Commission Report Puts the Lie to Claims that ATM is in Great Shape
On 26/11/2011, in SESAR's Palace, by cleo
Regular readers of Roger-Wilco know that we have been sounding alarm bells over the European ATM situation and the even brighter future that some reports would make us believe is just around the corner. We did not make many friends with this kind of reporting… of course. It is much nicer to believe that all is well even when the plane is crashing. But we were not reporting unfounded facts. Our sources are better than most…
And now a press release from the European Commission finally brings to light just how bad the situation really is.
The “traffic light” assessments published today by the Commission – based on two progress reports – highlight serious cause for concern in relation to two major elements which go to the heart of the Single European Sky project: the performance scheme and the functional airspace blocks.
Only 5 out of 27 Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) get a “green light” and are on track to meet both targets (for cost and capacity/delays) for the period 2012–14. The Commission has issued recommendations asking Member States to revise these targets. If necessary the Commission could adopt a binding decision requesting the Member State(s) concerned to implement specific corrective measures, although a short time remains available for the targets to be met without recourse to this action.
Existing plans by Member States would fail to meet the EU-wide capacity target of 0.5 minute delay per flight in 2014. If this target were achieved, some €920 million would be saved over 2012–14 due to fewer and shorter delays.
In addition, national performance plans would miss the EU-wide target for ATM cost efficiency by 2.4% in 2014. This would have a a major impact, both on airspace users and on the credibility of the Single European Sky. To meet the target, additional measures are needed to achieve a €250 million saving over the entire three-year reference period (2012–14).
Well, this is not exactly the bright picture that States and ANSPs would want the industry to see. Keep in mind also that all this is happening after the failure of EATCHIP and ATM2000+. I hope you are not going to say now that SESAR will be different. SESAR may be but the rest of the environment is not….
But there is more.
The great Functional Airspace Block fiasco.
Click here to read the full article
EUROCONTROL cancels CDM group meeting
On 12/10/2011, in CDM, by steve
When the mail arrived announcing that EUROCONTROL was cancelling the upcoming CDM group meeting due to severe cuts in their budget, I was not really surprised. This was almost expected as part of what appears to be the killing off of EUROCONTROL. That the CDM group was one of the more successful activities was of course not enough to save the meeting.
Since the announcement, scores of posts appeared on various LinkedIn groups, most of them critical of the decision and regretting this short-sighted action. At least one commenter “reassured” us that this was the way the future will go, the stakeholders want to scale back EUROCONTROL and the ANSPs will take over the coordination of things.
In all the rightful indignation we should not forget a few additional interesting facts that all have a bearing on what is happening to EUROCONTROL to-day. Since I have been there from pretty early on, sharing the time as an ANSP rep and later as an IATA rep, I do have a peculiar perspective which I would like to share with you. Why are these facts important? Because by recognizing them we can hopefully design more effective remedies. So here goes:
1. EUROCONTROL was not perfect. BUT it had many excellent projects, truly forward looking initiatives most of which were consistently slowed down or killed by the stakeholders. I have been in many high level meetings where things got hammered for no other reason but that one or more big ANSPs were not ready to do “it”. Believe it or not, air/ground digital link work in the early phases would have been killed had we not organized a very strong protest… There are more examples.
2. There has been a wrestling match between EUROCONTROL and the EC for a long time. Things got a bit more balanced when the EC burned their fingers in the initial FAB and SES activity caused by the same reluctant stakeholders who were keeping EUROCONTROL from performing properly.
3. It is an open secret that there are certain ANSPs in Europe who have maintained for a long time that they could do a better job of ATM than EUROCONTROL does, being especially critical of the CFMU. The current financial squeeze is not the first initiative to kill EUROCONTROL (but is probably the most effective yet).
4. Giving EUROCONTROL the role of Network Manager is a smokescreen and an incredible affront to the industry. Since EUROCONTROL does not get any additional powers to make things happen (so it will be nothing like the Command Centre in the US), it will be a toothless tiger… Possibly in a few years time it will be established that EUROCONTROL is not being very effective as the Network Manager, so it can disappear completely. Clever… Click here to read the full article
It is not easy to work with the airlines – Why the SJU should be careful
On 07/09/2011, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Having airspace users on board in SESAR is an important development by anyone’s measure. Thinking that having individual airlines involved is the same as having the industry involved is a grave mistake that can cost dearly to all concerned.
The signs of trouble are already there. What do you think about there being a hard-won agreement from the airspace users at one or two pretty high level meetings and then the same users withdrawing their agreement just a few weeks later? The result is frustration on the part of the other partners (ANSPs in this case), confusion about where things were going and, worst of all, loss of credibility of the airlines.
It would be easy to wave this away by just saying that the airline people in the meeting were not up to speed with the subjects being discussed and so they agreed to something they did not fully understand. This would be a rather unfortunate situation and no excuse at all but the actual reality is even worse.
The problem is not new and it is called the industry voice, or rather, the lack of it.
Until about a decade ago, IATA had been recognized by its members as the industry voice on all technical aspects of air traffic management. One of the most important, and difficult, tasks of IATA’s experts had been to forge this common voice, bringing together the widely differing interests and business models of the member airlines so that to the outside world only consolidated, well defined requirements were communicated. This was vital because otherwise the ATM and avionics industries would have been totally confused and at a loss as to what they should develop to meet the airlines’ diverse requirements.
Click here to read the full article
When is a FAB not a FAB?
On 09/08/2011, in FAB News, by cleo
We have written quite a lot about the Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB), their dangers and their impact on SESAR.
Although these days most everything is claimed to be happening in the context of the various FABs, the picture is far from ideal. It is not unusual to hear in meetings or in discussions with various ANSP reps that this or that subject is very “sensitive” in their FAB and one should be careful mentioning it. Of course it would have been naïve to think that States who were less than exemplary in working together under the EUROCONTROL umbrella would suddenly turn into sheep and cooperate smoothly within the FAB concept. Parochial thinking and the protection of their own turf remain in place and it will take long and hard work to overcome the old reflexes.
But the FAB concept seems to be evolving in a way its inventors probably never intended. You will have noticed in the news the announcement of various co-operation agreements between Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) being created apparently in parallel with the FABs they are participating in. In spite of the nice words of these new alliances, they begged the question right from the start: why? If the FAB is such a great thing and they are already in it, why form an alliance on top of it.
Now we may have the answer…
Click here to read the full article
Big brother in the sky
On 18/05/2011, in Satellite Navigation, by steve
Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) is only now starting to make inroads as a surveillance means more accurate and cost-effective than traditional radar. With the ground infrastructure slowly being built, someone has already come up with a new idea: why not put the ADS-B receivers on satellites and start a surveillance service that covers every nook and cranny of the planet, oceans and the deepest mountain valleys included, and sell the service to Air Navigation Service Providers? Whether as a second layer of surveillance or as the primary one, the satellite based solution promises to be much cheaper in deployment and cost of usage than the already not too expensive ground ADS-B network.
This is a very innovative and absolutely market oriented approach that is of course not without some risk. That surveillance data is essential is not in question. Whether ANSPs will be ready to relinquish their hold on the surveillance infrastructure and go for a more efficient and cheaper solution that is as good as or better than the existing heavy iron is the big question of course.
In any case, Iridium thinks the risk is worth taking. These are the same folks whose first attempt at bringing us satellite telephones was a flop but who have risen from the ashes offering more interesting and viable solutions.
Of course the idea is logical and the timing is good. With both Europe and the USA heading towards all aircraft being equipped with ADS-B, broadcasting their GPS derived position and other information for everyone who cares to listen to hear, a system not limited by geography or topography to pick up and forward the broadcast information makes perfect sense, especially if the cost of its deployment and operation is comparable or less than that of a ground based ADS-B network.
Click here to read the full article
Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) – the EC’s biggest blunder?
On 30/04/2011, in FAB News, by pbn
That the EC meant well when they originally came up with the idea of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) is not in question. That they did not anticipate the monster they were creating can be put down to the engaging naivety of someone venturing into the jungle of European air traffic management for the first time. That IATA was blind enough to support the FAB concept shows how desperate they were for a solution, any solution, to the continued ills of ATM.
As we head towards a summer promising to be vary bad in terms of delays and in the midst of the general euphoria about FABs and ANSP alliances, it should be interesting to look into the history of the FAB idea and its present reality. If for no other reason then to learn why it will not bring the improvements the industry craves.
Those amongst you with the longest memory will recall EATCHIP and ATM2000+ the two European flagship air traffic management projects which dragged on for years and in spite of Ministers of Transport signatures on the ATM2000+ documents, they delivered very little. We suffered through meeting after meeting, all kinds of new groups were created but in the end, when it came to implementation the deadlines always seemed to slip to a date comfortably in the future. Comfortably for the service providers and frustratingly for the airspace users. Europe was treading water and the industry did not drawn but this was in spite of ATM2000+ rather than because of it.
The European Commission was taking an increasing interest in the problems of air traffic management and seeing that it was not possible to create a truly European project, they decided to take a pragmatic approach when they finally intervened. Enter the Functional Airspace Block or FAB. If you cannot get the whole of Europe to work on a harmonized system, have at least a few groups of ANSPs work together… A nice idea which unfortunately ignored the fundamental problems and realities of European ATM.
The FAB concept was met with a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm. Working together, giving up even a small bit of their independence was anathema to the ANSPs and any idea coming from the EC was suspect to begin with. The first round of the Single European Sky regulations was struggling to take off at about the same time and was kept firmly on the ground for the very same reason…
Then SESAR came along. This was a truly European undertaking working to define a truly European air traffic management system. SESAR’s definition phase was hard going but on that particular battle field it was no longer possible to go against the pan-European solution, so instead the proposed new paradigms and solutions were attacked with the usual gusto.
Click here to read the full article
Headache
On 06/04/2011, in Perspectives, by steve
Every so often I wake with a splitting headache which is bad enough as it tends to persist the whole day… Even worse however is the rather somber view I have at times like that of our beloved aviation world.
When I think of airports, I see not the runways and the aircraft parked at the gates… I see expensive supermarkets where finding your gate is difficult not because there are so many of them but because you have to wade through shops selling stuff at “tax-free prices” that are still double of what you would pay on Main Street and because the airport will not post the bloody gate numbers until the last minute to keep you in the shopping area that much longer. Very naughty because passengers sometimes forget that they are there to travel and not to make the airport richer with the consequence that they will be late at the gate and possibly delay the flight (or have their baggage unloaded and be left behind). With more and more of their revenue coming from the concessions, who could blame the airports for often concentrating more on selling to the passengers while giving only the minimum they can get away with to their supposedly main customers, the airlines. It is remarkable that one of the main achievements of SESAR will be the full integration of airports into the air traffic management system. I could have sworn aircraft departed from and arrived on runways at airports for decades and that this integration had taken place many years ago. No Sir, that was not the case. Airport operating companies are profit oriented and very competitive and until recently they very successfully kept out of the ATM fold lest their peculiar ideas about operating aircraft be corrupted by “outside” influences. The ideal airline for an airport would be one with no aircraft… The passengers would come to the airport, shop and dine and shop some more and then go home… Aircraft are such a pain in the six o’clock. They are noisy, need a lot of space and their operators are in constant financial stress so the prices the airport can charge is limited. Walking through some airports these days I get the feeling these guys are transforming the facility into a shopping mall and the flying bit is becoming almost incidental.
A few years ago I was crossing the plaza in front of Amsterdam Airport and a guy with a big suitcase approached me with desperation in his eyes: Sir, he asked, where is the airport here? Where indeed!
Click here to read the full article
SESAR at ATC Global 2011 – Connecting vision with reality
On 09/03/2011, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Roger-Wilco was given a special opportunity to interview SESAR’s Chief Program Officer on the occasion of ATC Global 2011 and in particular in connection with SESAR Release 1, being presented as the most important SESAR deliverable for the year.
Florian Guillermet talks to editor Steve Zerkowitz.
Roger-Wilco: Looking at the details of SESAR Release 1, one sees that this is basically a very big and complex validation exercise. We have seen such things, even if possibly not on this scale, in past programs like EATCHIP and ATM2000+.Regrettably, not much came from those… What is the difference now, what makes everyone confident that this time things will work out better?
Mr. Guillermet: There are three important differences compared with past exercises:
• Clearly defined scope
• Clearly defined time-frame
• Close control by the SJU
Let me explain. The operational concept of SESAR is very ambitious and it can only be achieved if there is a clear focus on what has to be done and in what time frame. The elements of Release 1 have been carefully selected to ensure an initial maturity level that lends itself to development to a pre-industrialization state. This selection process was carefully controlled by the SJU so no pet-projects, be it on an organizational or personal level, were allowed in if they did not meet the agreed, stringent selection criteria.
Click here to read the full article
CRDS Rising from the Ashes
On 09/02/2011, in Just to let you know..., by steve
Few of our readers will still remember the original goal of EUROCONTROL… It was to have been THE European air traffic control organization. Nice dream it was and we all know what happened. More recently there was CEATS, the Central European Air Traffic Services Program which was a bit like a Phoenix, the original EUROCONTROL idea rising from the ashes to integrate ATS in Central Europe. After years of effort and a lot of money, this idea also died.
Scattered in Prague and Budapest were remnants of the CEATS elements that had been set up as the first step in realizing the ill-fated project. Prague had the CEATS Strategy and Development Unit, Budapest the CEATS Research, Development and Simulation Centre or CRDS. This latter was renamed in 2009 to EAVU (EUROCONTROL Airspace Validation Unit) no doubt in an effort to reflect the fact that the CRDS was a viable proposition even after the disappearance of CEATS as such. EAVU or not, the fate of the Budapest simulation centre was sealed when EUROCONTROL decided to close it once and for all.
But HungaroControl, the Hungarian ANSP had other ideas.
Click here to read the full article
New clouds on the Mode-S/ADS-B horizon in Europe
On 18/01/2011, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Most of those who took part in the epic battle over the introduction of Mode S Enhanced Surveillance (EHS) have either retired, moved to other activities or flew west to greener pastures but I guess there is still a hard core who will remember how the airspace users lost that one to the three big States in Europe and EUROCONTROL who was caught between a rock and a hard place… I was one of those doing the shouting, telling anyone who would listen that Mode S Enhanced Surveillance would cost the airlines an arm and a leg and would generate next to zero benefits. The majority of the airlines and some ANSPs agreed… This was back at the beginning of the previous decade and in the end, the three promoters of Mode S EHS, fed up with the indecision of the others and the opposition of the airlines, banded together and set up the Three State Program, in effect deciding that they would put in Mode S EHS regardless of the opposition. They did have the grace to announce clear time-frames (2003) to have everything on the ground ready and the benefits accruing for the airspace users. We are now in 2011 and very little of that grand promise has been realized, certainly if we look at things from the benefit point of view. If anyone out there has news about Mode S Enhanced Surveillance quantifiable benefits being available to anyone, please let us know…
But the story continues except that the stakes are even higher. This time the matter is on the level of the European Commission and its Single European Sky Implementing Rules (SES IR). Mind you, there is nothing wrong with the Commission wanting the jump start SES via implementing rules. On the contrary, this is a good thing. Except that the old specter of Mode S implementation is beckoning again in the Surveillance Performance and Interoperability IR.
Click here to read the full article
Trajectory based operations (TBO) – Still not properly understood in SESAR? Take 2.
On 18/01/2011, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
You may recall that a while ago I had written an article with the same title, expressing concern that this all important element in the SESAR Concept of Operations was apparently still not properly understood by some of the “experts” working on the subject.
Recently another paper dealing with trajectory management crossed my desk and on reading it I started to wonder: have these people not read the CONOPS at all? Mind you, the paper comes from a major SESAR partner who should know better… But apparently they do not.
The paper is entitled “Use of the SESAR RBT in ATM Systems”. RBT in case you did not know stands for Reference Business Trajectory and this is the trajectory that “the airspace user agrees to fly and the ANSP agrees to facilitate” to quote the relevant part of the SESAR Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
The purpose of the paper, by its own admission, is to prompt discussion of the trajectory issues within the SESAR program and in particular to ensure that they are addressed by Work Package B. In other words, the paper is arguing that alongside the RBT, the various other types of trajectories that exist in local systems must also be recognized and treated in SESAR. Since the CONOPS already contains references to all those “other” kinds of trajectories, one cannot but wonder: what do the authors of the paper have in mind? Why would SESAR ignore the CONOPS references to those other trajectories? Or have the authors not read the CONOPS and are now thinking that they have discovered a gap in that document?
I will not even attempt to figure out this aspect. There are many other elements in the paper that should make anyone familiar with trajectory based operations want to cry.
Click here to read the full article
Airbus now also an air traffic management company
On 05/01/2011, in Shop floor talk, by steve
Several years ago, Boeing was so worried about the sad state of air traffic management in the US and Europe that they actually thought it would adversely impact their customers to the point where they would end up buying fewer aircraft… This was the stated reason for the establishment of Boeing ATM, a new division that was supposed to bring the needed medicine for air traffic management world wide. The initiative was never the success story it could have been, in no small part because of the industry crisis that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Now it seems that Airbus has decided that there was money to be earned in air traffic management and they launched a new subsidiary company, called “Airbus ProSky”, dedicated to the development and support of modern air traffic management (ATM) systems. Airbus ProSky will become the channel through which Airbus will interact and develop ATM programs such as “Single European Sky ATM Research” (SESAR) in Europe, as well as NextGen in the US. In particular, for these two ATM programs, the new company will help accelerate and support the process of their implementation, and link them together by capitalizing on the technological, operational and commercial synergies.
Airbus ProSky will also contribute Airbus’ aviation expertise further afield for other nations by working with their Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), airworthiness authorities and airlines. This will help them achieve the common goal of transforming their ATM systems with the latest technologies and procedures, to achieve the highest operational efficiencies with more direct routings resulting in around 10 percent less aircraft fuel consumption, and significant reductions in CO2 and noise emissions.
Click here to read the full article
Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) – New category on Roger-Wilco
On 03/01/2011, in FAB News, by steve
FABs may be the highest political priority for the European Commission and they certainly are the source of high flying political statements, but I still do not like them. Why? Well, the idea when it first came up was a good one. At the time, functional fragmentation of air traffic management in Europe was costing airspace users billions and in spite of all the projects being considered, there was little hope for structural reform.
In order to break the logjam, and fully aware that there was no hope for getting the whole of Europe to co-operate and create a single sky, the EC very pragmatically proposed that groups of States get together and create functional airspace blocks (FAB) along the lines of their ATM “interests”, optimizing and aligning procedures and services inside their FAB… This way, the argument went, at least there would be a single sky of sorts inside the FAB and later on the FABs themselves could be harmonized for a truly single European sky.
Pragmatic and logical as the idea may have been, it was not received by the ANSPs with open arms.
Click here to read the full article
Why is the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) wary of consultants?
On 30/11/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
OK, you may say that consultants have made a bad name for themselves and you would be partially right. In some industries some of them have and we all suffer the consequences to some degree. But on the other hand, many companies have found considerable cost savings in the use of consultants who will perform tasks that would otherwise cost a fortune… and this is true even if consultants are not cheap themselves.
But why is the SJU so diametrically opposed to the use of consultants that they have told everyone, the airlines and their associations included, right at the beginning and have repeated it many times since, that they may not use consultants to represent them in the SESAR tasks?
You may say the following is conjecture but it is logical and the only reasonable explanation of a totally unreasonable attitude on the part of the SJU.
When the airline industry first faced what was to become a series of financial crises, including the effects of 9/11, they responded by cutting costs across the board. This translated also into reducing their staff engaged in attending to activities like air traffic management. All of a sudden airline representatives all but disappeared from EUROCONTROL meetings and the airspace user influence on ATM developments was automatically reduced to fire fighting and some shouting on the policy level… with predictably meager results.
When SESAR came along, the airline industry was suddenly faced with the opportunity of a lifetime to improve things… except that they lacked the knowledgeable manpower to represent them on an H24 basis. There were of course excellent airline experts still around and those were promptly brought onto the firing line but almost none of them were all-round experts who were at home equally in airline and ATM operations.
Click here to read the full article
Air Traffic Management déjà vu
On 19/10/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Reading Henning’s article and with my up-close-and-intimate involvement in the SESAR definition phase (and the 20 or so years leading up to it) I could not escape a terrible feeling of déjà vu. This was only strengthened when I read the news about ANSP CEOs rumbling that the performance targets of the EU’s Single Sky Package were unrealistic and airlines rumbling that the costs arising from the proposed ADS-B implementing rule were placing an inordinate share on them compared to the burden to be borne by the ANSPs.
These are signs of a toxic mix well known from the past and they bode ill for ATM developments in Europe.
But there is more.
One of the airline associations is very vocal about the need to get financing support for the airlines as they consider the price of SESAR prohibitively expensive. This is all very well, but apparently little is being done to actually find and organize such financing.
IATA, the one organization that in the past successfully influenced ATM development directions by being present everywhere down to the working level, has now basically drawn back and seems to believe that things in the ATM world can be influenced equally successfully by simply issuing policies. This is a fallacy that will cost the airlines dearly. Policies are fine but in practice they are often ignored or interpreted in ways favorable to interests other than those of the airlines. By the time this is discovered, all kinds of binding agreements and decisions will have been made and airline protests will be met, in most cases, with a shrug. You missed the boat folks…
Click here to read the full article
Is SESAR doing what the airlines intended?
On 14/10/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Exclusive interview with Dr. Henning Hartmann
Today we bring you an exclusive interview with Dr. Henning Hartmann, who was, during the SESAR Definition Phase with Lufthansa German Airlines and representing the Airspace Users, he was also the person responsible for the development of the SESAR Concept of Operations (ConOps). He will give us his views on what SESAR is to-day as he sees it and explains why there is cause for some concern.
Henning can you give our readers an impression of what you are feeling today when looking at SESAR and the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) as they are now?
In order to understand my arguments concerning today’s situation, I’ll first have a closer look at the situation as it was during the definition phase.
The SESAR Definition Phase was a multi-stakeholder project consisting of 6 milestones which delivered 6 documents each of which was subject to agreement by the stakeholders. The SESAR Concept of Operations was part of deliverable 3, entitled “The ATM Target System”. It was seen as the driving engine of the future system and consequently to some extent the development process of the concept was THE culmination point of the diverging views of the different stakeholders. Obviously, in the end all stakeholders had to compromise to some extent.
Why did these different views come up?
It makes a huge difference “how” a system is operated and since I was representing the Airspace Users, the Airspace Users operational concept vision did not come up just by accident. It was the result of a structured process reflecting all types of Airspace Users.
Before going to the different views, it is essential to understand how the vision of the Airspace Users was constructed: we looked 15 years ahead, we did analyse different passenger segmentation forecasts and their needs and preferences and how the airlines could respond (in terms of the operational context) to those passenger needs.
Click here to read the full article
Are ATM operational concepts the cause of failure?
On 03/09/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
I have known Jean-Marc Garot, the former director of EUROCONTROL’s Experimental Centre in Paris for a long time. A forward thinker and in many ways a visionary, he retired from EUROCONTROL in 2005. He has now published an interesting article in The Controller magazine with the title “What is an ATM concept?”
I think everyone in Europe and in the US who has ever been involved in the development of operational concepts for air traffic management should read this article. Not because it is so good or so full of revelations from which we can learn but to see just how poorly we have communicated our efforts and how completely things have been misunderstood on various levels of the ATM world and at different ATM organizations.
The article starts off with a nice and even funny summing up of how, it is claimed, experts for concept work are/have been selected. There is indeed some truth in the description and it is also true that there have always been people on the concept groups coming from airlines, ANSPs, industry and what have you who could only think in terms of their own particular activities with little regard for anybody else’s. But those were always a minority. Troublesome yes, but hardly determinant for the final product.
The overwhelming majority of experts in concept work knew what they were about and it was quite common to have airline reps with an ATC background as well as the other way round with ATC folks who were flying on the side.
The article correctly points out that some of the documents produced were indeed overly voluminous… It is a pity that in the very next paragraph 4D Trajectory Management, System Wide Information Management (SWIM) and even air/ground digital link are listed as mere hypotheses, ambiguous descriptions that everyone can agree to and which therefore assume the status of certainties, no longer questioned and on which benefit expectations can be built… without much justification.
Click here to read the full article
Conversion course – Does anyone understand the airlines?
On 22/06/2010, in Airline corner, by steve
My fascination with aircraft started at about age 5 and I first heard about air traffic control when I was 16. Gabi Nemeth who made music besides being an air traffic controller was on a TV talk show and he made a gallant effort to explain what ATC was all about… He must have done a great job because I for one understood what he was saying and from then on wanted nothing better than to be a controller. Being accepted to the physics faculty of a University in Budapest almost derailed my destiny but I corrected it soon enough and on my 21st birthday I issued the first landing clearance all on my own!
In the years that followed I collected just about every qualification a controller can have and added a bit of computer programming skill also. In time I exchanged the microphone for a desk at ICAO in Paris and later, for a post involved in building the new Amsterdam ATC system, AAA. But I never thought of myself as anything other than an air traffic controller. I was also very much convinced that what I was doing with or without the microphone, was the best possible course for our charges, the aircraft and their operators. Giving them directs, shortening the tracks wherever possible and the many other “treats” all appeared as going out of our way to help them.
My first exposure to IATA was at the very first Flow East meeting which was held in Budapest. We knew relatively little about this mighty organization or how it worked and were generally a bit suspicious of its motives… They sent a diminutive Swissair captain as one of their representatives and what he lacked in stature was more than made up for by his forceful personality and very clear words blasting us for the very poor job we were doing. He did not spare the civil aviation authorities either, drawing multiple color lines on a wall chart showing where the air routes should be in his view… Very few of the existing routes were where he thought they should be of course. His propensity for drawing colored lines earned him the nick “Tintoretto”. I remember how deeply hurt I felt by all the verbal abuse but also the feeling that may be, just may be, Tintoretto had a point. Had I known what profound effect his colored lines would have on my life many years later, I would have kissed the little captain on the brow for sure.
Click here to read the full article
Who owns the radar blip?
On 09/06/2010, in SWIM, by steve
I am sure many of you had read about the proposed slot swap between Delta Airlines and US Airways, giving the former substantially more presence at La Guardia while the latter would gain strength at Reagan National in Washington D.C. When the airlines applied for approval, the FAA set conditions that would have nixed most of the benefits expected by the carriers. They are now going to the courts, arguing that the FAA is charged with making sure airspace is used safely and efficiently and not with assessing impacts on competition. The issue of who owns slots has been on the table before but so far, no real answers have been given by the federal authorities. With this latest round and the involvement of the courts, there is hope that a judge will come up with something that can at least be chewed further if it is not to the liking of any of the parties involved.
But slots are an almost physical commodity compared to the nature and ownership issues that are looming in respect of system wide information management (SWIM). So who owns data?
Right at the start we must differentiate between ownership in a purely data management sense and ownership in terms of the value represented by a piece of data. The data management aspect is relatively easy and setting the right rules will ensure that the data owners are always properly identified, their rights (e.g. to change the data) and obligations (e.g. to provide the data) correctly assigned and acknowledged and access by others limited as appropriate.
It is when we start to consider ownership in terms of the value of data that things start to get complicated. Let’s take a concrete example that has in the past already generated some discussion… and little agreement.
Who is the owner of aircraft position information obtained by ground surveillance?
Click here to read the full article
Call sign similarity rules
On 08/06/2010, in SKYbrary News, by steve
News from EUROCONTROL’s aviation safety knowledge base SKYbrary
One key element in reducing the number of call sign Confusion events is an agreed set of Call Sign Similarity Rules i.e. agreed definitions of what constitutes ‘a similarity’.
These Rules have been identified by analysis of safety reports concerning call sign confusion and published by the Call Sign Similarity User Group (CSSUG), which includes representatives from Aircraft Operators (AOs), Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and other aviation organisations’ (e.g. ICAO and IATA).
Read the full article here.
TITAN stakeholder workshop – 17 March 2010
On 31/05/2010, in TITAN, by steve
TITAN is an EC 7th Framework project and the acronym stands for “Turnaround Integration in Trajectory and Network”. As its name suggests, TITAN is looking at ways of optimizing the turnaround process while integrating it in trajectory based, net-centric operations.
The Workshop held in Brussels on 17 March 2010 had two objectives: on the one hand it presented the project to the community and on the other it collected stakeholders’ needs and requirements in the context of the turnaround process. All the actors (airspace users, airports, ANSPs and handling companies) who would be affected by the new TITAN concept had been invited to attend the workshop and the turn-out was very good. It was therefore possible to capture their daily concerns, needs and proposals in a representative manner.
The format chosen for the workshop was that of focused brainstorming with selected facilitators making sure that the time and scope objectives were observed. As it turned out, the format was very successful and participants contributed actively in the general sessions as well as in the group sessions.
The introductory session
Work started with an introduction of the project followed by the SESAR Joint Undertaking giving an overview of their main activities in the context of turnaround and the input they expected from TITAN to fill the gaps identified in the relevant parts of the SESAR work packages.
Next, an analysis of the current situation was presented, highlighting the potential bottlenecks. An initial turnaround model was also sketched to seed and start the discussions.
Click here to read the full article
Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) Manual from ICAO now available
On 26/02/2010, in Bookshelf, by steve
ICAO has made available an unedited, advance version of the Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) Manual as approved, in principle, by the Secretary General. Although the final, edited version may still undergo editorial alterations, the substance should stay the same.
The purpose of this Manual is to provide guidance and harmonize the development and implementation of continuous descent operations (CDO). To achieve this, airspace and instrument flight procedure design and air traffic control techniques should all be employed in a cohesive manner. This will then facilitate the ability of flight crews to use in-flight techniques to reduce the overall environmental footprint and increase the efficiency of aircraft operations.
The generic term “continuous descent operations”, has been adopted to embrace the different techniques used to maximize operational efficiency while still addressing local airspace requirements and constraints. These operations have been variously known as, continuous descent arrivals, continuous descent approaches, optimized profile descent, tailored arrivals, and 3D/4D path arrival management forming part of the business trajectory concept.
Continuous descent operations (CDO) is one of several tools available to aircraft operators and air navigation service providers (ANSPs) to increase safety, flight predictability, and airspace capacity, while reducing noise, controller-pilot communications, fuel burn and emissions. Over the years, different route models have been developed to facilitate CDO and several attempts have been made to strike a balance between the ideal fuel efficient and environmentally friendly procedures and the capacity requirements of a specific airport or airspace.
Click here to read the full article
NOTAM goes digital
On 06/01/2010, in SWIM, by steve
What is a NOTAM?
A NOTAM...
There are a few things in aviation that have survived over the years with so little change as the NOTAM, in spite of its numerous, known shortcomings. NOTAM is a quasi-acronym for Notice to Airmen, a system of providing aeronautical information introduced well over 60 years ago.
NOTAMs… we have all seen them, worked with them and think we know them. But do we really?
...and the cranes it refers to!
A NOTAM is a text message, constructed using a code defined by ICAO and distributed via the Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunications Network (AFTN). It informs the recipients of immediate or temporary changes to the air navigation infrastructure, both airport and en-route. As an example, if a runway or part of a runway is temporarily closed, this will be announced in a NOTAM. There are several types of NOTAM but their essence and purpose is the same: provide vital information to airmen in a timely manner. In fact, the NOTAM is the middle part of the layered legacy system of information provision: the AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) describes the big picture and the permanent situation; NOTAMs bring information about sudden/immediate changes and temporary changes that will exist for a short time only; and the operational radio, including broadcasts like the ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information Service), that announce sudden changes and continue to do so at least until the information is also available in a NOTAM.
The NOTAM offices of the world’s States are a legendary bunch of very independent minded experts, who know very well how important their job is and who tend to be slow with changes, however useful, lest the carefully thought out system fail in its purpose. Frustrating on occasion, it is hard to blame them for being careful.
Click here to read the full article
SITA selected to provide PENS – but SWIM is more than just ANSPs!
On 24/11/2009, in SWIM, by steve
Those of our readers who have looked at the various postings on System Wide Information Management (SWIM) will be familiar with the abbreviation PENS which stands for “Pan European Network Service”. PENS will allow air navigation service providers from 38 countries to exchange operational data communications across a common network for the first time.
Following an intensive competitive tendering exercise, SITA was selected as the provider of this managed IP based regional communications backbone service.
PENS will enable the 38 ANSPs of the EUROCONTROL Member States to exchange operational ATC data communications in a seamless and integrated manner; it will provide an alternative to the ad-hoc bi-lateral communications that are largely in place today between the ANSPs, resulting in improved service levels and reduced overall costs.
Click here to read the full article
Interesting people, unusual flight plans…
On 11/11/2009, in Interesting people, by steve
Paul Hopff – The winding road to Belgocontrol
What were you dreaming of becoming when you were a kid?
Until about age 6, I was determined to become a railroad station master, you know the guy with the red cap. But then the aviation bug bit and I never recovered…
What moved you to become a part of the aviation family?
As I said, in primary school already I felt this attraction and I remember urging my class mates that they also should think of nothing but airplanes. This interest was most likely triggered by the numerous aircraft passing overhead our house.
What were the most significant sideways jumps in your professional life?
Strangely enough, despite my attraction to aviation, I started my career in the telecoms industry at Bell Telephone Mfg Co at Antwerp. That was back in 1978, and telecom was the future in those years.
Click here to read the full article
Enterprise Architecture and service orientation – what is this?
On 03/11/2009, in Buzzwords explained, by steve
Few abbreviations connected with the future air traffic management system have given rise to so many questions and misunderstandings as EA (Enterprise Architecture) and SOA (Service Oriented Architecture). In the United States both concepts are part and parcel of air traffic management system development since the marching orders were given by the Federal Government. In Europe, however, it was only during the SESAR development phase that EA and SOA were first introduced into the ATM context and the reception was at first mixed.
To-day there is probably no doubt any more that EA and SOA are the way to go but the fact remains: to many in the air traffic management family the exact meaning of both remains a puzzle.
Let’s try to set out the pieces and see what picture emerges.
Click here to read the full article
