Transcript Project Title

EPATS
ATM General Requirements & relative
issues to be solved
ILA Berlin - May 2008
Marc Brochard - EEC
1
ATM impact assessment
Potential EPATS Traffic
These are big figures ….
Can we integrate this new
traffic in the ATM in 2020?
2
ATM impact assessment
method
The problematic for assessing EPATS – a new business – on the ATM
of the future:
No EPATS history (but do we not already have kind of EPATS
in the air?)
SESAR concepts - an evolution of the current ATM system (not
a revolution) – providing more capacity, more autonomy, better
fitting to airspace users needs (strategic traffic organisation,
preferred FL/4D profile– business trajectory) – network centric
architecture (data and decision sharing – SWIM) still human
centred …. but still requiring clarifications and validations
3
ATM impact assessment
EPATS aircraft
4
ATM impact assessment
EPATS traffic today
2007, EPATS “kind of”= 839500 flights a year
= 8.1% of total IFR traffic
EPATS traffic
5
total traffic
ATM impact assessment
EPATS traffic 2020 vs capacity
100%
Case A – 44 millions EPATS
80%
60%
VFR
40%
IFR
14 millions IFR EPATS max
30 millions VFR EPATS max
20%
0%
STATFOR
STATFOR updated
SESAR
VFR
42.397
41.263
29.899
IFR
1.782
2.916
14.28
100%
Case B – 42 millions EPATS
80%
60%
VFR
40%
IFR
14 millions IFR EPATS max
28 millions VFR EPATS max
20%
0%
STAFOR
STATFOR updated
SESAR
VFR
41.142
40.091
28.644
IFR
1.782
2.833
14.28
6
ATM impact assessment
EPATS traffic 2020 vs capacity
Within STATFOR - up to 2 millions EPATS IFR
Extending STATFOR – up to 3 millions EPATS IFR
Filling SESAR target capacities - up to 14 millions EPATS
IFR
SESAR theoretical target capacity = limitations to be
assessed
Beyond 14 millions EPATS IFR – outside the overall 2020
ATM capacities
7
ATM impact assessment
FL distribution
EPATS cruising Flight Level distribution (standard distribution,
not integrating ATM constraints)
Most of EPATS
flying below FL190
SESAR Airspace design for IFR and VFR vs managed and unmanaged airspace (vertical (FL) and geographical design – dynamic
and morphing)
8
ATM impact assessment
Geographic distribution
EPATS seems to be
avoiding the current
ECAC Core Area
May be creating new dense/congested area and airports (mainly south
of Europe but also England)
Mixed traffic (traditional ones + EPATS (IFR & VFR)) with TMA
potential impact
9
ATM impact assessment
Distance distribution
Most of EPATS seems to be flying not longer than 500 Kms
10
ATM impact assessment
EPATS Daily Traffic
Daily EPATS traffic :
highly distributed over Europe with potential impact on traffic
complexity (mixing IFR & VFR flights)
avoiding current ECAC Core Area, most congested Airport and
Waypoints …. but integrated in TMA
May be creating new dense/congested area and airports (mainly
south of Europe but also England)
Flying at low level (FL190) and on relative short distances
(500Km)
11
ATM impact assessment
EPATS Business Model
EPATS to fit in the SESAR Business Trajectory process:
strategic planning and negotiation
What will be the EPATS business model?
Flight on request or scheduled?
12
ATM impact assessment
Conclusions – ATM Impacts
ATM impact:
System capacity (sever challenge for SESAR to handle 14 Millions EPATS
IFR flights with high number of EPATS VFR flights)
Traffic complexity (high distribution – new dense area leading to design new
SESAR managed airspaces)
Airspace design both for IFR and VFR EPATS flights (might be constrained by
the SESAR airspace design as most of EPATS flight will be in un-managed
airspace – dynamic and morphing airspace)
Terminal area Safety (mixing traditional traffic with EPATS traffic with
different aircraft performances (speed – wake vortex) – dense area thus SESAR
managed airspace – IFR only? VFR?)
Safety (Self separation management & self conflict avoidance - less skilled
EPATS pilots? – on-board equipment mandatory for flying SESAR – single
pilot)
13
ATM impact assessment
Conclusions - R&D needs
EPATS R&D needs:
SESAR Airspace design for IFR and VFR vs managed and un-managed airspace
(vertical (FL) and geographical design – dynamic and morphing)
SESAR Business Trajectory management for EPATS flight (IFR and VFR?) and
EPATS FL allocation (including flight planning and trajectory negotiation and SWIM
issues)
SESAR and VFR flights
Single piloting in un-managed and managed airspace (Safety - separation management
and conflict avoidance - autonomous EPATS flight – Air Traffic Controller impact)
EPATS cockpit equipment for supporting SESAR standard requirements
TMA operation mixing EPATS and traditional flights (AMAN, DMAN, SIDs, STARs,
CDA concept, Aircraft performances)
En-Route operation mixing EPATS and traditional flights (Aircraft performances,
managed airspace, Routing, separation management)
EPATS scenarios for EPATS traffic assessment: Safety, flight efficiency, cost, effective
capacity, complexity, delay
14
Thank you …
15
Contact:
[email protected]
www.eurocontrol.int