1

ILA Berlin - May 2008ILA Berlin - May 2008Marc Brochard - EECMarc Brochard - EEC

EPATSEPATSATM General Requirements & relative ATM General Requirements & relative

issues to be solvedissues to be solved

2

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentPotential EPATS TrafficPotential EPATS Traffic

These are big figures …. These are big figures ….

Can we integrate this new Can we integrate this new traffic in the ATM in 2020?traffic in the ATM in 2020?

3

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentmethodmethod

The problematic for assessing EPATS – a new business – on the ATM The problematic for assessing EPATS – a new business – on the ATM of the future:of the future:

No EPATS historyNo EPATS history (but do we not already have kind of EPATS (but do we not already have kind of EPATS in the air?)in the air?)

SESAR conceptsSESAR concepts - an evolution of the current ATM system (not - an evolution of the current ATM system (not a revolution) – providing more capacity, more autonomy, better a revolution) – providing more capacity, more autonomy, better fitting to airspace users needs (strategic traffic organisation, fitting to airspace users needs (strategic traffic organisation, preferred FL/4D profile– preferred FL/4D profile– business trajectorybusiness trajectory) – network centric ) – network centric architecture (data and decision sharing – architecture (data and decision sharing – SWIMSWIM) still human ) still human centred …. but centred …. but still requiring clarifications and validationsstill requiring clarifications and validations

4

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentEPATS aircraftEPATS aircraft

5

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentEPATS traffic todayEPATS traffic today

total traffictotal traffic2007, EPATS “kind of”= 839500 flights a year2007, EPATS “kind of”= 839500 flights a year

= = 8.1% of total IFR traffic8.1% of total IFR traffic

EPATS trafficEPATS traffic

6

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentEPATS traffic 2020 vs capacityEPATS traffic 2020 vs capacity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

VFR

IFR

VFR 42.397 41.263 29.899

IFR 1.782 2.916 14.28

STATFOR STATFOR updated SESAR

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

VFR

IFR

VFR 41.142 40.091 28.644

IFR 1.782 2.833 14.28

STAFOR STATFOR updated SESAR

Case A – 44 millions EPATSCase A – 44 millions EPATS

14 millions IFR EPATS max

30 millions VFR EPATS max

Case B – 42 millions EPATSCase B – 42 millions EPATS

14 millions IFR EPATS max

28 millions VFR EPATS max

7

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentEPATS traffic 2020 vs capacityEPATS traffic 2020 vs capacity

Within STATFOR - up to 2 millions EPATS IFRWithin STATFOR - up to 2 millions EPATS IFR

Extending STATFOR – up to 3 millions EPATS IFRExtending STATFOR – up to 3 millions EPATS IFR

Filling SESAR target capacities - up to 14 millions Filling SESAR target capacities - up to 14 millions EPATS IFREPATS IFR

SESAR theoretical target capacity = limitations to be SESAR theoretical target capacity = limitations to be assessedassessed

Beyond 14 millions EPATS IFR – outside the overall 2020 Beyond 14 millions EPATS IFR – outside the overall 2020 ATM capacitiesATM capacities

8

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentFL distributionFL distribution

Most of EPATS Most of EPATS flying below FL190flying below FL190

EPATS cruising Flight Level distribution (standard distribution, EPATS cruising Flight Level distribution (standard distribution, not integrating ATM constraints)not integrating ATM constraints)

SESAR Airspace designSESAR Airspace design for IFR and VFR vs managed and un- for IFR and VFR vs managed and un-managed airspace (vertical (FL) and geographical design – managed airspace (vertical (FL) and geographical design – dynamic dynamic and morphingand morphing) )

9

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentGeographic distributionGeographic distribution

EPATS seems to be EPATS seems to be avoiding the current avoiding the current

ECAC Core AreaECAC Core Area

May be creating May be creating new dense/congested areanew dense/congested area and airports (mainly south and airports (mainly south of Europe but also England)of Europe but also England)

Mixed trafficMixed traffic (traditional ones + EPATS (IFR & VFR)) with TMA (traditional ones + EPATS (IFR & VFR)) with TMA potential impactpotential impact

10

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentDistance distributionDistance distribution

Most of EPATS seems to be flying not longer than Most of EPATS seems to be flying not longer than 500 Kms500 Kms

11

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentEPATS Daily TrafficEPATS Daily Traffic

Daily EPATS traffic :Daily EPATS traffic :

highly distributed over Europe with potential impact on traffic highly distributed over Europe with potential impact on traffic complexity (mixing IFR & VFR flights)complexity (mixing IFR & VFR flights)

avoiding current ECAC Core Area, most congested Airport and avoiding current ECAC Core Area, most congested Airport and Waypoints …. but integrated in TMAWaypoints …. but integrated in TMA

May be creating new dense/congested area and airports (mainly May be creating new dense/congested area and airports (mainly south of Europe but also England)south of Europe but also England)

Flying at low level (FL190) and on relative short distances Flying at low level (FL190) and on relative short distances (500Km)(500Km)

12

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentEPATS Business ModelEPATS Business Model

EPATS to fit in the EPATS to fit in the SESAR Business Trajectory processSESAR Business Trajectory process: : strategic planning and negotiationstrategic planning and negotiation

What will be the EPATS business model?What will be the EPATS business model?

Flight on request or scheduled?Flight on request or scheduled?

13

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentConclusions – ATM ImpactsConclusions – ATM Impacts

ATM impact:ATM impact:

System capacity (System capacity (sever challenge for SESARsever challenge for SESAR to handle 14 Millions EPATS to handle 14 Millions EPATS IFR flights with IFR flights with high number of EPATS VFR flightshigh number of EPATS VFR flights))

Traffic complexity (high distribution – new dense area leading to design new Traffic complexity (high distribution – new dense area leading to design new SESAR managed airspaces)SESAR managed airspaces)

Airspace design both for IFR Airspace design both for IFR andand VFR EPATS flights (might be constrained VFR EPATS flights (might be constrained by the SESAR airspace design as most of EPATS flight will be in un-managed by the SESAR airspace design as most of EPATS flight will be in un-managed airspace – dynamic and morphing airspace)airspace – dynamic and morphing airspace)

Terminal area Safety (mixing traditional traffic with EPATS traffic with Terminal area Safety (mixing traditional traffic with EPATS traffic with different aircraft performances (speed – wake vortex) – dense area thus SESAR different aircraft performances (speed – wake vortex) – dense area thus SESAR managed airspace – IFR only? VFR?)managed airspace – IFR only? VFR?)

Safety (Self separation management & self conflict avoidance - less skilled Safety (Self separation management & self conflict avoidance - less skilled EPATS pilots? – on-board equipment mandatory for flying SESAR – EPATS pilots? – on-board equipment mandatory for flying SESAR – single single pilotpilot))

14

ATM impact assessmentATM impact assessmentConclusions - R&D needsConclusions - R&D needs

EPATS R&D needs:EPATS R&D needs:

SESAR Airspace designSESAR Airspace design for IFR and VFR vs managed and un-managed airspace for IFR and VFR vs managed and un-managed airspace (vertical (FL) and geographical design – (vertical (FL) and geographical design – dynamic and morphingdynamic and morphing) )

SESAR Business TrajectorySESAR Business Trajectory management for EPATS flight (IFR and VFR?) and management for EPATS flight (IFR and VFR?) and EPATS FL allocation (including flight planning and trajectory negotiation and SWIM EPATS FL allocation (including flight planning and trajectory negotiation and SWIM issues)issues)

SESAR and VFRSESAR and VFR flights flights

Single pilotingSingle piloting in un-managed and managed airspace (Safety - separation management in un-managed and managed airspace (Safety - separation management and conflict avoidance - autonomous EPATS flight – Air Traffic Controller impact)and conflict avoidance - autonomous EPATS flight – Air Traffic Controller impact)

EPATS cockpit equipmentEPATS cockpit equipment for supporting SESAR standard requirements for supporting SESAR standard requirements

TMA operationTMA operation mixing EPATS and traditional flights (AMAN, DMAN, SIDs, STARs, mixing EPATS and traditional flights (AMAN, DMAN, SIDs, STARs, CDA concept, Aircraft performances)CDA concept, Aircraft performances)

En-Route operationEn-Route operation mixing EPATS and traditional flights (Aircraft performances, mixing EPATS and traditional flights (Aircraft performances, managed airspace, Routing, separation management)managed airspace, Routing, separation management)

EPATS scenariosEPATS scenarios for EPATS traffic assessment: Safety, flight efficiency, cost, effective for EPATS traffic assessment: Safety, flight efficiency, cost, effective capacity, complexity, delay capacity, complexity, delay

15

Thank you …Thank you …

Contact: Contact: marc.brochard@eurocontrol.intmarc.brochard@eurocontrol.int

www.eurocontrol.intwww.eurocontrol.int