Durville - R - 2013 PDF

Romain Durville
Applicability of the Initial 4D Trajectory Management Function to

Mixed Equipage Operations within the Near Future Single European
Sky
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
MSc Air Transport Management
MSc THESIS
Academic Year: 2012 - 2013
Supervisor: Andy Foster

August 2013
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
MSc Air Transport Management
MSc THESIS
Academic Year: 2012 - 2013
Romain Durville
Applicability of the Initial 4D Trajectory Management Function to

Mixed Equipage Operations within the Near Future Single European
Sky
Supervisor: Andy Foster

August 2013
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science
Cranfield University 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this

publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the
copyright owner.
i
Intentionally left blank
ii
ABSTRACT
In the recent evolutionary framework of the Air Traffic Management (ATM) in
Europe, with the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Programme,
significant challenges are starting to emerge in preparation for the deployment
phase of the programme. One of the greatest challenges is now to prepare and
ensure a synchronised deployment of each new future ATM concept or
innovation in a mixed equipage environment (i.e. a mix of equipped and
unequipped aircraft). Among the different related ATM concepts, the initial 4D
(i4D) Trajectory Management concept is especially mature, and will be
deployed shortly throughout the European sky. This ATM concept, defined and
supported by the SESAR Programme, is indeed one of the key steps of the
European ATM target concept for 2020 onwards. The purpose of this concept is
to cope with the growth in worldwide traffic and the continuous increase in
environmental constraints.
The research study hereinafter focuses on the assessment of the i4D Trajectory
Management concept for mixed equipage operations, within its deployment
timeline. The main objective was firstly to analyse if i4D operations in a mixed
equipage environment would bring benefits to i4D-equipped flights without
penalizing unequipped flights during the i4D deployment phase. In addition,
another study was carried out, in order to elucidate the degree of impact on the
deployment of i4D operations from both a global point of view and from an
airlines perspective.
It has therefore been demonstrated that i4D operations in mixed equipage
operations will globally increase benefits throughout the deployment phase
compared to the situation today. While equipped flights will obtain significant
benefits during the entire deployment phase, unequipped flights will also obtain
benefits as soon as i4D operations become largely deployed. Finally, the last
conducted analysis revealed that specific precautions must be taken and that
the degree of benefits stemming from i4D operations will be significant for
airlines according to both their type of operations and their fleet age breakdown.
Keywords: ATM, SESAR, Deployment, i4D Operations, Equipped and
Unequipped Aircraft, Benefits
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this research thesis is a milestone in seven years of intense

studies, during which I have had the opportunity to develop both my
interpersonal and professional skills. This final year at Cranfield University has
been an outstanding part of my student life during which I gained extensive
knowledge in the most stimulating academic environment I have known.
However, I would have never succeeded in joining Cranfield and achieving this
final Master thesis without the help and support of the people who surrounded
me.
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank my parents without whom I would have
never reached this level of education. They have always been there to
encourage me when I was in low spirits. In addition, special thanks go to the
rest of my family and to my closest friends who have always supported me in
my endeavours.
As regards this final three-month period, I would like to express my personal
gratitude to the following people:
Andy Foster, my thesis supervisor from Cranfield University, who has
supported me and advised me throughout the entire thesis period.
Benot Couturier, my supervisor in Airbus with whom I carefully defined
my thesis subject. Benot has been extremely helpful, providing me with
his continuous support, in addition to sharing his valuable knowledge and
opinions with me, every time I needed to enhance my research.
Other Airbus-related ATM experts who took the time to discuss with me
and to answer my questions, in particular Maud Rotureau, Daniel Ferro,
and Patrick Lelievre.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to Vrane who has been a constant comfort
throughout this intense academic year.
Disclaimer Statement
This thesis has benefited from, and been aided by, the support, expert guidance
and
data
or
information
provision
of
organizations
and/or
persons
acknowledged herein. However, unless otherwise stated, no endorsement of

the results or methods employed in this research has been given by those
acknowledged, nor should such endorsement be assumed by the reader.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. x
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. xiii
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Setting the Scene...................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 A Brief Introduction to the European ATM .......................................... 1
1.1.2 The Recent European ATM Reform ................................................... 3
1.2 Research Context ..................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Limitations and Hypothesis ....................................................... 6
1.4 Research Aim and Specific Objectives ..................................................... 6
1.5 Structure of the Thesis .............................................................................. 7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 9
2.1 An Overview of SESAR within the SES Context ....................................... 9
2.1.1 SES Performance Context ............................................................... 12
2.1.2 SESAR Programme vs. SESAR Joint Undertaking .......................... 13
2.1.3 SESAR Work Structure and Relationship with the Thesis Work ...... 16
2.1.4 SESAR Phases and Concept Steps ................................................. 18
2.1.5 Airbus within SESAR ........................................................................ 20
2.2 A Complete Overview of the i4D Function .............................................. 22
2.2.1 Primary Projects Achieved ............................................................... 22
2.2.2 I4D Trajectory Management Function Definition .............................. 24
2.2.3 I4D Operational Concept Description vs. Today Operations ............ 25
2.2.4 I4D Validation Steps through Flight Trials and Simulations .............. 33
2.2.5 Overall Benefit obtained from i4D Operations .................................. 35
2.3 Mixed Equipage ...................................................................................... 37
2.3.1 Overall Principle and i4D-Related Aircraft Equipage ........................ 37
2.3.2 Previous General Theoretical Studies .............................................. 39
vii
3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 41
3.1 Overall Thought Process ........................................................................ 41
3.2 Scope of the Study: Assumptions and Limitations .................................. 43
3.3 Experiment Design in Mixed Fleet Operations ........................................ 45
3.3.1 Deployment Phases/Flights Models Definition ................................. 47
3.3.2 Source: Compiled by the authorToday Base Model Considered
for Comparison.......................................................................................... 49
3.4 Identification of Key Enablers/Bottlenecks .............................................. 54
3.5 Case-Study Scenario Definition .............................................................. 56
4 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION .................................... 59
4.1 Impact Assessment................................................................................. 59
4.1.1 Scenario 1 ........................................................................................ 60
4.1.2 Scenario 2 ........................................................................................ 62
4.1.3 Scenario 3 ........................................................................................ 64
4.1.4 Degree of Change during the i4D Deployment ................................. 66
4.2 Opportunities and Risk Assessment ....................................................... 70
4.2.1 Status for Equipped Flights .............................................................. 70
4.2.2 Status for Unequipped Flights .......................................................... 71
4.2.3 Overall Risk Assessment and Trails of Further Study ...................... 72
4.3 Implications and Impact on the i4D Implementation from an Airlines
Perspective ................................................................................................... 73
4.3.1 Scope of the in-depth Fleet Analysis of EU Airlines ......................... 73
4.3.2 Results for Traditional Scheduled Airlines ........................................ 75
4.3.3 Results for Low Cost Airlines ........................................................... 77
4.3.4 Ways to Foster the Initial i4D Deployment Strategic Principles ..... 79
4.4 Further Discussion on Final Results Sensitivity Analysis ..................... 80
4.4.1 Regarding Degree of Change throughout the i4D Deployment ........ 80
4.4.2 Regarding the Fleet Analysis of EU Airlines ..................................... 81
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK .......................................................... 83
5.1 Outcome of the Thesis and Conclusion on i4D Operations in a Mixed
Equipage Environment.................................................................................. 83
5.2 Recommendations and Next Steps ........................................................ 85
viii
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 89
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 95
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 European ATM Global Structure ....................................................... 1

Figure 1-2 EU Performance Scheme - ATM Master Plan Goals ........................ 3
Figure 2-1 SESAR Programme Overall Work Breakdown Structure ............. 17
Figure 2-2 SESAR Concept Steps and their Relationship to the Deployment
Baseline ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-3 Different Steps of Air/Ground Exchanges throughout the Entire i4D
Operational Concept .................................................................................. 31
Figure 2-4 Route Flown during the First i4D Flight Trial ................................... 33
Figure 3-1 Overall Thought Process ................................................................. 41
Figure 3-2 44 Member Countries of the ECAC ................................................. 43
Figure 3-3 Considered Operational Area AMAN Horizon .............................. 44
Figure 3-4 Considered Referential Flow of Todays Arrival Sequencing .......... 44
Figure 3-5 Fleet Evolution Forecast from 2018 to 2030 related to the i4D
Deployment ............................................................................................... 47
Figure 3-6 Average Breakdown of Arrival Delay Causes at the Top 10 EU
Arrival Airports with Heaviest Delays in 2012 ............................................ 51
Figure 3-7 Todays Base Model Considered for Comparison ........................... 52
Figure 3-8 Validation Targets Allocated to i4D ................................................. 54
Figure 4-1 Scenario 1 Assessment Matrix - Equipped vs. Unequipped Flights 60
Figure 4-2 Scenario 1 Assessment Matrix - Globally ........................................ 61

Figure 4-7 Expected Degree of Change during the i4D Deployment
Equipped Flights ........................................................................................ 67
Unequipped Flights .................................................................................... 68
Globally...................................................................................................... 69
Figure 4-10 Market Share by Aviation Segments in Europe in 2012 ................ 73
Figure 4-11 Market Segmentation vs. Fleet Age for Traditional Scheduled
Airlines Expected to end 2018 ................................................................ 75
Figure 4-12 Market Segmentation vs. Fleet Age for Low Cost Airlines
Expected to end 2018 ................................................................................ 77
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Main Differences between SESAR and NextGen ............................. 10

Table 2-2 Main Similarities between SESAR and NextGen ............................. 11
Table 2-3 Key Conceptual Differences in Operating Methods between Todays
Operations and i4D Operations ................................................................. 32
Table 3-1 Defined i4D Deployment Phases ..................................................... 49
Table 3-2 Defined Flights Models ..................................................................... 49
Table 3-3 Breakdown of Actual All-Causes Arrival Punctuality in 2012 ............ 50
Table 4-1 Opportunities and Risk Assessment Equipped Flights .................. 70
Table 4-2 Opportunities and Risk Assessment Unequipped Flights .............. 71
Table 4-3 Assessment Matrix of Selected Traditional Scheduled Airlines
Results for Expected Status in 2018 .......................................................... 76
Table 4-4 Assessment Matrix of Selected Low Cost Airlines Results for
Expected Status in 2018 ............................................................................ 78
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A/C
Aircraft
ADS-C
Automatic Dependant Surveillance - Contract
AMAN
Arrival Manager
ANS
Air Navigation Services
ANSP
Air Navigation Service Provider
APP
Approach
ASAS
Airborne Separation Assistance System
ATC
Air Traffic Control
ATCO
Air Traffic Controller
ATFM
Air Traffic Flow Management
ATM
Air Traffic Management
ATSU
Air Traffic Service Unit
CASE
Client Aviation System Enquiry
CASSIS
CTA/ATC System Integration Studies
CDA
Continuous Descent Approach
CNS
Communication Navigation Surveillance
CODA
Central Office for Delay Analysis
CPDLC
Controller Pilot Datalink Communication
CTA
Controlled Time of Arrival
DoC
Degree of Change
DOC
Direct Operating Cost
ECAC
European Civil Aviation Conference
xiii
EPP
Extended Projected Profile
ETA
Estimated Time of Arrival
EU
European Union
FM1
Flights Model 1
FM2
Flights Model 2
FM3
Flights Model 3
FMS
Flight Management System
I4D or i4D
Initial Four Dimensions
IFR
Instrument Flight Rules
KPA
Key Performance Area
LCC
Low Cost Carrier
LR
Long Range
MUAC
Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre
NAS
National Airspace System
NCOIC
Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium
NIMS
Network Information Management Systems
OFA
Operational Focus Area
OSED
Operational Service and Environment Description
xiv
PAX
Passenger(s)
PBN
Performance Based Navigation
R&D
Research and Development
R/T
Receiver/Transmitter
RTA
Required Time of Arrival
RWY
Runway
SA
Single Aisle
SES
Single European Sky
SESAR
Single European Sky ATM Research
SJU
SESAR Joint Undertaking
SWIM
System Wide Information Management
TMA
Terminal Manoeuvring Area
ToD
Top of Descent
US
United States
WP
Work Package
xv
xvi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Setting the Scene

1.1.1 A Brief Introduction to the European ATM
In the Air Transport value chain, the Air Traffic Management (ATM) framework
gathers the essential infrastructures of systems, people, and procedures, which
together with airports enable Air Transport and other aerial movements to
operate in a safe and efficient manner. ATM covers three main missions (Refer
to Figure 1-1 below that illustrates the global structure of ATM in Europe).
Figure 1-1 European ATM Global Structure

Source: Compiled by the author based on EUROCONTROL web pages (2013c)
The first mission of ATM is to control air traffic by managing the synchronisation
and the separation of aircraft, both on the ground and in the air.
The second mission of ATM is to manage and organise the airspace by
establishing
permanent
or
dynamic
airspace
structures,
in
order
to
accommodate the different types of air activities, the volume of traffic, and the
corresponding resources.
Finally, the third mission of ATM is to manage the air traffic flow and capacity by
creating an orderly flow of air traffic through orientation, ground departure
sequences, and balanced capacity management.
The Air Traffic Control (ATC), airspace management and Air Traffic Flow
Management (ATFM) services, which make up ATM, are provided in Europe by
Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and EUROCONTROL. These
organisations are responsible for organising and managing the safe and
efficient flow of aircraft in the air and on the ground. ATC is the most visible part
of Air Navigation Services (ANS) (EUROCONTROL, 2013c and SJU, 2013a).
Today, European aviation represents 790 million passengers and 3.2 million
workers. ATM is an integral part of the European aviation with 56,000 workers
(Griffiths, 2013). While European ATM currently handles approximately 26,000
flights daily, it is forecasted that EU traffic will significantly increase by 2020
(EUROCONTROL, 2013c).
1.1.2 The Recent European ATM Reform
In 2004, the EU Commission launched the Single European Sky (SES) under a
first legislative package (SES I) with ambitious initiatives aimed at reforming the
architecture of European ATM. SES I involves the implementation of a package
of measures, in order to satisfy the needs expressed by several stakeholders.
Firstly, the ANSPs, who want to provide a better quality of service at a lower
unit cost for airspace users. Secondly, the airlines, who want to meet the
demand with a better quality of service, better flight profiles, and hence, lower
fuel consumption. Thirdly, the airports, that want to optimise operations. Then,
the passengers, who would like the provision of a better service at a lower cost,
with increased safety and fewer delays. Finally the general public would like a
more environmentally-friendly system with less noise. These measures apply to
both the civil and military sectors, and cover the regulatory, safety, airport
capacity and technological aspects of aviation (SJU, 2013a). Within the ATM
framework, an ATM Master Plan has been defined, in order to cover all the
measures and expectations (Refer to Figure 1-2 below that illustrates the 4
different pillars of the ATM Master Plan).
Figure 1-2 EU Performance Scheme - ATM Master Plan Goals

Source: Compiled by the author based on the Building a Single European Sky
presentation by Peter Griffiths (2013)
Under the first pillar, which deals with the regulation of performance, the EU
Commission has three different measures namely, to drive the performance of
the ATC system, to facilitate the integration of service provision, and to
strengthen the network management function.
Under the second pillar that aims to ensure a single safety framework, the EU
Commission stresses that the growth in air traffic, the congestion of airspace
and aerodromes, as well as the use of new technologies justify a common
approach to the development and application of harmonised regulation to
improve safety levels in air transport.
Regarding the third pillar, whose objective is to open the door to new
technologies, the EU commission notes that the present ATC system is being
pushed to its limits, working with obsolescent technologies and suffering from
fragmentation. As a result, Europe must speed up the development of its control
system.
Finally, under the fourth pillar that aims to manage capacity on the ground, the
EU commission insists that investment is necessary, in order to ensure that
airport capacity remains aligned with the air transport management capacity,
and to preserve the overall efficiency of the network.
Following this SES initiative, the SESAR Programme was launched in order to
find operational and technological solutions to cope with the growing demand
for air travel, as traffic is expected to significantly increase in Europe by 2030
(SJU, 2013a). In addition the SESAR Programme is a key step to boost air
traffic management in Europe, as the ATM has not been sufficiently improved
yet and the technologies used are becoming old and saturated.
1.2 Research Context
Within this ATM reform context of improving ATM in Europe and as part of the
SESAR Programme, several innovations have been launched and are currently
being thoroughly studied by many European actors, in order to prepare their
near future deployment in Europe. One of these outstanding innovations is the
initial 4D (i4D) Trajectory Management function, which is a key research project
within SESAR, and is on track to be implemented and deployed in the shortterm.
Led by Airbus and in association with related SESAR work packages, the i4D
Trajectory Management function is already well defined and is now undergoing
analysis by the Airbus performance team, in order to precisely assess benefits
and costs related to i4D operations. Nevertheless, at the same time, some
challenges and question marks still need to be clarified regarding the
deployment of the i4D function. In particular, the assessment of i4D operations
in a mixed equipage environment (i.e. equipped and unequipped aircraft) has
not yet been achieved by the contributors to the i4D project. In light of this need,
the research aim of the thesis has been defined with the Airbus team in charge
of the business evaluation of the i4D project.
Therefore, the outcome of the herein thesis research is a concrete added value
to the assessment of i4D operations in its near deployment phase. In addition,
the results stemming from this research are expected to contribute to the
initiation of further strategic and business studies regarding the deployment of
i4D operations in mixed fleets.
1.3 Research Limitations and Hypothesis
The herein research work only focuses on the European airspace in the context
of the SES and the SESAR Programme. As a result, no reference to the United
States counterpart programme (namely NextGen) is made in this thesis.
In addition, the hereafter study is based on a major hypothesis, namely that
efficient Arrival Manager (AMAN1) capabilities will be available and in service on
time for the deployment of the i4D function. Indeed, the feasibility and reliable
performance of i4D operations are based not only on efficient airborne systems
but also even more importantly on effective ground infrastructures (such as the
AMAN tool). Without the implementation of efficient AMAN capabilities, i4D
operations could not provide most of their resulting benefits as the
synchronisation between air and ground would not be optimised.
1.4 Research Aim and Specific Objectives
The overall aim of this research is to qualitatively analyse if i4D operations in a

mixed equipage environment will provide benefits to i4D-equipped flights
without penalizing unequipped flights during the entire i4D deployment phase.
In order to achieve this overall aim, specific objectives have been defined and
are listed below:
The AMAN is a dedicated support tool for arrival management, which provides sequencing
and metering capability for an airport. Optimised sequences are provided based on demand for
the runway at any given time, and on locally-defined optimisation criteria and input, such as
required runway throughput. The AMAN automatically tracks arrival aircraft progress and within
set rules it adjusts an aircrafts position/time in the sequence, as required (SJU, 2012a).
Assess the overall benefit of i4D operations in mixed equipage

operations
Define the status for equipped/unequipped flights within the entire i4D
deployment phase, analysing the degree of change (positive or negative)
compared to todays operations
Conclude on operation in mixed equipage related to the i4D function, by
identifying opportunities and risks
Suggest strategic principles related to the deployment of i4D operations
in mixed fleet, given the assessed implications and impacts from an
airlines perspective.
1.5 Structure of the Thesis
Having introduced the research context and framework in Chapter 1, Chapter 2

provides an overview of the corresponding environment in addition to all
background information related to the main concepts that are discussed within
the research work.
Subsequently, Chapter 3 presents the methodology put in place, in order to
effectively satisfy the respective objectives of the thesis. Both the entire
experiment design and case-study scenarios are defined within this section.
Following on from Chapter 3, Chapter 4 addresses the results of the previous
analysis and discusses them from different points of view. In addition, an indepth fleet analysis focusing on EU airlines is described and discussed in this
section.
Finally, Chapter 5 provides a conclusion of the overall thesis work by
summarising the achieved contributions of the research. In addition,
recommendations for future research work and further activities in the
continuation of the obtained results are addressed in this final section.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 An Overview of SESAR within the SES Context
Before describing SESAR in more details, the following summary tables are
offered for readers, in order to understand how SESAR differs from NextGen.
These tables highlight the main differences (Refer to below Table 2-1) between
the SESAR and NextGen Concepts of Operations, and also the main similarities
(Refer to below Table 2-2).
Differences
Overall Goal
Perspective of
the Concept
SESAR
NextGen
To achieve a performance-based
European ATM System, built in
partnership, to best support the ever
increasing expectations for air
transport with respect to the growing
global mobility, in a safe, secure, and
environmentally sustainable & costeffective manner
To achieve a Next Generation Air

Transport System that meets the
nations future air transport safety,
security, mobility, efficiency, and
environmental needs
Strict ATM focus

Gate-to-Gate view with a window on
the turnaround process
In addition to ATM, it also deals with

other elements that may impact
ATM (such as Homeland Security)
Curb-to-Curb view (i.e. all aspects of
airport terminal and passenger
operations)
ATM Service
U.S. Government is the only ANSP
Culture and
Politics
Several member states that must

agree
Many ANSPs
One nation from the start
More governmental approach

NextGen is more governmentowned and driven
Very Different
Industry
Structure
More collaborative approach

including for instance ATM ground
activities
FAA funding is not cost-based

FAA includes regulation and service
provision
Industry participation is through the
NGATS Institute to avoid
competitive issues
Single military presence
Operational
Concept
2020+
2025+
Time horizon
Weather-related
Data Acquisition
Information derived from a variety of

traditional sources
Assessed as outside its scope of work
Centralized government-run
weather single service is anticipated
More decentralized model
Information and
Data
Establishment of a ATM Information

Reference Model (within the SWIM
concept)
More centralized government-run

approach
Table 1-1 Main Differences between SESAR and NextGen

Source: Compiled by the author based on documents from Ward (2008) and
NCOIC (2008)
10
Similarities
High Growth of Air Traffic Demand by 2025
Driving Need
Global Market Opportunities

Tourism and Travel Growth
Pressures (Affordability, environment, growth-capacity conflict)
Regional
Environment
Obligations (ICAO oversight)

Opportunities (Procedure improvement, advances in technology)
Commercial customers
Ensure safety (with increasing capacity)
Expand capacity
Basic Objectives
Protect the environment

Improve service for aviation customers
Global aviation harmonization
Information and
Data
Emphasis on the information enabling the processes, interaction, and

automated support of the ATM industry
Content of the information and the purpose of the content are very similar
Table 2-3 Main Similarities between SESAR and NextGen

Source: Compiled by the author based on documents from Ward (2008) and
NCOIC (2008)
11
2.1.1 SES Performance Context
Initially, in 2005, the EU Commission expressed its political vision and set highlevel goals for the SES to be met by 2020 and beyond, namely:
Improve safety by a factor of 10
Enable EU skies to handle 3 times more traffic, which will also reduce
delays both in the air and on the ground
Cut ATM costs per flight by at least 50%
Reduce the environmental impact per flight by 10%.
(World ATM Congress, 2013)
Therefore, each above-listed goal represents an opportunity but conveys at the
same time a certain risk. Indeed, regarding the first goal, which is to improve
safety by a factor of 10, the related risk is to reduce capacity. For the second
one, which is to enable EU skies to handle 3 times more traffic, the related risk
is to increase risk of collision, as the sky will be more congested. Then, for the
third high-level goal which is to cut ATM costs per flight by at least 50%, the
related risk is to provide insufficient funding for operations. Finally, for the fourth
goal which is to reduce the environmental impact per flight by 10%, the related
risk is to reduce fuel margins (i.e. imposed margins of minimum on-board fuel to
airlines) (Griffiths, 2013).
As a conclusion, the overall goal of the SES performance scheme is to drive
change in performance of Air Traffic whilst managing the risks of change, and
unwanted events (Griffiths, 2013).
12
2.1.2 SESAR Programme vs. SESAR Joint Undertaking
The Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Programme, founded by

both the European commission and EUROCONTROL in 2004 as a complement
to the SES legislation, is the operational and technological answer to the major
challenges of European air traffic growth. SESAR is one of the most important
research and development programme ever launched by the European
community.
The aim of this programme is to ensure the modernisation of the European ATM
system, which is not fundamentally changed since the 1960s, by coordinating
and concentrating all relevant research and development efforts within the
European Union. Indeed, the recent state of the EU aviation does not fit well to
the current and future society needs. In addition to increasing traffic the basic
technologies are obsolete, the EU airspace is fragmented, and ATC techniques
and procedures need to evolve in order to meet aviation challenges. Facing this
situation, it made necessary to handle coordinated and integrated research and
development activities at the EU level throughout the SESAR Programme (SJU,
2013a).
The objectives of the SESAR Programme are respectively to eliminate the
fragmented approach of the ATM and transform the European ATM system by
synchronising action plan of the different partners and combining their
resources, in order to reach ambitious business goals (SJU, 2013a). The
business goals of SESAR correspond to the high-level goals expressed by the
EU Community for the SES.
13
Sustainability and user-drive are key concepts of the SESAR approach (Airbus,
2012a). In addition, SESAR is all about partnership between five main
categories of actors (SJU, 2013b), namely:
Governments
ANSPs
Airspace Users
Airports
The Military.
Therefore, the SESAR Programme, which is the focal point managing all EU
ATM research and development efforts, is developing the new generation of
ATM system for the next 30 years by evolving the key Air Transport players in
R&D efforts.
Subsequently, in order to manage the SESAR Development phase, the
European Community and EUROCONTROL created the SESAR Joint
Undertaking (SJU) in 2007.
In addition to the two founding members (namely the European community and
EUROCONTROL), 15 other companies coming from different sectors are
members of the SJU Programme (Airbus, 2012a), namely:
ANSPs: NORACON2 (Northern Europe and Austria), DSNA (France),
DFS (Germany), NATS Limited (United Kingdom), ENAV (Italy), and
AENA (Spain)
Ground and Aerospace Manufacturing Industry: Indra, Natmig,
SELEX Sistemi Integrati, and Frequentis
Airports: SEAC (a consortium comprising six large European airports)
Airborne Equipment Manufacturers: Honeywell, and Thales
Aircraft Manufacturers: Airbus, and Alenia Aeronautica.
NORACON is a consortium of eight ANSPs: Austro Control and the North European ANS
Providers (NEAP), Avinor (Norway), EANS (Estonia), Finavia (Finland), IAA (Ireland), ISAVIA
(Iceland), LFV (Sweden), and Naviair (Denmark).
14
Regarding the objectives of the SJU Programme, the below-listed missions

have been stated by the SJU (SJU, 2013a):
Organise and coordinate the activities of the Development phase of
SESAR
Ensure the necessary funding for the activities of the Development phase
of SESAR in accordance with the ATM Master Plan
Ensure the involvement of the stakeholders of the ATM sector in Europe
Organise the technical work of research and development, validation and
study
Ensure the management of all R&D activities with a result-driven
approach.
Therefore, finally, as declared by the former Air Transport Director of the

European Commission in 2009, namely Daniel Calleja, the SJU constitutes a
powerful public-private partnership which brings together all the stakeholders
from the ATM community, including ANSPs, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, civil
and military representatives, as well as the European Commission and
Eurocontrol (SJU, 2013b).
15
2.1.3 SESAR Work Structure and Relationship with the Thesis Work
2.1.3.1 The SESAR Programme Overall Work Structure
When defining now the SESAR Programme structure, the three following
reference aspects are taken into account:
Operational ATM needs
R&D activities management
Technical coherency (i.e. homogeneity of systems in Europe).
As a result, the SJU defined the SESAR Programme structure around three
different dimensions. Firstly, the ATM Operational Services dimension, which
covers operational ATM needs and ensure coherent design of the ATM
Operational Services by projects in accordance with the SESAR concept.
Secondly, the Clusters dimension, which ensures technical coherence between
projects by controlling the R&D deliverables. Finally, the Work Packages
dimension, which organises the R&D activities into systems, operational,
transversal groups or projects (SJU, 2009).
The structure which enables the R&D activities for the definition and validation
of the ATM Target concept has been built upon the Work Packages dimension.
Therefore, the structure of the SESAR Programme is the following one, namely,
four different threads (Operational, Systems, SWIM3, and Transversal) which
classify the R&D Activities into 16 different Work Packages (WP) (Refer to
Figure 2-1 below that illustrates the overall Work Breakdown structure of the
SESAR Programme).
System Wide Information Management (SWIM) is a new concept covering a complete change
in the way of how information is managed within its full lifecycle and throughout the entire
European ATM system (EUROCONTROL, 2013c).
16
Figure 2-2 SESAR Programme Overall Work Breakdown Structure

Source: Compiled by the author based on the SJU Presentation The Structure of
the Work Programme (2009)
2.1.3.2 Relationship with the Thesis Work
Within the above overall structure of the SESAR Programme, the thesis work
refers to the Systems Thread breakdown and more precisely to the WP 9 that
deals with Aircraft. As part of the Systems thread, whose the objective is to
define and validate the systems that support the ATM Target Concept, the WP
9 covers the required evolutions of the aircraft platform and is organised into 26
different projects (SJU, 2009). Regarding the ATM part of the WP 9, the
objective is to perform several definitions and validations, such as a functional
analysis dealing with aircraft evolution, as well as contribution to overall
operational validation (SESAR Consortium, 2008).
17
In addition to addressing the progressive development of Aircraft Separation

Assurance (i.e. ASAS functions), and the aircraft components required for the
improvement of surface movements operations, the WP 9 deals with the
progressive introduction of 4D Trajectory Management functions among
airspace users (i.e. mainline, regional, and business aircraft), in order to provide
very precise 4D trajectory management capabilities (i.e. three spatial
dimensions + time). The thesis work is therefore directly linked to this project as
it deals with the initial deployment step of 4D Trajectory Management functions.
2.1.4 SESAR Phases and Concept Steps
Regarding the timeline, on the one hand, the SESAR Programme is organised
in the three following phases (SJU, 2013a):
The Definition phase, which began in 2006 and lasted 2 years, resulted
in the EU ATM Master Plan
The Development phase, which began in 2008, and is planned to run
until 2016. This research and development phase will result in new
operational procedures, technologies and pre-industrial components,
under the responsibility of the SJU
The Deployment phase, which will implement the results of the
Development phase and deliver the performance targets foreseen in the
ATM Master Plan from 2014 until 2025.
On the other hand, within the deployment phase of the SESAR Programme,
three different concept steps have been defined to describe the completion of
the target operational concept (Refer to Figure 2-2 below).
18
Figure 2-3 SESAR Concept Steps and their Relationship to the Deployment
Baseline
Source: Compiled by the author based on the European ATM Master Plan Edition
2 (SESAR, 2012)
The Deployment Baseline consists of a set of operational and technical

solutions that are already available and being deployed (SESAR, 2013a).
The Step 1, namely time-based operations, focuses on predictability, flight

efficiency and the environment. The goal of this first step is a synchronised
European ATM system where partners are aware of the business and
operational situations and collaborate to optimise their operations (SESAR,
2013a).
The Step 2, namely trajectory-based operations, focuses on a further-evolved

predictability, flight efficiency and environment, in addition to adding capacity.
The goal of this second step is a trajectory-based ATM system where partners
optimise "business and mission trajectories" through common 4D trajectory
information and user defined priorities in the network (SESAR, 2013a).
19
The Step 3, namely performance-based operations, completes full SES

performance requirements. The goal of this final step is the implementation of a
European high-performance, integrated, network-centric, collaborative and
seamless air/ground ATM system (SESAR, 2013a).
It should finally be noted that, in the framework of the thesis, only Step 1 and
Step 2 (i.e. both time-based and trajectory-based operations) are considered in
the research study, as the i4D function has been only defined in the scope of
time-based and trajectory-based operations.
2.1.5 Airbus within SESAR
As part of its willingness to take part in the EU and US ATM modernisation

programmes (SESAR and NextGen respectively), which will require more
interactions and cooperation between aircraft and the ground, Airbus has set
the following objectives:
Define a future operational concept in order to make the best use of
existing and future aircraft capabilities
Implement future aircraft capabilities according to the future operational
concept
Synchronise respectively the air and ground development and related
deployment.
Within the SESAR Programme and the SJU, Airbus had a leading role in the
SESAR Definition phase and is still now a key player among SJU members for
the Development phase as the leader of the Work Package 9 (WP 9) and key
contributor to all operational projects and activities.
20
Subsequently, from 2014, Airbus will remain a key player within the Deployment
phase, in order to ensure the industrial deployment of mature innovations and
the synchronisation of the air and ground development.
Furthermore, in addition to participating in NextGen which plans to modernise

the US National Airspace System (NAS) through 2025, Airbus has exchanges
with Boeing in ATM, in order to ensure a worldwide interoperability and an
optimisation of ATM operations between the air and the ground.
Finally, Airbus created in 2010 a subsidiary named Airbus ProSky, in order to

support the deployment of the SESAR Programme. The Airbus ProSky Group
develops and supports globally modern ATM systems worldwide. In addition,
working closely with ANSPs, aircraft operators and airport authorities, Airbus
ProSky provides intelligent, ground-breaking ATM solutions that maximise
efficiency, capacity, and environmental benefits (Airbus, 2013c).
21
2.2 A Complete Overview of the i4D Function
In the near future ATM environment defined by the SESAR Programme, aircraft
will need to behave with an increased predictability. This requires that in
addition to following the trajectory cleared by the ATC, aircraft will need to fly
over waypoints at accurate times. This evolution is referred to as the 4Dimensional Trajectory concept (4D concept), meaning a three-dimensional
trajectory plus a target time (SJU, 2012b). As part of the full implementation of
4D operations, the initial 4D (i4D) function is the first implementation step
planned in this SESAR target concept.
2.2.1 Primary Projects Achieved
Before describing more deeply the i4D function and its related concept of
operations, it is interesting to take a look at previous projects and related
studies that have been achieved in the scope of the i4D function.
CASSIS
On the one hand, The CASSIS (CTA4/ATC System Integration Studies) project,
which was a partnership project activity from 2007 to 2010 and was operated
under the name EUROCONTROL's TMA 2010+ activities. This project
investigated and provided as a result requirements for improvements that can
be provided to the CTA concept for Terminal Manoeuvring Area (TMA)
operations. CASSIS is a typical project example of the approach aimed at
finding solutions that can take full advantage of existing technologies
(EUROCONTROL, 2008).
Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) is an ATM imposed time constraint on a defined merging
point associated to an arrival runway (SESAR Lexicon, 2013b).
22
In the scope of this large project many air transport actors were involved such
as ANSPs, airlines, equipment manufacturers, and research organizations.
The CASSIS project was comprised of the following activities:
A concept of operations which describes CTA-based applications
Flight trials
The report which describes the flight trials, and their results.
Regarding the CASSIS-related flight trials, the use of CTAs was tested as a tool
in todays ATM system using current technologies, and aircraft systems.
Throughout a set of three phases, those flight trials highlighted a number of
potential CTA-based applications, such as en-route delay using time as a
spacing tool. At the same time, a number of issues arose during the flight trials.
For instance, the need to combine CTAs with speed and altitude restrictions
during high traffic situations and a tendency towards increased workload for Air
Traffic Controllers (ATCOs) due to increased monitoring (EUROCONTROL,
2008).
Finally, the CASSIS project recommended, in addition to performing additional
fast simulations and real-time flight trials, to consider the CTA as a contract, and
to
involve
ground-related
manufacturers
within
future
CTA
activities
(EUROCONTROL, 2008).
Project 5.6.1
On the other hand, based on work achieved throughout the CASSIS project, a
new project named P5.6.1 (in the framework of the Work Package 5 of the
SESAR Programme) started to perform iterative validation of concept elements
and processes related to the use of CTA time constraints in medium and high
complexity environments. P5.6.1 is now continuing to investigate the CTA
concept in addition to the i4D concept for TMA operations. The main focus of
the project is regarding the issue and execution of CTA constraints through the
use of airborne FMS Required Time of Arrival (RTA) capability (including i4D
23
capabilities with enhanced RTA capability). The main objective of P5.6.1 is to

enable the more widespread use of on-board aircraft time and trajectory
management capabilities, supported by appropriate ground-based systems, in
order to improve arrival management and sequence building, especially for
medium and high density operations (SJU, 2012a).
P5.6.1 members include EUROCONTROL, four ANSPs (DFS, ENAV, NATS,
and NORACON), and two aircraft manufacturers (Airbus and Alenia). In
addition, P5.6.1 has close dependencies with many other SESAR-related
projects (SJU, 2012a).
2.2.2 I4D Trajectory Management Function Definition
As a first definition, the i4D trajectory management function is a shared

ground/aircraft function expected to improve ATM by using a time constraint, in
order to precisely predict aircraft trajectories and communicate accurate 4D
trajectory information to the ground. This function will therefore enable aircraft to
fly optimal flight profiles (Airbus, 2012a).
While the first i4D operation is planned to be deployed within Europe from 2018
onwards, the overall aim of the i4D function is to provide significant early
benefits to ground and airspace users while being capable of being retrofitted to
suitable aircraft (namely among mainline and regional fleet) with limited costs.
The operational partners of the i4D project are the following main actors: Airbus,
EUROCONTROLs Maastricht Upper Area Control (MUAC) centre, Honeywell,
Thales, NORACON, and Indra.
24
2.2.3 I4D Operational Concept Description vs. Today Operations
Firstly, globally, i4D operations can be considered as operations having/using a

trajectory exchange capability and having/using a CTA 5/RTA element (SJU,
2012a). The scope of the i4D operating environment covers both en-route and
arrival phases. It should be noted as well that i4D operations are not limited to a
particular class of airspace (A to G). Furthermore, it is anticipated that the
majority of aircraft engaged in i4D operations will be IFR commercial air
transport flights operating in managed airspace (SJU, 2012a).
The global objective of i4D operations is to establish far in advance a sequence
for all aircraft converging to a merging point in a congested area (Honzik and
Herodes, 2012).
Regarding the operational concept, from a global point of view, i4D operations
are based on the assignment of a time constraint at a merging point to each
i4D-equipped aircraft after the coordination and synchronisation between the
aircraft and ground systems. As a result of this new procedure, it is expected
that aircraft will be allowed to fly their optimum profile up to the considered
merging point without any vectoring instructions from ATCOs (Honzik and
Herodes, 2012).
Honzik and Herodes paper is more related to the operational and technical
concept of i4D operations, while the herein thesis research is more strategicrelated, in order to assess impacts and how beneficial could be to progressively
integrate such i4D operations into Today ATM operations.
As additional information, CTA is the use of airborne RTA technology through the aircrafts
Flight Management System (FMS) in order to self-manage to time constraints on waypoints that
are set by the ground system.
25
The overall objective of the Honzik and Herodes paper was to provide an indepth knowledge in order to understand how the i4D operations work
technically, and to demonstrate that such operations are very complex but that
first steps have been successfully validated, even if further validation campaign
and flight trials remain to be performed before the full deployment of 4D
operations. In addition to deeply describe the related principle of operations and
the applicable technologies implied (FMS, data communication tools); Honzik
and Herodes presented the results from the first flight trial in order to validate
the described prototype.
As a result of the P5.6.1, the following text has been formulated and agreed, in
order to define a common understanding of what is the i4D concept:
The i4D concept is a concept ensuring trajectory information exchanges,
coordination, and reliable time-constraint management, between the air and the
ground. The reliable time-constraint management element uses an enhanced
RTA airborne functionality and enhanced ground arrival management
functionality and techniques. It is expected to provide improved efficiency,
predictability, safety and sequence management. It enables and uses:
2D Route consistency and synchronisation
3D Plan/constraint agreement
CTA/RTA with a known reliable performance accuracy
Trajectory prediction enhancements in ground systems and tools
Extended AMAN functions and use. (SJU, 2012a).
Therefore, the i4D concept can be defined to be comprised of two core

elements.
On the one hand, a trajectory downlink from air to ground, which may be
used for multiple purposes including synchronised trajectory data (air and
ground having a common view of the trajectory), and for the use in ground
based on tools such as the AMAN.
26
On the other hand, the use of CTA/RTA within the context of Queue
Management activities, which is expected to improve related processes, and
to sequence traffic in the TMA airspace (SJU, 2012a).
Regarding now the detailed characteristics of the i4D operational concept, the
concept can be broken down into different steps throughout the progress of a
flight.
First of all, as part of the initialisation step occurring during the final en-route
flight phase (typically 10 minutes prior to Top of Descent (ToD)), the i4Dequipped aircraft logs-on and establish a contract with the ATC ground system
via datalink exchanges (such as CPDLC6 or ADS-C7 messages). Upon the
successful completion of this initial process, the aircraft will then automatically
downlink the preferred 4D trajectory held in the FMS to the relevant ATC ground
systems by means of the Extended Projected Profile (EPP8).
The EPP downlink is triggered by a contract which is established during the
aircrafts log-on process. The downlinked 4D trajectory within the EPP includes
the performance and operational information related to the business priorities of
the corresponding flight, and therefore represents a more accurate picture of
The CPDLC interface enables exchanges of short messages between the flight crew and the
ATCO. The messages can be generated automatically on request of either the flight crew or the
ATCO through a dedicated human interface. In addition, thanks to additional avionics installed
on board, the flight crew can instruct the FMS directly from clearances or directions received
from the ground.
7
The ADS-C communication mean enables exchanges of data reports between ground
systems and the aircraft, on the basis of a contract established and activated. The messages
are directly and automatically sent from the on-board system to the ground on regular intervals
or specific events. It must be noted that the only intervention on ADS-C is setting it off or
passing it in emergency mode.
8
The EPP is the ADS-C report containing the sequence of 1 to 128 waypoints or pseudo
waypoints with associated constraints or estimates (altitude, speed, time, etc), as well as
estimate at ToD and speed schedule.
27
trajectory intention than the original flight plan. Then, on receipt of the EPP, the
relevant ATC ground systems perform a cross-check of the received trajectory
in comparison with the existing 2D reference trajectory held by those ground
systems. In the scope of the primary drivers for the i4D concept, the aim of this
cross-check is to ensure consistency between airborne and ground held
trajectories, in addition to enhancing safety. As a result of this cross-check, the
related ground systems will alert the appropriate ATCOs if any discrepancy in
the 2D lateral path is detected (SJU, 2012a).
Subsequently, upon completion of
the previous ground-air 2D route
synchronisation check, the controlling Air Traffic Service Unit (ATSU) will uplink
a 3D plan to the aircraft via a CPDLC route clearance. The objective of this
uplink is that the aircraft is aware of the vertical constraints that the ground is
planning for the flight. On receipt of the CPDLC route uplink, the flight crew will
assess the implications of the uplinked message on the flight and will either
accept or reject it (SJU, 2012a). In most cases, it is expected that this uplink of
the 3D plan will simply represent another confirmation of the trajectory within
the filed flight plan. Following the complete ground/air synchronisation of the 3D
plan, the flight crew will send back to the relevant ATSU the updated EPP report
with updated FMS winds and temperatures data.
Then, the relevant ATSU will be now able to determine the location of the
metering point at which the aircraft will have to fly over. This location will vary
depending on the specific requirements of the operating environment (SJU,
2012a). As a result, in order to assign a fixed time constraint (namely a CTA),
the destination ground system of the controlling ATSU will first request via ADSC to the aircraft an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA9) minimum and an ETA
maximum. ETA min and ETA max therefore represent a time interval where the
aircraft is confident to overfly the determined location of the metering point (Di
Meo, 2012).
The Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) is the time computed by the FMS for the flight arriving at
a point related to the destination airport (SESAR lexicon, 2013).
28
Upon reception of the ETA min/ETA max window calculated and sent back by
the aircraft FMS to the ground, the AMAN will consider this reliable RTA window
in order to produce an overall optimal arrival sequence by assigning a CTA. As
a result, the relevant ATCO will issue the defined and assessed CTA to the
aircraft via a CPDLC message uplink containing the position and the time
required for the aircraft at the metering point (SJU, 2012a). On receipt of the
CTA uplink the flight crew will assess the impact of the request on their flight by
comparing it to current predictions. If everything is correct the flight will accept
the time constraint by responding with a CPDLC message to the ground. The
flight crew will also activate at the same time the RTA function in the FMS, and
the flight will adjust its trajectory accordingly (mainly in relation to its speed)
(SJU, 2012a). It must be noted that the aircraft will switch in standard
operations if anything is wrong or not agreed.
Finally, the aircraft with its assigned CTA will be managed and monitored by
airborne and ground systems. Every time a discrepancy in the trajectory is
detected from the existing agreed trajectory, the aircraft will send to the ground
a new updated EPP report, and therefore a resynchronisation of trajectories
between the air and the ground will be required as outlined before (SJU,
2012a).
Figure 2-3 below summarises the entire i4D operational concept described
above, by illustrating the different steps of exchanges between the air and the
ground that are required for i4D operations throughout the progress of a flight.
29
Figure 2-4 Different Steps of Air/Ground Exchanges throughout the Entire i4D Operational Concept
Source: Compiled by the author based on both the OSED Document (SJU, 2012a) and the FAST 50 Magazine (Airbus, 2012a)
31
Finally, regarding the actual differences between the existing operating methods
and those related to the i4D concept, Table 2-1 below outlines the key
conceptual differences in operating methods between todays operations and
i4D operations.
Today Operating Method
i4D Operating Method
Near exclusive use of

Receiver/Transmitter (R/T) (i.e.
traditional vocal radio communications
only)
Use of advanced datalink communications

(ADS-C/CPDLC) for routine
communications. R/T usage by exception
or in time critical scenarios
Ad-hoc visibility of airborne Flight Plan Consistent visibility of airborne Flight Plan
to Air Traffic Control actors (i.e. to ground actors/systems. Data is made
available request only)
available automatically through datalink
contracts (ADS-C) for i4D-equipped
aircraft
2D trajectory exchange followed by 4D trajectory exchange followed by
clearances
clearances for i4D-equipped aircraft
Enhanced
AMAN
calculating
and
proposing CTAs for all RTA capable aircraft
Time constraints (CTA) calculated before expected ToD to allow aircraft to
without regard to the airborne self-manage to a time/point.
capabilities
Time constraints (CTA) based on accurate
aircraft performance capability; airborne
provision of ETA Min/Max for i4Dequipped aircraft
Aircraft trajectory constrained by
ground ATC/ATM processes such as
arrival metering through tactical
intervention techniques such as vectors
and/or speed control etc...
Aircraft trajectory optimised by on-board

systems (FMS) to respect ground
ATC/ATM processes such as arrival
metering and sequencing through time
based constraints; aircraft self-manage to
respect negotiated constraint
Table 4-2 Key Conceptual Differences in Operating Methods between Todays

Operations and i4D Operations
Source: Compiled by the author using the Step 1 OSED Second Iteration
Document, Operational Service and Environment Definition, SJU (2012a)
32
2.2.4 I4D Validation Steps through Flight Trials and Simulations
As part of the initial validation step of the i4D project, a first flight trial under
operational conditions has been performed in February 2012, in order to
validate the capability of the airborne systems to comply with time constraints
defined and negotiated with related ATC ground systems via air-ground datalink
communication (SJU, 2012c). It was the first flight in the world using a four
dimensional upgraded and optimised ATM technology, and a world premiere
within the on-going transformation of todays ATM. This flight test offered a
concrete solution towards improving the existing EU ATM system which is
reaching its capacity threshold (Airbus, 2012b).
The dedicated Airbus A320 test aircraft flew from Toulouse to Stockholm (Refer
to Figure 2-4 below that highlights the related route flown).
Figure 2-5 Route Flown during the First i4D Flight Trial
Source: Airbus (2012d)
33
Along its flight, the test aircraft flew through the EUROCONTROL MUAC
airspace where the airborne and ground systems agreed on a first time
constraint at a merging point close to the Copenhagen airport. The aircraft then
continued into the Danish airspace to demonstrate an optimised descent to
Copenhagen. After reaching the first merging point, the aircraft climbed to a
cruise level from which it negotiated a second time constraint at a merging point
close to the Stockholm Arlanda Airport. The aircraft then descended into the
Swedish airspace in a fully optimised way until the second and final merging
point, and landed safely at Arlanda (SJU, 2012c).
As a result, throughout a successful enhanced collaborative work, this first i4D
flight contributed to demonstrate the technical and operational feasibility of the
concept by maturing both the technical definition and the system design, as well
as providing a first exposure to the operational community (Airbus, 2012c).
Then, following on from the completion of the first validation step, further
exercises have been performed at the end of 2012 with particularly combined
simulations between the Airbus simulator in Toulouse and the platforms used by
MUAC. The objective of this second i4D validation step has been to stretch the
boundaries of the i4D concept throughout the introduction of vectoring and level
changes, in order to refine the parameters for controlling a mixed mode
environment (EUROCONTROL, 2012).
Finally, as part of the third step throughout the i4D validation campaign, further
simulations are planned near the end of 2013 followed by a second flight trial.
This second flight trial is expected to test some of the prototype controller tools
currently under development, and to highlight increased automation in the 4D
trajectory negotiations between the air and the ground. In addition, a particular
focus will be considered regarding the management of different levels of
equipage throughout the fleet and the challenges associated with mixed mode
operations (EUROCONTROL, 2012).
34
2.2.5 Overall Benefit obtained from i4D Operations
Firstly, i4D operations are expected to improve the overall performance and
reliability of the AMAN system. Indeed, it has been assessed that it will give
better performance in the sequencing and scheduling of the arrival stream as
well as higher potential for equipped aircraft to fly optimised trajectories at
speeds and descent rates that save fuel and reduce noise. At the same time,
i4D operations are expected to provide all stakeholders with higher predictability
(SESAR, 2012).
Then, regarding the Capacity Key Performance Area (KPA), it is expected that
i4D operations will increase ATM capacity and flexibility by bringing enhanced
runway throughput due to better sequencing of arriving flights, less lateral
deviation, reduced stock holding, as well as an overall reduction of the ATCOs
workload (SESAR, 2012).This mainly concerns major airports.
Regarding the Flight Efficiency KPA, it is expected that the allocation of a CTA
before the ToD will allow i4D-equipped aircraft to fly a near idle profile (i.e. the
optimum profile integrating the time constraint and reducing the use of stock
holding) (SESAR, 2012). As a result, i4D-equipped aircraft will save fuel, and at
the same time they will have a less detrimental impact on the environment
(recording less noise and less CO2 emissions).
In addition, thanks to a better management of the arrivals it is expected that

i4D-equipped aircraft will be far less affected by holdings (i.e. operational delay
defined in terms of performance as a step at the green dot speed), as well as by
patch stretching (i.e. operational delay defined in terms of performance as a
distance extension at the current speed). As a result, i4D-equipped aircraft are
expected to record less arrival delays.
35
Finally, two other key benefits have been assessed by the SESAR Programme
in relation to i4D operations. On the one hand, regarding the cost effectiveness
KPA, it is expected that airlines operating the i4D function will benefit from a
reduction of their operating costs linked to ATM delays (i.e. ATM cost per flight).
On the other hand, i4D operations are expected to also provide a better
predictability which will balance more effectively the workload between ATCOs
according to the expected traffic.
36
2.3 Mixed Equipage
2.3.1 Overall Principle and i4D-Related Aircraft Equipage
Mixed equipage is unavoidable as new technologies and capabilities of

advanced systems are provided step by step into the air transport industry. The
principle of mixed equipage is hence defined globally as the mix of equipped
aircraft and unequipped aircraft which have to be managed, controlled and
integrated in the same airspace without penalizing each other.
As a more technical definition, the principle of mixed equipage can be seen as
the use of avionics which have different performance levels, namely aircraft
types of different ATM capabilities levels (i.e. different service levels). These
differences allow the overall ATM system to increase either airline efficiency or
airspace efficiency, or both (Airbus, 2013a).
Regarding now the applicability of the mixed equipage principle to the i4D
function, as it was seen previously within the description of the i4D operational
concept, i4D operations are based on the exchange of information between air
and ground systems for the purposes of data synchronisation, and for
subsequent time constraint management when required.
37
Regarding the airborne capabilities required for i4D-equipped aircraft, the

related necessary equipment elements are listed below:
A datalink connection capability, which supports logon and information
exchanges on CPDLC, and ADS-C capability
An ADS-C capable to downlink both a complete list of planned waypoints
with associated speed, altitude and ETA as contained in the EPP, and a
reliable ETA window (ETA min and ETA max) for one waypoint that has
been identified as the metering point by the relevant ATC
Enhanced FMS functionality including: enhanced RTA functionality, ADSC capable, and improved granularity of meteorological data/weather
modelling (SJU, 2012a).
Regarding unequipped aircraft it is considered, in the mixed equipage

environment that will surround i4D operations, that unequipped aircraft will be
conventional aircraft with conventional FMS capabilities (or no FMS at all), in
addition to being CPDLC capable. Indeed, a mandate exists for both airborne
and ground systems to be equipped with CPDLC from 2013, and before the
beginning of the i4D deployment expected in 2018 (SJU, 2012a). However, it
must be noted that this first CPDLC mandate will not support the i4D function
for now.
38
2.3.2 Previous General Theoretical Studies
Regarding interesting theoretical studies achieved in the scope of mixed

equipage operations, a NASA study published by Sir Kopardekar with other
scientists can be mainly underlined. This US research study analysed the
feasibility of mixed equipage operations under higher density in an automated
separation environment, using a human-in-the-loop simulation. Throughout this
in-depth study, it was demonstrated that mixed equipage operations are
feasible to a limit within the same airspace. While controllers are inevitably
limited in the management of mixed-equipped fleet, the simulation illustrated
that mixed equipage operations are feasible in the same airspace even under
significant higher traffic density conditions. Finally, the corresponding article
also revealed the following logical statement, the higher the traffic density of
equipped aircraft, the lower the number of unequipped aircraft that can be
managed within the same airspace (Kopardekar et al., 2009).
As a result, the latter will be applicable to the model definition of the hereafter
study as naturally the number of i4D-equipped aircraft will increase within the
deployment of the i4D function, and on the contrary the number of unequipped
aircraft will proportionally decrease.
39
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overall Thought Process
Figure 3-1 below summarises the overall thought process which has been
defined by the author, in order to complete successfully the entire study.
Figure 3-1 Overall Thought Process

Source: Compiled by the author
41
Firstly, as part of the STEP 1, the scope of the study will be defined by listing
the different assumptions and limitations that have been considered for the
study. In addition, the Deployment Phases, the Flights Models and the Today
Base Model considered for Comparison will be carefully defined, in order to set
up the experiment design in mixed fleet operations.
Then, as part of the STEP 2, in order to define relevant key enablers and
bottlenecks to consider in the hereafter study, the potential target benefits
related to the implementation of i4D operations will be identified. As a result, the
key enablers and bottlenecks will be defined, as well as the three different
scenarios.
Upon completion of the STEP 2, the STEP 3 will be dedicated to the
performance of the comparative impact analysis for each case scenario
between the Today Base Model, and the different Flights Models. In this
analysis a segmentation of equipped/unequipped flights will be achieved, and
subsequently the degree of change compared to todays operations in terms of
time benefit throughout the i4D deployment will be highlighted in accordance
with each case scenario.
As a result of the outcome stemming from the STEP 3, the STEP 4 will
conclude on the status for each Flights category related to i4D operations in a
mixed equipage environment by identifying opportunities and risks. In addition,
an overall risk assessment will be outlined on a global operational point of view
and related trails of further research study will be raised.
Finally, as part of the STEP 5, an in-depth fleet analysis will be carried out from
an airlines perspective, in order to evaluate the implications and degree of
impact on the i4D implementation for EU airlines according to their related fleet
age breakdown and their type of operations. In addition, as a result of the
previous study on airlines, strategic deployment principles will be suggested as
ways to foster the initial deployment of the i4D function.
42
3.2 Scope of the Study: Assumptions and Limitations
On the one hand, regarding the operating environment applicable to the entire
study, the following limitations have been considered:
First of all, the study applies to the European sky only, and more
precisely to the ECAC airspace region (Refer to Figure 3-2 below that
highlights in blue member countries of the ECAC)
Figure 3-2 44 Member Countries of the ECAC

Source: EUROCONTROL (2013d)
43
Then, the AMAN Horizon (i.e. final En-Route + TMA airspaces) has been
selected as the studied Operational Focus Area (OFA) (i.e. 200 Nm from
the destination airport). Figure 3-3 below illustrates the operational area
considered throughout the study. It must be noted that the metering fix
corresponds to the metering point as well (common denomination).
Figure 3-3 Considered Operational Area AMAN Horizon

Finally, in addition to the previous consideration, Figure 3-4 below shows

the referential flow of arrival sequencing which has been defined for
illustrating todays operations. This referential flow is a typical arrival
sequencing at major airports (such as Heathrow) when considering same
aircraft types.
Figure 3-4 Considered Referential Flow of Todays Arrival Sequencing

44
On the other hand, regarding airspace users, the study focuses only on
scheduled airlines (i.e. mainline and regional aircraft only).
Finally, regarding ground users (i.e. Airports and ANSPs), the study is limited
to the 30 largest EU airports only in terms of aircraft movements per year (as
stated by EUROCONTROL each year into the yearly Performance Review
Report). In addition, it is assumed that efficient AMAN capabilities will be
available and in service at those airports for the deployment of the i4D function.
3.3 Experiment Design in Mixed Fleet Operations
Having rigorously stated the scope of the study, namely the considered
limitations and assumptions, the second part in the framework of STEP 1 has
been to set up the experiment design in mixed fleet operations.
Before describing the successive elements defining the overall experiment
design in mixed fleet operations, it is necessary to carefully explain the
approach that has been followed, in order to complete the analysis hereafter.
First of all, the approach works on the basis that, flights are currently affected by
the ATC due to different reasons. An affected flight refers in the hereafter study
to a flight whose performances are degraded in terms of time, fuel consumption
and/or operational efficiency, i.e. a flight whose the entire continuity is not in
accordance with the initial flight plan.
In addition, the approach works on the basis that, if trajectories are known with
higher accuracy, it would be possible to build the ATM system around
aircraft/flights whose trajectory information are precisely known.
45
Therefore, the idea in the hereafter research is to reflect the typical breakdown
of affected flights in Europe nowadays, in order to analyse then how this
breakdown would be impacted by the implementation of i4D operations.
As a result, in the section 3.3.2 that deals with the design of the considered
Today Base Model (term defined by the author) reflecting the typical breakdown
of affected flights in Europe today, the recent figures of arrival punctuality and
the different delay causes at the arrival have been analysed respectively.
On the other hand, in order to design a relevant model in mixed equipage, it has
been necessary to take a look at the current breakdown of the aircraft/flights in
Europe, and to assess then what proportion of the considered fleet would be
possibly equipped with the i4D function. When looking at the current status of
the total fleet in Europe it is visible that, even if it only represents around 30% of
the total fleet (which comprises scheduled airlines (i.e. Single Aisle (SA), Long
Range (LR), and regional aircraft), business aviation, and general aviation), the
SA fleet covers the major proportion of flights in Europe. Indeed, the latter is
explained by the fact that, in addition to recording the higher number of aircraft
in operation throughout the EU sky, one SA aircraft typically completes on
average 8 flights per day while one LR aircraft achieves a maximum of 2 flights
per day only, and one regional aircraft on average 4 flights per day. Therefore,
throughout the hereafter analysis, it has been decided to focus on flights rather
than aircraft for the purpose of the study.
In addition, as part of the section 3.3.1 that deals with the definition of flights
models, it has been needed to segment aircraft according to how they will be
fitted to be equipped with the i4D function, namely to be either forward-fitted or
retrofitted. The purpose is to forecast the actual proportion of aircraft/flights that
would be equipped throughout the deployment of the i4D function. It must be
noted that a forward fit refers to a new aircraft which is already fully equipped
with the respective function or system when it emerges from the final assembly
line to be delivered, while a retrofit refers to an aircraft which has incurred
afterwards modifications to its initial on-board systems in order to be equipped
with the respective function or system.
46
3.3.1 Deployment Phases/Flights Models Definition
On the one hand, flights models combined with a segmentation of deployment

phases have been defined according to the fleet evolution forecasted by Airbus
related to the i4D implementation (Figure 3-5 below). Figure 3-5 illustrates a
comparative evolution between the total fleet and the mainline & regional fleet
only (i.e. scheduled airlines). While around 30% of total fleet is expected to be
i4D-equipped by 2030, almost 70% of total scheduled airlines in Europe are
expected to be equipped with the i4D function by 2030. Those forecasts are
based respectively on the expected number of forward-fitted aircraft and
retrofitted ones for each year in Europe among the SA fleet, the LR fleet, and
the regional fleet. In addition, the number of annual aircraft deliveries and the
number of expected annual retirements have been taken into account in the
forecast.
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
% of equipped flights - Total Fleet

% of equipped flights - Mainline & Regional Fleet (Scheduled Airlines)
Figure 3-5 Fleet Evolution Forecast from 2018 to 2030 related to the i4D
Deployment
Source: Airbus Internal Data - Airbus (2013b)
47
2030
As a result of this forecasted evolution, it has been possible to sample the

expected progress of the i4D deployment with the following three different
samples:
Sample 1: 20% of total scheduled airlines-related flights will be i4Dequipped in 2021
Sample 2: 50% of total scheduled airlines-related flights will be i4Dequipped between 2024 and 2025
Sample 3: 70% of total scheduled airlines-related flights will be i4Dequipped in 2030.
Therefore, based on these three extracted samples it has been possible to

segregate three different deployment phases, and to define three different
flights models as well. Tables 3-1 & 3-2 below summarise the defined
deployment phases and flights models respectively.
48
Deployment Phase 1
2018 - 2021
Deployment Phase 2
2021 - 2025
Deployment Phase 3
2025 - 2030
Table 3-1 Defined i4D Deployment Phases

Flights Model 1 (FM1)
Table 3-2 Defined Flights Models

49
On the other hand, for comparison purposes in the study hereafter, a base
model representing the situation of todays operations has been built in terms of
on time performance at the arrival, and en-route flight efficiency.
Regarding the first criteria related to time performance at the arrival, the actual
all-causes arrival punctuality has been selected to be taken into account in the
base model definition. Table 3-3 below outlines the breakdown of actual allcauses arrival punctuality in 2012 compiled by the Central Office for Delay
Analysis (CODA) on behalf of EUROCONTROL. This breakdown (not airport
specific) is based on a sample of commercial flights in the ECAC region whose
data was provided by airlines.
Proportion of flights ADVANCED (> 5min advanced)

Proportion of flights ON TIME (within +/- 5min)
39.7%
26%
Proportion of flights 5-15min DELAYED
17.7%
8.6%
5%
Proportion of flights >60min DELAYED
3%
Table 3-3 Breakdown of Actual All-Causes Arrival Punctuality in 2012

Source: Compiled by the author based on CODA Digest Annual Report 2012
Delays to Air Transport in Europe EUROCONTROL (2013a)
It must be noted that an arrival delay refers to a time difference between the
scheduled arrival time published by airlines and the actual on-blocks time at the
arrival.
Regarding the second criteria related to en-route flight efficiency, inefficiencies
of horizontal en-route flights has been selected to be taken into account in the
base model definition. It was assessed by EUROCONTROL that current flight
50
paths deviate from optimal paths by 3% to 5% on average (i.e. en-route

extension due to ATFM measures) (EUROCONTROL, 2013b).
In order to properly define afterwards the Today Base Model based on the two
previous criteria, it is relevant to assess before the proportion of delays related
to the area where the i4D function will have an impact, namely related to
ATC/ATM only. Figure 3-6 below illustrates the typical average breakdown of
arrival delay causes at the top 10 EU arrival airports with heaviest delays in
2012. The causes were reported by airlines to the CODA.
Figure 3-6 Average Breakdown of Arrival Delay Causes at the Top 10 EU Arrival
Airports with Heaviest Delays in 2012
Source: Compiled by the author based on CODA Digest Annual Report 2012
Delays to Air Transport in Europe EUROCONTROL (2013a)
As a result, it is observable that only 15% are directly ATC related and
consequently i4D related. Nevertheless, due to potential time benefits provided
by i4D operations (less late arrivals of A/C), it can be also expected that a slight
proportion of reactionary-related delays (namely late arrival of aircraft, crew,
PAX or load) will be improved by i4D operations.
51
Therefore, taking into account all previous comments and data, a base model
for comparison representing the situation of todays operations has been
defined as the breakdown of affected10 flights related to schedules airlines
within the ECAC airspace region in terms of on-time performance at the arrival
and en-route flight efficiency. It has been considered that strongly affected
flights include flights delayed by more than 30 minutes, and that slightly affected
flights include flights delayed by 5 to 30 minutes. Figure 3-7 below reveals the
Today Base Model considered for comparison.
Figure 3-7 Todays Base Model Considered for Comparison

In the following analysis it has been assumed that the above breakdown is not
influenced by traffic growth due to continuous improvement in the air transport
industry.
10
Affected refers to a flight whose the entire continuity is not in accordance with the initial
planned behaviour (occurrence of ATC constraints, and different unexpected delays).
52
In addition, regarding i4D-equipped flights, it is expected that these flights will

not be affected as other flights. Indeed, as the aircraft trajectories of equipped
aircraft will be continuously synchronized and exchanged with the ground
throughout the entire flight (by means of the EPP), the ATC will initially build its
ATM system based on the trajectories of i4D-equipped aircraft. Therefore, it is
assumed that all i4D-equipped flights will be manageable without any troubles
at the beginning of the deployment until the percentage of i4D-equipped flights
reaches 20% of the total scheduled airlines-related flights. Then, as the number
of i4D-equipped flights will start to be quite significant, it cannot be assumed
that equipped flights will continue to not be affected at all. As a result, it is
assumed that, as soon as the percentage of equipped flights is above 20% of
the total scheduled airlines-related flights, 20% of the i4D-equipped flights will
be at least slightly affected. It must be noted that those assumptions and
considerations have been stated as basic.
As a recap, the following base statements have been assumed regarding the
affect breakdown of i4D-equipped flights:
When percentage of equipped flights is below 20% of the total scheduled
airlines-related flights: 100% of equipped flights are considered as not
affected
When percentage of equipped flights is above 20% of the total scheduled
airlines-related flights: 80% of equipped flights are considered as not
affected and 20% as slightly affected.
53
3.4 Identification of Key Enablers/Bottlenecks
As part of the STEP 2, it has been necessary to firstly identify the potential
target benefits related to the implementation of i4D operations, in order to
address the key enablers and bottlenecks that will be taken into account in the
analysis hereafter. Therefore, based on the SESAR overall validation targets
stated by the SJU (Refer to Appendix A), a theoretical analysis performed by
Airbus reported the different validation targets allocated only to the
implementation of i4D operations. Figure 3-8 below outlines these calculated
allocations to each SESAR KPA.
Figure 3-8 Validation Targets Allocated to i4D

Source: Compiled by the author based on Airbus Internal Data from Workbook
B4.1 Airbus (2013b)
Given the distribution of validation targets among the different KPAs (Figure 3-8
above), it has been decided to only focus on the major impacted areas
throughout the present study, namely on predictability, airspace capacity and
airport capacity. Subsequently, in the framework of future activities, further
studies focusing on cost effectiveness and fuel efficiency could be done.
54
Therefore, based on these identified target benefits from i4D operations, key
enablers and bottlenecks have been defined in relation to the implementation of
i4D operations.
On the one hand, regarding airspace/airport capacity, the following key drivers
have been considered:
The runway throughput as a bottleneck. Indeed, there is the presence
of physical constraints on the runway (minimum average spacing of
1min30sec between aircraft) due to waiting time between aircraft leaving
runway, and aircraft entering. The reason is to avoid strong wake
turbulence effects created by the aircraft taking off.
The en-route traffic synchronisation as an enabler. Indeed, significant
improvements are expected thanks to exchange of precise trajectory
information using the EPP.
On the other hand, regarding predictability, the following drivers have been
considered:
The flight duration as an enabler. Reduction of the flight duration is
expected thanks to reduction in variability of actual flight duration vs.
planned flight duration. Indeed, today, in order to secure a good
predictability, flight duration is constrained by buffers which are applied in
order to cope with any time fluctuation throughout the flight. As a result,
such buffers will be able to be reduced or even deleted in i4D operations.
Delays as an enabler. Indeed, reduction of operational delays (e.g.
holdings and path stretching) is expected with the implementation of i4D
operations.
55
3.5 Case-Study Scenario Definition
As a result of the previous identification of key enablers and bottlenecks which

need to be considered in the comparative analysis hereafter, three different
case-study scenarios have been defined, in order to consider additional variable
inputs on top of main i4D-related performance targeted benefits highlighted on
previous Figure 3-8.
Firstly the Scenario 1, as the downside case, whose the assumptions are the
following ones:
Hypothesis 1: No modification on the Arrival Sequencing (i.e. same
RWY throughput). This assumption considers that i4D operations will not
bring benefits at all on the Arrival Sequencing efficiency
Hypothesis 2: 30% of total equipped flights will be slightly affected
after Deployment Phase 1 is completed. This assumption is based on
what has been assumed and considered at the end of the section 3.3.2
in being a bit more pessimistic by increasing by 10% the percentage of
equipped flights that will be slightly affected.
Secondly the Scenario 2, as the baseline case, whose the assumptions are
the following ones:
Hypothesis 1: Arrival Sequencing efficiency will be improved by 1.5%
(i.e. 1.5% additional RWY throughput). This assumption has been stated
in assuming that realistically at least one or two slots will be added in the
current arrival sequencing as a result of the expected benefits provided
by i4D operations.
Hypothesis 2: 20% of total equipped flights will be slightly affected
after Deployment Phase 1 completed. This assumption is related to the
56
base statement that has been previously assumed and considered at the
end of the section 3.3.2.
Finally the Scenario 3, as the upside case, whose the assumptions are the
following ones:
Hypothesis 1: Arrival Sequencing efficiency will be improved by 3% (i.e.
3% additional RWY throughput). This assumption has been stated in
being a bit more optimistic than the related hypothesis in the scenario 2
Hypothesis 2: 15% of total equipped flights are slightly affected after
Deployment Phase 1 completed. This assumption is based on what has
been assumed and considered at the end of the section 3.3.2 in being a
bit more optimistic by decreasing by 5% the percentage of equipped
flights that will be slightly affected.
57
4 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Impact Assessment
Based on the assumptions defined for each case scenario in addition to target
benefits figures allocated to the i4D implementation, an excel model has been
built for running each scenario (Refer to Appendix B that illustrates
corresponding data computation models).
It should be noted that the philosophy behind this model is a logical statistical
distribution between the three different categories of affected flights. In the excel
model the first distribution occurs at a global point of view depending on the
assumptions allocated to each case scenario. For instance in the first scenario,
as there is no increase in runway throughput, it is assumed that for the Flights
Model 1 (FM1) the breakdown of affected flight will not be changed compared to
today. As a result, assuming as well that equipped flight will not be affected at
all at the stage of FM1, the distribution within the breakdown of affected flights
for unequipped flights is calculated by spilling over one category to the other
according to what remaining proportion is allocated to unequipped flights. Then,
for the Flights Model 2 (FM2) and the Flights Model 3 (FM3), the starting point
of the distribution is also the breakdown from a global point of view. In those
cases, the target benefits figures allocated to the i4D implementation are taken
into account, as the proportion of equipped flights will be significant enough in
order to provide global benefits. As a result, the total of target benefits figures
allocated to the i4D implementation (namely 2% of predictability + 10% of
airspace capacity + 1.5% of airport capacity) is weighted according to the
respective proportion of equipped flights, and then added to the today total
proportion of the not affected category. Subsequently, the principle of spilling
over one category to the other is applied, in order to obtain a total of 100% for
each total breakdown. This overall statistical process has been then reiterated
for the scenario 2 and the scenario 3 respectively.
59
4.1.1 Scenario 1
Regarding the scenario 1, namely the downside case, Figure 4-1 below outlines
the resulting status for both equipped and unequipped flights through an
assessment matrix.
Figure 4-1 Scenario 1 Assessment Matrix - Equipped vs. Unequipped Flights

Therefore it is observable that, on the one hand, equipped flights will be not
affected at all for the FM1, as assumed previously in the methodology chapter.
Then, for both the FM2 and FM3, equipped flights will be mainly not affected
with only 1/3 that will be slightly affected, as assumed in the definition of the
scenario 1.
On the other hand, regarding unequipped flights, it is noticeable that at the
stage of the FM1 they will have more chances to be affected compared to today
(Refer to Figure 3-7 that represents the Today Base Model). Subsequently,
unequipped flights will have more chances to be strongly affected compared to
today for the FM2. In the case of the FM3, even if unequipped flights will have
60
slightly more chances to be not affected, the probability to be strongly

affected will be slightly higher in parallel compared to today.
Finally, regarding the results from a global point of view (i.e. grouping equipped
flights and unequipped flights together), Figure 4-2 below illustrates the related
results for each Flights Model.
Figure 4-2 Scenario 1 Assessment Matrix - Globally

Therefore it is observable that, even if at the stage of the FM1, the affected
flights breakdown will remain the same as today globally (due to no expected
improvement on the runway throughput), it will be slightly better for the FM2,
and even better for the FM3 with twice less flights strongly affected. This result
is explained by the fact that i4D-equipped flights will increasingly provide
benefits throughout the deployment of the i4D function, and at the same time
unequipped flights will be less and less numerous.
61
4.1.2 Scenario 2
Regarding now the scenario 2, namely the baseline case, Figure 4-3 below
outlines the resulting status for both equipped and unequipped flights through
an assessment matrix.

Therefore it is observable that, on the one hand, equipped flights will be not
affected at all for the FM1, as assumed previously in the methodology chapter.
Then, for both FM2 and FM3, equipped flights will be mainly not affected with
only 20% that will be slightly affected, as assumed in the definition of the
scenario 2.
stage of the FM1 they will have more chances to be affected compared to today
(Refer to Figure 3-7 that represents the Today Base Model). Subsequently,
unequipped flights will still have slightly more chances to be affected at the
62
stage of FM2. However, in the case of the FM3, unequipped flights will have
slightly more chances to be only slightly affected rather than strongly
affected compared to today.
Finally, regarding the results from a global point of view, Figure 4-4 below
illustrates the related results for each Flights Model.

Therefore it is observable that, at the stage of the FM1, the affected flights
breakdown will be already slightly better than today globally (due to an expected
slight increase of the runway throughput). Then, for the FM2, the respective
breakdown will be better globally as well, with 8% more flights not affected,
and almost twice fewer flights strongly affected. Finally, for the FM3, the
breakdown will be significantly better globally with 13% more flights not
affected, and only 2% of total flights strongly affected (compared to 10% in
todays operations).
63
4.1.3 Scenario 3
Regarding finally the scenario 3, namely the upside case, Figure 4-5 below
outlines through an assessment matrix the resulting status for both equipped
and unequipped flights.

Therefore it is observable that, on the one hand, equipped flights will be again
not affected at all for the FM1, as assumed previously in the methodology
chapter. Then, for both FM2 and FM3, equipped flights will be mainly not
affected with only 15% that will be slightly affected, as assumed in the
definition of the scenario 3.
stage of the FM1 they will have slightly more chances to be affected compared
to today. Subsequently, at the stage of FM2, unequipped flights will have almost
exactly the same breakdown as today (Refer to Figure 3-7 that represents the
Today Base Model). In the case of the FM3, unequipped flights will then have a
64
slight better probability of being not affected, and the rest will be mainly
slightly affected only.
Finally, regarding the results from a global point of view, Figure 4-6 below
illustrates the related results for each Flights Model.

Therefore it is observable that, at the stage of the FM1, the affected flights
breakdown will be slightly better than today globally. Then, for the FM2, the
respective breakdown will be better globally as well, with significantly more
flights not affected, and 5% fewer flights strongly affected. Finally, for the
FM3, the breakdown will be significantly better than today globally with 17%
more flights not affected, and only 1% of total flights strongly affected
(compared to 10% in todays operations).
65
4.1.4 Degree of Change during the i4D Deployment
Based on previous results obtained for each case scenario, another excel
model has been built, in order to illustrate the expected degree of change
(positive or negative) in the i4D deployment compared to todays operations
(Refer to Appendix C that outlines the corresponding data computation model).
For instance, a Degree of Change (DoC) coefficient of 10 means 10 times
better than todays operations. It should be noted as well that weight coefficients
have been added in the model, in order to accentuate more or less the
importance of each affect category. It was therefore decided to highly weight the
category strongly affected by a factor of 10, while weighting the two other
categories by a factor of 1 only. The reason for this allocation is to illustrate the
fact that a flight strongly affected will incur more significant operating costs,
and will therefore have a more detrimental impact on airlines operations than
the two other categories.
66
4.1.4.1 Equipped Flights vs. Unequipped Flights
Equipped Flights
Regarding equipped flights only, Figure 4-7 below illustrates the expected
Degree of Change during the i4D deployment compared to today.
DoC
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
Start
FM1
i4D Deployment Timeline
FM2
Figure 4-7 Expected Degree of Change during the i4D Deployment Equipped
Flights
Therefore, it is observable that equipped flights will obtain significant time

benefits (highly positive) during the entire i4D implementation for every
scenario. However, it is noticeable that a slight decrease is expected within
Phase 2 (from FM2 to FM3), due to inherent traffic growth combined with a
homogeneous mix of equipped/unequipped aircraft within this period.
67
FM3
Unequipped Flights
Regarding unequipped flights only, Figure 4-8 below illustrates the expected
degree of change during the i4D deployment compared to today.
DoC
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
Start
FM1
FM2
-5,0
-10,0
Figure 4-8 Expected Degree of Change during the i4D Deployment Unequipped
Flights
Therefore, apart from the downside scenario (namely Scenario 1) where

unequipped flights are expected to be negatively impacted enough, it is
observable that the i4D implementation would start to provide time benefits to
unequipped flights as well, as soon as i4D operations become largely deployed
(i.e. after FM2). This evolution is due to the fact that equipped flights will
increasingly improve ATM globally, and as a result unequipped aircraft, whose
their proportion will decrease within the i4D deployment timeline, will more and
more benefit from those improvements provided by i4D-equipped flights.
68
FM3
4.1.4.2 Globally
Finally, from a global point of view, it is noticeable (Figure 4-9 below) that, in all
case scenarios, the i4D implementation will increasingly improve positively
todays operations by providing more and more significant benefits during the
i4D deployment.
DoC
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
Start
FM1
FM2
Figure 4-9 Expected Degree of Change during the i4D Deployment Globally
Therefore, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, which are the most conceivable

scenarios, show that a significant improvement is expected globally regarding
i4D operations in a mixed equipage environment.
69
FM3
4.2 Opportunities and Risk Assessment
4.2.1 Status for Equipped Flights
On the one hand, according to the results provided by the previous study, Table
4-1 below summarises the respective assessed risks and opportunities for
equipped flights in relation to the i4D implementation.
Opportunities
Risks
Not be any more affected along its
Be slightly affected along its duration in
duration => smooth and optimized
Phase 2&3 due to possible inherent
flight
conflicts difficult to manage by ATCs
Significant time/fuel savings

(better overall efficiency)
Better predictability ahead of time
Table 4-1 Opportunities and Risk Assessment Equipped Flights

70
4.2.2 Status for Unequipped Flights
On the other hand, likewise according to the results provided by the previous
study, Table 4-2 below summarises the respective assessed risks and
opportunities for unequipped flights in relation to the i4D implementation.
Opportunities
Risks
Obtain benefits in terms of flight
Have more chances to be affected than
efficiency when the i4D function will be
today within the first part of the i4D
largely deployed (after the completion
deployment
of Phase 2)
More direct routings and CDA possible
Have lower priority than equipped flights
in low density airspace
in high density airspace
Table 4-2 Opportunities and Risk Assessment Unequipped Flights

71
4.2.3 Overall Risk Assessment and Trails of Further Study
Finally, as an overall risk assessment of the implementation of i4D operations

throughout a mixed equipage environment, the following points underline what
can constitute an obstacle or further required study, in order to fully assess the
future situation.
Firstly, it can be questioned whether or not ATC facilities will be able to cope
with both additional stimulated RWY throughput, and overall traffic growth.
Indeed, without suitable ATC facilities, it will not possible to effectively
implement and widespread the i4D function among airspace users.
Secondly, if prioritisation for i4D-equipped flights in the AMAN sequence is to be
agreed (i.e. give priority to the i4D-equipped flight over the unequipped flight at
the final sequencing), this would have a significant impact on AMAN
development and implementation (e.g. rules for i4D vs. non-i4D flights, and i4D
vs. i4D flights). As a result, it can be suggested, as further study, to find an
appropriate way of incorporating i4D-equipped flights in the AMAN sequence.
Finally, another risk associated to the implementation of i4D operations in a
mixed equipage environment, is the presence of floated flights and
perturbations in the AMAN sequence when increasingly introducing fixed-time
operations (i.e. more and more i4D-equipped flights). As a result, it can be
suggested, as further study, to assess the global impact of moving to a fixedtime operation in terms of different equipage rates (i.e. benefits for a single flight
in a flow of traffic vs. impact on the entire flow).
72
4.3 Implications and Impact on the i4D Implementation from an

Airlines Perspective
In order to assess the implications and impact from an airlines perspective, an

in-depth fleet analysis of EU airlines has been achieved. As the implementation
of the i4D function in aircraft will depend on the age of each aircraft (retrofitting
more or less conceivable), the objective of the study was to mainly focus on the
expected fleet age breakdown when the i4D implementation will begin, namely
from 2018.
4.3.1 Scope of the in-depth Fleet Analysis of EU Airlines
In the framework of the fleet analysis, it was necessary to initially define the
scope of the study.
Firstly, as traditional scheduled carriers and LCCs account for 80.1% of total
flights in EU (Refer to Figure 4-10 below that outlines market share by aviation
segments in Europe in 2012), the study only focuses on traditional scheduled
airlines and low-cost airlines.
Figure 4-10 Market Share by Aviation Segments in Europe in 2012

Source: Compiled by the author based on Network Operations Annual Report
2012 EUROCONTROL (2013e)
73
In addition, a criteria has been chosen for the selection of airlines, namely to
focus on the TOP 30 EU airlines in terms of weekly frequencies within Europe
(as June 2013, with more than 1000 flights per week intra EU). As this study is
only a first step for having a global perspective, the study is not airport specific.
The next step would be to focus only on specific major airports where i4D
operations are expected to be the most beneficial for airlines.
Then, a breakdown of fleet age has been defined, in order to categorise airlines
into the three following age-related groups:
Young Fleet: when more than 65% of the fleet is below 10 year-old
Old Fleet: when more than 65% of the fleet is above 10 year-old
Mixed Fleet: when the status is between the two previous definitions.
The 10-years threshold has been assumed as being a realistic limit, in order to
reflect the capacity to easily retrofit an aircraft.
Based on the previous definitions and selection, the fleet study has been
performed by analysing and extracting data from the Airbus Marketing tool
named Miki. This tool uses and combines databases from both internal
company data and external data services (such as OAG Aviation and CASE11).
Finally, additional considerations have been taken into account in the

framework of the analysis, namely the following ones:
Fleet in service as June 2013
Number of scheduled deliveries from 17 June 2013 to end 2018
Number of expected retirements from 17 June 2013 to 2018, assuming
retirement when:
A/C > 23 year-old for traditional scheduled airlines
A/C > 15 year-old for low cost airlines.
11
CASE = Client Aviation System Enquiry
74
4.3.2 Results for Traditional Scheduled Airlines
Regarding traditional scheduled airlines, Figure 4-11 below outlines the market
segmentation vs. fleet age of 21 airlines by presenting results in ascending
order of fleet average age.
Figure 4-11 Market Segmentation vs. Fleet Age for Traditional Scheduled Airlines
Expected to end 2018
Therefore, it is observable for instance that only three airlines out of 21

traditional scheduled airlines are expected to have more than 65% of their
respective fleet below 10 year-old. As a result, these 3 airlines would be the
ones who could get the most of benefits from i4D operations on their respective
operating costs, as they will be able to equip a large part of their fleet with the
i4D function.
75
Table 4-3 below summarises, as a result of the previous figure 4-11, the
outcome for the EU traditional scheduled segment expected in 2018 by
providing an assessment matrix of selected traditional scheduled airlines.
Young Fleet
Old Fleet
Mixed Fleet
Moderate
Not Significant
Light
3 Airlines
8 Airlines
10 Airlines
Degree of Expected
Benefits on
Operating Costs
Number of Airlines
among the top 30
EU airlines
Table 4-3 Assessment Matrix of Selected Traditional Scheduled Airlines

Results for Expected Status in 2018
Therefore, the positive impact of the i4D implementation over traditional

scheduled airlines is assessed as mitigated. Indeed, only 3 large traditional
scheduled carriers are expected to be able to obtain the majority of potential
benefits provided by i4D operations from 2018. Nevertheless, among the
current 21 largest EU traditional scheduled airlines in terms of weekly
frequencies, at least 10 are expected to obtain reasonable benefits from i4D
operations.
76
4.3.3 Results for Low Cost Airlines
Regarding
low-cost
airlines,
Figure
4-12
below
outlines
the
market
segmentation vs. fleet age of 9 airlines by presenting results in ascending order

of fleet average age.
Figure 4-12 Market Segmentation vs. Fleet Age for Low Cost Airlines Expected
to end 2018
Therefore, it is noticeable in the case of low-cost carriers that, 4 airlines out of 9

low cost airlines are expected to have significantly more than 65% of their
respective fleet below 10 year-old. As a result, these 4 airlines would be the
ones who could obtain the majority of potential benefits from i4D operations on
their respective operating costs, as they will be able to equip almost their entire
fleet with the i4D function. Furthermore, as Direct Operating Costs (DOCs) of
LCCs are more dependent on fuel costs than traditional scheduled airlines, the
degree of expected benefits on DOCs provided by i4D operations will be even
more significant for young low-cost airlines.
77
Table 4-4 below summarises, as a result of the previous figure 4-12, the
outcome for the EU low-cost segment expected in 2018 by providing an
assessment matrix of selected low cost airlines.
Young Fleet
Old Fleet
Mixed Fleet
Significant
Not Significant
Moderate
4 Airlines
1 Airline
4 Airlines
Degree of Expected
Benefits on
Operating Costs
Number of Airlines
among the top 30
EU airlines
Table 4-4 Assessment Matrix of Selected Low Cost Airlines Results for
Expected Status in 2018
Therefore, the positive impact of the i4D implementation over low-cost airlines is
assessed as strong. Indeed, among the current 9 largest EU LCCs in terms of
weekly frequencies, 4 are expected to obtain high benefits and 4 others to
obtain medium benefits.
Consequently, it is clearly observable that there are more low-cost airlines than
traditional scheduled airlines that would obtain significant benefits from i4D
operations from 2018. This result is pretty logical as low-cost airlines are
expected to be always much younger than traditional scheduled airlines in
2018.
78
4.3.4 Ways to Foster the Initial i4D Deployment Strategic Principles
In this section, as a conclusion to the airlines perspective, an extra thought was

carried out in order to state a couple of efficient ways that could be implemented
in order to foster the initial deployment of the i4D function among EU airlines.
The following is a set of non-exhaustive strategic principles that could foster the
deployment of i4D operations.
Firstly, in order to effectively launch the i4D deployment, it would be interesting

to offer incentives (during a limited time period) to airlines in order to balance
their return on investment & benefit to start operating i4D. Those incentives
could be from different nature, namely for example:
-
Grants
Use of charges reduction
Participation to costs.
Regarding the sources of those types of incentives it could be provided either

by states (e.g. by the EU commission) or by banks (e.g. bank funding or private
funding).
Then, a strategic principle would be to generate interest for airlines because

first equipped airlines will benefit from incentives in addition to immediate
savings (as it was demonstrated previously within the report).
Finally, a warning can be addressed, namely to pay attention to the

synchronisation between ground and airborne systems (as a result of different
speeds of deployment between the two), in order to ensure an efficient
integration of i4D operations.
79
4.4 Further Discussion on Final Results Sensitivity Analysis
4.4.1 Regarding Degree of Change throughout the i4D Deployment
As part of the first study, regarding the evaluation of the degree of change
throughout the i4D deployment compared to todays operations, it can firstly be
noted that the weight coefficient has been a sensitive parameter. It has indeed
been observed that the modification of the respective assigned weight
coefficients has an impact on the graphs related to each flights segment mainly
(namely equipped flights or unequipped flights). While the tendency of the
graphs is all the same more or less stable when changing values of weight
coefficients, it can be pointed out in particular that the tendency of the graph
reflecting the degree of change globally remains closely the same whatever
assigned value of weight coefficient.
Then, the sensitivity of the input parameters (namely parameters defined within
the hypothesis of each case scenario) is reflected by the final results arising
from each case scenario. Indeed, it has been observed that, depending on the
assumed hypothesis, the tendency of each graph varies along the ordinate axis.
The purpose of defining three different scenarios from a pessimistic, neutral or
optimistic point of view has been therefore to take into account the sensitivity of
the input data. As a result, the graph obtained for the baseline scenario (namely
Scenario 2) has been considered as the most realistic case to efficiently
interpret the results, and conclude on the status for each flights segment as well
as globally.
It should finally be noted that the precise accuracy of each hypothesis
parameter or weight coefficient has not been considered as relevant throughout
this study because the core objective of the study has been to reflect
qualitatively (and not quantitatively) how the deployment of i4D operations will
impact mixed equipage operations.
80
4.4.2 Regarding the Fleet Analysis of EU Airlines
As part of the second study, related to the in-depth fleet analysis of EU airlines,
the first sensitive parameter has been the considered assumption regarding the
expected retirement threshold of aircraft. Indeed, depending on the age limits
considered for both traditional scheduled airlines and LCCs, the fleet age
breakdown will vary a little, and as a result the ranking of airlines will be maybe
different. Nevertheless, as the considered age limits are average common
values typically used in the air transport industry, the final results can be
considered as being well realistic, and the age limit assumption for retirement
can be considered as not being a significant sensitive parameter in the
achieved study.
Furthermore, the number of aircraft deliveries from June 2013 to end 2018 has
been another sensitive parameter. Indeed, depending on the number of
recorded deliveries for each airline, it more or less lowers the average age of
the respective total fleet, and therefore the final results of the analysis would be
different. Consequently, it should be noted that the deliveries taken into account
in this in-depth fleet analysis have been only those which have been recorded
into the Miki Airbus marketing tool as from 17 June 2013.
Finally, it can be pointed out that this fleet analysis has just been an initial
overall study, focusing on the age breakdown only. The study has not taken into
account the distinction between large airports and regional ones. As a result, a
further study could be to look at expected traffic of the different selected airlines
on major EU airports by 2018. Indeed, the objective would be to weight the
respective degree of benefits on operating costs, as the degree of benefits
provided by i4D operations will be much more significant for airlines that will
have a large market share on major EU airports.
81
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
5.1 Outcome of the Thesis and Conclusion on i4D Operations in

a Mixed Equipage Environment
In the context of the European ATM modernisation towards a Single European

Sky, and as part of the SESAR Programme, it was noticed during the literature
review related to the thesis work that the initial 4D Trajectory Management
function is one of the key pillars of the European ATM target concept for 2020
onwards. The primary projects related to this i4D Trajectory Management
function and the corresponding definition were then outlined before describing
in more detail the overall operational concept of i4D operations, which
essentially covers the en-route and TMA airspaces. The i4D operational
concept can therefore be described as being based on two major elements,
namely, a 3D flight plan synchronisation between the air and the ground
(consisting in exchanging datalink messages via advanced communication
technologies) combined with a controlling to time (using a CTA/RTA constraint
towards a metering point). Afterwards, global potential benefits obtained by i4D
operations were detailed in terms of overall performance, capacity, flight
efficiency, cost effectiveness, as well as predictability. In addition, still within the
scope of the literature review and for the purpose of the research work herein,
the principle of mixed equipage (i.e. equipped and unequipped aircraft) was
clarified.
After clearly explaining both the environment, the scope of the herein thesis and
the conducted approach, a first in-depth study was dedicated to the assessment
of the overall benefit of i4D operations in a mixed equipage environment. Within
this first study, the status for equipped/unequipped flights during the entire i4D
deployment phase was also defined, and the degree of change (positive or
negative) compared to todays operations was analysed. As a result, the
analysis has proven, first that globally, the deployment of i4D operations would
83
positively improve the todays situation by providing more and more significant
benefits throughout the entire deployment phase. Then, regarding the
distinction of equipage, it was evaluated that i4D-equipped flights would
naturally obtain significant time benefits (highly positive) during the entire i4D
deployment phase, given the assessed benefits provided by i4D operations and
listed in the literature review. At the same time, unequipped flights are expected
to be slightly more impacted by the implementation of i4D operations. However,
unequipped flights should also obtain benefits from the implementation of the
i4D function as soon as i4D operations become largely deployed (i.e. when the
percentage of i4D-equipped flights exceeds at least 50% of the total flights of
EU scheduled airlines). The reason for this expectation is a more predicted ATC
picture provided by i4D operations, that would allow ATCOs and relevant
ground systems to more easily incorporate unequipped aircraft traffic, and
would therefore decrease the impacts that those flights are facing on their
current trajectory. To conclude on this first study, and to entirely assess the
future situation, an overall risk assessment of the implementation of i4D
operations throughout a mixed equipage environment was performed, in order
to highlight possible obstacles as well as further required study.
Subsequently, a second study emphasised the fleet age breakdown of major
EU airlines, in order to assess the implications and the degree of impact of the
i4D implementation on the different selected airlines. As a result of this in-depth
fleet analysis focusing on the two major types of EU airlines, the i4D
implementation should have a stronger positive impact on the LCCs than the
traditional scheduled airlines. Indeed, among the top 30 EU airlines in terms of
weekly frequencies intra EU, only 3 out of 21 large traditional scheduled carriers
are expected to be able to obtain the majority of potential benefits from i4D
operations on their respective operating costs from 2018, in comparison with 4
out of 9 regarding low cost carriers. It was evaluated as well that the degree of
expected benefits on DOCs provided by i4D operations should be more
significant for the 4 youngest LCCs than the 3 youngest traditional scheduled
airlines, as those low-cost airlines will be able to equip almost their entire fleet
with the i4D function in 2018. Finally, as a conclusion to the airlines
84
perspective, different strategic principles have been suggested, in order to

foster the initial deployment of the i4D function among the EU airlines, such as
offering different types of incentives to first-equipped airlines only, and
stimulating competition between suitable airlines which are expected to
immediately obtain most of the benefits from i4D operations within the first
phase of the deployment.
5.2 Recommendations and Next Steps
On the one hand, in the continuation of the in-depth fleet analysis achieved in
this thesis, further studies can be suggested. The first suggestion would be to
launch a marketing campaign on particular target airlines identified from the
completed study herein, in order to demonstrate that they could obtain
significant benefits by equipping their suitable fleet with the i4D function as early
as the deployment of the i4D function. Within the scope of this marketing
campaign, a second suggestion would be to develop in-depth business cases
related to selected airlines by underlining specific operational & cost benefits.
On the other hand, the assessment of benefits and improvement related to i4D
operations in a mixed equipage environment has been limited to a qualitative
approach only, due to limited time and resources. As a result, the next step
should be to perform further advanced studies and a quantitative assessment of
precise time and cost savings that i4D-equipped or unequipped aircraft could
obtain from i4D operations in mixed fleet. In the scope of these further
advanced studies, the applicable Airbus performance team is currently
continuing to precisely assess i4D-related benefits for different concrete
operational scenarios. In addition, the next step is to launch fast-time studies
within different actual airspaces using i4D models. For instance, Airbus,
EUROCONTROL and other partners are planning to launch shortly such an
advanced fast-time study within the Paris CDG airspace.
85
Finally, regarding future work planned in the scope of the 4D Trajectory

Management function, it can be underlined that further flight trials are expected
to occur within the coming months. In particular, real i4D integration is planned
to take place as part of a flight trial with ENAV (i.e. the Italian ANSP) in 2014. In
addition, the full 4D project is expected to be launched within Airbus from
October 2013, in order to begin to define the next requirements and
development phases before the implementation of the full 4D function in the
continuation of the i4D deployment.
86
87
REFERENCES
Airbus (2012a), The 4D Trajectory Management, FAST Airbus Technical

Magazine, Issue 50, pp. 10-14.
Airbus (2012b), Airbus takes Air Traffic Management to the fourth dimension
(Airbus Internal press release), Airbus, Toulouse, France.
Airbus (2012c), SESAR JU - Initial 4D (PowerPoint presentation presented by
an Airbus experimental test pilot), 6 March 2012, Amsterdam.
Airbus (2012d), SESAR 4D Trajectory Airbus development and participation
to Scandinavia i4D trials (Airbus Internal PowerPoint presentation), Airbus,
Toulouse, France.
Airbus (2013a), Mixed Equipage Operation (internal working paper provided by
the ATM & MPP Department), Airbus, Toulouse, France.
Airbus (2013b), Workbook B4.1 & PCP Final Fleet Equipage (internal data
provided by the Airbus ATM Engineering Department), Airbus, Toulouse,
France.
Airbus (2013c), Airbus Environmental Innovations, January (Airbus internal
brochure), p. 4.
Di Meo, G-A. et al. (2012), Interoperability of military aircraft versus future air
navigation system (FANS), ICAS 2012, available at
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2012/PAPERS/309.PDF (accessed
29th June 2013).
89
EUROCONTROL (2008), CTA/ATC System Integration Studies (CASSIS) Flight

Trials Report, available at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/tma2010/gallery/content/public/image/Docs/Cassis%2
0Flight%20Trials%20Report%20v1.0.pdf (accessed 25th June 2013).
EUROCONTROL (2012), Focus: I4D Test Flight Heralds New Era in Air Traffic
Management, Skyway Magazine No. 58, Winter, available at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/documents/skyway-no-58-winter-2012 (accessed 27th
June 2013).
EUROCONTROL (2013a), Delays to Air Transport in Europe, CODA Digest
Annual Report 2012, available at http://www.eurocontrol.int/documents/codadigest-annual-2012 (accessed 4th June 2013).
EUROCONTROL (2013b), Performance Review Report 2012, available at
https://www.eurocontrol.int/documents/performance-review-report-prr-2012
(accessed 23rd May 2013).
EUROCONTROL (2013c), Single European Sky, available at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/dossiers/single-european-sky (accessed 1st July
2013).
EUROCONTROL (2013d), ECAC Member States, available at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/member-states (accessed 9th July 2013).
EUROCONTROL (2013e), Network Operations Annual Report 2012, available
at http://www.eurocontrol.int/documents/network-operations-report-annual-2012
(accessed 6th June 2013).
90
Griffiths, P. (2013), Building a Single European Sky (lecture attended at

Cranfield University in May 2013), Cranfield University.
Honzik, B. and Herodes, M. (2012), Airborne 4-Dimensional Trajectory
Management, 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6382317 (accessed
2nd July 2013).
Kopardekar, P., et al. (2009), Feasibility of Mixed Equipage Operations in the
Same Airspace, Eighth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management (ATM) Research
and Development Seminar, available at
http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar8/papers/p_089_DACM.pdf
(accessed 3rd July 2013).
NCOIC (2008), Comparison of the SESAR and NextGen Concepts of
Operations, available at http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2378.pdf
SESAR (2012), European ATM Master Plan Edition 2, available at
https://www.atmmasterplan.eu/ (accessed 10th July 2013).
SESAR (2013a), About the ATM Master Plan, available at
https://www.atmmasterplan.eu/about (accessed 10th July 2013).
SESAR (2013b), SESAR Lexicon, available at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/lexicon/lexicon/en/index.php/SESAR (accessed 11th
July 2013).
SESAR Consortium (2008), Work Programme for 2008-2013, available at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sesar/gallery/content/public/docs/DLM-0710-002-0200-D6.pdf (accessed 10th July 2013).
91
SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) (2009), The Structure of the Work Programme
(PowerPoint presentation), available at http://www.powershow.com/view/89fb0YThlM/The_Structure_of_the_Work_Programme_powerpoint_ppt_presentation
(accessed 10th July 2013).
SJU (2012a), Operational Service and Environment Definition, Step 1 OSED
Second Iteration Document, Provided by the Airbus ATM Engineering
Department, Airbus, Toulouse, France.
SJU (2012b), I-4D Flying a new dimension, SESAR Factsheet N1/2012,
available at http://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/highlight/i4dfactsheet.pdf (accessed on 2nd July 2013).
SJU (2012c), Take-off for the worlds first 4D flight, SJU Press Release,
Brussels, Belgium.
SJU (2013a), e-learning Module 1 about SESAR (Video), available at
http://www.sesarju.eu (accessed from May to July 2013).
SJU (2013b), Background on the Single European Sky & History about the SJU,
available at http://www.sesarju.eu (accessed 2nd July 2013).
Ward, D. (2008), Comparison of NextGen and SESAR Modernisation
Initiatives, FAA presentation available at
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115008447/Comparison-of-NextGen-and-SESARModernisation-Initiatives
92
World ATM Congress (2013), SESAR Performance Framework, Workshop SES

(PowerPoint presentation), available at http://www.sesarju.eu/atc/sesarworkshops (accessed 9th July 2013).
93
APPENDICES
Appendix A SESAR Overall Validation Targets
Source: Compiled by the author based on the World ATM Congress 2013 SESAR
Performance Framework document, SJU (2013)
95
Appendix B Data Computation Model for Impact

Assessment
B.1 Scenario 1
Scenario 1
FM1
20% i4D Equipped Flights
Globally Status for Equipped Flights Status for Unequipped Flights
% Flights Not Affected
60%
100%
50%
% Flights Slightly Affected
30%
0%
37.5%
% Flights Strongly Affected
10%
0%
12.5%
FM2
64%
70%
57%
28%
30%
26%
8%
0%
17%
FM3
69%
70%
63%
26%
30%
24%
5%
0%
13%
96
B.2 Scenario 2
Scenario 2
FM1
62%
100%
52%
29%
0%
37%
9%
0%
12%
FM2
66%
80%
55%
28%
20%
35%
6%
0%
10%
FM3
73%
80%
60%
24%
20%
32%
2%
0%
8%
97
B.3 Scenario 3
Scenario 3
FM1
63%
100%
54%
28%
0%
34%
9%
0%
12%
FM2
69%
85%
59%
26%
15%
32%
5%
0%
9%
FM3
77%
85%
63%
22%
15%
34%
1%
0%
3%
98
B.4 Additional Details of the Excel Model
99
100
Appendix C Data Computation Model for Degree of

Change Assessment
Degree of Change (DoC)

Today Base Model
60%
30%
10%
Weight Coefficient
1
1
10
Globally
Status for Equipped Flights
Status for Unequipped Flights

Scenario 1
Start
DoC
0.0
17.0
0.0
FM1
DoC
0.0
17.0
-4.3
FM2
DoC
2.3
11.0
-6.4
FM3
DoC
6.6
11.0
-1.8
Start
DoC
0.0
17.0
0.0
FM1
DoC
1.0
17.0
-3.0
FM2
DoC
5.2
13.0
-1.4
FM3
DoC
9.5
13.0
1.8
Start
DoC
0.0
17.0
0.0
FM1
DoC
1.3
17.0
-2.6
FM2
DoC
6.3
14.0
0.9
FM3
DoC
11.5
14.0
6.7
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
101
END OF REPORT
102

Durville - R - 2013 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Durville - R - 2013 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Romain Durville

Applicability of the Initial 4D Trajectory Management Function to

Supervisor: Andy Foster

Academic Year: 2012 - 2013

Applicability of the Initial 4D Trajectory Management Function to

Supervisor: Andy Foster

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

Cranfield University 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this

Intentionally left blank

The completion of this research thesis is a milestone in seven years of intense

acknowledged herein. However, unless otherwise stated, no endorsement of

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ iii

Figure 1-1 European ATM Global Structure ....................................................... 1

Figure 4-5 Scenario 3 Assessment Matrix - Equipped vs. Unequipped Flights 64

Table 2-1 Main Differences between SESAR and NextGen ............................. 10

Automatic Dependant Surveillance - Contract

Air Navigation Services

Air Navigation Service Provider

Airborne Separation Assistance System

Air Traffic Control

Air Traffic Controller

Air Traffic Flow Management

Air Traffic Management

Air Traffic Service Unit

Client Aviation System Enquiry

CTA/ATC System Integration Studies

Continuous Descent Approach

Communication Navigation Surveillance

Central Office for Delay Analysis

Controller Pilot Datalink Communication

Controlled Time of Arrival

Direct Operating Cost

European Civil Aviation Conference

Extended Projected Profile

Estimated Time of Arrival

Flight Management System

Initial Four Dimensions

Instrument Flight Rules

Key Performance Area

Low Cost Carrier

Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

National Airspace System

Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium

Network Information Management Systems

Operational Focus Area

Operational Service and Environment Description

Performance Based Navigation

Research and Development

Required Time of Arrival

Single European Sky

Single European Sky ATM Research

SESAR Joint Undertaking

System Wide Information Management

Terminal Manoeuvring Area

Intentionally left blank

1.1 Setting the Scene

Figure 1-1 European ATM Global Structure

1.1.2 The Recent European ATM Reform

Figure 1-2 EU Performance Scheme - ATM Master Plan Goals

1.2 Research Context

1.3 Research Limitations and Hypothesis

1.4 Research Aim and Specific Objectives