Analysis of the influence of the Air Traffic Management initiatives SESAR and NextGen on Airline Operations Control Centers’ workflows

ABSTRACT Anmerkung (Remark for German-speaking readers): Eine deutsche Version dieses Abstracts findet sich in Annex 10 – German Abstract (Zusammenfassung). Introducing the Topic During the next two decades, the way Air Traffic Management (ATM) is conducted will have to alter significantly due to globally changing framework conditions. This is mainly because of the steadily rising demand for air transportation at constant, limited airspace volumes, which – in direct return – makes increases in both capacity and safety become inevitable. Moreover, political decision makers as well as ATM stakeholders increasingly foster aspects like environmental protection and sustainability. Both the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) responded to this situation politically by launching the ATM initiatives SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) and NextGen (Next Generation Air Transport System) respectively. These contain binding provisions and manifold requirements which will influence all ATM stakeholders conducting flights within European and U.S. American airspaces in the future; this also encompasses airlines and their Operations Control Centers which represent an airline’s operational control room. The OCCs’ main functions are to monitor and control all relevant operating procedures and to handle sudden and/or unforeseen disruptions (e.g. inoperable aircraft, severe weather conditions). Thereby, not only the safety, but also the cost and time efficiency of flight operations has to be accounted for. As to be able to perform their tasks, today’s OCCs mainly interact with the ATM stakeholders Air Traffic Control (ATC) and cockpit crews. Objective and Scientific Approach of this Master’s Thesis This master’s thesis aims to analyze how the above mentioned ATM initiatives SESAR and NextGen will influence both the structure and workflows of today’s OCCs as well as existing OCC-cockpit crew operating procedures. Therefore, the need for SESAR and NextGen is clarified (Chapter 1) and both projects’ documentation as well as adherent secondary literature and scientific papers are examined and compared to each other (Chapters 3 to 5). Subsequently, the setting, workflows and structures of today’s OCCs as well as their integration into airline planning processes and the interaction of OCC-cockpit crew workflows are specified (Chapter 6). Based on the provisions specified in SESAR and NextGen, schemes for future OCC integration into longand shortterm airline planning processes as well as preand in-flight OCC-cockpit crew workflow interaction are derived and analyzed by applying them to three self-defined scenarios. Adapted from that, a gap analysis is performed as to identify missing provisions and conceptual inadequacies (Chapter 7). Finally, a short conclusion of the results of this thesis and an overview of thematically-related issues which should be subject of further scientific research are provided (Chapter 8). This, e.g., encompasses the interoperability of SESAR and NextGen when it comes to transatlantic flight operations. Results In today’s roadmap of the ATM initiatives, the future roll of OCCs is not specified sufficiently, neither by SESAR nor NextGen. Both initiatives’ project documentations lack information when it comes to the future role, integration and operation of OCCs. It remains unclear which part OCCs will take in the future. Taking the SESAR (2020) and NextGen (2025) implementation timeframes into consideration, it has to be asserted that a timely, costand time1 Remark: Chapter 2 clarifies the scientific approach of this master’s thesis and gives a general overview of its content, scope and structure. ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF SESAR AND NEXTGEN ON OCC WORKFLOWS PAGE XIX ABSTRACT efficient implementation of necessary adaptions to both strategic and operational OCC processes is highly questionable due to missing provisions and specifications. In July 2012, the responsible Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) project management team has – in contrast to their European colleagues from SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) – published a report validating the concept of OCC integration as specified in the NextGen ConOps and adherent documents. This validation especially focuses on the intended implementation of the NextGen (and SESAR) key features Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), System Wide Information Management (SWIM) and Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) and lists several findings concerning the general OCC integration into NextGen; those are, amongst others, a missing overall OCC focus because of a strong conceptual emphasis on ATC-cockpit crew cooperation, inadequate specification of SWIM protocols as well as missing rules for both data sharing between different CDM stakeholders by means of SWIM and ATM resource allocation. Moreover, the JPDO criticizes that NextGen does not sufficiently consider strategic aspects when it comes to the OCC planning horizon; hence, as it will be one of the OCCs’ main tasks to initiate and negotiate 4DTs within a CDM environment weeks or even months before a given flight is conducted, it is essential that OCCs extend their operational range on long-term strategic planning and do not only cover short-term tactical planning and operational control, as they do nowadays. According to JPDO recommendations, these findings have to be resolved by means of conceptual modifications as to ensure the overall operational efficiency of NextGen. As seen from the SESAR perspective and considering the fact that SESAR shall be fully established five years earlier than NextGen, it has to be stated that there is neither a validation report nor a detailed concept for OCC integration published or even available so far. Asked for the reasons for this, two leading SJU project managers did not reply, even upon repeated written inquiry. The shortage of information on OCC integration into SESAR is also criticized by executive officers of two well-respected German airlines, Air Berlin and Lufthansa. However, based on the specifications of the SESAR and NextGen key features as defined in the respective ConOps and ATM Masterplans and by assuming that associated provisions will be implemented accordingly, it was possible to derive a concrete, reasonable scheme describing how future OCC workflows as well as OCC-cockpit crew interactions will be influenced by the SESAR and NextGen key features. This scheme was then compared to the current situation by means of a gap analysis, identifying the following gaps:efficient implementation of necessary adaptions to both strategic and operational OCC processes is highly questionable due to missing provisions and specifications. In July 2012, the responsible Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) project management team has – in contrast to their European colleagues from SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) – published a report validating the concept of OCC integration as specified in the NextGen ConOps and adherent documents. This validation especially focuses on the intended implementation of the NextGen (and SESAR) key features Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), System Wide Information Management (SWIM) and Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) and lists several findings concerning the general OCC integration into NextGen; those are, amongst others, a missing overall OCC focus because of a strong conceptual emphasis on ATC-cockpit crew cooperation, inadequate specification of SWIM protocols as well as missing rules for both data sharing between different CDM stakeholders by means of SWIM and ATM resource allocation. Moreover, the JPDO criticizes that NextGen does not sufficiently consider strategic aspects when it comes to the OCC planning horizon; hence, as it will be one of the OCCs’ main tasks to initiate and negotiate 4DTs within a CDM environment weeks or even months before a given flight is conducted, it is essential that OCCs extend their operational range on long-term strategic planning and do not only cover short-term tactical planning and operational control, as they do nowadays. According to JPDO recommendations, these findings have to be resolved by means of conceptual modifications as to ensure the overall operational efficiency of NextGen. As seen from the SESAR perspective and considering the fact that SESAR shall be fully established five years earlier than NextGen, it has to be stated that there is neither a validation report nor a detailed concept for OCC integration published or even available so far. Asked for the reasons for this, two leading SJU project managers did not reply, even upon repeated written inquiry. The shortage of information on OCC integration into SESAR is also criticized by executive officers of two well-respected German airlines, Air Berlin and Lufthansa. However, based on the specifications of the SESAR and NextGen key features as defined in the respective ConOps and ATM Masterplans and by assuming that associated provisions will be implemented accordingly, it was possible to derive a concrete, reasonable scheme describing how future OCC workflows as well as OCC-cockpit crew interactions will be influenced by the SESAR and NextGen key features. This scheme was then compared to the current situation by means of a gap analysis, identifying the following gaps: • The creation and transmission of ATC flight plans as well as respective OCC-cockpit crew workflows will become obsolete as ATC flight plans will be substituted by a single, system-wide, dynamic Network Operations Plan (NOP) representing the entirety of all RBTs which are mutually dependent. SESAR does, unlike NextGen, specify that there has to be a Network Manager (NM) who is responsible for the development, implementation and periodic maintenance of a common European NOP containing all negotiated RBTs. Yet, both SESAR and NextGen do currently not define which entity or person will be responsible for the operational editing of NOPs when it comes