International Journal on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics (IJMER)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
An Analysis on the Future Architecture of European Airspace
Adrian MURARU
PhD stud. , Transilvania” University, Brasov, Romania Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The increase in global needs means more aircraft in the air; it is estimated that until 2020 air traffic flow will have doubled leaving modern air traffic management system to be overwhelmed. Although the issue has been discussed since the late 90’s, all air traffic management agencies in Europe have agreed that the Single European Sky (SES) initiative is one course of action, implementation for this method will be slow due the particularities of each nations aeronautical laws and regulations.
Keywords: ATM - Air Traffic Management, ATC - Air Traffic Control, ANSP - Air Navigation Service Provider, FAB - Functional Airspace Block, ATFM - Air Traffic Flow Management
1. INTRODUCTION
Created from the technological progress of the XX century, the civil aviation has evolved into a global network of transport and business. The need to offer quality services to customers, with the aim to improve commerce and the conditions of travel. ATM stands out throw the way airplanes can travel safely, without delays and without events regarding the flight issues. ATC implementations of the flight safety system is based on a new set of rules and procedures regarding air space management, with the need maintained on the sovereignty of the national air space, these aspects have put the base for the creation and development of organizations that today offer air traffic service ANSP ATM is defined by International civil aeronautical organization (ICAO) as “the dynamic, integrated management of air traffic and airspace - safely, economically, and efficiently - through the provision of facilities and seamless services in collaboration with all parties”[9]. Although the primary parties interested in the air transport industry pretend that the main objective is the modernization of ATM, the reality is that they put more importance on providing ATC services. The methods in which the services are provided have not been changed since they were first developed. In any case, today the ones that provide ATC services are under great pressure to radically change their way of operations, the operation capacity, the attitude regarding the rapid evolution of the social-political climate and the technological progress that is rapidly evolving.
The main role of Single European Sky (SES) is to bring together the primary parties interested that defines today air transport to development a vision of the ATM that will be applied starting with 2020.
Surce: Eurostat 1. Functional Airspace Block (FAB)
In the context of the SES regulation, in March 2004, The European Commission has forwarded a report to EUROCONTROL called Mandate on Support for Establishment of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs);
the main idea is to consolidate regional cooperation between ATC structures. The SES provisions try to reorganize the superior airspace (over FL285) through the implementation of FABs. There is no clear definition of FAB, but the SES regulation refer to some conditions regarding the possible definition an airspace of defined boundaries in which ATC service is provided.
The specific attributes that an FAB must have:
- To be built according to the operational requirements;
- To insure an integrated and efficient air space management;
- Not to be confined by national boundaries.
These FABs will be created in accordance with the efficient flow of flights without taking into considerations national borders. One single structure will be responsible for every FAB, even if it serves several countries. The new network of routes will have the following operational objectives:
- Safety: to insure an ever increasing level of safety despite the rising in civilian and military traffic;
- Capacity: to ensure the requirements of air traffic;
- Cost effective: to achieve optimal cost for operations in FABs with ATC;
- Flight effective: to find optimal routes for continuous clime/decent and for the minimum time and distance spent in flight;
- Environment: to reduce the impact on the environment by choosing the optimal route, the appropriate flight profile and reducing the time spent in the air;
- Efficient military missions: to execute missions inside FABs, and not inside national airspace; this aspect requires an attentive coordination at the military level of each country that is dependent on the respective block.
- Integrating UAS for safe fights in FABS.
The Key Performance Indicator KPI of the Performance Review Commission PRC[12] regarding the efficient operation refers to:
- ATFM delays regarding flight in hours;
- Drastically reduction of the length of routes;
- Optimal climb/descend flight paths.
It is important to notice that fight delays are in hours and not in miles like the US version, at the time there are not enough technical and data information to accurately determine the efficient of flight in the optimal climb/decent path, the most urgent problems that are address are regarding the transfer from air ways to the terminal aria of on airport.
Next the main idea of FAB will be presented through the reduction of time and distance of flight as much as 20%
per flight.
Figure 1: Rerouting in the FAB context[13]
As we can see in the figure 1 the extension of route of a flight which represents the different between the direct path of the two points and the route the flight has to follow, this can be analyses by 3 views as follow:
1. Reroute/ ATC services from each individual state.
This represents the difference between the entry point and the exit point of a state and the curve route described by the effective flight of the airplane see the second image. This reconfiguration of the route is the main objective of the FAB but at the state level and not as group of countries;
2. Reroute/ ATC services from FAB’s. This represents the difference between the sum of curve routes from each member state of the FAB and the direct line from
The distance between the transfer between state and the transfer line inside the FABs;
3. Reroute/ ATC service inside European airspace. It refers to the difference between the sum of the routes form every FAB and the direct line between the departure and arrival see the fourth image. The distance between the transfer points of each Fab and the line D – A.
Figure 2: European airspace density[14]
Using the principle stipulated earlier and feasibility studies the European airspace could be reorganized as shown in the figure below.
Figure 3: Proposed European FAB[13]
There are about 9 proposed FABs that were submitted to the European commission for ratification. Each is concentrated on arias with similar traffic. In the creation there were considered that the limit of a FAB would coincide with national borders. The lower limit of FABs will be FL 285 and the superior would be unlimited
II. EN-ROUTE VIABILITY
We can assess that the CESAR initiative will have a major impact in the air traffic architecture, also a major role in air transport industry is played be the jet fuel price and also over flight fees that aircrafts pay for ATC services.
Source: Indexmundi Figure 4 Price (Euro)/Liter
Next we will compere 2 flights B763 LY312 from London-Tel Aviv and also B752 AY1376 New-York-Tel Aviv both running the Rolls-Royce RB211 gas turbine systems that has a typical 0,4 liter / Km of flight specific fuel consumption[15] starting with the idea that SES is implemented and all Europe and direct flight, optimal clime/descent paths have been implemented.
Source: Flightradar24 Figure 6: Normal Flight vs Direct Flight (LND-TAV) As we can see in the figure above the differences between normal and direct flight path is only 59Km which can translate to approximately 26 Euro and 4 min delay time.
Also the flight overflies a number of 9 stats (UK, France, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Greece, Turkey and Israel) which bring the total cost of overfly to 383 Euros
Taking the new data into account the airline could consider rerouting for a bigger delay throw Italy thus reducing the number of country to 6 (UK, France, Switzerland, Italy, Greece and Israel) however this would cost them 367 Euros do to the fact that Italy and Switzerland have bigger overfly fees. For comparison the US has an over flight fee of $49.95 of en-route and
$20.09 for oceanic overfight.[16]
Source: Flightradar24 Figure 7: Normal Flight vs Direct Flight (FNC-HEL) The next flight presented is a B752 AY1376 from Funchal to Helsinki the difference between normal and direct flight path us 105Km at an estimated cost of 46 Euro in fuel and approximately 7 minutes it also over flights 10 country’s (Madeira Island, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland) bring the sun to 410 Euros for European over flight.
III. CONCLUSIONS
These 2 random cases of flight illustrate that the SES initiative is a good way to conceive the future however regarding ATM however changes in overfly fees in all European airspace have to be made integrating a single fee for all European airspace thus reducing the cost of airlines to operate.
The Single European Sky initiative was launched in 2000 by the European Commissions as an answer to the major delays reported in 1999. A research comity was established, and based on their findings the European Commissions has created a new legislative packet at the end of 2001.
The SES is trying to:
- Increase the safety and efficiency of air traffic in Europe;
- Reduce delays throw the optimal use of air space;
- Improve ATC services and reduce costs;
- Successfully integrate military aviation in FABs.
Despite intense efforts to optimize European ATM regarding costs, there is no doubt that the system provides safety at an immense cost.
ATFM is firstly being prevented by actual practices and constrains regarding air laws that are primary based on national borders and not on areas with intense air flow.
The implementation of the SES legislative packages will be done in two steps named SES I and SES II. The first will follow the achievement of the base objectives
- A superior level of safety of the air navigation service;
- A developed architectures of ATFM more efficient;
- Efficient coordination between neighboring countries;
- New improved processes for decision making.
Also in this program it is necessary to integrate military flights in European ATM and creating a set of rules and principals that both sides can benefit from.
The second legislative package SES II was developed as a response to rising of airspace users that utilizes the maximum capacity of airports and ATM. The safety level must raise directly with the rise on number of aircrafts that transit European airspace. At the same time an important pressure regarding environmental issues is been exercised.
To respond to this aspect SES II will address in essence aspects regarding:
- Creating an unique safety frame to help the development of all the implicated parties;
- Improving ATM systems through elaborating long term goals and objectives;
- Raising airports capacity and air space blocks.
FABs come as a response to the solicitations of SES I and SES II being the means in which the objective stipulated earlier can be achieved. They are blocks of air space that acquire areas of responsibility of the neighboring ACC and designated for efficient flight regarding distance, time and also reducing cost and negative environmental effects.
These entire objective have the year 2025 as a limit, also the results will become visible by the year 2020.
SES is a complex and highly required program that once implemented will work under the principle
“maximum results with minimum efforts”.
REFERENCES
[1]. ICAO – Manual on Global Performance of the Air Navigation System – Doc 9883
[2]. European Air Traffic Management Master Plan Edition 1 - 30 March 2009
[3]. Air Transport Framework D1 The Current Situation JULY 2006
[4]. Air Transport Framework D2 The Performance Target December 2006
[5]. Air Transport Framework D3 The ATM Target Concept September 2007
[6]. Air Transport Framework D4 The ATM Deployment Sequence January 2008
[8]. Air Transport Framework D6 Work Programme for 2008-2013 April 2008
[9]. ICAO – Global ATM Operational Concept – Doc 9854 Edition 2005, pag. 8
[10]. The Impact of Fragmentation in European ATM/CNS, April 2006
[11]. The ATM Surveillance Strategy for ECAC, Ed.
2.2, 07 April 2008
[12]. Performance Review Unit (PRU), ATM Cost- Effectiveness (ACE) 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook, May 2012
[13]. Eurocontrol Performance Review Commission
“Evaluation of functional airspace Block (FAB) initiatives and their contribution To Performance improvement”, October 2008, page ii
[14]. http://www.eurocontrol.int/network- operations/general-public-information [15]. http://www.rolls-
royce.com/energy/energy_products/gas_turbines/
rb211/
[16].
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_avi ation/overflight_fee
