Efficiency indicators 4 shows the mean values, the standard deviations and the coefficients of correlation with the horizontal indicators for the two most representative ECAC traffic samples , 2017 February 20th and 2017 February 24th. Coefficients of correlation allowed assessing if it is necessary to calculate complex indicators to assess the efficiency from the perspective of the Airspace Users or simple indicators such as the horizontal ones are representative enough. The table shows also the Airlines´ qualitative assessment of the added value of AURORA´s new indicators, based on their interests. Understanding represents if it is easy to understand the indicator, and representativeness means if it is representative enough of their interests. These criteria were chosen in line with the SESAR process to assess new indicators. Indicators that are more complex are harder to understand but are more representativeness of AUs interests. Days Indicator Mean value Standard Deviation Linear Correlation with Horizontal Indicator Understanding Representativeness 20/02/2017 24/02/2017 KEA 9.3% 10.0% 6.6% 6.6% High Low KEA_P -1.1% -1.5% 5.0% 5.6% N/A High High VEA_P -1.8% -1.9% 4.3% 4.0% 0.03 0.01 High Medium FEA_P 1.6% 1.8% 6.3% 6.6% 0.51 0.37 High Medium/High CEA_P 1.7% 1.4% 5.0% 4.9% 0.75 0.63 High Medium/High KEA_C1 9.5% 10.2% 6.6% 6.6% N/A VEA_C1 -6.1% -7.5% 7.2% 7.4% 0.01 0.01 Medium High FEA_C1 1.7% 2.0% 7.2% 6.7% 0.40 0.25 Low High CEA_C1 8.7% 9.1% 6.1% 6.0% 0.65 0.59 Low/Medium High KEA_C2 -1.2% -1.3% 5.2% 5.3% N/A VEA_C2 -4.9% -6.3% 7.5% 8.0% 0.01 0.01 Low Low/Medium
Are stakeholder's interested about the technology (customer, funding source, etc.)? Achieved Yes. AURORA has iteratively presented its results to an Airspace Users Group composed by Iberia, Air Europa, KLM, Turkish Airlines and Novair to ensure the commitment with the approach. Table 8: ER Fund / AO Research Maturity Assessment for offline process. ID Criteria Satisfaction Rationale - Link to deliverables - Comments OPS.ER.1 Has a potential new idea or concept been identified that employs a new scientific fact/principle? Achieved Yes. The problem identified is the need of enhancing the current efficiency KPI with principles such as measuring against wind optimum route, assessing improvements in the vertical profile and the use of Free Route. If the new indicator was to be measured against the wind optimum trajectory, it was recognized the need an extremely precise model of such trajectories, which does not currently exist. OPS.ER.2 Have the basic scientific principles underpinning the idea/concept been identified? Achieved Yes. D3.1 “Description of Experimental Plans” [3] describes the principles and technologies for the proposed enabler Centralised Trajectories Reconstruction and Generation Services. OPS.ER.3 Does the analysis of the "state of the art" show that the new concept / idea / technology fills a need? Achieved The literature review and state-of-the-art analysis performed in D2.1 “Definition of user-centric air traffic efficiency indicators” [2] show the need to be addressed. OPS.ER.4 Has the new concept or technology been described with sufficient detail? Does it describe a potentially useful new capability for the ATM system? Achieved Yes. D3.1 “Description of Experimental Plans” [3] describes in detail the approach for the Centralised Trajectories Reconstruction and Generation Services. This is also described in the paper to the SIDs 2017 "User-centric Flight Efficiency and Equity indicators".
PER.ER.2 Is there a documented analysis and description of the benefit and costs mechanisms and associated Influence Factors? Achieved One exercise was performed to assess the added value operationally. D3.2 “Report on testing of user-centric air traffic efficiency indicators and local targets” summarizes these results (Exercise 1.2 “Benefits on the identification and monitoring of ECAC and local targets”). PER.ER.3 Has an initial cost / benefit assessment been produced? Not Achieved The costs of implementing this enabler were not quantified through a CBA but this is not identified as a blocking point. PER.ER.4 Have the conceptual safety benefits and risks been identified? Not Applicable No safety impact linked to the implementation of new indicators. PER.ER.5 Have the conceptual security risks and benefits been identified? Not Applicable No security impact linked to the implementation of new indicators. PER.ER.6 Have the conceptual environmental impacts been identified? Not Applicable No environmental impact linked to the implementation of new indicators. PER.ER.7 Have the conceptual Performance aspects been identified? Not Applicable No human performance impact linked to the implementation of new indicators. VAL.ER.1 Are the relevant R&D needs identified and documented? Note: R&D needs state major questions and open issues to be addressed during the development, verification and validation of a SESAR Solution. They justify the need to continue research on a given SESAR Solution once Exploratory Research activities have been completed, and Achieved See D3.2 “Report on testing of user-centric air traffic efficiency indicators and local targets” (section conclusions and recommendations) [4].
Are potential weaknesses and constraints identified related to the exploratory topic/solution under research? - The problem/challenge/need under research may be bound by certain constraints, such as time, geographical location, environment, cost of solutions or others. Partial - Non Blocking There are no limitations to time, geographical location or environment for the implementation of advanced stream-data models for on-line calculation of efficiency indicators. The costs of implementing this enabler were not quantified through a CBA but this is not identified as a blocking point. Has the concept/technology under research defined, described, analysed and reported? Partial - Non Blocking Yes. The concept with the associated use case is detailed in D3.1 "Description of experimental plan". The requirements and technologies used for the enabler are described in D4.1 "Data Streaming Requirements". The verification and validation activities are described in D3.1 "Description of experimental plan". The results are reported in D3.3 "Report on testing of advanced performance data model" (verification) and in D5.1 "Report on on-line monitoring of efficiency and equity indicators" (validation in a real environment). As it was not possible to do the full integration between the enabler "Provision of centralised trajectories reconstruction and generation services through SWIM” and this enabler for the on-line calculation of indicators, it was necessary to do some assumptions on latency and throughput to perform the experiments to verify the proposed technologies. This was not identified as a blocking point. Do fundamental research results show contribution to the Programme strategic objectives e.g. performance ambitions identified at the ATM MP Not Applicable Current SESAR performance ambitions are not specifically addressed. AURORA can help to define new ambitions or targets referring to the Airspace Users’ expectations.
trajectory and calculated costs of the minimum cost trajectory in free flight where is the calculated cost of the minimum cost trajectory in free flight CEA_C2 Comparison between calculated costs of actual trajectory and calculated costs of the minimum cost trajectory following horizontally the flight plan where is the calculated cost of the minimum cost trajectory following horizontally the flight plan VEA_P It quantifies the vertical flight efficiency comparing average cruise flight level of the actual trajectory with average cruise flight level of the planned trajectory. where is the cruise average flight level of the reconstructed trajectory based on surveillance data and is the reference flight level VEA_C1 It quantifies the vertical flight efficiency comparing average flight cruise level of the actual trajectory with average cruise flight level of the minimum cost trajectory in free flight. where is the cruise average flight level of the OCT1 VEA_C2 It quantifies the vertical flight efficiency comparing average en-route flight level of the actual trajectory with average en-route flight level of the minimum cost trajectory following horizontally the flight plan). where is the cruise average flight level of the OCT2 EQ_FL_P It quantifies the differences between airlines in the percentage of flights that achieve the requested flight level. It compares maximum flight level of actual trajectory with maximum flight level of the flight plan trajectory. with F where is the maximum clearance level, n is the number of airspace users and RFL is reference level from last filed flight plan EQ_FL_C1 It quantifies the differences between airlines in the percentage of flights that achieve the optimum flight It compares maximum flight level of actual trajectory with maximum flight level of with F where is the maximum clearance level, n is the number of airspace users and is the maximum level of the OCT1