BOBCAT Operational Updates and Future Enhancements

BBayay ooff BBengalengalBBay ay oof f BBengal engal CCooperative ooperative AAir ir TTraffic raffic

Flow Management SystemFlow Management SystemFlow Management SystemFlow Management System((BOBCATBOBCAT))

BBACG/21BBACG/21BBACG/21BBACG/21BOBCAT Operational Updates BOBCAT Operational Updates

and Future Enhancementsand Future Enhancements

77--10 March 201110 March 2011

1

Traffic AnalysisTraffic Analysis

BOBCAT System Data and BOBCAT System Data and O C Syste ata a dO C Syste ata a dATFM Traffic Sample DataATFM Traffic Sample Data

2

Traffic TrendsTraffic Trends

70

75

BOBCAT Traffic Demand from Slot Request5 July 2007 ‐ 28 February 2011

55

60

65

ge Nightly Traffic

40

45

50

Averag

40

Jul‐0

7

Aug

‐07

Sep‐07

Oct‐07

Nov‐07

Dec‐07

Jan‐08

Feb‐08

Mar‐08

Apr‐08

May‐08

Jun‐08

Jul‐0

8

Aug

‐08

Sep‐08

Oct‐08

Nov‐08

Dec‐08

Jan‐09

Feb‐09

Mar‐09

Apr‐09

May‐09

Jun‐09

Jul‐0

9

Aug

‐09

Sep‐09

Oct‐09

Nov‐09

Dec‐09

Jan‐10

Feb‐10

Mar‐10

Apr‐ 10

May‐10

Jun‐10

Jul‐1

0

Aug

‐10

Sep‐10

Oct‐10

Nov‐10

Dec‐10

Jan‐11

Feb‐11

Jul‐07

Aug‐07

Sep‐07

Oct‐07

Nov‐07

Dec‐07

Jan‐08

Feb‐08

Mar‐08

Apr‐08

May‐08

Jun‐08

Jul‐08

Aug‐08

Sep‐08

Oct‐08

Nov‐08

Dec‐08

Jan‐09

Feb‐09

Mar‐09

Apr‐09

May‐09

Jun‐09

Jul‐09

Aug‐09

Sep‐09

Oct‐09

Nov‐09

Dec‐09

Jan‐10

Feb‐10

Mar‐10

Apr‐10

May‐10

Jun‐10

Jul‐10

Aug‐10

Sep‐10

Oct‐10

Nov‐10

Dec‐10

Jan‐11

Feb‐11

Average 47 49 50 50 50 54 55 53 54 56 54 52 51 48 54 53 53 55 58 57 56 59 52 58 50 51 57 58 58 57 59 59 53 52 58 55 52 54 54 56 56 60 62 64

Peak 58 55 60 54 59 60 60 60 62 65 66 58 59 58 66 60 64 67 65 65 64 73 69 68 57 61 69 70 66 66 66 66 64 70 69 64 63 64 61 67 65 69 72 70

3Source: BOBCAT System

Airline ParticipationAirline ParticipationOther Airlines

Swiss Air (SWR)

Cathay Pacific (CPA)BOBCAT Airline Participation

FinnAir (FIN) American Airlines (AAL)

SAS Continental Airlines (COA)THAOthers

5 July 2007 ‐ 28 February 2011

( )

Uzbekistan Airways (UZB)

Volga (VDA)

CargoLux(CLX)

China Airlines (CAL)

THA15%

SIA13%

AUA4%

JAI3%

HVN3%

14%

(CLX) (CAL)

Transaero(TSO)

Alitalia (AZA)

Blue Panorama (BPA)

XL Airways (XLF)

DLH9%

AIC4%

(BPA) (XLF)

AirAsiaX (XAX) Malev (MAH)

North Wind (NWS)

Corsairfly

9%

BAW8%MAS

KLM7%

QFA7%

AFR6%

4

(NWS)

22 Other Aircraft OperatorsTotal Airline Participation: 53 Airlines*Data: 5 July 2007 – 28 February 2011

7%7%

Traffic Distribution: AirportsTraffic Distribution: Airports

OthBOBCAT Slot Request by Departure Airport

5 J l 2007 28 F b 2011 Other Airports

VOMMVECCRCTPVTBS

VABB

VHHH2%

VVNB2%

VVTS1%

Others (31)5%

5 July 2007 ‐ 28 February 2011

RCTPOPLAVTSPVOBL VAAH

29%

WMKK9%

VABB6%

2%

VIARVTBUVOHSVOBGVOHYVOHYWBSBVGZRVTCCVAABWSSS

27%

VIDP19%

OPRN9 Others

5

27%

Transit at Same or Higher Preferred FLTransit at Same or Higher Preferred FL

Percentage of Flights Transiting the Kabul FIR at the Same or Higher Preferable Flight Level

50

60

95%

100%

t

30

40

85%

90%

Aircraft /

Night

e of Aircraft

4544 38

4855

4751

20

30

80%

85%

Num

ber of A

Percen

tage

0

10

70%

75%

J l 10 A 10 S 10 O t 10 N 10 D 10 J 11

6

Jul‐10 Aug‐10 Sep‐10 Oct‐10 Nov‐10 Dec‐10 Jan‐11

Average Traffic Max Average Min

Transit at Lower FL than Slot AllocationTransit at Lower FL than Slot Allocation

6010%

Percentage of Flights Transiting the Kabul FIR at a Flight Level Lower than Slot Allocation

7.68% 7.83%

9.12%

7 28%

50

60

8%

9%

10%

t

6.56%

7.28%

5.32%30

40

5%

6%

7%

Aircraft /

Nigh

ge of A

ircraft

3.59% 203%

4%

Num

ber of A

Percen

tag

45 44 38 48 55 47 510

10

0%

1%

2%

7


Average Traffic Lower FL

Transit at Lower FL: ReasonsTransit at Lower FL: ReasonsFlights Transiting the Kabul FIR

at a Flight Level Lower than Slot Allocation July 2010 ‐ January 2011

90%

100%

July 2010 January 2011

60%

70%

80%

Unknown

Departures without Slot

30%

40%

50%

Departures without Slot

FL390 Slot Allocation

EET Inaccuracy Issue

Tactical ATC Issue

10%

20%

30%Departures Punctuality

8

0%


Departures PunctualityDepartures Punctuality

1

BOBCAT Departures Punctuality

0.6

0.8

0

0.2

0.4

0Jan 2010

Feb 2010

Mar 2010

Apr 2010

May 2010

Jun 2010

Jul 2010

Aug 2010

Sep 2010

Oct 2010

Nov 2010

Dec 2010

Jan 2011

VHHH 88% 84% 87% 91% 82% 88% 100% 100% 100%

VIDP 23% 20% 32% 16% 25% 62% 81% 46% 33% 29% 22% 13% 14%VIDP 23% 20% 32% 16% 25% 62% 81% 46% 33% 29% 22% 13% 14%

VVNB 32% 41% 33% 38% 25% 59% 71% 85% 81% 90% 81% 80% 86%

VVTS 43% 50% 43% 28% 37% 89% 65% 79% 83% 77% 77% 78% 88%

VTBS 89% 89% 90% 46% 91% 94% 96% 95% 94% 94% 99% 92% 97%

9

WMKK 100% 100% 100% 40% 95% 99% 99% 96% 95% 97% 99% 95% 99%

WSSS 94% 92% 90% 98% 93% 93% 94% 93% 82% 92% 91% 89% 90%

Data Collection ParticipationData Collection Participation

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011

WSFC

WMKK

VTBB

VYYY

VOMFVOMF

VECF

VABF

VIDF

OPKR

OPLR

OAKX

10

Operational Messages to ATFMUOperational Messages to ATFMU

• “[aircraft] operators shall also address flight plan and• [aircraft] operators shall also address flight plan and related ATS messages (e.g. DEP, DLA, CNL, CHG) to the Bangkok ATFMU.” – ATFM Users Handbook

• Some flight plans and ATS messages are not transmitted to the ATFMU

Especially for departures west of the Bay of Bengal– Especially for departures west of the Bay of Bengal

• FPL and ATS Messages are key enabler for future version of BOBCAT to display target handoverversion of BOBCAT to display target handover information between en route FIRs and related CDM processes

11

FPL Messages FPL Messages –– DepartureDeparture

100%

Percentage of FPL Messages Received

70%

80%

90%

50%

60%

70%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

12

VABB VHHH VIDP VTBS VVNB VVTS WMKK WSSS

May‐10 Jun‐10 Jul‐10 Aug‐10 Sep‐10 Oct‐10 Nov‐10 Dec‐10 Jan‐11

FPL Messages FPL Messages –– AirlinesAirlines

100%

Percentage of Flight Plan Received

70%

80%

90%

50%

60%

70%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

AIC AUA BAW CPA DLH FIN HVN JAI KLM MAS QFA SAS SIA SWR THA

13

AIC AUA BAW CPA DLH FIN HVN JAI KLM MAS QFA SAS SIA SWR THA


DEP Messages ReceivedDEP Messages Received

100%

Percentage of DEP Message Received

70%

80%

90%

50%

60%

70%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%


14



Actions by the MeetingActions by the Meeting

• Note data collected by the Bangkok ATFMU• Note data collected by the Bangkok ATFMU• Discuss data collection results• Consider appropriate remedial actionspp p• Encourage all involved to submit flight plans and

ATS messages on flights related to BOBCAT slot allocation to the Bangkok ATFMUallocation to the Bangkok ATFMU

• Encourage ANSPs to provide ATFM Traffic Sample Data in original format or MAAR TSD formatformat

• Congratulate all involved on AWUT compliance progress, while there remains room for further

henhancements15

Q & AQ & AQ & AQ & A

16

Software UpdateSoftware UpdateSoftware UpdateSoftware Update

17

New Feature PopularityNew Feature Popularity

Feature Request Popularity(Higher score is more important)

3.91

3.91

Slot Swapping

Smart Slot Allocation Refresh

( g p )

3.78

3.89

3.91

Adjustable Slot Allocation Refresh Interval

Pop‐Out Slot Allocation Sections

Slot Swapping

3.66

3.66

3.78

Automatic Slot Compression

Flexible Standard Taxi Time

j

2.81

3.64

Gate Delay Calculation

Integration of Data Collection & Analysis

p

18

New Feature GroupingNew Feature Grouping

• Group 1• Group 1– Slot Swapping– Automatic Slot Compression

G 2• Group 2– Flight Plan and ATS Messages Processing

• Group 3– Slot Allocation Page Changes– Gate Delay Calculation

• Group 4p– Integration of data collection and analysis

• Group 5– Flexible Taxi Time– Flexible Taxi Time

19

Feature Group 1 (1)Feature Group 1 (1)

• Slot Swapping: conditions• Slot Swapping: conditions– Both aircraft “controlled” by user performing swap

• Allows Bangkok ATFMU to make cross-operator swap id d b h i li h lprovided both airlines accept the swap proposal

– In case that slot includes more than one waypoint (DI/PAVLO and DI/SITAX), EET difference b h i b i lbetween the two waypoints must be practical after change (see example)

– New ETD and AWUT of the two aircraft must be practical for air traffic management purpose

• Potential requirement that new ETD and AWUT must be at least some time (xx minute) after time of swap

20

Slot Swapping Slot Swapping –– ExampleExample

Before Swap at 1500UTCC/S AWUT WP FL ETO

ABC1 1700 DI 350 2100

After Swap at 1500UTCC/S AWUT WP FL ETO

ABC1 1715 DI 350 2117ABC1 1700 DI 350 2100

PAVLO 350 2115

ABC2 1600 DI 350 2117

ABC1 1715 DI 350 2117

PAVLO 350 2130

ABC2 1545 DI 350 2100

PAVLO 350 2130 PAVLO 350 2115

Observations:• ABC1 inherits both slots at DI and PAVLO from ABC2, but EET from AWUT to

PAVLO f ll th t f th i i l l tPAVLO follows that of the original slot:• Old Slot: 2115 – 1700 = 0415• New Slot: 2130 – 1715 = 0415

• EET to DI uses difference between ABC2’s slot allocation, 13 minutes instead of 15 minutes from original slot in order to qualify for a swap:

21

minutes from original slot in order to qualify for a swap:• ABC1 must be able to fly DI – SITAX in 13 minutes (from 0400 to 0402 from AWUT)• ABC2 must be able to fly DI – SITAX in 15 minutes (from 0517 to 0515 from AWUT)

Feature Group 1 (2)Feature Group 1 (2)

A t ti Sl t C i• Automatic Slot Compression– Airline needs to select “Optimize my slot up to

i t b f AWUT” Sl t All tixx minutes before AWUT” on Slot Allocation details page for each aircraftTi t f i t b l t d b– Timeout of xx minutes can be selected by airlines, but can be defaulted to a figure to be suggested by IATA RCGsuggested by IATA RCG

– Slot Compression would be processed on a first-Kabul-entry-first-served basisfirst Kabul entry first served basis

22

Slot Compression Slot Compression –– Example 1Example 1

Before ABC1 Slot ChangeC/S WP FL R‐

ETOA‐ETO

DLA

After ABC1 Slot ChangeC/S WP FL R‐

ETOA‐ETO

DLA

ABC1 ROSIE 350 2100 2100 0

ABC2* ROSIE 350 2110 2115 5

ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15

ABC2* ROSIE 350 2110 2110 0

ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2125 10ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15 ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2125 10

Note:• R-ETO denotes requested ETO from slot requestq q• A-ETO denotes allocated ETO from slot allocation• DLA denotes delay from slot allocation• “*” denotes aircraft requesting Automatic Slot Compression

23

• Both ABC2 and ABC3 request compression, change of ABC1 slot would automatically trigger compression, reducing delays



ETOA‐ETO

DLA


ETOA‐ETO

DLA

ABC1 ROSIE 350 2100 2100 0

ABC2* ROSIE 350 2110 2115 5

ABC3 ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15

ABC2* ROSIE 350 2110 2110 0

ABC3 ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15ABC3 ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15 ABC3 ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15


24

• ABC3 did not request compression, so slot was not changed



ETOA‐ETO

DLA


ETOA‐ETO

DLA

ABC1 ROSIE 350 2100 2100 0

ABC2 ROSIE 350 2110 2115 5

ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15

ABC2 ROSIE 350 2110 2115 5

ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15 ABC3* ROSIE 350 2115 2130 15


25

• While ABC3 requested compression, ABC2 did not; thus, ABC3’s slot allocation cannot be compressed

Feature Group 2Feature Group 2

• Flight Plan and ATS Message Processing• Flight Plan and ATS Message Processing– Processes Flight Plan and Departure messages

into FIR Boundary Crossing times from d t t K b l FIR t tidepartures to Kabul FIR entry time

– FIR boundary crossing times can be used for monitoring and air traffic management purposesg g p p

– FIR boundary crossing times will enable tactical phase Collaborative Decision Making process such as those at Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airportsuc as t ose at a g o Su a ab u po t

– Can be implemented in phases:• Phase 1: initial implementation, no FPL correction• Phase 2: FPL correction capability• Phase 2: FPL correction capability

26


F t• Features– Smart Slot Allocation Refresh– Pop-Out Slot Allocation Sections– Adjustable Slot Allocation Refresh Interval– Gate Delay Calculation

• Changes are minor, mostly concern slot g , yallocation pages

27


I t ti f D t C ll ti d A l i• Integration of Data Collection and Analysis• Mostly concern ANSPs• Can be delayed until other higher-impact

changes are implementedg p

28


• Flexible Taxi Time• Flexible Taxi Time• Can be implemented in the form of “Minimum

Taxi Time” a e– Provided by departure ANSP concerned – Airline has the ability to reduce “Standard Taxi

Time” as long as it is above “Minimum Taxi Time”Time as long as it is above Minimum Taxi Time– Implementation depends on participation from

departure ANSP in providing “Minimum Taxi Time”• May need to be implemented in combination

with Airport CDM of some form

29

Impact and Development TimeImpact and Development Time

Feature Group

Expected Impact Development TimeGroup Time

1 More flexible and responsive slot allocation mechanism

High

2 Higher chance of obtaining slot allocation Flight Levels

Medium

3 Lower slot allocation monitoring workload

Low

4 More visible comparison of slot Medium –4 More visible comparison of slot allocation result and real traffic

MediumHigh

5 More flexible off‐block, taxiing and Low ‐departures from major airports Medium

30

Initial IATA RCG ResponseInitial IATA RCG Response

P d P i iti ti• Proposed Prioritization:– High Priority

G 2 FPL d ATS M P i• Group 2: FPL and ATS Message Processing• Group 5: Flexible Taxi Time

– Medium PriorityMedium Priority• Group 1: Slot Swapping & Automatic Slot Compression

– Low Priorityy• Group 3: Slot Allocation Page changes and gate delay

calculations• Group 4: Integration of data collection and analysis• Group 4: Integration of data collection and analysis

31

Actions by the MeetingActions by the Meeting

C fi Sl t S i R i t• Confirm Slot Swapping Requirements– Minimum time difference between latest new

AWUT / ETD d ti f l t iAWUT / ETD and time of slot swapping• Confirm Automatic Slot Compression

Requirements– Default no-compression timeout

• Confirm development priority order among five proposed feature groupsp p g p

32


33

CDM Pl fCDM Pl fCDM Plans for CDM Plans for SuvarnabhumiSuvarnabhumiSuvarnabhumiSuvarnabhumi

DeparturesDepartures

34

IdeaIdea

Sh d t l i i f ti• Share departures planning information among Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Tower, B k k ACC d B k k ATFMU iBangkok ACC and Bangkok ATFMU in accordance to CDM principle

• Use web-based technology to enable real-time data exchange

35

How?How?

to enable CDM information sharingFusing information from…

…to enable CDM information sharing

BangkokBangkokTECOS Airport

Stats

Bangkok ATFMUBangkok ATFMU

Fused Information

FPL & ATS

BOBCAT Slot

WebFPL & ATS

Messages e.g. DEP VTBS TowerVTBS TowerBangkok

ACCBangkok ACC

36

GoalGoal

St li l i f ff bl k ti f• Streamline planning of off-block time for BOBCAT departures from SuvarnabhumiAi tAirport

• Streamline BOBCAT departures from Suvarnabhumi Airport

• Streamline planning of FL used for exiting p g gthe Bangkok FIR for BOBCAT departures

• Trial Timeframe: Q2 2011Trial Timeframe: Q2 201137

What’s Next & Actions RequiredWhat’s Next & Actions Required

• Potential Changes after CDM plans in place• Potential Changes after CDM plans in place– Provide facility for airlines to provide information such as

“Departures Flexibility Window” (earliest and latest departure), which would still allow airlines to reach Kabuldeparture), which would still allow airlines to reach Kabul FIR in accordance to BOBCAT slot

– Airlines may be provided with Target Take-Off Time (TTOT) Window to assist further planning

– Trials may need to be run along with BOBCAT software changes when available

• Actions by the Meeting– Note development of Collaborative Departures Planner for

Suvarnabhumi Airport– Advise airlines to be prepared to provide “Departures

Flexibility Window”Flexibility Window

38


39

Documents

BOBCAT Operational Updates and Future Enhancements