Demonstration Report. Abstract. Document information

Transcription

1 Demonstration Report Document information Project Title ENGAGE PROJECT II Safety Analysis Project Number Project Manager NAV CANADA Deliverable Name ENGAGE PROJECT II B1 Demonstration Report Edition Template version Task contributors NAV CANADA, Air France Task participants NATS, KLM, Delta, British Airways, United Airlines, Air Transat Abstract This document describes the context, demonstration, results, communication and implementation activities that were undertaken to deliver and share the ENGAGE Project II primary objectives which were to: Expand the operational arena of ENGAGE I AIRE project by adding to the operational airspace and to the pool of participating operators enabling at least 75 trial flights in single and multi-flight scenarios Demonstrate that the ENGAGE variable Mach, variable flight level procedures on the North Atlantic are sustainable and safe Communicate and raise awareness of SESAR and ENGAGE; and Document the ICAO safety requirements that must be met for future implementation.

2 Authoring & Approval Prepared By - Authors of the document. Name & Company Position & Title Date Dean Avery NAV CANADA Project Member <20/08/2014> Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date Sandra Laloux Air France Project Member <25/06/2014> Reviewed By - Other SESAR projects, Airspace Users, staff association, military, Industrial Support, other organisations. Name & Company Position & Title Date Joost Konnen KLM Senior Manager <26/06/2014> Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date Larry Lachance NAV CANADA VP Operations <19/08/2014> Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project. Name & Company Position & Title Date <Name / Company> <Position / Title> <DD/MM/YYYY> Rational for rejection None. Document History Edition Date Status Author Justification /06/2014 Draft Dean Avery New Document /08/2014 Final Dean Avery Revised Document 2 of 64

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT INTENDED READERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT GLOSSARY OF TERMS ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY CONTEXT OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS SCOPE OF THE DEMONSTRATION AND COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE SESAR PROGRAMME PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION Consortium Structure Project Lead Project Contributors Quality Manager Other Stakeholder Involvement WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE DELIVERABLES RISK MANAGEMENT EXECUTION OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES EXERCISES PREPARATION EXERCISES EXECUTION DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES EXERCISES RESULTS SUMMARY OF EXERCISES RESULTS CHOICE OF METRICS AND INDICATORS SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS Description of Assessment Methodology ANALYSIS OF EXERCISES RESULTS CONFIDENCE IN RESULTS OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES Quality and Significance of Demonstration Exercises Results Conclusions and recommendations SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES NEXT STEPS IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion Recommendations REFERENCE DOCUMENTS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C ENGAGE PROJECT II PROCEDURES DATA SHEET ENGAGE PROJECT II COMMUNICATIONS C.1 NAV CANADA NEWS RELEASE C.2 NAV CANADA DIRECT ROUTE C.3 NAV CANADA CIFER of 64

4 C.4 KLM EMPLOYEE MAGAZINE APPENDIX D ICAO DOCUMENTATION D.1 NAT SPG/49 WORKING PAPER 26 - JUNE 2013 (SUPERSEDED) D.2 NAT SPG/50 WORKING PAPER 19 - JUNE List of tables TABLE 1: ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY... 8 TABLE 2: EXE D-1 SINGLE FLIGHT, SINGLE TRACK... 9 TABLE 3: EXE D-2 MULTIPLE FLIGHTS, MULTIPLE TRACKS TABLE 4: EXE D-3 MULTIPLE FLIGHTS, SINGLE TRACK TABLE 5: ENGAGE PROJECT II STAKEHOLDERS TABLE 6: ENGAGE PROJECT II WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE TABLE 7: FORMAL DELIVERABLES TABLE 8: OTHER DELIVERABLES AND KEY PROJECT MILESTONES TABLE 9: RISKS TABLE 10: EXERCISES EXECUTION/ANALYSIS DATES TABLE 11: ALLOWABLE ENGAGE PROFILES TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES RESULTS TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF METRICS AND INDICATORS TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS TABLE 15: EXAMPLE OF ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY of 64

5 Executive summary ENGAGE Project II (ENGAGE II) was initiated to build on the success of the ENGAGE Project I flight trials performed in Studying the process required to amend the ICAO NAT Regional Supplementary Procedures (Doc 7030) will culminate in the accelerated implementation of safe and sustainable variable Mach and variable flight level over the North Atlantic (NAT). NAV CANADA, NATS and five commercial air carriers collaborated on using variable Mach and variable flight level over the North Atlantic during the second half of This project was undertaken and supported by SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU). This earlier AIRE/SJU Project is herein referred to as ENGAGE I. During the 23 successful trials in ENGAGE I, it was determined that average reductions of 500 litres of fuel consumption and 1300 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved during the oceanic portion of transatlantic flights. The Deliverable Report prepared at the conclusion of ENGAGE I outlines the environmental, operational and economic benefits achieved. ENGAGE Project II encompassed significant increases in scope beyond the successes of ENGAGE I. Communication of the operational efficiencies and environmental benefits demonstrated in ENGAGE I to other Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and commercial air carriers was a key component in Project II. Extending the airspace available for the trials to the north and south of the geographic area used in ENGAGE I helped to increase the number of eligible flights and the potential for success of each trial. Increasing the airspace under study also enabled more carriers and city pair opportunities, further enabling the demonstration trials in Project II. From October 2012 until May 2013, 210 ENGAGE flight trials were attempted by five different air transport operators. Full or partial data was collected from over 200 of these flights. Similar fuel savings to ENGAGE I were experienced during ENGAGE II with an average of 1-2% fuel and Greenhouse Gas reductions compared to a typical planned oceanic fuel burn. A safety survey was available for each trial operator to complete In addition to economic and environmental data having been collected. No safety incidents were reported by operators, nor were any occurrences captured by the NAT Central Monitoring Agency. Aviation Safety is about Procedures and Regulation. ENGAGE II has been presented to the NAT Systems Planning Group (SPG) of ICAO in each of 2013 and 2014 with the purpose of earning support to remove the mandatory provision of fixed Mach numbers in Oceanic clearances. This conclusion was reached by the SPG, enabling the implementation of ENGAGE to continue. Recommendations are included in this document to help to successfully implement the plan and increase operator efficiency in the NAT. The Project Team, with the strong support and encouragement of the SJU, has demonstrated that practical projects like ENGAGE can safely and sustainably improve aviation for all stakeholders involved. In ENGAGE, the benefits of collaboratively exploring even seemingly small opportunities have led to a greener footprint for aviation, increased flexibility, lower operating costs for operators and even better industry partnerships. 5 of 64

6 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the document This document provides the Demonstration Report for ENGAGE PROJECT II Safety Analysis (ENGAGE II). It describes the objectives, planning, execution and analysis of the demonstration exercises outlined in the ENGAGE II Demonstration Plan, Edition , formally approved in August Project Conclusions and Implementation Recommendations derived from the Demonstrations are provided. Purpose The purpose of the ENGAGE II was to build on the successes of the predecessor project, ENGAGE I, flight trials performed in 2011, focussing on the safety and sustainability aspects of transitioning to implementation of variable flight level and/or variable flight Mach over the North Atlantic oceanic airspace (NAT) using revised and agreed ENGAGE procedures (Appendix A). Scope ENGAGE I was aimed at proving the hypothesis that fuel and emission reductions occur when a flight profile on the NAT could be modified dynamically at a pilot s discretion, without subsequent individual ATC clearances for minor changes in flight level or speed. Limited trials carefully planned and executed in ENGAGE I by five commercial carriers, validated these assertions. Average reductions of 500 litres of fuel and 1300 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) emission were achieved over the 23 trials which occurred in the Gander and Shanwick Oceanic Control Areas (OCA). Project II included the expansion of the airspace (by adding both Reykjavik and Santa Maria OCAs to participation from NAV CANADA and NATS) and included additional airline operators KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Air Transat. Environmental, operational and economic benefits were measured during the oceanic portions of an expanded number of trial flights. In total, 210 trial flights were recorded compared to the 23 in ENGAGE I. Safety performance data was collected and analyzed, as established by the Consortium, in order to report on the safety aspects of the ENGAGE flight trials. An assessment of the changes required to procedures and documentation was conducted in order to consider the implementation of ENGAGE beyond the demonstration and trial stages. Any necessary amendments to currently applied procedures were considered. Primary Objectives of ENGAGE II The objectives of ENGAGE II were: 1. To evaluate the readiness and ability to include the airspace in addition to Gander and Shanwick OCAs for the trials in order to further optimize oceanic trajectories in the NAT; 2. To extend the trials beyond the 37 flights attempted (23 successfully completed) in 2011, to the range in single and multiple flight scenarios; 3. To apply a Safety Management System (SMS) approach to identifying, mitigating, measuring and reporting on safety concerns; 4. To gather additional data from these extended trials to quantifiably demonstrate the safety of the ENGAGE procedures; 5. To map the process for acceleration of sustainable implementation of ENGAGE, including determination and commencement of the ICAO changes that will be required; and 6. To communicate and raise awareness of the SJU and the environmental benefits of ENGAGE s variable Mach, variable flight level operations in NAT airspace. 6 of 64

7 1.2 Intended readership This ENGAGE PROJECT II Safety Analysis Demonstration Report is directed to; but not limited to: The Consortium members participating in the project and the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) as it describes the outcomes and the results of the exercises initially described in the demonstration plan. ANSPs and operators involved in the trials who are not members of the Consortium, but who participated in the project by using the ENGAGE procedures and reporting thereon. The report outlines the results of the trials they completed and provides an outlook on the future of ENGAGE profile use. The SESAR OFA leaders and additional parties involved in demonstration and validation activities for SESAR as it demonstrates how concepts developed and validated in the SESAR program were demonstrated in an operational context and how the associated demonstration results feed back into those programs. Other NAT Operators and ANSPs interested in the history of ENGAGE and how it lead to safe, sustainable and efficient operational changes supporting user flexibility and the environmental benefits thereof. 1.3 Structure of the document Section 1 introduces the document. Section 2 provides the context and scope of the demonstrations with reference to the overall SESAR program and the current problem that is being addressed. Section 3 provides an overview of the project management aspects of ENGAGE; including the work breakdown structure, deliverables and risk management. Section 4 outlines the execution of each of the demonstration activities including exercise preparation, execution and any deviations that occurred from the demonstration planned approach. Section 5 contains a summary of the three demonstration exercises completed compared with the success criteria established in the demonstration plan. Section 6 summarizes the communication activities that were completed throughout the project period. Section 7 outlines conclusions, next steps and recommendations. Section 8 and the Appendices support the previous seven sections with reference material and exhibits. 1.4 Glossary of terms Variable Flight Level In oceanic airspace, due to the exclusive use of procedural control and procedural vertical separation standards, flights are usually provided an ATC clearance at a single flight level before they enter the airspace. Once they have entered oceanic airspace, flights must remain at this flight level until they request and obtain ATC clearance to climb or descend to another level. As a flight transits the ocean, fuel is consumed and the weight of the aircraft decreases, often resulting in the most efficient flight level becoming higher, assuming zero wind. The variable flight level concept allowed ENGAGE-cleared flights to change flight level on a continuous basis within a specified 2000 foot block flight level while on the NAT, without requiring to obtain an ATC re-clearance on each occasion. 7 of 64

8 Variable Mach In oceanic airspace, due to the exclusive use of procedural control and procedural longitudinal separation standards based on time, flights are given an ATC clearance at a single Mach number before they enter the airspace. Once they have entered oceanic airspace, flights must follow this fixed Mach number until they obtain ATC clearance to change to another fixed Mach number. The ENGAGE variable Mach concept allowed flights to vary their Mach number, within a pre-set block of 0.02 Mach as deemed economically efficient, without requiring an ATC re-clearance on each occasion. 1.5 Acronyms and Terminology Term Definition ACC Area Control Centre ADS-B Automatic Dependant Surveillance Broadcast ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider ATC Air Traffic Control ATM Air Traffic Management CO 2 e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent ENGAGE Europe North America Go ADS-B for a Greener Environment FMC / (FMS) Flight Management Computer (System) GAATS Gander Automated Air Traffic Control System GOFLI Gander Oceanic Flight Level Initiative NAT North Atlantic, or North Atlantic Oceanic Airspace NAT-SPG North Atlantic - Systems Planning Group (ICAO) OCA Oceanic Control Area OEP Ocean Entry/Exit Point OFA Operational Focus Area OTS Organized Track System QA Quality Assurance RLongSM Reduced Longitudinal Separation Minima SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research Program SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission) SMS Safety Management System WP Work Package Table 1: Acronyms and Terminology 8 of 64

9 2 Context of the Demonstrations ENGAGE addressed the issue of inefficiency in the NAT caused by the current procedural separation standards required to overcome the lack of ATC surveillance such as ADS-B and radar. The goal of the project was to prove both the safety and sustainability of variable flight level and Mach numbers over the NAT in order to safely reduce fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions. ENGAGE II was aimed at increasing both the number of ANSPs and air carriers involved in the ENGAGE trials in order to greatly increase the number of successful trials. 2.1 Scope of the demonstration and complementarity with the SESAR Programme The ENGAGE Project II consisted of three separate exercises to demonstrate the environmental benefits of safe activities with new procedures relevant to the Oceanic portion of transatlantic flights in unsurveilled airspace and procedural separation standards. They are outlined on the following three tables. Demonstration Exercise ID and Title Leading organization Demonstration exercise objectives OFA addressed Applicable Operational Context Demonstration Technique EXE D-1 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For single flight, single track operation Participating NAT ANSPs and Operators under the coordination of NAV CANADA. The high level objectives of this demonstration were to: Introduce new ANSPs and operators to the ENGAGE procedures. Collect safety data and assess the safety of using the ENGAGE procedures. Assess the economic benefits of using the ENGAGE procedures Assess the sustainability of using the ENGAGE procedures ATSA-ITP In trail Procedure in Oceanic Airspace Crews will be enabled to follow a more fuel efficient profile, reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For single flight, single track operation: NAV CANADA will co-ordinate an advance trial schedule. Operators will file an ENGAGE flight plan and same to ANSPs involved. ANSP coordination shall take place as follows: o ANSP responsible for oceanic entry to first receiving ANSP. o First receiving ANSP to subsequent ANSP. o All ANSPs shall be required to approve the ENGAGE profile prior to trial commencing. Operators shall advise the ANSP responsible for oceanic entry of the time estimate for Oceanic Entry Point (OEP). ANSP shall determine whether trial can take place given traffic and other operating conditions. ANSPs shall ensure the block altitude and speed protected for flights entering AND exiting oceanic airspace as aircraft will follow most optimum Flight Level as determined through onboard FMC. ANSPs shall inform the Project Lead in the event of an ENGAGE trial flight cancellation. Number of trials Table 2: EXE D-1 Single Flight, Single Track At least 31 single flight, single track trials were completed. 9 of 64

10 Demonstration Exercise ID and Title Leading organization Demonstration exercise objectives OFA addressed Applicable Operational Context Demonstration Technique EXE D-2 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For multiple flights on multiple tracks. Participating NAT ANSPs and Operators under the coordination of NAV CANADA. The high level objectives of this demonstration are: In addition to EXE D-1, expand and explore the operational feasibility and impact of increased application of the ENGAGE procedures for multiple flights on multiple tracks ATSA-ITP In-trail Procedure in Oceanic Airspace Crews will be enabled to follow a more fuel efficient profile, reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For multiple flight, on multiple track operation: NAV CANADA will co-ordinate an advance trial schedule with Operators. Operators will file an ENGAGE flight plan and same to ANSPs involved. ANSP coordination shall take place as follows: o ANSP responsible for oceanic entry to first receiving ANSP. o First receiving ANSP to subsequent ANSP. o All ANSPs shall be required to approve the ENGAGE profile prior to trial commencing. Operators shall advise the ANSP responsible for oceanic entry of the time estimate for Oceanic Entry Point (OEP). ANSP shall determine whether trial can take place given traffic conditions. ANSPs shall ensure the block altitude and speed protected for flights entering AND exiting oceanic airspace as aircraft will follow most optimum Flight Level as determined through onboard FMC. ANSPs shall inform the Project Lead in the event of an ENGAGE trial flight cancellation. Number of trials At least 30 multiple flights, on multiple track trials were completed. Table 3: EXE D-2 Multiple Flights, Multiple Tracks 10 of 64

11 Demonstration Exercise ID and Title Leading organization Demonstration exercise objectives OFA addressed Applicable Operational Context Demonstration Technique EXE D-3 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For multiple flights on a single track. Participating NAT ANSPs and Operators under the coordination of NAV CANADA. The high level objectives of this demonstration are: In addition to EXE D-1, expand and explore the operational feasibility and impact of increased application of the ENGAGE procedures for multiple flights on a single track ATSA-ITP In-trail Procedure in Oceanic Airspace Crews will be enabled to follow a more fuel efficient profile, reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For multiple flight, on a single track operation: NAV CANADA will co-ordinate an advance trial schedule with Operators. Operators will file an ENGAGE flight plan and same to ANSPs involved. ANSP coordination shall take place as follows: o ANSP responsible for oceanic entry to first receiving ANSP. o First receiving ANSP to subsequent ANSP. o All ANSPs shall be required to approve the ENGAGE profile prior to trial commencing. Operators shall advise the ANSP responsible for oceanic entry of the time estimate for Oceanic Entry Point (OEP). ANSP shall determine whether trial can take place given traffic. ANSPs shall ensure the block altitude and speed protected for flights entering AND exiting oceanic airspace as aircraft will follow most optimum Flight Level as determined through onboard FMC. ANSPs shall inform the Project Lead in the event of an ENGAGE trial flight cancellation. Number of trials Table 4: EXE D-3 Multiple Flights, Single Track At least 12 multiple flights, on single track trials were completed. The SJU, AIRE and the ENGAGE Corridor Project ENGAGE II was a significant step towards permanent implementation of revised procedures which will safely reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve operational operator flexibility and efficiency over the North Atlantic. ENGAGE II is linked to SESAR Work Package 4 Enroute Operations, which aims to provide the operational concept description for En-route Operations, including its validation. 11 of 64

12 3 Program management 3.1 Organisation The project is entitled ENGAGE PROJECT II Safety Analysis. ENGAGE II was completed by the Consortium and managed by NAV CANADA as described below Consortium Structure The Consortium was structured as a Project Partnership consisting of: One ANSP (NAV CANADA) and One partner airline (Air France). NAV CANADA acted as the Project Lead and Co-ordinator for ENGAGE II which was managed by the NAV CANADA Operations Group. The partners are involved in the daily planning and execution of the more than 375,000 annual flights in NAT airspace. They operate in an environment with the latest generation of transport aircraft and the most advanced oceanic traffic management and control systems in the world. The members collectively bring the essential expertise and capability to successfully accomplish the objectives of ENGAGE II. The ENGAGE Consortium is forward looking to completing sustainable implementation of variable Mach and variable flight level operations on the NAT, coupled with advanced technologies and safe procedures to improve operational, environmental and economic efficiency. The partners successfully collaborated in on the ENGAGE Corridor (ENGAGE I) Project for SJU/AIRE under contract SJU/LC/0127-CTR. During this earlier project s term, the partners and participating carriers shared best practices to meet all project requirements. In addition, each partner has managed and/or participated in other AIRE/SJU contracts with demonstrated success. The consortium subcontracted certain components of the work to NATS. These services were supplied on a fixed contract basis, at a pre-negotiated price, and NATS accepted to perform such subcontracted services as though they were a full Consortium member Project Lead Larry Lachance, Vice President, Operations, NAV CANADA, direct the work of the consortium in the role of Project Lead. The Project Lead provided monitoring and control processes and tools throughout the project term. The continuous monitoring provided insights into the health of the project and helped to identify areas that required special attention. The control included determining corrective and preventive actions and following up to ensure action plans resolved the issue. Using the project Demonstration Plan as a guideline, the Project Lead assessed performance reports to determine if changes were required, ensuring that project performance matched expectations. Project documents were updated following any change Project Contributors In addition to the Consortium members, other commercial air carriers and ANSPs were invited to contribute to the project by supplying operational support as well as safety and efficiency data to the Consortium members. These additional participants were determined in early stages of the project to allow them to properly brief their operational staff on the ENGAGE flight trial procedures. 12 of 64

13 The Consortium would like to express specific thanks to KLM, ISAVIA and NAV Portugal for their participation and valuable contributions to the success of ENGAGE II Quality Manager The Project Lead, NAV CANADA, coordinated quality assurance over the project. NAV CANADA employees outside of the established project management team conducted quality assurance reviews to verify that the project activities complied with organizational and project policies, processes and procedures as well as that the quality requirements of the deliverables were fulfilled. The quality review was used to identify best practices being used and all gaps/shortcomings. Lessons learned were developed and documented where needed. These quality reviews also confirmed the implementation of approved change requests including corrective and preventive actions. A Quality Assurance Plan was included within the Project Management Plan to set out the specific quality practices and resources required to ensure that the project meets SJU requirements within agreed cost and timescale constraints. The Quality Assurance Plan identified how the generic process requirements in the NAV CANADA Management Systems were adopted for the projected including all permissible Standard Process tailoring required to support the specific needs of the project. The Objectives of the Quality Assurance Plan defined the arrangements that: Ensured that the processes and practices applied on the project are planned and documented and are compliant to the applicable requirements of the NAV CANADA Management System; Provided assurance that the implemented processes complied with the documented project plans and procedures; Verified that program and project deliverables have been subject to the planned evaluations, testing, corrective action and release processes that confirm they are fit for purpose; Verified that transition (entry and exit) criteria between project phases are satisfied; and Ensured lessons are learned whilst applying project processes and that improvement opportunities are disseminated as appropriate. The Project Lead was responsible for meeting the project requirements to the required quality and within agreed costs and timescales. As such, he has overall responsibility for quality on the project. The Project Lead ensured that: The product or document is fit for purpose; The product or document complies with agreed quality requirements and standards; All the issues or comments are addressed; and That product or document responses resulting from the review are reported back to responding reviewers Other Stakeholder Involvement Execution of the ENGAGE II flight trials was dependent on several factors which are the domain of non-consortium stakeholders. These factors are well known and understood by the Project Team and are standard safety procedures on the NAT. The foremost dependency is always the adherence to ICAO requirements relating to safety the NAT airspace. All ICAO Regional Supplementary Procedures (Doc 7030) were followed during the ENGAGE II trials. 13 of 64

14 Before proceeding with the ENGAGE I and II trials, risk management principles were applied to enable the operational flights trials to be completed safely. Any changes were coordinated with and agreed to by all Consortium members and participants. NAV CANADA and NATS actively participate in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) North Atlantic System Planning Groups (NAT SPG) which includes participation in the NAT Safety Oversight Group (NAT SOG), the NAT Implementation Management Group (NAT IMG) and their respective subgroups. Therefore, the current knowledge of change management processes in the NAT was considered to be appropriate to facilitate the approval process of such permanent application of the ENGAGE procedures. Project stakeholders and their interests are identified in the following table: Stakeholder External / Internal Involvement Why it matters to stakeholders Performance expectations Project Team Members (NAV CANADA, Air France) Subcontract NATS Internal Project Team Provides means to influence transition of concepts to ensure environmental and economic benefits and safe application of sustainable ATM. Successful demonstration of safe and sustainable procedures based on SESAR concept elements that provide environmental and economic benefits. Airlines / Airspace Users Internal / External Potential involvement in trials Provides safety, operational, environmental and financial feedback. Supply data on safety, operational, environmental and financial benefits. Minimise operational and coordination / workload implications. ANSPs Internal / External ANSP coordination of flight trials from NAT OEP to OXP Potential operational and coordination / workload implications. Customer safety, operational, environmental and financial feedback. Minimize operational and coordination / workload implications. SESAR Joint Undertaking External Customer, Sponsor Further SESAR validation activities by increasing the exposure of SESAR concept elements to the real life operations and to multistakeholder environments. Demonstration that the implementation of SESAR concepts reduces the environmental impact of aviation while maintaining operational capacity and efficiency. Accelerating the operational acceptance and the subsequent implementation of the SESAR solutions. Demonstrating the economic and environmental benefits of the SESAR concept elements safely in a multi-aircraft/flight environment to the wider aviation community. 14 of 64

15 Stakeholder External / Internal Involvement Why it matters to stakeholder Performance expectations ICAO North Atlantic Groups (NAT SPG) External Review of procedures to be used in Oceanic portion of demonstration flights. Dissemination of results. Table 5: ENGAGE PROJECT II Stakeholders NAT SPG has regulatory oversight of NAT airspace. Validation that the ENGAGE II initiative will satisfy any safety regulatory requirements relevant to the permanent adoption. 3.2 Work Breakdown Structure ENGAGE Project II Safety Analysis was executed over an approximate 24 month period starting in August This encompasses all tasks from initial planning to final report generation. The work required to complete Project II, and thus achieve the SJU s objectives, has been broken into five major work packages. These are identified below: ID Work Package Activity Consortium Member Lead or Contributor NAV CANADA AIR FRANCE WP 0 Project and Communication Planning and Meetings L C WP 1 Expand the Numbers of ANSPs and Operators L C WP 2 Develop, Conduct and Assess Single and Multi-Flight Scenarios L C WP 3 Safety and Future Implementation Assessments L C WP 4 Final Meetings and Safety Analysis Reports L C Table 6: ENGAGE PROJECT II Work Breakdown Structure 15 of 64

16 ENGAGE Project Phase I: ENGAGE Corridor Phase II: ENGAGE Safety Analysis Project for SJU/AIRE WP 0 Project and Communication Planning and Meetings Lead: NAV CANADA WP 1 New Carrier & ANSP Participant Operational Flight Trials Lead: NAV CANADA WP 2 Develop, Conduct and Analyze Multi- Flight Scenarios Lead: NAV CANADA WP 3 Safety and Future Implementation Assessments Lead: NAV CANADA Completed WP 4 Final Meetings and Reports Lead: NAV CANADA Figure 1: ENGAGE Project Work Breakdown Structure The purpose of this project was to provide the roadmap for implementation of the ENGAGE procedures, allowing variable Mach and/or variable flight level, over the NAT. The goal of the Project was to provide conclusive data to support rigorous analysis to permit accelerated sustainable implementation of the concept, as well as to corroborate earlier positive findings with respect to operating, environmental and economic efficiencies. 16 of 64

17 The high level Demonstration Plan for ENGAGEII included the following tasks: Review the ENGAGE I project to determine changes required to procedures (if any); Meet with past and prospective additional ANSPs and carriers to expand the trial participants; Design safety measurement, analysis and reporting parameters; Conduct demonstration flight trial(s) using new ANSPs as required; Conduct demonstration flight trial(s) using new carriers as required; Evaluate initial instances of each new ANSP and carrier to determine revised procedures (if any) and effects on system safety; Identify specific ENGAGE II trial flights; Conduct Project II operational flight trials in the time period; Report on system safety metrics during the trial period; Analyze and validate economic, environmental and operational benefits collected by the operator from each flight trial; and Report on regulatory requirements, if any, to enable ENGAGE on an ongoing basis. 3.3 Deliverables Formal Deliverables The two formal deliverables of the ENGAGE PROJECT II Safety Analysis are the Deliverable A.1 Demonstration Plan and this Demonstration Report - Deliverable B.1. Deliverable Name Demonstration Plan (A.1) Demonstration Report (B.1) Table 7: Formal Deliverables Date 2012/11/23 (formal approval including modifications requested by SJU) 2014/06/27 (first draft) 2014/08/15 (FINAL) 17 of 64

18 Other Deliverables and Key Project Milestones The partners worked together in Project II to reach milestones, other than those described elsewhere, which are summarized in the following table. A detailed description of the Work Package activities undertaken is filed in the revised ENGAGE Project II Demonstration Plan dated 22 November Deliverable / Milestone Name Status Date (modified date below) After careful consultation, finalize the airspace to be effective and ANSP stakeholders for ENGAGE PROJECT II Review and design revised procedures (if required) for operating the trials Complete 2012/09/20 Revised 2012/09/27 Select the initial operators to be included in ENGAGE PROJECT II (Additional operators may be added subsequent to this milestone date) Complete KLM added 2012/09/ /03/08 Initiate and design the appropriate SMS activities, techniques, data elements, communication strategies, measurement and reporting systems, and escalation procedures Communicate ENGAGE PROJECT II trial benefits via first targeted news release Complete 2012/10/01 Complete 2012/10/08 Initiate ENGAGE PROJECT II trials Complete 2012/10/08 Complete ENGAGE PROJECT II trials Complete 2013/05/28 Communicate ENGAGE PROJECT II trial benefits via second targeted news release Collect, analyse and report on all identified economic, environmental, operational and safety elements of Project II trials Planned 2013/08/22 Post NAT SPG/50 meeting Complete 2013/09/01 Project review meeting with SJU Planned 2014/07/22 Determine with the required ICAO NAT sub-groups, the safety elements to be considered Table 8: Other Deliverables and Key Project Milestones Project Work Complete Implement 2014/07/31 Post NAT SPG/50 meeting 18 of 64

19 3.4 Risk Management The project risks, mitigations and observations are summarized in the table below. Refer also to Procedures in Appendix A. Risk Description Mitigations High traffic volume may lead to congested airspace. Insufficient advance notice from Operator desiring an ENGAGE flight. Insufficient lead time for ANSPs to plan ENGAGE flight. Pilots may receive Oceanic Clearance via Datalink as well as VHF in Gander/ Shanwick ENGAGE flight may occur outside of Gander s Clearance Delivery hours. RLongSM not able to be applied for variable Mach values resulting in multiple moving separations The ENGAGE flight trials will take place in oceanic airspace with over 1,000 flights per day on average, traversing the North Atlantic ocean for several hours, much of it without surveillance. Special ANSP coordination and communication procedures developed collaboratively, including trial cancellation procedure. Impact/ Probabil ity Observation: as with ENGAGE Project I, congested airspace was the most frequently observed limitation for successful trials. In both Projects, a % trial to request execution rate was observed. The ENGAGE flight trials are handled outside of normal operating procedures and include new manual steps for dispatchers to flight plan and for ANSPs to accept. Special ANSP coordination and communication procedures developed collaboratively. Observation: on rare occasion, clearance requests were made by unfamiliar crews without the required flight plan in place. These were accommodated by ANSPs on a best efforts basis. Once a flight plan is received by the ANSP, additional pre-planning and coordination are required. Flights will be pre-planned and entered into a calendar in advance. Observations: rare, as above Normal operating procedures for Procedures include specific oceanic flights may include an oceanic pilot instruction to disregard clearance exchanged via datalink in datalink clearance in L/L addition to the required ENGAGE VHF Gander/Shanwick. VHF oceanic clearance in required. Gander/Shanwick. Observations: while this was well understood, certain crews / operators would not participate in ENGAGE trials on account of the less familiar voice-only clearance required. Datalink clearances as they are formatted today, cannot accommodate a Mach block, thus cannot be used for ENGAGE. Certain crews also noted significant voice communication delays and quality issues as hindrances to participation. The Gander ACC does not issue oceanic clearance deliveries 24 hours / day. Observations: none. Trials are ongoing for both RLongSM (using fixed Mach only in Gander and Shanwick OCAs) and ENGAGE allowing a variable Mach range) in 4 NAT OCAs. ENGAGE requires two flight profiles to be built into some traffic management systems to protect separation. Observations: none. Hours for ENGAGE trials are established during which clearance delivery is available. See APPENDIX A. ENGAGE and RLongSM are separate trials and an aircraft will not be permitted to participate in both trials. L/L L/L L/L L/L L/L 19 of 64

20 Risk Description Mitigations Pilot or Controller confusion if partial requested profile available. Aircraft position reports with multiple levels or Mach may create confusion and additional controller workload. Table 9: Risks Instances could arise during a prospective ENGAGE trial flight where it might appear that variable Mach could be applied without variable altitude or vice versa. During ENGAGE II trials, partial ENGAGE profiles (Mach and / or altitude) will be permitted. Impact/ Probabil ity Observations: there were two observations of partial ENGAGE profiles granted where unfamiliar crews did report confusion, especially when compounded by unfamiliar and poor transmission quality voice clearances. Aircraft position reports with multiple levels or Mach may create confusion and additional controller workload. Observations: none. Awareness and knowledge of the ENGAGE flight trials within all operational units involved will be maintained to avoid confusion. L/L L/L With regard to all of the foregoing risks, it is to be noted that the use of flight blocks is regularly employed by ANSPs. The means for automated coordination of flight blocks is provided in NAT Doc 002, The North Atlantic Common Coordination Interface Control Document. Furthermore, while The North Atlantic Regional Supplementary Procedures (ICAO Doc 7030) specify that a Mach must be assigned to a NAT oceanic clearance, it does not specify that the Mach cannot be a Mach range. Thus ENGAGE II can be seen as the combined application of less frequently used but existing procedures. However, clearance for and use of variable Mach ranges are complex to execute in some air traffic management systems, so it is very rarely used. The focus of ENGAGE II was on collecting safety-related information to enable transition to variable Mach and flight level implementation over the North Atlantic. The Consortium undertook the required SMS approach to examining, measuring and reporting on safety during the project. Safety Cases were performed by both parties to the Consortium. A SMS is comprised of systematic and comprehensive processes and procedures for managing risk to assure that safety management is proactive, effective, efficient and integrated across groups and functions. A SMS begins with: A philosophy that accidents are organizationally based it must encompass not only technical and operational systems but also financial and human resource; A safety goal to reduce risks to a level as low as reasonably practicably (ALARP); A recognition that safety is afforded the highest priority over commercial, operational, environmental or social pressures; An understanding that everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the achievement of the safety goal; and A commitment to the proactive, systematic, consistent and co-ordinated management of safety risks related to projects and programs, as well as service and product delivery. 20 of 64

21 4 Execution of Demonstration Exercises The discussion of demonstration exercises herein is limited to those for ENGAGE II directly. Procedures derived from the ENGAGE I trials were also used as the basis of procedures for TOPFLIGHT Project The results for these 100 trials are not considered in this Demonstration Report. 4.1 Exercises Preparation ENGAGE II was a follow-on project to ENGAGE I, undertaken in ENGAGE II used procedures similar to those used in ENGAGE I. Preparations to secure additional airspace took place prior to the trial period starting. These discussions resulted in the additions of Reykjavik and Santa Maria OCAs to the Gander and Shanwick OCAs that were eligible in ENGAGE I. These additional airspaces made a greater number of flight options available to the participating operators, especially in the earlier time frames during which ENGAGE II trials were allowed. The NAV CANADA procedures which were augmented to include Reykjavik and Santa Maria references are attached in Appendix A. Each ANSP and operator was responsible for the training of their own staff based on materials made available to them by the Consortium team. Data collection and analysis followed a similar methodology and process as for ENGAGE I with respect to fuel consumption. This data collection was expanded to include 15 different safety related observations to be collected from the cockpit and from the ANSPs that handled each flight. A sample of the Data Collection Template is attached in Appendix B. 4.2 Exercises Execution The Demonstration Schedule for each of the three Exercises and the data analysis is shown below. Exercise ID and Title Exercise Start Period Exercise End Period Exercise Analysis Period EXE D-1 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach - For single flight, single track operation EXE D-2 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For multiple flights on multiple tracks EXE D-3 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For multiple flights on a single track First trial: First trial: First trial: Table 10: Exercise Execution/Analysis Dates The 3 Exercises were conducted concurrently, thus the opportunities to execute any of the exercises all concluded with 4 trials on the final trial date, Data analysis was conducted concurrently for the 3 Exercises. Complete data was received by the Project Team in late November of 64

22 4.3 Deviations from the planned activities In terms of execution of the trials, two modifications were made to the parameters set for the demonstration trials. Flight Level Block Definition Whereas for ENGAGE I, flight level blocks equal to 0, 1000, & 2000 feet were permitted, the 1000 foot flight block option was eliminated for ENGAGE Project II, in December The combinations of allowable ENGAGE II flight level blocks and Mach speed ranges are illustrated below and are reflected in Appendix A. Table 11: Allowable ENGAGE Profiles Time Windows for Trials Over the course of the trial period as participants became more accustomed to the procedures, the allowable time frame for trials was expanded twice. The first allowed for two additional hours of open window. The second enhancement allowed trials during this wider window as well as allowing ANSPs to accommodate ANY flight at any time as an ENGAGE trial on a best efforts basis. These slight deviations from the Demonstration Plan had no material impact on the success of the outcome of ENGAGE Project II. All Demonstration Exercises were completed in the planned timeframe. 22 of 64

23 5 Exercises Results 5.1 Summary of Exercises Results The ENGAGE II Demonstration Plan included three Demonstration Exercises as outlined in Section 4.2. While the three exercises were differentiated by the number of flight trials per day and per track, the actual operational planning and execution of each trial was not materially different from exercise to exercise. For example, there was never a plan to perform certain exercises only on specific days or time frames. Each trial was evaluated for approval independently, depending on the circumstances, traffic, congestion, weather and workload at the time. Depending on the numbers and locations of other ENGAGE trials at the time, any given approved trial could fall into any of the three Demonstration Exercise categories. As such, and on account that each trial would be evaluated independently, the results derived from ENGAGE II are not segregated by Demonstration Exercise. This would provide no incremental value to the readers nor to other stakeholders in the ENGAGE Project. The total number of trials initiated was 210 in the period from October 2013 May The chart below shows the reconciliation of those 210 trial starts (with percentage) to the Full Individual, Consolidated, or Partial data that was received from the operators of the trials. At least partial data was received from 201 of the trials, representing 96%. Chart 1. Trial Data Reconciliation with Number of Trials and Percentage of Total 23 of 64

24 The table below identifies the three Trial Demonstration Exercises, their Success Criterion and Results. Exercise ID and Title Demonstration Objective ID Success Criterion Exercise Results Objective Status EXE D-1 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach - For single flight, single track operation Were at least 1 Added Reykjavik and Santa Maria ANSP and 1 OCAs as participants. FAA Introduce new ANSPs and operators operator added to declined. OK to the ENGAGE procedures those from Added KLM and Air Transat as ENGAGE I? operators. Others did consider. Collect safety data and assess the safety of using the ENGAGE Procedures Was data collected? Full or partial data was collected from 201 trial flights. 31 complete data sets for EXE D-1 Assess the economic benefits of Was data using the ENGAGE Procedures analyzed? Data was analyzed OK Assess the sustainability of using the Was sustainability ENGAGE Procedures assessed? Sustainability was assessed OK EXE D-2 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For multiple flights on multiple tracks In addition to EXE D-1, expand and explore the operational feasibility and impact of increased application of the ENGAGE procedures for multiple flights on multiple tracks Were multiple ENGAGE flights conducted on multiple tracks on the same day? Full or partial data was collected from 201 trial flights. 30 complete data sets for EXE D-2 OK EXE D-3 : Live Trials Using Variable Altitude and/or Variable Mach For multiple flights on a single track In addition to EXE D-2, expand and explore the operational feasibility and impact of increased application of the ENGAGE procedures for multiple flights on a single track Were multiple ENGAGE flights conducted on the same track on the same day? Full or partial data was collected from 201 trial flights. 12 complete data sets for EXE D-3 OK Table 12: Summary of Demonstration Exercises Results OK 24 of 64

25 5.2 Choice of metrics and indicators One metric was considered for fuel consumption reduction which was amount of fuel. Operators were permitted to report their fuel savings related to ENGAGE in pounds, kilograms or litres. All fuel data was converted to litres. All carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions were translated from fuel volumes, based on industry standards. KPA Success Criterion / Expected Benefit Result of the demonstration Oceanic Fuel ENGAGE I reported fuel Efficiency and savings of 1.9% from the Related 23 successful trials Environmental performed Benefits Table 13: Summary of Metrics and Indicators 1.5 % fuel savings from individual trial data from 3 operators. Equates to 355 kg of fuel (400 litres) per flight. CO 2e emissions reduced by over 1,000 kg per flight Estimated 1% fuel savings from consolidated summary data provided by one additional operator (vertical benefit only, no variable speed benefit) ENGAGE I benefitted from having very few data sets to analyze. Each could be afforded a significant amount of attention and diligence as demonstrated by the operators of ENGAGE I trials in reviewing and modifying their outlier data. In some case in ENGAGE I, operators recalibrated base case flight plans multiple times to reflect more accurate weather, aircraft take-off weight, track and other operating parameters actually experienced. This recasting of the flight plan provided undoubtedly more accurate results. With almost 10 times the number of trials in ENGAGE II as ENGAGE I, this rigour around the data provision was not evident. Nor was the analysis performed by the Project Team, especially when considering differences in fleet mix, weather, city pairs and oceanic flight duration. Data from ENGAGE II was tested in more of a global manner, where it was compiled and compared to the Eurocontrol Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) estimates by aircraft type and flight level. 5.3 Summary of Assumptions There are two primary assumptions for readers to be aware of. Both assumptions consider data collection, which in any large scale Demonstration Trial always presents issues. The case of ENGAGE was no different. While a great deal of data was collected from the 210 trials, just under one-third (59) of the data was forwarded to the Project Team in an incomplete state. Furthermore, some data (9) became irrelevant as the flight progressed as a result of commercial decisions and terminated trials. In the end, data from 142 trials was directly usable for analysis purposes. The two major assumptions concern operator data estimates. Title 1. Trial Flight Data Consolidation 2. Aircraft Data Confidence Type of Assumption Description Summarized consolidated data was provided by one operator instead of detailed (per trial) flight data Average data for 69 flight trials was reported, rather than individual results One operator indicated that certain aircraft fuel reporting systems do not provide data at the level of granularity preferred by the ENGAGE Project Team Data analysis was performed on certain aircraft types. The ENGAGE fuel burn reduction percentages for those types were extrapolated to the other aircraft types in that operator s fleet and then tested against BADA for reasonableness. 25 of 64

26 Justification Commercial reasons Equipment fidelity Flight Phase Enroute, oceanic Enroute, oceanic KPA Impacted No capacity to deal individually with fuel consumption outliers. No opportunity to question data points individually Applying the same logic and outcomes from one fleet to the other provide a more consistent and believable result according to the operator of the aircraft types in question Owner Project Team Project Team Impact on Assessment Minimal as data analyses can be described to either include or exclude this summary data Data was tested against the BADA dataset for confidence as well as against the results of ENGAGE I. Table 14: Summary of Assumptions Description of Assessment Methodology Operators were asked to supply several elements of data which would allow the Project Team to calculate and validate the fuel savings reported for each ENGAGE trial. These data elements are described in detail on the datasheet attached in APPENDIX B. Typically, it was anticipated that the normal planned oceanic fuel burn would be greater than the ENGAGE trial fuel burn. The resulting difference in fuel burns was normally attributed to the use of the ENGAGE procedures as they allowed greater flexibility for an operator to use preferred routes predicted by the FMC, using real time information. Having this data for each and every trial flight would allow for detailed analysis and contrasting of various elements including: Benefits derived from eastbound versus westbound application, including city pairs Benefits derived from different aircraft types Benefits derived from climbs initiated at different longitudinal positions, flight levels or speeds In Assumption 1 above, where flight data was consolidated, these analyses were not possible. One operator indicated that certain aircraft type raw data collected should not be used as provided due to a lack of sufficient equipment fidelity to enable accurate enough data for analysis. An alternate assessment methodology was agreed upon and was performed, using the following steps: 1. Calculate the raw operator results for all aircraft types 2. Complete the full analysis on the reliable aircraft types trial flight data by type 3. Reference the BADA Tables to validate the observed fuel consumption percentage reductions by reliable aircraft type 4. Apply the relevant savings measures observed from the reliable aircraft types to the other aircraft types in the same ratios when referenced to the BADA dataset. In the following fictitious illustration, the average aircraft in the reliable fleet showed a 1.4% reduction in fuel consumption and the unreliable fleet produced reductions of 1.0%. The reliable rate of savings of 1.4% compared to the 2.5% that BADA would have predicted, showing achieved savings of 56%. (It is surmised that the BADA prediction was higher due to differences in operating conditions from simulation to real world as well as operator procedures.) BADA provided an expected 3.5% fuel benefits from climbing for the unreliable fleet. Applying the 56% of the BADA rate achieved by the reliable fleet to the 3.5% predicted savings from BADA yields a revised rate of reduction for the unreliable fleet of 2.0%. The 2.0% replaces the unreliable rate to calculate an assumed fuel burn reduction of 588 kg per flight. 26 of 64

27 RAW DATA Reliable Fleet Unreliable Fleet Types 1,2 & 3 Types 4 & 5 Total Fleet # Trials Savings observed by operator % Fuel Saved vs 30,000 kg plan 1.4% 1.0% 1.3% BADA BADA predicted fuel reduction for a climb for each fleet mix Observed reduction as a % of BADA predicted 2.5% 3.5% 56% 29% Calibrate Predicted by BADA 3.5% Apply observed to predicted ratio from Reliable fleet 56% Revised Fuel Savings 1.4% 2.0% 1.6% Savings observed by operator Table 15: Example of Alternate Assessment Methodology 5.4 Analysis of Exercises Results Extensive analysis and calibration was performed on the operator data. While the validation of the ENGAGE I results was an objective of this project, it was not the key focus. Rather, furthering the transition to implementation is the key focus of this project. Analysis of the ENGAGE II data shows that the average fuel consumption reduction was estimated to be litres which reduced greenhouse gas emissions by up to 1000 kilograms per trial flight. This equates to 1-2% of the fuel that would normally have been required to traverse the oceanic airspace over the North Atlantic. Several conditions likely at play in assessing the reasons for the differences from ENGAGE I and ENGAGE II are listed below: Use of consolidated data rather than individual flight data. This consolidated data considered only variable flight level, and excluded some variable speed opportunities. The consolidated data also represented only one aircraft type. Overall fleet mix and flight planning could have changed from less efficient to more efficient. Other oceanic initiatives undertaken since the trials performed in ENGAGE Project I have likely reduced the base case fuel burns planned for the NAT. Different operators participating in ENGAGE II than in ENGAGE I may have business drivers other than fuel efficiency affecting their operating decisions. Some carriers reported averages of over 500 litres savings per trial flight in ENGAGE II. There was a different proportion of trial flights flying westbound in ENGAGE II (85%) compared to ENGAGE I (100%). Flying eastbound through oceanic airspace may require only 75% of the fuel as flying westbound under certain conditions. Other initiatives which have become more broadly available in the NAT may have slightly reduced the benefits available to ENGAGE participants. In Gander and Shanwick OCAs, reduced longitudinal separation minima (RLongSM) are becoming more prevalent. This separation allows appropriately equipped aircraft pairs to operate with a reduced spacing 27 of 64

28 enabling more frequent climbs to efficient flight levels. In Gander, the Gander Oceanic Flight Level Initiative (GOFLI) system proactively probes oceanic flights and their profiles to determine if a climb is available to an aircraft. In terms of safety performance analysis, there were no reportable events linked to ENGAGE II in any way measured. From the operator datasheets returned to the Project Team, none indicated issues other than normal coordination, poor radio communication quality, lack of familiarity with the procedures. These findings were corroborated by testing the Central Monitoring Agency NAT Oceanic Safety database and finding no mention of ENGAGE. 5.5 Confidence in Results of Demonstration Exercises Quality and Significance of Demonstration Exercises Results Measurement of very small reductions (1-2% anticipated) in fuel burn for very large aircraft which consume significant amounts of fuel each minute is difficult under the best conditions. Add weather and aircraft weight fluctuations, schedule demands and fuel measuring equipment that is calibrated in tonnes and no guarantees can be made about precise data quality measured in kilograms over portions of a 6-7 hour transatlantic flight. Each base case fuel loading estimate is made hours before a flight and missing an airborne fuel reading by one minute can change a result by 100 kilograms. Compared to the litres of fuel savings expected in ENGAGE, there is indeed room for inaccurate interpretation or findings that may be 50% different from anticipated However, the Project Team was fortunate to have the solid results from ENGAGE I and the BADA theoretical fuel burn analyses to rely on for corroboration. The litre estimated savings achieved in ENGAGE II are less than those from ENGAGE I and less than what may have been predicted by using the BADA theoretical calculations. Based on the data collected, the analysis thereof, the assumptions used to modify some data and the comparisons to ENGAGE I and BADA, we conclude that the results described above are reasonable and do not require any disclaimers regarding their derivation, nor use Conclusions Readers of the ENGAGE II Demonstration Report can be confident that the oceanic fuel burn reductions of 1-2% derived from the performance of over 200 trials represents a quality result that comes from a rigorous data analysis regime. The result is also supported by previous similar trials and by theoretical fuel burn calculations published by Eurocontrol in BADA. 28 of 64

29 6 Summary of Communication Activities ENGAGE was the main subject or was included in the following internal and external communication pieces. The communication pieces are also included in APPENDIX C. NAV CANADA Press Release, November Generated over 1000 page views and was republished by 8 external industry publications. News also disseminated via Twitter.com to the 2500 followers of NAV CANADA on Twitter.. NAV CANADA s external customer publication, Direct Route, Spring Circulation of this semi-annual publication is approximately NAV CANADA s CIFER Report, 2013 included reference to ENGAGE, as in previous years KLM s Employee Magazine included an article about the ENGAGE II trials. ENGAGE Project II has been presented at several meetings including: o Project Team to the SJU Demonstration Workshop, Lisbon, November 2014 o Air France to Internal groups, Thales and Eurocontrol o NAV CANADA to internal groups, Aireon o KLM to internal groups 29 of 64

30 7 Next Steps 7.1 Implementation Roadmap Completion of the SJU/AIRE phase of transitioning from the use of ENGAGE variable Mach and variable flight level procedures to a permanent operational state to is a major accomplishment. However, there are further milestones that must be achieved before full implementation of variable Mach and variable flight level procedures will be initiated. At the time of preparing this Demonstration Report, one final step remains to be completed and documented by the ICAO North Atlantic System Planning Group (SPG) level. Delivery of Working Paper 19 at the June 2014 meeting invited the SPG to endorse removal of the requirement to assign fixed Mach speed to all turbo jet aircraft in the NAT. Removing this requirement supports significant fuel savings and commensurate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption of this proposal at NAT SPG resulted in certain flights being permitted to vary their speeds in an ENGAGE-like manner in the NAT. Alternatively, this will enable ATC to assign a specified variation in Mach, if automation is capable or otherwise enabled to support this. This Working Paper and its proposal stem from the March 2014 NAT ATMG/43 meeting where ENGAGE was reviewed. At this meeting, the ability for ATC to assign blocks of flight level as demonstrated in ENGAGE was confirmed. The supporting coordination procedures exist today in the ICAO NAT Doc North Atlantic Common Coordination - Interface Control Document of November Subsequent to adoption by the SPG, the following steps will be undertaken: a Proposal for Amendment to the NAT SUPPS submitted, ICAO Regional Director, Europe and North Atlantic process the proposed amendment in accordance with the formal procedures; and NAT Document Management Office develop guidance material to be included in NAT Doc 007. ANSPs will assess their system and training readiness to drop the requirement to assign fixed Mach speeds for all NAT clearances. With SPG s conclusion reached, ENGAGE will be possible as demonstrated in this project. Figure 2: ENGAGE Implementation Roadmap 30 of 64

31 7.2 Conclusions and recommendations Conclusion ENGAGE II was highly successful in demonstrating all three of its intended exercises, without material deviation from the Demonstration Plan. The Demonstration Trials met the six primary objectives of the project outlined in Section 1 and have contributed to changes at the NAT SPG level of ICAO litre reductions in fuel consumption and up to 1000 kilograms reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions were safely realized per flight when the ENGAGE procedures were exercised Recommendations The following recommendations are offered with the holistic view that only when all stakeholders are aware of the others roles, responsibilities, motivations and capabilities can we all work toward maximum efficiency. 1. NAT ANSPs and operators should continuously collaborate, exploring each and every practical opportunity to safely and sustainably enhance transatlantic flight profile flexibility, with the goal of meaningfully reducing aviation s impact on our environment. 2. NAT ANSPs should be encouraged to offer flight level blocks (or at least proactively offer more climbs when available to operators) to oceanic flights. Tools such as NAV CANADA s GOFLI enable this flexibility for NAT customers. 3. NAT ANSPs should embrace the NAT SPG endorsement of removal of the requirement to assign a fixed Mach speed to all turbo jet aircraft in the NAT. 4. NAT ANSPs should permit datalink oceanic clearances including flight level blocks and flexible Mach reducing the reliance on difficult and less familiar voice communication, thereby increasing operator acceptance of participation. Making the procedure for variable Mach and variable flight level similar to traditional procedures will reduce operators perceived barriers to employing ENGAGE. 5. NAT ANSPs should adapt their systems to automatically protect for variable Mach and variable flight level blocks. 6. NAT operators should encourage and better train those responsible for planning and executing oceanic flights to request more flexibility. 31 of 64

32 8 Reference documents The following documents are referred to in the ENGAGE Project II Demonstration Report: ENGAGE PROJECT II Demonstration plan (A-1) SESAR Joint Undertaking Project 01.05, Edition November 2012 Aircraft Performance Summary Tables for the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) - Revision 3.11 EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 13/04/16-03 Issued: May 2013 NAT Doc 002 The North Atlantic Common Coordination Interface Control Document Version Published on behalf of the North Atlantic Systems Planning Group by the ICAO European and North Atlantic Office September 2012 Effective from November 15, 2012 EUROPEAN (EUR) Doc 7030/5 NAT Regional Supplementary Procedures (SUPPs) Including Amendment No. 7, dated 30 November of 64

33 APPENDICES A B C D ENGAGE Project II Procedures ENGAGE Project II Data Collection Worksheet ENGAGE Project II Communications ENGAGE Project II ICAO NAT SPG Documentation 33 of 64

34 Appendix A ENGAGE PROJECT II Procedures Introduction ENGAGE stands for Europe and North America Go ADS-B! For A Greener Environment. The New Parameters for the ENGAGE TRIALS effective December 15, 2012 shall be a combination of any of the following; Flight Level Block (revised only a 2000ft - 3 flight level block or no block is acceptable) 2000 ft ( i.e. FL350B370) or No requested Flight Level Block Mach Spread.02 Mach ( i.e. M80 to M82) or.01 Mach ( i.e. M80 to M81) or No requested Mach Spread NAV CANADA shall co-ordinate the TRIALS and shall be responsible for the selection of candidate Flights and dates and for advising other ANSPs of the details. A calendar of tentative TRIALS will be made available to all participants. 34 of 64

35 PROCEDURES Operators: The window of opportunity to participate in the ENGAGE TRIAL shall exist during the following parameters: o Westbound TRIAL Flights shall cross 030W between 1730Z and 2030Z. o Eastbound TRIAL Flights shall cross 030W between 2200Z and 0230Z. Eastbound flights crossing 030W after 0230z may be considered based on flight level availability Operators shall provide Point of Contact and identify Flights meeting the above criteria and notify o Tom Young at youngt@navcanada.ca Point of Contact for each operator shall be informed of successful potential candidates and dates. Operators will be responsible for crew education and compliance with the ENGAGE Supplemental Information Guide. Day of TRIAL Operators of candidate Flights shall file the Flight plan as normal and add ENGAGE TRIAL in field 18 or new FL2012 format of the Flight plan. In addition, the operator shall the Flight plan, including the requested block and Mach range to the ANSPs responsible for control of the aircraft s routing. Gander Shift Manager Reykjavik Shift Manager Santa Maria Shift Manager/Supervisor Shanwick Watch Supervisor. Shannon Station Manager qxaccshiftmngrs@navcanada.ca engage@isavia.is SMAOACC@nav.pt + c/c luis.candeias@nav.pt. shanwick.supervisors@nats.co.uk stationmanagersshannon@iaa.ie E.G. ACA123 Requesting 350B370 M0.81-M0.83 As soon as possible after departure of the ENGAGE Flight, the operator shall advise the ANSP responsible for Oceanic entry of the estimate for Oceanic Entry Point (OEP) Contact the Gander Shift Manager (709) Contact the Shanwick Watch Supervisor +(44) Contact the Reykjavik Shift Manager Contact the Santa Maria Shift Manager or of 64

36 Service Providers: Upon notification from Operators of the ETA for the OEP, it shall be ascertained whether or not there is traffic to affect the TRIAL. If opportunity exists, the ANSP responsible for Oceanic entry shall coordinate the ENGAGE profile with the receiving ANSP. Should the Flight route transition into a subsequent ANSP the coordination shall take place as follows; ANSP responsible for Oceanic entry to first receiving ANSP First receiving ANSP to subsequent ANSP. All ANSPs shall be required to approve the ENGAGE profile prior to TRIAL commencing After coordination has been completed, ANSPs shall ensure the Block altitude is protected for Flights entering and exiting Oceanic airspace as aircraft will follow most optimum Flight Level as determined through onboard FMC. i.e. Aircraft is in a block 340B360. At OEP, Flight may elect to enter Oceanic airspace at FL346; similarly, Flight may elect to exit Oceanic airspace at FL 358. **Conflicting traffic shall not be re-cleared to a less advantageous FL solely to accommodate the TRIAL. However, if the possibility exists to re-clear a conflicting Flight to a higher FL this may be done to allow the TRIAL Flight to continue. An ANSP or Operator may change the previously established Flight Level Block or Mach Spread provided Operator participating in ENGAGE TRIAL accepts amendment (may require contacting both Pilot in Command and dispatch handling this Flight) Coordination with other affected ANSPs is accomplished NOTE; Air France can only accept ENGAGE profile as filed. No alternate will be proposed Should an ANSP be required to terminate an ENGAGE TRIAL profile after a Flight has been established, Coordinate with receiving ANSPs to establish an appropriate Flight Level and Mach Advise Flight that the ENGAGE TRIAL profile is terminated Clear Flight to maintain coordinated Flight Level and Mach As required by a receiving Domestic or non-participating Oceanic ANSP; the Pilot in Command will be informed of any Flight Level or speed restrictions applicable at the FIR Boundary. Clearance to accomplish this shall be issued as coordinated between ANSP responsible for Oceanic Exit and the receiving ANSP. All coordination for ENGAGE TRIAL Flights shall be verbal between affected units. 36 of 64

37 Pilot-in-Command: The Pilot shall contact the ANSP responsible for Oceanic entry to request the Oceanic clearance in the normal manner, stating that they are an ENGAGE Flight, and shall confirm the requested ENGAGE Block Flight Level and variable Mach profiles. Shanwick and Gander will only issue ENGAGE clearances on VHF/HF voice. Pilots must disregard any datalink Oceanic clearance they receive from Shanwick or Gander and revert to voice. ANSPs that use CPDLC to issue Oceanic clearances may issue ENGAGE clearances via CPDLC. **Reykjavik is participating in TRIAL but will not be the initial issuer of any ENGAGE clearances. If an ENGAGE profile is available, expect an Oceanic clearance formatted such as; Example o Gander/Shanwick ATC clears XXX123 to ZZZZ via. From (OEP) Maintain Engage Profile from FLXXX-FLXXX. From (OEP) maintain variable Mach variable Mach of M.XXX to M.XXX Flights must enter Oceanic airspace at or above the lowest FL in block Flights must exit Oceanic airspace at or below the highest FL in block Position reporting shall remain the same, as per aircraft equipage. Pilots must also be aware that receiving Domestic or non-participating Oceanic ANSPs may require them to Climb/Descend to a Flight Level appropriate for direction of Flight. This may be required before or after crossing the FIR boundary. Pilot may request a subsequent climb or descent out of the approved ENGAGE block. Such a climb or descent may be granted, but only if traffic permits. This will not terminate the ENGAGE TRIAL, but the details of the modified profile must be made in the data collection notes. Pilot may request a subsequent speed change out of the approved ENGAGE block. Such a speed change may be granted, but only if traffic permits. This will not terminate the ENGAGE TRIAL, but the details of the modified profile must be made in the data collection notes. ATC may request to amend the Flight Level Block or Mach range. This cannot be done without concurrence from the Operator. Details of the modified profile must be made in the data collection notes. o NOTE; Air FRANCE will not be offered an alternate profile from the one filed. ATC may be required to terminate an ENGAGE TRIAL profile. Should this occur the flight will be advised and cleared to maintain one Flight Level and Mach. Maintain all data collection up to point of TRIAL termination If ENGAGE profile is not available, the following will apply: Pilot will be advised that an ENGAGE profile is not available due traffic, and the Pilot shall acknowledge Oceanic clearance via : o Voice on Clearance Delivery, o ACARS, or o CPDLC Phraseology; UNABLE ENGAGE Post ENGAGE Clearance issued: Any revisions shall be co-ordinated between all ANSPs responsible for aircraft s ENGAGE profile routing. 37 of 64

38 Contact Info GANDER Tom Young Oceanic Shift Manager Work Mobile PRESTWICK Sean Harty ATC Local Area Supervisor D Watch Work 00 (44) Mobile 00 (44) Sean.harty@nats.co.uk SANTA MARIA Luis Candeias Santa Maria OACC Manager luis.candeias@nav.pt REYKJAVIK Arni Baldursson Assistant Manager Ops Reykjavik OACC Work Arni.baldursson@isavia.is --- End of 64

39 Appendix B Data Sheet SAMPLE ENGAGE II DATASHEET TO BE COMPLETED FOR EACH TRIAL WITH EXAMPLE DATA FLIGHT DETAIL OTHER FLIGHT STATS Carrier MLK Eastbound Flight # 1234 ADSB Equipped & Certified - Yes Origin KJEK Varied Altitude - Yes Destination EAFR Varied Mach - Yes Date of Depart 11-Apr-13 Ocean Entry Point LOGSU SAFETY RELATED (OCEANIC ENGAGE TRIAL ONLY) Describe in comments fields below Ocean Exit Point MALOT Was trial terminated by Pilot? No Planned OTS Track or RNDM S Was trial terminated by ATC? No Was an ACAS/TCAS Traffic Alert triggered? No AIRCRAFT DETAIL Was an ACAS/TCAS Resolution Advisory triggered? No Equipment B Was a Large Height Devation experienced? No Aircraft Ident PH-BBB Was a Gross NAV Error experienced? No ADS-B Equipped Yes Was there any pilot confusion/overload regarding the trial? No ADS-B Certified (Canada) Yes Was a wake Vortex reported? (to be clarified) No ADS-C Equipped? Yes Were CPDLC communication issues experienced during the trial? No CPDLC Equipped? Yes Were HF communication issues experienced during the trial? No Was CPDLC Used? Yes Were SATCOM communication issues experienced during the trial? No Did the trial break the planned Mach block? No BASE CASE FLIGHT PLAN Did the trial break the planned altitude block? No Planned FL - OEntryP-OExitP 370 Planned MACH 0.83 TO BE ADDED BY ATC POST FLIGHT Pushback A/C Weight kg Was a Loss of Separation experienced? No Planned OCEANIC Fuel Burn kg Did ATC intervene to correct a longitudinal, lateral or vertical seperation? No ACTUAL FLOWN Actual FL at OEntryP 370 FL Range Actual FL at OExitP 380 Actual MACH Range Climb Profile Step Actual OTS Track or RNDM Actual OCEANIC Fuel Burn S 16600kg ENGAGE FUEL SAVINGS Measure - KG 300 Base Oceanic Fuel Burn Plan % savings from Base Fuel 1.8% COMMENTS 1 First Reykjavik Involvement COMMENTS 1 N/A 39 of 64

40 Appendix C ENGAGE PROJECT II Communications C.1 NAV CANADA News Release C.2 NAV CANADA Direct Route C.3 NAV CANADA CIFER 2013 C.4 KLM Employee Magazine 40 of 64

41 C.1 NAV CANADA News Release NEWS RELEASE No: XX/12 COMMUNIQUÉ For Immediate Release/ Pour diffusion immédiate NAV CANADA and partners to continue fuel and emissions saving project for trans-atlantic flights (Ottawa, November xx, 2012) NAV CANADA is pleased to announce the launch of the second phase of the ENGAGE Demonstration project, a collaborative initiative to reduce aircraft fuel burn and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the North Atlantic the world s busiest oceanic airspace. NAV CANADA is leading the ENGAGE II Demonstration project in partnership with Air France and NATS, the United Kingdom s air navigation service provider. The ENGAGE II Demonstration will build on and further expand the successes of the ENGAGE flight trials that were completed last year. A Consortium of NAV CANADA and Air France was awarded the ENGAGE II project by the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) as part of its Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) Program. We are pleased that the SJU continues to show confidence in our ability to employ new technology and procedures in the global efforts to reduce the environmental footprint of the aviation industry, said Rudy Kellar, NAV CANADA Executive Vice President, Service Delivery. ENGAGE I was a proven success which demonstrated real benefits in cost savings as well as the reduction in GHG emissions. As part of ENGAGE I, some 25 flight trials were executed over the North Atlantic. Through the application of more efficient flight profiles, the average reduction in GHG emissions per flight was nearly 1,300 kilograms while the fuel saving per flight was close to 500 litres. Those flight trials tested the viability of two concepts on North Atlantic operations: progressive or continuous altitude change; and corresponding changes in aircraft speed (Mach) in place of the more traditional single speed, single altitude flight profile over the Ocean. As a flight transits the ocean, fuel is consumed and the weight of the aircraft decreases, resulting in the most efficient flight level becoming higher (assuming zero wind). Therefore, an efficient flight profile may include a progressive or continuous altitude change and/or change in Mach. In ENGAGE II, we plan to significantly increase the number of flight trials using variable altitude and variable speed, said Kellar. We have more carriers participating in an expanded oceanic region and we expect to execute over 100 trials a four-fold increase from phase one of the project. In addition to the increased flight trials to confirm the viability of the concept over an expanded region; the demonstration flights will also permit the collection of data necessary to support the future implementation of the procedures after the trials have concluded. The first trials began in late October and early results are encouraging. The project will continue until the fall of About AIRE 41 of 64

42 The Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) agreement between the European Commission and the FAA is a programme which aims to reduce CO2 emissions and accelerate the pace of change by taking advantage of air traffic management best practices and capitalize on present aircraft technology. It enables the implementation of environmentally friendly procedures for all phases of flight. AIRE is an important part of the green component of the SESAR programme and the SESAR Joint Undertaking is responsible for its management from a European perspective. For more information, visit the SJU website: About NAV CANADA NAV CANADA, is Canada s private sector civil air navigation service provider. With operations from coast to coast to coast, NAV CANADA provides air traffic control, flight information, weather briefings, aeronautical information services, airport advisory services and electronic aids to navigation. About Air France-KLM Air France-KLM carried more than 70 million passengers in 2011 to more than 250 worldwide destinations in over 120 different countries from its two main hubs in Paris-CDG and Amsterdam. Air France-KLM is composed of almost 600 aircraft. The Air France long-haul fleet flying in the NAT region is composed of more than 100 aircraft all FANS 1/A equipped from either Airbus (A , A ) or Boeing (B , B , B ER). About NATS NATS is the UK s leading provider of Air Traffic Management (ATM) services, handling 2.2 million flights in 2011/12, covering the UK and eastern North Atlantic. NATS provides air traffic control from centres at Swanwick, Hampshire and Prestwick, Ayrshire. NATS also provides air traffic control services at 15 of the nation's major airports including Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow, together with air traffic services at Gibraltar Airport For further information, please contact: Michelle Bishop Ron Singer Director, Government and Public Affairs Manager, Media Relations (613) (613) Media Information Line: of 64

43 C.2 NAV CANADA Direct Route 43 of 64

44 44 of 64

45 45 of 64

46 C.3 NAV CANADA CIFER of 64

47 47 of 64

48 48 of 64

49 C.4 KLM Employee Magazine 49 of 64

50 50 of 64

51 Appendix D ICAO Documentation D.1 NAT SPG/49 Working Paper 26 June 2013 (outdated and replaced) D.2 NAT SPG/50 Working Paper 19 June of 64

52 D.1 NAT SPG/49 Working Paper 26 - June 2013 (superseded) 52 of 64

53 53 of 64

54 54 of 64

55 55 of 64

56 56 of 64

57 57 of 64

58 58 of 64

59 59 of 64

60 60 of 64

61 D.2 NAT SPG/50 Working Paper 19 - June of 64

62 62 of 64