EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE€¦ · LONDON Heathrow CDM WP1 Authors R. Lane D. Hogg Date 02/2005 Pages xvi + 115 Figures 39 Tables 11 Annexes 3 References - Project CDM London

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should be reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

LONDON Heathrow CDM WP1

EEC Note No. 03/05

Project London Heathrow CDM

Issued: February 2005

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference: EEC Note No. 03/05

Security Classification: Unclassified

Originator: EEC - APT (Airport Throughput Business Area)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Centre de Bois des Bordes B.P.15 F – 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge Cedex FRANCE Telephone: +33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor: EUROCONTROL

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location: EUROCONTROL Agency 96, Rue de la Fusée B-1130 Brussels BELGIUM Telephone: +32 2 729 90 11

TITLE: LONDON Heathrow CDM WP1

Authors R. Lane D. Hogg

Date 02/2005

Pages xvi + 115

Figures 39

Tables 11

Annexes 3

References -

Project

CDM London Heathrow Airport

Task No. Sponsor -

Period 2004

Distribution Statement:

(a) Controlled by: Peter ERIKSEN - EUROCONTROL BUSINESS AREA MANAGER Roger LANE - EUROCONTROL CDM PROJECT MANAGER (b) Special Limitations: None

(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords): Collaborative Decision Making – Target Off Block Time – Common Situational Awareness – Flight Update Message – Departure Planning Information – Start-up Approval Time – Variable Taxi Time

Abstract:

This project is a collaboration between the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), EUROCONTROL Airport Operations Unit (APR) and London Heathrow Airport represented by the BAA, UK National Air Traffic Services (NATS), British Airways (BA), bmi and other partners. Representatives from EUROCONTROL performed a study on the current airside operations and information flows at Heathrow by visiting the various partners to give presentations and conduct interviews. The results of these meetings are detailed in the first part of this document and identify the missing information gaps, weaknesses in procedures and/or equipment and areas that would benefit from the introduction of CDM measures. The latter part of the document details the steps identified by the Working group (WG) necessary to resolve the issues.

London Heathrow CDM WP1 EUROCONTROL

Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

EUROCONTROL was invited by BAA and its London Heathrow Airport (LHR) partners - the Aircraft Operators (AOs), Ground Handlers (GH) and National Air Traffic Services (NATS) to investigate the potential value of implementing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) practices at Heathrow in order to further optimise the operations of the LHR aeronautical platform.

The project began on the 22 September 2003 and after interviews and meetings with the airport partners, EUROCONTROL developed this document and it was reviewed and agreed by the partners in September 2004. The document details the current state of operations at LHR and identifies the requirements that LHR needs to fulfil in order to become a CDM Airport (CDM-A).

KEY FINDINGS

IMPROVING ARRIVAL INFORMATION - Improving the information concerning arrivals (estimates and actual times) will be the first essential step to establishing a CDM-A platform at LHR. It is seen by the partners as a potential quick win and will act as a catalyst towards providing accurate departure times. The CDM project has identified several methods of improving arrival estimates, from the Flight Update Message (FUM) sent by the CFMU three hours before landing, to the A-SMGCS providing instant and accurate landing and in-block times. It is important that these changes are implemented as soon as possible in order to show the partners that CDM can make a difference, maintaining commitment and support from the partners and encouraging them to provide accurate departure information in return. It would also be useful for LTCC to have access to airport information concerning arrivals, such as terminal, stand availability and delay.

IMPROVING DEPARTURE INFORMATION - Departure estimates are generally more difficult to predict than arrival estimates, as they are subject to many factors, such as late passengers, CTOT, ground handling resources, late arrival of the aircraft etc. Analysis of Estimated Time of Departure (ETD) in June 2004 showed that only 50% of flights departed within +-5 minutes of their ETD.

Departure can also refer to take off time as well as off block time and here ATC and the CFMU are interested to get an accurate prediction of the Target Take Off Time. Obtaining a more accurate Off Block Time can be achieved by tracking key events (milestones) that occur during a turn-round and providing that information to the concerned partners. An accurate Estimated In Block Time is essential to be able to estimate a turn-round time and this can then generate a Target Off Block Time which is confirmed by firstly the AO/GH and then adjusted by ATC (TSAT) subject to the operational situation at the time. When an accurate TSAT has been agreed it can be linked to a variable taxi time to provide an accurate Target Take Off Time, which will be used by the CFMU to enhance the European Air Traffic Flow Management.

With a transparent view of partners intentions, departure management will become more efficient – better punctuality, reduced queuing, enhanced resource management, fewer wasted slots and less stress for many of the partners involved in the turn-round. In order to reach this situation, the current system will need to be modified and partners will need to adapt the way they operate today, which could result in changes to procedures and Letters of Agreement / Service Level Agreements.

EUROCONTROL London Heathrow CDM WP1

vi Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

With the ever increasing environmental pressures on the aviation industry, any mitigation strategies deriving from CDM implementation should be capitalised on. Reduced aircraft taxi times and queuing reduces fuel resource use, ground noise and emissions to the atmosphere such as NOx, unburnt hydrocarbons and greenhouse gases. In addition to reducing the social and economic burden arising from these impacts, such reductions can also alleviate the risk or severity of local constraints and may also help to avoid breaches of national or EU regulations. This may be of strategic importance to major airports close to residential areas.

IMPROVING THE IT PLATFORM - The foundation for CDM is for the partners to provide and have access to accurate and timely information. There are many systems currently used by the different partners and many feed into the main BAA interface IDAHO. A general Staff Information System (SIS) is available to most of the partners providing arrival and departure information; however, it is generally considered that the information on SIS is unreliable, hard to read and inadequate for making operational decisions. The situation can be improved by linking/upgrading the current systems so that the partners have access to a platform that displays the best data available at the right time. Several new tools such as A-SMGCS are also available to provide partners an improved awareness of the operational situation and these can also be incorporated into the platform. System modifications need not be expensive as much of the data exists at present and it could be distributed via an intranet/extranet HMI.

With many Airline Operation Centres (AOCs) not situated locally, the benefits of any web based system would allow remote access to the AOCs worldwide. With a clearer picture of the local situation at LHR operational decisions could be made a lot earlier than they are now.

EXCHANGE OF CFMU MESSAGES (FUM/DPI) - The CFMU is currently modifying their software to be able to send and receive new messages (FUM/DPI) to/from an airport. The aim of these messages is to enhance the overall flow of European Air Traffic by firstly providing a CDM airport (CDM-A) with an accurate estimated landing time up to 3 hours before, and then to use an accurate take off estimate from the airport to update the flight plan for ATFM purposes. The airport will have to ensure that the departure data sent to the CFMU conforms to certain requirements, therefore, it will be essential that the airport introduces CDM applications such as the TOBT procedure and variable taxi times in order to reach a high data quality. The messages will be managed by the airport’s CDM platform and exchanged automatically with the CFMU from one address at the airport. By providing precise information on departure times, one of the main benefits Aircraft Operators can expect to receive will be more flexibility from the CFMU regarding slot shifting.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

In April 2004 BAA took steps to commence improvements to the arrival information based on the initial findings of this CDM study. These steps involve mainly improving the source of information that is already provided and therefore should not necessitate major system changes. As previously stressed, improved arrival estimates should be the first step towards CDM and will help to motivate partners in subsequent CDM implementation.

Implementing changes for departures, CFMU messages and the IT platform will require more time and complex management, as partners will need to accept changes to their current way of working and this could mean modifying SLA/LoAs, an element of training and briefing partners on the changes.


Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 vii

It is recommended that BAA dedicates a full time Project Manager (PM) to be responsible for implementing CDM at LHR. The PM will require technical and operational advisors as well as the continued support of LHR CDM Working / Steering Groups and EUROCONTROL. Due to the large amount of on going projects at LHR (T5, preparation for the A380 and a new ATC TWR etc.) it is appreciated that implementing CDM in one big step will be difficult, therefore, a plan should be created that will establish a phased implementation e.g. arrivals including inbound taxi times, TOBTs, outbound taxi times, pre-departure sequencing and CFMU messages. A prototype HMI should be designed to help to develop the CDM requirements and maintain the commitment by the partners.

The findings above concentrate on normal operations and equate to the EUROCONTROL Airport CDM Levels 1 and 2. In the future, CDM could expand to include Level 3 – CDM in adverse conditions, such as Low Visibility Procedures, de-icing or blocked runways. Establishing new procedures to deal with situations like these will largely depend upon a stable CDM platform being in place and providing accurate information.


viii Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

Page intentionally left blank


Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ANNEXES........................................................................................................... XI

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ XI

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. XII

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................. XIII

DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... XV

1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................17

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE...........................................................................................18 2.1. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 18 2.2. SCOPE......................................................................................................................... 18 2.3. ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 18 2.4. TIMESCALES............................................................................................................... 18 2.5. RESOURCES............................................................................................................... 18

2.5.1. EUROCONTROL Resources ..........................................................................18 2.5.2. Heathrow Partner Resources ..........................................................................18 2.5.3. Heathrow CDM Implementation ......................................................................19

2.6. DELIVERABLES .......................................................................................................... 19

3. STUDY METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................20

4. LONDON HEATHROW AIRPORT..............................................................................21

5. PROFILE OF STUDY PARTNERS .............................................................................23 5.1. AIRPORT AUTHORITY................................................................................................ 23 5.2. AIRCRAFT OPERATORS............................................................................................ 24

5.2.1. British Airways ...................................................................................................24 5.2.2. Bmi ..................................................................................................................24 5.2.3. Virgin Atlantic Airways .....................................................................................25 5.2.4. General Aviation ..............................................................................................25 5.2.5. Air Traffic Control.............................................................................................26

5.3. GROUND HANDLING.................................................................................................. 27 5.3.1. Aviance UK......................................................................................................27 5.3.2. Air France Services Limited.............................................................................27

6. CURRENT OPERATIONS MODEL ............................................................................28 6.1. CURRENT AIRCRAFT TURN-ROUND PROCESS..................................................... 28

6.1.1. File Flight Plan & CFMU Slot Allocation ..........................................................28 6.1.2. Confirmation of Push Back & Airborne Times .................................................28 6.1.3. Manage Air Traffic Flow...................................................................................29 6.1.4. Landing Clearance at Heathrow ......................................................................29 6.1.5. Stand allocation for Arriving Aircraft ................................................................29 6.1.6. Notification of allocated stand to Aircraft .........................................................30 6.1.7. Turn-round Activities........................................................................................30


x Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

6.1.8. Start-up & Push Back Approval .......................................................................31 6.1.9. Recording of Push Back Clearance Time........................................................31 6.1.10. Pushback of Aircraft ........................................................................................31 6.1.11. Clearance for Take-off from Heathrow ............................................................31 6.1.12. Confirmation Push Back & Airborne Times .....................................................32

7. OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SYSTEMS ..............................................................33 7.1. BAA .............................................................................................................................. 33

7.1.1. NATS Radar ....................................................................................................33 7.1.2. SITA Messaging ..............................................................................................34 7.1.3. Aviation Message Server.................................................................................34 7.1.4. Gate Pushbutton..............................................................................................34 7.1.5. Accounts..........................................................................................................34 7.1.6. SIS (Staff Information System) ........................................................................34 7.1.7. ARIS (Stand Planning) ....................................................................................35 7.1.8. Aircraft Push-Back Clearance .........................................................................37 7.1.9. Public Displays (FIDS).....................................................................................37

7.2. BRITISH AIRWAYS...................................................................................................... 38 7.2.1. FICO................................................................................................................39 7.2.2. FIGARO...........................................................................................................39 7.2.3. AXIS ................................................................................................................39 7.2.4. SIRIUS.............................................................................................................39 7.2.5. STARPLAN & STARMAN................................................................................40 7.2.6. BA WEBSITE...................................................................................................40

7.3. BMI ............................................................................................................................... 41 7.3.1. AIROPS (Strategic Flight Planning).................................................................41 7.3.2. TANGO (Tactical Flight Management) ............................................................42

7.4. NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ......................................................................... 43 7.4.1. National Air Space System (Host) ...................................................................43 7.4.2. Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (ATM)....................................................................43 7.4.3. Advanced - Surface Movement Guidance Control System (A-SMGCS) .........44 7.4.4. ATIS Weather System .....................................................................................45 7.4.5. Stack Monitors.................................................................................................45 7.4.6. Airport Playback Tool (APT) ............................................................................45 7.4.7. Expected Approach Time (EAT) Tool..............................................................46 7.4.8. Stand Confirmation..........................................................................................46

7.5. AVIANCE UK................................................................................................................ 47 7.5.1. Ground Handling Operations System..............................................................47 7.5.2. Aircraft flight Progress Information ..................................................................47

7.6. AIR FRANCES SERVICES LIMITED........................................................................... 47 7.6.1. Departure Control System (DCS) ....................................................................47 7.6.2. MILORD...........................................................................................................47 7.6.3. Aircraft flight Progress Information ..................................................................47

8. CHANGES ALREADY PLANNED AT HEATHROW ..................................................48 8.1. BAA .............................................................................................................................. 48 8.2. BRITISH AIRWAYS...................................................................................................... 48 8.3. NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ......................................................................... 48 8.4. BMI ............................................................................................................................... 49


Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 xi

9. PHASED IMPLEMENTATION & PARTNERS CDM TARGETS AND BENEFITS......50 9.1. IMPROVE LOCAL ARRIVAL INFORMATION.............................................................. 51

9.1.1. Current Situation..............................................................................................51 9.1.2. Proposed Improvements .................................................................................51 9.1.3. Trial Methodology ............................................................................................52 9.1.4. Benefits to Partners .........................................................................................52 9.1.5. Summary (Arrivals)..........................................................................................55

9.2. IMPROVING DEPARTURE INFORMATION................................................................ 56 9.2.1. Current Situation..............................................................................................56 9.2.2. Proposed Improvements .................................................................................58 9.2.3. Benefits to Partners .........................................................................................60 9.2.4. Summary (Departures) ....................................................................................74

9.3. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE IT PLATFORM ................................................................. 75 9.3.1. Current Situation and proposed improvements ...............................................75 9.3.2. Summary (IT Platform) ....................................................................................78

9.4. ENHANCED ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE IMPROVEMENTS WITH CFMU MESSAGE EXCHANGE ................................................................................................................. 78 9.4.1. Current Situation..............................................................................................78 9.4.2. Proposed Improvements .................................................................................78 9.4.3. Trial Methodology ............................................................................................80 9.4.4. Benefits to Partners .........................................................................................81 9.4.5. Summary (CFMU Messages) ..........................................................................82

10. COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................83 10.1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS............................................... 83

10.1.1. Costs ...............................................................................................................83 10.1.2. Benefits............................................................................................................84 10.1.3. Departure punctuality and predictability ..........................................................86 10.1.4. Landing time estimates....................................................................................87 10.1.5. Qualitative benefits ..........................................................................................88

LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX A: Completed Questionnaires from Study Participants ............................................................ 93 ANNEX B: Consolidated Problems & Requirements List ............................................................. 111 ANNEX C: Arrivals information trial spreadsheet (with one line of sample data) ......................... 115

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Airport and En-route Flight Delays.................................................................................. 17 Figure 2: Western View of LHR, with new terminal construction site in background ..................... 21 Figure 3: Airfield Map of LHR......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4: The S&G Management Operations Room...................................................................... 23 Figure 5: BA Aircraft parked at T4 ................................................................................................. 24 Figure 6: Bmi Ground Handling Operations Room at LHR ............................................................ 25 Figure 7: Virgin aircraft parked off-pier upon long layover ............................................................. 25 Figure 8: LTCC Operations Room ................................................................................................. 26


xii Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

Figure 9: LHR ATC Tower ............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 10: Diagrammatic Overview of Current Turn-round Process.............................................. 28 Figure 11: Overview of BAA IDAHO System & Interfaces ............................................................. 33 Figure 12: BAA SIS Page as used by Airfield Operations ............................................................. 35 Figure 13: SIS T3 Stand Status Screen......................................................................................... 36 Figure 14: BAA Airfield Operations Accommodation ..................................................................... 37 Figure 15: BAA Website with Arrivals Information ......................................................................... 38 Figure 16: Overview of BA FICO System & Interfaces .................................................................. 38 Figure 17: BA Website with Arrivals Information............................................................................ 40 Figure 18: BA Website with Departures Information...................................................................... 41 Figure 19: Bmi AIROPS Screen..................................................................................................... 41 Figure 20: Bmi TANGO Screen ..................................................................................................... 42 Figure 21: Bmi Arrivals Information................................................................................................ 42 Figure 22: Bmi Departures Information.......................................................................................... 43 Figure 23: Final Approach on 09L.................................................................................................. 43 Figure 24: A-SMGCS screen ......................................................................................................... 44 Figure 25: Airport Playback Tool Display....................................................................................... 45 Figure 26: EAT (Expected Approach Time) tool ............................................................................ 46 Figure 27: Screen Shot of Eclipse tool........................................................................................... 49 Figure 28: Phased Implementation & Partners CDM Targets and Benefits................................... 50 Figure 29: EIBT - 30 Minutes before Arrival................................................................................... 53 Figure 30: EIBT - 10 Minutes before Arrival................................................................................... 53 Figure 31: EIBT - 4 Minutes before Arrival..................................................................................... 54 Figure 32: AIBT Comparison using A-SMGCS Data ..................................................................... 54 Figure 33: ALDT Accuracy using A-SMGCS Data......................................................................... 55 Figure 34: Analysis of AOBT vs EOBT .......................................................................................... 57 Figure 35: Analysis of AOBT vs SOBT .......................................................................................... 73 Figure 36: Example CDM Intranet Display..................................................................................... 77 Figure 37: Comparison of schedule and estimated off block time ................................................. 86 Figure 38: Taxi-time averages per terminal vs time of day ............................................................ 87 Figure 39: Comparison of schedule, actual and estimated in block times ..................................... 87

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Turn-rounds times ........................................................................................................ 59 Table 2: Stand numbers ............................................................................................................. 62 Table 3: Arrivals Taxi Averages - Medium / Small / Light aircraft............................................... 63 Table 4: Arrivals Taxi Averages - Heavy aircraft ........................................................................ 64 Table 5: Departure taxi average – Medium / Small / Light aircraft ............................................. 66 Table 6: Departure taxi average – Heavy aircraft....................................................................... 67 Table 7: Average taxi time - Medium / Small / Light Aircraft....................................................... 69 Table 8: Average taxi time – Heavy aircraft................................................................................ 70 Table 9: Estimated CDM costs for Heathrow airport .................................................................. 83 Table 10: Estimated emissions reductions through CDM for Heathrow airport............................ 84 Table 11: Estimated CDM benefits for Heathrow airport .............................................................. 85


Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Abbreviation De-Code ACARS Aircraft Communications and Reporting System

A-DPI Airport - Departure Planning Information

AFSL Air France Services Limited

AIBT Actual In-Block Time

ALDT Actual Landing Time

AO Aircraft Operator

AOBT Actual Off-Block Time

A-SMGCS Advanced Surface Movement Guidance System

APT Airport Playback Tool

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATOT Actual Take Off Time

ATS Air Traffic Services

BA British Airways

BAA British Airport Authority

Bmi British Midland International

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CCTV Close Circuit Television

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CDM-A CDM Airport

C-DPI Cancel – Departure Planning Information

CFMU Central Flow Management Unit

CTOT Calculated Take Off Time

DCS Departure Control System

DEP Departures (Position in the TWR)

DLA Delay Message

DPI Departure Planning Information

EAT Expected Approach Time

EFPS Electronic Flight Progress Strips

E-DPI Early – Departure Planning Information

EIBT Estimated In-Block Time

ELDT Estimated Landing Time

EOBT Estimated Off-Block Time

ETA Estimated Time of Arrival

ETD Estimated Time of Departure

ETFMS Enhanced Tactical Flow Management System

ETOT Estimated Take Off Time

EU European Union


xiv Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

Abbreviation De-Code FICO Flight Information And Control of Operations (BA System)

FIDS Flight Information Display System

FMP Flow Management Position

FPL Filed Flight Plan

FUM Flight Update Message

GA General Aviation

GH Ground Handler/ing

GMC Ground Movement Control (TWR)

GMP Ground Movement Planning (TWR)

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

LHR London Heathrow Airport

LTCC London Terminal Control Centre

MTT Minimum Turn-round Time

MVT Movement Message

NATS National Air Traffic Services

RVR Runway Visual Range

S&G Stand and Gate

SID Standard Instrument Departure

SIS Staff Information System

SLA Service Level Agreement

SOBT Scheduled Off-Block Time

SRM Slot Revision Message

SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar

STD Scheduled Time of Departure

T-DPI Target - Departure Planning Information

TOBT Target Off-Block Time

TSAT Target Start Up Approval Time

TTOT Target Take Off Time

TWR Aerodrome Control Tower

UK United Kingdom

VTT Variable Taxi Time

WP Work Package


Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 xv

DEFINITIONS

ARRIVALS CDM-A CDM Airport. An Airport that has successfully proven that it can exchange FUM/DPI messages with the CFMU and provides data to the required accuracy.

FUM A FUM message is sent from the CFMU to a CDM-A providing an ELDT, ETO and Flight Level at the last point of route.

ELDT The estimated time that an aircraft will touchdown on the runway. (Equivalent to ATC ETA –Estimated Time of Arrival = landing).

ALDT The time that an aircraft lands on a runway. (Equivalent to ATC ATA –Actual Time of Arrival = landing, ACARS=ON).

EXIT Estimated Taxi In Time - The estimated time between landing and in-block

TURN-ROUND SIBT The time that an aircraft is scheduled to arrive at its parking position.

EIBT The estimated time that an aircraft will arrive in blocks. (Equivalent to Airline/Handler ETA –Estimated Time of Arrival).

AIBT The time that an aircraft arrives in blocks. (Equivalent to Airline/Handler ATA –Actual Time of Arrival, ACARS = IN).

SOBT The time that an aircraft is scheduled to depart from its parking position.

EOBT The estimated time at which the aircraft will commence movement associated with departure (ICAO).

TOBT

The time that an aircraft operator / handling agent estimates that an aircraft will be ready, all doors closed, boarding bridge removed, push back vehicle present, ready to taxi immediately upon reception of clearance from the TWR.

AOBT Time the aircraft pushes back/vacates the parking position (ACARS=OUT).

TSAT Target Start Approval Time - The time provided by ATC taking into account a CTOT and/or the current traffic situation that an aircraft can expect to receive Start up approval.

ASAT Actual Start up Approval Time. This is the time that an aircraft receives its Start up approval.

DEPARTURES CTOT

Calculated Take Off Time. The time provided by the CFMU, taking into account the ECAC ATC flow situation, that an aircraft has been calculated to take off. The CTOT also known as slot has a tolerance of – 5 to +10 minutes.

SIT1 Slot Issue Time. The time when the CFMU issues the SAM (Slot Allocation Message). This is normally two hours before EOBT.

E-DPI Early Departure Planning Information. This DPI is sent from the CDM-A to the CFMU (ETFMS) notifying the ETOT between three and two hours before the EOBT.

EXOT Estimated Taxi Out Time - The estimated time between off-block and take off.

ETOT Estimated Take Off Time. The estimated take off time taking into account the EOBT/TOBT plus EXOT. (Equivalent to ATC ETD–Estimated Time of Departure).


xvi Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

T-DPI Target Departure Planning Information. This DPI is sent from the CDM-A to the CFMU (ETFMS) notifying the ETOT between two hours before EOBT and twenty minutes before TOBT.

TTOT Target Take Off Time. The Target Take Off Time taking into account the TSAT plus the EXOT.

A-DPI ATC Departure Planning Information. This DPI is sent from the CDM-A to the CFMU (ETFMS) notifying the TTOT between TOBT/TSAT minus 20 minutes and AOBT.

ATOT Actual Take Off Time - The Time that an aircraft takes off from the runway. (Equivalent to ATC ATD–Actual Time of Departure, ACARS = OFF).

C-DPI Cancel Departure Planning Information. This message resets the flight plan status to ‘not activated’ (for example if a flight suffers a technical fault).


Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05 17

1. INTRODUCTION

With the future forecast growth in the aviation industry and the recent enhancements to the ATC en-route network such as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM), delays at airports will continue to be the restricting bottleneck to the overall ATM system.

Figure 1: Airport and En-route Flight Delays

To help reduce airport delays, EUROCONTROL has launched an initiative called Airport CDM. This works by attempting to minimise slot wastage at European airports. CDM Implementation Projects have already commenced at many major European airports. These early trials of CDM are already realising degrees of operational benefits. BAA and selected business partners have agreed for EUROCONTROL to commence a CDM Implementation study at London Heathrow Airport.


18 Project London Heathrow CDM - EEC Note No. 03/05

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

2.1. OBJECTIVES

Phase 1 – Perform a study on the state of operations and processes at London Heathrow and define the operational gaps and future CDM targets. This phase assesses the current operational processes between the Working Group partners at Heathrow. It assesses the major decision drivers involved in the process of decision making. It analyses the information systems and the main information flows between the partners. The partners will then identify the gaps in the current state of operations and select and design the required CDM processes, information systems and information flows to reach common and agreed targets. An initial CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) will also be conducted based upon the present operation situation.

Phase 2 - Implement and run. This phase will design and implement the CDM elements, processes, information systems and flows required to fill the identified gaps in the current operations/procedures. It will also establish a set of parameters, including a method to check and to verify that the required improvements are met.

Phase 3 - Measure and follow-up. This phase will measure the results obtained and will evaluate the changes made according to the initial CBA model.

2.2. SCOPE

The project will study the current information data exchange, procedures, systems and factors affecting the turn-round process at Heathrow Airport, specifically, arrival – on ground phase (airside) - departure. Any issues identified that lead to changes to the current procedures / operations could also be considered for implementation at other BAA Airports such as Gatwick and Stansted.

2.3. ASSUMPTIONS

It is assumed that Heathrow Partners will be able to provide timely access to key operational staff during the interviewing & fact-finding stage of this project.

2.4. TIMESCALES

The project will commence in September 2003 and initial interviews and meetings will take place up until Spring 2004. Any implementation that occurs as a result of the Working Group meetings should occur between 2004 and 2005.

2.5. RESOURCES

2.5.1. EUROCONTROL Resources

EUROCONTROL staff assigned to the Heathrow CDM project will be financed by EUROCONTROL during their involvement in the project.

2.5.2. Heathrow Partner Resources

Partners involved in the Heathrow CDM project will provide resources as required and all costs concerning time and effort will be the partners’ responsibility.



2.5.3. Heathrow CDM Implementation

EUROCONTROL is not responsible for supplying budget or funds for any CDM implementation that is identified as a result of the WP1 phase. The Heathrow CDM Steering Group will be responsible for identifying and co-ordinating budget management for any issues regarding CDM implementation. The extent of budget is unknown at the beginning of the project and commitment / acceptance of budget issues will be subject to partners’ acceptance at the various stages of the project.

2.6. DELIVERABLES

This phase of the project will deliver the Work Package 1 (WP1) Report, containing the information stated in section 2.1, above.



3. STUDY METHODOLOGY

The approach taken was to identify and document the:

• Current approach to aircraft turn-round by Heathrow Airport partners. • IT systems used by partners and their interfaces to each other. • Problems caused by current way of working. • Note any relevant operational changes & initiatives already planned by partners. • Recommend changes to achieve a more efficient way of working.



4. LONDON HEATHROW AIRPORT

Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport, serving 63 million passengers a year, and the second busiest cargo port, moving 1.3 m tonnes of cargo. It has over 80 airlines that serve 180 worldwide destinations.

Opened in 1946 and situated west of central London, it has two main runways and four terminal buildings. A new control tower and terminal building are currently under construction, with completion dates of 2006 and 2008, respectively.

Figure 2: Western View of LHR, with new terminal construction site in background

The main runways (09/27 Left and Right) are used for take-off and landings. The third runway (05/23) is seldom used for landings/take offs but instead is utilised as a busy taxiway and the 05 end is used to park aircraft using the terminal 4 area. Stands and taxiways have recently been renumbered to fit in with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) protocol. Some runways and taxiways can already accept the next generation of large aircraft (NGLA) e.g. Airbus A380, whilst others are being upgraded.

Runway alternation takes place at 1500hrs when in the Westerly configuration. Upon an Easterly wind direction, Runway 09L is normally used for landings, but has been used for departures too due to frequent Canadian Geese activity on the approach to 09L. Runway 09R is normally only used for departures but arrivals to Terminal 4 (T4) are often accommodated between departures to reduce taxi times and ground congestion around the central area.

With the high density of long haul traffic at Heathrow airport, many aircraft remain on the ground on long layovers. Managing this in turn puts high pressure on the airfield infrastructure.



Figure 3: Airfield Map of LHR



5. PROFILE OF STUDY PARTNERS

A cross-section of Heathrow organisations were invited to assist with this study. The ‘first wave’ of participants comprises of the following Airport partners:

5.1. AIRPORT AUTHORITY

BAA, one of the world's leading airport companies, owns seven UK airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Heathrow Airport is currently undergoing significant expansion with the building of the new Terminal 5, which will include a ground transport interchange (rail link, motorway spur off the M25 motorway and coach park) for easier and faster access into and out of LHR. Once built, Terminal 5 will have the capacity to accommodate around 30 million passengers per annum.

For the purposes of this study, attention will be focussed on BAA Airfield Operations, who are responsible for stand and gate planning for Terminals 2 and 3. The responsibility for Terminals 1 and 4 has been delegated to British Airways, the main user of these terminals.

Figure 4: The S&G Management Operations Room



5.2. AIRCRAFT OPERATORS

5.2.1. British Airways

British Airways is the world’s largest international carrier flying to 233 destinations in 96 countries and the United Kingdom's largest international scheduled airline. British Airways is one of the founding partners of the One world alliance In 2002, British Airways carried 38 million passengers with its fleet of 237 aircraft. Heathrow is both the main base and hub for this British flag carrier.

Figure 5: BA Aircraft parked at T4

5.2.2. Bmi

Bmi is the United Kingdom’s second largest scheduled service operator serving domestic, European and US routes, operating more than 2000 weekly flights to 29 destinations in 10 countries. Bmi’s main operational base is LHR where it holds 14% of all take off and landing slots. The airline operates with a fleet of 41 jet aircraft that have an average age of five years. Through its membership of Star Alliance, a grouping of 16 airlines offering seamless travel worldwide, it is also able to offer an international network reaching all areas of the globe.



Figure 6: Bmi Ground Handling Operations Room at LHR

5.2.3. Virgin Atlantic Airways

Virgin Atlantic is the second largest long haul airline in the UK and the third largest European carrier over the North Atlantic. Their route network has grown rapidly to include destinations in the United States, Caribbean, Far East, India and Africa, and they have won virtually every award the travel industry has to offer. Founded in 1984, Virgin Atlantic now has more than 26 Boeing 747s and Airbuses and is the launch customer for the A340-600 due for delivery in 2002, and the A380 due for delivery in 2006. In 2000, Virgin carried a total of 4.3 million passengers.

Figure 7: Virgin aircraft parked off-pier upon long layover

5.2.4. General Aviation

The number of General Aviation (GA) flights account for a fraction of total aircraft movements at Heathrow. Much of GA traffic has moved in recent years to smaller neighbouring airfields such as Farnborough. There are two main handing agents for GA aircraft at LHR: Executive Aircraft Service and Metro Business Aviation.



5.2.5. Air Traffic Control

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is responsible for the control of aircraft flying in the UK controlled airspace. The London Terminal Control Centre (LTCC) at West Drayton, Middlesex handles aircraft operating in the London Terminal Control Area. The Terminal Control operations room situated at LTCC provides an area control service to aircraft flying at 17500 feet and below within the London Terminal Control Area. It provides an approach control service to aircraft at LHR, Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted Airports.

Figure 8: LTCC Operations Room

The NATS Heathrow Tower (TWR) works very closely with LTCC and is responsible for controlling aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land or depart and full aircraft movements on the ground. A new TWR is being constructed and will be positioned in the Terminal 3 (T3) area and is due to be completed 2006.

Figure 9: LHR ATC Tower



5.3. GROUND HANDLING

The division of liability for Ground Handling (GH) functions at Heathrow Airport varies considerably. The responsibilities will include full handling (airside and landside), ramp only, passenger (landside) only, under-wing and cargo handling. The main independent handling companies are Aviance, Air France Services Ltd (AFSL) and Plane handling. Aircraft operators like British Airways, bmi, Lufthansa, United and Alitalia will both handle all or partly their own aircraft and offer additional handling services to third parties carriers.

The extreme complexity of LHR and the GH operation requires skilled and dexterous management to ensure that resources (staff and equipment) are used at a reasonable level of efficiency.

However, regardless of the handling agreements in place at the airport the objective of all ground handlers is to successfully execute the aircraft turn-round agreements established with the aircraft operators, normally set up in the form of service level agreements. Some aircraft operators will not have their own staff at the airport and require additional functions to be carried out on their behalf by the ground handling company concerned. Close coordination is always required between ground handlers and Aircraft Operations Centres to ensure smooth ground operations at LHR.

From the onset of this project GH companies are seen as a very important partner to the Airport CDM project, being at the sharp-end of the ground operation and often in the position to disseminate enhanced operational situational awareness amongst other airport partners.

However, it is recommended that Aircraft Operators (AO) should be the first points of contact when communicating with the ground handlers as they are seen as a service provider to the Aircraft Operators only.

5.3.1. Aviance UK

Aviance UK is part of the Aviance international alliance. Other members of the alliance include ADP Handling (France), Euro Handling and Jet Aviation handling Ltd. The Aviance Alliance now serves 77 airports in 11 countries, including 17 airports across the UK and Eire. Since 1987, Aviance UK has been involved in Plane Handling, a joint cargo-handling venture with Virgin Atlantic and has gained a respected name in the air cargo-handling sector.

5.3.2. Air France Services Limited

The company was formed in 1997 under its former name of Air France Servisair Ltd. Originally a joint venture between Air France (51%) and Servisair (49%) AFSL broke the mould of the traditional ground handler at Heathrow. The largest customer of AFSL has always been Air France who saw the opportunity in forming AFSL to concentrate on its own core activity. In February 2003 the company was restructured. Servisair withdrew from the shareholding and AFSL having sold its Terminal 3 business to GlobeGround concentrates its activities on its terminal 2 base. The revised business is focussed on delivering a high quality service. The current business profile for full handling includes Air France, Aeroflot, Czech Airlines, Libyan, Tunis, Syrian Arab, Yemenia and from 1st April 2004 China Eastern. AFSL also has a cargo trucking division, which provides that service to customers of GlobeGround such as South African Airways, Iran Air, PIA, Qatar, Air Algerie, Royal Air Maroc, Tarom and Croatia Airlines. Future activities will concentrate on the opportunities created by the SkyTeam Alliance and the terminal moves created by the opening of Terminal 5 in 2008.



6. CURRENT OPERATIONS MODEL

6.1. CURRENT AIRCRAFT TURN-ROUND PROCESS

HeathrowNATS SSR

RADAR

LHR Arrivals

BAAAirport System

(IDAHO)

OUTSTATIONS

LHR Departures

1 Aircraft Op.

File Flight Plan&

Obtain CFMU Slot

2 Outstation GH

Confirm Push BackAnd

Airborne Times

3 Term. Control

Manage AirTraffic Flow

4 TWR Arrivals

Cleared for LandingAt Heathrow

5 BAA Ops.

Assign Stand forArriving Aircraft

6 TWR GMC

Advise Aircraftof Allocated

Stand

7 LHR GH

PerformTurnaroundActivities

9 BAA Ops.

Record Push-backClearance Time

10 LHR GH

Push BackAircraft

12 LHR GH

Confirm Push BackAnd

Airborne Times

EUROCONTROLCFMU

Flight Plan &Slot Request Reply

Arrivals – AircraftLocation (Z, F, L, A)

FlightInformation

Update

Airborne Time(from onboard

ACARS system)

Push Back & AirborneTimes (via SITA

Movement Message)

Departures – AirborneTime

Departure

Details

AIRCRAFTHoldDelays

ArrivalInto FIR

Cleared forApproach &Runway in UseFor Arrivals

AIRCRAFT

Landing Clearance;Confirmation of Runway to Use; LocalWeather Conditions.

Arriva

ls –

Aircraf

t Loc

ation

AIRCRAFT

Stand No.And AirfieldTaxi Route

BAAAirport System

(IDAHO)

AllocatedStand

Stand No.

Arrivals –Aircraft Location

In-Blocks Time(from onboard

ACARS system)

BAAAirport System

(IDAHO)

In BlocksTime & Est. Dep. Times(via SITA Movement Message)

Time Push Back Approved

By TWR GMC

Push BackClearance Time

8 TWR GMP/C

Grant Start-up And Push Back

Clearance

AIRCRAFT

RequestPush Back

Pushback & AirborneTimes (via SITA

Movement Message)

Airborne Time(from onboard

ACARS system)

BAAStaff Information System

(SIS)

Departures –

Estimated Dep. Times

StackFlight Strip

CCTV

Cleared forTake Off

11 TWR Dep.

Cleared for Take Off From Heathrow

Request Start-up

& Push Back

Figure 10: Diagrammatic Overview of Current Turn-round Process

6.1.1. File Flight Plan & CFMU Slot Allocation

The Aircraft operator will submit a flight plan to CFMU. The CFMU will allocate a slot (if required) in advance of the flight departure time.

6.1.2. Confirmation of Push Back & Airborne Times

The out station ground handler will send the airborne and pushback times, via SITA messaging, to BAA’s central airport operations system (IDAHO), which will in turn publish the planned landing time of the flight at Heathrow on BAA’s Staff Information System (SIS). The latter is an intranet system that is available to the majority of BAA partners at Heathrow and provides custom-designed “pages” of information to given partners as well as general airport-wide information.

The planned landing time is also displayed by BAA through the following information channels: corporate and public flight information displays (FIDS) around the airport campus; Teletext; and on BAA’s own Internet website (www.baa.com).



6.1.3. Manage Air Traffic Flow

Heathrow Approach Controllers (at the London Terminal Control Centre) control and sequence aircraft prior to handing over control to the Tower, normally at 10 miles final to land. The TC controllers are responsible for any stack hold delays that may be experienced.

6.1.4. Landing Clearance at Heathrow

The TWR Arrivals controller will be pre-notified of arrival traffic with a printed paper strip 20 minutes before landing time. The controllers can identify inbound aircraft leaving the stack and entering the Zone using the Aerodrome Traffic Monitor.

The aircraft will contact the Controller by radio transmission and the controller will monitor the progress of the aircraft on final approach and give landing clearance at the appropriate time. The controller will confirm the runway in use for landings, as well as surface conditions, together with any other relevant details.

Where visibility is an issue due to adverse weather conditions, the controller will use the Advanced Surface Movement Guidance System (A-SMGCS) (the “ground radar”) to monitor the position of the aircraft as it comes into land and exits the runway at the prescribed turn off.

Upon exiting the runway, the controller will instruct the aircraft to contact Ground Movement Controller (GMC) on the given radio frequency for taxi instructions to the allocated stand.

The controller will update the manual flight strip with the landing time and stand number before passing the strip to the Air Traffic Services Assistant (ATSA) to retain for later management information reporting analysis.

6.1.5. Stand allocation for Arriving Aircraft

BAA Airfield Operations have two Terminal Controllers (one each for T2 and T3), who manage the day-to-day stand allocation.

They monitor the progress of inbound aircraft using the BAA SIS Arrivals screen. When an aircraft is on final approach or has landed (status code “F” or “L” on SIS), the stand will be allocated to the aircraft using BAA’s ARIS (Stand & Gate Planning) system. This information is then automatically, and instantaneously, displayed on the SIS flight Arrivals screen against that flight.

The final decision as to which stand to allocate is based upon the stand plan, the position of the inbound flight, the current availability of the stand (i.e. is it already occupied and, if so, for how much longer), the general stability of the stand plan so far that day, the serviceability of the stand and general airport & stand congestion (using BAA’s CCTV system).

The BAA Terminal Controller will use ARIS to confirm the final stand allocation for the aircraft. This action will automatically update the BAA IDAHO and SIS systems with this information. Prior to this action, the SIS system will not show a stand number against a flight.

This “just in time” approach to stand allocation (i.e. when the aircraft is literally a few minutes away from landing) helps to reduce the potential for stand changes for whatever reason.. Late stand changes can cause major difficulties for other partners, such as ground handlers, who then need to re-deploy their staff and equipment to a different place on the airport campus British Airways prepare the stand plan for T1 and T4 using the FICO system, which has an electronic link to ARIS.



Using the same “at the last minute possible” approach, British Airways submit the proposed stand for the inbound aircraft to ARIS. The BAA Terminal Controller will consider the proposal and then confirm via ARIS whether it is accepted or not. If accepted, IDAHO and SIS will be updated as above and a confirmation message will be sent to FICO, which will then show the stand number on the FICO screen against that flight.

6.1.6. Notification of allocated stand to Aircraft

The TWR GMC controller will instruct the aircraft to taxi across the airport along a specific route and to park at the allocated stand.

The stand number will be made available to GMC on the paper flight strip (the ATSA will hand write the stand on the strip, having got the information via the BAA SIS Arrivals screen).

Exceptionally, where no stand information has been published on SIS at this stage, then the TWR ATSA will telephone BAA Airport Operations and ask for the stand number.

Should the allocated stand be occupied by another aircraft, then the TWR will make enquiries upon BAA to determine whether the aircraft should hold on the taxiway (for short delays), more remotely (for longer delays) or if a substitute stand would be more appropriate for that particular aircraft.

6.1.7. Turn-round Activities

The GH will normally have arrived (subject to receiving the stand information in good time) and be in position to ‘set up’ the stand for receiving the aircraft as it arrives. The timely attendance by ground handling is achieved by virtue of the aircraft confirming its arrival time when it is approximately 30 minutes away from landing and by the Ground Handler checking the BAA SIS Arrivals page to see if the aircraft is on final approach.

The in-block time is captured manually by the GH or automatically from ACARS equipped aircraft where a movement message is generated when the pilot applies the aircraft parking brake.

The dispatcher will oversee the turn-round activities, such as baggage, cargo, catering, cabin cleaning, refuelling, and passengers processing.

Where an aircraft is running behind schedule and is not expected to leave at the scheduled time on its out-bound leg, the Ground Handler will send a SITA delay message to BAA with an estimated departure time (i.e. when the aircraft is expected to push-back from the stand). BAA’s IDAHO and SIS systems are updated with the estimated departure time Where there is likely to be a delay in the aircraft’s published departure time, the Ground Handler will contact BAA Airport field Operations Stand & Gate Team to advise that the stand will not be vacant as previously planned. BAA will then contact the TWR Ground Movement Planner (GMP) with this information. Subject to service level agreements between the aircraft operator and ground handling company the handler may be required to contact CFMU to request a revised CTOT that caters for the delayed departure.

The dispatcher will advise the pilot when turn-round activities have been completed and the aircraft is ready for push back.



6.1.8. Start-up & Push Back Approval

When the Aircraft is ready to depart, the pilot will contact the TWR GMP (also known as “Delivery”) and request approval for start-up, confirming the callsign and stand location. Subject to the aircraft’s CTOT (if any) and current airport congestion, the aircraft will be granted permission to start-up engines. GMP will also provide the pilot with the aircraft’s SSR Code and the latest weather report version to check on the ATIS system. Where an aircraft has missed its CTOT, the ATSA will request a new CTOT using the CFMU TACT system. Where start-up is approved, GMP will instruct the pilot to contact GMC for permission to push back and taxi.

If the aircraft contacts GMC too early or too late, relative to the CTOT, or the holding areas are too congested, then permission will be denied. If permission is granted, then the aircraft will be advised of the taxi route to use and to report back once it has reached a given point or block on the airport, on it’s way to the take off runway.

6.1.9. Recording of Push Back Clearance Time

BAA Airport Operations staff constantly monitor radio communications between GMC and departing aircraft. The exact time when GMC grant approval to an aircraft to push back off a stand is noted by BAA staff and manually entered into BAA’s IDAHO system. IDAHO automatically updates BAA’s Staff Information System (SIS) with the aircraft’s departure time and ARIS (the Stand & Gate Planning Tool) with the corresponding stand’s availability to receive another aircraft.

It should be noted that the time recorded in IDAHO is when permission to push back is granted by GMC and may not be the same as when the aircraft physically left the stand.

(Insert photo of BAA Airfield Ops staff with RT headsets, monitoring GMC communications with aircraft. Also show screen shot of how push back times are input into IDAHO).

6.1.10. Pushback of Aircraft

The aircraft crew via headset will instruct the ground crew to push back the aircraft and confirm if any non standard pushback procedures have been applied. After pushback and subject to the type of tug used the ground crew will uncouple from aircraft, supervise any additional engine start and remove the nose wheel steering pin prior to giving the flight crew the all clear for them to request taxi clearance from GMC.

The dispatcher will manually record the push back time on the flight turn-round progress report and often confirm via radio to his or her operational base the times. These times are used for post flight analysis.

6.1.11. Clearance for Take-off from Heathrow

GMC will transfer the aircraft to the TWR Departures (DEP) controller as it taxis to the holding point of the take-off runway. The DEP controller may instruct the aircraft to give way to any other aircraft behind it, where necessary. In doing so, the aircraft may need to wait to one side within the holding area to allow the preceding aircraft to pass safely. Alternatively, the controller may instruct the aircraft to line-up on the take-off runway immediately after the aircraft in front of it has taken-off.

The controller will manually update the Departure Flight Strip with the take-off time. Once the aircraft is airborne and has left the vicinity of the airfield, the controller will instruct the aircraft to contact LTCC on a pre-set frequency for further instructions.



Once the aircraft has acknowledged the latter instructions, the flight strip is returned to the ATSA. The paper strip is retained for later management information reporting analysis.

6.1.12. Confirmation Push Back & Airborne Times

The time that the aircraft is physically pushed-back from the stand by the tug is recorded manually on the dispatch sheet by the ground handling dispatcher.

The Heathrow NATS SSR Radar system will detect the aircraft once it has become airborne. The airborne time will be automatically input into the BAA IDAHO system, which in turn will publish it on BAA SIS. The dispatcher, having access to BAA SIS, will transcribe the airborne time from SIS onto the dispatch sheet too.

A movement message will be sent by the ground handler to the airline in question, as well as any other parties that it is contracted to inform, for example, all out stations pertaining to that airline and aircraft.

The ground handler will update its own internal systems with the dispatch details (for example, billing), as well as enter relevant details into any of its customers’ own systems as per any contractual agreements.



7. OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SYSTEMS

This section identifies the main information flows between partners and the IT systems used by them to support the aircraft turn-round process at Heathrow.

7.1. BAA

BAA’s central IT system is IDAHO (also known as ADAM) and is linked to a variety of other BAA systems, as shown in the following diagram.

Figure 11: Overview of BAA IDAHO System & Interfaces

The key BAA systems and interfaces from partner systems, that support the aircraft turn-round process, may be summarised as follows:

7.1.1. NATS Radar

The NATS SSR radar system sends an update message to IDAHO as inbound aircraft reach each of the following milestones: Zone, Finals, Landed and In-Block. This information is processed by IDAHO and passed to two other BAA systems: SIS and FIDS (both are mentioned below in more detail). It should be noted that the landing time is displayed on SIS some four minutes after the event due to the way in which the radar system determines a landing and the in-block time displayed is based upon default taxi-times and may not be the same as the actual in-block time. If for any reason the aircraft aborts a landing and overshoots, then an update message is also sent to IDAHO and will be displayed on SIS. For outbound aircraft, the radar system will send an update message to IDAHO once an aircraft is airborne, which is then displayed on SIS.

AIRPORT CO-ORDINATION

TCS(Accounts)

NATS

SITA / ARINC

ARIS(Stand

Planning)

AIRPORTDATABASE/

Baggage Data Warehouse

PUBLIC DISPLAYS

GATE PUSHBUTTONS

INFO DESKS PA STUDIOS

IDAHO

IDAHO System Inputs & Outputs

TRAFFICMANAGERS

(Baggage Halls)

Stand All ti U it

DISPLAY MANAGERS

AOMIS

BRITISHAIRWAYS

SIS(Intranet Staff Information)

SIRIUS

Real-time data e.g. Baggage systems VIP Speakeasy

Off-Airport services e.g. Teletext/Web/SMS

Schedule data e.g. IDAHO/AOMIS RMS CUBES

Data streams e.g. BA CIP Lounges Baggage LED signs Automated PA

FTP

FTP

FTP (Daily)

BUCHair(Reference data)

Invoices

(Monthly)

(Daily)

(Daily)

FTP (every 5 mins) LGW/STN/SOU d t

zone/finals landed/overshoot

airborne

ETA/ETD Registration

Stands Payload

Cancel/divert

Gate open Boarding Last Call

Gate closed

STAR

User workstations

Seasonal schedules

FTP (every 2 mins) Contingency

Corporate FIDS



7.1.2. SITA Messaging

The IDAHO system receives movement messages (as well as other types of messages) from partners at certain points in an aircraft flight progress. When an inbound aircraft becomes airborne at an outstation, a movement message is sent to IDAHO. The message, which contains various data items, including airborne time, is automatically processed and an expected time of arrival is displayed on SIS and FIDS.

7.1.3. Aviation Message Server

The Aviation Message Server is the main connection between BA and BAA operational systems.

7.1.4. Gate Pushbutton

Four key stages (gate open, boarding, last call and gate closed) in the boarding process of an outbound flight are captured by gate staff using these buttons. The information, as each button is pressed, is sent to IDAHO which updates public FIDS.

7.1.5. Accounts

Not strictly an operations system, but nevertheless worth highlighting here is the issue of introducing more accurate landing, in-block times and off-block times in relation to BAA’s current stand and parking charges policy. The current charging policy states that charging for inbound aircraft commences from touchdown (less a discretional default taxi-time) to pushback. The latter time is considered to be the time when TWR GMC gives the pilot permission to pushback, which may of course differ from when the aircraft physically moves off the stand. With the introduction of more accurate, radar-based, pushback data capture, it may be that aircraft operators may end up having to pay more parking fees, as the actual move off the stand will be recorded and used as the unit of measure when working out parking charges. To balance out the equation BAA may wish to consider charging from the aircraft being in-block (which will also be more accurately measured using ASMGCS ground radar instead of landing time plus default taxi-times).

7.1.6. SIS (Staff Information System)

This is BAA’s main information system for staff and also Heathrow partners. It is a read-only system and receives (almost) real-time data updates from IDAHO. Many pages are available and the system is widely available across the airport community. Some partners, e.g. aircraft operators, can access their own “pages” on SIS that will show only their arrivals and departures details.



Figure 12: BAA SIS Page as used by Airfield Operations

The SIS system is a key information source for the majority of airport partners regarding the status of flights and in planning their on-the-day resources in relation to those flights.

Although SIS is said to be an intranet system (i.e. for use within a single company or organisation), it is in fact an extranet system, whereby access to it has been extended to BAA’s customers and suppliers.

In view of SIS’s existing coverage across the airport community, and with individual pages being created for specific partners, it may well be feasible to amend SIS to allow direct data entry of key information into SIS by partners to support proposed CDM procedures. For example, ground handling companies to input target off-block times and for the TWR to see those times and either accept or counter-propose new times. Whichever technical option is selected by Heathrow, the IT platform needs to support the collaborative decision making process where partners can propose, review, revise, agree and disseminate data and then base their actions upon it.

7.1.7. ARIS (Stand Planning)

The ARIS system is used by BAA Airfield Operations to plan stands for Terminals 2 and 3, and to manage the on-the-day use of those stands. ARIS uses data held on AOMIS, which is a separate database from IDAHO.

The stand plan is prepared a day in advance by the Operations Team. Note that stand planning for Terminals 1 and 4 is undertaking by British Airways (this is discussed in more detail below). Although the stand plan is prepared a day in advance, the information is not shared with partners until the day of the operation, when the aircraft has left the stack and is in Zone i.e. approximately 10-15 minutes before landing. Operations look on SIS to see the location of the aircraft and as its status changes from P (Planned) to Z (Zone), the Terminal Controller will check the Stand allocated to the flight and subject to the stand being available will confirm the stand on ARIS. This action will update SIS, via AOMIS, and the stand number will appear on SIS almost immediately. Operations can also look at Stand Availability pages on SIS to see the status of each stand, as seen by airport partners.



Figure 13: SIS T3 Stand Status Screen

For Terminal 1 and 4 stands, British Airways use their own in-house system called STARMAN. Having pre-planned the stands for the day, British Airways’ Stand & Gate Management Team propose the stand number for a given flight to BAA. This is achieved by a dedicated link between Figaro and ARIS, which causes a pop-up message to appear on ARIS. One of the two Terminal Controllers in BAA Airfield Operations will consider the proposed stand and, if appropriate, accept it. Accepting the proposed stand for a given aircraft on ARIS will cause an update of SIS via AOMIS.

Not strictly an IT system, but worth mentioning is Airfield Operations use of the Stack Flight Strips CCTV feed from NATS TC. Two VDU monitors are used to show the four stacks (two stacks per VDU) being operated by NATS Terminal Control at West Drayton. The CCTV monitors show the manual flight stack strips on the controllers work desk and any updates to them in real-time. This information provides BAA with additional information as to the order and timing of inbound aircraft such that daily stand allocation and usage can be optimised.

As NATS do not have access to ARIS, then if for any reason the stand number for an arriving aircraft is not shown on SIS when the aircraft has landed, NATS TWR GMP will contact the Terminal Operations Controller in BAA Airfield Operations by telephone and ask for the stand number. The Controller, having confirmed the stand, will update ARIS and the information will be sent to IDAHO, which will in turn update SIS with the stand number.

If there is any late stand or gate changes by BAA Airfield Operations (i.e. after the stand number has been published on SIS) then the Controller will telephone the NATS TWR Watch Supervisor and confirm the change verbally before updating ARIS and SIS. This is because the manual flight strip for the flight has already been printed by the TWR and there is no automatic means of updating the information in the TWR at that late stage. It should be noted that the introduction of Electronic Flight Progress Strips in the TWR in 2006 should enable an automatic update of such late stand changes and so render the need for a telephone update redundant.

A final point to note on stand planning is that BAA Airfield Operation’s current accommodation does not provide full visual coverage of the stands at each of the terminals. The Operations Team is located in an almost windowless building, to the west of the central airport area, between the two main runways. To compensate for this lack of visual amenity, they use CCTV to see the status of stands and apron areas; including the status of aircraft e.g. is the aircraft ready for push back.



Figure 14: BAA Airfield Operations Accommodation

It is anticipated that they will be able to relocate their offices to the current TWR building, which provides a substantially better vantage point, once NATS have moved to the new tower that is beginning built.

7.1.8. Aircraft Push-Back Clearance

This is a manual interface between NATS TWR GMC and BAA Airfield Operations personnel. Up to two Airfield Operations personnel (one covering each GMC zone being operated by NATS TWR) monitor the radio frequency between GMC and the pilot and manually record the time that push-back was granted.

This time is then transcribed manually into IDAHO by Airfield Operations This causes IDAHO to automatically update ARIS and SIS (where the aircraft status on the departures screen for that flight will change to “D” to signify that it has departed i.e. it has pushed back from stand). This manual interface is very labour intensive, from a BAA perspective, and the accuracy of the data captured is, by its very nature, subject to human error.

Note that the use of A-SMGCS to automatically capture push-back times will render this manual interface redundant. A-SMGCS will capture actual push-back times rather than the time that the pilot was granted push-back clearance.

7.1.9. Public Displays (FIDS)

IDAHO provides two different types of flight information details (FIDS): corporate (back office) and public. Public FIDS is available on conventional monitors and plasma screens around the airport site, as well as on Teletext and BAA’s internet website.



FICO

FICO System Inputs & Outputs

BRITISHAIRWAYS

PULSARAircraft

Allocation

STARPALN &

STARMAN

CFMUSlot Allocation

RTOData

BA INTERNET

Arrivals &

FIGAROTerminal

Operations (D Day & D+1)

BAA IDAHO Gatwick

Z, F, L Fli h

AXIS(ACARS)

BABS & DCS

CIRRUS (LIDO)

Flight Plan

Aviation Message

Server

BAA IDAHO

BAA SIRIUS

Z, F, L

Figure 15: BAA Website with Arrivals Information

7.2. BRITISH AIRWAYS

Figure 16: Overview of BA FICO System & Interfaces



The key BA systems and interfaces from partner systems, that support the aircraft turn-round process, may be summarised as follows:

7.2.1. FICO

The Flight Information & Control of Operations (FICO) system is BA’s main IT system and is the hub into which most of BA’s other operations systems link into. It contains operational data for D-5 to D+42. It holds information on BA’s world-wide operations, including aircraft registrations, crew hours, engineering defects, etc.

FICO interfaces with a variety of other BA systems, as shown in the above diagram, as well as providing a feed to BAA’s IDAHO system at Heathrow, via the RTO Data Warehouse and the Aviation Message Server.

7.2.2. FIGARO

This is the main terminal operations system, supporting BA’s Heathrow operations. It holds data for D day and D+1. It receives a feed from FICO and contains information such as: flight numbers, departure times, destination, passenger numbers, stand numbers etc.

Figaro is the most widely used system with BA and has some 2000 pages of Information that are tailored for individual departments needs.

Figaro users have the facility to input data into this system, which will then update FICO, though the majority of users have read-only access to it. It is the main arrivals and departures information system within BA. It is also used by BA’s Airport Centre to input target departure times that are received from BA’s own ground handling teams.

Any changes to departure or arrival times are automatically passed to BAA IDAHO via FICO.

FIGARO also receives a data feed from BAA’s Gatwick IDAHO system.

7.2.3. AXIS

The AXIS system receives and processes ACARS messages from BA aircraft and feeds the data into FICO. An aircraft will send a message when it pushes back and also when it becomes airborne at an outstation. It then sends a position report message every 30 minutes. Upon arrival at Heathrow a message will be sent when the pilot has applied the parking brake when the aircraft is on stand. This information is used to update FIGARO, but not BAA’s IDAHO system.

7.2.4. SIRIUS

The BAA SIRIUS system provides a data feed from the NATS SSR radar, with flight progress information. Data is received when the aircraft enters the Zone, is on final approach and when it has ‘landed’ i.e. when it disappears below the SSR radar and does not reappear for a pre-set period of time.



7.2.5. STARPLAN & STARMAN

The STARPLAN system is used to plan stand and gate allocation for Terminals 1 and 4. STARMAN is used for the tactical management of the plan. Once the plan is in STARMAN, it is available for all BA staff to see via Figaro. However, the stand number for a given flight will only be sent to BAA IDAHO once the aircraft is in Zone and the stand allocation controller for the corresponding terminal has confirmed that stand for the in-bound flight. Note: In order for BAA SIS to show accurate EIBT times for flights under CDM, it will be necessary for BA to

feed IDAHO with the stand number at least 30 minutes before the estimated landing time.

7.2.6. BA WEBSITE

The BA web site receives data from the RTO Data Warehouse in order to display arrivals and departures information. The information is updated once every 60 seconds.

Figure 17: BA Website with Arrivals Information




Figure 18: BA Website with Departures Information

7.3. Bmi

Operations are managed from bmi’s Castle Donnington Offices, near East Midlands Airport. The main operations planning system is AIROPS from Sabre, with links to an airport operations tool called Tango.

7.3.1. AIROPS (Strategic Flight Planning)

Bmi use AIROPS (from SABRE) to create and publish the network plan. The system is located at the flight-planning centre at Castle Donnington.

Figure 19: Bmi AIROPS Screen



7.3.2. TANGO (Tactical Flight Management)

Bmi use an airport planning system called TANGO to manage the on-the-day operations. It has the facility to generate IATA standard movement messages according to a given set of business rules to various addresses upon changes being made to a flight e.g. Flight delayed. TANGO movement messages are sent to BAA via IDAHO in order to update SIS information. AIROPS is updated of actual flight progress against planned via IATA messaging from TANGO.

Note that bmi would prefer to use TANGO to capture flight status details and for that information to be fed into other partner systems for collaborative decision making rather than for bmi to input the data into TANGO and then again into another system introduced under this CDM.

Figure 20: Bmi TANGO Screen

Bmi also use SIS within their Heathrow ground handling operations room for flight arrivals and departures information and have their own bmi “pages” on SIS:

Figure 21: Bmi Arrivals Information



Figure 22: Bmi Departures Information

7.4. NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

7.4.1. National Air Space System (Host)

This system receives and holds flight plans from CFMU pertaining to LHR. The Host system will automatically generate flight strips for outbound aircraft 39 minutes before the scheduled departure and 20 minutes for arrivals. The paper strips are printed in the TWR by the ATSA and passed to GMP or Arrivals as appropriate. With the introduction of Electronic Flight Progress Strips (EFPS), the strips will appear automatically on the relevant controllers display screen at the appropriate time.

7.4.2. Aerodrome Traffic Monitor (ATM)

More of a radar system, than a conventional IT system, ATM is a key tool for controllers. The radar screen can be set to show details of inbound and outbound aircraft within a few miles radius of the airfield, as well as those either just entering the local area (final approach) or leaving it.

Figure 23: Final Approach on 09L



7.4.3. Advanced - Surface Movement Guidance Control System (A-SMGCS)

This is a ground radar system that has great potential for improving common situational awareness and collaborative decision-making. All aircraft (or even ground vehicles) with Mode S transponders can be conclusively identified with this system. The NATS TWR currently uses it to manage the ground movements in conditions of low visibility.

A-SMGCS will provide the controller with accurate, automatic identity of all aircraft and vehicles on the manoeuvring area and all relevant aircraft on the apron. This will be useful not only in poor visibility, but also in good visibility, particularly when multiple aircraft with similar colour schemes are manoeuvring in close proximity to one another (e.g. in a holding bay).

The advanced A-SMGCS can also assist the controller with a warning system, detecting potentially dangerous conflicts on the runway and restricted areas.

The A-SMGCS could also be used to provide IDAHO/SIS with an accurate and timely Landing time, in-block time, off-block time and take off time.

Figure 24: A-SMGCS screen

It is possible to use A-SMGCS to capture actual aircraft landing times, as the weight of the aircraft on its wheels triggers a message from the transponder to A-SMGCS. The actual in-block time could also be captured automatically, as well as push-back times with minimal effort. This information could then be fed back from NATS into IDAHO for airport partners to use via SIS.



7.4.4. ATIS Weather System

This system is used by pilots and the TWR to check prevailing weather conditions at the airfield. Runway rotations are recorded too and are maintained by BAA Airfield Operations.

7.4.5. Stack Monitors

Not an IT system. The CCTV monitors show the manual flight stack strips on the controllers work desk and any updates to them in real-time. The information feed is shared with BAA Airfield Operations and British Airways Technical Flight Dispatch.

7.4.6. Airport Playback Tool (APT)

Not an on-the-day operational tool, but one that provides value by processing historical data (the current database can archive data for up to 12 months) from A-SMGCS and identifying trends and resolving issues. It will be possible to use this tool to calculate average taxi-times from given blocks on a runway to given stands. These average taxi-times can then be used to introduce variable taxi-times at Heathrow in order to derive more accurate in-block estimates, Target Take Off Times and CTOT adherence.

Figure 25: Airport Playback Tool Display



Currently aircraft towing vehicles are not Mode S equipped and therefore do not appear with a label on the screen (unless the aircraft electrics are activated and the transponder selected on in which case the aircraft registration is displayed). The aircraft have different colour states depending on whether they are occupying the runway, queuing, taxiing in or out, or on stand. Data is downloaded in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format and includes all times on different parts of the airport (runway or taxiways), speeds, and ground holding times.

7.4.7. Expected Approach Time (EAT) Tool

This system is located at LTCC in West Drayton and works on the long-range radar information. It can automatically calculate the ETA of an aircraft at one of the four holding stacks (BNN, LAM, OCK or BIG) and the EAT when it will leave the stack. The difference between the two values equals the holding delay. This delay is not currently included in any calculation of the arrival time estimates shown on SIS.

Figure 26: EAT (Expected Approach Time) tool

It is normally about 10 minutes from the stack to touchdown on Westerlies and on Easterlies 10 minutes from OCK and BNN and 14 minutes from LAM or BIG. Adding the EAT plus the default flying time from the stack could be used to give the first accurate ELDT.

7.4.8. Stand Confirmation

NATS TWR use a SIS Arrivals page to check the stand allocated to a given inbound aircraft and will advise the pilot of that stand together with taxi route instructions to it.



7.5. AVIANCE UK

7.5.1. Ground Handling Operations System

The main system used within Aviance’s ground handling operations office at Heathrow is Dameral. It is used to record in-blocks and push back times. It is also used for the billing of customers for ground handling services. The key stages of the turn-round process are recorded and retained on manual turn-round sheets.

Aviance also input data into 11 different customer systems. The customers simply provide Aviance with the appropriate access and Aviance input the required data into those systems as required by the terms of their individual ground-handling contract.

7.5.2. Aircraft flight Progress Information

SIS pages specific to Aviance supported flights are used to track the progress of inbound flights in order to manage on-the-day resources. When aircraft are shown to be on final approach (status on SIS is shown as “F”) and the stand number is shown against the flight, the ground handling team responsible for that flight is sent to the stand in order meet the flight as it arrives. The amount of notice given to the team will depend on how quickly BAA confirms the stand number (i.e. when the aircraft is on finals, has landed or is holding on the apron for a stand to become available) and the taxi-time from the landing runway and the stand. Last minute stand changes are not unknown and can cause the aircraft to arrive at the new stand before the ground handling team have time to reposition.

7.6. AIR FRANCES SERVICES LIMITED

7.6.1. Departure Control System (DCS)

The ground handling supervisor uses this system to enter the estimated departure time of an aircraft that has just arrived on stand and the turn-round activities are just about to start. The estimate is based upon the minimum amount of time required to turn an aircraft of that particular type round, together with any other local knowledge or information the supervisor may have. The information, once entered into DCS, will update the BAA IDAHO system via a movement message in order to update SIS.

7.6.2. MILORD

This is AFSL’s main operations system. It has an interface to DCS and contains information that includes aircraft, crews and schedule details.

7.6.3. Aircraft flight Progress Information

SIS pages specific to AFSL supported flights are used to track the progress of inbound flights in order to manage on-the-day resources.



8. CHANGES ALREADY PLANNED AT HEATHROW

8.1. BAA

The BAA is currently involved in the massive Terminal 5 construction project, with the main terminal building expected to be in operation by 2008. A new NATS tower is also under construction.

This building work will create much needed additional stands around the Terminal 5 campus.

With British Airways being the prime candidate for occupying the new terminal building, BAA will need to manage the transfer of BA from Terminals 1 and 4 into 5. It is anticipated that Terminals 1 and 4 will be re-allocated to one or more of the other airline alliances.

The new taxiway layout has been implemented and now conforms to ICAO standards. The implementation has occurred without any major disruptions.

BAA are in the process of introducing variable taxi-times into their arrival time calculations. The information is available from NATS and IDAHO is understood to already be capable of accepting such data.

8.2. BRITISH AIRWAYS

BA is expected to become the main tenant of the new Terminal 5 building once it opens in 2008. This will require a major transfer of operations from Terminals 1 and 4 (also some in Terminal 3) to a single building. BA are working towards minimising the disruption this may cause it’s operations by designing IT systems, business process and operating procedures that can be moved to Terminal 5 without any significant change. In other words, nothing will be implemented in Terminal 5 that has not already been tried and tested within existing terminal buildings.

A new Airport Centre has been set up within the Compass Centre. This replaces the earlier individual Terminal Control offices. The Airport Centre comprises of a single-floor open plan office that houses representatives from all BA departments that have any involvement with Heathrow operations e.g. Stand & Gate Planning, Engineering, Baggage Flow Systems, Security, Radio Transmissions (with airborne crew), ground handling (BA’s own internal team), Passenger Transfer Unit, and third parties such as catering and cleaning. This bringing together of key departments ensures improved communication and a more effective trouble-shooting environment.

BA have also recently moved flights between Terminals 1 and 4, in order to even out the passenger peaks previously experienced within each terminal. Terminal 4 contained predominately long-haul flights, with peak passenger throughput within that terminal during the early mornings and late afternoons. Terminal 1 contained more of the short-haul flights with peak traffic during the late morning and early afternoons.

8.3. NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

It is anticipated that NATS will be taking occupation of the new LHR TWR in 2006. The existing TWR may be used for stand-by purposes, as well as possibly being used by BAA’s Stand & Gate Management Team.



The key change to NATS TWR operations upon the move to the new TWR will be the use of Electronic Flight Progress Strips (EFPS) instead of the current manual strips. The new EFPS system is being introduced at Stansted and Gatwick before Heathrow and any operational issues are expected to have been addressed prior to implementation at Heathrow.

8.4. Bmi

Bmi are currently evaluating a new computer-based aircraft turn-round system called Eclipse from Speedwing (a subsidiary company of British Airways). It is not yet known if the purchase is going ahead or the results of the evaluation.

Figure 27: Screen Shot of Eclipse tool



9. PHASED IMPLEMENTATION & PARTNERS CDM TARGETS AND BENEFITS

It was identified from an early stage, considering the complexity of LHR that a phased approach would be recommended to safeguard full Airport CDM implementation in the short term. It was agreed by the Stakeholders that a number of key areas needed to be tackled, some being quick-wins, others being more complex and many acting as prerequisites to other areas. The following changes are recommended to further optimise the operations of the Heathrow IT platform. The flow chart below gives an overview of the main CDM improvements required for achieving CDM-A status.

Figure 28: Phased Implementation & Partners CDM Targets and Benefits

LHR = CDM-ACFMU

ARRIVALS

FUM

Hold for stand

SSR information

TPLD - EAT

A-SMGCS (ALDT & AIBT)

DEPARTURES

TTOT

TOBT

PREDEPARTURE SEQUENCE

STATUS

IT PLATFORM

ARR Delay Column

Alarm/Warning

Airport Slot check

CTOT column

DEP Delay Column

Take Off order

Turn-round

VTT (taxi in) VTT (taxi out)

A-SMGCS (AOBT & ATOT)

DPI

Airport Partners



9.1. IMPROVE LOCAL ARRIVAL INFORMATION

9.1.1. Current Situation

Following interviews with partners it was identified that the SIS does not provide accurate and timely arrivals information. The estimated time of arrival does not take into account any stack holding delays or variable taxi times (VTT). The estimated arrivals times displayed on SIS can therefore be inaccurate by the amount of the hold delay plus taxi time differences, until the aircraft leaves the stack and enters the Zone when the arrival time is re-calculated and re-displayed on SIS. This recalculation takes into account the aircraft position in the Zone and assumes a default flying time to touchdown. Estimates can still be inaccurate due to the varying approach profiles given by ATC, especially when landing on easterlies. The estimated in-block times are calculated using default taxi times (7 or 9 minutes depending on the terminal) from the landing runway to the terminal building. With taxi times varying significantly between a given runway and stand, the use of variable taxi times would afford better estimates of when an aircraft is estimated to be in-blocks. The actual landing time (ALDT) appears on SIS approximately four minutes after the event. This issue is of particular relevance to ground handling partners, who dispatch crews to meet in-bound aircraft using SIS arrivals information. The publication on SIS of an accurate landing time without the current 4 minute time-lag would enable GH companies to allocate resources at the arrival stand more efficiently and thereby maximise the prospects of completing turn-round activities on-time. The actual in-block times (AIBT) are calculated by adding a default taxi time to the actual landing time and are not usually updated with an accurate in-block time. Although some aircraft are fitted with ACARS and the in-block times can be determined from when the pilot applies the parking-brake upon arriving at the stand, other aircraft do not have such devices fitted. The LHR stands infrastructure does not currently provide an automated means of capturing in-block times. An automated or low cost means of capturing such times would be of great interest to Heathrow partners.

9.1.2. Proposed Improvements

In order to address the identified problems, the following improvements are proposed:

• Calculate the estimated landing time (ELDT) using Expected Approach Times (EATs) derived from radar information plus initially default flying times from the stack to the runway. When aircraft have left the hold altitude triggers could be used to update the ELDT/EIBT instead of the Zone position filters.

• Use the estimated landing time and variable taxi times to calculate the estimated in-block time.

• Capture the actual landing time using a data feed from A-SMGCS, the advanced ground radar system.

• Capture actual in-block times using a data feed from A-SMGCS. • LTCC in West Drayton to have access to SIS Flight Arrivals pages, showing terminal

numbers for in-bound flights. This will allow TC to allocate the most favourable runway (in terms of shortest taxi-time) to an aircraft during the early morning rush (usually between 0600-0700hrs), when both runways can be used for landing. If in the future the runways are used more regularly in mixed mode configuration the benefits would be even greater.



9.1.3. Trial Methodology

In order to substantiate the above proposals a trial was conducted over a period of two hours on a single day and required the involvement of three EUROCONTROL personnel. One person was required at TC in West Drayton, one at BAA Stand and Gate Management and one in the TWR. The objective was to capture flight progress details and times from three different sources NATS, SIS and visually from the Heathrow TWR and then to compare the existing data available in SIS to that from NATS (EATs) and Variable Taxi Times, with the visual data being a confirmation of the actual event times at Heathrow. The steps taken to obtain this data were as follows:

• The Expected Approach Time (EAT) information (i.e. the estimated time that an aircraft will leave the stack) was printed off from EAT PC in LTCC at West Drayton every 30 minutes and saved.

• The average flying time for an aircraft from leaving flight levels 6900' and 2900' to touchdown was calculated. This was done by looking at the radar screen in the TWR and recording the times between the aircraft leaving these flight levels and landing on the runway. On average the 6900' time to touchdown time was found to be 10 minutes and the 2400 time 3 minutes. As such, these values can be used as a default in later calculations.

• Record the estimated arrival times on SIS when the SIS flight status code is Z, L and A. Also record the time when the status code changes from P to Z.

• Visually check and record the touchdown times and in block times of the in-bound aircraft.

• Take the ETA time off the paper strips in the TWR to see a comparison of the different ETA information everyone has.

• Use the variable taxi times (VTTs – section 9.3.2) to calculate an estimated in block time.

• Create a spreadsheet to show results of the trial (see 0for the spreadsheet used in the trial).

• The CDM value is initially calculated using the EAT + time to touchdown from the stacks (14 mins from LAM and 13 from BIG on easterlies) + VTT (according to stand from 09L). The next value is the time when it commences descent from 6900 +10 minutes + VTT (according to stand from 09L) and then passing 2400' + 3mins + VTT (according to stand from 09L).

9.1.4. Benefits to Partners

Using the current EAT information (the accuracy of which is being enhanced) would improve ELDTs and EIBTs.

The greatest improvement in the accuracy of the EIBT estimate was when the aircraft were still some 30 minutes away from landing and the EAT was included in the EIBT calculation. As can be seen from the following graph, the EIBT could be estimated using CDM to within +-5 minutes of the AIBT in 59% of cases and the figure rose to an impressive 90% where a tolerance of +-10 minutes was chosen. This compares to figures of 21% and 50% using the current SIS calculations.



Figure 29: EIBT - 30 Minutes before Arrival

Similar improvements were recorded when the aircraft were in the Zone (10 minutes away from landing) and height triggers were used instead of the 12nm default flying time .Here the target was to get an accuracy of +- 3 minutes for the EIBT and the CDM proposals improved the estimation from 59% to 81% of flights.

02468

1012141618

0 -1mins diff

2 - 3 min 4 - 5 min 6 - 7mins

8 -24mins

Variation (Z time on SIS vs AIBT)Variation (6900' time +10mins +variable taxi time vs AIBT)


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 -5minsdiff

+6 to 10min

+11 to15 min

+16 to20 min

+21-49mins

Variation (P time on SIS vs AIBT)Variation (EAT + flying time and variable taxi time vs AIB T)



For aircraft on final approach (4 minutes from landing), the difference between the two different estimates was less pronounced, though the CDM values were still closer to the AIBT than those shown on SIS mainly due to the variable taxi time calculation.

02468

1012141618

0 minsdiff

1 min 2 min 3 mins 4-21mins

Variation (F time on SIS vs AIBT)Variation (2900' time +4mins +variable taxi time vs AIBT)


The accuracy of the A-SMGCS tool in determining AIBT was also shown to be higher than SIS.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 mins diff +1 min +2 min +3 min +4 mins +5 mins +6 mins

Variation (Visual vs SIS) Variation (Visual vs ASMGCS)

Figure 32: AIBT Comparison using A-SMGCS Data

The final graph here confirms the accuracy of A-SMGCS in determining the actual landing times and how this information feed could provide a reliable and timelier replacement of the current means of determining landing times and displaying them on SIS.



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 mins diff

+1 min

+2 min

+3 min

Variation (Visual vs ASMGCS)

Figure 33: ALDT Accuracy using A-SMGCS Data

Variable Taxi Time Study

A small study was carried out where Variable Taxi Times were added to the ALDT in order to predict a more accurate EIBT; these estimates were compared to the current times displayed on SIS. In all three runway configurations there was an increase in the accuracy of EIBT within a tolerance of +-3 minutes which indicates that VTT would increase the EIBT predictability.

Results

09L (42 flts) SIS CDM +/- 1 12 21 +/- 2 22 28 +/- 3 29 29

27R (99 flts) SIS CDM +/- 1 34 42 +/- 2 52 54 +/- 3 65 68

9.1.5. Summary (Arrivals)

Improving the information concerning arrivals (estimates and actual times) would be the first essential step to establishing a CDM-A platform at LHR. The partners see it as a potential quick win and will act as a catalyst towards providing accurate departure times. The CDM project has identified several methods of improving arrival estimates, from the Flight Update Message (FUM) sent by the CFMU three hours before landing, to the A-SMGCS providing instant and accurate landing and in-block times. It is important that these changes are implemented as soon as possible in order to show the partners that CDM can make a difference, maintaining commitment and support from the partners and encouraging them to provide accurate departure information in return. It would also be useful for LTCC to have access to airport information concerning arrivals, such as terminal, stand availability and delay.



9.2. IMPROVING DEPARTURE INFORMATION


An EOBT is currently taken from the Flight Plan (FPL) and provides the Estimated Time of Departure (ETD) in IDAHO/SIS. This time is updated by some operators through their own interfaces according to the delay and if a DLA message is sent to the CFMU the ETD is normally also updated. For many flights that are within 15 minutes of their EOBT and where no manual update is made by the GH company the ETD remains the same as the original EOBT, and when the aircraft eventually calls for start it may then be subject to an ATC delay. This lack of accurate off block information causes difficulties for S&G Management, GH resource management and may result in non-compliance with both Airport and CFMU slots.

The graph below (Figure 28 : below shows analysis of 10,000 flights in June 2004, where the ETD, the updated STD has been compared with the ATD (ATD=AOBT). The ETD is in fact the current version of the Target Off Block Time (TOBT) used by the AO/GH, however, from the graph it can be clearly seen that it is poorly adhered to (only 50% of flights departed with +-5 minutes of ETD) and for this reason many partners find it difficult to plan using information that is inaccurate. The graph shows that,

General

• 24% (16% were up to 4 minutes early) of the flights departed prior to their ETD (shown in green on the graph).

• 6% of the flights departed at their ETD (shown in blue on the graph).

• 70% (22% were up to 4 minutes late) of the flights departed after their ETD (shown in red on the graph).

• About 50% of flights departed within +-5 minutes of their ETD.

Specifically

• 11% of flights departed between 1 and 2 minutes after ETD.




• About 48% of flights departed more than 4 minutes after ETD.

At present there is no time in the SIS that displays when ATC predict that the aircraft can depart (equivalent to the CDM TSAT) so some of the delay will be attributable to the movement of aircraft on the ground at the time (i.e. flights that are blocked in a cul-de-sac due to arriving flights or other departures. However, the aim of CDM is to improve all of the above statistics, especially the 48% of flights that departed more than 4 minutes after ETD (4 minutes allows for timing differences and other traffic movements).



Distribution of AOBT - EOBT (June 2004)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

>-20

-15

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

>60

AO

BT-E

OB

T (m

inut

es)

Number of flights (Total =10,000)

Figure 34: Analysis of AOBT vs EOBT




9.2.2.1. Turn-round times

Turn-round times are an integral part of the ground phase of any given flight and the link between the inbound flight segment and outbound flight segment. The taxiing segment for both arriving and departing aircraft is not considered within the turn-round time but must be considered in the complete milestone process.

The duration of a turn-round is considered as the time an aircraft arrives on-blocks on a parking stand (AIBT) to the commencement of push-back for the departing flight (AOBT). Most Aircraft Operators have two different sets of ground time references:

• MTT - Minimum transit / turn-round times, based on technical possibilities with standard equipment and normally productive manpower.

• Scheduled transit / turn-round times, usually higher than minimum turn-round times (averaging MTT + 10-15 minutes) as they take into account any possible arrival delay and still allow on-time performance.

These are normally calculated by internal airline data studies, covering minimum times more objectively than scheduled times which have a variety of other factors to take into account. These factors are airport site specific and will include such elements as airport slot coordination, airport infrastructure, time of operation etc.

With the high number of Aircraft Operators and the varied aircraft types operating through London Heathrow Airport many parameters have to be considered in the calculation of minimum turn-around times. The list (not exhaustive) below gives a general overview of such parameters that needs to be considered:

• Short haul / long haul flights • Home Based / Away based Aircraft Operators • European / International / Domestic / Transit Flights • Contact Stands / Remote Parking • Cleaning / Catering • Containerised / Bulk loading • Passenger / Cargo • Airport infrastructure e.g. hydrant fuel • Landside links e.g. passenger flows, security requirements • Immigration / Customs • Engine start procedures

Some of the aircraft operators and ground handlers have provided minimum turn-round times for their aircraft types below. This table would need to be expanded on to take into account individual parameters for all airlines and ground handlers. These agreed values would then need to be included within the CDM platform but with provision / facility for tactical manual override by the AO/GH based on the operational situation at the time.



Table 1: Turn-rounds times

A/C TYPE MTT in minutes

Domestic / European / outside Europe

DH8 25 / 25 / na ER4 35 / 35 / na 733 40 / 40 / na 734 35 / 45 / na 735 30 / 35 / na 738 45 / 45 / na 757 45 / 60 / 70

767 55 / 60 / 75

777 na / na / 90 747 na / na / 100 319 35 / 45 / na 320 40 / 45 / na 321 45 / 50 / na 310 na / 55 / na M83 na / 45 / na 100 35 / 40 / na

146 / RJ100 35 / 35 / na

9.2.2.2. Target Off-Block Time (TOBT)

Definition Of A Milestone - A critical event during the progress of a flight. A successfully completed milestone will trigger decision making processes for downstream events and influence both the further progress of the flight and the accuracy with which the progress can be predicted.

Definition of TOBT - It is the time, taking into account the current operational situation, that an AO/GH agent estimates that an aircraft will be ready, all doors closed, boarding bridge removed, push back vehicle present, ready to push back / taxi immediately upon reception of TWR instructions.

A TOBT is one of the key milestones identified in the turn-round process and the accuracy is essential for planning of departures and as a subsequence the European Air Traffic Flow Management.

Procedure – The airport information platform will correlate the incoming and outgoing flight of the same airframe using the aircraft registration (e.g. generally an aircraft arriving late, will normally depart late). Given an accurate in block time (Add EDLT + taxi in time) and a minimum turn-round time the first TOBT can be generated and then a VTT can be added to provide a Target Take off Time (TTOT). The AO/GH can evaluate the TOBT against the operational situation and amend it as required up until about 20 minutes before where it will need to be stable in order for ATC to finalise the pre-departure sequence. If ATC calculate that the aircraft will need to depart after the TOBT (due to cul-de-sac congestion or to conform to the CTOT etc.) they will provide a Target Start Up Time (TSAT). The platform will provide warnings / alarms when certain events are looking doubtful e.g. if boarding hasn’t started X minutes before TOBT. It will be the responsibility of the partners concerned to cancel the warning by updating the information concerned.



Benefits - Accurate TOBTs will enhance operations on the ground because all partners will have a clear picture of the intentions of the aircraft. It will be beneficial to S&G management and ATC to know the expected hold if a stand is occupied and subsequently ATC will be able to provide the AO/GH with a time when they will clear the aircraft for push back, which will allow the ground resources to be in the correct place at the right time.

9.2.2.3. Pre-Departure Sequencing

Definition – A pre-departure sequence is the order that aircraft are planned to depart from their stands (push off blocks) taking into account partners preferences. It should not be confused with the pre-take off order where ATC organise aircraft at the holding point of a runway.

Method - Accurate estimates of Off-block times are necessary for the effectiveness of this application. Presently and as a general rule, ATC applies the “first come first served” principle in departure sequencing, only taking into account the optimisation of runway throughput. It is widely accepted that this principle is well out of date. When pre-notification of the aircraft being ready for pushback is available, optimised pre-sequencing of aircraft departing their stands according to known constraints should be possible.

The pre-departure sequence will link with the A-DPI message to the CFMU.

Trial Methodology

ATC currently do not have the time, equipment or resources to plan a pre-departure sequence. The GMP position has a constant high workload connected with passing ATC clearances, managing requests from pilots (slot extensions, start up delays etc.) and regulating the flow of starting traffic to GMC. The introduction of clearances provided by datalink and Electronic Flight Progress Strips in the new TWR is expected to relieve some of the GMP workload, however, the method of pre-departure sequencing and integration into the ATC procedures is still under discussion.

Note: The pre-departure sequence raises an issue of ATC keeping a flight on stand after it is ready which implies a delay on the AO, even though they have requested to depart the stand. This issue needs to be resolved at an airport level as it also involves problems such as stand occupancy, charging and punctuality statistics.


CDM Partners will have greater transparency on the operational situation regarding the position of departing flights. GH will be able to position their resources more efficiently as they will know exactly which order and when the flights will depart. S&G management will be able to plan stands with more precision and AOs will be able to prioritise their flights and have a better overview of their aircraft movements. ATC, who will plan the final order, will be able to regulate the queue at the holding point (reducing emissions), plan push backs in order to reduce congestion on aprons and taxiways and regulate the take off order taking into account CTOT.



9.2.3.1. Variable Taxi Times (VTT)

Definition - In the context of Airport CDM, taxi time is considered to be:

• For arriving flights: the taxi-in time is the period between the Actual Landing Time (ALDT) and the actual In Block Time (AIBT).

• For departing flights: the taxi-out time is the period between the Actual Off Block Time (AOBT) and the Actual Take Off Time (ATOT). For departures the taxi time includes the time spent queuing at the holding point and the time spent on the runway before the take-off roll is initiated.

Introduction - The ability to maximise the use of the available runway and taxiway capacity depends to a large extent on optimizing the pushback, taxi and take-off sequence and hence reducing queuing and taxiway congestion. The significance of calculating accurate taxi times is the fact that they form an essential input into other processes, including prediction of take off times for the CFMU.

The taxi times calculated for individual flights are used primarily for the following purposes:

• Ground handlers: taxi-in times are used to refine EIBT.

• Aircraft operators: taxi-in times are used to refine EIBT, taxi-out times to ensure CTOT compliance.

• Air traffic control: taxi times are used to organize and manage, in the short and medium term, surface movements on the airport, optimizing the use of available capacity and avoiding taxiway congestion; taxi-out times are also used to ensure CTOT compliance.

• Central Flow Management Unit: taxi-out times meeting the required accuracy result in improved ETOTs, which in turn enable better overall traffic prediction. This is essential for optimising the use of en-route capacity.

Current situation

Arrivals

• Northerly Runway (27R/09L) - SIS will add either a default taxi time of 7 minutes (for Central area) or 9 minutes (for area south of Southerly runway) to an ELDT or ALDT to calculate the EIBT (ETA).

• Southerly Runway (27L/09R) - SIS will add a default taxi times of 7 minutes for all areas to an ELDT or ALDT to calculate the EIBT (ETA).

Departures

The CFMU uses a default value of 16 minutes for all runways except 27R where 20 minutes is used.

Variable Taxi Time Calculation - A study was performed where data was obtained from the Heathrow APT, which records information from the surface movement radar (A-SMGCS). The APT records the aircraft callsign, type, registration and details of taxi times as the aircraft moves around the aerodrome.



The data was gathered over a period of 9 months from 5th September 2003 until 31st May 2004. The raw taxi data from the APT for both arrivals and departures has been sorted in four stages.

• Any aircraft that does not have a taxi time or has been classed as remote holding is deleted from the results sheet.

• The times take into account a period of delay incurred due to waiting for other traffic to enter/exit cul-de-sacs.

• The data was sorted by which runway it used. 09L, 09R, 27L or 27R.

• The data is sorted by aircraft type/size. Heavy aircraft include B747, B777, B767, A340, A330, DC10, MD11, IL96 and L101s. All other aircraft are included in the Medium/Small category.

• The data is sorted by the stand each aircraft was parked on. The stand numbers are grouped into areas designated by the taxiway that is used to access them.

Table 2: Stand numbers

APRON TWY STANDS

A-West North 500 - 509

A-West South 510 – 519

B-West North 525 – 529

B-West South 520 – 524

C-West North 530 – 539

C-West South 540 – 556

D-West North Still to be numbered

D-West South 566 - 576

A – East 170/171

B - East 146-150/ 152-156/158

B - North 101/103/105/107/109/174/176/178/180/182/184/186/188/190/192L/192R

B - Northwest 334/336/338/340/342

B - South 212/212L/212R/214/301/303/305/307/309

F 314/316/317/319/321/363/365

G 318/320/322/323/325/327/329/331/335/364

H 324/326/328/330/332/350-354

J 102/104/106/108/110/112/117/119/121/123/125/125L/125R/127/127L/127R/129

K 114/116/118/120/122/122/124/126/128/130/132/134/139/141/143-145

P 203/205/207/209/209L/209R/236/238/240/242

Q 202/204/206/208/210/211/213/215

R 302/304/306L/306R/308/310/313/315

S - East 429-432.

S - West 601-609

T - South 401-403 / 461/463

T - North 404-412/440/441

V 414-417/419-425

W 451-456/RS/RS1/RS2

Z 611-616



Results

Arrivals Taxi Averages

This table below details the average taxi time taken for arriving aircraft to vacate the runway and reach their stand. The times are considered to be the unimpeded time, in other words the direct taxi time with no holding.

Table 3: Arrivals Taxi Averages - Medium / Small / Light aircraft

27L Arrivals Taxi In time 27R Arrivals Taxi In time

A-West North average = 8 A-West North average = 6

A-West South average = 6 A-West South average = 8

B-West North average = 8 B-West North average = 6

B-West South average = 6 B-West South average = 8

C-West North average = 7 C-West North average = 5

C-West South average = 5 C-West South average = 7

D-West North average = 6 D-West North average = 4

D-West South average = 4 D-West South average = 6

B-east average = 6 B-east average = 6

B-north average = 7 B-north average = 3

B-northwest average = 6 B-northwest average = 4

B-south average = 4 B-south average = 8

F Average = 4 F Average = 6

G average = 5 G average = 5

H average = 7 H average = 3

J average = 8 J average = 4

K average = 7 K average = 5

P average = 6 P average = 8

Q average = 5 Q average = 8

R average = 3 R average = 6

S-east average = 7 S-east average = 12

S-west average = 3 S-west average = 11

T-North average = 4 T-north average = 11

T-south average = 6 T-south average = 13

V Average = 5 V Average = 12

W Average = 4 W Average = 10

Z average = 3 Z average = 10


























T–north average = 12 T-north average = 3

T–south average = 14 T-south average = 5




Table 4: Arrivals Taxi Averages - Heavy aircraft



























T-north average = 6 T-north average = 11



































DEPARTURE TAXI AVERAGES

This result sheet details the average unimpeded taxi time from push back until airborne and doesn’t take into account any queuing at the holding point.

Table 5: Departure taxi average – Medium / Small / Light aircraft

27L Departures Taxi out time 27R Departures Taxi out time



























































Table 6: Departure taxi average – Heavy aircraft






























































These result sheet detail the average taxi time from push back until airborne and takes into account an average amount queuing at the holding point (7-10 aircraft).

Table 7: Average taxi time - Medium / Small / Light Aircraft




























































Table 8: Average taxi time – Heavy aircraft






























































9.2.3.2. Target Take Off Time (TTOT)

Current Situation

Although the TTOT is not currently available in the airport system it could be estimated today by adding the ETD to a default taxi out time.

CDM Improvement

The TTOT will be used by the CFMU to update ETFMS and thus improve the ATFM within Europe. Initially the ETOT is calculated using the initial TOBT and VTT. When ATC agree a TSAT this will be added to the VTT to become a TTOT.

This estimate should be very accurate as it based on the pre-departure sequence, however, it could be further improved by linking the CDM platform to the departure controllers EFPS system where a more accurate TTOT could be generated based upon actual departure frequency. For example, departures at LHR are normally separated by either 1 or 2 minutes according to aircraft vortex wake category. In a queue where a flight is following 3 heavies (2 minute separation x 3) and 4 non-heavies (1 minute separation x 4) a TTOT of H+10 minutes could be predicted.

9.2.3.3. CTOT Slot Compliance

Current Situation

The CTOT tolerance for LHR, as for all European airfields, is -5 to +10 minutes. This tolerance is for the benefit of ATC in order to fit traffic into a take off order to suit the operational situation. AOs/Pilots are expected to plan their departures so that aircraft are at the Holding Point prior to the CTOT and not consider the tolerance window as a back up to compensate for their own delay.

At a large Airport like LHR which has many factors affecting departure from stand and is currently using one value for taxi time calculation it is very difficult to manage aircraft to meet all their CTOTs especially if they push back late.

Between January 2003 and March 2004 the average for aircraft departing outside of the Slot Tolerance window was 29%.

CDM Improvement

ATC have limited flexibility with FMP/CFMU to extend slots, however, the aim is to improve the conformity through enhanced planning using TOBTs and pre-departure sequencing, VTTs and the use of DPI messages (leading to CTOT shifting). ATC will be able to achieve a better CTOT compliance, reducing the number of required extensions to the slot window. Overall network benefits will be gained by reducing aircraft bunching in en-route sectors caused by local CTOT slot extensions being applied.



9.2.3.4. Airport Slot Compliance

Current Situation

LHR is a co-ordinated airport (Airport Slots Mandatory) where the slots are planned for summer and winter, the change over coincides with the hour change. Slots are planned on EOBT and will only need to be re-negotiated if the delay goes into the next day. Airport Coordination Limited (ACL) manage the slot allocation planning and they send to BAA the daily slots (sent the evening before activation) and the BAA/BA will then plan the stands accordingly. Heathrow currently has an Air Traffic Movement limit of 480K a year and has been around 466K at the highest peak.

GA slots are available (max 3 on airport at one time). The Operations Duty Manager will often coordinate these slots and others outside of office hours. Royal flights/Heads of State have an automatic slot when it is approved as an official visit from the foreign office.

The graph below (Figure 35 below) shows analysis of 10,000 flights in June 2004, where the STD has been compared with the ATD (ATD=AOBT). From the graph it is evident that the schedule is poorly adhered to, only 33% of flights departed with +-5 minutes of ETD, which makes planning of slots and subsequently S&G management very challenging and also can damage an airports reputation. The graph shows that:

• 12% of the flights departed prior to their STD (shown in green on the graph). • 4% of the flights departed at their STD (shown in blue on the graph). • 84% of the flights departed after their STD (shown in red on the graph). • About 33% of flights departed within +-5 minutes of their STD.

Figure 35: Analysis of AOBT vs SOBT

Distribution of AOBT - SOBT (June 2004)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 >-20

-15

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

>55

AO

BT-

SOB

T (m

inut

es)

Number of flights (Total =10,000)



CDM Improvement

CDM will improve operations on the ground and will enable AOs to operate closer to their slots/schedule. The enhanced arrival and departure information will provide ACL with accurate data, which can be used for statistics and tracking of slot conformance and assist in the planning of future slots.

9.2.4. Summary (Departures)

Departure estimates are generally more difficult to predict than arrival estimates, as they are subject to many factors, such as late passengers, CTOT, ground handling resources, late arrival of the aircraft etc. Analysis of Estimated Time of Departure (ETD) in June 2004 showed that only 50% of flights departed within +-5 minutes of their ETD.

Departure can also refer to take off time as well as off block time and here ATC and the CFMU are interested to get an accurate prediction of the Target Take Off Time. Obtaining a more accurate Off Block Time can be achieved by tracking the events (milestones) that occur during a turn-round and providing that information to the concerned partners. An accurate Estimated In Block Time is essential to be able to estimate a turn-round time and this can then generate a Target Off Block Time which is confirmed by firstly the AO/GH and then adjusted by ATC (TSAT) subject to the operational situation at the time. When an accurate TSAT has been agreed it can be linked to a variable taxi time to provide an accurate Target Take Off Time, which will be used by the CFMU to enhance the European Air Traffic Flow Management.

With a clear view of partners intentions, departure management will become more efficient – better punctuality, reduced queuing, enhanced resource management, fewer wasted slots and less stress for many of the partners involved in the turn-round. In order to reach this situation, the current system will need to be modified and partners will need to adapt the way they operate today, which could result in changes to procedures and Letters of Agreement / Service Level Agreements.

With the ever increasing environmental pressures on the aviation industry, any mitigation strategies deriving from CDM implementation should be capitalised on. Reduced aircraft taxi times and queuing reduces fuel resource use, ground noise and emissions to atmosphere such as NOx, unburnt hydrocarbons and greenhouse gases. In addition to reducing the social and economic burden arising from these impacts, such reductions can also alleviate the risk or severity of local constraints and may also help to avoid breaches of national or EU regulations. This may be of strategic importance to major airports close to residential areas.



9.3. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE IT PLATFORM

9.3.1. Current Situation and proposed improvements

Arrivals

Field Description Current SIS Info CDM Improvement Benefit

DELAY Not shown at present A column indicating the delay in terms of positive or negative value based on a comparison of the SIBT with EIBT.

Partners would instantly be able to see the state of a flight concerning its delay and be able to plan accordingly.

STATUS Indication made using one letter (e.g. P,Z,F)

Expand to three letters (e.g. PTO, ZON, FIN) and show STS to all partners (ATC currently do not see STS on deps.

Several partners seem confused as to the meaning of the letters so using three letters could help increase awareness and understanding.

Landing Time

Currently there is only a column for ATL. The ATL is displayed 4 minutes after the event.

A single column could be displayed showing times in different colours according to status Scheduled / estimated / Actual. The accuracy could be improved as described in Para 9.1.2.

Better information to plan runway changes, and planning of ground movements.

Landing Runway

The landing RW is displayed but is only detected when the flight is on final approach

A mechanism that will allow ATC to input the Landing RW for individual flights needs to be put in place so that an accurate EIBT can be generated up to 30 minutes before in block time.

A variable taxi time will be added to the ELDT to calculate the EIBT. It is essential that the landing RW is used otherwise the EIBT could be inaccurate. The benefit will be more accurate IBT for AO/GH/S&G.

In Block Currently there is an STA and an ETA. The ETA column shows estimated and later on an actual in block time. The times displayed are inaccurate with no distinction between estimate and actual.

A single column could be displayed showing times in different colours according to status Scheduled / estimated / Actual. The accuracy could be improved as described in Para 9.1.2.

Better information to plan turn-round activities (S&G management and Ground handling especially). This would indirectly help ATC by reduction in congestion on taxiways.

Stand The stand is currently only commonly displayed when a flight is on final approach. This is does not give AO/GH/ATC sufficient time to plan operations related to the turn-round. Also if a known Hold is expected an H is displayed.

With more confidence in EIBT the S&G should be able to plan stands without last minute changes. Ideally up to 30 minutes before IBT the stand should be published. In addition to the known Hold (H), a time next to the H could indicate the hold based on the difference between the EIBT of inbound flight and the TOBT of the outbound flight.

Better planning for ATC on ground movements, and a reduction in blocked taxiways. AO/GH would be able to plan positioning of resources more efficiently.

Remark Not currently displayed? A remarks column could be used to display addition information on a flight. E.g. callsign of flight blocking stand.

An easy way to communicate between partners.



Departure

Field Description Current SIS Info CDM Improvement Benefit

DELAY Not shown at present A column indicating the delay in terms of positive or negative value based on a comparison of the SOBT with EOBT.

Partners would instantly be able to see the state of a flight concerning its delay and plan accordingly.

STATUS Indication made using one letter (e.g. O,B,K)

Expand to three letters (e.g. GTO, BOR, GTC) and show STS to all partners (ATC currently do not see STS on deps.

Several partners seemed confused as to the meaning of the letters so using three letters could help increase awareness and understanding.

Alarm / Warning Not shown at present An alarm or warning could be displayed if boarding (BOR) or Gate closed (GTC) has not occurred at a time prior to ETD

It would force the AO/GH to act to verify the state of the flight.

Off Block Currently there is an STD and an ETD. The ETD column shows estimated and later on an actual off block time. The times displayed are inaccurate and can be confusing.

A single column could be displayed showing times in different colours according to status Scheduled / Estimated /Target (AO/GH), Target ATC and Actual.

The different colours would clearly show the state of the flight and the intended off block time. This will be used to improve S&G management, the management of GH resources and provide a basis to calculate a more accurate take off time.

CTOT Not shown at present A column should be created showing the CTOT that has issued by the CFMU

Provide better awareness to all partners of the CFMU regulation for each flight.

Take off time Currently the Actual take off time is shown, but no estimates are shown prior to the event

The Estimated/ Target and Actual could all be shown using different colours. Estimates/ Targets would be updated based on Off block estimates and VTTs and ultimately linked to the EFPS on the DEP position in the Tower.

Better awareness of planned and actual take off times for all partners, especially the CFMU in order to up date the flights profile in ETFMS.

Departure Runway

The departure RW is not currently displayed

A mechanism that will allow ATC to input the departure RW for individual flights needs to be put in place so that an accurate TTOT can be generated up to 30 minutes before off block time.

A variable taxi time will be added to the TOBT to calculate the ETOT. It is essential that the departure RW is used otherwise the ETOT could be inaccurate. The benefit will be more accurate take off times for the CFMU and provide ATC with better information for planning.

ATC Take Off Sequence

Not shown at present A column could indicate the potential take off order based upon TTOT (TOBT +VTT). This order could be linked to the EFPS planned for the DEP controller.

Better planning for ATC. Common view for partners of what is happening at the holding point.



The above recommendations could be incorporated into a secure intra/extranet CDM screen that would be adaptable according to individual partner’s preferences. An example is shown below which includes:

• An A-SMGCS screen in the top right hand corner that could be enlarged when required and could be linked to the flight lists, so that a selected flight can be highlighted in the table (shown in orange) and would also be highlighted on the A-SMGCS screen for tracking purposes.

• Essential aerodrome data such as Runways in use, Runway Visual Range (RVR) values, Capacity for the current hour and the following hour, ATIS information and temperature and any local airport news.

An intranet/extranet system would offer the advantages that many people already have access to the internet so hardware costs would be reduced. This applies to external partners as well such as the London Terminal Control Centre who would benefit from knowing information concerning stand availability for arrivals and for Operators that are based away from LHR, external access could provide essential information concerning the progress of flights during the turn-round process.

Figure 36: Example CDM Intranet Display



9.3.2. Summary (IT Platform)

The foundation for CDM is for the partners to provide and have access to accurate and timely information. There are many systems currently used by the different partners and many feed into the main BAA interface IDAHO. A general Staff Information System (SIS) is available to most of the partners providing arrival and departure information; however, it is generally considered that the information on SIS is unreliable, hard to read and inadequate for making operational decisions. The situation can be improved by linking/upgrading the current systems so that the partners have access to a platform that displays the best data available at the right time. Several new tools such as A-SMGCS are also available to provide partners an improved awareness of the operational situation and these can also be incorporated into the platform. System modifications need not be expensive as much of the data exists at present and it could be distributed via an intranet/extranet HMI.

With many Airline Operation Centres (AOCs) not situated locally, the benefits of any web based system would allow remote access to the AOCs worldwide. With a clearer picture of the local situation at LHR operational decisions could be made a lot earlier than they are now.

9.4. ENHANCED ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE IMPROVEMENTS WITH CFMU MESSAGE EXCHANGE


Arrival and departure information at most airports is inaccurate due to a series of factors. For arrivals, airports normally receive (in some cases not at all) only a movement message (MVT) via the SITA network or ACARS. These arrival estimates are normally calculated using still flight times with no allowance for wind conditions. Unless aircraft are ACARS equipped no further positioning reports and arrival updates are received at the destination airport until it is within local radar range. As we are all aware many on-route contributing factors will have an impact on arrival times including ATC route changes, wind components and aircraft characteristics.

Departure information is based on an EOBT which will only get updated if there is a known delay of greater than 15 minutes and an agreed default taxi time for each airport. The taxi times at major airports can differ considerably and this variation added to the uncertainty of when an aircraft will actually be off-blocks results in a very poor predicted take off time. The CFMU uses the departure information to calculate slots (CTOTs) and it is therefore necessary to have the best estimates available in order to calculate traffic throughput in the European area.


CFMU requirements for CDM-A

CDM-A platforms have to conform to the following CFMU requirements:

• The FUM & DPI messages must be implemented together at an airport.

• DPI messages will be accepted from only known and validated originators. The preferred network is AFTN.

• The transmission of DPI & FUM messages between a CDM-A and the CFMU will be automated.



• On reception of a FUM, the CDM-A platform shall process and distribute information to partners according to local Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

• DPI & FUM messages shall be sent for all (IFR/GAT) regulated and non regulated flights.

• A high quality of data sent to the CFMU must be proven by the CDM-A.

9.4.2.1. Arrivals

The CFMU will provide accurate arrival update information through a message called the Flight Update Message (FUM). This message contains an accurate estimate for the last point on the FPL route and based on this time plus a default flying time to the runway in use, a landing estimate can be calculated. The first FUM will be triggered 3 hours before the estimated landing time (ELDT) based on either when the Target Take off Time is generated from the outstation or the position of the flight using radar information available at the CFMU (ETFMS). It will be updated where a deviation of more than 5 minutes occurs.

An example Flight Update Message

Sent to: EGLLZTZA @AFTN. Message description:

-TITLE FUM -BEGIN ADDR -FAC EGLLZTZA -END ADDR -IFPLID AA45043485 -ARCID BMA693 -ADEP EGPE -ADES EGLL -EOBD 040624 -EOBT 1240 -ELDT 040624141235 -ARCTYP A319 -ESTDATA -PTID HON -ETO 040624135705-FL F200-STAR BNN2A -FLTSTATE AA

9.4.2.2. Departures

In exchange, CDM airports will provide Departure Planning Information (DPI) which will supply the CFMU with updated departure information for the flights at a CDM-A between EOBT–3 hrs and the actual take off time. The DPI messages coming from the CDM-A will improve the predictability of the traffic situation over the ECAC area. Information such as estimate of off-block, taxi-out time and SID will help to improve the traffic flow management system (ETFMS) and will allow a more efficient and more flexible slot allocation.



Four types of DPI messages have been defined. They shall be sent from the CDM-A to ETFMS between [EOBT – 3 hrs] and ATOT:

The Early DPI (E-DPI) can be sent from the [EOBT – 3 hrs] to the CFMU slot issue time (SIT1) at [EOBT – 2 hrs]. It aims at confirming / updating FPL data and Estimated Take Off Time (ETOT) for slot allocation, optionally issuing SID, taxi time and aircraft type information. The Target DPI (T-DPI) can be sent from SIT1 at [EOBT – 2 hrs] to the flight pre-sequence time (time parameter to be defined locally). It aims at updating ETFMS with more reliable departure estimates, ATC (taxi-out time and SID) and flight information and confirming the target take off for a potential slot improvement. The ATC DPI (A-DPI) can be sent from the flight pre-sequence time (time parameter to be defined locally) to the actual take off at ATOT. It aims at updating the CFMU with the Target Take Off Time (TTOT) based on the ATC pre-departure sequence using very accurate estimates of off-block and taxi times.

The Cancel DPI (C-DPI) can be sent at any time after the transmission of an E-DPI, T-DPI or A-DPI. It aims at cancelling a previously sent take off time.

An example T-DPI Message

-TITLE DPI -IFPLID AA12295633 -ARCID BMA451 -ARCTYP A320 -REG GMIDU -ADEP EGLL -EOBT 0845 -EOBD 170304 -ATTOT 0852 -DPISTATUS P -ADES LIMC -SID BIG1F -TAXITIME 0017

9.4.3. Trial Methodology

The CFMU software (version10) that will pass and process the FUM/DPI messages will be tested during Q3 of 2004. This software will be able to update the CFMU profile with taxi times and SID information and will be used for evaluation and analysis of the data. The following software release (version 11) will be able to update CASA with DPI information.

The CFMU are setting up a series of tests with CDM trial airports during 2005 in order to evaluate the accuracy of data and the procedures associated with the FUM and DPI messages and they are keen that LHR participates in this validation period.




If an FUM is based on a DPI message from the airport of departure, then the FUM will represent the link between a CDM departure airport and a CDM arrival airport.

For a long time airports have been looking for early updates of the landing time of flights based on ETFMS data to enhance the use of airport infrastructure and resources. These new messages will have many benefits to the partners and most importantly visible to all. The lists below are not exhaustive but generally highlight the specific gains to the individual partners with some being general to all:

9.4.4.1. ATC and Airport

• FUM messages improve significantly early arrival estimates using ETFMS data and also DPI data before flights are airborne. This will enable ATC to anticipate the arrival sequence and predict at an early stage any holding that might be required. A more accurate ELDT/EIBT will in turn allow improved Stand and Gate management and ground resource management.

• The DPI message received by the CFMU can trigger a FUM message for the airport of destination and close the loop between a CDM departure airport and a CDM arrival airport. The benefit for the arrival airport is improved estimates of arrivals in terms of completeness, precision and timeliness.

• FUM and DPI messages represent the link between all CDM airports. They create the CDM network effect, which in turn encourages airports to join the Airport CDM project (i.e. to supply information and to benefit from supplied information).

• Flow Management Positions will not only get a more clear and anticipated picture of the traffic load, but also the objective of the Aircraft Operators. It will be possible to anticipate the impact of the cancellation of a regulation (all flights going back to their ETOT). Management of exceptional conditions and recovery phases after disruptions will be facilitated.

9.4.4.2. Aircraft Operators & Ground Handlers

• The new FUM/DPI messages will help the Aircraft Operators to achieve their principle objective which is to depart as close as possible to schedule. With the CFMU slots being timely adapted to the real-time traffic evolution the Aircraft Operators can expect to receive more realistic ATFM slots (where needed), thus less ATFM delay is to be expected. The CFMU will then be able to offer improved flexibility through slot shift (and swap) for ALL flights.

• Messages sent before Take off at the airport of departure thereby increasing the available time horizon by one or more hours which corresponds to 50% earlier for most European flights.

• Continued arrival updates where the estimate differs by more than 5 minutes.

• Enhanced use of ATM Capacity.



9.4.4.3. CFMU

• The DPI will be used by the CFMU to update the flight plan for ATFM purposes. An early accurate update of the flight plan will improve the ATFM slot allocation process by reducing overloads, reducing bunching and additionally it may reduce the ATFM delay for other non departed flights It will improve the predictability of the traffic load for regulated and non-regulated flights thereby minimising unnecessary regulations.

9.4.5. Summary (CFMU Messages)

The CFMU is currently modifying their software to be able to send and receive new messages (FUM/DPI) to/from an airport. The aim of these messages is to enhance the overall flow of European Air Traffic by firstly providing a CDM airport (CDM-A) with an accurate estimated landing time up to 3 hours before, and then to use an accurate take off estimate from the airport to update the flight plan for ATFM purposes. The airport will have to ensure that the departure data sent to the CFMU conforms to certain requirements, therefore, it will be essential that the airport introduces CDM applications such as the TOBT procedure and variable taxi times in order to reach a high data quality. The messages will be managed by the airport’s CDM platform and exchanged automatically with the CFMU from one address at the airport. By providing precise information on departure times, one of the main benefits Aircraft Operators can expect to receive will be more flexibility from the CFMU regarding slot shifting.



10. COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS Many benefits of CDM are difficult to quantify as they have an impact on other partners and some decisions are hard to measure. An example might be that ATC know that an aircraft has to hold for a stand for 20 minutes and decide to hold the aircraft remotely, hence keeping the taxiway clear. If the aircraft had blocked the taxiway it could have affected several flights arriving or departing, resulting in a different impact on partners. The subsequent reduction in controller workload is also difficult to evaluate as the amount of radio transmissions would be minimal. Shorter aircraft taxi time and queuing reduces fuel resource use, ground noise and emissions to the atmosphere such as NOx, unburnt hydrocarbons and greenhouse gases. In addition to reducing the social and economic burden arising from these impacts, such reductions can also alleviate the risk or severity of local constraints and may also help to avoid breaches of national or EU regulations. This may be of strategic importance to major airports close to residential areas. Note: One EU estimate is that 1 tonne of unburnt hydrocarbons has an equivalent health impact

cost of 100s K Euro depending on the size of the city affected.

10.1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS

10.1.1. Costs

The potential costs of implementing CDM need further assessment, particularly concerning the system integration costs between airport and ATC systems. We have estimated about 1 man year of effort for this work. Overall the estimated effort is as follows:

Table 9: Estimated CDM costs for Heathrow airport

Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 onwards

Project definition/management 246 246 20

Procedures development 0 29 0

Total training 117 67 10

Internal software development 210 210 0

Total effort (days) 573 552 30

Total cost (£k) 154 138 8

The effort has been converted into costs in the above table using estimates of opportunity costs for the different airport partners.



10.1.2. Benefits

The benefits of CDM derive from an improved accuracy and availability of information, as well as new information. The benefits are summarised in the Table 11. The environmental benefits may be summarised in terms of a reduction in emissions:

Table 10: Estimated emissions reductions through CDM for Heathrow airport

Reduction in emissions (Tonnes) Year 1 Year 2 Average on-going

CO2 5728 5756 5955

H2O 2237 2248 2326

SO2 2 2 2

HC 16 16 17

NOx 7 7 8

CO 60 60 62

There is a particular interest in reducing aircraft emissions at LHR. Heathrow Airport Ltd currently monitors air quality at two sites in order to compare the air pollution with the UK Air Quality Strategy objectives1. Current trends mean that LHR will not meet the national air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide by 2005 or 2010. As a consequence, no further developments at LHR will be sanctioned until the required air quality limits are met.

1 These objectives are derived by independent experts and relate to EC Directives on limiting values of pollutants (1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC). Further details may be found in: AEA Technology report for Heathrow Airport Ltd, ‘Air Pollution at Heathrow Airport: Annual Report for 2003’. See also: http://www.baa.co.uk/main/corporate/sustainable_development/air_quality_page.html



Table 11: Estimated CDM benefits for Heathrow airport

Beneficiary CDM level 1 benefits Year 1 (£k)

Year 2 (£k)

Average annual (year 3-15) (£k)

Economic benefits

ATC Fewer lost slots and over-deliveries 420 1641

Passengers Departure punctuality for passengers 3084 6198 5038

Airport / local community

Reduced ground emissions (out-bound taxi) 137 137 142

Handlers Improved customer service - ground handlers arrive on time 611 614 635

Local community

Reduced ground emissions (in-bound taxi) 55 55 57

Financial benefits

Airlines Reduced out-bound taxi-time 3434 3451 3574

Airlines Reduction in delay due to late inbound - allocation of closer stand 2 2 2

Airport / handlers

Improved cost efficiency for ground handlers - handlers do not arrive too early at the stand 3985 3985 3985

Airport / handlers

Increase capital productivity 996 996 996

Airlines Reduced in-bound taxi-time 1373 1381 1430

Total benefits 13677 17239 17501

The remainder of this section summarises the rationale for the above benefit estimates.



10.1.3. Departure punctuality and predictability

The following figure compares scheduled and estimated with actual off-block times (see also Para 9.2.1 and 9.2.3.4). There is clearly scope to improve the departure punctuality, and perhaps adjust schedules to better reflect operations. The estimates are a better predictor of punctuality than the scheduled times, however they are only provided by around half of the airlines.

Figure 37: Comparison of schedule and estimated off block time

Improving departure predictability has a number of consequential benefits. In our benefit estimates we have assumed that ATC take advantage of the target off block times to work out a departure sequence on a rolling 20-30 minute time horizon. Recent discussions have shown a number of practical issues to be addressed if the benefits are to be realised. For instance, there is no guarantee that the departure sequence following push back will be maintained by the time the aircraft are at the ground holds. Our calculation of benefits assumes that the sequence can be maintained to some extent and that fewer aircraft are on the aerodrome at any one time. This should lead to reduced congestion and thereby lower average taxi times. The benefit calculation assumes that 1 minute on average taxi-out times may be saved.

Take-off predictability may be improved through variable taxi times. The following graph shows the possible impact of congestion on taxi-times, which compares average outbound taxi-times for different hours of the day. The low periods of the day have been used to estimate ‘unimpeded’ taxi times, where there is little congestion or queuing. The peak hour times are unlikely to reach the unimpeded times through CDM as there are a number of practical issues, such as the need to maintain a queue of departures to keep the departure throughput high.

0

500

1000 1500

2000 2500

3000

3500

4000 4500

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Off blocks 'punctuality' (minutes) - 5 minute 'bins'

Cou

nt

Actual-Scheduled (sample:

Actual-Estimated (sample:



0

5

10 15

20

25

30

24 23 22 21201918171615141312 11 10 98 7 6 1 Hour in day (24 hour)

Average taxi-time (min) Terminal 1 Terminal 2 Terminal 3 Terminal 4

Figure 38: Taxi-time averages per terminal vs time of day

Improvements in departure punctuality should result in benefits to passengers and to the ATC system. Passengers benefit assuming that some departure delay translates into arrival delay. Our benefit estimates assume the average departure punctuality could be improved by 10 minutes for delayed departures, in line with Brussels estimates from CDM trials data.

The benefits to the ATC system derive from reducing the number of lost slots. From around 230,000 departures per year we have estimated that 10,000 slots that are currently missed could be achieved (about 30 per day).

10.1.4. Landing time estimates

The next figure compares scheduled, estimated and actual in-block times. Here we see a large variance in the times, with little difference between the accuracy of scheduled or estimated times when compared to actual times. There is clearly scope for improvement with CDM.

Figure 39: Comparison of schedule, actual and estimated in block times

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

- 60 -50 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0

11 0

12 0

In blocks 'punctuality' - 5 minute 'bins'

Count Actual-Scheduled (sample: 16518) Actual-Estimated (sample: 16394)



The main benefit of improving landing time estimates lies in avoiding wasted time by ground handlers. The benefit calculations assume that an average of 2min per aircraft can be saved in ground handlers’ time; i.e. time not wasted by ground handlers waiting for an aircraft to arrive due to inaccurate prediction of in-block time.

10.1.5. Qualitative benefits

In addition to the above benefits, a number of other benefits are foreseen at Heathrow, as follows:

• Enhanced planning of airport resources with respect to flight schedules. Improved alignment between scheduled and actual use of airport resources. AOBT – SOBT may highlight any problems between ATFM and airport slots and is an indicator of arrival delay at the destination airport. This is a qualitative benefit only, although some quantitative aspects are covered in other CDM applications.

• Better fleet utilisation. At the European network level, an improved adherence to schedules should enable operators to utilise their aircraft more. This benefit is likely to be gained over time as aircraft operators make use of greater predictability via CDM to adjust their schedules and improve fleet utilisation. This may require system wide implementation of CDM to be effective, as it involves the number of rotations for an aircraft. We have treated this benefit as qualitative only, as it requires further study.

• Improved Arrival information. - More accurate arrival estimates would result in less exhaust emissions from ground handling vehicle engine idling while awaiting aircraft.

• Turn-round time closer to SLA. The target off-block time should ensure greater adherence to estimated or scheduled off-block time. This improved adherence should help constrain turn-rounds towards the agreed service levels. It assumes that turn-rounds would not start earlier as a consequence of CDM. This benefit has not been quantified.

• Improved departure planning (ATC). The target off-block time should enable tower controllers to plan departure sequences up to 20-30 minutes in advance. The reduced aerodrome congestion should give some other qualitative benefits in addition to the quantitative benefits associated with reduced operating times:

• Reduced ground noise. As a consequence of shorter taxi-times, this assumes that a major source of noise is the aircraft, and not the associated ground handling vehicles. The noise and emissions benefits both assume that the saved operating time is also a saved time that the engines / APU are operated - e.g. fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) is used to power the aircraft on stand.

• Lower accident repair costs. With fewer aircraft on the apron and taxi-ways at the same time, there is some potential to reduce accidents. This is difficult to find evidence for and isolate from other safety measures, hence it has been treated qualitatively.



• Reduction in RTF workload. The improved predictability in apron control may require less RTF between aircrew and ATC. There is an associated safety argument in that fewer RTF communications reduce the risk of confusion and require less workload for both pilots and controllers. This benefit requires further investigation and has been treated qualitatively2.

• Improved customer service. A more accurate estimate of arrival time should benefit passengers, where they are being met at the airport. Over time, this may cause wider benefits in terms of airport surface access congestion. This is a qualitative benefit.

• Improved customer service. Ground handlers may use a more accurate estimate of landing time to ensure they do not arrive too late at the stand. Passengers are therefore disembarked without undue delay.

• Reduced ground-handling related delays in recovering from minor disruptions. Advanced warning of minor disruptions enables ground handlers to plan recovery. Assumes that minor disruptions are planned by ATC (runway closure for sweeping, snow clearing etc) hence no additional impact such as reduced aerodrome congestion as ATC should already be accounting for this.

• Improved planning for stand allocation. Stand and gate management should gain a more stable planning horizon with which to tactically plan stand allocations. This is a qualitative benefit.

2 The benefit depends on the information given through CDM information sharing, which the pilot does therefore not need to contact ATC to confirm (or provide an update). The benefit may not necessarily reduce controller workload, as some form of interaction will continue to be required. However, it may have similar benefits to Datalink in as much as non-critical communications can be delayed to balance the controller's workload.






ANNEXES






ANNEX A: COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES FROM STUDY PARTICIPANTS

BAA

ID BAA OPS inc S& G Answers

APT1 Pre How and when do you download scheduled daily planned movements?

IDAHO holds schedule 10 day in advance of operation ACCORD downloads to SIRIUS at approx 19:00hrs nightly. Schedule downloaded to ARIS nightly prior to days operation

APT2 Pre Do you receive in advance daily flight programs from Aircraft operators? YES

APT3 Pre When do you complete a pre stand and gate plan? General rules used including Aircraft Operators prefered allocation? Night before day of operation

APT4 Pre Are you generally open to requests from Aircraft Operators and Ground Handlers S&G requests? Yes, where Operation permits

APT5 ARR Do you receive ARR/DEP FPLs from AO? NO

APT6 ARR Do you receive accurate MVT/DEL messages from outstation? YES

APT7 ARR Are these messages automatically read & checked or manually? Automatically

APT8 ARR Are these messages compared with Ground Handlers information? A small percentage are

APT9 ARR Do you receive passenger & baggage transit/transfer information? If yes, what is the procedure?

Facility in ADAM/IDAHO for some airlines but not used by SAU for allocation calculations

APT10 ARR Do you receive ACARS messages (out/off and positioning reports) YES

APT11 ARR Do you have VHF air to ground communication with A/C What info do you receive (eta, wchr,unmin etc) and pass (CTOT)? Who do you pass this information to and how?

NO

APT12 ARR How do you receive priorities? Question unclear at to the priorities it refers




APT13 ARR How do you communicate priorities? ditto

APT14 ARR How do you pass stand & gate changes? Direct line telephone to ATC and SIS for airline/operators (also courtesy call to airlines whenever poss)

APT15 ARR How do you receive the arrival sequence and who from? Collected automatically as they leave the stacks and enter airfield ‘zone’

APT16 ARR How do you disseminate aircraft finals between the airport partners (10min out)? SIS

APT17 ARR How do you receive landing times?

APT18 ARR How do you coordinate the ground 'follow me' vehicles? Aprons Co-ordinator Marshallers monitors ATC frequencies and communicate direct with ATC where required

APT19 ARR Who inputs Actual in-block times? i.e automatically, received from GHs or manually? what is done with this information?

SITA message publishes Zones & Finals messages. Landed times are calculated by finals +7 minutes if no overshoot message is received.

APT20 ARR What methods of communication are used i.e radio, handheld computers?

Airport wide - radios, handheld computers, telephones, electronic messaging (internal & external), fax

APT21 Turn round How is the airport FIS updated and Who is responsible for? Automatically - IDAHO

APT22 Turn round How is minimum turn-round calculated? i.e do you coordinate with the GHs? Collect relevant delay info from GH

APT23 Turn round Any known delay, prior to arrival who is responsible for updating? How, who and when?

Automatically and manually. from Airlines/Handlers to SAU as soon as practicably possible, then published by SAU to airport systems

APT24 Turn round If delay < 15’: who updates the delay in the AO Dispatch Control Service? (Ramp agent? Ops control centre?) ditto

APT25 Turn round If delay > 15’: will an update be done in the AO DCS? - Who? Ditto




APT26 Turn round How do you receive CTOT? How, who and when? CFMU / DSM

APT27 Turn round Do you require GHs to board aircraft regardless of CTOT? Anticipating changes and towing off aircraft to remote areas? Co-ordinated by Airline

APT28 Turn round How do GHs communicate with you regarding delays in the turnaround? Telephone

APT29 Turn round How are coaching gates allocated? SAU T2 & T3

APT30 Turn round What is the Check in & boarding procedure for both pier and remote operations? i.e called to gate, last call

Gate open, Boarding, Last Call, Gate Closed

APT31 Removed from quest.

APT32 Removed from quest.

APT33 Turn round How are aircraft on long layovers managed i.e towing stand from stand, mx areas etc

If layover longer than 4 ½ hrs A/C expected to tow remote (if operation requires). When required tow is expected to take place within 90 minutes of arrival. Departing A/C are required to be given Pier served towback stand no less than 90 minutes before departure

APT34 Departure Removed from quest.

APT35 Departure How are off blocks, mvt messages generated? Automatically, manually etc? How, who and when Manually input into system

APT36 Systems Can we have an overview of all IT systems used, local, network and links between partners? No

APT37 Systems Can you describe the current information flows and links between different partners both internally and externally? Yes




APT38 Systems How to you communicate the aircraft status to your operational system? Automatically

APT39 Systems What is your companies role in crisis situation? Any documentation would be useful

Crisis Management Team, Business Recovery Team, Emergency contingency plans

APT40 Systems Is it possible to get an example of departure schedule and delay? Yes

APT41 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM?

APT42 ARR Would improved arrival precision make your operation more efficient?

APT43 CDM Would improved communication links with the other partners enhance the efficiency of the operation?

APT44 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM?

APT45 CDM Through continuous coordination during the turn around (kind of milestones), can you define the key milestones?

APT46 CDM What would the impact on your work if the pre-departure sequence is known? i.e resource management

APT47 CDM Do you have any other needs to enhance the efficiency of your operation?



BRITISH MIDLAND AIRWAYS

ID Seq Aircraft Operators Common Questions bmi Answers

AOCO1 Pre Do you compare your daily flight program with the Airport Operator? Checking consistency and Airport slots?

No. They receive a copy of our flight program but no formal check of consistencies is done once they load their system.

AOCO2 Pre When and how do you pass your flight program to other partners? The night before the day of operation a Mayfly is produced (usually between 1800-2100). This is faxed to all service providers

AOCO3 Pre When do you receive the pre stand and gate plan?

We have 6 dedicated domestic stands and 1 dedicated international stand and therefore can plan the use of these stands ourselves. We advise BA Terminal Control of our plan for these stands and at the same time make our requests for stands for other flights. Our notification of the stand for these flights is not published until the a/c is in the zone. The use of our dedicated stands is also subject to change throughout the day.

AOCO4 Pre Are the Airport Operators generally open to S & G requests from you and Ground Handlers? yes

AOCO5 ARR Do you disseminate any ARR/DEP FPLs to the Airport Operator? no

AOCO6 ARR Do you receive accurate MVT/DEL messages from outstation? Yes although occasionally the odd MVT is missed or sent incorrectly

AOCO7 ARR Are these messages automatically read & checked or manually? both

AOCO8 ARR Do you receive passenger & baggage transit/transfer information? If yes, what is the procedure? Not on all flights

AOCO9 ARR Confirm SITA & AFTM Addresses LHRKLBD

AOCO10 ARR Do you receive ACARS messages (out/off and positioning reports) no

AOCO11 ARR

Do you have VHF ground to air communication with A/C If yes, What info do you receive (eta, wchr,unmin, fuel requirements etc) and CTOT? Who do you pass this information to and how?

Yes. A normal call from an inbound a/c would include estimated landing time, any special needs pax and any other relevant information. A separate call is usually made to engineering regarding any a/c defects. Any information that needs to be passed on will be done by telephone.

AOCO12 ARR How do you disseminate priorities with, Ground Handlers and other service providers? By phone




AOCO13 ARR How do you receive stand & gate changes? Either by telephone from BA Terminal Control or via the BAA SIS system

AOCO14 ARR How do you receive the arrival sequence and who from? SIS

AOCO15 ARR How do you receive landing times? SIS

AOCO16 ARR Who inputs Actual in-block times? i.e automatically, received from Airport Operators, GHs or manually? what is done with this information?

The Dispatcher meeting the a/c will call in the on blocks time to our traffic office. Our TCA’s then input the information into our TANGO system which then formats and generates the standard arrival MVT signal which is sent to pre-designated recipients.

AOCO17 ARR If so, what is done with this information? Unknown

AOCO18 ARR What methods of communication are used i.e radio, handheld computers? Radio

AOCO19 ARR Do you have any trouble with communication airport blind spots? Occasionally

AOCO20 Turn round How do you receive CTOT? How, who and when? SITA telex from Brussels. In the main approx. 2hrs prior to departure or as and when regulations are applied.

AOCO21 Turn round How do you receive, distribute CTOTs between partners? The slot is entered into the flight information screen. Ant service providers who do not have access to this information are not advised of the CTOT

AOCO22 Turn round Do you require GHs to board aircraft regardless of CTOT? Anticipating changes and towing off aircraft to remote areas?

Any slot delay upto 60mins the Company policy is to board for a scheduled departure and taxy to the remote holding area. Any delay in excess of 60mins boarding is at the Captain’s discretion.

AOCO23 Turn round How do you disseminate aircraft changes between partners? SITA telex and fax

AOCO25 Turn round How is minimum turn-around calculated? i.e do you coordinate with the GHs?

We have standard t/a times for our various a/c types. The intention however is always to dispatch as close to schedule as possible meaning we attempt to undercut the standard t/a times. There is not normally any formal dialogue with the GH’s although the dispatcher may set deadlines for loading, cleaning etc.

AOCO26 Turn round How do you disseminate turn-around times? They are published in our Ops. manual.

AOCO27 Turn round How do GHs communicate with you regarding delays in the Turn round? Through the aircraft dispatcher

AOCO29 Turn round If delay < 15’: who updates the delay in the AO Dispatch Control Service? (Ramp agent? Ops control centre?) Traffic Office




AOCO30 Turn round If delay > 15’: will an update be done in the AO DCS? - Who? Yes again done by the traffic office

AOCO31 Turn round How are coaching gates allocated? Gate request made to BA Terminal Control

AOCO32 Turn round What is the Check in & boarding procedure for both pier and remote operations? i.e called to gate, last call Gate open – minus 50, boarding – minus 30, last call – minus 20

AOCO34 Turn round If CTOT extension required what is the process? Dispatcher calls traffic office. Traffic office call EMA slot desk. Slot desk request extension from Brussels.

AOCO35 Turn round Do you input any Ready Status (all doors closed and tug in position)? How and who? Ready messages sent by EMA slot desk

AOCO36 Turn round How are aircraft on long layovers managed i.e towing stand from stand, mx areas etc

We have very few aircraft which have long layovers however any which do will be towed around as required to free up stands etc. but the end goal will always be to have the a/c on pier for departure.

AOCO37 Departure How are off blocks, mvt messages generated? Automatically, manually etc? How, who and when

Dispatcher declares the off blocks time. TCA’s input data into TANGO which formats standard departure MVT signal which is sent to pre-designated recipients.

AOCO38 Systems Can you describe the current information flows and links between different partners both internally and externally? TANGO

AOCO39 Systems How to you communicate the aircraft status to your operational system? TANGO

AOCO41 Systems Is it possible to get an example of departure schedule and delay? I can e-mail a blank draft departure schedule if reqd. Please advise if this will be sufficient.

AOCO42 Systems Can we have an overview of all IT systems used, local, network and links between partners?

AOC043 Communication Do you communicate with APT?

AOC044 Communication Do you communicate with HDLG

AOC045 Communication Do you communicate with TWR

AOC046 Communication Do you communicate with FMP (IFPS?)




AOCO47 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM?

More accurate arrival information for meeters and greeters. More accurate delays on departures published to advise customers and being published earlier than at present. Improved punctuality by better utilisation of slots. More effective use of available resources. Improved handling of transit passengers and baggage to reduce baggage losses. On days of mass disruption better intelligence on which to base decisions on cancellations at an earlier stage.

AOCO48 CDM Do you have any other needs to enhance the efficiency of your operation?

The only ones which spring to mind currently fall outside of the remit of CDM e.g.. Crew report times and crew transport issues.

AOCO49 CDM Would improved communication links with the other partners enhance the efficiency of the operation? Yes

AOCO50 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM? As AOCO43

AOCO51 CDM Through continuous coordination during the turn around (kind of milestones), can you define the key milestones?

On blocks - last pax off - cleaners on - cleaners off - commence boarding - loading progress - headcount confirmed - holds closed - pushback.

AOCO52 CDM What would the impact on your work if the pre-departure sequence is known? i.e resource management

Much improved use of resources. Avoidance of knock-on delays resulting from allocation of resource to flights out of sequence. Better information supplied to outstations and a resultant reduction in incoming telephone calls into our Ops office regarding progress of flights.



NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

ID Seq ATC / TWR Common Questions - NATS Answers

TWRO1 Pre Do you compare your movement program with the Airport Operator? No, talk with Owen Davis (NATS) comparing arr SCHD and ACT.

TWRO2 Pre When and how do you receive the pre stand and gate plan?

No, take stand off SIS and add to strip- CDM would improve. Gate information only published on SIS approx 5 minutes before ATA. This then links to another SIS page to publish the corresponding outbound gate approx 45 minutes prior to departure. i.e. Once the inbound aircraft is within 5 minutes from touchdown.

TWRO3 ARR How do you receive FIR eta boundary times

EAT. Estimates 20 min in advance based on time at hold +X This can be improved with a funnel estimate. ETA printed on strip, which is produced approx 40 minutes prior to arrival. This does not take delays in the inner stacks into account and can therefore vary greatly from the ATA.

TWRO5 ARR Confirm ATFM Address

TWRO7 ARR How do you receive stand & gate changes?

Not always, slow updates on SIS. X - Recently vacated, H - still occupied CDM would improve. Gate changes for inbounds (when neither the new or old stand are occupied) are often not picked up at all as once they are written on the strip no-one goes back to re-check them. This requires a phone call from HAL or BA, normally the crew pass the information to us over the RT before we get the call.

TWRO8 ARR How disseminate the arrival sequence? Based on TC. Don’t understand the question.

TWRO9 ARR How do you log landing times?

Written on strip, BAA log. NATS merge 2 sets of Data to give BAA. ASMGCS could supply accurate data-CDM. This will only be possible when the A-SMGCS displays “weight on wheels”. APT may be able to do this now though.

TWRO10 ARR Do you receive arrival priorities from Aircraft Operators? No, TC occasionally helps BA only. EAT swapping between BA aircraft

TWRO11 Turnaround Do you use data link with aircraft for clearances? No, Proposed with EFPS. PDCS is future project, timescale uncertain at this time.

TWRO12 Turnaround How do you introduce Taxi-times? 27L / 09L / / 09R 16 min / 27R 20 min John Greenwood worth talking to.

TWRO13 Turnaround How do you receive CTOT? Assistant takes times from CFMU system (DSM). Now also have TACT terminal in VCR.




TWRO14 Turnaround How are any delays during the turn-around disseminated to you? They are not. Occasionally crews call. No CDM would improve

TWRO15 Turnaround If CTOT extension required what is the process?

CTOT - 30mins GMP can request new slot from CFMU via the DSM. 20 a day / max 4ph + 15 min (however CFMU don’t recognize) Sometime London FMP will allow aircraft to be released before or after CTOT, again not recognised by CFMU.

TWRO16 Turnaround How is secondary ground movements coordinated with you? E.g. towing stand from stand, aircraft engine runs etc.

No, ASMGS could assist. Aircraft engine runs and Remote Holding is co-ordianted between the operators, HAL and the VCR Supervisor. There is no pre-coordination of towing traffic.

TWRO17 DEP Do you receive any Ready Status (all doors closed and tug in position)? How and who? Pilot only. TOBT will enhance - CDM

TWRO18 DEP Do you receive departure priorities from Aircraft Operators?

Occasional request for remote holds only, but nothing else. BA Terminal 4 often try to impose a departure order but never take into account prevailing traffic and often ask for the impossible. Never seem to ask for KLM to be given priority though for some reason.

TWRO19 Systems Can we have an overview of all IT systems used, local, network and links between partners? Graham Henderson (NATS)? EFPS (Paul Johnson) Layouts available

TWRO20 Systems Can you describe the current information flows and links between different partners both internally and externally? Sorry no ideas

TWRO21 Systems Are TWR inputs stored in a data base, if so NAV data base or common data base? Sorry no ideas

TWRO24 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM?

Improve all terminal operations (reduced holding on TWYs. CDM information Flows Flexible taxi times A/c pushing back realistically for CTOT Greater adherence to CTOTs More accurate estimated outbound demand will improve preplanning of flow restrictions (both imposing and lifting)

TWRO25 CDM Would improved arrival precision make your operation more efficient? Not directly, potential gains for others clearly apparent. Accurate weight on wheels for land / Dep to partners to encourage buy-in (followed by improved ELDTs based on update on radar position / altitude)

TWRO26 CDM Through continuous coordination during the turn around (kind of milestones), can you define the key milestones?

Not discussed but assumed 16 milestones identified by EUROCONTROL would apply




TWRO27 CDM Would a 'Target of block time' generate by the GH make your operation more efficient? Yes, but reservations on buy in by Aircraft operators

TWRO28 CDM What would the impact on your work load be if the pre-departure sequence is known?

Difficult to quantify at present. Pre departure sequence will not be effective from the GMP position unless there are signifiacnt airfield delays. GMC workload increased as controllers try to Juggle aircraft to match what PDS says is best order. PDS will not be able to take into account visual separations and will therefore not be as flexible as the Deps controller.

TWRO29 CDM Would improved communication links with the other partners enhance the efficiency of the operation?

Yes, many parallel projects running. Close coordination required.\ Use of existing equipment maximized. No additional HMI would be accepted.

TWRO30 CDM Do you have any other needs to enhance the efficiency of your operation? Issues include 20-25% EGLL slot busting according to CFMU

TWRO31 CDM Do you agree implementing flexible taxi time Yes airlines may not be happy though.



Aviance UK

ID Seq Ground Handlers Common Questions Aviance UK Answers

GH1 Pre Do you receive in advance daily flight programs from Aircraft operators? Y

GH2 Pre Do you receive all seasonal and day to day planned flight movements from the Airport Operator? Y

GH3 ARR Do you receive ARR/DEP FPLs from AO? Y

GH4 ARR Do you receive accurate MVT/DEL messages from outstation? Y ( with some exceptions)

GH5 ARR Are these messages automatically read & checked or manually? Both

GH6 ARR Do you receive passenger & baggage transit/transfer information? If yes, what is the procedure?

Y – sent to tfr bag unit to enable them to meet flight with correct manpower, also sent to pax svcs/codeco etc

GH7 ARR Do you receive ACARS messages (out/off and positioning reports) Y For some carriers

GH8 ARR Do you receive VHF air to ground communication with A/C Y

GH9 ARR If yes, what info do you receive (eta, wchr, unmin, fuel requirements etc) and pass (stand number, CTOT)? Y – ETA/Special handling (wchr etc) we give stand if known

GH11 ARR If yes, who do you pass this information to and how? To airline and wchr suppliers by phone

GH12 ARR How do you receive priorities? ?

GH13 ARR How do you communicate priorities? ?

GH14 ARR How do you receive the arrival sequence and who from? BAA, SIS

GH15 ARR How do you receive finals (10min out)? SIS

GH16 ARR Do you consider 'run time' (base-stand) for resources (staff and equipment) ?

GH17 ARR How do you receive stand allocation? SIS or by calling stand allocation unit

GH18 ARR Can you influence the stand allocation? Some carriers have prefered stands which we request

GH19 ARR How are late stand changes passed to you? What’s the percentage of late changes? SIS or stand allocation unit / 20%

GH20 ARR How do you receive landing times? SIS

GH21 ARR Who inputs Actual in-block times? Where is the information going?

Operations dept Goes in own system and we also send sita to airline and HAL




GH22 ARR What methods of communication are used i.e radio, handheld computers? Ground to air, hand held radio, telephone, SIS, fixed vehicle radios

GH23 Turnaround How is minimum turn-around calculated? Agreed time with most airlines from on blocks

GH24 Turnaround Any known delay, prior to arrival who is responsible for updating? How, who and when? Either Aviance ops or airlines ops by sita message

GH25 Turnaround If delay < 15’: who updates the delay in the AO Dispatch Control Service? (Ramp agent? Ops control centre?) Ops centre

GH26 Turnaround If delay > 15’: will an update be done in the AO DCS? - Who? ?

GH27 Turnaround How do you receive CTOT? How, who and when? Sita message or from CFMU or airline ops, - 2 hours ?

GH28 Turnaround Do you board aircraft regardless of CTOT? Anticipating changes? For most carriers – some will not for very delayed slot

GH29 Turnaround How does the dispatcher receive Departure Control System information? Via cute at all gates

GH30 Turnaround How are coaching gates allocated By stand allocation unit

GH31 Turnaround What is the Check in & boarding procedure for both pier and remote operations? i.e called to gate,last call Subject to airline- W/B -60 N/B -45/-60 is general guide line.

GH32 Turnaround How are Last Minute Change s dealt with? By dispatcher/airline rep

GH33 Turnaround How do you communicate with fuel company? i.e uplift requirements & additional top-ups if required

Operations or dispatcher. Some long haul put initial fuel on board on remote stand during long stop

GH34 Turnaround How are any delays during the turn-around disseminated? Dispatcher to Operations then HAL

GH35 Turnaround If CTOT extension required what is the process? Dispatcher contacts operations or airline or request capt to call ATC

GH36 Turnaround How are aircraft on long layovers managed i.e towing stand from stand, mx areas etc (secondary movements)

60 min min tow off for a/c on less than 3 hour turnround. Tow off stand allocated by SAU and tow back stand allocated -90

GH37 Departure Do you input any Ready Status (all doors closed and tug in position)? How and who? N

GH38 Departure How are off blocks, mvt messages generated? Automatically, manually etc? How, who and when Manually by operations after dept

GH39 Systems Can we have an overview of all IT systems used, local, network and links between partners? Refer to Martyn Robinson

GH40 Systems Can you describe the current information flows and links between different partners both internally and externally?

SIS is main form of information as it is in most dept and companies, additional info by radio.telephone




GH41 Systems How to you communicate the aircraft status to your operational system? ?

GH42 Systems Is it possible to get an example of departure schedule and delay? Contact Aviance ops 0208 7570765

GH43 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM? Improved information re arriving a/c and better info on o/b delays

GH44 CDM Would improved arrival precision make your operation more efficient? Manpower planning/meeting SLA,s

GH45 CDM Through continuous coordination during the turn around (kind of milestones), can you define the key milestones?

Arrival of crew / arrival of service providers (fuel / catering / loading /cargo) boarding commencing on time/ pushback tug

GH46 CDM Would a 'Target of block time' generate by the GH make your operation more efficient? Y

GH47 CDM What would the impact on your work if the pre-departure sequence is known? Y

GH48 CDM Would improved communication links with the other partners enhance the efficiency of the operation? Y

GH49 CDM Do you have any other needs to enhance the efficiency of your operation? Airport infrastructure is main concern/ stand availability/ dedicated stands

GH50 CDM Do you agree implementing flexible taxi time ?



AIR FRANCE SERVICES LIMITED

ID Seq Ground Handlers Common Questions AIR FRANCE SERVICES LIMITED Answers

GH1 Pre Do you receive in advance daily flight programs from Aircraft operators?

Yes. Received prior to the start of the season. In the case of Flybe we also receive a daily Mayfly.

GH2 Pre Do you receive all seasonal and day to day planned flight movements from the Airport Operator? No

GH3 ARR Do you receive ARR/DEP FPLs from AO? No

GH4 ARR Do you receive accurate MVT/DEL messages from outstation? Usually

GH5 ARR Are these messages automatically read & checked or manually? MVT is dealt with automatically, but the DEL may require manual intervention.

GH6 ARR Do you receive passenger & baggage transit/transfer information? If yes, what is the procedure? LHRPV receive a PTM via Sita

GH7 ARR Do you receive ACARS messages (out/off and positioning reports) AF flights only

GH8 ARR Do you receive VHF air to ground communication with A/C Yes

GH9 ARR If yes, what info do you receive (eta, wchr, unmin, fuel requirements etc) and pass (stand number, CTOT)?

Eta. Wch, UM, CTOT are all dealt with automatically. VHF is used for non routine information e.g. diversion, lost mobiles etc.

GH11 ARR If yes, who do you pass this information to and how? All interested parties

GH12 ARR How do you receive priorities? ?

GH13 ARR How do you communicate priorities? ?

GH14 ARR How do you receive the arrival sequence and who from? SIS

GH15 ARR How do you receive finals (10min out)? SIS

GH16 ARR Do you consider 'run time' (base-stand) for resources (staff and equipment) ?

GH17 ARR How do you receive stand allocation? SIS

GH18 ARR Can you influence the stand allocation? Yes

GH19 ARR How are late stand changes passed to you? What’s the percentage of late changes? SIS, but often backed up by a phone call from Stand Alloction Unit

GH20 ARR How do you receive landing times? SIS, but in the case of AF via acars

GH21 ARR Who inputs Actual in-block times? Where is the information going?

Acars in the case of AF. LHRKLAF for the other airlines. SIS receives the info.




GH22 ARR What methods of communication are used i.e radio, handheld computers? Air-ground VHF, ground-ground radios, telephones and mobiles

GH23 Turnaround How is minimum turn-around calculated? There is an agreed maximum time allowed per acft type

GH24 Turnaround Any known delay, prior to arrival who is responsible for updating? How, who and when? Ops supervisor via SIS which in turn updates terminal info boards and teletext etc.

GH25 Turnaround If delay < 15’: who updates the delay in the AO Dispatch Control Service? (Ramp agent? Ops control centre?) Ops supervisor

GH26 Turnaround If delay > 15’: will an update be done in the AO DCS? - Who? Yes – Ops supervisor

GH27 Turnaround How do you receive CTOT? How, who and when? Acars in the case of AF. Via Sita fron BRU for others

GH28 Turnaround Do you board aircraft regardless of CTOT? Anticipating changes? If the delay is less than 2 hours we board for an on-time dep. For delays over 2 hours we delay boarding by the delay minus 2 hours.

GH29 Turnaround How does the dispatcher receive Departure Control System information? The dispatcher has access to the DCS at the gate or in the office

GH30 Turnaround How are coaching gates allocated By SAU

GH31 Turnaround What is the Check in & boarding procedure for both pier and remote operations? i.e called to gate,last call Check in is identical. The flight is called earlier in the case of remote ops

GH32 Turnaround How are Last Minute Change s dealt with? Manually in the case of minor changes. A new LDS is issued for larger changes

GH33 Turnaround How do you communicate with fuel company? i.e uplift requirements & additional top-ups if required Verbally at aircraft and by phone from office

GH34 Turnaround How are any delays during the turn-around disseminated? The delay code is on the MVT message and in the AFSL ground handling computer. The implicated dept. reports on the reasons for the delay

GH35 Turnaround If CTOT extension required what is the process? Send a new ETD which in turn delays the FPL

GH36 Turnaround How are aircraft on long layovers managed i.e towing stand from stand, mx areas etc (secondary movements) In liaison with SAU.

GH37 Departure Do you input any Ready Status (all doors closed and tug in position)? How and who? No. This is now the responsibility of the pilots.

GH38 Departure How are off blocks, mvt messages generated? Automatically, manually etc? How, who and when

Automatically via the DCS. The dispatcher or ops supervisor inputs the information as soon as known – either via acars or via SIS

GH39 Systems Can we have an overview of all IT systems used, local, network and links between partners?

AF DCS which communicates with SIS via Sita. It also has a network link with the AF movements computer. The AFSL ground handling computer which is purely an in-house system for storing records and producing stats.




GH40 Systems Can you describe the current information flows and links between different partners both internally and externally?

Internally via information pages on the DCS. Externally by keeping SIS updated which we do either via BAA ops by telephone or by sending MVTs and ETDs via the DCS.

GH41 Systems How to you communicate the aircraft status to your operational system? Either by direct input to the AF movements computer or via the DCS.

GH42 Systems Is it possible to get an example of departure schedule and delay? Yes

GH43 CDM What are the objectives or potential gain you expect participating in CDM? ?

GH44 CDM Would improved arrival precision make your operation more efficient? Yes

GH45 CDM Through continuous coordination during the turn around (kind of milestones), can you define the key milestones?

Arrival on block. Cleaners off. Fuelling complete. Unloading/loading complete. Pax count correct.

GH46 CDM Would a 'Target of block time' generate by the GH make your operation more efficient?

No. We prefer to calculate our own and to disseminate the information via SIS and our own systems.

GH47 CDM What would the impact on your work if the pre-departure sequence is known? ?

GH48 CDM Would improved communication links with the other partners enhance the efficiency of the operation? ?

GH49 CDM Do you have any other needs to enhance the efficiency of your operation? ?

GH50 CDM Do you agree implementing flexible taxi time ?






ANNEX B: CONSOLIDATED PROBLEMS & REQUIREMENTS LIST

No. Partner Priority Category Sub-Cat. Description

1 NATS Process Stands

Long delays incurred holding for occupied stands especially in the T4 area: aircraft blocking taxiways for long periods causing GMC to give complex routeing instructions to vehicles and other aircraft to avoid the holding traffic.

2 NATS Process Stands Demand and availability of Stands and Gates (S&G). 3 NATS Environment Work Space No available working space for additional computer screens. 4 NATS Process Stands High workload with stand conflicts and ground holding delays. 5 NATS Environment Work Space Many computer screens are difficult to read in the VCR. 6 NATS Process Stands Late notification of S&G allocation. 7 NATS Process Holding Times ETA on the strip does not take into account any holding.

8 NATS Process Dep Mngmnt Coordination of T4 departure order (British Airways and Air Traffic Control have different problems).

9 NATS Process Dep Mngmnt Poor CTOT compliance and unknown status of departures. 10 NATS People Taxi Times Airline Operators might not like using variable taxi times.

11 NATS Process Info Sharing In the morning the TWR have no stand info so they often put arrivals on the least favoured runway regarding the taxi in and stand.

12 NATS Technology Flight Strips Accurate automation of ALDT & CTOT on strips (EFPS in the future). 13 NATS Process Taxi Times Variable Taxi time Calculation.

14 NATS Process Off-Block Times More accurate off-block times (OBT) provided by Aircraft Operators / Ground handlers.

15 NATS Process Dep Mngmnt Aircraft respecting their estimated OBT.

16 NATS Technology Dep Mngmnt Pre Departure Sequencing – mainly during significant airfield delays. How could a tool perform versus a GMC?

17 NATS Process Dep Mngmnt Improve CTOT compliance. 18 NATS Process Stands Earlier indication needed of stand allocation, conflicts and late changes.

19 NATS Process Towing Earlier indication needed for secondary ground movements i.e. towing to and from MX / HGR areas, stand to stand and requirement to cross active runway ?

20 NATS Process General Improved T4 operations.



21 NATS Process General Any CDM improvements coupled with the introduction of EFPS.

22 NATS Process Remote Holding Enhanced use of remote holding for both departures and arrivals to reduce taxiway congestion.

23 BAA Environment Work Space Limited visual view of the airfield. 24 BAA Process Landing Times Inaccurate ELDT and ALDT. 25 BAA Process Dep Mngmnt Poor estimates of departures. 26 BAA Process Stands Stand and Gate availability. 27 BAA Process Stands Staff monitor a congested frequency to log off blocks status. 28 BAA Process Dep Mngmnt No early warning of pushback delays to departing aircraft. 29 BAA Process Punctuality Enhanced departure and arrival punctuality and airport slot adherence. 30 BAA Process General Enhanced situational awareness required with the limited view.

31 BAA Process Info Sharing An enhanced information data flow is needed between various partners (Ground handlers) especially concerning the status of aircraft.

32 BAA Process Dep Mngmnt Pre-departure sequencing (improving estimates of pushback clearance). 33 BAA Process Taxi Times Flexible Taxi-times.

34 BAA Process Towing Earlier indication of secondary ground movements i.e. towing to and from MX / HGR areas, stand to stand and requirement to cross active runway.

35 BAA Process Stands Enhanced Stand & Gate management using a more accurate OBT (will provide earlier indication of stand conflicts).

36 BAA Process Towing Less delay incurred whilst towing aircraft.

37 BAA Technology Off-Block Times

Automation to enhance accuracy of AOBT and manpower required to monitor GMC frequency (possible ASMGCS capture in the future).

38 BAA Process Dep Mngmnt Pre-departure sequencing (improving estimates of pushback clearance).

39 BAA Process Remote Holding Enhanced use of remote holding.

40 bmi Process Holding in Stack

Inaccurate estimated landing times (ELDT) and actual landing times (ALDT) after aircraft enter arrival holding patterns.

41 bmi Process Info Sharing No means of showing already known flight delays on SIS prior to flight becoming airborne at outstation.

42 bmi Process Landing Times Poor resource planning with inaccurate ELDT and ALDT. 43 bmi Process Stands Late Stand and Gate Changes. 44 bmi Process Landing Times Poor passenger information displayed due inaccurate ELDT.



45 bmi Process General Poor management of transit passengers and baggage. 46 bmi Process Info Sharing Poor information flows in times of disruption. 47 bmi Process Towing Delays incurred when towing aircraft. 48 bmi Process Stands Stand and Gate availability. 49 bmi Process Dep Mngmnt No notification of delays incurred on stand when aircraft fully ready for push. 50 bmi Process Punctuality Enhanced departure and arrival punctuality. 51 bmi Process Landing Times Improved Accuracy of arrival times (both ELDT and ALDT). 52 bmi Process Dep Mngmnt Pre-departure sequencing (improving estimates of pushback clearance). 53 bmi Process Taxi Times Flexible Taxi-times. 54 bmi Process General Enhanced resource planning. 55 bmi Process Stands Reduced number of Stand & Gate changes. 56 bmi Process Towing Less delay incurred whilst towing aircraft. 57 bmi Process Stands Enhancing preferred stand allocation agreement.

58 Aviance Process Holding in Stack Inaccurate ELDT and ALDT after aircraft enter arrival holding patterns.

59 Aviance Process Landing Times Poor resource planning with inaccurate ELDT and ALDT. 60 Aviance Process Stands Late Stand and Gate Changes (up to 20%). 61 Aviance Process Towing Delays incurred when towing aircraft. 62 Aviance Process Stands Stand and Gate availability. 63 Aviance Process Dep Mngmnt No notification of delays incurred on stand when aircraft fully ready for push 64 Aviance Process Landing Times Improve Accuracy of arrival times (both ELDT and ALDT). 65 Aviance Process Dep Mngmnt Pre-departure sequencing (improving estimates of pushback clearance). 66 Aviance Process Taxi Times Flexible Taxi-times. 67 Aviance Process General Enhanced resource planning would improve SLA with Aircraft Operators. 68 Aviance Process Stands Reduced number of Stand & Gate changes. 69 Aviance Process Towing Less delay incurred whilst towing aircraft. 70 Aviance Process Stands Preferred stand allocation.

71 EUROC Process Runway There is a requirement to show landing runway in the system (SIS) 20-30 minutes in advance of landing, but who should be responsible for keeping the information correct ?

72 EUROC Process Stands

There is a need to provide TC with information on Stands and maybe this could be also be tied in with showing the current delay to a flight (EIBT-SIBT) (perhaps several pages of the SIS could be piped over).






ANNEX C: ARRIVALS INFORMATION TRIAL SPREADSHEET (WITH ONE LINE OF SAMPLE DATA)

10:28 10:4610:3910:2510:2710:3910:43 10:3810:5710:5010:2410:200:00 09L A321BMA816

CDM Time pas-sing 69

New SIS ETA

given with Z (In

block)

New SIS ETA given with Z(ELDT)

CDM Time aircraft departed hold

Time sts changes from P to Z

ETA (ELDT?) as shown on stripin TWR

CDM -EIBT (ELDT+VTT) +-5mins

CDM -ELDT (EAT+DFT) +-5min

P-ETA (EIBT) displayed on SIS

P-ETA (ELDT) = Colume H min 7 min

EAT shown on EAT tool

ETA (atHold) asshown on EATTool

Stand Rw in

use Callsign

0:00 10:4510:4610:4610:4210:4410:3710:37 10:4210:3710:3310:4110:4610:39 10:33 10:4310:38

AIBT -BAA APT

AIBTAIBT -DH (visual)

Time Sts changes from Lto A

CDM -EIBT (ALDT+VTT) +-1

New SIS ETA after ALDT (EIBT)

APT -ALDT

ALDT +-1 min (Visual)

CDM -EIBT

(ELDT+VTT) +-1min

CDM -ELDT (T+4mins) +-1min

CDM Time passing 29

Time Sts changes from F to L

New SIS ETA given with F (in block)

New SISETA given with F (ELDT)

Time Sts changes from Zto F

CDM -EIBT

(ELDT+VVT) +-2mins

CDM - ELDT (T69+9mins) +-2mins

Documents

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE€¦ · LONDON Heathrow CDM WP1 Authors R. Lane D. Hogg Date 02/2005 Pages xvi + 115 Figures 39 Tables 11 Annexes 3 References - Project CDM London