fl adherence days trial final report v1.1 30032011

7/31/2019 FL Adherence Days Trial Final Report V1.1 30032011

1/45

EUROCONTROL

30 September - 1 October 2010

Final report

Flight Level Adherence Days trialFor the sae and optimum ow o air trafc


2/45

30 March 2011 1 FLAD - Final Report V1.1


3/45


TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................42 OBJECTIVES OF THE FLIGHT LEVEL ADHERENCE DAYS .....................................53 COMMUNICATION PLAN ............................................................................................54 PREPARATIONS..........................................................................................................6

4.1 Organisational Structure ...........................................................................................64.2 Stakeholder Communications ...................................................................................64.3 Reporting Processes .................................................................................................74.4 Issues Identified In Trial Preparation Phase .............................................................7

4.5 Measurement of CTOT/EOBT Performance .............................................................74.6 Go/No Go Decision ...................................................................................................84.7 Changes Brought About As A Result of Industrial Action..........................................8

5 PARTICIPATION ..........................................................................................................86 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................97 SUPPORTING DATA .................................................................................................12

7.1 Summary Data from Pilots (Annex B) .....................................................................127.2 Summary Data from ACCs & ATCOs (Annex C) ....................................................127.3 Summary Data from AOs........................................................................................127.4 Summary Data from Flight Dispatchers ..................................................................13

8 POTENTIAL ISSUES/LINKED RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................148.1 ATC flight level constraints and the RFL.................................................................148.2 ATC Awareness of Downstream Regulations and impact on non-adherence ........148.3 ATC Access to RFLs...............................................................................................158.4 Repetitive Flight Plans (RPLs) ................................................................................158.5 Flight Plans and Operational Intent .........................................................................168.6 Processing of associated messages .......................................................................178.7 Economic penalties associated with level adherence .............................................188.8 Opposite Direction Levels .......................................................................................198.9 EOBT/CTOT/Sector Timing Results .......................................................................19

9 NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................................2210 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................2311 ANNEXES:..................................................................................................................24


4/45



5/45


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report provides the initial outcomes of the Adherence Days Trial held on the 30September and 1 October 2010. The concern for flight level adherence resulted from

investigations into sector over deliveries which demonstrated that a significant proportion ofadditional flights were at differing levels from those filed. Furthermore there is aconsiderable amount of flights with lateral route and time deviations. There is clearindication that ACCs as a result of unplanned flight entry reduce their capacity to protecttheir sectors and thus there is a potential loss of capacity to the network. Improvements inflight planning with changes to bring the filed flight plan closer to the required operationalprofile are highlighted within the report together with a number of system and humanresource issues.

1.2 Measures are applied by the CFMU at the request of ANSPs to protect ATC sectors fromreceiving more traffic than the controller can safely handle. When over-deliveries (definedas the delivery of 10% more traffic than the declared capacity) are examined it is found thatflights are not flying at the original requested flight level, are flying a different route than

filed, or their departure times are different from the original estimated off-block time(EOBT) or the calculated take-off time (CTOT). Besides the over-deliveries and theimplications for flight safety, these differences have also significant impact on theeffectiveness of the network demand/capacity optimisation activity by CFMU.

1.3 At the request of ANSPs, EUROCONTROL (DMEAN Framework programme and theCFMU) launched the Flight Plan & ATFCM Adherence Campaign early 2009. In 2009 onethird of all ATFCM reported over-deliveries were caused by differences between the actualFL and the RFL in the Flight Plan. Following an extended adherence campaign and twolocal trials, a proposal for a Flight Level Adherence Days was presented to and agreed byOCG/11 (9 June 2010). In essence, the trial required airlines to fly at the Requested FlightLevel (RFL) contained within Field 15 of the filed ICAO Flight Plan except for safety oressential operational reasons.

1.4 The awareness of the trial through the activities within the communications plan contributedto the trial objectives. While earlier CFMU statistics were invaluable for determining someof the non-compliance it was the decision to go for the trial and the trial itself that broughtabout the principal issues and recommendations including the views of pilots, controllersand dispatchers. It was considered that application is more likely to demonstrate benefitsfor ANSPs & AOs by delivering a higher degree of flight level adherence, and improving theaccuracy of data for the network and overall predictability with all parties working towards amore optimum flight plan.

1.5 The scope of the trial was flight level adherence across Europe (ECAC Member Statesincluding Morocco) from 30 September 2010 00:00 UTC until 1 October 2010 23:59 UTC.


6/45


2 OBJECTIVES OF THE FLIGHT LEVEL ADHERENCE DAYS

1. To measure the effect of adherence to the Flight Plan (FPL) and ATFCM measures

and, in particular, the filed flight level.2. To determine benefits arising from more accurate RFL with regard to improved

predictability, reduced overloads/over-deliveries, and overall network performance.3. Identifying issues to provide input to the next step of the flight adherence campaign.4. Measure and report on EOBT/CTOT performance as an adjunct to the post-trial report.

Note: The aim of adherence is NOT to hinder the operational tactical decisions at sector level butrather to decrease the high amount of deviations and reduce the impact on possible downstreamsectors. A certain degree of flexibility to accommodate unpredictable circumstances for bothairborne crews and ATC has to be taken into account.

3 COMMUNICATION PLAN

3.1 A comprehensive communications plan was put in place in order to achieve a successful 2-day operational trial. The intent was to make aware and involve all airspace users (flightdispatchers, pilots and ATCOs, including their respective authorities and associations) ofthe impact of non-adherence and change behaviour in the long-term to contribute toimproving network performance by delivering the safe and optimum flow of air traffic. Thesubsequent awareness of the trial amongst ATCOs was very high; however, a number ofATCOs reported a lack of awareness amongst the pilots which led to additional R/T trafficin establishing the valid flight plan.

3.2 The communication plan was divided into three phases:

Before the adherence days,

During the days,

And as a follow-up to the adherence days.3.3 The steps for phase 1 included:

Guidance & Information Documentation published & distributed in July toANSPs & AOs covering NOTAM/AIM, creation of TOIs, results & reportingprocesses with feedback formats. Prime reference document for stakeholders.

Establishment of Key Message fly the filed flight plan

Website www.adherencedays.com included FAQs, supporting material.

Social media (Facebook & Twitter).

Press & Publications ECA Cockpit News, newsletters etc, brochures, leaflets,posters, text for FPSPs.

Internal communications presentations, preparation of publicity material etc.

Videos CHMI training, social networking


7/45


3.4 Following the trial more than 27 ANSPs all over Europe provided detailed feedback. Morethan 100 replies to the electronic surveys were submitted by pilots, dispatchers and AOs,providing an inside view of the issues related to level adherence. Annex A shows theCommunication Plan.

4 PREPARATIONS

4.1 Organisational Structure

a. To prepare for the adherence day a Task Force was established withrepresentatives from ECA, IFATCA, ACI-Europe, EUFALDA, IASA, IATA, IACA andANSPs. It had its first meeting on 4 Mar 2010 and the second meeting on 12 May2010. The conclusions and recommendations arising from the Task Force werecirculated to members, as well as to DISG and DOP representatives.

b. Following the agreement of OCG11 to the establishment of a 2 day trial on 29

September and 30 September, as recommended by the Adherence Task ForceTF2, the preparations for the trial began to accelerate. It had been considered byTF2 that a further day should be added to the trial date to reduce the risk thatapplication of the adherence procedure will be hampered on the proposed date e.g.by weather or by significant events. It was agreed also that TF3 would meet on 2Sep. 2010 to review preparations for the trial days and consider a go ahead.

c. Preparation of the adherence day required direct coordination with all partners,more particularly ACCs, to ensure their participation, to agree the approach andprocedures, and to ensure feedback on preparation and results. ANSPs wereinvited to perform their own individual adherence trials in the meantime andrequested to provide results to the Agency to assist the adherence campaign andpreparations for the adherence day. Further preparation of the Adherence Day(s)

required direct coordination with ACCs, to ensure their participation, agree theapproach and procedures, and for ensuring feedback on preparation and results.

4.2 Stakeholder Communications

a. The communications plan continued with an increased level of activity. Significantwork was undertaken in the preparation of stakeholders for the trial. Points ofcontact were established at ACCs and presentations provided to dispatchers,ATCOs and the pilot community. It was important that adequate guidance wasprovided to participants and in July a Guidance & Information Document wasdistributed which provided exemplar Temporary Operating Instructions (TOIs) aswell as reporting forms, exemplar NOTAM format.

b. Communication with pilots was through the European Cockpit Association (ECA)and IFALPA. Contact was established with airlines on an organisational basisthrough IATA and IACA and on an individual airline basis (JetairFly, Air France,NATS/OPA, etc) in response to requests for clarification of their various concerns.

c. Flight dispatchers were represented by EUFALDA who were active throughout intheir support and preparation of the trial.


8/45


4.3 Reporting Processes

a. A key ingredient for the success of the Trial Days was the quality of the recordingand reporting throughout the 48 hours. CFMU undertook the task of portraying theoverall performance of the network as well as investigating in depth a number ofkey sectors which in the past had been subject to regular over-deliveries.

b. In order to test that the appropriate processes were in place as well as provide areference baseline, a 2 day comparison exercise was agreed for the 9

th& 10

th

September (originally scheduled on 22nd

and 23rd

September but changed due toindustrial action). Those dates were chosen because there were no major eventsover the two days and the network was relatively stable.

c. Additionally, electronic survey forms were prepared for ease of response for pilots,AO ops management, and flight dispatchers. Exemplar reporting forms for tacticalATC feedback & ACC feedback were also provided through the Flight LevelAdherence Guidance documents. Further there was concern that a late update ofthe flight plan would result in a deterioration of delay.

4.4 Issues Identified In Trial Preparation Phase

a. The preparation phase was important in the early identification of a number of issueswhich were then reinforced by the Flight Level Adherence Trial. More detail is providedunder the trial results.

b. A key concern for some ATCOs was their inability to know the filed Requested FlightLevel (RFL) if the flight level clearance had been subsequently changed. A commonfailing was the inability to know of the consequences downstream of agreeing a flightlevel change e.g. which might subsequently enter a regulated sector.

c. Some airlines expressed the difficulty of providing accurate flight plan data when theywere subject to changes in load and fuel weights. There was also concern expressedby airlines as to the potential economic issues of the trial from ATC seeking adherence

to the filed flight level which may not afterwards represent the most efficient flight level.

d. The European pilots community raised its concern that there is a potential danger intrying to introduce to the airside a streamlined and rigid system that does not take intoaccount the landside limitations of the aviation environment (security, loading, boarding,check-in, etc.). Some pilots also stressed that a flight plan is what it says, a plan, andthat the optimum profile of a particular flight might differ from the planned one, thusresulting in a request for another, more optimum flight level.

4.5 Measurement of CTOT/EOBT Performance

ANSP Directors Of Operations DOP/45 (Apr. 2010) requested that the feasibility ofincluding CTOT/EOBT together with Flight Level Adherence within the Adherence Day

should be re-examined. However, this was considered by TF2 to be an additional factorwhich would require further study, publicity and preparation and thus was not includedwithin the trial. Nevertheless, the Agency agreed to measure EOBT/CTOT performanceduring the Flight Level Adherence Days as an adjunct to the post-trial report and that thiscould provide a baseline for a further Adherence Day which could include EOBT/CTOTAdherence.


9/45


4.6 Go/No Go Decision

The Adherence Task Force (TF3) met on 2 September to review the preparations for thetrial. The meeting objectives were to:

a. Review the progress made in the preparation of the Flight Level AdherenceDays

b. Provide information to TF members on feedback received from pilots, AOs, etcc. TF members to provide their view on readiness of operational partnersd. To recommend a Go/no-go for the Adherence Days of 29-30 September 2010.e. Address the other adherence areas (EOBT/CTOT, route adherence)

In conclusion to the review of all the items above, the TF members unanimouslypronounced the GO Decision for the Flight Level Adherence Days.

4.7 Changes Brought About As A Result of Industrial Action

a. Decision. On the 22 September EUROCONTROL decided to change the dates ofthe Flight Level Adherence Days trial from 29-30 September to30 September - 1October 2010 considering the significant risk of wide-spread industrial actions in thepublic sector across Europe on 29 September, and its likely impact on the aviationcommunity.

b. Rationale. This approach was adopted to avoid distracting air traffic operationsfrom managing solutions on a difficult day. Furthermore the data necessary tovalidate the trial could have been distorted by measures and operationalactions required to minimise the impact. ANSPs were requested to update theirNOTAMs & TOIs accordingly. EUROCONTROL took all necessary actions to inform

all involved by all means possible (see para 5.2). Despite the late change theeffectiveness of the communication plan ensured the awareness of the reviseddates. The adherence trial procedures promulgated remained unchanged.

5 PARTICIPATION

All ECAC states and Morocco took part in the Flight Level Adherence Days Trials with theexception of Spain and Ukraine. AENA fully supported the adherence campaign but was not in aposition to participate due to ongoing discussions with social partners. Ukraine has a complex taskwith RVSM transition to metric system for 4 out of 5 ACCs and appropriate preparation by

UkSATSE was not possible as official notification and request for participation was not received intime.


10/45


6 SUMMARY

6.1 The Adherence Day Trials took place on the 30 September and 1 October 2010 (week 39).

The traffic volumes compared closely to the comparison dates of the 9 and 10 September(week 36) (Figure 1 refers). The traffic delays were higher on the trial days but the causalfactors were both similar in nature and location; principally ATC capacity and ATC staffingbut with an increase in weather related issues on 30 September (Figure 2). There was noevidence to suggest that an increased adherence to flight levels during the trial days was adelaying factor.

Daily Traffic

31633

32341

29071

31576

31955

31600

31667

31984

0

5000

10000

1500020000

25000

30000

35000

THU FRI THU FRI THU FRI THU FRI

W201036 W201037 W201038 W201039

FLADreference

Daily Traffic

31633

32341

29071

31576

31955

31600

31667

31984

0

5000

10000

1500020000

25000

30000

35000


W201036 W201037 W201038 W201039

FLADreference

Figure 1

Daily ATFM Delays

111428138756

360225

181977

76388100239

6676649298

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000


W201036 W201037 W201038 W201039

AIRPORT ATC M ETEO OTHER

FLADreference

Daily ATFM Delays

111428138756

360225

181977

76388100239

6676649298

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000


W201036 W201037 W201038 W201039

AIRPORT ATC M ETEO OTHER

FLADreference

Figure 2


11/45


6.2 In terms of European wide Flight Level adherence over the 2 day trial there was clearevidence of an overall improvement of some 5% overall over the comparison days and in theupper airspace the improvement in adherence was in the region of 10%. It should be noted,(Figure 3 refers) however, that there is still a substantial proportion of traffic that has avertical deviation of 2000ft or more from their RFL. In the weeks before the trial this was inthe region of 28%, which reduced to 23% during the trial. It is apparent therefore that thereis still an issue in matching the operational profile with the filed intention in the vertical plane.

Entry Flight Level Adhe rance

50.1% 49.9% 50.4% 49.7% 50.8% 49.2%

55.9% 54.5%51.6% 50.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

THU FRI THU FRI THU FRI THU FRI THU FRI

WK36 WK37 WK38 WK39 WK40

SAME ]0:20[ [20:40[ >=40 Figure 3: all airspaces

Upper (>295) Entry Flight Le vel Adherance

54.5% 54.3% 54.6% 54.0% 55.2% 53.3%

64.4% 62.5%57.2% 56.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


WK36 WK37 WK38 WK39 WK40

SAME ]0:20[ [20:40[ >=40 Figure 4: upper airspace

6.3 Figure 5 below shows the improvement of adherence in upper airspace (> 295). During the

Adherence Days there was an improvement of more than 30% of level adherence for a largeamount of ACCs.

Note: Flights might be deviating to their RFL in order to comply with level requirements for thedirection of the flight. Therefore only flights deviating from their RFL by 2000ft or more areconsidered as non-adherent.


12/45


% Improvement of Upper Airspace Flights Level Adherence

41.4%

40.4%

39.9%

39.2%

39.0%

38.8%

38.7%

38.1%

37.6%

37.6%

37.4%

35.2%

34.8%

34.8%

33.8%

33.4%

32.7%

31.8%

31.7%

31.5%

31.2%

30.9%

30.3%

29.3%

28.9%

28.6%

28.3%

27.0%

26.1%

25.3%

24.0%

23.8%

23.2%

23.1%

22.8%

20.9%

19.1%

17.6%

17.2%

16.4%

0%5%

10%

15%20%

25%30%

35%40%

45%50%

55%

BODOATCC

MALMOACC

ISTANBULACC

ZAGREBACC

RIGAACC

LJUBLJANAACC

COPENHAGEN_

ACC

BOSNIA-

RHEINUAC

TIRANAACC

BRINDISIACC

WIENACC

ROMAACC

WARSZAWAACC

SKOPJEACC

MACEDONIAACC

MUNCHENACC

BEOGRADEACC

PADOVAACC

ATHINAICONTROL

PRAGUEACC

SOFIAACC

ZURICHACC

VILNIUSACC

BRATISLAVAACC

STOCKHOLMACC

BUCURESTIACC

MAASTRICHTUAC

BUDAPESTACC

TALLINACC

MALTAACC

REIMSU/ACC

STAVANGERATCC

KIEVACC

L'VIVACC

GENEVAACC

NICOSIAACC

MARSEILLEACC

TAMPEREACC

PARISALLACC

Figure 5

6.4 A replay tool using the Intruder functionality of ETFMS was used to analyse the impact oflevel adherence on the amount of unexpected flights entering an ATC sector. The twographs below compare the traffic entering into the LSAZM4 sector on an Adherence day with

traffic on a normal day. There is clear evidence that the amount of additional flights (whiteline) and the lost flight (pink line) has been considerably reduced during the trial, showing aclear reduction of unexpected flights throughout the day.

Figure 6: Traffic in sector LSAZM4 on 09th

September 2010

Figure 7: Traffic in sector LSAZM4 on 30 September 2010

LSAZM4

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

LSAZM4_new

LSAZM4_lost

LSAZM4_diff

LSAZM4

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

LSAZM4_new

LSAZM4_lost

LSAZM4_diff


13/45


7 SUPPORTING DATA

The reporting forms from participants vary in terms of numbers and quality and in othercases there have been no responses at all. Overall, the reports from ACCs and ATCOs(limited regional response) have given a better picture of events over the two trial dates

whilst the responses from AOs and pilots are very limited. In these circumstances, thereports are being treated as indicative rather than specific in their nature. Summary reportsare provided at:

7.1 Summary Data from Pilots (Annex B)

Most responses were from pilots of scheduled airlines. There was a general view that leveladherence did not impact upon their operations though some were not able to climb to theiroptimum level.

7.2 Summary Data from ACCs & ATCOs (Annex C)

Generally there were no issues with regard to controller awareness of the trial. In nearly allcases the RFL was available to the tactical controller but some third had issues viewing theRFL. Controllers were evenly split as to whether adherence increased their workload but amajority considered that their provision of service had been limited. (see also Annex C)

In addition to the ANSP reporting, individual ATCO responses were received from 3countries (Czech Republic, Greece & Turkey). For all states RFL was easily obtainable withfew exceptions. Majority of ATCOs climbed/descended traffic from their RFL due toincompatible sector exit conditions and also for separation of traffic. Majority expressed theview that there was an increase in workload for the trial. (see also Annex D)

7.3 Summary Data from AOs

The electronic surveys for AO Management have been completed by 8 managers, mostlyby Charter and Scheduled aircraft operators. They report no or no significant impact oflevel adherence to their operations, however only 50% of the managers believe thatadherence to the RFL can contribute to flight efficiency. It is felt that adherence to flightlevels will have an impact on the flexibility required, mainly to accommodate weatherphenomena.

The replies indicate that there are differences in the understanding of the purpose of theflight plan. The flight plan, in particular the RPL, is seen as a means to provide only basicdata, which then provides the crews the flexibility for change. In one case a manager

reports higher fuel consumption, because the crew could not get a higher flight levels for aflight plan avoiding a regulation.Other replies clearly indicate that level adherence has the potential to improve flightefficiency and increased capacity due to a more accurate profile and fuel calculation withinthe flight plan.


14/45


7.4 Summary Data from Flight Dispatchers

In total 19 dispatchers have replied to the electronic surveys, mostly from scheduledaircraft operators. The majority of dispatchers report no or only minor impact of the level

Adherence Days on operations. Some extra workload was caused by increasedcommunication between pilots and dispatch and other additional work, e.g. due toadditional submission of CHG messages. Nearly all dispatchers report that their flightplanning system allows them to prepare an ATC flight plan with the optimum flight level forthe efficient operation of the flight. One dispatcher expresses concern about the profiledifference between FPS of the AO and CFMU. Another dispatcher says that the FP systemis not able to combine the optimum level with level requirements for the direction of flight,which sometimes results in non-optimum levels.

Nearly all dispatchers report a combination of reasons preventing them to update flight planinformation, which are: time constraints (8 replies), late updates not known (7 replies),resources (5 replies), negative effect on CTOT (4 replies). The two main reasons fordifference between the ATC flight plan and the one requested by the pilot are weather (16

replies) and update the weight of the aircraft (10 replies). However, the majority ofdispatchers clearly believe that adherence to the RFL contributes to flight efficiency mainlydue to an overall improvement of network efficiency.

No major operational difficulties related to the Adherence Days have been encountered bydispatchers.


15/45


8 POTENTIAL ISSUES/LINKED RECOMMENDATIONS1

8.1 ATC flight level constraints and the RFL

ATCOs were asked to comment upon the numbers of flights that they (ATC) climbed aboveor descended below the RFL and why (see Annex). Not unexpectedly the operationalrequirement for separation from other traffic was a driver; however, the principal reportedcause for level change by ATC was the need to meet sector entry/exit conditions.

It is also clear (para 9.3) that the display of the RFL is not always as prominent as it mightbe to tactical controllers. It was seen by some ATCOs that FL adherence was theresponsibility of the planner and not a tactical consideration and that the addition of FLadherence to their task would be an increase in workload.

This indicates a difference between the flight planning information known to the AO orFPSP and the profile required by the ACC(s). The FL requirements of the LOAs between

ACCs needs to be accessible and published in order to harmonize RFL and sectorentry/exit FL conditions.

In some core area ACCs with narrow vertical sectorisation the delivery of flights differingfrom their filed flight level may cause an over-delivery. In such cases, the forward planningfor flights entering their area of responsibility requires a higher level of attention fromsupervisors and planning/support controllers. In such cases, the LOAs should reflect theirrequirements and this may require their review between ACCs.

There were comments from AOs that there was an equal responsibility for ATC to maintainthe FPL. A particular example of deviation from the FPL was the use of Profile TuningRestrictions by ATC and CFMU which are not necessarily known to AOs and which mayimpose flight level changes and early descents. A number of pilot reports raised the issue

of early descents and the subsequent economic costs of leaving an optimum flight levelearly. It is likely that these descents are made for sound ATC reasons with regard tosectorisation, LoAs etc but the rationale is not necessarily known to the AO and therefore isnot taken into account in flight and fuel planning. In some extreme cases as many asseven PTRs are in place for a destination and only two are published and known to thenetwork. Additional confusion is possible in that the FPL would have received an ACK inIFPS and then the flight does not take place in accordance with the filed flight plan.

Recommendation #01: Accelerate ATC provision of LOA/Sector constraints in orderto better align flight planned intent with the tactical profile.

Recommendation #02: That IFPS checks currently available LOA constraints,notified in Appendix 6 of the RAD document.

8.2 ATC Awareness of Downstream Regulations and impact on non-adherence

The driver to decrease the number of deviations from the filed flight plan level was toreduce the potential impact on downstream sectors and to improve network performance.Requests for level change have often been granted provided there is no operationalobjection within that sector. Down stream considerations are clearly not seen as a keydeliverable in the same way as trying to reduce workload and delivering to LOAs and

1A detailed list of actions associated with the recommendations can be found in Annex G.


16/45


agreed inter sector agreements. Some ACCs have sought to make internal arrangementsto protect their regulated sectors but it is clear through the trial and earlier consultationsthat there is little or no awareness of downstream regulations and thus the futureconsequences of a level change are not considered outside of the need to meet sector exitconditions. The aim therefore should be to update accurately and at a time and distancewhich allows full consideration of the traffic situation in downstream sectors.

In some core region ACCs positive steps are being taken to identify potential intrudersinto regulated sectors prior to their FIR entry point and, if required, a level change isrequested. The recent CFMU release provides such an intruder alert in time, lateral andvertical deviations and is available for use. Nevertheless, the issue remains in the sensethat the level change was granted in the first place due to a lack of awareness of thedownstream regulation.

Recommendation #03: ATM to explore the potential use of functionalities to identifyand avoid inconsistencies between planned and actual profile.

8.3 ATC Access to RFLs

It was a key objective for the flight level adherence trial for both ATC and pilots to adhereto the planned cruising level. It became apparent both in the preparatory stages andthrough the trial that the RFL may not be always available directly either to the exec/tacticalcontroller or to the planner/support function. Even in some modern systems when RFLinformation is entered which differs from the Flight Plan Level then the original FPLinformation can be effectively overwritten and thus lost. The ease of access to the RFLvaried widely across the ECAC area. In most ATCO reports on the trial, the RFL wasimmediately available or could be made available on secondary displays, however, seekingthis information was considered by some as distracting from their main task. The provisionof the RFL does not have a level of emphasis in ATC systems, nor is the need foradherence recognised as a key deliverable in terms of ATC performance.

Recommendation #04: Address the availability and utilisation of the RFL by ATC.

8.4 Repetitive Flight Plans (RPLs)

In local trials, prior to the Adherence Day Trials, there appeared to be an issue with RPLsand their accuracy following their conversion to flight plans. At this conversion point theyare tested for the route availability but by their nature no account is taken of the loadfactors for that specific flight. An analysis of the Maastricht trials demonstrates that RPLsare more likely to be affected by level non-adherence (39% of climbing traffic) compared tonormal FPLs (18% of climbing traffic). However, during the trial period it was found that interms of flight level adherence there were no apparent differences between filed flightplans and those generated from RPLs.


17/45


Flight Entry Level Adherance by Flight Plan

72 .9 % 73 .1% 72 .7% 73.7%77.7% 78.6% 76.8% 77.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

FPL RPL FPL RPL FPL RPL FPL RPL

THU FRI THU FRI

WK36 WK39

]0:20] ]20:40] > 40 Figure 6: RPL versus FPL adherence

The use of RPLs has been in a slow decline over recent years to only 20 - 25% of filedplans as users move to more dynamic flight planning procedures through improved systemsupport or through Flight Plan Service Providers.

Flight plan Sources

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000


WK36 WK37 WK38 WK39

A FI AFP FNM FP L M FS RPL Figure 7

Recommendation #05: Review the role of RPLs in a dynamic ATM environment interms of the operational and financial consequences.

8.5 Flight Plans and Operational Intent

During the pre-trial and the trial some airlines and pilots expressed the view that the flightplan was just a plan and that ATC should have sufficient flexibility to manage thedifferences in flight level, track or timing. They also considered that Flight Level Adherencewas to fix an ATC problem at the expense of the AOs. Some airlines expressed adiffering view in that with improved flight planning systems that they directed their pilots tofly the plan but that ATC were responsible for introducing level changes.


18/45


Rationale. Flight plans are used to optimise network performance such as resolvinganticipated over-deliveries (sector demand higher than declared sector capacity) throughspecific flow measures e.g. CTOT or re-routings. Deviations from the flight plans maymake these measures in-accurate, resulting in unnecessary regulations or regulations inwrong places.

It is accepted that ATC must retain flexibility to operate the routine differences experiencedin aviation; however, in some ACCs where 1 in 3 flights may arrive at a differing level fromthat indicated in the filed flight plan this can only be managed by reducing declaredcapacity or introducing protective regulations. The number of flights at differing levels isparticularly sensitive in those core region sectors with narrow vertical boundaries. Overall,therefore, the trial demonstrates that there is loss of accurate and timely data which resultsin a negative effect for both ATFCM and ATC and consequently the network.

Recommendation #06-A: AOs to comply with Commission Regulation (EC) No1033/2006 (Procedures for Flight Planning in the Pre-Flight Phase) The operatorshall ensure prior to operation of the flight that the content of the initial flight plancorrectly reflects the operational intentions (Article 3,6).

#06-B: AOs to comply with Commission Regulation (EC) No255/2010 (Common rules on Air Traffic Flow Management) The filed flight plan shallcorrectly reflect the intended flight profile (Article 7,1).

8.6 Processing of associated messages

An objective of the trial was to encourage AOs to submit DLA/CHG messages. A change ofEOBT of more than 15 minutes requires a DLA/CHG message.

Average Daily iCHG Messages

11258

11586

12199

12472

15729

14252

13336

13103

10953

11241

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000


W201036 W201037 W201038 W201039 W201040

Figure 8

In the event there was no improvement over the trial dates (see Figure 7). One reasonproposed for not filing a CHG message when a differing flight level might be required wasthat the existing slot would then be lost.

Explanation of CHG message handling. CFMU confirmed that any update of the flight planwill trigger a recalculation in ETFMS. However, there is a recovery process, which willattempt to maintain the same slot. Only in the case when a flight arrives more than 10minutes after the old CTO at the regulation (unlikely, if the only change is that the RFL ismodified) will the system look for a new slot. It is possible, however, that a change of levelmay move a flight into a regulated sector.


19/45


It is recognised that pilots will always require a level of flexibility, given changes that couldnot be accommodated in the flight plan. Also, there are clearly many circumstances whenATC change the RFL; whether to meet sector exit conditions, for separation purposes or inresponse to a pilots request. The means of informing other ATC agencies concerned ofthe FL change is through the production of an AFP message through IFPS. Some ATCOreports indicated the difficulties in submitting an AFP; that it was a workload issue or itcould only be done at the supervisors desk. The average daily AFP messages showedlittle overall improvement between the trial week (Wk 39) and the comparison week (Wk36)though one ACC did make a decision to provide AFPs over the trial period. Once the AFPhad been transmitted then subsequent flight at that revised FL would be seen asadherence to the FPL. In this respect it should be noted that providing automated AFPmessages is a long standing action item for ANSPs with only a few ANSPs that haveimplemented this function. This is currently addressed in an Agency Task Force.

Average Daily iAFP Mes sages

704

628

540

515

567

506

746

592

438

435

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


W201036 W201037 W201038 W201039 W201040

Figure 9

Recommendation #07: To better manage & communicate tactical flight level changesto the flight plan, as required to deal with circumstance that could not be envisaged

in the pre-flight phase.

8.7 Economic penalties associated with level adherence

One of the objectives of the trial was to determine the benefits of flight level adherence andwhether indeed there were economic penalties on the AOs as a result of that adherence.

A number of airlines considered that the flight level adherence day would producesignificant economic penalties because changes such as the Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW)cannot be accommodated in the flight plan. However, some participants considered thatlate changes to the ZFW were unlikely to change their planned cruise levels.

The outcome of the trial with regard to the financial aspects of flight level adherence wasdependent on the responses received from the AOs and individual pilot returns. The limitedresponse from AOs (see Annex E) and pilots (Annex B) did not include many specificcomments upon the financial penalties of adherence and the majority of pilots concludedthere had not been a significant effect upon their operation though some flights had notbeen cleared to a requested optimum level.


20/45


8.8 Opposite Direction Levels

Some flight plans were received that contained the wrong directional levels even thoughthey had been checked by IFPS. In tactical operations ATC then has to adjust these levelsto conform to the operational requirements of the sector.

Recommendation #08: That IFPS checks the correctness of the flight level for thedirection of the flight.

8.9 EOBT/CTOT/Sector Timing Results

The Agency agreed to measure EOBT/CTOT performance during the Flight LevelAdherence Days as an adjunct to the post-trial report. The consequent effect uponplanned entry times to sectors was also recorded.

a. CTOT Results

Daily evolution of Slot Adherence

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000


W36 W37 W38 W39 W40

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

EA RLY DEP ARTURES LA TE DEP ARTURES% EA RLY DEP A RT URES % LA TE DEP ARTURES

Figure 10

CFMU allocates a calculated take-off time (CTOT) to protect a congested ATCsector. A slot tolerance window is available (-5min +10Min) for ATC to managedeparture sequencing. The proportion of flights outside of the slot window duringthe trial (Wk 39) was around 12%/14% of regulated flights; not too dissimilar fromthe 12% comparison days (Wk 36). This proportion of flights outside the window isfairly constant but was as high as 20% during the winter 09/10.

b. EOBT Results

Any change to the EOBT of more than 15 mins has to be communicated to IFPS.Measuring EOBT of non-regulated flights by CFMU is dependent upon the accuracyof Taxi Times which may be a default setting for some airports; these statisticshave been provided to CODA to be cross-checked against times provided by theairlines.


21/45


Proportion of Early and Late Off-Block Times

0100020003000400050006000

700080009000

100001100012000130001400015000

200909

200910

200911

200912

201001

201002

201003

201004

201005

201006

201007

201008

201009

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%

7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%11.0%12.0%13.0%14.0%15.0%

EARLY LATE

% EARLY OFF-BLOCK % LATE OFF-BLOCK Figure 11

A similar result in terms of % flights outside the tolerance window as CTOT thoughis should be noted that this is a more generous margin of 15 mins before or after

EOBT. During summer (peak traffic) and winter (weather/de-icing) the % flightsoutside the window can rise to 18%/20%.

c. Timing Issues

While calculating the timing aspects associated with EOBT/CTOT theconsequences of those issues and the use of DCT were measured at sector level.While reviewing the time differences between the planned arrival times, whetherearly or late, consideration should also be made to the additional differences in thevertical plane. It is the combination of these events that is a primary cause for areduction in declared capacity in order to retain the capability to deal with thedifferences.

Entry Time Adherance

56.6% 55.4%52.2%

49.9%45.0%

47.5%53.4% 52.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


WK36 WK37 WK38 WK39

-5min -to- 10min < -5 min > 10 min Figure 12


22/45


In Figure 12, in general terms, only half the flights arrive in the sector within the window of -5 mins (early) to +10 mins (late). Add to this (Para 7.2 Figures 3 & 4) when nearly a thirdof flights arrive at a differing level (2000ft or more) to that planned; consequently, it can beappreciated how difficult it becomes for ATC to determine the volume and nature of thetraffic expected within a given sector and why protective capacity handling is applied.

Recommendation #09: Identify and address issues which will ensure compliance to

the EOBT and ATFM departure slots, as stipulated in the EU regulation 255/2010.


23/45


9 NEXT STEPS

9.1 Most of the issues identified within the report have an accompanying recommendation. Insome cases where systems and processes require change then there will a cost involved.

The financial outlay will clearly vary depending on the existing organisational structure andresources. In such cases it is important these recommendations are validated and onceagreed are then taken forward for action. Their implementation would then be theresponsibility of an existing Eurocontrol working group, an ANSP or FAB or by an AO asappropriate.

9.2 Once the recommendations of the Flight Level Adherence days Trial have been reviewedand agreed for implementation then active consideration should be given to those topics thatcan be fast-tracked. Any quick wins should have target dates and their progress monitoredand reported upon by the appropriate working group or stakeholder.

9.3 The results of the trial have shown that there is a need for improved FL adherence.However, much needs to be done to ensure that the RFL matches the flight profile for theAO, changes are made known and that airspace design and systems take due account ofthe RFL and that its application is not a workload issue for ATC but rather part of theireveryday task. The monitoring of the EOBT/CTOT and subsequent sector entry times reveala similar need for improved quality and accuracy of information into the network in order thatATC and ATFCM can work in harmony. A further trial incorporating these additional timingelements together should be considered. Lateral aspects of adherence, such as the use ofDCTs, could also be reviewed though it is acknowledged that this is a difficult topic for someparticipants.

9.4 The trial has shown that level adherence can increase predictability and stability of the trafficpicture significantly. During the Adherence Days the majority number of ACCs experiencedan increase of flight level adherence of more than 30%. Post trial feedback from some of theACCs indicated that an increase of FL adherence, if consistent in the longer term, could betranslated into an increase of declared capacity due to the reduction of workload andincrease of predictability.

Recommendation #10: DNM and ANSPs to explore declared capacity improvements asresult of the stability provided by enhanced profile adherence, in support of theperformance scheme detailed in the EU regulation 691/2010.


24/45


10 CONCLUSION

10.1 The Flight Level Adherence Day trial was held on the 30 September & 1 October 2010

having been postponed by 24 hours due to social issues. Awareness of the FL trial was highamongst ATC staff but less so amongst pilots. The Adherence Day Trial was a result ofconsiderable organisational effort by Eurocontrol and participation of a wide range ofstakeholders. The links established provide a sound basis for any further trial or indeed othersignificant change to the aviation environment.

10.2 The results of the trial showed an overall improvement in FL adherence in the upperairspace was about 10% higher Europe-wide, with an adherence improvement of well over30% in a significant number of ACCs. The feedback from ANSPs (over 27 ACCs providedinformation) plus the numerous replies to the electronic surveys (100+) provided a basis todetermine the issues related to f light level adherence. The views were varied and sometimescontradictory, nevertheless, they provide a baseline for discussion and subsequent actions.

Amongst controllers there was a considerable opinion that RFL adherence was an additionalworkload and for some pilots that there was an economic factor in not getting the optimumflight level. However, some AOs considered that the trial was not the hindrance to theiroperation that they had forecast. Most flight plan service providers/flight dispatchers andpilots (70%) considered that the flight plan represented the optimum FL. This reinforces theview that ATCs role is to meet that FL requirement when and where it can.

10.3 Some ACCs considered that if the trial levels of adherence could be maintained thenadditional capacity may be available.

10.4 Some issues were known or suspected prior to the flight level adherence day trial,nevertheless, the trial days enabled the confirmation of these issues, identified newproblems and received ideas and actions as to how they might be resolved. There was nosuggestion that the trial days contributed towards any delays or disruption to flight on thosetwo days. The lack of flight level adherence is caused by a number of differing issues andthose any potential solution will vary according to the cause. In some cases, aircraft were tooheavy to meet their RFL, in others the sector exit conditions meant that the RFL and the exitFL were incompatible and for others the optimum flight level and the flight level filed weredifferent (there was an even split between flights below as well as above their RFL).

10.5 The actions required may require a review of operations by AOs and ANSPs. Theoperational profile and the filed flight plan (and any changes thereto) need to be conveyed

accurately and to time. The RFL can be an issue for ATC; in many ATCO reports their sectorFL exit conditions and the filed flight plan were contradictory and the identification of the RFLwas an additional workload. Many of these profile conditions, both en route and arrivalprocedures remain hidden to the AO and these should be transparent and published forflight planning purposes. Forward planning by support controllers to ensure levelcompatibility is required with supportive LOAs between ACCs.

10.6 It is recognised that a level of flexibility will continue to be required, for both pilots andATCOs. This flexibility, and its downstream impact will need to managed. AFP messaging


25/45


has already been defined for this purpose and should be deployed and utilised as agreed.Other means to address in-flight changes may need to be assessed.

10.7 There are further elements to the adherence campaign; both timing issues (EOBT/CTOT)and lateral deviations (e.g. DCTs) require further analysis. The studies made during the trialconfirm that only half the number of flights arrives into the sector within the 15 minute timingwindow. Predictability will only improve when route and timings improve as flight leveladherence is only one element, albeit a major one, of the causal factors. These adherencetopics will be reviewed by the Adherence Task Force and they should make an initialrecommendation as to whether a further trial would be appropriate.

10.8 A further trial on Flight Level adherence within 12 months is unlikely to identify further issuesor show significant progress but rather the focus should be on the improvements required inflight planning, identifying system improvements and initiating a review of ATC operationswith regard to the RFL and its role. Improved pre-flight planning with an accurate flightprofile, revised as required for load and timed departure, is critical for both ATC and the AO.The use of DLA/CHG messages needs more attention. However, unknown ATC

constraints/procedures at the same level can negate improved flight planning. Improvedpredictability arising from flight level adherence, accurate timings should provide flightefficiency for AOs and the release of protective capacity from ACCs. AOs are urged toupdate their filed flight plans and utilise DLA/CHG messages and that ATC review sectorentry/exit conditions for compatibility to flight profiles and to improve use of AFP messagesfor their colleagues downstream.

10.9 The Flight Level Adherence Trial can be considered a success in its preparation andexecution over the two days. Flight level adherence was improved and there are signs fromsome ANSPs that should adherence be maintained then some protective capacity could bereleased. Flight level adherence; however, is one step in a process that needs to bemaintained but the next steps of improved timing and route adherence should be addressed.

10.10 The above issues have been translated into recommendations and subsequently intoactions, which can be found in Annex G.

11 ANNEXES

A. Communications Plan

B. Summary of Pilot ResponsesC. Summary of ACC ResponsesD. Summary of ATCO ResponsesE. Summary of AO ResponsesF. Summary of Flight Dispatcher ResponsesG. Recommendations & Actions


26/45


A. Annex A to Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Last updated on: 20/09/2010

1. Introduction

Daily across Europe, regulations are put in place to protect ATC from receiving more traffic thanthe controller can handle safely. However, it happens that more aircraft than planned enter theseprotected sectors, exceeding their capacities by more than 10% (over-delivery).

When investigating those occurrences it is found that additional flights entered the sector as aresult of 1) not flying at the initial requested flight level (RFL), 2) departing at times different fromthe original estimated off-block time (EOBT) or calculated take-off time (CTOT); or 3) deviatingfrom their original planned route (DCT).

2. Goal

Achieve a successful 2-day operational trial where the aviation community is fully aware andinvolved.

Raise awareness of all airspace users (flight dispatchers, pilots and ATCOs, including theirrespective authorities and associations) of the impact of non-adherence and change behaviour inthe long-term to contribute to improving network performance by delivering the safe and optimumflow of air traffic.

3. Objectives

Coordinate European-wide a successful trial to measure the impact on the network operations of adifferent way of working for flight dispatchers, pilots and controllers:

- reduction of over-deliveries, thus safety improves

- improved network consistency

- improved data consistency through AOs and ATC submitting update messages, thuspredictability increases

- reduction of wasted capacity (protective capacity reduction), thus increased declared capacity insome sectors

4. Positioning statement

1. The dominos: change behaviour, stop the domino effect and contribute to networkoperations plan by delivering demand as the network expects, reducing controlleruncertainty and while optimising the flow of air traffic.

2. EUROCONTROL federates a new culture, behaviour, way of working by leading aconvincing campaign on all fronts (pan-european, cross-communities) deriving onimproved network performance for the benefit of all.


27/45


5. Key message

Fly the filed flight plan

6. Key audiences

Flight dispatchers, pilots (incl. North American Operators), controllers, ANSPs, aircraft operators,FPSPs, Airspace Management Authorities.

7. Communication strategies/tactics

Media Description Resp. + support from

Branding Key messages / slogans

2-D animation

done (with support of DG/COM) Paul the Octopus on YouTube,

web, FB, etcWebsite Mini-website (blog)

Incl. a D-100 countdown

Visibility on other websites (CFMU,MUAC, IANS, NATS, DFS, etc)

SKYbrary

Done regular posts (every 2days in Sep.) + map readinessstatus

Visits / Stats: 6558 visits by 4082visitors

Call for feedback + article aboutover-deliveries and overload(2,700 clicks)

Social media Creation of an adherence dayscommunity of fans on: Facebook

Twitter/eurocontrol Facebook/eurocontrol

done

done (166 active fans,representation all over Europe,gender 50/50, age: 25/35 and35/45)

regular posts by DG/COM

Internalcommunications

Headlines Ad valvas Yammer

Done

Call for tips on comm. to pilots +video posted

Presentations / roadshow

Working groups Associations events

See separate table below forassociations

Publications Brochure Leaflet 2

ndleaflet (to ACCs and AOs)

Poster

2nd

poster Jeppesen / Lido info to their clients

Available Available 8000 copies distributed Available (200 copies)

500 copies Check with IASA what is

possible?

Press associations magazines

Hindsight

Flight International & ATM Magazine ATC network (e-newsletter) ANSPs magazines Skyway


Next edition = Jan 2011 > results no

no no Ok for Spring/Summer edition


28/45


CFMU info flash DMEAN newsletter + Electronic

version

Other EUROCONTROL e-newsletter

(CFMU, A-CDM, IANS, MUAC, etc) CANSO Newsletter EUROCONTROL newsletter

(next in Oct.> results) done Focus in summer edition (3

rd

week June)

done

no done

Displays inworkshops,exhibitions, seminars


Marketing Give-aways: mousepads for workingpositions in ACCs, magnets at ATCGlobal, keyrings with thank you card

done

Specifics One-page flyer added to: CRCO bills for airlines ASM charts

AFTN/SITA message

AIM (issued by CFMU)

no no

To 200 flight plan originators done

doneTraining / Infosessions

CFMU ops room briefing sessions Involvement of supervisors and

AOLOs Adherence team present in OPS and

in MUAC during trial

CF

done

Agency/stakeholdersworking groups

DISG DOP OCG ODSG

06/05/10 13-14/04/10 09/05/10 4-5/05/10

Persons of Contacts Nomination of heads of OPS as PoCsin each ACC

= key players at ANSP/ACC level nominations received for all 35

participating States regular correspondence to inform

and keep up to date questionnaire on local situation first feedback, impressions during

trialAO associations effective contacts established with

IACA, IATA, AEA, ERAA, ELFAA,EBAA, IAOPA

focal points with associationstransmitted regular info emails totheir members (incl.questionnaire to AOs)


29/45

30 March 2011 - 28 - FLAD - Final Report V1.1

Activities with associations

Associations Publications Websites Events Comm. tomembers byemail

IFATCA Europeannewsletter (every6-8 weeks)

The Controller

magazine (resp.Ph. Domogalaand PhilipMarien @MUAC)

poster for allACCs

NOTAMtemplate: AFTN(for ANSPs andsupervisors) atleast 90 daysbefore (=01/07/10) and 2

days before(=27/09) Educational

material forrefreshercourses

Briefing docs forATC briefing

Next ERM (22-24/10/2010 Bled, Slovenia)

EUFALDA On-line newsletter >articles in pdf formatok, free of charge

Forum onhttp://eufalda.foren-city.de

AGM (01/10/10 Lisbon)Team to give apresentation ?

Mainly emails

ACI-Europe

IASA

ECA / IFALPA


30/45


B. Annex B to Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

SUMMARY OF PILOT RESPONSES

Total replies: 79

Question 1: Personal details (optional):Name, email, operator.

Question 2: Flight details (optional)Call sign, ADEP, ADES, EOBD/T

Question 3: For which type of flight operations do you fly?

Distribution of type flight operations (several replies possible):

Forwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsdoyoufly?Forwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsdoyoufly?Forwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsdoyoufly?Forwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsdoyoufly?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Scheduled

Airline

Charter

Airline

LowCost

Carrier

Business

Aviation

Private

Operator

Military

Question 4: How did you find out about the adherence days?

AnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsResponseResponseResponseResponsePercentPercentPercentPercent

ResponseResponseResponseResponseCountCountCountCount

viaNOTAM 34.2% 25

viaAIMpublishedbyCFMU 2.7% 2

viaDispatchOffice 34.2% 25

directcommunications,e.g.email 45.2% 33

Internet(website,facebook,SkyBrary,etc.) 26.0% 19

Other(pleasespecify) 17


31/45


Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

viaNOT

AM

viaAIM

publishe

dby

CFM

viaDisp

atch

Office

directc

ommunications

,e.g.em

Internet(website

,facebook,SkyBrary

,et

Other: Chief Pilot Bulletin via e-mail, PPRuNe, Company notices, company notac day before, Work

information, extracrew.com, plus Company email, my union, [email protected], VP Flight OPS

Question 5:What impact did level adherence have on your operations?AnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsAnswerOptions


71

The large amount of pilots simply say that there was no impact (35 out of 71).Other pilots mention one of the following issues:

- not able to climb to optimum level (10 replies) some due to other traffic (2 replies)- had to descent too early (2 replies).- too heavy to climb to RFL (1 reply)- had to descent to comply with semi-circular level rules (1 reply)- no ATC f light plan available to pilot (1 reply)- extra work and complication (3 replies)- more direct routes available in France & Spain (2 replies)- pilot not aware Adherence Days- flight plan did not contain the optimum flight level (3 replies)

Question 6: Does your filed ATC flight plan contain the optimum flight levels for the efficient and safeoperations of your flight, if not, why?

AnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsAnswerOptionsResponseResponseResponseResponsePercentPercentPercentPercent


Yes 68.8% 53No 32.5% 25

IfNo,why?(pleasespecify) 25


32/45


Doesyourfi ledATCfl ightplancontaintheoptimumfl ightlevelsDoesyourfi ledATCfl ightplancontaintheoptimumfl ightlevelsDoesyourfi ledATCfl ightplancontaintheoptimumfl ightlevelsDoesyourfi ledATCfl ightplancontaintheoptimumfl ightlevels

fortheefficientandsafeoperationsofyourfl ight,ifnot,why?fortheefficientandsafeoperationsofyourfl ight,ifnot,why?fortheefficientandsafeoperationsofyourfl ight,ifnot,why?fortheefficientandsafeoperationsofyourfl ight,ifnot,why?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Yes No

The following reasons are mentioned why the FPL does not contain the optimum level.

Weight of aircraft only known or changed at late stage of the pre-flight Non-optimum levels are sometimes included to avoid regulated airspace and delay A stored flight plan with f ixed level values does not take into account the actual level requirements

for the flight. Changes to the weather situation, wind, turbulences ATC flight plan not known to pilot, level request then based on NAV log or operational situation. ATC restriction and constraints of airspace structure included in the FPL, but then not required

during operations.

Question 7: Did you request a different level than the one filed in your ATC flight plan?

No 84.2% 64

Yes,weather(wind,CBs,turbulences) 7.9% 6

Yes,originalATCflightplaninaccurate 3.9% 3

Yes,latestATCflightplannotavailable 1.3% 1Yes,latechangestoweight 7.9% 6

Other(pleasespecify) 5

Didyourequestadifferentlevelthantheonefi ledinyourATCDidyourequestadifferentlevelthantheonefi ledinyourATCDidyourequestadifferentlevelthantheonefi ledinyourATCDidyourequestadifferentlevelthantheonefi ledinyourATC

fl ightplan?flightplan?flightplan?flightplan?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

No Yes,weather

(wind,CBs,

turbulences)

Yes,original

ATCflightplan

inaccurate

Yes,latestATC

flightplannot

available

Yes,late

changesto

weight


33/45


Summary of other reasons for requesting a different level (5 replies): Mistake by OPS dispatch and pilot Aircraft weight Optimum FL not accurate in filed FPL, FMS more accurate

Question 8: If Yes to the above, did ATC accept your request for a different flight level (RFL) and why?

Yes 73.3% 11

No 26.7% 4

Question 9: Did ATC clear you to a different level than filed in your ATC flight plan?

No 64.5% 49

Yes 35.5% 27

Additionalinformation 23

In the additional information pilots indicate that the main reasons why the RFL was not available is othertraffic.

DidATCclearyoutoadif ferentlevelthanf i ledinyourATCf l ightDidATCclearyoutoadif ferentlevelthanf i ledinyourATCf l ightDidATCclearyoutoadif ferentlevelthanf i ledinyourATCf l ightDidATCclearyoutoadif ferentlevelthanf i ledinyourATCf l ight

plan?plan?plan?plan?

No

Yes

Question 10: Do you believe that adhering to the RFL in item 15 of the flight plan contributes to flightefficiency and why?

Yes 42.9% 33

No 42.9% 33

Don'tknow 16.9% 13

Why?(pleasespecify) 51

The answers given by pilots indicate that there is a very good general understanding of the possible benefitsof adhering to the flight plan, for instance better planning of traffic flow, higher predictability of traffic, lesscommunication on frequency, possible capacity improvements, etc.

On the other side some replies shows that there is a lack of understanding of the overall impact of not

adhering to the flight plan, for instance pilots reply: The flight plan is just a plan

Pilots mention that they require flexibility due to operational circumstance, weather, turbulences, latechanges to the aircraft weight (no shows, offload baggage), changed winds, etc. None of the replies wouldconsider an update of the flight plan even at a late stage of the pre-flight phase. Differences between theflight plan provided by dispatchers and the actual required optimum flight level are taken for granted.Most pilots perceive level adherence as a rigid application of the RFL, which hampers the fine-tuning andoptimisation of the flight by the controller and pilot.

Question 11: Did you experience any other operational difficulty related to the adherence days?The majority of the pilots did not experience any other operational difficulties. One pilot reports that therewas confusion between pilots and controllers about the correct date of the adherence days. Another pilot


34/45


reported that the optimum FL he filed in the flight plan was occupied by an aircraft, which was offeredexactly this level by the controller on an ad-hoc basis.


35/45


C. Annex C toto Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

SUMMARY OF ACC RESPONSES

Was there any noticeable difference in level compliance

12%

76%

12%

Yes

No

Not sure

Were there any changes in sustaniable capacity above the

monitoring value

0%

100%

Yes

No

Were the re any issues with controlles thinking service

provision was inhibited?

67%

33%No

Yes. Srv/cap reduced, increas

coms

Comments

26%

32%5%

37% Many Pilots not aw are.

Many flights high

AFP Msg

Lack of srv to flights

State (ACC) reports

24%

76%

not contributed

contributed

Were there any issues with controllers understanding of the

day

0%

100%

Yes

No

Was the RFL in field 15 of the flight plan available to

tactical controllers.

65%6%

29%

Yes

No

Issues with view ing RFL

Were there any tactical controller issues relating to

adherence to the filed FL?

52%

48% Yes, Increased w orkload.

No

Were there any issues with Pilots wanting to alter RFL?

46%

54%

Yes

No


36/45


D. Annex D to Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

SUMMARY OF ATCO RESPONSES

3. Did adherence to RFL ease or increase workload.

8%

54%

23%

15%

Ease

Increase

Small Increase

no Change

4. Was RFL data easily available to you

77%

23%

Yes

No

5. Did you believe that adhering to the RFL reduced

flight efficiency.

20%

80%

YES

NO

6.Did you experience any other operational difficulty

related to the adherence days

43%

7%

50%

NO

-Srv,Cap, + coms

Increased Workload

1. How many Pilots requested a climb above/below

RFL & why

35%

5%42%

18%

Too heavy & - RFL

Fuel Consumption

Without reason

wx/Medical

2. How many flights were offered a climb above/below

RFL.

27%

57%

5% 11%

Separation

Ent/exit ACC diiff RFL

OOA/Non scheduled

Other reasons +unplanned

State (ATCO) feedback

30%

70%

not contributed

contributed


37/45


E. Annex E to Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

SUMMARY OF AO RESPONSES

Total replies: 8


Question 2: What is your type of flight operations? (optional)

Whatisyourtypeoffl ightoperations?Whatisyourtypeoffl ightoperations?Whatisyourtypeoffl ightoperations?Whatisyourtypeoffl ightoperations?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Scheduled

Airline

Charter

Airline

LowCost

Carrier

Business

Aviation

Private

Operator

Military


Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyoufindoutabouttheadherencedays?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

viaN

OTAM

viaA

IM

publishedb

y

C

FMU

viaD

ispatch

O

ffice

direct

commu

nication,

e.g.e

mails

Internet

(we

bsite,

facebook,

Skybrarye

tc.)

Question 4: What impact did level adherence have on your operations?

Answers summary: There was no or only minor impact on operations reported.


38/45


Question 5: Do you believe that adhering to the RFL in item 15 of the flight plan contributes to flightefficiency and why?

DoyoubelievethatadheringtotheRFLinitem15ofthefl ightDoyoubelievethatadheringtotheRFLinitem15ofthefl ightDoyoubelievethatadheringtotheRFLinitem15ofthefl ightDoyoubelievethatadheringtotheRFLinitem15ofthefl ight

plancontributestofl ightefficiencyandwhy?plancontributestofl ightefficiencyandwhy?plancontributestofl ightefficiencyandwhy?plancontributestofl ightefficiencyandwhy?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Yes No Don'tknow

Question 6: Did you experience any economical penalty associated with the Adherence Days?

No 62.5% 5

Yes 37.5% 3

Question 7: What in your view is most relevant for improving flight level adherence?

Whatinyourviewismostrelevantforimprovingfl ightlevelWhatinyourviewismostrelevantforimprovingfl ightlevelWhatinyourviewismostrelevantforimprovingfl ightlevelWhatinyourviewismostrelevantforimprovingfl ightlevel

adherence?adherence?adherence?adherence?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

betterflightplanning

(systems,services)

betterprocessfor(late)

flightplanchanges

accesstoATCconstraints

forflightplaninngpurposes,

e.g.flightlevelcapping,LoAs,etc.


39/45


F. Annex F to Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

SUMMARY OF FLIGHT DISPATCHER RESPONSES

Total replies: 19


Question 2: For which type of flight operations are you mainly preparing flight plans?

Forwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsareyoumainlypreparingfl ightForwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsareyoumainlypreparingfl ightForwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsareyoumainlypreparingfl ightForwhichtypeoffl ightoperationsareyoumainlypreparingfl ight

p lans?plans?plans?plans?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Scheduled

Airline

Charter

Airline

LowCost

Carrier

Business

Avia tion

Private

Operator

Military


Howdidyouf indoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyouf indoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyouf indoutabouttheadherencedays?Howdidyouf indoutabouttheadherencedays?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

viaN

OTAM

viaA

IM

publishedb

y

CFMU

viah

ierarchical

channels

direct

communication,

e.g.emails

Internet

(website,

facebook,

SkyBrary,etc.)

Question 4: What impact did level adherence have on your operations?

Summary replies: Overall there was little or no impact reported. In few cases the workload was increaseddue to additional communication with the pilots. One dispatcher reports that additional CHG messages had


40/45


to be send to update flight plan with late modifications. In another case there were difficulties to file anaccurate flight plan, due to late encountered restrictions along the route.

Question 5: Does your flight planning system allow you to prepare an ATC flight plan whichcorrectly reflects the optimum flight levels for the efficient operations of the flight, if not, why?

Doesyourf l ightplanningsystemallowyoutoprepareanATCDoesyourf l ightplanningsystemallowyoutoprepareanATCDoesyourf l ightplanningsystemallowyoutoprepareanATCDoesyourf l ightplanningsystemallowyoutoprepareanATC

fl ightplanwhichcorrectlyreflectstheoptimumfl ightlevelsforthefl ightplanwhichcorrectlyreflectstheoptimumfl ightlevelsforthefl ightplanwhichcorrectlyreflectstheoptimumfl ightlevelsforthefl ightplanwhichcorrectlyreflectstheoptimumfl ightlevelsforthe

efficientoperationsoftheflight,ifnot,why?efficientoperationsoftheflight,ifnot,why?efficientoperationsoftheflight,ifnot,why?efficientoperationsoftheflight,ifnot,why?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Yes No

Summary replies: The use of different flight planning systems contributes to differences in flight levels. Itappears that flight planning systems do not always take into consideration all operational parameters todetermine an optimum flight levels.

Question 6: Did you experience difficulties in filing the optimum flight level (RFL) with IFPS andwhy?

Yes 21.1% 4

No 78.9% 15Why(pleasespecify) 6

Summary replies: Flight planning systems will try as much as possible to optimise flight plans. However, theaccuracy of the calculation depends on the parameters used and are adjusted to ensure a smooth andrealistic operational (step climbs, etc.). Sometimes the parameters used are not fit for purpose, for instancefor even and odd level allocation.

Question 7: Are there any reasons which prevent you from updating flight plan information, e.g.flight level, to IFPS?


41/45


42/45


G. Annex G to Flight Level Adherence Trial Report

Recommendationsand Actions

Recommendation #01: Accelerate ATC provision of LOA/Sector constraints in orderto better align flight planned intent with the actual profile.

Action #01:OCG to request that States/ANSPs ensure that all ATC level constraints are transparent forAOs and published for flight planning purposes by October 2012.

Action #02:OCG to request ANSPs through APDSG to review the content and adequacy of LOAs tosupport the planned delivery in vertically constrained sectors.

Recommendation #02: That IFPS checks currently available LOA constraints,notified in Appendix 6 of the RAD document.

Action #03:DNM to investigate the feasibility and cost for IFPS to check all published level constraints.

Recommendation #03: ATM to explore the potential use of functionalities to identifyand avoid inconsistencies between planned and actual profile.

Action #04:DNM in consultation with stakeholders to investigate how knowledge of relevant ATFMmeasures and changes thereto in down stream sectors could be provided to tactical ATC

Action #05:OCG to request ANSPs through APDSG to consider how ATC could be more pro-activewith adjacent ACCs in the protection of their regulated sectors, e.g. to consider using theCFMU Intruder functionality and associated procedures.

Action #06:OCG to request that AO community reports to DNM circumstances which prevent that allrelevant ATFM measures and changes thereto are incorporated into the planned flightoperations and communicated to the pilot. (Ref. EU regulation 255/2010, Art. 7,2)

Recommendation #04: Address the availability and utilisation of the RFL by ATC.

Action: #07OCG to ask APDSG to address the utilisation of flight plan data and filed RFL by tacticalATC to meet AO profile intentions, and local operational ATC requirements, with the aim ofdelivering a consistent network approach.

Action #08:OCG to request ANSPs through APDSG to discourage ATCOs to request a RFL frompilots on initial radio contact.


43/45


44/45


Recommendation #09: Identify and address issues which will ensure compliance tothe EOBT and ATFM departure slots, as stipulated in the EU regulation 255/2010.

Action #15:OCG to request ANSPs through DNM to review results and statistics of compliance toATFM departure slots.

Action #16:

OCG to request ANSPs through DNM to evaluate how adherence to EOBT can bemeasured.

Action #17:DNM, with its stakeholders, to identify local and network issue contributing to non-compliance.

Recommendation #10: DNM and ANSPs to explore declared capacity improvementsas result of the stability provided by enhanced profile adherence, in support of theperformance scheme detailed in the EU regulation 691/2010.

Action #18:DNM and ANSPs to explore how adherence can deliver capacity performance improvements.


45/45

EUROCONTROL

March 2011 - European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole

fl adherence days trial final report v1.1 30032011

Documents