react-plus demonstration report (editable version) · react-plus demonstration report (editable...

65
REACT-Plus Demonstration Report Document information Project Title REACT-Plus Project Number 01.02 Project Manager Pildo Labs Deliverable Name REACT-Plus Demonstration Report Edition 02.00.00 Template version 01.00.00 Task contributors Pildo Labs HungaroControl WizzAir Abstract This document provides the Demonstration Report for REACT-Plus project and describes how the project demonstrations have been conducted and the results derived from them. The document also reports the communication activities carried out in the frame of the project.

Upload: others

Post on 25-Oct-2019

9 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

REACT-Plus Demonstration Report

Document information

Project Title REACT-Plus

Project Number 01.02

Project Manager Pildo Labs

Deliverable Name REACT-Plus Demonstration Report

Edition 02.00.00

Template version 01.00.00

Task contributors

Pildo Labs HungaroControl WizzAir

Abstract

This document provides the Demonstration Report for REACT-Plus project and

describes how the project demonstrations have been conducted and the results derived

from them. The document also reports the communication activities carried out in the

frame of the project.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

2 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Authoring & Approval

Prepared By - Authors of the document.

Name & Company Position & Title Date

Aitor Andreu / Pildo Labs Consultant 20/05/2014

Daniel Martínez / Pildo Labs Manager 20/05/2014

József Bakos / HungaroControl Head of ATS 19/06/2014

Robert Sklorz / WizzAir Fuel efficiency project manager 03/07/2014

Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the project.

Name & Company Position & Title Date

Brent Day / Pildo Labs Manager 08/07/2014

Attila Fenyes / WizzAir BUD base captain 03/07/2014

Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.

Name & Company Position & Title Date

Daniel Martínez / Pildo Labs Manager 30/07/2014

József Bakos / HungaroControl Head of ATS 30/07/2014

Attila Fenyes / WizzAir BUD base captain 30/07/2014

Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.

Name & Company Position & Title Date

- - -

Rational for rejection

-

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

3 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Document History

Edition Date Status Author Justification

00.01.00 20/05/2014 Draft Daniel Martínez New Document

00.02.00 19/06/2014 Draft Daniel Martínez Added comments and contributions from József Bakos / Hungarocontrol

00.03.00 07/07/2014 Draft Aitor Andreu / Daniel Martínez

Added comments and contributions from Robert Sklorz / Wizzair

01.00.00 11/07/2014 Issued Daniel Martínez First version delivered to SJU

01.00.01 11/07/2014 Issued Daniel Martinez Appendix organization

02.00.00 30/07/2014 Issued Daniel Martínez Modifications agreed during Final meeting

Intellectual Property Rights (foreground)

This deliverable consists of SJU foreground.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

4 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 7

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 INTENDED READERSHIP .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................ 8 1.4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 9

2 CONTEXT OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS ............................................................................................. 11

3 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 12

3.1 ORGANISATION ..................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 13 3.3 DELIVERABLES ...................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 RISK MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................. 14

4 EXECUTION OF DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES ............................................................................ 15

4.1 EXERCISES PREPARATION ................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.2 MergeStrip concept .................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 EXERCISES EXECUTION ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 18

4.3.1 CDO initiation point .................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Number of flights ........................................................................................................................ 18 4.3.3 Key performance indicators ...................................................................................................... 18 4.3.4 Time deviation in the analysis of the data .............................................................................. 18

5 EXERCISES RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 19

5.1 SUMMARY OF EXERCISES RESULTS .................................................................................................... 19 5.2 CHOICE OF METRICS AND INDICATORS ................................................................................................. 21

5.2.1 Key performance indicators ...................................................................................................... 21 5.2.2 ATC feedback ............................................................................................................................. 21 5.2.3 Pilot feedback ............................................................................................................................. 22

5.3 ANALYSIS OF EXERCISES RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 22

6 DEMONSTRATION EXERCISES REPORTS ....................................................................................... 23

6.1 DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE #1 REPORT ............................................................................................ 23 6.1.1 Exercise Scope ........................................................................................................................... 23 6.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.02-D-001 ....................................................... 23 6.1.3 Exercise Results ......................................................................................................................... 24 6.1.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 28

6.2 DEMONSTRATION EXERCISE #2 REPORT ............................................................................................ 28 6.2.1 Exercise Scope ........................................................................................................................... 28 6.2.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.02-002-NNN .................................................. 28 6.2.3 Exercise Results ......................................................................................................................... 29 6.2.4 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 32

7 SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 33

8 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................. 35

8.1 PROJECT OUTCOMES............................................................................................................................ 35 8.2 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 35 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 35

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

5 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

9 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX A AIC A 002/2013 ..................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX B ATCO QUESTIONNAIRES RESULTS .............................................................................. 38

APPENDIX C PILOT QUESTIONNAIRES RESULTS ............................................................................. 41

APPENDIX D INPUT DATA ......................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX E CDO DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................... 44

APPENDIX F CCO DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................... 50

APPENDIX G PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF MERGESTRIP INFLUENCE IN TOP OF DESCEND ALTITUDE 51

APPENDIX H HORIZONTAL DECELERATION SEGMENT BEFORE FAF ....................................... 53

APPENDIX I COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY #1 ....................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX J COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY #2 ....................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX K COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY #3 ...................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX L COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY #4 ...................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX M ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH TO EVALUATE CDO IMPACT ................ 61

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO FUEL CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS ON DESCENT .................................................... 61 FLIGHT PATH ASSIGNMENT APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 63 CDO DEFINITION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 63 TRAIL PERIOD ................................................................................................................................................... 64

List of tables

Table 1-1: Acronyms and terminology .................................................................................................. 10 Table 3-1: Formal deliverables submission dates ................................................................................ 13 Table 3-2: Identified risks ...................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4-1: Exercises execution/analysis dates ..................................................................................... 18 Table 4-2: Planned vs. measured operations ....................................................................................... 18 Table 6-1 Summary of the scope for CDO implementation .................................................................. 23 Table 6-2 Classification between CDO and Non CDO flights ............................................................... 24 Table 6-4 Performance of non-CDO flights, ToD to touchdown ........................................................... 25 Table 6-5 Unitary KPIs, ToD to touchdown ........................................................................................... 25 Table 6-6 Total KPIs, ToD to touchdown .............................................................................................. 25 Table 6-7 Performance of CDO flights, ToD to 2700ft ALT .................................................................. 25 Table 6-8 Performance of non-CDO flights, ToD to 2700ft ALT ........................................................... 25 Table 6-9 Unitary KPIs, ToD to 2700ft ALT .......................................................................................... 25 Table 6-10 Total KPIs, ToD to 2700ft. ALT ........................................................................................... 26 Table 6-11 Results per route in ToD to touch down scenario ............................................................... 27 Table 6-12 Total percentile savings ...................................................................................................... 27 Table 6-13 Savings per route ................................................................................................................ 28 Table 6-14 Summary of the scope for CCO implementation ................................................................ 28 Table 6-15 Classification between CCO and Non CCO flights ............................................................. 29 Table 6-17 Performance of non-CCO flights ......................................................................................... 30 Table 6-18 Unitary KPIs ........................................................................................................................ 30 Table 6-19 Total KPIs ........................................................................................................................... 30 Table 6-20 Results per route................................................................................................................. 31 Table 6-21 Total percentile savings ...................................................................................................... 32 Table 6-22 Savings per route ................................................................................................................ 32 Table 9-1: Input data ............................................................................................................................. 43

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

6 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

List of figures

Figure 3-1 Project organisation ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3-2 Work breakdown structure for REACT-Plus ........................................................................ 13 Figure 4-1 Approach procedures for LHBP RWY 31L (source: AIP) .................................................... 16 Figure 4-2 Point merge system (source: ICAO) .................................................................................... 17 Figure 4-3 Merge Strip concept ............................................................................................................ 17 Figure 6-1 CDO classification of the flights measured in the exercise ................................................. 24 Figure 6-2 CCO classification of the flights measured in the exercise ................................................. 29 Figure 9-1 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground for AC: HA-LPL CDO flights ........................................ 44 Figure 9-2 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground for AC: HA-LPL Non CDO flights .................................. 44 Figure 9-3 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground Non CDO ...................................................................... 45 Figure 9-4 - Throttle vs Time to touch ground Non CDO ...................................................................... 46 Figure 9-5 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground CDO .............................................................................. 46 Figure 9-6 Throttle vs Time to touch ground CDO ................................................................................ 47 Figure 9-7 Top plot shows Altitude during time. Bottom plot shows in blue the throttle and in red the differential of the throttle. ....................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 9-8 Top plot shows Altitude during time. Bottom plot shows in blue the throttle and in red the differential of the throttle. ....................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 9-9 Mean top of descend altitude .............................................................................................. 51 Figure 9-10 Mean distance of approach ............................................................................................... 51 Figure 9-11- Evolution of percentage of CDO flights ............................................................................ 52 Figure 9-12 A320 FMS descent principle .............................................................................................. 53 Figure 9-13 2700ft step example .......................................................................................................... 53

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

7 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Executive summary

This document is the deliverable B1: Demonstration Report of the project REACT-Plus (01.02). It contains information on the execution of the exercises planned on document A1: Demonstration Plan. The information provided includes:

Overview of the management organization

Exercise preparation information

Exercise execution detail, including deviations from the demonstration plan

Reports on the two exercise results

Conclusions and recommendations

REACT-Plus project intends to undertake the necessary actions towards the implementation of Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) and Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) at and from Budapest airport, respectively.

The consortium is formed by the following companies:

PILDO Labs: leader of the project, responsible of the project management and the analysis of the data recorded during the exercise.

HUNGAROCONTROL: responsible of the implementation of the CDO and CDO operations in Budapest airport

WIZZAIR: flying the CDO and CCO operations in Budapest and responsible of providing the corresponding data.

The project has been successfully executed following the plan established. The scope of the CDO exercise has been extended outside the originally planned TMA to include an analysis from ToD. The number of operations (both CDO and CCO) has been increased with respect to the initial plan:

Planned Measured

CDO 200 474

Non-CDO 200 1264

CCO 100 3639

Non-CCO 100 713

Difficulties were encountered analysing the data provided that were solved once the a proper format was established to exchange QAR data between WIZZAIR and PILDO.

Main conclusions of the exercise are that:

CDO operations provided an average 48% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions compared to Non CDO operations, when only ToD to 2700ft. segment was considered. In some routes this reduction was beyond 50%.

During the exercise climb operations achieve or nearly achieve CCO and no significant benefits can be demonstrated.

Note that results obtained are based on a classification of operations between CDO and Non CDO using a criteria based on throttle and position information provided by QAR data. The results of the comparison depends on how strict the CDO criteria is. The more strict the better the results are (more significant differences between CDO and Non CDO). The criteria used for the classification is detailed in a dedicated annex in this document.

As a result of the project, since 1st of March 2013 the CDO/CCO operation is available for all airlines operating to and from Budapest Liszt Ferenc International airport. Since that time almost 20 000 arriving aircraft, which represents the 30% of the 60 000 arrivals has enjoyed the advantage of CDO already from the Top of Descent and almost every departing aircraft was allowed to climb continuously to the requested level.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

8 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the document

This document provides the deliverable B1:Demonstration report for SJU Demo project 01.02 REACT-Plus. It describes the results of demonstration exercises defined in deliverable A1: Demonstration plan, 01.00.00, 28/09/2012 [1] and how they have been conducted.

1.2 Intended readership

The SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) and, specifically, the SJU’s points of contact and reviewers assigned for REACT-Plus shall found this document interesting as it provides the final report of the demonstration exercises.

Secondly, this document shall be a very useful tool for all members of the project as it contains clear descriptions of all technical and operational concepts, details and tools used during the project.

The document might provide valuable inputs to other projects dealing with the introduction of CDO and CCO concepts.

1.3 Structure of the document

This document is layout is based in the demonstration report template provided by the SJU and has been adapted to the specific project needs.

The document includes the following sections:

1. Introduction: this section

2. Context of the demonstrations: provides background information on the context and objectives of the demonstration project.

3. Programme management: contains a summary of the management structure and processes, mostly referencing the demonstration plan [1].

4. Execution of demonstration exercise: general information regarding the execution of the exercise that is common to both exercises included in the demonstration.

5. Exercise results: overview of the most relevant results that can be extracted from the execution of all exercises. Detailed report on each exercise is provided in section 6.

6. Demonstration exercises reports: contains one section for each of the exercises included in the project.

7. Summary of communication activities: contains a list of the communication activities carried out in the frame of the project to raise awareness on the activities carried out and the results being obtained.

8. Next steps: contains the conclusions and recommendations from the consortium based on the results obtained.

9. Appendixes: providing additional detail on some aspects referenced along the document.

1.4 Glossary of terms

Continuous Climb Operation (CCO): An aircraft operating technique enabled by airspace design, procedure design and facilitation by ATC, enabling the execution of a flight profile optimized to the performance of the aircraft. The optimum vertical profile takes the form of a continuously climbing path. The concept has been referred to as CCD (Continuous Climb Departure) in previous documents.

Continuous Descent Operation (CDO): An operation, enabled by airspace design, procedure design and ATC facilitation, in which an arriving aircraft descends continuously, to the greatest possible extent, by employing minimum engine thrust, ideally in a low drag configuration, prior to the

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

9 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

final approach fix /final approach point. The concept is often referred as Continuous Descent Approach (CDA).

1.5 Acronyms and Terminology

Term Definition

ACC Area Control Centre

AIC Aeronautical Information Circular

AMAN Arrival Manager

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCO Air Traffic Controller

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Traffic Services

BATCC Budapest Air Traffic Control Centre

CAT Category

CCO Continuous Climb Operation

CDO Continuous Descent Operation

CFP Call For Proposals

CTR Control Zone

DFDR Digital Flight Data Recorder

DMU Data Management Unit

DOD Detailed Operational Description

DTG Distance To Go

E-ATMS European Air Traffic Management System

E-OCVM European Operational Concept Validation Methodology

ESSIP European Single Sky Implementation Plan

FIR Flight Information Region

FL Flight Level

FMS Flight Management System

ILS Instrument Landing System

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

10 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Term Definition

KPA Key Performance Area

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LoA Letter of Agreement

LSSIP Local Single Sky Implementation Plan

MSL Mean Sea Level

OFA Operational Focus Areas

PCMCIA Personal Computer Memory Card International Association

P-RNAV Precision RNAV

QAR Quick Access Recorder

RNAV Area Navigation

RWY Runway

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research Programme

SESAR Programme The programme which defines the Research and Development activities and Projects for the SJU.

SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking

SJU Work Programme The programme which addresses all activities of the SESAR Joint Undertaking Agency.

SW Software

TMA Terminal Area

ToD Top of Descent

TWR Tower

WP Work Package

Table 1-1: Acronyms and terminology

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

11 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

2 Context of the Demonstrations REACT-Plus project intends to undertake the necessary actions towards the implementation of Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) and Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) at and from Budapest airport, respectively. As part of Hungarian LSSIP (Local Single Sky Implementation Plan) objectives for years 2011-2013, the implementation of CDOs technique for environmental improvements, and in particular for Budapest airport, was planned for the end of year 2013 which was aligned with the project objectives and planned activities. Please refer to [1], deliverable A1: Demonstration plan, 01.00.00, 28/09/2012, section 2 for more details about the description of the context of the demonstration and the summary tables of the exercises included in the project.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

12 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

3 Programme management

3.1 Organisation

The project consortium is composed by three partners: Pildo Labs, HungaroControl and WizzAir.

Pildo Labs has the role of project “Coordinator”, while HungaroControl and WizzAir are “Consortium Members”.

Under such organisation, Pildo has been responsible for most project management tasks, and in particular of those related with interfacing with the SJU. This includes submission of deliverables, quarterly progress reporting, notification of significant project achievements and organisation of project meetings. Daniel Martínez from Pildo acts as project manager.

The following figure provides an overview of the project organisation:

Figure 3-1 Project organisation

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

13 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

3.2 Work Breakdown Structure

Figure 3-2 Work breakdown structure for REACT-Plus

WP0 groups management and coordination activities, including the interface with the SJU. Control of the project deadlines, milestones accomplishment and deliverables submission are included as part of this WP. Pildo Labs, as project coordinator, leads WP0. WP1 has the main goal of consolidating the work and flight trial planning as initially described in the project’s proposal, completing it with SJU recommendations and/or other inputs arising. Its main output is collected in [1]. Pildo Labs is leading WP1. WP2 contains the main operational work of this project: flight trial preparatory activities, data collection, data processing and analysis of results are included. Most of the outputs of the work performed are reported in this document HungaroControl, as the stakeholder in charge of setting up the most complex enablers for the flight trials execution, is leading WP2. WP3 is dedicated to the Awareness & Dissemination activities. This last WP is also led by Pildo Labs.

3.3 Deliverables

Deliverable name Date

Demonstration Plan (A1) 30

th July 2012

Demonstration Report (B1) 11

th July 2014

Table 3-1: Formal deliverables submission dates

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

14 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

3.4 Risk Management

Table 3-2: Identified risks contains the list of the risks identified in [1] and information on whether they developed during the project execution.

Risk description Probability Severity Owner Developed

Information collected during the recording campaign is not sufficient to compute fuel savings

Low High WizzAir / Pildo NO

Fuel flow data not available Low Very high WizzAir YES(*)

Lack of human resources, personnel becomes not available during the project

Low Low All NO

Variability in descent/climb paths and speed management depending on aircraft weight, the type of FMS and pilot training.

Medium Medium WizzAir NO

Interaction between traffic following different vertical paths

Medium Medium HungaroControl NO

Under bad weather conditions, pilots might decide to not conduct a CDO

Medium Low HungaroControl NO

In radar vectored CDO it is necessary that pilots have accurate information of DTG.

Medium High HungroControl /

Pildo NO

Lack of coordination with Wien FIR, to guarantee Budapest CCOs and future CDO implementation at Wien.

Low Medium Hungrocontrol /

Pildo NO

Lack of coordination with Bratislaca FIR, to guarantee future CDO implementation at Bratislava.

Low Low Hungrocontrol /

Pildo NO

Lack of human motivation, especially from ATCOs point of view.

Low High HungaroControl /

Pildo NO

Table 3-2: Identified risks

(*) Of all the identified risks only this one has only been one developed, regarding the access to the flight data to perform the efficiency analysis. QAR data was available but not in format suitable for processing. Several unsuccessful attempts to decode the data were made until the consortium was finally able to process the data thanks to the collaboration of WIZZAIR. This issue had a negative impact in the project time line that forced the consortium to request and extension of the dead line twice.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

15 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

4 Execution of Demonstration Exercises

4.1 Exercises Preparation

4.1.1 Overview

HungaroControl completed the final stages of a big ATM system modernization in December 2012, when the new operational room for Budapest ATCC was set up.

The new operational room was inaugurated in Budapest on 27 February 2013, including installation of its cutting edge ATM system, the MATIAS (Magyar Automated and Integrated Air Traffic System) with upgraded software version (Build 9).

The earlier version of the MATIAS software was the first software in the world to be capable of processing in a complex way and displaying to the air traffic controllers the downloaded aircraft parameters (DAPs) from the aircraft on-board computers, (Mode S technology). This technology makes it possible for air traffic controllers to see the same parameters and settings on their own monitors as are seen by pilots on their own dashboards (e.g. data on flight height, speed, direction, ascending, descending).

The main technical enablers for the implementation of the new CDO and CCO procedures, the MergeStrip tool was installed into the new centre, to be used by ATCOs to provide enhanced Distance To Go information to pilots while improving the ATCO’s situational awareness. More detail on the concept behind the tool can be found in next section.

Hence, this tool supports the CDO and CCO techniques, evaluating aircraft position and supplying air traffic controllers with vital information.

As part of the transition process to the new operational room the following main activities were performed:

Training of staff: ATCOs have received training on the use of MergeStrip during the first trimester of the project. Training has included comprehensive lectures on CDO, CCO and terminology so as to familiarise all personnel with the new airspace changes (as a reminder, it is worth to note that implementation of CDO is supported by Hungarian LSSIP objectives);

Definition of phraseology was performed according to updated Safety Case and completed by the end of November 2012. An AIC (Aeronautical Information Circular) was published in January 2013 to inform stakeholders about this new change. Adjacent ACCs were informed about this publication as soon as it got published;

Coordination with Wien ACC and Bratislava ACC has been maintained since KOM. Most contacts with Wien have been related with CCO, while conversations with Bratislava focussed on CDOs. In fact, Wien ACC will start transition towards their new ATM system by March 2013, which may impact a bit the final flight level at which CCOs can end. However, current LoA allows climb up to FL320, which were sufficient for project purposes;

Following inauguration of new ATCC, since 1st

March 2013 CDO and CCO operations are being tested in Budapest TMA.

Although operations are basically in cooperation with WIZZ AIR, since there are no special experimental CDO routes introduced, ATC may offer CDO operation to other operators too.

The AIC contained the necessary information for aircraft operators about the CDO and CCO operations (see Appendix A).

CCO operation is mainly granted within Budapest FIR, and operation until requested flight level is subject to clearances received from adjacent ATC units.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

16 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

4.1.2 MergeStrip concept

The main task of an approach controller is to maintaining sufficient separation between arriving aircraft while establishing them on final course in such a manner that ensures the maximum throughput capacity for landings while maintaining the optimal profile.

There are different methods widely used nowadays for performing this task. In a big number of TMAs, sequencing of arriving aircrafts and its establishment on final course is made by vectoring, since this is the most efficient method regarding spacing accuracy.

However, from the airlines point of view, the shortest possible route that the traffic allows and the minimisation of spacing do not necessarily mean the most efficient method. Reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions is becoming of upmost importance nowadays, therefore the need for performing continuous descent approaches. In a “vectoring scenario”, this can be achieved by providing pilots with DTG information as early as possible.

Generally speaking, the closer the aircraft is to the expected position of its base turn the easier it is for ATCOs to determine DTG value. Unfortunately, the later the DTG information is given the less benefit can be brought. DTG provided from far away is only a rough estimate so its potential to facilitate CDA is rather limited. This is the reason why vectoring is listed in guidance materials only in second place as preferred method for CDA implementation.

One of the possible solutions for pilots to get a 100% accurate picture of what can be expected in the TMA is to design, publish and use an optimized arrival routes. In order to make use of these procedures regarding CDA, the aircraft cannot be vectored off the path. This makes approach controllers work very difficult, if not impossible sometimes. ATCOs can detect sequencing conflicts in a later phase around base turn as mentioned above, so even in a low traffic period with 4-5 arrivals at the same time it is very demanding to apply speed control so that aircraft will turn final following the procedure with the necessary spacing.

Figure 4-1 Approach procedures for LHBP RWY 31L (source: AIP)

Presently, ATCOs at Budapest approach manage the sequencing in a different way. They use the waypoints of the published approach procedures for final approaches at tactical level (e.g. proceed to way point BP438, then BP531 and cleared for ILS approach) to create a quasi-new procedure

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

17 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

comprising waypoints. This way the aircraft’s FMS can compute the optimal profile with the updated routing. However, positions of other aircrafts have to be taken into account by the ATCO, giving the chance of overwriting the FMS plan.

Another solution is the Point Merge concept developed by EUROCONTROL, as defined in Figure 4-2 Point merge system (source: ICAO), which aims to provide optimum profile with the minimum extra mileage flown. With the Point Merge concept the aircraft in the initial approach phase flies on a P-RNAV arc and the approach controller creates spacing by using the static spacing tool (concentric arcs displayed on radar screen) to measure relative spacing and issues direct routing to the merge point in a timely manner. In this way the FMS faces an unambiguous routing (as opposed to the “expect base at BP438”), so optimal parameters of approach can be calculated.

Figure 4-2 Point merge system (source: ICAO)

Fine tuning of relative spacing is done by speed control by comparing aircraft position to the arcs of the spacing tool. However, using this last method involves performing level flights while being at the concentric arcs.

The solution proposed by HungaroControl is a method which can answer for both optimal profile and the sequencing problems.

One of the main advantages of the proposed solution is that it is not based on a “clean laboratory environment” where only one airline, dedicated to this project, can benefit from the enhanced operation. In other words, during the daily routine environment none of the flights preparing for arrival will be excluded from the enhanced operation. Therefore all airlines will benefit from it, something mandatory in order to reach final implementation of CDAs.

The new controller tool developed by HungaroControl is named MergeStrip and can be considered as an extension of the Point Merge concept.

Figure 4-3 Merge Strip concept

The essence of MergeStrip concept is that in an extended environment a dynamic system can be used to create relative spacing instead of a static map element. The advantage of this is that controllers can check the relative spacing on the bottom time line bar any time (see Figure 4-3), and through a settings menu of the tool the necessary spacing can be modified according to the situation.

In the left picture, the spacing between the first two aircraft (flying on the down winds towards the Initial Approach Fixes) is enough, so their route is the shortest possible, the T-bar procedure. The third one coming from southeast was too close to the second one so some delaying manoeuvre was provided by the ATCO (heading ~30º) to create appropriate spacing.

Controllers can track the development of the situation on the MergeStrip tool, and as soon as possible send the aircraft Nr. 3 to the merge point (in this case the Intermediate Fix). Moreover when all the aircraft are routed via the T-bar, with a help of Merge Strip tool the sequence can be fine-tuned by applying speed control.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

18 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

4.2 Exercises Execution

Exercise ID Exercise Title

Actual Exercise execution start date

Actual Exercise execution end date

Actual Exercise

start analysis date

Actual Exercise end analysis date

EXE-01.02-001 CDO implementation

01/03/2013 13/02/2014 01/03/2014 04/06/2014

EXE-01.02-001 CCO implementation

01/03/2013 11/04/2014 01/03/2014 04/06/2014

Table 4-1: Exercises execution/analysis dates

(*) CDO/CCO are still in operation in Budapest airport, the date reported corresponds to the latest data available for analysis.

4.3 Deviations from the planned activities

4.3.1 CDO initiation point

In the project definition CDO were expected to be measured inside Budapest TMA. Instead of that, as data availability permitted that, the analysis has been performed from ToD showing the full benefits CDO operations.

4.3.2 Number of flights

The number of descent and departure operations measured has been extended from the initially planned in [1] as extra data was made available by WIZZAIR.

Planned Measured

CDO 200 474

Non-CDO 200 1264

CCO 100 3639

Non-CCO 100 713

Table 4-2: Planned vs. measured operations

4.3.3 Key performance indicators

The initial KPI set proposed to measure the performance of the exercise has been extended to provide more detailed information on the exercise outcomes. This is explained in detail in section 5.2.

4.3.4 Time deviation in the analysis of the data

Delay in the execution of the project due to technical problems decoding the input data, which did not affect the scope of the demonstrations.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

19 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

5 Exercises Results

5.1 Summary of Exercises Results

This section lists the objectives set in the demonstration plan [1] together with information of the status reached and a justification.

Section 6 contains the detailed report of the two exercises planned.

Exercise ID EXE-01.02-001 & EXE-01.02-002

Demo Objective

CDOs and CCOs flown in BUD

Objective ID OBJ-01.02-1

Success Criterion

Verification of CDO and CCO execution by analysis of flight data

Demo Objective Status

OK

Justification

Reports presented in section 6 prove that CDO and CCO have been successfully implemented in Budapest airport and flown by WIZZAIR and the rest of companies flying to this destination. Section 6 presents the detailed reports of the two exercises including the computation of the KPI defined in section 5.2.1 showing the benefits of CDO and CCO operations.

Exercise ID EXE-01.02-001 & EXE-01.02-002

Demo Objective

Development of supporting ATM tools

Objective ID OBJ-01.02-2

Success Criterion

Use of the tool by ATC personnel and derived information provided to pilots

Demo Objective Status

OK

Justification MergeStrip has been successfully implemented and is part of the operations of Budapest since 1

st of March 2013.

Exercise ID EXE-01.02-001 & EXE-01.02-002

Demo Objective

Transfer REACT-CR outcomes to the project

Objective ID OBJ-01.02-3

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

20 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Success Criterion

Completion of flight trials

Demo Objective Status

OK

Justification Objective of the transfer was to ease the implementation in BUD airport and the completion of the planned flight exercises. This objective is accomplished as already justified for OBJ-01.02-1.

Exercise ID EXE-01.02-001 & EXE-01.02-002

Demo Objective

Coordination with neighbour ACC to maximize efficiency

Objective ID OBJ-01.02-4

Success Criterion

Involvement of LPS SK and Austro Control in the project development

Demo Objective Status

OK

Justification

Involvement of LPS SK in the project development was essential as Budapest TMA is adjacent to Bratislava FIR. Involvement of Austro Control was necessary to ensure CCO for higher flight levels than it is in the LoA.

Support of Bratislava ACC and Vienna ACC was essential to achieve good results in the field of CDO and CCO operations.

Exercise ID EXE-01.02-001 & EXE-01.02-002

Demo Objective

Raise awareness regarding the environmental benefits of the exercise

Objective ID OBJ-01.02-5

Success Criterion

Verification that communication plan has been followed

Demo Objective Status

OK

Justification Section 0 contains a summary of the communication activities carried out up to date to raise awareness on the benefits of the concepts demonstrated in the frame of this project that are aligned to the communication plan.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

21 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

5.2 Choice of metrics and indicators

5.2.1 Key performance indicators

The following KPIs are defined to measure the results of the exercises and are calculated accumulating the data collected for all flights:

For CDO and Non-CDO (Exercise #1) and for CCO and Non-CCO (Exercise #2) operations:

Mean fuel consumption.

Mean fuel consumption per nautical mile.

Mean CO2 emission.

Mean CO2 emission per nautical mile.

Comparing CDO vs. Non-CDO (Exercise #1) and CCO vs. Non-CCO (Exercise #2):

Fuel reduction.

Fuel reduction per nautical mile.

CO2 reduction.

CO2 emission reduction per nautical mile.

The following KPIs are calculated accumulating the results per route:

For CDO and Non-CDO (Exercise #1) and for CCO and Non-CCO (Exercise #2) operations:

o Mean fuel consumption.

o Mean fuel consumption per nautical mile.

o Mean CO2 emission

Comparing CDO vs. Non-CDO (Exercise #1) and CCO vs. Non-CCO (Exercise #2):

o Mean fuel reduction

o Mean CO2 emission reduction

For Exercise #1 the above KPI’s are calculated in two different scenarios:

From ToD to touch down

From ToD to FL2700 (Appendix FAppendix E)

The reason for this differentiation is the horizontal deceleration segment before the FAF observed in almost all CDO flights (see Section 5.2.3.1). By taking all the data from ToD to touchdown, it can be considered that the analysis is being too conservative (at least for the results per NM), as the segment below 2700ft is equivalent for CDO and for Non-CDO flights. By limiting the analysis to the segment between ToD and ALT 2700ft, it is assured that the comparison is being made between a conventional approach and a pure Continuous Descent Operation.

Computed KPIs for Exercise #1 and Exercise #2 are presented in section 6.1 and 6.2 respectively.

An alternative approach to the analysis of CDO data, including performance indicators differentiated for a number of use cased is introduced in Appendix M and recommended as a possible next step in section 8.3.

5.2.2 ATC feedback

Appendix B contains the details of the feedback provided by the ATC personnel participating in the exercises.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

22 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

5.2.3 Pilot feedback

Appendix C contains the details of the feedback provided by the Pilot personnel participating in the exercises.

5.3 Analysis of exercises results, conclusions and recommendations

Please refer to section 8 for a detailed explanation of the results, conclusions and recommendations of the two exercises included in the project.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

23 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

6 Demonstration Exercises reports

6.1 Demonstration Exercise #1 Report

6.1.1 Exercise Scope

Refer to the Demonstration Plan [1] section 5.1 for a detailed description of this exercise plan.

Demonstration Exercise ID and Title EXE-01.02-D-001 : CDO implementation

Leading organization Pildo Labs

Demonstration exercise objectives Get to a pre-operational stage where CDOs can be flown at Budapest airport by WizzAir

High-level description of the Concept of Operations

By making use of an “enhanced sequencing tool”, developed by HungaroControl and called “MergeStrip”, direct-to vectoring towards the Initial Approach Fixes is planned instead of a fixed lateral flight path. ATCOs will provide the pilot with distance-to-go information. Pilots shall be able to plan CDO operation starting at FL300.

Applicable Operational Context Budapest airport Budapest TMA Budapest ACC

Expected results per KPA Environment (Fuel Burn per flight) 50-70 kg per arrival

Number of flight trials

Data for a total of 200 CDO flights and 200 non-CDO flights will be collected. Once the “MergeStrip” tool is deployed, DTG information shall be provided to all arriving flights.

Related projects in the SESAR Programme

10.09.04 CDO and CCO in high density traffic

OFA addressed 02.02.01 CDO

Table 6-1 Summary of the scope for CDO implementation

6.1.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.02-D-001

6.1.2.1 Exercise Preparation

See section 4.1.

6.1.2.2 Exercise execution

Exercise ID Exercise Title

Actual Exercise execution start date

Actual Exercise execution end date

Actual Exercise

start analysis date

Actual Exercise end analysis date

EXE-01.02-001 CDO implementation

01/03/2013 13/02/2014 01/03/2014 04/06/2014

The analysis performed has been divided in two steps:

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

24 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Classification of the operations in two groups: CDO and Non-CDO. The logic driving this classification is explained in detail in Appendix E

Computation of the KPI defined in section 5.2.

The following table summarizes the classification of the data generated during the exercise, using the nominal parameterization of the classification algorithm.

Total descents CDO Non-CDO

1738 474 1264 Table 6-2 Classification between CDO and Non CDO flights

CDO

Non CDO

Figure 6-1 CDO classification of the flights measured in the exercise

6.1.2.3 Deviation from the planned activities

See section 4.3.

Appendix F analyses an horizontal deceleration segment detected in the majority of descents that impact the results obtained. This is the reason why KPI are presented for two scenarios:

From ToD to touch down

From ToD to 2700ft. This scenario removes the effect of the level operation at 2700ft from the computations, showing the full potential of CDO operations.

6.1.3 Exercise Results

6.1.3.1 General Key Performance Indicators

6.1.3.1.1 From ToD to touch down

The next two tables present the performances, per flight, during the REACT-Plus flight trials.

Number of CDO flights

Mean fuel consumption

(kg)

Mean fuel consumption per nautical mile (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

per nautical mile

(kg/NM)

474 194.45 1.73 5.43 Table 6-3 Performance of CDO flights, ToD to touchdown

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

25 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Number of non-CDO

flights

Mean fuel consumption

(kg)

Mean fuel consumption per nautical mile (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

per nautical mile

(kg/NM)

1264 288.85 2.41 7.57 Table 6-4 Performance of non-CDO flights, ToD to touchdown

Table 6-5 shows the KPIs computed with the results depicted in the above tables.

Type

Mean fuel consumptio

n per nautical

mile (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

(kg/NM)

Fuel reduction per nautical mile

(kg/NM)

CO2 reduction per nautical mile

(kg/NM)

CDO 1.73 5.43 0.68 2.14

Non-CDO 2.41 7.57 Table 6-5 Unitary KPIs, ToD to touchdown

Table 6-6 shows the savings per flight computed with the results depicted in the above tables.

Type Mean fuel

consumption (kg)

Mean CO2 emissions

(kg)

Fuel reduction

(kg)

CO2 reduction

(kg)

CDO 194.45 610.57 94.40 296.42

Non-CDO 288.85 906.99 Table 6-6 Total KPIs, ToD to touchdown

6.1.3.1.2 From ToD to 2700ft ALT

The next two tables present the performances, per flight, during the REACT-Plus flight trials.

Number of CDO flights

Mean consumption

(kg)

Mean consumption

(kg/NM)

CO2 emissions

(kg/NM)

417 110.78 1.05 3.29 Table 6-7 Performance of CDO flights, ToD to 2700ft ALT

Number of non-CDO

flights

Mean consumption

(kg)

Mean consumption

(kg/NM)

CO2 emissions

(kg/NM)

2343 213.61 1.90 5.95 Table 6-8 Performance of non-CDO flights, ToD to 2700ft ALT

Next table shows the unitary KPIs computed with the results depicted in the above tables.

Type Mean

consumption (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

(kg/NM)

Fuel reduction (kg/NM)

CO2 reduction (kg/NM)

CDO 1.05 3.29 0.85 2.67

Non-CDO 1.90 5.95 Table 6-9 Unitary KPIs, ToD to 2700ft ALT

Next table shows the savings per flight computed with the results depicted in the above tables.

Type Mean fuel

consumption (kg)

Mean CO2 emissions

(kg)

Fuel reduction

(kg)

CO2 reduction

(kg)

CDO 110.78 347.85 102.83 322.89

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

26 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Non-CDO 213.61 670.74 Table 6-10 Total KPIs, ToD to 2700ft. ALT

6.1.3.2 Per route Key Performance Indicators

This section presents the detail of the analysis done in the previous section for every route computed. The routes that only have CDO or Non CDO flights but not both are not useful to calculate the savings per route but can be used in general calculations.

The results presented in this section are calculated for the scenario from top to the 2700ft. In this scenario the differences between CDO and Non CDO approaches is more visible since the effect of the level operation is not taken into consideration. See Appendix F for details on the 2700ft. level operation.

CDO Non CDO

Origin Num. of flights

% CDO

Fuel consum

ption (kg)

Fuel consumption by nautical

mile (kg/NM)

Fuel consum

ption (kg)

Fuel consumption by nautical

mile (kg/NM)

Fuel reductio

n (kg)

CO2 reductio

n (kg)

Dev. Respect

mean savings

%

EBCI 145 22,07% 128,69 1,11 221,19 1,86 92,50 290,46 4,59%

EDFH 29 27,59% 117,85 1,03 226,21 1,94 108,36 340,26 2,83%

EDLV 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 96,78 1,06 - - -

EDLW 85 20,00% 149,59 1,33 229,64 1,91 80,05 251,36 -5,71%

EFTU 4 25,00% 191,11 1,62 130,48 1,26 -60,63 -190,38 -

128,60%

EGGW 294 28,23% 98,51 0,91 206,32 1,77 107,81 338,51 2,92%

EHEH 131 28,24% 109,85 0,96 223,41 1,86 113,56 356,57 -0,73%

EHWO 2 0,00% 0,00 0,00 223,41 2,04 - - -

EPGD 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 259,50 2,24 - - -

EPKT 7 14,29% 46,42 0,66 172,13 1,93 125,71 394,72 -22,61%

EPWA 48 20,83% 110,61 1,05 221,01 2,08 110,40 346,66 1,54%

ESGP 36 27,78% 114,75 1,04 212,01 1,80 97,27 305,41 -0,44%

ESKN 32 28,13% 117,55 1,08 182,01 1,64 64,47 202,43 -10,86%

ESMS 56 35,71% 87,70 0,87 206,08 1,80 118,38 371,70 6,04%

EVRA 1 100,00% 32,19 0,35 0,00 0,00 - - -

LBBG 6 50,00% 115,03 1,11 245,62 2,27 130,59 410,05 -13,30%

LBSF 1 100,00% 67,59 1,22 0,00 0,00 - - -

LBWN 5 60,00% 68,32 0,75 107,33 1,12 39,01 122,49 -3,05%

LCLK 42 28,57% 119,67 1,27 194,03 1,91 74,36 233,50 -15,36%

LEBL 44 40,91% 115,36 1,05 213,27 1,78 97,91 307,45 -7,41%

LEMD 46 30,43% 152,80 1,28 223,89 1,86 71,09 223,23 -14,56%

LEMG 8 25,00% 142,61 1,27 261,22 2,05 118,61 372,42 4,30%

LEPA 12 16,67% 241,05 1,92 228,83 1,87 -12,22 -38,36 -36,67%

LGIR 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 299,99 2,54 - - -

LGKR 7 28,57% 199,62 2,27 288,97 2,51 89,34 280,53 -15,65%

LGRP 6 16,67% 113,04 1,35 306,08 2,64 193,04 606,15 15,86%

LGTS 22 9,09% 212,34 2,22 250,74 2,34 38,40 120,56 -20,93%

LGZA 5 20,00% 73,58 0,94 236,86 2,53 163,27 512,68 24,29%

LHBP 3 0,00% 0,00 0,00 428,75 6,35 - - -

LHPA 1 100,00% 173,46 2,97 0,00 0,00 - - -

LIBD 29 13,79% 74,06 0,75 190,03 1,66 115,97 364,13 16,04%

LICC 14 7,14% 54,04 0,53 241,32 2,11 187,28 588,06 27,46%

LIMC 125 39,20% 127,17 1,09 213,22 1,80 86,05 270,21 -3,19%

LIRF 84 23,81% 89,53 0,87 208,01 1,80 118,48 372,02 6,11%

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

27 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

LIRN 34 8,82% 86,41 0,94 239,88 2,08 153,47 481,90 14,62%

LKPR 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 120,50 1,38 - - -

LLBG 89 26,97% 109,69 1,20 194,28 1,90 84,59 265,61 2,41%

LMML 22 22,73% 166,40 1,37 216,56 1,91 50,16 157,49 -18,20%

LOWW 2 0,00% 0,00 0,00 211,78 2,90 - - -

LQTZ 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 166,18 2,17 - - -

LRCL 3 33,33% 111,96 1,32 149,79 1,71 37,84 118,80 -6,69%

LROP 5 20,00% 166,70 1,85 209,58 2,21 42,89 134,66 -30,93%

LRTM 26 42,31% 76,32 1,01 222,24 2,58 145,92 458,18 11,39%

LSGG 17 17,65% 71,76 0,76 279,02 2,18 207,25 650,77 21,34%

LTAI 5 20,00% 144,73 1,29 119,61 1,29 -25,12 -78,88 -18,32%

LTFJ 41 36,59% 101,74 1,11 222,88 2,14 121,15 380,40 1,97%

LWSK 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 221,90 1,87 - - -

LYBE 3 33,33% 209,29 2,65 208,27 3,11 -1,02 -3,22 -17,82%

LZIB 3 33,33% 41,54 0,91 301,78 6,45 260,24 817,15 34,97%

OMDW 2 50,00% 110,70 1,35 89,55 0,98 -21,15 -66,40 -29,46%

UBBB 24 37,50% 87,87 0,98 172,50 1,80 84,63 265,75 -9,26%

UKKK 97 25,77% 82,25 0,82 202,81 1,87 120,56 378,57 4,56%

UKLL 1 0,00% 0,00 0,00 68,48 1,04 - - -

UUWW 28 28,57% 99,87 1,03 169,91 1,63 70,03 219,90 -12,72% Table 6-11 Results per route in ToD to touch down scenario

Note that in some cases negative values can be observed for Fuel and CO2 reduction KPIs, indicating a negative impact of the CDO on them. This issues are associated with routes with very few computed flight and have not enough data to be statistically significant. Section 6.1.3.3.2 contains a similar analysis only accounting routes with a significant amount of flights reported.

6.1.3.3 Summary of results

6.1.3.3.1 General Key Performance Indicators

The following table presents the mean percentile savings per flight.

ToD to touchdown (%)

ToD to 2700ft ALT (%)

32.68 48.14 Table 6-12 Total percentile savings

The implementation of CDOs at Budapest reduces the fuel burnt during the approach phase around 48% when only ToD to 2700ft segment is considered.

6.1.3.3.2 Per Route Key Performance Indicators

Next table shows the results for the routes with a statistically significant number of CDO and Non CDO flights in the ToD to 2700ft scenario.

Origin Num. of flights % CDO Fuel Savings

(%)

EBCI 145 22.07 41.82

EDLW 85 20.00 34.86

EGGW 294 28.23 52.23

EHEH 131 28.24 50.83

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

28 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

ESMS 56 35.71 57.74

LIMC 125 39.20 40.36

LIRF 84 23.81 56.96

LLBG 50 26.97 43.54

UKKK 97 25.77 59.44

Table 6-13 Savings per route

6.1.4 Conclusions and recommendations

See general conclusions and recommendations in section 8.Next Steps.

6.2 Demonstration Exercise #2 Report

6.2.1 Exercise Scope

Refer to the Demonstration Plan [1] section 5.2 for a detailed description of this exercise.

Demonstration Exercise ID and Title EXE-01.02-D-002 : CCO implementation

Leading organization Pildo Labs

Demonstration exercise objectives Get to a pre-operational stage where CCOs can be flown at Budapest airport by WizzAir

High-level description of the Concept of Operations

Departing aircraft from Budapest airport will be provided with clearances to perform CCO up to FL 300. This involves coordination with neighbour ACC’s for this and future operations that shall be implemented in Wien and Bratislava.

Applicable Operational Context Budapest airport Budapest TMA Budapest ACC

Expected results per KPA Environment (Fuel Burn per flight) 20-50 kg per departure

Number of flight trials Data for a total of 100 CCO flights and 100 non-CCO flights will be collected.

Related projects in the SESAR Programme

10.09.04 CDO and CCO in high density traffic

OFA addressed 02.02.03 CCO

Table 6-14 Summary of the scope for CCO implementation

6.2.2 Conduct of Demonstration Exercise EXE-01.02-002-NNN

6.2.2.1 Exercise Preparation

See section 4.1.

6.2.2.2 Exercise execution

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

29 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Exercise ID Exercise Title

Actual Exercise execution start date

Actual Exercise execution end date

Actual Exercise

start analysis date

Actual Exercise end analysis date

EXE-01.02-001 CCO implementation

01/03/2013 11/04/2014 01/03/2014 04/06/2014

The analysis performed has been divided in two steps:

Classification of the operations in two groups: CCO and Non-CCO. The logic driving this classification is explained in detail in Appendix F.

Computation of the KPI defined in section 5.2.

The following table summarizes the classification of the data generated during the exercise, using the nominal parameterization of the classification algorithm.

Total ascents CCO Non-CCO

4352 3639 713 Table 6-15 Classification between CCO and Non CCO flights

CCO

Non CCO

Figure 6-2 CCO classification of the flights measured in the exercise

6.2.2.3 Deviation from the planned activities

See section 4.3.

6.2.3 Exercise Results

6.2.3.1 General Key Performance Indicators

The next two tables present the performances, per flight, during the REACT-Plus flight trials.

Number of CCO flights

Mean fuel consumption

(kg)

Mean fuel consumption per nautical mile (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

per nautical mile

(kg/NM)

3639 2107.20 14.77 46.38 Table 6-16 Performance of CCO flights

Number of non-CCO

flights

Mean fuel consumption

(kg)

Mean fuel consumption per nautical mile (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

per nautical mile

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

30 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

(kg/NM)

713 2031.66 14.27 44.79 Table 6-17 Performance of non-CCO flights

Next table shows the unitary KPIs computed with the results depicted in the above tables.

Type Mean

consumption (kg/NM)

Mean CO2 emissions

(kg/NM)

Fuel reduction (kg/NM)

CO2 reduction (kg/NM)

CDO 14.77 46.38 -0.5 -1.57

Non-CDO 14.27 44.79 Table 6-18 Unitary KPIs

Next table shows the total KPIs computed with the results depicted in the above tables.

Type Mean fuel

consumption (kg)

Mean CO2 emissions

(kg)

Fuel reduction per

climb (kg)

CO2 reduction per

climb (kg)

CCO 2107.20 6616.61 -75.54 -237.20

Non-CCO 2031.66 6379.41 Table 6-19 Total KPIs

6.2.3.2 Per route Key Performance Indicators

In this section we will repeat the analysis done in the previous section for every route. The routes that only have CCO or Non CCO flights but not both are useful to calculate the savings per route but can be analysed with the median.

CCO Non CCO

Origin Num. of flights

% CCO

Fuel consum

ption (kg)

Fuel consumption by nautical

mile (kg/NM)

Fuel consum

ption (kg)

Fuel consumption by nautical

mile (kg/NM)

Fuel reductio

n (kg)

CO2 reductio

n (kg)

Dev. Respect

mean savings

%

CCCC 1 100,00% 1257,70 19,74 0,00 0,00 - - -

EBCI 359 83,57% 2089,03 15,00 2116,28 14,01 27,25 85,56 5,01%

EDFH 76 73,68% 2056,20 14,99 2143,09 14,03 86,89 272,82 7,77%

EDLW 213 73,71% 2115,59 14,74 2191,21 13,84 75,62 237,43 7,17%

EFTU 14 92,86% 2358,60 13,86 296,47 31,68 -2062,13 -6475,08 -691,84%

EGGW 555 83,42% 2181,40 15,02 2210,20 13,65 28,79 90,41 5,02%

EHEH 314 84,08% 2139,18 14,89 2125,86 14,27 -13,33 -41,85 3,09%

EHWO 6 100,00% 1649,37 15,29 0,00 0,00 - - -

EPKT 9 77,78% 1715,19 17,10 1684,70 17,95 -30,48 -95,72 1,91%

EPWA 127 94,49% 1916,64 15,74 1470,48 15,49 -446,16 -1400,94 -26,62%

EPWR 2 100,00% 1759,77 18,38 0,00 0,00 - - -

ESGP 78 91,03% 2155,10 15,01 2179,71 14,50 24,61 77,28 4,85%

ESKN 82 89,02% 2124,25 14,62 2210,03 13,36 85,78 269,35 7,60%

ESMS 144 77,78% 2105,89 14,44 2178,97 13,47 73,08 229,47 7,07%

LBBG 19 100,00% 2078,54 14,21 0,00 0,00 - - -

LBSF 3 100,00% 1705,47 15,23 0,00 0,00 - - -

LBWN 13 92,31% 2091,78 14,29 2218,95 11,92 127,18 399,34 9,45%

LCLK 90 87,78% 2203,02 13,98 2284,41 13,40 81,39 255,55 7,28%

LEBL 118 79,66% 2126,00 15,20 2192,24 13,55 66,24 208,01 6,74%

LEMD 121 76,86% 2212,60 15,11 2164,48 14,03 -48,13 -151,12 1,49%

LEMG 25 76,00% 2284,38 15,51 2374,50 14,79 90,12 282,99 7,51%

LEPA 24 62,50% 2270,73 14,90 2349,11 14,00 78,38 246,13 7,05%

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

31 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

LGAV 2 100,00% 1954,64 14,32 0,00 0,00 - - -

LGIR 5 40,00% 2243,08 15,51 2409,95 13,11 166,87 523,96 10,64%

LGKR 16 75,00% 2240,57 13,78 2415,69 14,09 175,12 549,89 10,97%

LGRP 9 77,78% 2169,41 13,79 2141,79 12,72 -27,62 -86,73 2,43%

LGTS 49 93,88% 2154,80 14,00 2216,93 12,38 62,14 195,11 6,52%

LGZA 9 100,00% 2395,13 14,92 0,00 0,00 - - -

LHBP 48 14,58% 1406,49 17,19 58,90 22,47 -1347,59 -4231,42 -2284,27%

LHPA 12 91,67% 1092,85 22,59 1096,93 21,00 4,09 12,83 4,09%

LIBD 69 78,26% 2028,68 15,01 2099,92 13,29 71,25 223,72 7,11%

LICC 38 81,58% 2208,37 15,12 2249,97 14,55 41,60 130,61 5,57%

LIMC 305 82,95% 2042,51 15,05 2069,04 13,65 26,53 83,30 5,00%

LIRA 3 33,33% 1703,81 16,47 2250,65 13,04 546,84 1717,07 28,01%

LIRF 190 82,63% 2049,57 14,96 2146,24 13,92 96,67 303,53 8,22%

LIRN 87 83,91% 2070,53 14,92 2156,11 14,05 85,58 268,72 7,69%

LKPR 1 100,00% 1631,45 17,42 0,00 0,00 - - -

LLBG 241 90,04% 2193,98 14,06 2333,02 13,09 139,04 436,58 9,68%

LMML 66 83,33% 2140,44 14,58 2256,31 14,00 115,87 363,82 8,85%

LRCL 6 100,00% 1482,64 18,65 0,00 0,00 - - -

LROP 1 100,00% 2123,20 17,37 0,00 0,00 - - -

LRTM 62 98,39% 1725,80 17,57 1593,75 17,75 -132,05 -414,62 -4,57%

LSGG 33 63,64% 2090,94 14,42 2192,01 13,72 101,07 317,37 8,33%

LTAI 14 100,00% 2283,70 13,72 0,00 0,00 - - -

LTFJ 123 81,30% 2040,19 13,91 2020,86 12,77 -19,33 -60,70 2,76%

OMDW 81 90,12% 2157,15 13,81 2196,01 12,66 38,86 122,02 5,49%

UBBB 76 94,74% 2286,30 13,62 2067,25 12,16 -219,05 -687,82 -6,88%

UKKK 229 90,83% 2152,06 14,05 2081,21 12,86 -70,85 -222,47 0,31%

UKLL 2 100,00% 1843,53 17,21 0,00 0,00 - - -

UUWW 174 94,25% 2035,41 13,82 2105,10 12,73 69,69 218,83 7,03% Table 6-20 Results per route

Note that in some routes the reduction measured is negative. This is due to the fact that the measured fuel consumption for Non-CCO in that route is smaller than fuel consumption in CCO. In most of the cases this is because the number of flights in this route is not high enough to have statistical meaning.

6.2.3.3 Summary of results

In order to have comparable results between AIRE 2 projects, the savings per flight are, in this chapter, expressed in percentage of fuel per flight. Concretely, it has been computed the percentage of fuel saved during CCO approaches against the fuel consumed during Non-CCO approaches.

During the exercise almost all climb operations achieve or nearly achieve CCO and no significant benefits can be demonstrated as the difference between what is considered to be a CCO and what is a Non CCO is minimum. Due to this, the measured performance difference between CCO and Non-CCO is nearly zero and even results in negative reduction (increase) of fuel consumption in some routes.

The following factors are considered to contribute to this high CCO rate:

MergeStrip use reduces the number of interferences between descent and climb operations.

Traffic in Budapest dropped due to Malév bankruptcy allowing more CCOs.

Good coordination of climb operations with neighbour control centres.

6.2.3.3.1 General Key Performance Indicators

The following table presents the mean percentile savings per flight.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

32 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Ground to en route altitude (%)

-3.71 Table 6-21 Total percentile savings

Hence, it can be concluded that the implementation of CCOs at Budapest does not reduce the fuel burnt during the ascend phase. The similarity of the CCOs and non-CCOs gives as result a savings around 0%. Depending on the amount of data used this value oscillates between the -4% and the 4%.

6.2.3.3.2 Per Route Key Performance Indicators

Next table shows the results for the routes with a statistically significant number of CCO and Non CCO flights.

Origin Num. of flights % CCO Fuel Savings

(%)

EBCI 359 83,57 1.29

EDLW 213 73.71 1.29

EGGW 555 83.42 1.30

EHEH 314 84.84 -0.63

LIMC 305 82.98 1.28

LLBG 241 90.04 5.95

UKKK 229 90.83 -3.41

Table 6-22 Savings per route

Note that in some routes the reduction measured is negative. This is a consequence on the similarity of the altitude profile of CCOs and Non CCOs flights as explained at the beginning of this section.

6.2.4 Conclusions and recommendations

See general conclusions and recommendations in section 8.Next Steps

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

33 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

7 Summary of the Communication Activities

Following is the list of communication activities carried out in the frame of the project:

Project’s Press Release #1

Distributed among a large audience last 28th June 2013. All project managers from AIRE 3 activities

were included in the distribution list. Other organisations to whom the document was distributed include:

Airlines: Vueling, Air Europa, Czech Airlines, Turkish Airlines

ANSPs: Austrocontrol (Austria), LPS (Slovak Republic), LFV (Sweden), Bulatsa (Bulgaria), Romatsa (Romania), ENAV (Italy), Eurocontrol, EANS (Estonia), DHMI (Turkey), HCAA (Greece).

Industry partners: Navya Solutions, Thales, Aeroports de Catalunya

A copy of the Press Release is included in Appendix I of this report.

SESAR JU News section Article

Article prepared by SESAR JU, based on the Project’s Press Release #1 and the information contained in [1], and reviewed by the REACT-Plus consortium previous to its publication. The article describes and presents:

The REACT-Plus project, including objectives, partners and methodology for CDO/CCO implementation;

The Merge Strip tool developed by HungaroControl, as a main enabler for the CDO/CCO implementation.

The link to SESAR JU web’s article was also included in the e-mail used to distribute REACT-Plus Press Release #1.

A copy of the article is included in Appendix J of this report.

Budapest’s airport weekly news article

Although the article was prepared by Budapest airport and does not mention SESAR JU, Pildo nor Wizz Air, it emphasizes the work carried out by HungaroControl and the environmental benefits derived from CDO/CCO implementation.

A copy of the article is included in Appendix K of this report.

HungaroControl’s monthly HC radar article

This article was prepared by HungaroControl’s experts and contrary to the Budapest Airport’s article the Pildo Labs and WizzAir are named as a consortium partners working together on a SESAR project for a greener environment.

A copy of the article is included in Appendix L of this report.

First Combined ICAO EUR Performance Based Navigation Task Force and Eurocontrol RAISG meeting

Pildo Labs prepared and presented in Paris (France) 11-13 September a presentation including:

ICAO Guidance Material

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

34 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Practical Examples

o REACT-CR project, including objectives, results and lessons learnt.

o REACT-Plus project, including an overview and the MergeStrip created by HungaroControl.

European Air Navigation Planning Group ICAO Meeting – CDOs AIRE Presentation

Pildo Labs provided another presentation during the meeting held in Paris (France) 16th October

2013.

SESAR Demonstration Activities internal workshop

Pildo Labs presented the project in SESAR Demonstration Activities internal workshop held in Lisbon (Portugal) 28 and 29 November 2013.

HungaroControl Key Customers Meeting and Workshop

A Key Customers Meeting and Workshop was held at HungaroControl on 20-21st of November 2013.

Four airlines WIZZ AIR, RYANAIR, LUFTHANSA and TURKISH AIRLINES representing more than 70% of the traffic operating to and from Budapest Liszt Ferenc International were represented at the Workshop, where one of the working groups was task to review the Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), and Continuous Climb Departure (CCD) to LHBP.

Participating pilots has expressed their appreciation for the effort made by ATCOs to ensure the CDO to Budapest, and in order to further improve the air traffic controller’s job they made some useful statement:

Significant fuel savings under FL 280

Level off at higher or lower levels

Fast and accurate information is required (xy NM to touchdown)

Speed management is an important issue regarding fuel efficiency

Pilots prefer to descend with idle thrust

If traffic allows, ATCOs should let the pilots manage their speed as long as possible

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

35 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

8 Next Steps

8.1 Project outcomes

The following outcomes of the project activities have been identified:

Outcome 1: Since 1st of March 2013 the CDO/CCO operation is available for all airlines operating to and from Budapest Liszt Ferenc International airport. Since that time almost 20 000 arriving aircraft, which represents the 30% of the 60 000 arrivals has enjoyed the advantage of CDO already from the Top of Descent and almost every departing aircraft was allowed to climb continuously to the requested level.

Outcome 2: MergeStrip tool has been developed and deployed in the new control centre at HUNGAROCONTROL premises and is successfully being used by ATCOs to support them during CDO operations.

Outcome 3: CDO/CCO benefits in Budapest airport are open to all companies flying there and a very positive feedback has been received from them.

8.2 Conclusions

The main conclusions of the CDO and CCO exercises carried out in the frame of the project are:

Conclusion 1: CDO operations provided an average 48% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions compared to Non CDO operations, when only ToD to 2700ft. segment was considered. In some routes this reduction was beyond 50%. The reduction have been calculated considering the operation starts at ToD instead of the initially proposed TMA analysis.

Conclusion 2: During the exercise almost all climb operations achieve or nearly achieve CCO and no significant benefits can be demonstrated as the difference between what is considered to be a CCO and what is a Non CCO is minimum. Due to this, the measured performance difference between CCO and Non-CCO is nearly zero.

Conclusion 3: Questionnaires to Pilots and ATCOs show an overall acceptance of the concept implementation. No safety issues detected nor increase on the work load was detected by the pilots. Overall feedback is positive.

8.3 Recommendations

Based on the conclusions presented in previous chapter and the information acquainted during the project activities, the consortium would like to make the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: CDO implementation should be encouraged from the highest level (including outside TMA) in other mid-sized airports throughout Europe to take advantage of the benefits identified.

Recommendation 2: Complement current study with a noise reduction estimation using a noise propagation model and the data obtained as an input. The objective is to assess how CDO/CCO affect the noise impact of airport operations.

Recommendation 3: Extended analysis of the data as proposed in Appendix M, to gain fine grained insight on the performance benefits of CDO implementation in concrete use cases.

Recommendation 4: Investigate the positive effects (if any) that the use of MergeStrip has in the facilitation of CDO. See Appendix G for a preliminary analysis of the influence of MergeStrip on CDO operations.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

36 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

9 Reference documents

The following documents are referenced from this document:

[1] REACT-Plus Demonstration Plan, 01.00.00 - 28/09/2012

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

37 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix A AIC A 002/2013

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

38 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix B ATCO questionnaires results

In order to assess the commitment of ATCOs to the CDO and CCO and also to collect opinions about the MergeStrip an ATCO questionnaire has been developed by HungaroControl expert team in autumn 2013.

A total 24 (60%) of approach ATCOs has replied to the questions which are considered as a good response rate.

The ATCOs were questioned about the followings:

1.) Do you agree that early sequencing (outside TMA) is more useful than sequencing at the later stage (inside TMA)?

20 (83%) agree

4 (17%) disagree

2.) Do you agree that level flight at low altitude is much more in efficient than at higher levels?

20 (83%) agree

4 (17%) disagree

3.) Do you agree that pilot should be informed about the expected track miles as soon as possible?

23 (96%) agree

1 (4%) disagree

4.) Do you agree that pilots are favour of further shortening of the previously communicated routing closely to the base turn?

10 (42%) agree

14(58%) disagree

5.) Based on your professional experience can you take into account to the most possible extend the aircraft characteristics and the wind at the phase of final approach?

18 (75%) agree

6 (25%) disagree

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

39 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

6.) Do you agree with the following statement: even if the most optimum descent profile cannot be granted to all arriving aircraft ATCOs should do their best to reduce the flying distance during approach phase?

23 (96%) agree

1 (4%) disagree

7.) Do you agree that the MergeStrip enables to organize the arriving traffic in an efficient manner?

12 (50%) agree

2 (50%) disagree

8.) Do you agree that the use of MergeStrip reduces the number of necessary measurements on the radar screen for the Executive controller?

8 (33%) agree

16 (67%) disagree

9.) Do you agree that the vertical positioning information provided by MergeStrip is reliable and useful when planning the sequence for arriving traffic?

19 (79%) agree

5 (21%) disagree

10.) Do you agree that the sequence distance information provided by MergeStrip is reliable and useful when making and maintaining the sequence on the final between arriving aircrafts?

11 (46%) agree

13 (54%) disagree

11.) Do you consider that the MergeStrip is a tool which mostly should be used outside TMA?

8 (33%) agree

16 (67%) disagree

12.) Do you consider that the MergeStrip is a tool which mostly should be used inside TMA?

9 (38%) agree

15 (63%) disagree

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

40 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

13.) Do you consider that the MergeStrip software should be further developed or fine-tuned in order to improve its effectiveness?

14 (58%) agree

10 (42%) disagree

14.) Do you agree that pilots in many cases for whatever reason does not use to the most possible extend the possibilities offered by ATCOs?

11 (46%) agree

13 (54%) disagree

15.) Do you agree that an active planner controller involvement is necessary for the CDO?

5 (21%) agree

19 (79%) disagree

16.) Do you experience debatable opinions about the MergeStrip?

16 (67%) agree

8 (33%) disagree

17.) Do you agree that the MergeStrip could be more useful if it could process FPL and MODE-S information too?

9 (38%) agree

15 (63%) disagree

18.) Do you consider that MergeStrip is an advanced in-house developed tool?

23 (96%) agree

1 (4%) disagree

The responses showed that the APP controllers are committed to provide CDO to the arriving aircrafts and they are totally aware of the negative impact of a stepped descent.

They also agreed that the sequencing should start outside the TMA.

At the same time the importance of the MergeStrip was judged differently and half of the responding controllers announced that they can ensure CDO without using MergeStrip.

This can be explained with the fact that since the bankruptcy of MALEV the overall traffic at Budapest Liszt Ferenc International airport has been dropped by 20% and the APP controllers can organize the arrival sequence with tools (speed vector, radar or flight plan separation tool) available in MATIAS system.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

41 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix C Pilot questionnaires results

The questions made to the pilots (8 pilots answered the questionnaire) are the followings:

1) Have you noticed any significant changes in the way you operate your aircraft either on approach or climb out since the starting of the trial?

Yes 6 75%

No 2 25%

2) Can you please explain what the changes are?

The ones who answered affirmatively the previous question said that most of the time they really receive CDOs.

3) Have these changes increased or decreased your work load?

No change 4 50%

Decreased 4 50%

4) Can you explain why the changes have increased/decreased your work load?

The ones who answered that the work load decreased because their descent profile is more predictible, constant, so doesn’t need continuous recalculation.

5) Have you always been able to comply with ATC instructions regarding CDO/CCO in Budapest?

Yes 8 100%

No 0 0%

6) If you have not always been able to comply with ATC instructions regarding CDO/CCO, can you explain why?

N/A

7) If you have not always been able to comply with ATC instructions regarding CDO/CCO, has this increased your work load when it happened?

N/A

8) Have you experienced any safety issues?

Yes 0 0%

No 8 100%

9) If you have experience safety issues, can you explain them?

N/A

10) If you have experience safety issues, has this increased your workload?

N/A

11) How satisfied are you with the CDO/CCO that has been adopted at Budapest?

Very Satisfied 3 37.5%

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

42 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Satisfied 4 50%

Not satisfied 1 12.5%

12) Have you any comments (including suggested improvements) regarding CDO/CCO in Budapest?

Most of the comments are related to speed control. These are the comments:

"ATC should be able to handle separations less that 20 nm on final more effectively. ATC units such as ACC and APP should also have better communication and coordination w/ each other to avoid situations when approaching AC are granted high speed and then cut back to minimum clean.

Other than that great job at every level."

--

Directing airplanes to the same waypoint and than giving them speed restraints from very early on just to ensure separation in reference to one point (like BP538) defeats the whole continuous descend purpose. The optimum descend profile depends on speed and as soon as the optimum descend speed have to be modified the whole exercise loses its point. Why not direct airplanes to different points and ensure separation that way? Isnt that the purpose of the RNAV arrivals (multiple points over a winding track)?

--

If approach control could inform higher/earlier sectors about possible speed reduction later on approach, it would help to determine the top of descent more accurately so not using the speedbrakes unnecessarily.

--

From the North, arriving from Bratislava FIR, and in case runway 13 still we cannot get CDA. However I guess it's due to the Slovakian airspace structure.

--

sometimes we missed the speed control optimum sequencing of the airplanes on arrivel

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

43 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix D Input data

The data used to generate the results was extracted from the aircraft’s DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder) by WizzAir personnel. It was then formatted into a CSV format specifically defined for this project. An example of file header is depicted in the following table:

Parameter Description

FLIGHT_NO Flight Number

From Origin

To Destination

A/C_REG A/C Register

Date Date (DD/MM/YY)

S

cc

s_1

TIME Time (HH:MM:SS)

groundSpeed Ground Speed

machNum

tAT

flightPhase

fuelFlowEng1Fine Fuel Flow Engine 1

fuelFlowEng2Fine Fuel Flow Engine 2

n1Eng1

computedAirspeed Airspeed

radioHeight1 Radio Height

E1N2

E1EGT

PitchAttitude Pitch Attitude

RollAtittude Roll Attitude

VerticalSpd Vertical Speed

gearSelDown Gear Down

ApLatModes Approach Lat. Mode

ApLongModes Approach Long. Mode

ApOpDesMode

AthrActive Auto Thrust Active

E2N1

E2N2

E2EGT

SpdBrkAngle Speed Break Angle

autoLandWarn Auto Landing Warning

eventMarker Event Marker

Weight Weight

Altitude Altitude

Fuel Fuel (kg)

MagHeading Magnetic Heading

FlapLeverPosition Flap Lever Position

LongitudeHiRes Longitude (º)

LatitudeHiRes Altitude (º) Table 9-1: Input data

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

44 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix E CDO definition and classification

The pre-analysis phase intends to look for general trends in the data allowing characterisation of CDO against non-CDO flights.

In past AIRE projects, we use a screening methodology to distinguish between CDO and non-CDO flights. In this project we made a program that distinguishes automatically CDO from non-CDO flights based in a parameterized criterion. Depending on the parameters, the CDO definition can be more or less restrictive, impacting on the final results presented.

Figure 9-1 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground for AC: HA-LPL CDO flights

Figure 9-2 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground for AC: HA-LPL Non CDO flights

Eurocontrol proposes the following definition of a CDO operation:

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

45 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

“A CDO is an aircraft operating technique in which an arriving aircraft descends from an optimal position with minimum thrust and avoids level flight to the extent permitted by the safe operation of the aircraft and compliance with published procedures and ATC instructions.”

Based on this definition, the project has used the following algorithm to decide whether an approach is a CDO or a Non-CDO.

The algorithm is based in two input variables:

Altitude: barometric height evolution over time.

Throttle: engine use percentage over time. The thrust analysis of this project is based on the E1N1 value (Engine 1 Low Pressure turbine). This parameter was analysed to check how the thrust was used during descent. The behaviour during the descend of the second engine is almost symetric so it is only taken into account in the fuel consumption not on the CDO/Non CDO analysis.

A level flight at 2700ft altitude has been observed for the vast majority of flights, due to flight safety considerations and FMS capabilities. The algorithm uses this flight level to determine the end of the data to be analysed (the algorithm does not include this flight level on the logic to decide if the approach is a CDO). See Appendix H.

A descend operation requires in some cases a reduction on the speed of the aircraft. In A320 aircrafts the optimal way to reduce the speed on A320 aircraft is to do it in horizontal flight, instead of using speed brakes. In some cases this results in sustained flight levels that could lead to consider the descent as non-CDO, but an analysis on the throttle of the descend reveals that the operation is in fact a CDO as no throttle is being used.

This study considers these kinds of operations as CDO regardless of the flight level and distinguishes between CDO and Non-CDO operations based on the throttle use. The altitude is used to determine the start of the descent and the end of the descent (2700ft).

Following is an example of a descent where several peaks on the E1N1 value are detected and reflected in the altitude evolution. Consequently, this flight was classified as Non CDO.

Figure 9-3 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground Non CDO

FMS Altitude Step

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

46 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Figure 9-4 - Throttle vs Time to touch ground Non CDO

On the other hand, next figures show an example of a descent that can be considered a CDO, with very smooth E1N1 (%) evolution along the descent path, until 2700ft level is reached.

Figure 9-5 - Altitude vs Time to touch ground CDO

FMS Altitude Step

FMS Altitude Step

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

47 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Figure 9-6 Throttle vs Time to touch ground CDO

The following parameters have been defined to implement the proposed algorithm:

Parameter Definition Nominal value used in the

study

Minimum altitude gap

The descent is considered to start when the gap in the altitude evolution in 10 seconds during last 30 minutes of the flight is bigger

than this parameter.

200ft

Maximum throttle

differential maximum

The descent is not considered a CDO if the throttle differential exceeds this parameter.

The differential is smoothed by controlling the time differential (separation between evaluated

samples).

Maximum throttle differential is 2

Time differential used is 3

FMS Altitude Step

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

48 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Figure 9-7 Top plot shows Altitude during time. Bottom plot shows in blue the throttle and in red the

differential of the throttle.

In this case we have a Non-CDO because in the differential throttle we have values bigger than 2. The time differential works as a low-band filter, as bigger is the value; less quick changes will be seen in the differential.

In orange the limits marked by the maximum differential value

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

49 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Figure 9-8 Top plot shows Altitude during time. Bottom plot shows in blue the throttle and in red the

differential of the throttle.

In this case we have a CDO because in the differential throttle we do not have values bigger than 2. The time differential works as a low-band filter, as bigger is the value; less quick changes will be seen in the differential.

In orange the limits marked by the maximum differential value

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

50 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix F CCO definition and classification

The pre-analysis phase intends to look for general trends in the data allowing characterisation of CCO against non-CCO flights.

The method followed to distinguish between CCOs and non-CCOs is based in the shape of the altitude profile of the ascent.

The ICAO definition says:

The optimum CCO is flown as a continuously climbing flight path with a minimum of level flight segments and engine thrust changes and, as far as the maximum procedure speeds allow, in a low drag configuration. After departure aircraft speed and configuration changes have to take place, including the retraction of flaps and landing gear. This configuration process should be managed with care in order to minimize the risk of unnecessary thrust variations and should conform to the standard procedures for configuring the aircraft for departure as detailed in the aircraft operating manual. If available, and whenever possible, an unrestricted vertical path should be used.

Given this definition we look at the altitude profile during the ascent in order to detect flight levels. If any level is detected the flight is classified as non-CCO. This inspection is done until the flight gets a stable level in the first 30 minutes of flight.

The method to detect the flight steps is very similar to the method used in CDOs classification. The algorithm derivate the altitude vs time, as result we get the gradient of the altitude curve. If we detect that the gradient is zero more than one time (one time is allowed because is when the plane achieves the top level) we classified it as non-CDO.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

51 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix G Preliminary analysis of MergeStrip influence in top of descend altitude

In the figure below it is represented the mean altitude of the top of descend for CDOs and Non CDOs. In blue appears the date where MergeStrip comes into play. There is no clear difference with the mean top of descend altitude along the timeframe.

Figure 9-9 Mean top of descend altitude

Figure 9-10 Mean distance of approach

The percentage of CDO achieved increased throughout the timeframe of the exercise. The figure below shows this evolution in month basis. The trend is to increase that percentage.

32000

32500

33000

33500

34000

34500

35000

Mean top of descendCDO

Mean top of descendNot CDO

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Mean distance CDO

Mean distance NotCDO

MergeStrip

MergeStrip

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

52 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Figure 9-11- Evolution of percentage of CDO flights

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

40,00%

%CDO

%CDO

MergeStrip start

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

53 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix H Horizontal deceleration segment before FAF

The inner logic of all Airbus A320s FMSs creates a horizontal deceleration segment just before the FAF waypoint. With the existing software this cannot be avoided. This was confirmed by Honeywell, whose official answer is provided here:

“The Airbus Legacy and Pegasus FMSs’ descent paths contain an idle segment build from the ToD to the Approach deceleration initiation, followed by an Approach deceleration in level off and down to the runway. The major part of the descent path is fully equivalent to a CDO profile, and then prioritize stabilized approach decelerations in level operation. Airbus studies have demonstrated that current profile flown in “Full Managed Mode” is close to the best economic.

Upcoming A350 Airbus FMS is developed in the way to perform Full CDO construction, including the approach deceleration, with associated changes concerning the guidance and speed management to guarantee approach stability.”

Figure 9-12 A320 FMS descent principle

Therefore, in the project’s CDO test flights, a brief moment with elevated thrust before passing FAF was observed. This was confirmed during the first stages of CDO data processing, when a non-expected shape of the Time vs Altitude curve was observed. Except for very few flights, where the descend was smoothly performed, a level flight was maintained at 2700ft. This is shown in Figure 9-13, where CDO data from a set of flights has been plotted.

Figure 9-13 2700ft step example

Step at 2700ft

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

54 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

It can be observed how the curves of the above figure are flat around 2700ft. This was also observed in previous projects and we arrived to the conclusion was that this segment could only be flown this way (maintaining the 2700ft step) for two reasons:

FMS capabilities: the model installed on board only has the capability to fly the segment as observed. This was cross-checked with the FMS manufacturer (see Appendix F);

Flight Safety: the optimal way to reduce the speed on these aircrafts is to do it in horizontal flight, instead of using Speed Brakes during descent. Hence, the Speed Brake technique is not allowed unless really needed.

Due to safety reasons as well, disabling the autopilot is neither an allowed technique.

Hence, in this project, it must be expected to see a level flight at 2700ft altitude in most CDO curves.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

55 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix I Communication activity #1

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

56 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix J Communication activity #2

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

57 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

58 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

59 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix K Communication activity #3

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

60 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix L Communication activity #4

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

61 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Appendix M Alternative analysis approach to evaluate CDO impact

Alternative approach to fuel consumption analysis on descent

In order to optimize fuel consumption during descent, descent should be flown with idle thrust at economic descent speed. Economic speed is defined as airline specific speed at which sum of fuel costs and costs related to time is the lowest “cost index speed”. Graph below presents 3 descent profiles at idle thrust from FL 380 until 2700ft at ISA and gross weight of 60T for A320.

Following speed schedules were used:

M.76/250 - equal to cost index 5, ultra low-cost airline;

M.78/300 – equal to cost index 35, typical national carrier;

M.78.340 – equal to cost index 60, business aviation or delayed flights

Theoretical assumption is met only if pilot is unrestricted in initiation of descent. In practice following cases can be distinguished:

ATC unrestricted descent, correct calculation of ToD

ATC unrestricted descent, incorrect calculation of ToD by pilots. Due to i.e. incorrect assumption of track miles, wrong wind assumption, negligence. We can differentiate 2 cases here:

o Early descent

o Late descent

ATC restricted descent. Due to i.e. traffic, airspace structure

o Early descent

o Late descent

In order to regain desired descent profile pilots are to follow their operating manuals. List below is based on A320 flight crew operating manual and sorted in order from the most to least economical solution. Different a/c types have similar operating procedures often called “energy management”.

Late descent - a/c is or will be above desired profile

o Before ToD

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

62 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

Decelerate a/c in order to reduce kinetic energy and change it to loos of potential energy when decent clearance is given (return to economic or even higher speed)

o After ToD

Accelerate – higher speed will cause higher descent gradient;

use speed brake;

request extra track miles;

extend landing gear

Early descent - a/c is below desired profile

o Before ToD

Use V/S mode (-500 or -1000 fpm) to shallow descent -> descent using thrust above idle

Decelerate to lower speed. Speed reduction until best L/D speed will cause shallower descent gradient. Note: idle thrust can be maintained.

Note: mentioned procedures are expected to be followed, but pilots must be aware of a/c energy in relation to desired profile.

Taking into consideration mentioned procedures observed (recorded) speed profile is a consequence of:

company policy ;

ATC restriction;

incorrect calculation of ToD point or profile by pilots/FMS;

Therefore analysis of fuel consumption during descent should be referred to specific economic speed profiles of airlines participating in the trial and expressed in fuel savings [kgs] and time savings [min]. In case of Wizz Air, current economic speed profile is M.78/270 kts.

Presented methodology of measuring fuel consumption during descent from ToD to touchdown gives results comparable only if observed speed profiles are equal. This hypothesis be confirmed by analysis of theoretical fuel consumption from ToD to 2700ft (table 1) and fuel consumption from economic ToD to 2700ft.

Table below presents distance, burn and time from ToD to 2700ft. Green color represents most efficient solution, red least.

Speed profile Dist ToD 2,7kFt [NM]

Burn [kgs] Time [min]

M.76 / 250kts 126.0 225 22.67

M.78 / 300kts 101.7 164 16.77

M.78 / 340kts 91.9 145 14.82

Let’s assume that for airline XYZ, economic speed profile is M.76/250kts, therefore optimum ToD is 126NM to FAP (profile similar to RYR)

Speed profile Dist ToD -> 2,7kFt [NM]

Distance CRZ equivalent [NM]

Burn [kgs] Burn CRZ equivalent [kgs]

Time [min] Time CRZ equivalent [min]

M.76 / 250kts 126.0 0 225 0 22.67 0

M.78 / 300kts

101.7

+ 24.3

164

+ 117

16.77

+3.26

M.78 / 340kts 91.9 + 34.1 145 + 164 14.82 +4.57

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

63 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

This results in:

Speed profile Distance [NM] Burn [kgs] Time [min]

M.76 / 250kts 126.0 225 22.67

M.78 / 300kts 126.0 281 16.77

M.78 / 340kts 126.0 309c 14.82

In order to obtain comparable descent fuel results analysis methodology used in the project should be modified. Following KPI can be considered:

Fuel consumption during last x minutes of flight

Fuel consumption and time during last x NGM (nautical ground miles) of flight or NAM (nautical air miles)

Fuel consumption and time below certain FL

Each of KPI above requires lengthy analysis and normalization of data to give comparable results.

Flight path assignment approach

Aggregation of flights to pairs departure airport – arrival airport causes that some pairs have very low population and average results are non-comparable.

From analysis point of view flights can be aggregated to i.e.:

FIR or TMA entry points. By defining distance from specified waypoint and using harvestine formula, flights consisting lat/long will be assigned to specified area;

or by finding n modes of recorded flight paths (lat/long) and assigning as per method above.

This would allow more precisely comparing results and concluding if CDOs results from specific direction.

CDO definition considerations

In ICAO Doc 9931 and EUROCONTROL brochures CDO is defined as “an aircraft operating technique aided by appropriate airspace and procedure design and appropriate ATC clearances enabling the execution of a flight profile optimized to the operating capability of the aircraft, with low engine thrust settings and, where possible, a low drag configuration, thereby reducing fuel burn and emissions during descent. The optimum vertical profile takes the form of a continuously descending path, with a minimum of level flight segments only as needed to decelerate and configure the aircraft or to establish on a landing guidance system (e.g. ILS).”

International documents emphasizes that CDO is a common effort of both ATC and flight crew. In order to better understand effect of CDO on fuel consumption and measure compliance of each parties QAR data can be utilized.

The following indicators and slightly modify CDO definition are proposed for future analysis exercises

“ATC CDO enabled” ATC compliance to CDO can be measured by checking if:

o engine operates above low thrust setting and

o actual profile is at or above desired and

o target altitude is equal to actual altitude.

Whenever all of 3 conditions are met this is a CDO non-enabled by ATC.

“Flight crew CDO compliant” Flight crew compliance to CDO can be measured by checking if:

o Actual profile is at or above desired and engine is operated above low thrust setting or

o Actual profile is below desired and (speed is above ECON or V/S mode is not selected) or

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

64 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

o Desired ToD overflown and no deceleration prior to actual ToD

Whenever any of 2 conditions are met this is a flight crew non-compliant CDO

CDO

o Low thrust settings (<600kgs/eng) – this ensures operation of engine and wing anti-ice at idle

o No configuration before 15NM to FAP and earlier

Trail period

Whenever available data before trail should be included in order to compare results.

Project Number 01.02 Edition 02.00.00 REACT-Plus Demonstration Report (editable version)

65 of 65

©SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING, 2011. Created by [Member(s)] for the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the frame of the

SESAR Programme co-financed by the EU and EUROCONTROL. Reprint with approval of publisher and the source properly acknowledged.

-END OF DOCUMENT-