5c1 - Flight Planning From a Regional) Airline Perspective MKoechle

8/4/2019 5c1 - Flight Planning From a Regional) Airline Perspective MKoechle

1/28

DMEAN Flight Planning Workshop

Brussels, 29 OCT 2008

Markus Kchle

Mngr. Navigation and PerformanceTyrolean Airways


2/28

Flight planning

from a (regional)airline perspective


3/28

1980 First scheduled flights as Tyrolean Airways with a single Dash 71985 First Dash 8-100 operator in Europe

1996 First airline to fly a commercial Cat IIIa approach with CRJ aircraft

1997 European Regional Airline of the Year ERA-Award

1999 Regional Airline of the Year ATW-Award

2007 European Regional Airline of the Year ERA-Silver Award

First airline in Europe to equip Dash 8/300 and Dash 8/400 with HGS

Expert in approach procedures into difficult airports such as:Altenrhein, Bolzano, Calvi, Courchevel, Elba, Brac, London City, Paros, Naxos,

Innsbruck, Tortoli

Tyrolean at a glance


4/28

Tyrolean facts

Tyrolean is operating all Austrian Airlines Group flights withaircraft up to 110 seats under the brand

- 58 aircraft (12 Dash8-300, 10 Dash8-400, 13 CRJ200, 9 Fokker70, 14Fokker100)

around 60% of the Austrian Airlines Group fleet

- 5.198.000 Passangers (5.075.000 Schedule/ 123.000 Charter)represents roughly half of the groups passengers

- 1.827 employees

- 171.000 blockhours

approx. 50 % of all blockhours within

the AAG


5/28

Route Network:7 Destinations in Austria (including St. Gallen/Altenrhein near Austrian boarder)

72 Destinations in Europe (mainly out of hub Vienna)

over 2.180 scheduled flights a week (more than 2/3 of the groups flights) more than 300 flights a day - so more than 1% of the daily IFR flights in the ECAC area(29.000 a day on average) is operated by Tyrolean

Tyrolean one of the biggest and most important regional airlines in Europe


6/28

The Tyrolean network is to a large extent(but not only)

short haul flights with turboprops with atough schedule, short turn around times andlarge number of cycles per day

With all flight planning and operational

specialities imposed by such an operation


7/28

Flightplanning as it was once....

At times when con-ventional navigationwas still dominatingaviation,

flight planning could

almost be done witha single document(nearly every infor-mation could beplaced on a map)

- but choice oftrajectories wasvery limited andrather fixed


8/28

...as it is todayIt looks as if muchmore route optionsexist today...

...but not really

Airspace layout andsectorisation is still

largely dependent onnational boundariesand there are alsomany areas (tempo-rarily) reserved forthe military

- flights have to fit to

established airspacestructure

- so you are toldwhere to go


9/28

To plan a flight from A to B, you or your (more or less) sophisticatedflight planning tool normally needs information from several datasources:

- Maps/AIPs: for SID and STARs, approach procedures, for airways

and their limits, direction, classification and usage times (CDR)- RAD: tells you, if the airways you would prefer can be used or if your

flight is subject to level cappings. And if you are allowed to use DCT(and for which distances) wherever there are no adequateprocedures or airways published for portions of your flight

Flight-planning issues

when preparing the flight


10/28

Problems arising(I)

- Big variations in airspace

definitions between different states

(for example definition oflower/upper airspace)

Example: flying VIE-HEL with DH8D

in FL250

ABLOM3C ABLOM UM985 DBV UL999SUPAK L999 RILAB M857 BOKSUUM857 GUNTA M857 SOKVA UM857INTOR INTOR1M

with harmonised airspace it couldprobably read:

ABLOM3C ABLOM M985 DBV L999RILAB M857 INTOR INTOR1M


11/28

Problems arising (II)

ICAO flightplan field 15 information and calculation of profile byIFPS

Example from last Winter season:

It is not allowed to file FL250 and 240 in Belgium

- Therefore coming from UK with a turboprop aircraft (or a jet

restricted to this level due to a service pack inoperative) flyingin FL 250 you would think means descending before Belgium to230 and when leaving to Germany climb up to 250 again

- So you file according to publications of the airways

...BIG UL9 KONAN/N0360F230 UL607 KOK UM150PITES/N0360F250 UM150...

Yes the flight plan got acknowledged...

But the flight is not without problems


12/28


again one of the reasons behind is thedifference in definition of lower/upperairspace between Belgium and Germany(230 is upper in Belgium but lower in Germany)

- the ICAO syntax of field 15 of the flightplan means that the speed/level

change PITES/N0360F250 indicates you are starting the climb from 230 to

250 at PITES

- but flights in FL 230 are controlled in Germany by Langen ACC (lower

airspace) and above FL250 by Karlsruhe (upper airspace)

and so the flight is handed over from Belgium to Langen

- But as Eurocontrol processed the flightplan as PITES UM150 only

Karlsruhe had a flight plan.....


13/28


- luckily there is a lower airway existing to KRH

so lets try instead to file PITES M150 KRH/N0340F250 UM150

but this gives an error again: as you know you start your climb with this syntax at KRH and

there is no lower airway structure existing below UM150 after KRH.... flight plan rejected

But there is a solution!

In order that the flight can be handled to climb to upper airspace without extra coordinationand everyone involved in the flight gets a flightplan, you end up with the following trajectory:

UM150 PITES M150 LADAT/N0340F250 DCT KRH UM150

meaning you stay for 59NM more in FL230 (as there is no other point published to start the

climb except you would use coordinates)

but as the point LADAT is only published on the lower airway you cannot file therafterUM150 but instead have to use DCT to get to KRH.

And believe me thats not the only climb profile calculation problem you are faced with......


14/28


- But anyhow since 25SEP AIRAC Germanyhas closed FL250 inRhein UIR; so youcannot file this routingmentioned before anymore.

- So you have to makebigger detours andcannot make use ofthe TRA Lauter onweekend any more

- Detour: via EB/ED:20NM and F230; viaLF/LS 33NM andFL250/180!


15/28

Trajectory issues

- The shortest route option is not always the cheapest oneif you want to fly the cheapest route you have to compare several routes asthe overflight fees vary between the states and may end up in a longerrouting being cheaper, even if considering costs for time and fuel of thelonger route.

- Flight planning around significant weather (to avoid thunderstorm,

turbulence, icing) may also result in large detours if existing routes are notfileable due to the mentioned restrictions (RAD)

- On the day of flight: you have to check again if CDRs are available or not oncertain trajectories

- You may have to refile filed flightplans to avoid congested area(s)

- But especially the very short distances in regional air traffic give almost nopossibility for an alternative routing due to airway and airspace structures or if there is one, the detour is rather very large (easily up to the double ofthe distance)


16/28

...and on the day of ops

...the airline has planned a routing and profile according to load,performance, wind...

and files an ATC flight plan

...Eurocontrol calculates a profile according to a few simple parameters

under optimum circumstances the ATC routing is accepted withoutchanges

it is loaded into the aircrafts FMS (but most probably that is not the samewhat Eurocontrol and ATC have as vertical profile).

Then the flight is executed under the assistance of the ATC avoidingeventually conflicting traffic by changes in speed, altitude and track

So what was fed into the FMS is often not what is executed.

Today not all involved in the aircrafts operation are constantly updatedon the evaluation of the trajectory


17/28

So planning a flight today is really finding your way on prescribed trackswithin rigid areas and sometimes even loaded with some tricky extras

So very often the routing is far from the optimum great circle distance

...and sometimes it is just toprotect other traffic as in the

case of EDDL-LOWS, where youhave to plan and execute bigdetours around MUC TMA at anytime - regardless the traffic systemcould eventually accommodate themore direct overflight = 50NMdetour to given published routeclosed by RAD

Tracks far from optimum


18/28

- Or its because there are no betterairway links published or available(for whatever reason)

LQSA-LOWW 51NM difference betweenflown track (318NM) and direct distance(267)


...and what is

actually flown...

(daily)


19/28


Same

applies

for

LOWW

LQSA

And a

comparison

what was flown

(given by ATC)


20/28


LHBP-LQSA-LHBP

Almost the same...


21/28

Or it cannot be shortened as in the case ofLDSP-LOWW due to state boundaries andrelated ATC sectorisation



22/28

Example for detours due

to RAD:

compulsory

via MAKOL/VADEN

(= not allowing departuresvia Greece)

LTAI - LOWW = 62NM detour



23/28

or EDDC-LTAI:

Detour of 96NM due to a RAD

restriction in LK forcing the

flights to a more eastern track

KOPIT BNO

Not available for traffic

Dest./Overfly LRBBFIR

Overfly LB**This traffic shall file via UL620

HLV



24/28

or there exist military areas which have tobe circumnavigated

LOWW-ESSA 78NM difference between flown track

and direct distance

and even worse when RAD restrictions addto this, as for the return routing

150NM (total distance 845NM)



25/28


LOWW-LRIA

Zig-zag flying

due to non

existing

structure andRAD


26/28


LRIA-LOWW

Almost the

same althoughless zig-zag


27/28

....to summarize

- There exist differences between flightplans and profiles- 1) calculated and filed by operator,

- 2) calculated by IFPS,

- 3) profile calculated by FMS,

- and 4) profile and routing then given by ATC and executed as flight path

- a lot of shorter routings not flight-planable but are given on a regular basis

- diverse airspace structures

- We need:

- harmonised airspace to ease planning and filing and to reduce amount of data

- Reduce restrictions of airway usage to the absolut minimum

- Identify shortcomings in airspace struture and try to find solutions to overcome where possible

(adapt the airspace to whats needed and not the flights to whats given)

- More predictable routings (we often hear you get it anyhow in real live)

- - common data sharing between operator, flight planning tool, IFPS/CFMU, the ATCs and the

pilots


28/28

Thanks for your Attention!

5c1 - Flight Planning From a Regional) Airline Perspective MKoechle

Documents

Transcript of 5c1 - Flight Planning From a Regional) Airline Perspective MKoechle