Monitoring Report: AIRAC June July No 03/1203. Edition: AIRAC 1203

Transcription

1 Monitoring Report: AIRAC 1407 No 03/ June July 2014 Edition: AIRAC 1203

2

3 European Route Network Improvement Plan (ERNIP) Implementation Monitoring Monitoring Report: AIRAC June July 2014 NETWORK MANAGER

4 Left blank intentionally

5 TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION SUMMARY ACHIEVING THE EUROPEAN TARGET AIRSPACE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING EXTERNAL DOCUMENT RELEASE LIST OF PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTED AIRAC 1407 (26 JUNE 2014) SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED ON 26 JUNE EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AIRSPACE DESIGN INDICATOR EVOLUTION FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION ROUTE AVAILABILITY INDICATOR EVOLUTION FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION PER AIRAC CYCLE EVOLUTION OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL INDICATORS EVOLUTION OF RTE-RAD INDICATOR BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL EVOLUTIONS BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-RAD EVOLUTIONS AIRSPACE CHANGES EVOLUTION FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE EVOLUTION ASM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CDRs OVERVIEW FUA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS NETWORK MANAGER CONTRIBUTION TO FLIGHT EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION ASSESSMENT INCREASED CDR AVAILABILITY AND UTILISATION ASSESSMENT TOTAL BENEFITS FOR FLIGHT EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS...5 ANNEX A: DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED 26 JUNE ANNEX B: ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY

6 Left blank intentionally - 6 -

7 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 SUMMARY This Report provides an update on the evolution of the environment indicators 1 listed in the Network Manager Performance Plan and plots on the progress achieved in improving airspace design and utilisation flight efficiency, in line with the improvement proposals implemented in the relevant AIRAC cycle. This edition focuses on AIRAC 1407 (26 JUNE JULY 2014). The methodology used for assessing flight efficiency is described in WP9 of RNDSG/64. This document can be found at: ACHIEVING THE EUROPEAN TARGET The Performance Scheme for air navigation services and network functions includes an environment/ flight efficiency Key Performance Area: Average horizontal en-route flight efficiency: the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator is the difference between the length of the en-route part of the trajectory and the optimum trajectory which is, on average, the great circle distance. en-route is defined as the distance flown outside a circle of 40 NM around the airport. the flights considered for the purpose of this indicator are: o all commercial IFR flights within European airspace; o where a flight departs or arrives outside the European airspace, only that part inside the European airspace is considered; o circular flights and flights with a great circle distance shorter than 80NM between terminal areas are excluded. Environment target : For the performance reference period starting on 1 st January 2012 and ending on 31 st December 2014, the European Union-wide and EUROCONTROL performance target is as follows: Reduction of 0,75 percentage points of the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator in 2014 as compared to the situation in Objectives: Develop and support the deployment of 500 airspace changes in Support the implementation of Free Route Airspace in 25 ACCs by Increase annually the number of CDRs by 5% annually (FUA). Increase annually the CDR1/2 availability and usage by an average of 5% annually (FUA). Reduce the route unavailability (in time and quantity) by 10% in 2013 and 2014 (FUA). Reduction of vertical flight inefficiency by 5% in Note: The FUA indicators (bullet 3-5) are reported on quarterly. Flight efficiency (bullet 6) is reported on only twice per year. 1.3 AIRSPACE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING The Network Manager coordinates the following activities to achieve the required improvement in flight efficiency: 1 FPL: Flight Plan data provided by NM systems; SAAM analysis carried out by NM. DES/RAD: Traffic demand provided by NM systems; airspace environment data, profile calculations and SAAM analysis provided by NM

8 Enhancing European en-route airspace design through annual improvements of European ATS route network, high priority being given to: the implementation of a coherent package of annual improvements and shorter routes; improving efficiency for the most penalised city pairs; the implementation of additional Conditional Routes for main traffic flows; supporting initial implementation of free route airspace. Improving airspace utilisation and route network availability through: actively supporting and involving aircraft operators and the computer flight plan service providers in flight plan quality improvements; gradually applying route availability restrictions only where and when required; improving the use and availability of civil/military airspace structures. Efficient Terminal Manoeuvring Area (TMA) design and utilisation through: implementing advanced navigation capabilities; implementing Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), improved arrival/departure routes, optimised departure profiles, etc. Improving awareness of performance. 1.4 EXTERNAL DOCUMENT RELEASE The latest AIRAC report is available on the EUROCONTROL Airspace design website under the sub section ERNIP ERNIP Implementation Monitoring Latest monitoring report: as well as on the EUROCONTROL Network Operations Monitoring and Reporting website under European Route Network Improvement Plan - Monitoring Report: The full list of monitoring reports is available on the EUROCONTROL Media & Info Centre website: ear]= A copy of the AIRAC Report of the European Route Network Improvement Plan is also available via the restricted EUROCONTROL OneSky Online websites for access by other interested members of the RNDSG, ASMSG and NETOPS (see ref sub-sections under main section "LIBRARY"):

9 2. LIST OF PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTED AIRAC 1407 (26 JUNE 2014) 2.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED ON 26 JUNE 2014 During the AIRAC cycle 12 (twelve) airspace improvement packages co-ordinated at network level were implemented. Apart from several ATS route network improvements the list below provides an overview of the major improvement measures implemented on 26 June 2014: Austria: - Vertical split of Wien ACC West Top sector. France: - Availability of additional Night DCTs. Malta: - Free Route Airspace Malta, Phase 1 (H24 DCT options published in RAD Appendix 4). Spain: - Re-organisation of Madrid ACC Zamora (ZMR) sector. - Division flight level change in Madrid ACC. - Availability of additional Night DCTs. A detailed list of all improvement measures implemented on 26 June 2014 is attached in Annex A. The list is an extract of the European Route Network Improvement Plan database accessible via: A description of the airspace changes and improvements together with an orientation map due for implementation on the relevant AIRAC cycle is provided in the RNDSG Airspace Improvements Synopsis (RAIS) via the restricted EUROCONTROL OneSky Online website for RNDSG. The latest situation of the European route network structure is available and updated at each AIRAC cycle through the publication of Regional Electronic Charts that can be found here:

10 3. EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 3.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN INDICATOR EVOLUTION The graph below shows the yearly evolution of airspace design flight efficiency (RTE-DES 2 ) over the period and its evolution until 23 July % RTE-DES 5% 4% 3,53%3,54%3,45% 3,22%3,04% 2,96% 2,80%2,66% 3% 2% Figure 1 : Airspace Design indicator evolution 3.2 FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the last filed flight plan indicator (RTE-FPL 3 ) over the period and its evolution until 23 July % 5% RTE-FPL 4,91% 5,03% 4,90%4,91% 4,73% 4,64%4,57%4,54% 4% 3% 2% Figure 2 : Airspace Design indicator evolution 3.3 ROUTE AVAILABILITY INDICATOR EVOLUTION The impact of the civil route restrictions included in the Route Availability Document (RAD) is measured through a specific RAD indicator (RTE-RAD 4 ). The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the RTE-RAD indicator between January 2012 and 23 July % RTE-RAD 5% 4% 3,75% 3,65% 3,53% 3% 2% Figure 3 : Route Availability indicator evolution 2 RTE-DES (Flight Extension due to Route Network Design) This KPI will be calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD will not be taken into account and all the CDR routes will be considered as open. 3 RTE-FPL (Flight Extension due to Route Network Utilisation last filled FPL) This KPI will be calculated by measuring the difference between the route from the last filed flight plan for each flight (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. 4 RTE-RAD: (Flight Extension due to Route Network Utilisation RAD active) This KPI will be calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest plannable route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD will be taken into account and all the CDR routes will be considered as open

11 3.4 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION PER AIRAC CYCLE The graph below shows the evolution per AIRAC cycle of the two main flight efficiency indicators RTE-DES and RTE-FPL over the period and the evolution until 23 July Route Efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle RTE-DES RTE-FPL 5,5% ,9 5,0% 0,8 Route Extension 4,5% 4,0% 3,5% 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 3,0% 0,2 0,1 2,5% AIRAC Figure 4 : Flight efficiency (DES, RAD) evolution per AIRAC cycle (French/ Belgium strike included) The graph below shows the evolution per AIRAC cycle of the two main efficiency indicators RTE-DES and RTE-FPL in relation to the RTE-RAD indicator between January 2012 and 23 July Route Efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle 5,50% 5,00% Route Extension 4,50% 4,00% 3,50% RTE-DES RTE-RAD RTE-FPL 3,00% 2,50% AIRAC Figure 5 : Flight efficiency (DES, RAD, FPL) evolution per AIRAC cycle

12 The difference between the three indicators (DES, FPL, RAD) clearly indicate that additional efforts must be made to further improve the efficiency of airspace utilisation and to ensure that the indicator based on the latest filed flight plan/ FPL and the RAD indicator follow similar to the airspace design indicator/ DES EVOLUTION OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL INDICATORS The current data indicates that, the average yearly route extension due to airspace design was reduced between 2009 and 23 July 2014 by 0.79 percentage points (same as in AIRAC 1406). The evolution of the airspace design indicator is on the right path and the contributions of the airspace design projects are key for improving flight efficiency. The 2014 Network Manager/ NM target (2.70%) for the RTE-DES indicator has already been met, as this indicator reached now a value of 2.66%. The current data indicates that, the average yearly route extension based on the last filed flight plan was reduced between 2009 and 23 July 2014 by 0.36 percentage points (same as in AIRAC 1406). The 2014 Network Manager/ NM target (4.15%) for the RTE-FPL indicator has not yet been met, as this indicator reached only a value of 4.52%. The difference between the airspace design indicator and the last filed flight plan indicator was 1.45 percentage points in 2009 and was 1.88 percentage points in July 2014, same compared with the previous AIRAC cycle (1.88 percentage points in AIRAC 1406). The current data indicates that the route extension due to airspace design slightly decreased from 2.66% in May 2014 to 2.65% in July The current data show that the route extension based on the last filed flight plan went down from 4.61% in June 2014 to 4.56% in July EVOLUTION OF RTE-RAD INDICATOR As shown in Figure 5 above the impact of the RAD decreased by 0,22 percentage points end of July 2014 compared with More actions will be required to further diminish this impact still further and to ensure that the target set in the Network Manager Performance Plan is reached BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL EVOLUTIONS Thanks to the airspace enhancements implemented during AIRAC 1407 as well as the airspace design improvements put in place since AIRAC 1307 in connection with changing traffic patterns and structure, the potential savings offered during the AIRAC cycle 1407 amount to NMs flown less compared with the equivalent AIRAC cycle in This translates into tons of fuel, or tons of CO2, or Based on the last filed flight plan indicator and as a result of the series of events indicated below, the actual losses 5 calculated during the AIRAC cycle 1407 amount to NMs flown more compared to the equivalent AIRAC cycle in This translates into tons of fuel, or tons of CO2, or The losses recorded on the last filed flight plan data during AIRAC cycle 1407 compared to the equivalent AIRAC cycle in 2013 are a result of a combination of flight planning/ airline choices, traffic composition and/or scenarios applied due to capacity problems in the network as well as special events: Overall crisis situation in Ukraine that lead a significant number of flights to avoid the entire Ukrainian airspace moving to neighbouring countries (Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, etc); as a result of the Ukrainian crisis adjacent ACCs/ UACs were on-loaded by traffic avoiding the Ukraine airspace leading to increased route extensions; 5 Including the savings resulting from the Benefits for Flight Efficiency Improvements (see chapter 4)

13 Remaining disruptions as a result of the French/ Belgium industrial action June 2014 required regulations that were progressively cancelled during the 26 June 2014 and resulted still in traffic avoiding the French/Belgium airspace with impact on network efficiency, as operators may not have been aware of the strike cancellations; A combination of capacity reductions due to the new ATC system PEGASUS21 that was implemented 25 November 2013 and staff shortages as well as a significant traffic increase in Warsaw ACC required regulations and tactical re-routings with impact on network efficiency; Capacity and staffing issues in Nicosia ACC required regulations with impact on network efficiency; Capacity and staffing shortage in Barcelona ACC, Brest ACC, Karlsruhe UAC, Langen ACC and Reims ACC required measures with impact on flight planning route extensions; Capacity issues in Maastricht UAC required regulations with impact on network efficiency; Capacity issues due to widespread thunderstorms and weather affecting en-route sectors in France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom required regulations with impact on flight efficiency during the whole AIRAC cycle. Closure of Libyan airspace for over flights due to the security situation required procedures with impact on flight efficiency for traffic between Europe and Africa re-routed via Egypt and Tunisia; Avoidance of Iraqi airspace due to the security situation with impact on flight efficiency for traffic between Europe and Middle East and Asia re-routed via Iran and Turkey with additional impacts on the flows from the Ukrainian crisis situation. Figure 6 below shows the current airspace unavailability and closed areas. Figure 6 : Airspace unavailability/ closed areas July

14 Figure 7 and Figure 8 below visualise the impact of the mentioned airspace unavailability (see Figure 6) by comparing traffic flows in July 2013 and July Considering the disruptions listed above most of the flights are not only avoiding the closed areas but avoiding the entire Ukrainian airspace. Figure 7 : 24h traffic situation Wednesday, 24 July 2013 (flight planned) Figure 8 : 24h traffic situation Wednesday, 23 July 2014 (flight planned)

15 The comparison between the potential (RTE-DES) and actual (RTE-FPL) savings/ losses related to the different parameters is depicted in the graphs below (see Figure 9 to Figure 12). FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AIRAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (In Thousands of Nautical Miles) NM DES NM FPL NM/ NM DES NM FPL AIRAC CYCLE Figure 9 : Flight Efficiency savings/ losses in Thousands of Nautical Miles FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AIRAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (In Tons of Fuel) 6000 TONS FUEL DES TONS FUEL FPL TONS OF FUEL TONS FUEL DES TONS FUEL FPL AIRAC CYCLE Figure 10 : Flight Efficiency savings/ losses in Tons of Fuel

16 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AIRAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (In CO2) TONS CO2 DES TONS CO2 FPL TONS OF CO TONS CO2 DES , ,2 9114,8 8539,7 8110,2 6569,4 6271, ,5 TONS CO2 FPL -371, ,4 4315,8 354,92-559,4 709, , ,2 2005,3-7822,5 AIRAC CYCLE Figure 11 : Flight Efficiency savings/ losses in CO2 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AIRAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (In Thousands of EURO) EURO DES EURO FPL EURO/ EURO DES EURO FPL AIRAC CYCLE Figure 12 : Flight Efficiency savings/ losses in Thousands of EURO Note: For additional information on ATFM delay that could impact on network efficiency consult the DNM Monthly Network Operations Reports, accessible via: ]=

17 3.4.4 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-RAD EVOLUTIONS The constant but slight decrease of the RAD indicator is mainly due to improvements in airspace design and to a lesser degree due to the removal of RAD restrictions. More actions will be required to ensure that the KPI based on the RAD indicator follows trends similar to the airspace design indicator/ DES as well as to ensure that the target set in the Network Manager Performance Plan is reached. 3.5 AIRSPACE CHANGES EVOLUTION The NM Performance Plan target for the period is to implement 500 airspace improvement packages over this period. From January 2012 until 26 June 2014, 590 (five hundred and ninety) airspace improvement packages coordinated at network level have been implemented. For the reference period the implementation of a total of 738 (seven hundred and thirty eight) airspace packages is currently planned. The 2014 Network Manager/ NM target has already been met with reaching a number of 590 airspace packages implemented. 2012/ 2014 Target Packages Implemented Figure 13 : Airspace Improvement Packages Implementation

18 3.6 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE EVOLUTION The NM Performance Plan target for 2014 is to fully or partially implement Free Route Airspace within 25 ACCs within the ECAC area. Until 26 June 2014 Free Route Airspace has been partially and/or fully implemented in the following ACCs: Aix ACC, Beograd ACC, Brest ACC, Brindisi ACC, Bordeaux ACC, Bucuresti ACC, Karlsruhe UAC, Kobenhavn ACC, Lisboa ACC, Ljubljana ACC, Maastricht UAC, Malmo ACC, Malta ACC, Marseille ACC, Milano ACC, Padova ACC, Praha ACC, Reims ACC, Roma ACC, Shannon ACC, Skopje ACC, Sofia ACC, Stockholm ACC, Tampere ACC, Warsaw ACC, Wien ACC and Zagreb ACC (see Figure 14 below). The 2014 Network Manager/ NM target has already been met with reaching a number of 27 ACC. Figure 14 : Free Route Airspace Implementation

19 3.7 ASM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The FUA indicators are calculated separately for two CDR basic categories: CDR1 and CDR2. Those CDRs, defined as CDR1/2, CDR1/3 or CDR2/3, are measured over time for each category and their individual contribution is added to either CDR1 or CDR2 type reports. The method allows us to align the calculation of the indicators with the way the CDRs availability is presented in AUP/UUP Lists A and B respectively. The values for each AIRAC cycle were aggregated by measuring the indicators on a daily basis. By doing this, we could differentiate between each CDR1/2, CDR1/3 or CDR2/3 routes, categorising CDR1 and CDR2 routes with the appropriate metrics. We measure airspace utilisation with the Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) and Rate of Aircraft using CDRs (RAU). The first indicator shows which flights could potentially use available CDRs; the second one indicates the actual CDR uptake CDRs OVERVIEW It will be available for AIRAC Supporting map will be available for AIRAC Figure 15 : Published CDRs AIRAC 14xx

20 3.7.2 FUA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Figure 16/17 below shows the aggregated values of the three FUA KPIs 6 (RoCA, RAI, RAU) for the first and second quarter 2014/ Q1 & Q2 compared with the same period in 2013 for CDR1 and CDR Q2 comparison by AIRAC FUA KPIs for CDR1: RoCA, RAI, RAU RoCA_ECAC RAI (%) RAU (%) RoCA, RAI, RAU values (%) Figure 16 : avg_q1_2013 avg_q2_2014 avg_q3_2015 avg_q4_2016 AIRAC_cycle Q1 & Q FUA KPIs for CDR1 avg_q1_2014 avg_q2_ RoCA (Rate of CDR availability) represents the average CDR availability according to the EAUP/EUUP related to a given time period. RoCA (in %) is calculated as the ratio of the total CDR segment opening, whatever category it may be, to the total time of days (D). RAI (Rate of Aircraft Interested) represents the average number of aircraft interested in filing flight plans to take advantage of an available CDR. RAI represents (in %) the ratio of the number of flights planned on an available CDR to the number of potential users of this CDR. RAU (Rate of Actual Use of CDR) represents the average number of aircraft having actually used an available CDR during a given time period. RAU represents (in %) the ratio of the number of flights (AU) having actually used an available CDR to the number of potential users (PU) of this CDR

21 Q2 comparison by AIRAC FUA KPIs for CDR2: RoCA, RAI, RAU 100 RoCA (%) RAI (%) RAU (%) 90 RoCA, RAI, RAU values (%) Figure 17 : 57 avg_q1_2013 avg_q2_2014 avg_q3_2015 avg_q4_ AIRAC_cycle Q1 & Q FUA KPIs for CDR2 avg_q1_2014 avg_q2_2014 The CDRs availability is quantified by the RoCA indicator (rate of CDR availability as defined by the ASM Handbook) and represents (in percentage terms) the ratio of the total opening of the CDR segment, no matter which category, in a given period. For CDR1 the RoCA is slightly lower in the second quarter of 2014, compared with the same period in 2013 (72% in 2013 versus 70.6% in 2014). RAI and RAU decreased in the second quarter 2014 compared to the same period in RAI dropped from 74% in the second quarter 2013 to 69% in the second quarter RAU dropped by almost 8% in the second quarter 2013 to Q2 2014, from 83.8% to 76.4% respectively. The situation for CDR2 availability (RoCA) is better in 2014: RoCA has increased from 56.6% in 2013 to 61.9% in Though, RAI and RAU have dropped in the second quarter 2014 compared with the second quarter RAI decreased from 67.4% to 62.8% and RAU from 80.7% to 75.7% respectively. The CDR2 utilisation (RAU) is higher than the interest (RAI). The indicators characterising the utilisation of the available CDRs are represented by the Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) for flight planning using available CDRs and the Rate of Actual Use of CDR (RAU). The AIRAC variation is shown by Figures 16 and 17 above, whereas averaged values for the second quarter 2014 are shown in Figures 18, 19 and 20, 21 below

22

23 Rate of Aircraft Interested Q2 CDR1 Planning on CDR1 69.3% Planning on CDR2 62.8% Rate of Aircraft Interested Q2 CDR2 NOT on CDR1 30.7% NOT on CDR2 37.2% Figure 18 : RAI for CDR1 averaged for Q Figure 19 : RAI for CDR2 averaged for Q Figures 18 and 19 show, for the second quarter 2014, the average percentage of flights which could potentially have made use of CDR in their flight plans. For CDR1, almost 31% of flights did not make use of a CDR1, so missing an opportunity. The percentage of flights missing planning opportunities on CDR2s is even higher, with a figure of 37.2%. Flying on CDR1 76.4% Rate of Actual Use Q2 CDR1 Rate of Actual Use Q2 CDR2 Flying on CDR2 75.7% NOT on CDR1 23.6% NOT on CDR2 24.3% Figure 20 : RAU for CDR1 averaged for Q Figure 21 : RAU for CDR2 averaged for Q Figures 20 and 21 show, for the first quarter 2014, the average percentage of flights which actually flew on a CDR. For CDR1, nearly 24% of flights did not fly on CDR1 (almost same value for CDR2s). An interesting observation is that there are flights which did not plan on using an available CDR but flew on it all the same. For CDR1s, 7.1% of flights did not plan to fly on an available CDR1 but landed up doing so. The same logic applies for CDR2: 12.9% of interested flights did not plan on using an available CDR2 but still flew on it. The reason for this would have been either an ATC tactical intervention or a last-minute change of route. The data originated from the NM data warehouse; the use of FIND in conjunction with other internally developed tools enabled us to gain a comprehensive view of the evolution of the major FUA KPIs used in ASM performance reporting. The CDR environment s growing complexity means that additional effort is needed to carry out a proper assessment

24 Figure 22 below shows that CDR1 type represents 81% of all CDRs available for flying and the proportion is identical for the CDRs used for flight planning (see Figure 23). CDR available for flying Q2 CDR1 vs. CDR2 CDR % CDR % CDR actually flown Q2 CDR1 vs. CDR2 CDR % CDR % Figure 22 : CDR 1 versus CDR 2 available for Q Figure 23 : CDR 1 versus CDR 2 planned for Q However, the statistics do not highlight the hot spots, that is, CDRs which could potentially have a high level of usage but have a reduced level of uptake due to their low availability. In summary, the comparison with Q shows a slight decrease (1%) for CDR1 RoCA and a increase of 5% of CDR2 RoCA. Both the Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) and Rate of Actual Use of CDR (RAU) decreased in the second quarter/ Q compared with the same period This decrease of RAI and RAU was already observed in the last quarter of 2013, first quarter/ Q and the same pattern continued for the second quarter/ Q if compared with the same periods in 2013, most probably as a result of the introduction of DCTs

25 4. NETWORK MANAGER CONTRIBUTION TO FLIGHT EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION ASSESSMENT The NM flight efficiency (FE) initiative focuses on the improvement of flight planning quality. From AIRAC 1305 to AIRAC 1311 it involved only the invalid flight plans affecting 5% of the total traffic in Europe. Those flights were corrected manually and where possible, improvement proposals made for shorter route options. Since AIRAC 1312 the valid flight plans have been included as well, re-processed using the Group Re-routing Tool at regular intervals during the day in order to detect and suggest better route opportunities for all flights. Re-routing propositions are offered to the airline operators by telephone or AFTN/SITA message after the flight plan was filed. Figure 24 below illustrates the difference between the proposed potential savings identified during the full AIRAC 1407 (amounting to a total of NM) being offered to the airspace users through the Flight Efficiency Initiative, compared to a total amount of NM effectively saved through the accepted proposals (improvement of CDR availability and its utilisation not included). Only 13% of the re-route proposals were accepted by the operators compared with the potential improvement proposals offered directly by the NMOC. Figure 24 : AIRAC overview distance proposed versus distance realised The flight plan originators acceptance rate of the re-routing propositions is increasing in absolute value as more airline operators become aware of the process and identify the potential of the tool. However, the ratio between the amount of re-route proposals sent versus the amount of re-route proposals accepted seems to decrease due to the significant increase of re-route proposals sent since AIRAC 1312 (including the valid flight plan data) but recording the same or slightly higher level of acceptance with an average level of 13% in AIRAC 1407 (14% in AIRAC 1406, 18% in AIRAC1405, 19% in AIRAC1404, 25.5% in AIRAC1403, 27% in AIRAC1402, 25.5% in AIRAC 1401, 35% in AIRAC 1313, 33% in AIRAC 1312, 61% in AIRAC 1311, 77% in AIRAC 1310 and 81% in AIRAC 1309)

26 The effort to improve the quality of flight planning has to be enhanced in order to result in net savings. Therefore the Network Manager made a conscious effort to treat the valid flight plan database as well so as to identify further potential improvements in flight planning for the remaining 95% of the traffic for various flows and city pairs, taking the latest network situation into account. 4.2 INCREASED CDR AVAILABILITY AND UTILISATION ASSESSMENT Since the beginning of the flight efficiency initiative in May 2013 the NM network impact assessment also looks at improving CDR availability and its utilisation. On D-1 the military liaison officer/ MILO looks at the Airspace Use Plan/ AUP in order to identify potential traffic/demand that could benefit from a CDR opening. The traffic identified is validated with the Aircraft Operator Liaison Officer/ AOLO who initiates co-ordination with the flight plan originator. A re-route proposal is generated after a second x-check on the day itself/d-day. Figure 25 : CDR utilisation savings The NM initiatives to improve the utilisation of CDR routes during AIRAC 1407 proposed potential saving of NM (6,843 NM in AIRAC 1406, 10,032 NM in AIRAC 1405, 7,051 NM in AIRAC 1404, 9,584 NM in AIRAC 1403, 8200 NM in AIRAC 1402, 6815 NM in AIRAC1401, 3801 NM in AIRAC 1313, 4361 NM in AIRAC 1312, NM in AIRAC 1311, NM in AIRAC 1310 and NM in AIRAC 1309). The network impact assessment reports showed more or less the same amount of flights that could benefit from additional CDR availability. However, due to a low acceptance rate of the reroute proposals by the airline operators/ AOs the average actual uptake during AIRAC 1407 is only 23% (14% in AIRAC 1406, 12,5% in AIRAC 1405, 14% in AIRAC 1404, 15% in AIRAC 1403, 11% in AIRAC 1402, 10% in AIRAC 1401, 18% in AIRAC 1313 and 1312, 10% in AIRAC 1311, 26% in AIRAC 1310, 20,6% in AIRAC 1309 and 33% in AIARC 1308), representing NM effective gain (see Figure 25 above). One reason for the low rate of potential flights that could benefit from additional CDR opportunities might be the change from repetitive flight planning/ RPL to automatic flight planning systems, calculating the best route available while taking into account all flight-relevant information and thus significantly improving the quality of flight planning significantly. Another reason could be the deployment of several Free Route Airspace improvement measures (H24, Night Free Route plus - 4 -

27 H24 Week-end, Night Free Route, DCTs) since AIRAC 1310 in September 2013) that led to a change in the airline operator s behaviour. AIRAC 1407 shows a slight increase in number of flights that could benefit from potential opportunities resulting from additional CDR availability compared to the previous AIRAC cycle. The response from operators to re-route proposals slightly increased but continues to stay low. If the airline operators would be ready and prepared to flight plan on conditional routes/ CDRs the unused potential of shorter route options available through CDRs could contribute further to improving flight efficiency. 4.3 TOTAL BENEFITS FOR FLIGHT EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS As a result of the flight efficiency initiative the savings achieved 7 through re-filing of shorter route options during AIRAC 1407 amount to a total of 17,956 NM flown less (19,462 NM in AIRAC 1406, 21,831 NM in AIRAC 1405, 19,568 NM in AIRAC 1404, 23,741 NM in AIRAC 1403, 14,830 NM in AIRAC 1402), including the Flight Efficiency initiative of NMOC on the improvement of CDR availability and its utilisation (15,635NM + 2,321NM). The graph below shows the evolution of the flight efficiency improvements since the initiative started in AIRAC 1305 until 23 July The effective savings since the beginning of the flight efficiency initiative in May 2013 have resulted in a total gain of 348,247 NM flown less than flight planned. This translates into 1,982 tons of fuel, 6,605 tons of CO2 and 1, Figure 26 : Flight efficiency improvements evolution The significant drop of savings between AIRAC 1307 and AIRAC 1308 is mainly linked to the composition of summer traffic, this increased slightly once again during AIRAC The variations in savings depend on the number of flight plans manually treated in the IFPS units (IFPU 1/ Brussels and IFPU 2/ Bretigny) as well as staff resources to be dedicated to the flight efficiency task. As of AIRAC 1403 IFPU 2 in Bretigny has fully joined the process, explaining the increase in mileage being proposed (58% more compared to AIRAC1402). Staff working on the Group Re-routing Tool is doubled, ensuring that at least one IFPS unit is daily dedicating working force to the flight efficiency project. 7 Included in the Benefits and Assessment of the RTE FPL Evolutions (see chapter 3.4.2) - 5 -

28 ANNEX A: DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED 26 JUNE 2014 The following table presents detailed information about each of the improvement proposals developed within the RNDSG and implemented during the relevant AIRAC cycle. The description of the proposals is based on the information available from different sources (e.g. AOs, ANSPs and EUROCONTROL). The table includes: Proposal ID number: A reference number to identify each proposal allowing to trace at which RNDSG it was initiated. Project Name: Dedicated Name and Phase/ Step of the improvement project. Description: A detailed description of the planned improvement proposal. Objective: A brief description of the purpose of the enhancement measure. Implementation Status: The implementation status defined as Proposed, Planned, Confirmed or Implemented. Project Group: The Functional Airspace Block Group (FAB), Regional Focus Group (RFG), Sub-Group (SG) or any other Project Group(s) involved directly or indirectly by the proposed enhancement measure. Project Category: The nature of the proposed enhancement measure defined through Project Categories (e.g Airspace Structure, ATC Sectors, ATS Routes, Free Route Airspace, TMA etc.). States and Organisations: The States and/or Organisations involved directly or indirectly by the proposed enhancement measure. Originator(s): The States and/or Organisations who have originated the proposal. Comments: The conditions and/or pre-requisites which have to be met in order to implement the proposal or any other relevant comment(s). Note: The list of implemented changes for this AIRAC cycle does not claim to be complete. For the correctness and verification of the relevant aeronautical information consult official State AIP publications. The data from this document should not be used for operational purposes

29 Proposal ID : / Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 1. Description: To introduce new crossing waypoints between ATS routes N449 / N996 and N449 / T919. Objective: To further improve ATS route options within Yerevan FIR. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Group: SG BLACK Project Category: ATS Routes ARM Originator(s): AZE DEKIT N E. TUTAK N E. Based on newly implemented UBBB SIDs / STARs to allow proper shorter connection between UBBB and UBBN airports. Proposal ID : / Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 2. Description: To implement bi-directional ATS route T924 SEVAN - TISOT and withdraw existing ATS route B140 SEVAN - KOTAN. Objective: To further improve ATS route network within Yerevan FIR. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Group: SG BLACK Project Category: ATS Routes ARM Originator(s): ARM B140 became useless as from 6 MAR 2014 intermediate part LEGVI - KOTAN was withdrawn within Baku FIR. Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 3. Project Name: Vertical split Wien ACC W Top sector Description: To allow a vertical split of Wien ACC West Top sector (FL365+) into West Top 1 (FL365-FL385) and West Top 2 (FL385+) depending on traffic demand. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Category: ATC Sectors AUT Originator(s): AUT A lateral adjustment of the sectors as announced in the AWARD project will follow. Related proposals: Objective: To further improve the airspace structure while balancing traffic/ workload according to traffic demandand consequently increasing capacity within Wien ACC to meet traffic demand. Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 4. Project Name: Night DCTs Description: To implement 2 new published DCT segments (above FL245) available during Night: a) ABESI - BEGAR; b) SUXAN - BEGAR. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Category: Night Routes CHE FRA Originator(s): FAB EC Further connection from BEGAR is provided by France. Objective: To improve the Night Network - 7 -

30 Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 5. Description: 1. To implement the following northbound ATS routes: a. UL150 CJN - RBO; b. UL155 VTB - NVS. 2. To re-designate existing ATS routes: a. UM191 DIPOL - PDT as UM871; b. UL150 DIPOL - CJN as UM191. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Category: ATS Routes RAD ESP Originator(s): IACA EUROCONTROL Both ATS routes will be with limits FL245 - FL460. 1b - transformation of existing DCT from RAD Appendix 4. 2a and 2b postponed. Objective: To further improve the ATS route options within Madrid FIR for flights from Almeria (LEAM) airport to EG/EI (Phase 2) and withdraw DCT from RAD Appendix 4. Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 6. Description: To allow the following Night ( ) Direct flight planning options/ DCTs from FL285 to FL460: 1. KONBA DCT GDV; 2. KONBA DCT ROSTA. Objective: To allow additional and shorter options for overflights in the Atlantic Corridor due to expected increase for Brazil World Football Championship. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Category: DCTs ESP Originator(s): ESP Announced by Spain at SW Axis/35 meeting. DCT KONBA - GDV will connect UN866 to the entire ATS route network from GDV LIMAL UN873; BIPET UN857; CABEL UN729. DCT KONBA - ROSTA will connect UN866 to UN741 southbound. Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 7. Project Name: Madrid ACC DFL change Description: To change the DFL between Madrid ACC CJU and CJL sectors from FL305 to FL325. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Group: RFG SW ESP Originator(s): ESP Related proposals: Objective: To further improve the capacity within Madrid ACC. Project Category: ATC Sectors Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 8. Project Name: Re-organization Madrid ACC ZMR sector Description: Re-organization of Madrid ACC ZMR sector and implementation of a third new Zamora Middle Sector (ZMM). Objective: To further improve the capacity within Madrid ACC. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Group: RFG SW Project Category: ATC Sectors ESP Originator(s): ESP ZML GND - FL325 ZMM FL325 - FL345 ZMU UNL Related proposals:

31 Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 9. Description: To implement bi-directional ATS route L617 TSL - MAKED (FL95 - FL245). Objective: To further improve the ATS route network within Athinai FIR. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Group: RFG SE Project Category: ATS Routes GRC Originator(s): GRC Proposal ID : a Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 10. Project Name: Free Route Airspace Malta - Phase 1 Description: To allow the follwing H24 DCTs FL , as published in Rad Appendix DINUX - BONAR 2. ELKAN - ARLOS 3. ARLOS - ELKAN 4. SARKI ROLEV Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Category: Free Route Airspace MLT Originator(s): MLT Implementation of additional H24 DCTs until December Related proposals: b c Objective: To allign the airspace structure with real operations. Operational DCT's to be made flight plannable. Proposal ID : a Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 11. Description: To allow H24 Direct flight planning option MOLIL DCT MOTAD. Objective: To further improve the flight planning options within Warszawa FIR while extending the availability from only night DCT to H24 DCT. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Category: DCTs POL SWE Originator(s): IATA Proposal further benefits the deletion/amendment of Czech RAD restrictions LK2190 and LK2070. Could be made available for over flights above a certain level, e.g. FL335? MOLIL DCT MOTAD will further shorten distance with 16NM and is within same sectors as present option MOLIL T720 GRUDA N133 MOTAD. Related proposals: b c

32 Proposal ID : Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments: 12. Description: To re-designate existing ATS route UP81 ILB - GEMKA as UT381. Objective: To further simplify the existing RDs within Slovenia. Implemented 26 JUN 2014 Project Group: RFG SE SVN Originator(s): EUROCONTROL Project Category: Route Redesignation

33 ANNEX B: ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY 1. The following ISO-3 coding of States is used in the column States and Organisation: ALB Albania IRN Iran, Islamic Republic of ARM Armenia IRQ Iraq AUT Austria ITA Italy AZE Azerbaijan LBY Libyan Arab Jamahiriya BEL Belgium LTU Lithuania BGR Bulgaria LUX Luxembourg BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina LVA Latvia BLR Belarus MAR Morocco CHE Switzerland MDA Moldova, Republic of CYP Cyprus MKD The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia CZE Czech Republic MLT Malta DEU Germany MNE Montenegro DNK Denmark NLD Netherlands DZA Algeria NOR Norway EGY Egypt POL Poland ESP Spain PRT Portugal EST Estonia ROU Romania FIN Finland RUS Russian Federation FRA France SRB Serbia GBR United Kingdom SVK Slovakia GEO Georgia SVN Slovenia GRC Greece SWE Sweden HRV Croatia SYR Syrian Arab Republic HUN Hungary TUN Tunisia ISL Iceland TUR Turkey IRL Ireland UKR Ukraine MUAC Maastricht UAC

34 2. BLUMED FAB, DANUBE FAB and FAB CE proposals referenced in proposal number box are coded with a unique identification number abbreviated as BM or DN or CE, respectively, following by four digits (XXXX) (example BM0001 or DN0001 or CE0001). 3. The content of each proposal is an indication of State s intention to implement the relevant airspace improvement but don't represent a copy of any official publication. For the correctness and verification of the relevant aeronautical information consult official State AIP publication. The data from this document should not be used for operational purposes

35 Left blank intentionally

36