Monitoring Report: AIRAC 1309 No 03/1203 22 August 2013 ......3.2 FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the last filed flight plan indicator

No 03/1203

Edition: AIRAC 1203

Monitoring Report: AIRAC 1309

22 August 2013 - 18 September 2013

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

European Route Network Improvement Plan

(ERNIP) Implementation Monitoring

Monitoring Report: AIRAC 1309

22 August 2013 – 18 September 2013

NETWORK MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE

E U R O C O N T R O L

Left blank intentionally

European Route Network Improvement Plan (ERNIP) – I mplementation Monitoring Monitoring Report AIRAC 1309 (22 August 2013 - 18 S eptember 2013)

- 1 -

TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENT................................... ................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 3

1.1 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 EVOLUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN TARGET............ 3 1.3 AIRSPACE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING ............. 4 1.4 EXTERNAL DOCUMENT RELEASE................................................................................. 4

2. LIST OF PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTED AIRAC 1309 (22 AUGUST 2013)...................... 5 2.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED ON 22 AUGUST 2013................... 5

3. EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS................ ............................................ 6 3.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN INDICATOR EVOLUTION................................................................ 6 3.2 FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION ................................................................ 6 3.3 ROUTE AVAILABILITY INDICATOR EVOLUTION............................................................ 6 3.4 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION PER AIRAC CYCLE ................................................. 7

3.4.1 EVOLUTION OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL INDICATORS...........................................8 3.4.2 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL EVOLUTIONS ...........8 3.4.3 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-RAD EVOLUTIONS ...................................8

3.5 AIRSPACE CHANGES EVOLUTION .............................................................................. 11 3.6 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE EVOLUTION......................................................................... 11 3.7 ASM PERFORMANCE EVOLUTION - SECOND & THIRD QUARTER 2013 .................. 12

3.7.1 CDRs OVERVIEW..................................................................................................... 12 3.7.2 FUA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS........................................................................ 13

3.8 VERTICAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION.............................................................. 18 4. NETWORK MANAGER CONTRIBUTION TO FLIGHT EFFICIENCY I MPROVEMENTS19

4.1 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY BENEFITS................................................................................... 19 4.2 INCREASE CDR AVAILABILITY AND UTILISATION...................................................... 19

ANNEX A: DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED 22 A UGUST 2013 ....................... 22 ANNEX B: ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY.................. ......................................................... 24


- 2 -



- 3 -

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 SUMMARY

This Report updates on the evolution of the environment indicators1 listed in the Network Manager Performance Plan and informs on the progress achieved to further improve airspace design and utilisation flight efficiency based on the improvement proposals implemented during the relevant AIRAC cycle.

This edition focuses on AIRAC 1309 (22 AUGUST 2013). The methodology used for assessing flight efficiency is included in WP9 of RNDSG/64. This document can be consulted on: https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://beid.eurocontrol.be:8980/Members/irc/eurocontrol/rndsg/home

1.2 EVOLUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE EUROP EAN TARGET

The Performance Scheme for air navigation services and network functions includes an environment/ flight efficiency Key Performance area: Average horizontal en-route flight efficiency:

• the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator is the difference between the length of the “en-route” part of the trajectory and the optimum trajectory which, in average, is the great circle.

• “en-route” is defined as the distance flown outside a circle of 40 NM around the airport. • the flights considered for the purpose of this indicator are:

o all commercial IFR flights within European airspace; o where a flight departs or arrives outside the European airspace, only that part inside the

European airspace is considered; o circular flights and flights with a great circle distance shorter than 80NM between

terminal areas are excluded. Environment target 2012 - 2014: For the performance reference period starting on 1st January 2012 and ending on 31st December 2014, the European Union-wide and EUROCONTROL performance target will be as follows: Reduction of 0,75 percentage points of the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator in 2014 as compared to the situation in 2009. Objectives:

• Develop and support the deployment of 500 airspace changes in 2012 – 2014. • Support the implementation of Free Route Airspace in 25 ACCs by 2014. • Increase annually the number of CDRs by 5% (FUA). • Increase annually the CDR1/2 availability and usage by an average of 5% (FUA). • Reduce the route unavailability (in time and quantity) by 10% in 2013 and 2014 (FUA). • Reduction of vertical flight inefficiency by 5% in 2014.

Note: The FUA indicators (bullet 3-5) are reported quarterly. Flight efficiency (bullet 6) is reported only twice per yea.

1 FPL: Flight Plan data provided by NM systems; SAAM analysis performed by NM. DES/RAD: Traffic demand provided by NM systems; airspace environment data, profile calculations and SAAM analysis provided by NM.


- 4 -

1.3 AIRSPACE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

The Network Manager coordinates the following activities to achieve the required improvement in flight efficiency: � Enhancing European en-route airspace design through annual improvements of European ATS

route network, high priority being given to: • Implementation of a coherent package of annual improvements and shorter routes; • Improving efficiency for the most penalised city pairs; • Implementation of additional Conditional Routes for main traffic flows; • Supporting initial implementation of free route airspace.

� Improving airspace utilisation and route network availability through: • Actively supporting and involving aircraft operators and the computer flight plan service

providers in flight plan quality improvements; • Gradually applying route availability restrictions only where and when required; • Improving the use and availability of civil/military airspace structures.

� Efficient Terminal Manoeuvring Area (TMA) design and utilisation through: • Implementing advanced navigation capabilities; • Implementing Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), improved arrival/departure routes,

optimised departure profiles, etc. � Improving awareness of performance.

1.4 EXTERNAL DOCUMENT RELEASE The latest AIRAC report is available on the EUROCONTROL Airspace design website under the sub section ERNIP, ERNIP Implementation Monitoring: http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/airspace-design as well as on the EUROCONTROL Network Operations Monitoring and Reporting website under European Route Network Improvement Plan - Monitoring Report: http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/network-operations-monitoring-and-reporting The full list of monitoring reports is available on the EUROCONTROL Media & Info Centre website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/lists/publications/all-publications?type=3656 A copy of the AIRAC Report of the European Route Network Improvement Plan is also available via the restricted EUROCONTROL OneSky Online websites for access by other interested members of the RNDSG, ASMSG and NETOPS (see ref sub-sections under main section "LIBRARY"): http://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://beid.eurocontrol.be:8980/Members/irc/eurocontrol/ant/home http://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://beid.eurocontrol.be:8980/Members/irc/eurocontrol/rndsg/home http://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://beid.eurocontrol.be:8980/Members/irc/eurocontrol/asm-sg/home


- 5 -

2. LIST OF PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTED AIRAC 1309 (22 AUG UST 2013)

2.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED ON 22 AUG UST 2013

During the AIRAC cycle three airspace improvement measures co-ordinated at network level have been implemented on 22 AUGUST 2013:

� Croatia: - Extension of the availability of existing CDR1/3 route UQ863.

� France / Italy / Switzerland:

- Modification of RAD restriction LF3129, thus improving flight efficiency for city pair Rome to London.

� France / Switzerland:

- Extension of the availability of existing CDR1 route UQ223. - Extension of the availability of existing CDR1 route UQ242.

A detailed list of all improvement measures implemented on 22 AUGUST 2013 is attached in Annex A. The list is an extract of the European Route Network Improvement Plan database accessible via: https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://prisme-web.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int/ernip_database/Index.action A description of the airspace improvements together with orientation maps due for implementation on the relevant AIRAC cycle is provided in the RNDSG Airspace Improvements Synopsis (RAIS).


- 6 -

3. EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

3.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN INDICATOR EVOLUTION

The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the airspace design flight efficiency (RTE-DES2) over the period 2007 - 2012 and the evolution until 18 September 2013.

RTE-DES

3,53% 3,54% 3,45% 3,22% 3,04% 2,96% 2,83%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 1 : Airspace Design indicator evolution

3.2 FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION

The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the last filed flight plan indicator (RTE-FPL3) over the period 2007 - 2012 and the evolution until 18 September 2013.

RTE-FPL

4,91% 5,03% 4,90% 4,91% 4,73% 4,64% 4,60%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 2 : Flight Planning indicator evolution

3.3 ROUTE AVAILABILITY INDICATOR EVOLUTION

The impact of the civil route restrictions included in the Route Availability Document (RAD) is measured through a specific RAD indicator (RTE-RAD4). The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the RTE-RAD indicator between January 2012 and 18 September 2013.

RTE-RAD

3,75% 3,68%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2012 2013

Figure 3 : Route Availability indicator evolution

2 RTE-DES (Flight Extension due to Route Network Design) This KPI will be calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD will not be taken into account and all the CDR routes will be considered as being open. 3 RTE-FPL (Flight Extension due to Route Network Utilisation – last filled FPL) This KPI will be calculated by measuring the difference between the route from the last filed flight plan for each flight (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. 4 RTE-RAD: (Flight Extension due to Route Network Utilisation – RAD active) This KPI will be calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest plannable route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD will be taken into account and all the CDR routes will be considered as being open.


- 7 -

3.4 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION PER AIRAC CYCLE The graph below shows the evolution per AIRAC cycle of the two main flight efficiency indicators RTE-DES and RTE-FPL over the period 2007 - 2012 and the evolution until 18 September 2013.

Route Efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle

2012

2010

2010

2011

2013

2,5%

3,0%

3,5%

4,0%

4,5%

5,0%

5,5%

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

AIRAC

Rou

te E

xten

sion

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

RTE-DES

RTE-FPL

Figure 4 : Flight efficiency (DES, RAD) evolution per AIRAC cycle

The graph below shows the evolution per AIRAC cycle of the two main efficiency indicators RTE-DES and RTE-FPL in relation to the RTE-RAD indicator between January 2012 and 18 September 2013.

Route Efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle

2,50%

3,00%

3,50%

4,00%

4,50%

5,00%

5,50%

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

AIRAC

Rou

te E

xten

sion

RTE-DESRTE-RADRTE-FPL

Figure 5 : Flight efficiency (DES, RAD, FPL) evolution per AIRAC cycle


- 8 -

3.4.1 EVOLUTION OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL INDICATORS

The current data indicates that, the average yearly route extension due to airspace design reduced between 2009 and 18 September 2013 by 0.62 percentage points (0.61 percentage points in AIRAC 1308). The evolution of the airspace design indicator is on the right trend and the contributions of the airspace design projects are key for improving flight efficiency. The current data indicates that, the average yearly route extension based on the last filed flight plan reduced between 2009 and 18 September 2013 by 0.3 percentage points (same as in AIRAC 1308). At this point in time the 2013 NM target for the RTE-DES indicator is met.

The difference between the airspace design indicator and the last filed flight plan indicator was 1.45 percentage points in 2009 and is 1.77 percentage points in September 2013, recording a slight increase compared to the previous AIRAC cycle (1.76 percentage points in August).

The current data indicates that the route extension due to airspace design slightly increased from 2.78 percentage points in August 2013 to 2.79 percentage points in September 2013. The current data show that, the route extension based on the last filed flight plan went up from 4.48 percentage points in August 2013 to 4.55 percentage points in September 2013. The steady decrease of the RTE-FPL indicator during the last two AIRAC cycles as a result of the Network Manager Flight Efficiency Initiative (Chapter 4) is broken up by the French strike on 9th and 10th September 2013.

3.4.2 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FP L EVOLUTIONS

Due to the airspace enhancements implemented during AIRAC 1309 as well as the airspace design improvements put in place since AIRAC 1209 in connection with changing traffic patterns and composition, the potential savings offered during the AIRAC cycle 1309 amount to 385 000 NMs flown less compared to the equivalent AIRAC cycle 1209 in 2012. This translates into 2 310 tons of fuel, or 7 700 tons of CO2, or 1 925 000 Euros.

Based on the last filed flight plan indicator, the losses calculated during the AIRAC cycle 1309 amount to -176 000 NMs flown more compared to the equivalent AIRAC cycle in 2012. This translates into – 1 056 tons of fuel, or – 3 520 tons of CO2, or – 880 000 Euros.

The losses recorded for the last filed flight plan data during AIRAC cycle 1309 compared to the same AIRAC cycle in 2012 are mainly a result of the French Industrial Action in Brest ACC on Monday, 9th and Tuesday, 10th September 2013. As an effect of the strike regulations had to be applied in London ACC, Karlsruhe UAC, Barcelona ACC and Madrid ACC resulting in re-routing scenarios to avoid capacity problems in the adjacent centres. These measures have a big impact on flight planning route extensions.

Furthermore regulations applied due to staffing issues in Nicosia ACC as well as capacity reductions due to the transition to the new TOPSKY system, staffing problems in Brest ACC, Bremen ACC and Langen ACC as well as staffing shortages in Barcelona ACC have caused re-routings with impact on network efficiency. Continued FDP system limitations in Warsaw ACC with corresponding operational procedures to re-route traffic around Polish airspace had an impact on flight efficiency performance.

Note: The comparison between the potential (RTE-DES) and actual (RTE-FPL) savings/ losses related to the different parameters is visualised in the graphs below (see Figure 6 to Figure 9).

3.4.3 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-RAD EVOLUTIONS

As shown in Figure 3 above the impact of the RAD decreased by 0,07 percentage points in 2013 compared to 2012. More actions will be required to further diminish this impact and to ensure that the target set in the Network Manager Performance Plan is reached. The decrease of this indicator is mainly due to improvements in airspace design and to a lesser degree due to the removal of RAD restrictions.

The difference between the three indicators (DES, F PL, RAD) clearly indicate that additional efforts must be made to further improve the efficiency of t he airspace utilisation and to ensure that the indicator based on the latest filed flight plan and the RAD indicator follow similar trends like the airspace design indicator. .


- 9 -

FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AI RAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR(In Thousands of Nautical Miles)

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

AIRAC CYCLE

NM

/100

0

NM DES

NM FPL

NM DES 134 146 137 130 113 88 205 28 200 -2 184 288 297 385

NM FPL 271 506 -272 -70 -57 -176 -19 -206 -140 -416 -823 -19 -205 -176

1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

Figure 6 : Flight Efficiency savings in Nautical Miles

FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AI RAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

(In Tons of Fuel)

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

AIRAC CYCLE

TO

NS

OF

FU

EL

TONS FUEL DES

TONS FUEL FPL

TONS FUEL DES 804 876 822 780 678 527 1233 169 1201 -12 1102 1729 1779 2310

TONS FUEL FPL 1626 3036 -1632 -420 -342 -1057 -114 -1237 -841 -2497 -4940 -112 -1231 -1056

1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

Figure 7 : Flight Efficiency savings in Tons of Fuel


- 10 -

FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AIRAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

(In CO2)

-20000

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

AIRAC CYCLE

TO

NS

OF

CO

2

TONS CO2 DES

TONS CO2 FPL

TONS CO2 DES 2680 2920 2740 2600 2260 1755,9 4108,4 562,52 4002 -39,64 3672,6 5765 5931,3 7700

TONS CO2 FPL 5420 10120 -5440 -1400 -1140 -3522 -378,9 -4122 -2804 -8324 -16465 -371,9 -4104 -3520

1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

Figure 8 : Flight Efficiency savings in CO2

FLIGHT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS COMPARED TO EQUIVALENT AIRAC CYCLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

(In Thousands of EURO)

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

AIRAC CYCLE

EU

RO

/100

0

EURO DES

EURO FPL

EURO DES 670 730 685 650 565 439 1027 141 1001 -10 918 1441 1483 1925

EURO FPL 1355 2530 -1360 -350 -285 -881 -95 -1031 -701 -2081 -4116 -93 -1026 -880

1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

Figure 9 : Flight Efficiency savings in Thousands of EURO

Note: For additional information on ATFM delay that could impact on network efficiency check out the DNM Monthly Network Operations Reports, accessible via: http://www.eurocontrol.int/lists/publications/all-publications?type=2939&date_filter[value][year]=&keyword=


- 11 -

3.5 AIRSPACE CHANGES EVOLUTION

The NM Performance Plan target for the period 2012-2014 is to implement 500 airspace improvement packages over this period. Since January 2012 until 22 August 2013, 390 (three hundred and ninety) airspace improvement packages coordinated at network level have been implemented. For the reference period 2012 - 2014 in total 683 airspace packages are currently planned to be implemented.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Packages Implemented

2012/ 2013 Target 2014

390

Figure 10 : Airspace Improvement Packages Implementation

3.6 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE EVOLUTION

The NM Performance Plan target for 2014 is to fully or partially implement Free Route Airspace within 25 ACCs within the ECAC area. Until 24 July 2013 Free Route Airspace has been partially and/or fully implemented in the following 14 ACCs: Beograd ACC, Karlsruhe UAC, Kobenhavn ACC, Lisboa ACC, Maastricht UAC, Malmo ACC, Praha ACC, Shannon ACC, Skopje ACC, Stockholm ACC, Tampere ACC, Warsaw ACC, Wien ACC and Zagreb ACC.

CAN

LIS

SEV

MAD

BAR

BOR

BREREI

MAALONWAR

BRA

BUD

PRA

VIE

MAR

ROM

BRI

ATH

SOFZAG

PAD

ANK

NIC

MAK

MALT

SHA

PRE

STA

RIG

TAL

VIL

OSL

MALCOP

STO

BEO

TIR

BOD

SKO

LVI

KIEDNI

SIM

ODE

YERBAKGEN

ZUR

TAM

KAR

CASCAS

SHA

LJUBUC

Full Implementation

Partial Implementation

Free Route Implementation 2013

Figure 11 : Free Route Airspace Implementation


- 12 -

3.7 ASM PERFORMANCE EVOLUTION - SECOND & THIRD QUAR TER 2013

The FUA indicators are calculated separately for two CDR basic categories: CDR1 and CDR2. Those CDRs which are defined as CDR1/2, CDR1/3 or CDR2/3 are measured for the period of time of each category and the contribution is added to either CDR1 or CDR2 type reports. The method allows to align the calculation of the indicators with the way the CDRs availability is presented in AUP/UUP List A and B respectively.

The aggregation of values for each AIRAC cycle has been carried out using daily measurement of the indicators. This way it was possible to differentiate the status of each CDR1/2, CDR1/3 or CDR2/3 route, when it was a CDR1 and when CDR2 by using the appropriate metrics.

The airspace utilisation is measured by the Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) and Rate of Aircraft using CDR (RAU). The first indicator gives a measure of the CDR potential of being used for flight planning (flights which could flight-plan on an available CDR), while the second one indicates the actual uptake of the CDRs.

3.7.1 CDRs OVERVIEW

Figure 12 below presents the ECAC map of published CDRs for the second and third quarter of 2013 (AIRAC 1304 - AIRAC 1309). It is worth to note the diversity of CDR categories, one of the consequences of establishing night routes which in many cases are CDR1 and during the day being CDR3. Another situation occurs for CDR1/2 which are CDR2 during the day and CDR1 during night and weekends. During the investigated period there are a significant number of CDR1/2 segments being part of Early Access to Weekend routes agreement.

One element that adds a significant level of complexity to the calculation of ASM performance indicators is the published timesheet or activation schedule of various categories of CDRs. The way this schedule is described in the national AIPs vary significantly from State to State, in particular referring to the switch between winter/summer, week/weekend and day/night time. A future activity should address this issue.

CDR1 1500 CDR2 172 CDR1/2 640 CDR1/3 147 CDR2/3 2 CDR1/2/3 15

Figure 12 : Published CDRs(CDR2, CDR1/2, CDR1/3 and CDR2/3) for the second and third quarter of 2013


- 13 -

Regarding the basic definition of CDRs, in many situations a CDR consists of several elementary segments in sequence. There are cases when this definition is changed for various reasons leading to modification of the number of counted CDRs, although the number of elementary segments remains unchanged.

Flights interested are the maximum number of flights that could have planned on an available CDR. The absolute numbers for the second and third quarter of 2013 are:

• 29797 average flights/day per AIRAC cycle. • 13782 interested flights/day on CDR1s. • 8911 flights/day effectively planning at least one CDR1 segment. • 1975 interested flights/day on CDR2s. • 1094 flights/day effectively planning at least one CDR2 segment.

The figures of published CDR routes show significantly low values for CDR2 and CDR1/2 versus CDR1. Consequently the CDR2 contribution to the RAI final value is reduced correspondingly.

3.7.2 FUA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The aggregated values of the FUA KPIs5 (RoCA, RAI, RAU) for the second and third quarter 2013 compared with the similar period of 2012 for CDR1 and CDR2 are presented in Figure 13/14 below.

2012-2013 Q2, Q3 FUA KPIs for CDR1: RoCA, RAI, RAU

71.9 72.5 71.2 72.3 72.673.3 72.7 73.572.972.572.3

70.1

77.4 77.5 77.374.9 74.4

72.9

75.7 75.4 75.2

84.9 84.8 84.5 83.9 84.1 83.484.9 85.6 84.4

77.977.176.7

86.186.485.7

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

AIRAC_cycle

RoC

A, R

AI,

RA

U v

alue

s (%

)

RoCA_ECAC

RAI (%)

RAU (%)

Figure 13 : FUA KPIs for CDR1

5 RoCA (Rate of CDR availability) represents the average CDR availability according to the EAUP/EUUP related to a given time period. RoCA (in %) is calculated as the ratio of the total CDR segment opening, whatever category it may be, to the total time of days (D).

RAI (Rate of Aircraft Interested) represents the average number of aircraft interested in filing flight plans to take advantage of an available CDR. RAI represents (in %) the ratio of the number of flights planned on an available CDR to the number of potential users of this CDR.

RAU (Rate of Actual Use of CDR) represents the average number of aircraft having actually used an available CDR during a given time period. RAU represents (in %) the ratio of the number of flights (AU) having actually used an available CDR to the number of potential users (PU) of this CDR.


- 14 -

The CDR1s’ RoCA is relatively stable and slightly higher in the second and third quarter of 2013 compared with the same period of 2012 (71.2% to 73.5% in 2013 versus 70.1% to 72.9% in 2012). On the contrary, the slight but steady increase of CDR1 availability does not improve the rate of aircraft interested/ RAI indicator (74.9% to 75.2% in 2013 versus 77.4% to 77.9% in 2012) nor the rate of actual use of CDR1/ RAU indicator (83.4% to 85.6% in 2013 versus 84.5% to 86.4% in 2012).

2012-2013 Q2, Q3 FUA KPIs for CDR2: RoCA, RAI, RAU

59.3 58.955.7

57.9 56.2 57.6 57.4 57.260.2

57.157.858.7

61.562.5

67.368.9

66.9 66.567.7 68.5 67.3

78.1 77.2

79.9 80.281.2 80.6 81.0 81.1

82.8

68.8

66.2

80.9

78.0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

AIRAC_cycle

RoC

A, R

AI,

RA

U v

alue

s (%

)

RoCA (%)

RAI (%)

RAU (%)

Figure 14 : FUA KPIs for CDR2

The situation for CDR2s slightly worsened in 2013, less availability reflected in lower RoCA values (55.7% to 57.9% in 2013 versus 57.1% to 60.2% in 2012). However an opposite trend is recorded for the rate of aircraft interested (RAI) in CDR2s’ which slightly increased (64.8% in 2013 versus 61.7% in 2012), as for the actual usage (RAU) of CDR2s’ (80.6% in 2013 versus 79.5% in 2012).

The indicators characterising the utilisation of the available CDRs are represented by Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) for the flights planning on available CDRs and Actual Rate of Usage of available CDR (RAU). The AIRAC variation is shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 above, whereas averaged values for the second and third quarter 2013 are described in Figures 15-22 respectively.


- 15 -

Rate of Aircraft Interested Q2 CDR1

Planning on CDR174.1%

NOT on CDR125.9%


NOT on CDR232.6%


Figure 15 : RAI for CDR1 averaged for Q2 2013 Figure 16 : RAI for CDR2 averaged for Q2 2013



NOT on CDR124.6%

Rate of Aircraft Interested Q3CDR2

NOT on CDR232.2%


Figure 17 : RAI for CDR1 averaged for Q3 2013 Figure 18 : RAI for CDR2 averaged for Q3 2013

Rate of Actual Use Q2 CDR1

NOT on CDR116.2%

Flying on CDR183.8%


Flying on CDR280.7%

NOT on CDR219.3%

Figure 19 : RAU for CDR1 averaged for Q2 2013 Figure 20 : RAU for CDR2 averaged for Q2 2013


- 16 -


15.1%

Flying on CDR184.9%


Flying on CDR281.6%

NOT on CDR218.4%

Figure 21 : RAU for CDR1 averaged for Q3 2013 Figure 22 : RAU for CDR2 averaged for Q3 2013

The Figures 19 and 22 above represent the percentage of flights averaged for first quarter 2013 which actually flew on a CDR. For CDR1s there were between 15% and 16% of the flights which actually did not fly on those routes but overall the actual uptake is significantly higher than the flights that did not plan the accessible options of around 25% (RAI). This ‘positive trend is even more visible for CDR2s’ which drop from 32% of traffic not planned down to 18% actual not flying on the offered CDR2s.

There are many reasons for the identified gap between the accessible options offered by CDRs and the actual flight planning activity. One of them could be the significant level of complexity due to different published timesheets or activation schedules for various categories of CDRs which prevent operators to make use of the conditional routes offered.

It should be noted from the map (Figure 12) that the absolute number of published CDR2s’ (CDR2 and CDR1/2) compared to CDR1s’ is significantly lower (around 25% CDR2) and consequently the total impact of CDR2s’ on RAI/ RAU is reduced. The proportion is even more in favour of CDR1 (14%-15% planned and actually used CDR2) as shown in Figures 23 and 26 below.

CDR available for planning Q2CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR1110085%

CDR218815%

CDR used for planning Q2CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR216714%

CDR198986%

Figure 23 : CDR1 vs CDR2 available for Q2 2013 Figure 24 : CDR1 vs CDR2 planned for Q2 2013


- 17 -

CDR available for planning Q3CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR1113285%

CDR219415%

CDR used for planning Q3CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR217214%

CDR1104386%

Figure 25 : CDR1 vs CDR2 available for Q3 2013 Figure 26 : CDR1 vs CDR2 available for Q3 2013

However the consolidated statistics do not highlight the “hot spots” represented by those CDRs that have a high potential of usage. The low availability (ROCA) of some CDRs’ reduces the actual uptake (planned and actual).

CDR available for flying Q2CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR217014%

CDR1100986%

CDR actually flown Q2CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR194586%

CDR215614%

Figure 27 : CDR1 vs CDR2 available for Q2 2013 Figure 28 : CDR1 vs CDR2 flown for Q2 2013

CDR available for flying Q3CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR217514%

CDR1103586%

CDR actually flown Q3CDR1 vs. CDR2

CDR198486%

CDR216414%

Figure 29 : CDR1 vs CDR2 available for Q3 2013 Figure 30 : CDR1 vs CDR2 flown for Q3 2013

The Figures 27 and 28 above represent the percentage of flights averaged for second quarter 2013 which actually flew on a CDR1 (86%) or CDR2 (14%). The ratio of 1 to 6 between CDR2 and CDR1 available and actually used by the traffic remains the same for the third quarter as shown in Figures 29 and 30.


- 18 -

The data originated from NM data warehouse, the utilisation of FIND tool together with other internally developed tools allowed to get a comprehensive view of the evolution for the major FUA KPIs used for ASM performance reporting. The increased complexity of the CDR environment requires additional effort to carry out the adequate assessments/ analysis.

3.8 VERTICAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION

Not reported for this AIRAC cycle (reporting interval twice per year).


- 19 -

4. NETWORK MANAGER CONTRIBUTION TO FLIGHT EFFICIENC Y IMPROVEMENTS

4.1 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY BENEFITS

The NM flight efficiency (FE) initiative focuses on the improvement of the quality of flight planning. Currently it involves only the invalid flight plans affecting 4-5% of the total traffic in Europe. Those flights are manually corrected and where possible improvement proposals are made for shorter route options. For this AIRAC cycle the acceptance rate by the flight plan originator to the re-routing propositions is at an average level of 81% (76% for AIRAC 1308).

The graph below shows the evolution of the flight efficiency improvements over the last four AIRAC cycles until 18 September 2013. The savings achieved through re-filing of shorter route options during AIRAC 1309 amount to 18 362 NMs flown less, equivalent to 4 063 minutes flying time less (see Figure 19 below). The significant drop of savings between AIRAC 1307 and AIRAC 1308 is mainly linked to the composition of summer traffic, slightly decreasing during AIRAC 1309.

Flight Efficiency Initiatives total gains

31148

24416

34492

19038 18362

5538 64386884

3754 4063

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1305 1306 1307 1308 1309

Distance

Flying Time

Figure 31 : Flight efficiency improvements evolution

The total losses of 176 000 NMs calculated during the AIRAC cycle 1309 - based on the last filed flight plan indicator - are already including the savings achieved through the Network Manager flight efficiency initiative.

The effort to improve the quality of flight planning has to be much stronger in order to result in net savings. Therefore the Network Manager will identify further potential improvements in flight planning on the remaining 95% of the traffic for various flows and city pairs, taking into account the latest network situation.

4.2 INCREASE CDR AVAILABILITY AND UTILISATION

Since the start of the flight efficiency initiative in May 2013 the NM network impact assessment additionally works on the improvement of CDR availability and its utilisation. On D-1 the military liaison officer/ MILO looks to the Airspace Use Plan/ AUP in order to identify potential traffic/demand that could benefit from a CDR opening. The traffic identified is validated with the Aircraft Operator Liaison Officer/ AOLO who initiates a co-ordination with the flight plan originator. A re-route proposal is generated after a second x-check on the day itself/D-day.


- 20 -

FE CDR weekly savings

2942

3658 3555

1151745

962

1567

871

106 1590

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000W

eek

34

Wee

k

35

Wee

k

36

Wee

k

37

Wee

k

38

Dis

tanc

e (N

M)

Distance Potential Distance Realized

Figure 32 : CDR utilisation savings

The NM initiatives to improve the utilization of CDR routes during AIRAC cycle 1309 identified a potential of around 12 051 NM less to be flown. Due to a low acceptance of the re-route proposals by the airline operators - for operational reasons, reluctance to use the CDR route network in general or lack of knowledge of the process itself - only 20,6% (33% in AIARC 1308) of this potential has been used, representing 3 665 NM effective gain (See Figure 20 above).

FE CDR weekly savingsNr RRPs sent and acceptance level

40

56

34

4 4

33%39%

22%

5% 10%0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wee

k34

Wee

k35

Wee

k

36

Wee

k37

Wee

k

38

Nr f

light

s

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Acc

epta

nce

leve

l (%

)

Figure 33 : CDR re-routing acceptance rate

There is a big, unused potential of shorter rote options available through CDRs that could contribute to further improve flight efficiency, if airline operators would be ready and prepared to flight plan on conditional routes/CDRs.


- 21 -



- 22 -

ANNEX A: DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED 22 A UGUST 2013 The following table presents detailed information about each of the improvement proposals developed within the RNDSG and implemented 22 AUGUST 2013. The description of the proposals is based on the information available from different sources (e.g. AOs, ANSPs and EUROCONTROL). For the correctness and verification of the relevant aeronautical information consult official State AIP publication. The data from this document should not be used for operational purposes. The table includes:

� Proposal ID number: A reference number to identify each proposal allowing to trace at which RNDSG it was initiated.

� Project Name: Dedicated Name and Phase/ Step of the improvement project.

� Description: A detailed description of the planned improvement proposal.

� Objective: A brief description of the purpose of the enhancement measure.

� Implementation Status: The implementation status defined as Proposed, Planned, Confirmed or Implemented.

� Project Group: The Functional Airspace Block Group (FAB), Regional Focus Group (RFG), Sub-Group (SG) or any other Project Group(s) involved directly or indirectly by the proposed enhancement measure.

� Project Category: The nature of the proposed enhancement measure defined through Project Categories referring to:

o Airspace Structure; o ATC Sectors; o ATS Routes; o CDRs: o Civil/Military Airspace; o DCTs; o Free Route Airspace; o Night Routes; o PBN; o RAD; o Route Redesignation; o TMA.

� States and Organisations: The States and/or Organisations involved directly or indirectly by the proposed enhancement measure.

� Originator(s): The States and/or Organisations who have originated the proposal.

� Comments: The conditions and/or pre-requisites which have to be met in order to implement the proposal or any other relevant comment(s).

Note: The list of implemented changes for this AIRAC cycle does not claim to be complete.


- 23 -

Proposal ID : 75.006b Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments:

1.

Description: To modify RAD restriction LF3120 in order to exempt the city pair LIRF - EGLL.

Objective: To improve the flight efficiency of the city pair LIRF - EGLL.

Implemented 22 AUG 2013

Project Category: RAD 50 MPCPEs

FRA ITA CHE

Originator(s): EUROCONTROL

Related proposals: • 75.006a

Proposal ID : 79.073 Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments:

2.

Description: To extend the availibility of CDR1/3 route UQ863 BEDOX - PEROT FL285 - FL660 to: CDR1: 2100 (UTCW) - 0600 (UTCW) (2000-0500). CDR3: 0600 (UTCW) - 2100 (UTCW) (0500-2000).

Objective: To further improve the usability of existing CDRs within Zagreb FIR.


Project Category: CDRs

HRV

Originator(s): HRV

Current availability: • CDR1: 2300 (UTCW)-0500(UTCW) (2200-

0400); • CDR3: 0500(UTCW)-2300(UTCW) (0400-

2200).

Proposal ID : 79.074 Impl. Status: State(s) & Org. Comments:

3.

Description: 1. To lower the availibility of CDR route UQ223 OGULO - LUSAR from

currently FL 245 to FL 205. 2. To extend the availability of CDR1 UQ223 LUSAR - LURAG to

Summer 2200-0400, Winter 2200-0500. 3. To extend the availability of CDR1 UQ242 ORSUD - LUL to Summer

2200-0600, Winter 2200-0400.

Objective: To further improve the usability of existing CDRs between Reims FIR, Paris FIR, Marseille FIR and Switzerland FIR.


Project Category: CDRs

CHE FRA

Originator(s): CHE FRA

Current availability: • UQ223 CDR1: Summer 2300-0400, Winter

2200-0500. • UQ242 CDR1: Summer 2200 - 0600 Winter

2300 - 0400.


- 24 -

ANNEX B: ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY

1. The following ISO-3 coding of States is used in the column States and Organisation: ALB Albania IRQ Iraq ARM Armenia ITA Italy AUT Austria LBY Libyan Arab Jamahiriya AZE Azerbaijan LTU Lithuania BEL Belgium LUX Luxembourg BGR Bulgaria LVA Latvia BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina MAR Morocco BLR Belarus MDA Moldova, Republic of CHE Switzerland MKD The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia CYP Cyprus MLT Malta CZE Czech Republic MNE Montenegro DEU Germany NLD Netherlands DNK Denmark NOR Norway DZA Algeria POL Poland EGY Egypt PRT Portugal ESP Spain ROU Romania EST Estonia RUS Russian Federation FIN Finland SRB Serbia FRA France SVK Slovakia GBR United Kingdom SVN Slovenia GEO Georgia SWE Sweden GRC Greece SYR Syrian Arab Republic HRV Croatia TUN Tunisia HUN Hungary TUR Turkey IRL Ireland UKR Ukraine IRN Iran, Islamic Republic of

MUAC Maastricht UAC


- 25 -

2. BLUMED FAB, DANUBE FAB and FAB CE proposals referenced in proposal number box are coded with a unique identification number abbreviated as BM or DN or CE, respectively, following by four digits (XXXX) (example BM0001 or DN0001 or CE0001).

3. The content of each proposal is an indication of State’s intention to implement the relevant airspace improvement but don't represent a copy of any official publication. For the correctness and verification of the relevant aeronautical information consult official State AIP publication. The data from this document should not be used for operational purposes.


- 26 -



- 27 -

NM European Route Network Improvement Plan - Implementation Monitoring Report - AIRAC 1309TABLE OF CONTENT1. INTRODUCTION1.1 SUMMARY1.2 EVOLUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN TARGET1.3 AIRSPACE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING1.4 EXTERNAL DOCUMENT RELEASE

2. LIST OF PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTED AIRAC 1309 (22 AUGUST 2013)2.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED ON 22 AUGUST 2013

3. EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS3.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN INDICATOR EVOLUTION3.2 FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION3.3 ROUTE AVAILABILITY INDICATOR EVOLUTION3.4 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION PER AIRAC CYCLE3.4.1 EVOLUTION OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL INDICATORS3.4.2 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-DES AND RTE-FPL EVOLUTIONS3.4.3 BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENT OF RTE-RAD EVOLUTIONS

3.5 AIRSPACE CHANGES EVOLUTION3.6 FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE EVOLUTION3.7 ASM PERFORMANCE EVOLUTION - SECOND & THIRD QUARTER 20133.7.1 CDRs OVERVIEW

3.8 VERTICAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY EVOLUTION

4. NETWORK MANAGER CONTRIBUTION TO FLIGHT EFFICIENCYIMPROVEMENTS4.1 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY BENEFITS

ANNEX A: DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED 22 AUGUST 2013ANNEX B: ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY3.7.2 FUA PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Documents

Monitoring Report: AIRAC 1309 No 03/1203 22 August 2013 ......3.2 FLIGHT PLANNING INDICATOR EVOLUTION The graph below shows the yearly evolution of the last filed flight plan indicator