Efficiency 1.5-2.7 min 63.9kg - 115.0 kg 1.6% - 3.0%

TMA transit (Airborne Delay) 2.3 min 98.1 kg 2.5%

Vertical Flight Efficiency 0 29.4kg - 31.7kg 0.76% - 0.82%

Taxi Delay 5.4-6.3 min 62.6kg - 74.5 kg 1.6% - 1.9%

Total Flight Efficiency** 6.6% - 8.2%

FAA 2007 Inefficiency* EstimatesAssume 3875 kg Average Fuel per Flight

*Inefficiencies includes safety related routings

**With no action the inefficiency pool will grow with traffic


EUROCONTROL

Sample DFS „Inefficient“ Routes



EUROCONTROL

Mapping ATO Framework to DFS

Balanced Scorecard

ATO Strategic Pathways

AchieveOperationalExcellence

EnhanceFinancial Discipline

IncreaseCapacity

Where Needed

Ensure Viable Future Employees

ATM Performance Framework

Safety EfficiencyCost Effectiveness Capacity Employees &

DevelopmentEnvironment

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity

ATO Dash Board


EUROCONTROL

Target Setting

• FAA/ATO and DFS both use near term target setting (FAA/ATO also for mid term horizon)– FAA/ATO to incentivize the entire organization– DFS to incentivize managers

• In 2006 FAA/ATO changed calculation method for measures– Not actual traffic but traffic forecasts is used as reference

ATM Cost / Charging Unit (DFS BU CC)


EUROCONTROL

ATO En-route Operational ErrorsSafety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

FAA/ATO En Route Center Operational Error Rates

y = 4E-10x1.4841

R2 = 0.6789

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Aircraft Handled (Millions)

Cat

egor

y A

&B

OE

Rat

e (O

E/M

illio

n A

ircra

ft H

andl

ed)

Category A&B Data from John Glassley in ATO-E National Quality AssuranceTraffic data are Opsnet Center Aircraft HandledAll data is FY02-FY05

Data suggest underlying mechanism linking occurrence of operational errors and number of aircraft handled

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

CONUS and ZAN OEs FY 2002-2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25Aircraft in Sector

Ope

ratio

nal E

rror

s

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Sector Time

OE DistributionSector Minute Distribution

FAA/ATO Operational Errors and Sector Traffic

OE data from ATO-AOEs are all OEs, not just category A&BSector time is sum of total minutes sectors are controlling aircraft, normalized to 1Sector time computed from Host Aircraft Management Execs (HAME) dataAll data FY02-FY05

Operational Errors happen most often when controllers are handling 8-10 aircraft …

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

y = 2.6279x2.4279

R2 = 0.989

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Aircraft in Sector

Ope

ratio

nal E

rror

s/M

illio

n H

ours OE Rate

Fit

OE data from ATO-AOEs are all OEs, not just category A&BSector time computed from HAME dataAll data FY02-FY05

FAA/ATO Operational Errors and Sector Traffic

… but Operational error rate increases with traffic after correction for sector traffic frequency (> than square of traffic)

Safety

Capacity

CostEffectiveness

Efficiency

Target: 2013

Environment

ATM Performance


2008


Productivity


EUROCONTROL

FAA/ATO Delays

• Most En Route Delays during Convective Weather

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9Ja

n-00

Jul-0

0

Jan-

01

Jul-0

1

Jan-

02

Jul-0

2

Jan-

03

Jul-0

3

Jan-

04

Jul-0

4

Jan-

05

Jul-0

5

Jan-

06

Jul-0

6

Jan-

07

Jul-0

7

Ann

ual O

ps (M

illio

n)

Annual Ops Monthly Delay

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Avg

. Tot

al D

elay

Annual Delay

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Avg

. Tot

al D

elay

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Avg

. Tot

al D

elay

Annual Delay

US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational...

Documents

Transcript of US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational...