EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTREAIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATION
TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ROUTE NETWORKAND AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT IN THE
AIRSPACE OF BULGARIA, ROMANIA & TURKEY
EEC Report No. 293
EEC Task AF52EATCHIP Task ASM.ET1.ST02
Issued: January 1996
The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should bereproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.
EUROCONTROL
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Reference:EEC Report No. 293
Security Classification:Unclassified
OriginatorEEC - AMS(Air Traffic Control Model Simulations)
Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP1591222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : (33-1) 69 88 75 00
SponsorEATCHIP Development DirectorateDED.4
Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B-1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32-(0)2-729 90 11
TITLE:
AIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATION TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ROUTE NETWORK ANDAIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AIRSPACE OF BULGARIA, ROMANIA & TURKEY
AuthorR. Dowdall
Date
1/96Pages
viii + 30Figures
13+ 8 maps
Tables
10Appendix
1References
2
EATCHIP TaskSpecification
ASM.ET1.ST02
EEC Task No.
AF52
Task No. Sponsor Period
1994 to 1995
Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: L. Sillard(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO
Descriptors (keywords):AF52 - Airspace Model Simulation - ARN - ATC Tasks - Black Sea - Bulgaria FIR/UIR - EATCHIPDevelopment - Military Traffic - Romania FIR/UIR - Route Network - Sectorisation - Simferopol FIR/UIR -Top-Down Simulation - Traffic Flows - Turkey FIR/UIR - Ukraine FIR/UIR - Work Index
Abstract:This report describes a EUROCONTROL Airspace Model simulation study, using the top-down method,which was conducted on the airspace of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey on behalf of the EATCHIPDevelopment Directorate and with the full cooperation of the three States concerned.
The study assessed the impact of a solution to the Black Sea FIR boundary issue and the implementationof a future ATS route network on the airspace systems of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.
This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please reportto:
EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office
B.P. 1591222 BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX
France
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Table of Contents Page iii
EUROCONTROL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Report .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ivSummary .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vForeword .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. viii
1 INTRODUCTION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.1 The Top-Down Approach to Airspace Modelling .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.2 Objective of the Study .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.3 General Description of the Study .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.4 Traffic Samples Tested and Aircraft Performance Data .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31.5 Simulation Work Index .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4
2 REFERENCE ORGANISATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 52.1 Analysis of the Traffic Samples .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 52.2 Interaction of the Flows .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 92.3 Work Index .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 112.4 Summary of Results .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12
3 MILITARY SAMPLES ORGANISATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13
4 REVISED SCENARIO ORGANISATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 144.1 Sectorisation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 174.2 Distribution of Traffic .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 174.3 Interaction of the Flows .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 184.4 Work Index .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 214.5 Summary of Results .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22
5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.1 Reference Organisation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.2 Reference Organisation with the Military Samples Added .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.3 Revised Scenario .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 235.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24
Version française du sommaire et des conclusions (pages vertes) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26
Appendix A - Simulation Maps .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Abbreviations and Acronyms Page iv
EUROCONTROL
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THE REPORT
A/C AircraftARN ATS (Air Traffic Services) Route NetworkARR(S) Arrival(s)ATS Air Traffic ServicesATC Air Traffic ControlBUL BulgariaCNF(S) Conflict(s)DCT DirectDEP(S) Departure(s)DIR DirectionDOC DocumentEAM EUROCONTROL Airspace ModelEATCHIP European ATC Harmonisation and Integration ProgrammeECAC European Civil Aviation ConferenceEEC EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreEUR-ANP European Air Navigation PlanFIR Flight Information RegionFL Flight LevelFLAS Flight Level Allocation SystemGAT General Air Traffic (civil)INTL InternationalNM Nautical mile(s)OAT Operational Air Traffic (military)ORG OrganisationROM RomaniaR/T RadiotelephonyTMA Terminal Control AreaTUR TurkeyUIR Upper Flight Information Region
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Summary Page v
EUROCONTROL
EEC Report No. 293EEC Task AF52
EATCHIP Task Specification ASM.ET1.ST02Issued: January 1996
AIRSPACE MODEL SIMULATIONTOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ROUTE NETWORK
AND AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT IN THEAIRSPACE OF BULGARIA, ROMANIA & TURKEY
by
R. Dowdall
SUMMARY
As a result of the increase in traffic in the Bulgarian, Romanian and Turkish regions, complicated bythe situation in former Yugoslavia, and of the possibility of a solution to the Black Sea (Simferopol)FIR boundary issue, it was decided by EATCHIP Development to conduct an Airspace Model top-down simulation of the area to assess the impact of a future route network on the existing airspacesystems.
The top-down approach to airspace modelling examines the main flows of traffic (usually in verticalfree-profile) and how they interact with each other in any given multinational airspace system. It ispurely experimental: the development of an ideal airspace system not constrained by existingFIR/UIR boundaries or political elements.
The objective of the study was to assess an ATS route network (ARN) and supporting airspacesectorisation plan, regardless of current FIR boundary constraints, which:
l took full account of current and future civil and military airspace requirements;l had the capacity to match forecast demand;l was based on the agreed ARN route network plan and would be a building-block for its future
development;l offered full flexibility, in line with the concept of the flexible use of airspace;l reduced, to the extent possible, the route length for air transport;l met the full agreement of the civil and military representatives of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.
Two main organisations were simulated:
l a reference organisation simulating the route network existing on the 15th/16th of July 1994(Friday/Saturday) and using the 24 hour actual traffic samples for each day;
l a future, ideal organisation not constrained by the Black Sea problem, which tested a routenetwork based on Version 2 of the European Air Navigation Plan (EUR-ANP), as depicted in Map2 (2 February 1995). Both traffic samples simulated for the reference organisation were amendedaccordingly. The samples were then further amended to take into account the recommendedflows contained in annex 8/chart 8B of the EATCHIP report "Route Network Development andAssociated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area" (EUROCONTROL Doc. 957005).
The airspace simulated was the TMA and en route sectors of the Bulgarian, Romanian and TurkishFIR/UIRs as well as that portion of the Simferopol FIR/UIR over the Black Sea affected by the routenetwork changes. The present-day FIR/UIR boundaries were used in both organisations.The simulation of the reference organisation showed that:
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Summary Page vi
EUROCONTROL
l Of the three States simulated, the results indicated Romania as having the greatest amount ofpotential spare capacity.
l The areas giving the greatest problems were (see MAP3 in appendix A):
⇒ Bulgaria - MATEL to RIXEN and Bailovo (BLO) to Radovets (RAD);⇒ Turkey - ADELI to RIXEN, BERGO to Biga (BIG), Afyon (KFK) to KUMRU and Goynuk
(GOY) to PETAR.
l Apart from the wider use of the Black Sea airspace and the harmonisation of flows to relieve thecongestion over the Istanbul area, there was need to:
⇒ Dualise the U/G1 between Constanta (CND) and Istanbul.⇒ Dualise the UA4 between BLO and Istanbul.⇒ Use Chouchouligovo (CCO) for southbound and RODOP for northbound traffic and consider
the introduction of a Flight Level Allocation System where these flows intersect the UA4.⇒ Provide discrete inbound and outbound routeings for Burgas and Varna traffic via CND, and
also for Izmir and Antalya traffic.
Because the future Black Sea sectorisation is still unknown, the present-day FIR/UIR boundarieswere retained for the future organisation. The results of simulating the new flows and route network(including routes over the Black Sea) and retaining the present-day FIR/UIR boundaries showed that:
l The redistribution of aircraft led to a 17% decrease in Bulgaria's traffic and a 10% decrease inRomania's, with the figures for Turkey remaining virtually unchanged.
l The number of radar conflicts for the airspace as a whole was down by 40%, the biggest falloccurring in the number of opposite-direction conflicts, down 85%, due to the separation ofclimbing and descending opposite-direction flows.
l Romania was the only country to experience an increase in total radar conflicts - up by 60%, butfrom a relatively small base. Bulgaria and Turkey experienced decreases of 70% and 45%,respectively.
l Some problem areas still remained (see MAP6 in appendix A):
⇒ Bulgaria - BLO to RADS;⇒ Romania - The Galati (GLT) area and the Arad (ARD) to DOMNA route south of CND;⇒ Turkey - LTBAJ to RAD and ADORU to RDBAI;⇒ Black Sea - DOMNA.
Simulating the present-day FIR/UIR boundaries had the effect of understating the number of aircraftthat would have been controlled by Bulgaria and Romania under any new boundary arrangements.For Romania, any boundary change would mean the inclusion of DOMNA in its airspace and,therefore, the traffic through this point via KORAT or ANGOL. For Bulgaria, the boundary changeswould mean the inclusion of either the bi-directional Baglum (BAG)-DOMNA route on its own, or thesame route plus the busier unidirectional DOMNA to TALIK route.
In order to identify the influence of the new flows and route network in the context of any futureboundary changes, further analysis was carried out which showed that:
l The influence of the new route network and flows would be an overall reduction of 35% in thenumber of radar conflicts compared to the reference organisation.
l The results for Turkey would remain the same as for the future organisation.l The inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace and, therefore, the KORAT or ANGOL traffic
would mean an average reduction in aircraft numbers of 6% compared to the referenceorganisation.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Summary Page vii
EUROCONTROL
l Romania’s radar conflicts would almost double compared to the reference organisation (but froma relatively small base) due to the high number of crossing conflicts.
l For Bulgaria, including the bi-directional BAG-DOMNA route, on its own, would have little impact.
l The inclusion of the BAG-DOMNA route plus the busier DOMNA to TALIK route would lead to anaverage reduction in aircraft numbers of 5% compared to the reference organisation.
l Similar reductions in the number of radar conflicts found for Bulgaria in the future organisationwith the present-day boundaries would also be found with the inclusion of the two routes.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This simulation provides an overview of the aircraft loadings and conflicts on the routes which areproposed in Version 2 of EUR-ANP. As such, they depict an ideal system which does not take intoaccount the constraints currently imposed on planners as a result of the situation in formerYugoslavia and the political problem of the Black Sea FIR boundary delineation. Nevertheless, theresults can be used to plan improvements to the route network in the area.
The results show that the new flows and route network provide a more efficient organisation ofairspace in Bulgaria and Turkey, and should increase capacity. Romania will experience a moderateincrease in workload with the inclusion of DOMNA in the airspace.
Considerable benefit was derived from simulating the separation of climbing and descendingopposite-direction flows in Bulgaria and Turkey. To make this a reality and to permit a more flexibleuse of the airspace, closer cooperation between the civil and military authorities in both Bulgaria andTurkey will be required, as the results show that the civil/military interface is very clearly defined inboth countries.
In reviewing the final results, the important views of the Turkish delegation were not available as therepresentatives were unable to attend the meeting. Although the beneficial results of the study arequite clear, the absence of the opinions of such a pivotal State is regrettable. Also, it would bedesirable, though not necessary, to simulate the optimisation of the new route network in a furtherstudy. Should this be done, any significantly different views from Turkey or any other changes to theagreed network could also be included.
The simulation was carried out using a base 1994 traffic sample. During the course of the study,traffic in the area has increased. Should the Black Sea boundary issue remain unresolved while thetraffic continues to increase there will be a high loading on the Istanbul to JULIA/KEREK/KARILroutes. The solution to this problem will require the retention of the ARGES to Oradea(ORA)/KEREK route as an important offload for the parallel KOMAN-JULIA route.
Finally, the study concludes that Version 2 of the EUR-ANP will provide an overall better balanceddistribution of traffic and workload. It will reduce the loadings in the bottleneck areas and, therefore,should increase overall capacity. However, the full benefits of Version 2 are dependent upon theimplementation of the new routes over the Black Sea, so the consequential increases in capacity canonly be realised when these routes have been implemented. A resolution of the Black Sea FIRboundary issue is, therefore, an urgent necessity.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Foreword Page viii
EUROCONTROL
FOREWORD
In May 1994 the initial meeting for the study took place in Brussels at which the objective of theBulgaria, Romania and Turkey top-down simulation was defined. The study was given the EEC tasknumber AF52.
A number of subsequent meetings were held during the execution of the simulation betweenrepresentatives of the three States involved and the EUROCONTROL study team. The purpose ofthese meetings was to outline the simulation methodology, define the organisations and trafficsamples to be simulated, verify the input data, and review the interim results.
The final presentation of results took place in Romania in June 1995 and an intermediate report wasissued the following month.
This report analyses the results of the study and is organised into the following chapters:
Chapter 1 Objective and description of the study plus the input data used.
Chapter 2 Analysis of the results for the reference organisation.
Chapter 3 Analysis of the results for the addition of the military samples to the referenceorganisation.
Chapter 4 Analysis of the results for the new flows and route network simulated.
Chapter 5 Summary and conclusions.
Acknowledgements
The EUROCONTROL study team would like to thank the ATC administrations of Bulgaria, Romaniaand Turkey for the assistance given during the execution of this study. Thanks must also go to all theworking group members from the three States for the excellent facilities provided at each meeting.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 1
EUROCONTROL
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Top-Down Approach to Airspace Modelling
The top-down approach to airspace modelling examines the main flows of traffic (usually in verticalfree-profile) and how they interact with each other in any given multinational airspace system. It ispurely experimental: the development of an ideal airspace system not constrained by existingFIR/UIR boundaries or political elements.
By analysing the results of such a simulation in terms of aircraft flows and the radar conflictsproduced when these flows interact, the airspace under study can be significantly "deconflicted".Methods to achieve this include: alternative routeings leading to reductions in route lengths;dualisation of certain airways; level restrictions; and level-capping of city-pair flows.
Consideration must be given to the wider picture beyond the simulated area by ensuring theharmonisation of proposed route networks for the particular airspace with other network plans such asthe ATS Route Network (ARN). Other factors considered are future traffic demand of both en routeand arrival/departure traffic at major and secondary airports and, in order to be realistic, militaryairspace requirements.
1.2 Objective of the Study
The objective of this study of Bulgarian, Romanian and Turkish airspace was to assess an ATS routenetwork and supporting airspace sectorisation plan, regardless of current FIR boundary constraints,which:
l took full account of current and future civil and military airspace requirements;l had the capacity to match forecast demand;l was based on the agreed ARN route network plan and would be a building-block for its future
development;l offered full flexibility, in line with the concept of the flexible use of airspace;l reduced, to the extent possible, the route length for air transport;l met the full agreement of the civil and military representatives of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.
1.3 General Description of the Study
The airspace simulated was the TMA and en route sectors of the Bulgarian, Romanian and TurkishFIR/UIRs as well as that portion of the Simferopol FIR/UIR over the Black Sea affected by the routenetwork changes.
Simulated Organisations
Two main organisations were simulated:
l a reference organisation simulating the route network existing on the 15th/16th of July 1994(Friday/Saturday) and using the 24 hour actual traffic samples for each day;
l a future, ideal organisation (called "revised scenario") not constrained by the Black Sea problem,which tested a route network based on Version 2 of the European Air Navigation Plan (EUR-ANP),as depicted in Map 2 (2 February 1995). Both traffic samples simulated for the referenceorganisation were amended accordingly. The samples were then further amended to take intoaccount the recommended flows contained in annex 8/chart 8B of the EATCHIP report "RouteNetwork Development and Associated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area"(EUROCONTROL Doc. 957005).
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 2
EUROCONTROL
A third organisation simulated the GAT samples used for the reference organisation withrepresentative military samples from each country added.
In each organisation, all arrivals were simulated down to their respective TMA exit points(approximately FL100) and all departures were treated from the runway upwards to ensure correctprofiles on entering en route airspace.
Separation Standards
In practice, separation standards varying from 3nm to 15 minutes are used in different parts of thesimulated airspace. As the application of these different standards (eight altogether) would haverequired major software modifications to the Airspace Model and may have led to possible difficultiesin meeting the simulation schedule, it was decided to apply a combination of the normal internal enroute radar separation used by each of the three countries and the radar or procedural separationrequired at each of the FIR/UIR entry/exit points.
Table 1 summarises the separation standards simulated.
FIR/UIR InternalSeparation
External FIR/UIR Separation
Bulgaria(LBSR/LBWR)
15nmRomania/TurkeyBelgrade (LYBA)
Simferopol (UKFF)Athens (LGGG)
20nm30nm
"10 minutes
Romania(LRBB) 20nm
BulgariaBudapest (LHCC)Belgrade (LYBA)
Lvov (UKLL)Kishinev (LUKK)Odessa (UKOO)
Simferopol (UKFF)
20nm"
30nm""""
Turkey(LTAA/LTBB) 20nm
BulgariaAthens (LGGG)Nicosia (LCCC)
Damascus (OSTT)Simferopol (UKFF)
Rostov (URRV)Teheran (OIIX)
20nm10 minutes
""""
15 minutesBlack Sea
(Revised Scenario)20nm Bulgaria/Romania/Turkey
Simferopol (UKFF)20nm30nm
Table 1
It was accepted that the internal separation used would produce more conflicts in the TMA areas thanwould, in reality, occur. However, the main analysis of the results excluded from the calculations allconflicts occurring below FL165 as not being relevant to the main objectives of the study.
Sectors
The ideal method of conducting a top-down simulation is to treat the complete simulated airspace asone sector. The benefit is that a true number of radar conflicts are detected. With multiple sectors,the conflicts occurring close to sector/centre boundaries, either vertically or horizontally, are recordedin both sectors/centres concerned. In the context of a detailed study of controller workload, thissituation is realistic as such radar conflicts are usually subject to radar handovers and are, therefore,an integral part of each sector/centre's workload.
A top-down approach, however, does not require this level of detail which, in fact, only makes theanalysis of the results more difficult. That said, where a difference exists in internal radar separationstandards then sectorisation is unavoidable. This was the case with this simulation (see table 1 ,above) but the sectorisation was kept to a minimum by making each country's airspace one completesector and ignoring any internal sectorisation.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 3
EUROCONTROL
Each of the three sectors (four in the revised scenario organisation) was simulated from FL45 tounlimited. The analysis of the results excluded the duplicate radar conflicts recorded at the FIR/UIRboundary points.
1.4 Traffic Samples Tested and Aircraft Performance Data
The specifications of the study required the detailed simulation of two busy 24 hour samples takenfrom each country's GAT traffic records for 1994. The dates agreed between all parties were the15th/16th July 1994 (Friday and Saturday). A representative OAT sample for each country was alsosupplied.
GAT Traffic Sample
Eight GAT samples were received:
Friday Ankara 665 flightsIstanbul 1107 flightsBulgaria 1127 flightsRomania 905 flightsTotal 3804 flights - Resulting in 1702 simulated aircraft.
Saturday Ankara 681 flightsIstanbul 925 flightsBulgaria 1249 flightsRomania 1018 flightsTotal 3873 flights - Resulting in 1724 simulated aircraft.
The reduction of 55% from total flights to simulated aircraft on both days is due to the numbers offlights common to two or more of the original samples.
A more detailed analysis of the simulation samples can be found in the next chapter dealing with thereference organisation, starting on page 5.
OAT Traffic Samples
Three OAT samples were received containing military flights affecting civil airspace:
Bulgaria 124 aircraftRomania 336 aircraftTurkey 103 aircraftTotal 563 aircraft
This sample was added to both Friday and Saturday samples to assess the impact of these flights onthe existing civil route network.
Aircraft Performance Data
The airspace model recognises more than 200 different aircraft types. These types have beengrouped into 60 categories of aircraft performance. Detailed data on the cruising/climb/descentspeeds and the rates of climb/descent is available for each category of aircraft. The model can alsodistinguish between long, medium and short range flights.
The data has been derived from studies of aircraft performance, previous simulations, airlineoperating practices and particular characteristics observed by operational controllers in varioussimulated areas. The aircraft performance data is used to construct the requested and actual profileof each aircraft within the simulated airspace.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 4
EUROCONTROL
1.5 Simulation Work Index
A normal airspace model simulation provides a detailed workload analysis by identifying andrecording all ATC tasks necessary to process each flight through the airspace system under study.These ATC tasks are grouped under five broad categories: flight data management; coordination;conflict search; routine R/T; and radar.
This level of detail, however, is not required in a top-down simulation. Instead, a work index iscalculated in order to:
l allow the results to be put into a readily understood context;l provide a basis for comparing the reference organisation with the revised scenario organisation;l identify implied spare capacity.
Note: It is important to understand that the work index is merely a simple indicator of the potentialwork involved in processing the simulated aircraft through the airspace system. It is not ameasure of the real workload that would be required in controlling the aircraft through a multi-sector environment nor can it be used to calculate capacity with any of the recognised methodsin use today.
Calculation of the Work Index
The work index is based on the major elements of two of the ATC task categories:
l Routine R/T: This part of the index takes into account the routine R/T work involved in the firstcall from an aircraft and the transfer of the aircraft to the next frequency.
l Radar: Radar interventions require the tactical alteration of an aircraft's heading, level orspeed in order to ensure minimum radar separation betweenaircraft at all times;
Radar supervisions involve the close monitoring of potential conflict situationsbetween aircraft without the necessity of tactical interventions.
The model identifies nine types of radar conflicts in evaluating interventions and supervisions:
Type 1 Same track, same level, both aircraft in cruise;Type 2 Same track, one in cruise, one in climb or descent;Type 3 Same track, both in climb or descent;Type 4 Crossing tracks, same level, both aircraft in cruise;Type 5 Crossing tracks, one in cruise, one in climb or descent;Type 6 Crossing tracks, both in climb or descent;Type 7 Opposite tracks, same level, both aircraft in cruise;Type 8 Opposite tracks, one in cruise, one in climb or descent;Type 9 Opposite tracks, both in climb or descent.
Over a range of simulations performed by the Airspace Model, there is an approximate taskexecution time ratio of 1:1:3 between first + last call to an aircraft, a radar supervision and a radarintervention. On this basis one point is allocated per aircraft worked, one point per radar supervisionrecorded and three points per radar intervention recorded.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 5
EUROCONTROL
2 REFERENCE ORGANISATION
This organisation tested the existing airspace structure using two 24 hour traffic samples for the15th/16th July 1994 (Friday and Saturday). The purpose of the reference organisation was:
l to determine the main flows of traffic and how they interact;l to highlight areas of difficulty;l to identify any implied spare capacity in the region simulated;l to provide a basis for comparison with the revised scenario organisation.
MAP 1 of appendix A shows the route network tested.
2.1 Analysis of the Traffic Samples
Category and Distribution of Traffic
The Friday sample contained 1702 aircraft and Saturday’s 1724 aircraft. Fig 1 shows the four flightcategories - domestic, international arrivals, international departures and transit - making up eachcountry's total number of flights (shown in blue) for the two days. The percentage of transit flights isshown in red in the appropriate part of each bar. No military flights were included in this organisation.
Flight Category Per CountryReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday
362 376
343 371
897
1088
180218
343
775943
324
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Romania Bulgaria Turkey
Friday Saturday
Domestic Intl. Arrs. Intl. Deps. Transit
Fig 1
1141 a/c944 a/c 1247 a/c 1025 a/c 1274 a/c 1270 a/c
82%83%
26%
88%
85%
27%
The first point to note is the difference in the composition of traffic between Bulgaria and Romania onthe one hand, and Turkey on the other. Only 25% of Turkey's traffic was transiting, whereas morethan 80% of the traffic for the other two countries was overflying. In the case of Bulgaria 60% of itstransit flights were to/from Turkish airports and for Romania the figure was 45%.
On the Friday, Turkey had 32% more flights than Romania and 24% more on the Saturday. In allthree countries, domestic flights were reduced on the Saturday as compared to the Friday.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 6
EUROCONTROL
Flight Level Usage
Fig 2 shows the distribution of cruising flight levels over the two days. As usual, FL330 was the clearfavourite, with FL370, FL350 and FL310 not too far behind, particularly on the Friday.
Analysis of Cruising Flight Levels UsedReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
<FL170
FL170
FL180
FL190
FL200
FL210
FL220
FL230
FL240
FL250
FL260
FL270
FL280
FL290
FL310
FL330
FL350
FL370
FL390
FL410
FL430
Number of A ircraft
Friday Saturday
Fig 2
Friday : 1702 aircraftSaturday : 1724 aircraft
Concerning the subject of free routeing in the future, the percentage of the traffic at FL370 and abovewas 20% on both days and at FL350 and above 35%, again on both days.
Aircraft Types
Fig 3 shows the ten most frequently occurring aircraft types for each day. In the traffic samplesreceived, very few of the B737s were categorised as to low-performance series 200 or high-performance 300/400/500. In order to reflect the reality of greater numbers of high-performanceaircraft in use today, three out of every four B737-200s (perhaps conservative) appearing in thesamples were recategorised as B737-300/400/500s. These high-performance aircraft appear in fig 3as "B73S".
264
172
134 130107
98 9488
7046
306
150 147135
109105 100 100
6156
Fig 3
Most Frequently Occurring Aircraft TypesReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday
Friday: 1702 aircraft Saturday: 1724 aircraft
Friday Saturday
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 7
EUROCONTROL
Evolution of the Traffic during the Day
Fig 4 gives a picture, hour by hour, of the number of aircraft in the system, i.e. in the airspace takenas one complete unit, during the Friday.
1141231351191301351641791952131891971981681621591561391151041031028637
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Count per Hourly Period of A ircraft in the SystemReference Organisation - F r iday 15th July 1994
Fig 400-
01
01-
02
02-
03
03-
04
04-
05
05-
06
06-
07
07-
08
08-
09
09-
10
10-
11
11-
12
12-
13
13-
14
14-
15
15-
16
16-
17
17-
18
18-
19
19-
20
20-
21
21-
22
22-
23
23-
24Tim e
Period
A ircra ft
Average per hourlyperiod: 143 aircra ft
Figures in red shownum bers of aircraft20% o r m ore above
the average .
The average count per hourly period was approximately the same for the two days, 143 and 148.The block in red on the chart indicates the counts of aircraft 20% or more above the hourly average.As can be seen from the aircraft figures on the bottom, these periods were well defined - 1100h to1700h. On the Saturday these periods were from 1000h to 1700h.
Fig 5 demonstrates the evolution of the traffic in each country's airspace during the same hourlyperiods for the Saturday. Aircraft counts 20% or more above each country's individual average areshown in red.
2150 47 50 63 66 59 53 57 64 60 69 76 64 60 47
52
7454 54
64 59 61 56 56
82
62 5761
7574 72
60
44
84
74
6177
87 73 76 82 80
99102
84 89 6870 78 82
87
99 8890107 1089997
11
889899 91100
84
12
122108 116120124
ROMANIA BULGARIA TURKEY
Evolution of Aircraft per Country during the DayReference Organisation - Saturday 16th July 1994
Fig 5 00-
01
01-
02
02-
03
03-
04
04-
05
05-
06
06-
07
07-
08
08-
09
09-
10
10-
11
11-
12
12-
13
13-
14
14-
15
15-
16
16-
17
17-
18
18-
19
19-
20
20-
21
21-
22
22-
23
23-
24
Time Period
Average perhourly period:Romania - 67Bulgaria - 69Turkey - 87
Figures in red shownumbers of aircraft20% or m ore above
the country’s average.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 8
EUROCONTROL
The Saturday chart is marked by a consistent flow of traffic up to 1000h followed by a quick surge toa higher, steady flow until 1700h and then a fast return to the previous level of consistent traffic untilthe end of the simulation period. The busy periods were 1000h to 1700h for Romania, 1000h to1600h for Bulgaria and 1100h to 1600h for Turkey.
On Friday, there was a gradual build-up to the peak periods (0900h to 1600h Romania, 1100h to1600h Bulgaria, 1100h to 1700h Turkey) then a gradual tapering off before a small surge at the endof the day.
For Romania and Bulgaria the average aircraft per hour was 10% higher on Saturday, but for Turkeythe average was similar for both days. Turkey’s average was 30% higher than the other twocountries.
Significant Flows of Traffic
MAP 2 in appendix A shows all routes that had a significant flow of traffic (typically 24 aircraft ormore) during one or both days. The green routes indicate south- or eastbound flows and the bluenorth- or westbound. The thickness of each route segment is determined by the number of aircraft,as shown in the map legend. Each segment has a box attached indicating the number of aircraft -the upper figure for Friday and the lower for Saturday. Also included are the numbers of aircraftthrough each of the "internal" boundary points with blue and green indicating the direction of that flowand upper and lower figures indicating Friday and Saturday.
Note: As the map does not show all routes simulated, some inconsistencies will be found in theaircraft numbers before and after certain joining, leaving or boundary points. In the case ofSOMOV, for example, a small northbound flow for both days (16 and 9) is indicated, but neitherwas of sufficient size to be shown as a significant flow.
The more important route segments (92+ aircraft per 24 hours) are summarised in tables 2a and 2b(next page) and isolated in MAP 2A in appendix A.
Direction Route Segment Significant Traffic (in order of volume)
of Flow Origin Destination
BATOG-SOMOV-RAD Germany - UK - France/Switzerland -Austria
Turkey - Middle East - Far East
KAL-RAD Germany - France/Switzerland - UK -Amsterdam
Turkey - Middle East - Far East
RAD-EKI Germany - France/Switzerland - UK Istanbul - Izmir - Antalya -Dalaman
South & East TIKRU-CND Germany - Scandinavia Turkey - Bulgaria - Middle East
CND-DINRO-RIXEN Germany - Scandinavia - Former SovietUnion
Turkey - Bulgaria - Middle East
BKZ-YAA Istanbul - Germany Antalya - Middle East
YAA-KARGI-KFK Istanbul - Germany - UK - Scandinavia Middle East - Antalya
GOY-PETAR (BAG) Germany - Istanbul - UK -France/Switzerland
Ankara - Far East - Middle East
IMR-BIG Izmir - Dalaman Germany - Istanbul
North & West VESAR-MUT-KFK Middle East - Far East Germany - UK -France/Switzerland - Istanbul
KFK-KARGI-YAA Middle East - Antalya - Far East Germany - Istanbul - UK -France/Switzerland
YAA-BKZ-RIXEN Middle East - Antalya Germany - UK
Table 2a
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 9
EUROCONTROL
Direction Route Segment Significant Traffic (in order of volume)
of Flow Origin Destination
RIXEN-MATEL Turkey - Middle East - Far East Germany - UK - Scandinavia
MATEL-KOMAN-DVA Turkey - Middle East - Far East- Bulgaria
Germany - UK
DVA-ARPUX-JULIA Turkey - Middle East - Far East- Bulgaria - Greece
Germany - UK - Austria - Amsterdam
North & West(cont.)
RAD-BLO Turkey - Middle East - Far East Germany - France/Switzerland -Amsterdam
BLO-KAL Turkey - Middle East Germany - France/Switzerland -Amsterdam
BLO-OSTOV-BARIM Greece - Turkey Germany - Scandinavia -France/Switzerland
BARIM-DVA Greece Scandinavia - Germany
Table 2b
The most significant volume of international traffic (25%) was to or from Turkish airports. Next cameto/from Germany 17%, the Middle East 7%, Bulgaria 6% then France/Switzerland, Greece and theUK each with 5%.
2.2 Interaction of the Flows
Initially, all radar conflicts were analysed, in TMAs and above. However, as the study was onlyexamining the higher en route flows and because the use of en route sector separation in the TMAsresulted in a higher number of conflicts than would occur in reality, only the results for FL165 andabove will be dealt with.
Fig 6 gives the results for the radar conflicts at FL165 and above, subdivided into same direction,crossing and opposite direction conflicts.
3297
141
50123 10641
61
37
6541
115114
156
44
156
105
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Romania Bulgaria Turkey
Same Dir. Crossing Opposite Dir.
Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveReference Organisation - Friday / Saturday
Fig 6
Friday Saturday
1141 a/c273 cnfs
944 a/c78 cnfs
1247 a/c341 cnfs
1025 a/c97 cnfs
1274 a/c302 cnfs
1270 a/c303 cnfs
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 10
EUROCONTROL
The clear difference between the number of conflicts for Romania and the numbers for Bulgaria andTurkey is quite evident from the chart. While the smaller number of aircraft was a factor, thedifference was due primarily to the system of unidirectional airways in Romania coupled with a higherincidence of traffic in cruise. Of the total number of conflicts for each day Turkey had 50%, Bulgaria40% and Romania 10% on the Friday and, on the Saturday, Turkey had 43%, Bulgaria 43% andRomania 14%.
There was a high number of opposite direction conflicts recorded for both Bulgaria and Turkey. Inthe case of Bulgaria, more than 50% of these conflicts concerned Istanbul arrivals or departures inevolution between RIXEN and MATEL. In the case of Turkey, 25% of the opposite direction conflictsalso concerned Istanbul arrivals and departures between RIXEN and ADELI. Both results suggestthe need to dualise the G1 airway between Constanta and Istanbul.
MAP 3, appendix A, shows the main conflict areas and tables 3a and 3b summarise these areas.
ROMANIAConflicts
FriSat
Comments
1 PELES 1812
All were CROSSING conflicts between the BATOG-TGJ and the NARKA-LOMOS flows.
2 DVA 1316
Mostly CROSSING conflicts involving the KOMAN-JULIA flow against the OSTOV-KEREK/KARIL flows.
3CND
-DINRO
416
Only 20% of the traffic here was landing Burgas or Varna but most conflicts involved one ofthese items (50% on Friday, 75% on Saturday) descending to FL290/270 by DINRO.
BULGARIA
4DINRO
-MATEL
1310
No particular pattern noticeable. 60% of conflicts for both days were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION. On the Friday, 60% of conflicts involved a Burgas or Varna arrival.
5 MATEL 3222
There were 433 aircraft over MATEL on the Friday, 479 on the Saturday. Same directionconflicts were the most common, almost all concerning northbound aircraft in climb afterRIXEN.
6
MATEL-
RIXEN
9391
The area with the highest number of conflicts on either day. 70% were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.Fri: 73 conflicts (82%) involved an Istanbul arrival or departure.Sat: 80 conflicts (88%) involved an Istanbul arrival or departure.
7 RIXEN 2629
The heaviest loaded point in terms of traffic - 470 aircraft (Fri), 493 aircraft (Sat). Mixture ofconflicts, the most common being SAME-DIRECTION.
8BLO
-CCO
1516
Mostly OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts involving LGxx arrivals and departures.
9 BLO2638
One of the busiest points in terms of aircraft numbers - 407 aircraft (Fri), 494 aircraft (Sat).Fri: 25 CROSSING conflicts - 20 involved an LGxx (7 deps/13 arrs).Sat: 33 CROSSING conflicts - 32 involved an LGxx (25 deps/7 arrs).
10BLO
-RAD
1534
50% SAME-DIRECTION, 50% OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts. Most conflicts occurrednear to RAD due to level adjustments being made.
11 RAD 3433
RAD was another heavily loaded point - 363 aircraft (Fri), 448 aircraft (Sat).Mixture of conflicts with the majority being CROSSING.
TURKEY
12RAD
-EKI
1528
Fri: mostly SAME-DIRECTION conflicts, all involving an Istanbul arrival.Sat: 60% OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts, all involving an Istanbul arrival versus one of theincreased Izmir/Dalaman departures.
13BIG
-BERGO
3027
All conflicts involved an Izmir arrival or departure. 19 conflicts on each day (63% and 70%)were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.
Table 3a
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 11
EUROCONTROL
TURKEY(cont.)
ConflictsFriSat Comments
14 RIXEN-
ADELI
5239
More than 80% of the conflicts were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION involving Istanbul arrivals anddepartures.
15 YAA 1313
Another heavily loaded point - 437 aircraft (Fri), 449 (Sat). Most conflicts were CROSSING,involving traffic from RAD and RIXEN heading south.
16 YAA-
KARGI
822
Even split between SAME- and OPPOSITE-DIRECTION conflicts on both days. All conflictsinvolved an Istanbul departure or arrival.
17 GOY-
PETAR
3615
Fri: 28 (78%) of the conflicts involved an Ankara arrival.Sat: 14 (93%) of the conflicts involved an Ankara arrival.More than 60% of the conflicts were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.
18 KFK-
KUMRU
1538
Fri: 14 conflicts involved an Antalya arrival or departure, 10 were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.Sat: all conflicts involved an Antalya arrival or departure, 35 were OPPOSITE-DIRECTION.
19 MUT-
VESAR
910
No pattern could be identified.
Table 3b
2.3 Work Index
Over a range of simulations performed by the Airspace Model, there is an approximate taskexecution time ratio of 1:1:3 between first + last call to an aircraft, a radar supervision and a radarintervention. On this basis one point was allocated per aircraft worked, one point per radarsupervision recorded and three points per radar intervention recorded. Fig 7 shows the work indexand number of aircraft for each country on both days.
1092
1688
1958
1202
18601913
9441141
12471025
1274 1270
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Romania Bulgaria Turkey
Work Index Aircraft
Aircraft & Work Index(Radar Conflicts FL165 and above)Reference Organisation - Friday / Saturday
Fig 7
Friday Saturday
Work Index Calculation:R/T = 1pt. per aircraft
Each Supervision = 1 pt.Each Intervention = 3 pts.
Romania's index was 55% of Turkey's on the Friday and 60% of Turkey's on the Saturday. If lookedat in terms of points per aircraft, the results are the same on both days for each country: 1.2 workindex points per aircraft for Romania, 1.5 for Bulgaria and 1.6 for Turkey.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 2 - Reference Organisation Page 12
EUROCONTROL
2.4 Summary of Results for the Reference Organisation
l There was a roughly equal mix of transit, international arrival and international departure traffic inTurkey. For both Bulgaria and Romania a high level of transit traffic was recorded (>80%), alarge proportion of which was landing or departing Turkey.
l The most significant volumes of traffic were those serving Turkish and German airports with 25%and 17% of the samples, respectively.
l Of the three States simulated, the results indicated Romania as having the greatest amount ofpotential spare capacity.
l The areas giving the greatest problems were:
⇒ Bulgaria - MATEL to RIXEN and BLO to RAD;⇒ Turkey - ADELI to RIXEN, BERGO to BIG, KFK to KUMRU and GOY to PETAR.
l Apart from the wider use of the Black Sea airspace and the harmonisation of flows to relieve thecongestion in the Istanbul area, the results showed the need to:
⇒ Dualise the U/G1 between Constanta and Istanbul.⇒ Dualise the UA4 between BLO and Istanbul.⇒ Use CCO for southbound and RODOP for northbound traffic and consider the introduction of a
Flight Level Allocation System where these flows intersect the UA4.⇒ Provide discrete inbound and outbound routeings for Burgas and Varna traffic via CND, and
also for Izmir and Antalya traffic.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 3 - Military Samples Organisation Page 13
EUROCONTROL
3 MILITARY SAMPLES ORGANISATION
Three OAT samples were received containing military flights affecting civil airspace:
l Bulgaria 124 aircraftl Romania 336 aircraftl Turkey 103 aircraft
Total 563 aircraft
Initially, this OAT sample was added to the Friday GAT sample to quickly assess the impact of theseflights. The results showed an overall increase of 10% in the number of radar conflicts, i.e. betweenmilitary and civil aircraft - conflicts between military aircraft were ignored. This was less thananticipated as the weekend route structure in the GAT samples ignored the military areas normallyactive during the week, so the OAT sample could have been expected to show a greater impact. Theoriginal intention was to change the GAT samples to reflect the midweek routes and to add the OATsamples but, as this would yield an even smaller increase in conflicts, it was decided by the workinggroup to apply the OAT sample to the GAT samples as they stood, and to highlight the majordifferences.
The results were similar for both days. Fig 8 shows the results for Saturday where the greatestimpact was found. The percentage increases in conflicts from the reference organisation are shownin red.
103124
336303302
97
324306
173
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Romania Bulgaria Turkey
Military F lights Conflicts - No Military Conflicts - W ith M ilitary
Saturday Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveM ilitary Sam ple AddedNon-M ilitary Reference Org. versus Reference Org. with M ilitary
Fig 8
+78%
+1%
+7%
Overall, there was an 11% increase in the total conflicts at FL165+ on the Friday and 14% onSaturday. The results for the Friday were: Romania +73%, Bulgaria virtually unchanged and Turkey+5%. Romania had the largest OAT sample and most of the increased conflicts occurred there.Four main areas were affected:
l CND-TND-GALIT;l TGJ-RASVA-OSTOV-LOPRA;l SA-FAGET;l CLJ-TGM.
The results for Turkey and Bulgaria indicate that the civil/military interface in both countries is veryclearly defined. They also suggest, together with the results for the reference organisation, that amore flexible use of the airspace could be made with increased cooperation between the civil andmilitary authorities in each country. The results for Romania, on the other hand, indicate a moreflexible approach between the authorities but one that requires more tactical coordination betweenthe controllers concerned.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 14
EUROCONTROL
4 REVISED SCENARIO ORGANISATION
This organisation tested a route network based on Version 2 of the EUR-ANP as depicted in Map 2 (2February 1995) and applied the recommended flows contained in annex 8/chart 8B of the EATCHIPreport "Route Network Development and Associated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area".
All aircraft were simulated in free vertical profile which necessitated the removal of level restrictionssuch as Istanbul departures to RIXEN climbing to FL240 until after RIXEN. No military flights weresimulated.
MAP 4, appendix A, shows the route network simulated. The routes shown in pink are the new routestested. Table 4 summarises the main changes.
Direction Route Segment Comments
ARD-DOMNA-TALIK-TBN-ERZ-BONAM Unidirectional until TALIK and again from ERZ to BONAM.Ankara arrivals route TALIK-ASTAL.
ERZ-VAN-BNMXX(-TBZ) Tested as a tactical contingency route in the event ofdifficulty in achieving 15 minutes separation at BONAM.
TGJ-IST-YAA-MUTTGJ-IST-YAA-KFK
Requires BULEN (ROM/BUL) to be moved to the west.
South & East
BLO-ADORU-EKIBLO-ADORU-DENIZ-LTBABLO-ADORU-BANDO-KFKBLO-ADORU-BANDO-MUT
ADORU is the intersection between BLO-YAA and RAD-EKI. BLO to ADORU is very close to Greek northernboundary.Via EKI for Izmir/Dalaman/Antalya arrivals only.
CND-LBWN/LBBG dct. For Burgas/Varna arrivals via CND. Tested to reduce theload between CND and MATEL.
CND-IST-CRDCND-IST-YAA-KFKCND-IST-YAA-MUT
Dualised U/G1.Via CRD for Antalya and Dalaman arrivals only.YAA-MUT dualised with MUT-BKZ.
CND-DOMNA-TALIK-TBN-ERZCND-DOMNA-BAG-MUT
DOMNA-BAG bi-directional.Ankara arrivals route TALIK-ASTAL.
PELES-CCO Requires LOMOS (ROM/BUL) to be moved to the west.Flight Level Allocation System applied to all Greek arrivals -level FL290/270 on crossing UA4.
DASIS-ERZ-TBN-TALIK-GLTGLT-JULIA (BKS)
Unidirectional until ERZ and again after TALIK.
BAG-ODESSABAG-DOMNA-GLTBAG-DWN-KOMAN
BAG-DOMNA bi-directional until DOMNA.
BKZ-DWN-KOMAN
North & West BKZ-DINRO-CND Dualised U/G1.
IMR-ADORU-RAD Dalaman and Izmir departures only.
AYT-KFK-YAA-BKZ TOMBI overflights and Antalya departures only.
MUT-BKZ Dualised with YAA-MUT.
RODOP-OSTOV'-TGJRAD-OSTOV'-TGJ
Requires OSTOV (BUL/ROM) to be moved to the west.Flight Level Allocation System for all Greek departures -level FL280/260 on crossing UA4.
Table 4
Using this route structure, the new recommended flows were applied. In applying these flows, NorthGermany was considered to be the Berlin FIR/UIR and all airports north of Düsseldorf, North UK wasconsidered to be all airports from Newcastle northwards, and Iran, UAE and Oman were included withthe Far East traffic.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 15
EUROCONTROL
These flows are summarised in tables 5a (below) and 5b (next page). In keeping with the colourscheme used in chart 8b of the EATCHIP report mentioned above, the blue arrow indicates a south-or eastbound flow and the red a north- or westbound flow.
Note: DF = Frankfurt, DK = Köln, DL = Düsseldorf, DM = Munich, DN = Nürnberg, DS = Stuttgart.
FLOW ROUTE
Germany (S)UK (S)France
➨ Romania➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Ankara➨ Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East➨ Greece/Egypt
BATOGBATOG-BULENBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTALBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-BONAMBATOG-LOMOS-CCO
LuxembourgSwitzerland
Belgium
➨ Sofia➨ Istanbul➨ Izmir➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Middle East
KALKAL-ADORU-DENIZKAL-ADORU-EKI-BERGOKAL-ADORU-EKI-KULARKAL-ADORU-BANDO-TOMBIKAL-ADORU-BANDO-MUT-VESAR
➨ Greece/Egypt NARKA-LOMOS-CCO
Germany (N)
➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Istanbul➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Izmir➨ Ankara
TIKRU-CNDTIKRU-CND-ISTTIKRU-CND-IST-CRDTIKRU-CND-RIXNW-BIG-BERGOTIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTAL
➨ Romania➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Sofia➨ Greece➨ Istanbul
CATAL/SORETANGOL/BIKAR/CATAL/SORET-CNDSORET-SOMOVSORET-SOMOV-CCOBIKAR/CATAL/SORET-CND-IST
Former SovietUnion
➨ Istanbul➨ Ankara➨ Antalya➨ Egypt➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Middle East➨ Middle East
TALIK-ASTAL-SALGO-BKZTALIK-ASTALTALIK-BAG-AYTTALIK-BAG-AYT-TOMBITALIK-BAG-MUT-VESARTALIK-BAG-GAZ-TUSYRTUDEK-BUDAK-SIV-GEM-GAZ-TUSYR
Scandinavia
➨ Romania➨ Burgas/Varna➨ Istanbul➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Izmir➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Greece/Egypt
BUKOVBUKOV/TIKRU-CNDBUKOV/TIKRU-CND-ISTBUKOV/TIKRU-CND-IST-CRDTIKRU-CND-RIXNW-BIG-BERGOBUKOV/TIKRU-CND-IST-YAA-BANDO-TOMBINARKA-LOMOS-CCO
Austria
➨ Romania➨ Istanbul➨ Antalya/Dalaman➨ Izmir➨ Ankara➨ Middle East➨ Iran/UAE/Far East➨ Greece/Egypt
BATOGBATOG-BULEN-ISTBATOG-BULEN-IST-CRDBATOG-BULEN-RADE-BIG-BERGOBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTALBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-BAG-MUT-VESARBATOG-DOMNA-TALIK-BONAMBATOG-LOMOS-CCO
Amsterdam
➨ Ankara➨ Middle East➨ Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East
TIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-ASTALTIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-BAG-MUT-VESARTIKRU-CND-DOMNA-TALIK-BONAM
➨ Istanbul➨ Izmir➨ Antalya/Dalaman
KAL-ADORU-DENIZKAL-ADORU-EKI-BERGOKAL-ADORU-EKI-KULAR
Table 5a
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 16
EUROCONTROL
FLOW ROUTE
IranUAE
OmanFar East
➨ Turkey➨ Germany (N)➨ UK (S), Germany (S), France/Switzerland,
Amsterdam, Austria
DASISDASIS-TALIK-GLT-KARILDASIS-TALIK-GLT-JULIA (BKS)
Greece➨ Germany (DM/DN/DS), France/Switzerland➨ Germany (DF/DK/DL), UK (all), Austria,
Amsterdam➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia
RODOP-OSTOV-MOPUGRODOP-OSTOV-DVA-JULIA (BKS)
RODOP-OSTOV-DVA-KARIL
Middle East➨ Turkey➨ UK (S), France/Switzerland, Germany (S)➨ Amsterdam, Austria, Hungary
VESARVESAR-MUT-BKZ-RAD-KALVESAR-MUT-BKZ-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)
Cyprus/Israel
➨ Turkey➨ Germany (N)➨ Denmark, Norway, Sweden➨ Finland➨ Former Soviet Union
VESAR/DORENVESAR-MUT-BAG-DOMNA-GLT-KARILVESAR-MUT-BAG-DOMNA-GLT-KARIL/BUKOVVESAR-MUT-BAG-ODESAVESAR-MUT-BAG-TALIK
➨ UK (S), France/Switzerland➨ UK (N), Austria, Hungary
TOMBI-BKZ-RAD-KALTOMBI-BKZ-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)
➨ Iran/UAE/Far East➨ Middle East/Cyprus➨ Israel/Egypt
BONAMVESAR/DORENTOMBI
Istanbul ➨ Germany (S), UK (S), France/Switzerland➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Germany (N)➨ Austria/Amsterdam/Hungary
RAD-KALTBAJE-RIXNE-BGWNJ-KORATTBAJE-RIXNE-DINRO-GLT-KARILTBAJW-RIXWW-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)
DalamanIzmir
➨ Germany (S), UK (S), France/Switzerland➨ UK (N), Austria, Amsterdam➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia
IMR-ADORU-RAD-KALIMR-ADORU-RAD-OSTOV-DVA-JULIA (BKS)IMR-ADORU-RAD-OSTOV-DVA-KARIL
Antalya➨ Germany (S), France/Switzerland➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia➨ Amsterdam, Austria➨ Former Soviet Union
KFK-BKZ-RAD-KALKFK-BKZ-DINRO-GLT-KARIL/BUKOVKFK-BKZ-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)BAG-ODESA
Ankara➨ Germany (S), France/Switzerland➨ Germany (N)➨ Amsterdam, Austria
BUK-SALGO-BKZ-RAD-KALBUK-SALGO-RIXEE-BGDOJ-DINRO-GLT-KARILBUK-SALGO-RIXEE-DWN-KOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)
BurgasVarna
➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Germany (N), Scandinavia➨ Germany (DF/DK/DL), UK (S)➨ Germany (DM/DN/DS), France/Switzerland
KORATDINRO-GLT-KARILKOMAN-DVA-JULIA (BKS)OSTOV-MOPUG
Sofia➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Greece, Egypt, Italy, Spain➨ Germany (S), France/Switzerland, UK➨ Germany (N), Hungary, Austria
KORAT or SOMOV-SORETCCOKALOSTOV-DVA-KARIL
Bucharest
➨ Cyprus/Israel➨ Iran/UAE/Far East➨ Middle East
CND-IST-YAA-KFK-TOMBICND-DOMNA-TALIK-TBN-BONAMCND-DOMNA-BAG-MUT-VESAR
➨ Former Soviet Union➨ Austria, Germany (DF), UK (S),
Amsterdam, Hungary, Belgium➨ France/Switz, Germany (DM), Italy, Spain
SORETJULIA (BKS)
MOPUG
Table 5b
In applying flows to a traffic sample there is always a risk of applying them too rigidly leading to asignificant flow being lost from a particular country. There was a certain element of that here and theRomanian delegation expressed its reservations about one specific flow - south UK to Turkishairports. In the reference organisation most of this traffic routed via BATOG but was simulated herevia KAL.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 17
EUROCONTROL
4.1 Sectorisation
Because the future Black Sea sectorisation is still unknown, it was decided to simulate the FIR/UIRboundaries as they are today (1995) and to add a fourth sector ("Blacksea") for the revised scenario.The effect of this, however, was to understate the real number of aircraft that would have beencontrolled by Bulgaria and Romania under any new boundary arrangements.
For Romania, any boundary change would mean the inclusion of DOMNA in its airspace and,therefore, the traffic through this point via KORAT or ANGOL. For Bulgaria, the boundary changeswould mean the inclusion of either the bi-directional BAG-DOMNA route on its own, or the sameroute plus the busier unidirectional DOMNA to TALIK route.
The results are based on the 1995 boundaries. However, it was possible to calculate the influence ofthe new flows and network in the context of possible changes, and this is commented on whereappropriate.
4.2 Distribution of Traffic
The evolution of the traffic during each day was similar to that in the reference organisation. Fig 9shows the comparison between the number of aircraft controlled by each country in the revisedscenario and in the reference organisation for both days. The figures in red indicate the percentagechange.
0
12701274
1025
0
12471141
944
303
12651055
900
377
1253
931
859
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea
Reference Org. Revised Scenario
Distribution of Flights - Friday & SaturdayReference Organisation versus Revised Scenario
Fig 9
Friday Saturday
-9%
-18%
=-17%
-12%
=
The reductions in aircraft numbers occurred in Bulgaria and Romania only. In the context of theFIR/UIR boundaries remaining as they are, i.e. as simulated, these reductions were due entirely tothe application of the new flows and route network. This led to a better distribution of traffic betweenthe two States and also to the transfer of aircraft previously controlled to the Blacksea sector.However, as mentioned above, the percentage reductions are overstated if looked at in terms of anyfuture boundary changes.
In the case of Romania, aircraft numbers would be higher with the inclusion of the KORAT/ANGOLtraffic via DOMNA. Further analysis showed that, with this traffic included, the influence of the newflows and route network would be a percentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 3% on Friday and 9%on Saturday.
As far as Bulgaria is concerned, the inclusion of the bi-directional BAG to DOMNA route would havehad little impact on the results but the inclusion of the last named route plus the busier DOMNA to
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 18
EUROCONTROL
TALIK route would mean that the influence of the new flows and route network would be apercentage reduction in traffic of 4% on Friday and 6% on Saturday.
Significant Flows of Traffic
MAP 5, appendix A, shows all routes that had 24 aircraft or more during one or both days as well asthe numbers of aircraft for most of the new routes simulated.
The more important route segments (94+ aircraft per 24 hours) are listed in table 6 and shown inMAP 5A.
Direction Route Segment Comments
BATOG-DOMNA-TALIK New route taking all Ankara, Middle East and Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East trafficentering at BATOG.
TALIK-ASTAL All Ankara inbounds ex DOMNA route via TALIK to avoid a military area north-west of Ankara.
South & East TIKRU-CND-IST New route accommodating mostly Istanbul/Antalya/Dalaman arrivals fromnorthern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
KAL-BLO-ADORU Dualised UA4. Mostly Istanbul/Izmir/Dalaman/Antalya arrivals from centralEurope.
ADORU-RDBAI Mostly Istanbul arrivals.
VAN-BONAM Traffic via BAG and via TALIK meet at VAN for BONAM.
DASIS-ERZ Increased traffic from Iran/UAE/Oman/Far East to central and northern Europecrossing the Black Sea and avoiding the Istanbul area.
BUK-BKZ Mostly Ankara departures for Istanbul and central Europe via KAL.
LTBAJ-RAD-BLO-KAL Half of the traffic is departing Istanbul and joining Izmir/Dalaman traffic mostlyto KAL.
North & West IMR-ADOIM Izmir/Dalaman traffic northbound including Istanbul arrivals.
BGDOJ-BGWNJ Numbers increased to over 100 on the Friday by 13 Ankara departures viaSALGO to GLT unable to take advantage of the direct routeing BAG-GLT dueto the military area north-west of Ankara.
RODOP-OSTV1-DVA Northbound traffic was previously spread between RODOP and CCO. Trafficfrom RAD joins at OSTV1
DVA-JULIA (BKS) Traffic from KOMAN, RODOP and Bucharest join at DVA.
GLT-JULIA (BKS) New route with traffic for central Europe from the Black Sea
Table 6
4.3 Interaction of the Flows
Figs 10a and 10b (next page) give a comparison between the reference organisation and the revisedscenario for the radar conflicts at FL165 and above, one chart for each day.
The total number of radar conflicts FL165+ was down by 40% on both days. The largest fall was inthe number of opposite direction conflicts: down by 85% on both days. Same direction conflicts fellby a third, again on both days. However, it was not all good news; the total number of crossingconflicts rose by 35% on the Friday and 50% on the Saturday. This increase occurred in Romaniaand Turkey only, as Bulgaria had less crossing conflicts than in the reference organisation.
Bulgaria's total radar conflicts fell by 70%. Opposite direction conflicts were almost eliminated due tothe dualisation of the U/G1 and UA4 and the organisation of north/south flows at RODOP/CCO.Crossing conflicts were down by 60% due to the Flight Level Allocation System simulated for aircraftto/from Greece crossing the UA4 in the BLO area (FL280/260 northbound and FL290/270southbound).
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 19
EUROCONTROL
3297
141
23 5110541
6144
95 25
55
20
115
156
30
50
26
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea
Same Dir. Crossing Opposite Dir.
Friday Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveReference Organisation versus Revised Scenario
Fig 10a
Reference Org. Revised Scenario
1141 a/c273 cnfs
944 a/c78 cnfs
1247 a/c341 cnfs
859 a/c124 cnfs
931 a/c78 cnfs
1253 a/c190 cnfs
377 a/c25 cnfs
50123 106
3373 77
37
6541
118 2261
114156
23
0 612
10
7
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea
Same Dir. Crossing Opposite Dir.
Saturday Radar Conflicts FL165 and aboveReference Organisation versus Revised Scenario
Fig 10b
Reference Org. Revised Scenario
1274 a/c302 cnfs
1025 a/c97 cnfs
1270 a/c303 cnfs
900 a/c158 cnfs
1055 a/c101 cnfs
1265 a/c161 cnfs
303 a/c18 cnfs
Turkey's total conflicts fell by 45%. This was due to reductions of 25% in same direction and 80% inopposite direction conflicts with the separation of opposite climbing/descending flows such as theIstanbul, Antalya, Izmir and Dalaman traffic. Crossing conflicts increased, however, by 25% on theFriday and 50% on the Saturday, but no definite reason could be found for this. Two possibleexplanations are: firstly, the increase in the number of intersecting routes as a result of the new routenetwork and, secondly, a number of same direction conflicts becoming crossing conflicts with theseparation of the flows. Optimisation of the route network would help here. As a percentage of thetotal number of conflicts for Turkey, crossing conflicts amounted to 30% on Friday and 40% onSaturday.
Romania’s total conflicts increased by 60%. Crossing conflicts became the major problem,representing 75% of each day’s total. On the Friday these conflicts more than doubled in the revisedscenario and on the Saturday more than trebled, putting Saturday’s total radar conflicts for Romaniaalmost on a par with Turkey. They occurred in two main areas: the GLT area and the route segmentARD to DOMNA, in the area between CND and DINRO. In both cases, it was simply a matter of twomajor same-direction flows crossing each other.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 20
EUROCONTROL
MAP 6, appendix A, shows the main conflict areas and table 7 summarises these areas.
ROMANIA
ConflictsFriSat
Comments
1ARD
-DOMNA
2537
Mostly CROSSING conflicts. 75% of them concerned traffic on the ARD-DOMNA routeversus traffic on the CND-IST route. 20% involved LBBG/LBWN arrivals or departures.
2 GLT 1619
Mostly all CROSSING conflicts. Two major westbound flows intersect: TALIK-GLT-JULIA(BKS) and CND-GLT-KARIL. Some conflicts also involved traffic to/from SORET.
BULGARIA
3BLO
-RADS
720
Almost all the conflicts were supervisions due to level adjustments being made before theboundary with Turkey, i.e. with aircraft not having the required 20nm separation at RADS.
TURKEY
4LTBAJ
-RAD
2217
Practically all conflicts concerned Istanbul departures in climb to their respective cruisinglevels. Some of these (10%) were CROSSING conflicts with Izmir arrivals from RIXNW orRADE having changed level with the change of direction at these two points.
5 RAD 1516
80% of the conflicts here were due to Izmir/Dalaman departures joining or crossing the mainflow.
6ADORU
-RDBAI
2210
All conflicts along this segment were due to Istanbul arrivals descending and in conflict withlower transit aircraft or with each other.
BLACKSEA
7 DOMNA 159
Mostly CROSSING conflicts between traffic to TALIK and traffic from KORAT.
Table 7
In the context of the revised FIR/UIR boundaries, the influence of the new route network and flowswould mean a reduction of 35% in the total number of radar conflicts. Similar reductions to thosefound when simulating the present-day boundaries in the revised scenario would also be found forboth Bulgaria and Turkey. However, in the case of Romania, which would include DOMNA and itsconflicts in the airspace, the total number of radar conflicts would almost double compared to thereference organisation. Again, the main problem with Romania would be the high number ofcrossing conflicts.
Other Results
It was decided not to simulate a Flight Level Allocation System in the DVA/PELES area for aircraftvia NARKA or KARIL to/from Greek airports as the distance from Athens is approximately 450nmand any such FLAS would be punitive. In the end, the crossing conflicts were slightly reduced forboth areas in the revised scenario, even after combining the conflicts for the two points, each, wherethe NARKA or KARIL flows intersect the now-split ARD or JULIA (BKS) flows, respectively: DVA areafrom 13 (Fri) and 16 (Sat) in the reference organisation to a combined 11 (Fri) and 14 (Sat) in therevised scenario; PELES area from 18 and 12 in the reference to 13 and 12 in the revised.
Because of the increased traffic routeing through BONAM (Turkey to Iran) and the need to establish15 minutes separation between aircraft at the same level, a tactical contingency route was simulatedfrom VAN direct to TBZ for use in cases where the 15 minutes could not be established, due to the"bunching" of aircraft, with the only option being to reclear the aircraft at an inefficient level such asFL270. On both days there were six occasions, representing 6% of the daily traffic, when this tacticalroute had to be resorted to.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 21
EUROCONTROL
4.4 Work Index
Figs 11a and 11b, one chart for each day, compare the work index figures for the referenceorganisation with those calculated for the revised scenario. The number of aircraft is also included.
The biggest change occurred with Bulgaria which, over the two days, showed a reduction of 35% inthe index and a 20% decrease in traffic. Turkey's index fell by 20% with aircraft levels remaining thesame and Romania showed a slight increase on the Friday and a slight decrease on the Saturday foran average 10% fall in traffic. Also, there was an improved balance in the work index between thethree States (the standard deviation [dispersion about the mean value] fell by 33% on the Friday and50% on the Saturday). Romania and Bulgaria returned almost identical indices between them.
In terms of work index points per aircraft, Romania was up from 1.2 points to 1.3 in the revisedscenario, Bulgaria down from 1.5 to 1.2 and Turkey also down from 1.6 to 1.3.
416
1599
1092
1688
1958
0
1109 1067
377944 1141
1247859 931
1253
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea
Work Index Aircraft
Friday Aircraft and Work Index(Radar Conflicts FL165 and above)Reference Organisation versus Revised Scenario
Fig 11a
Reference Org. Revised Scenario
+2% -37% -18%
Work Index Calculation:R/T = 1pt. per aircraft
Each Supervision = 1 pt.Each Intervention = 3 pts.
331
1556
1202
1860 1913
0
11921222
303
1025 1274 1270 9001055 1265
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea Romania Bulgaria Turkey Blacksea
Work Index Aircraft
Saturday Aircraft and Work Index(Radar Conflicts FL165 and above)Reference Organisation versus Revised Scenario
Fig 11b
Reference Org. Revised Scenario
-1% -34% -19%
Work Index Calculation:R/T = 1pt. per aircraft
Each Supervision = 1 pt.Each Intervention = 3 pts.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 4 - Revised Scenario Organisation Page 22
EUROCONTROL
In the context of the revised boundaries, the inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace would haveled to increases in the work index of 13% on the Friday and 4% on the Saturday as compared to thereference organisation. Similarly, including the BAG-DOMNA and DOMNA-TALIK routes inBulgarian airspace would have led to a smaller, but still significant, reduction of 25% in Bulgaria’swork index from that recorded in the reference organisation.
4.5 Summary of Results for the Revised Scenario
Present-Day Black Sea FIR/UIR Boundaries
l Simulating the new flows and route network led to a 17% decrease in Bulgaria's traffic and a 10%decrease in Romania's, with the figures for Turkey remaining virtually unchanged.
l The total number of radar conflicts (including the Blacksea sector) was down by 40%, the biggestfall occurring in the number of opposite direction conflicts, down 85%, due to the separation ofclimbing and descending opposite direction flows.
l Romania was the only country to experience an increase in total radar conflicts - up by 60%.Bulgaria and Turkey experienced decreases of 70% and 45%, respectively.
l The work index for Bulgaria fell by 35%, for Turkey by 20% and was almost unchanged forRomania.
l Some problem areas still remained:
⇒ Bulgaria - BLO to RADS;⇒ Romania - GLT and ARD to DOMNA;⇒ Turkey - LTBAJ to RAD and ADORU to RDBAI;⇒ Blacksea - DOMNA.
Influence of the New Flows and Route Network with Possible FIR/UIR Boundary Changes
l The results for Turkey would remain the same as for the revised organisation.
l The influence of the new route network and flows would be an overall reduction of 35% in thenumber of radar conflicts compared to the reference organisation.
l The inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace and, therefore, the KORAT or ANGOL trafficwould mean a percentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 3% on Friday and 9% on Saturday.
l Romania’s radar conflicts would almost double compared to the reference organisation due to thehigh number of crossing conflicts.
l The work index for Romania would increase by 13% on the Friday and 4% on the Saturday ascompared to the reference organisation.
l For Bulgaria, including the bi-directional BAG-DOMNA route, on its own, would have little impact.
l The inclusion of the BAG-DOMNA route plus the busier DOMNA to TALIK route would lead to apercentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 4% on Friday and 6% on Saturday from the referenceorganisation.
l Similar reductions in the number of radar conflicts found for Bulgaria in the revised scenario withthe present-day boundaries would also be found with the inclusion of the two routes.
l There would be a reduction of 25% in Bulgaria’s work index from that recorded in the referenceorganisation.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 5 - Summary of Results and Conclusions Page 23
EUROCONTROL
5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Reference Organisation
l There was a roughly equal mix of transit, international arrival and international departure traffic inTurkey. For both Bulgaria and Romania a high level of transit traffic was recorded (>80%), a largeproportion of which was landing or departing Turkey.
l The most significant volumes of traffic were those serving Turkish and German airports with 25%and 17% of the samples, respectively.
l Of the three States simulated, the results indicated Romania as having the greatest amount ofpotential spare capacity.
l The areas giving the greatest problems were:⇒ Bulgaria - MATEL to RIXEN and BLO to RAD;⇒ Turkey - ADELI to RIXEN, BERGO to BIG, KFK to KUMRU and GOY to PETAR.
l Apart from the wider use of the Black Sea airspace and the harmonisation of flows to relieve thecongestion over the Istanbul area, the results showed the need to:⇒ Dualise the U/G1 between Constanta and Istanbul.⇒ Dualise the UA4 between BLO and Istanbul.⇒ Use CCO for southbound and RODOP for northbound traffic and consider the introduction of a
Flight Level Allocation System where these flows intersect the UA4.⇒ Provide discrete inbound and outbound routeings for Burgas and Varna traffic via CND, and
also for Izmir and Antalya traffic.
5.2 Reference Organisation with the Military Samples Added
l Practically all of the radar conflicts between civil and military aircraft occurred in Romania,indicating a flexible approach between the civil and military authorities there but one that requiresmore tactical coordination between the controllers concerned.
l The results for Turkey and Bulgaria suggest that the civil/military interface in both countries isvery clearly defined. They also suggest, together with the results for the reference organisation,that a more flexible use of the airspace could be made with increased cooperation between thecivil and military authorities in each country.
5.3 Revised Scenario
Present-Day (1995) Black Sea FIR/UIR Boundaries
l Simulating the new flows and route network led to a 17% decrease in Bulgaria's traffic and a 10%decrease in Romania's, with the figures for Turkey remaining virtually unchanged.
l The total number of radar conflicts (including the Blacksea sector) was down by 40%, the biggestfall occurring in the number of opposite direction conflicts, down 85%, due to the separation ofclimbing and descending opposite direction flows.
l Romania was the only country to experience an increase in total radar conflicts - up by 60%.Bulgaria and Turkey experienced decreases of 70% and 45%, respectively.
l The work index for Bulgaria fell by 35%, for Turkey by 20% and was almost unchanged forRomania.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 5 - Summary of Results and Conclusions Page 24
EUROCONTROL
l Some problem areas still remained:⇒ Bulgaria - BLO to RADS;⇒ Romania - GLT and ARD to DOMNA;⇒ Turkey - LTBAJ to RAD and ADORU to RDBAI;⇒ Blacksea - DOMNA.
Influence of the New Flows and Route Network with Possible FIR/UIR Boundary Changes
l The results for Turkey would remain the same as for the revised organisation.
l The influence of the new route network and flows would be an overall reduction of 35% in thenumber of radar conflicts compared to the reference organisation.
l The inclusion of DOMNA in Romanian airspace and, therefore, the KORAT or ANGOL trafficwould mean a percentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 3% on Friday and 9% on Saturday.
l Romania’s radar conflicts would almost double compared to the reference organisation due to thehigh number of crossing conflicts.
l The work index for Romania would increase by 13% on the Friday and 4% on the Saturday ascompared to the reference organisation.
l For Bulgaria, including the bi-directional BAG-DOMNA route, on its own, would have little impact.
l The inclusion of the BAG-DOMNA route plus the busier DOMNA to TALIK route would lead to apercentage reduction in aircraft numbers of 4% on Friday and 6% on Saturday from the referenceorganisation.
l Similar reductions in the number of radar conflicts found for Bulgaria in the revised scenario withthe present-day (1995) boundaries would also be found with the inclusion of the two routes.
l There would be a reduction of 25% in Bulgaria’s work index from that recorded in the referenceorganisation.
5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
This simulation provides an overview of the aircraft loadings and conflicts on the routes which areproposed in Version 2 of EUR-ANP. As such, they depict an ideal system which does not take intoaccount the constraints currently imposed on planners as a result of the situation in formerYugoslavia and the political problem of the Black Sea FIR boundary delineation. Nevertheless, theresults can be used to plan improvements to the route network in the area.
The results show that the new flows and route network provide a more efficient organisation ofairspace in Bulgaria and Turkey, and should increase capacity. Romania will experience a moderateincrease in workload with the inclusion of DOMNA in the airspace.
Considerable benefit was derived from simulating the separation of climbing and descendingopposite-direction flows in Bulgaria and Turkey. To make this a reality and to permit a more flexibleuse of the airspace, closer cooperation between the civil and military authorities in both Bulgaria andTurkey will be required, as the results show that the civil/military interface is very clearly defined inboth countries.
In reviewing the final results, the important views of the Turkish delegation were not available as therepresentatives were unable to attend the meeting. Although the beneficial results of the study arequite clear, the absence of the opinions of such a pivotal State is regrettable. Also, it would bedesirable, though not necessary, to simulate the optimisation of the new route network in a furtherstudy. Should this be done, any significantly different views from Turkey or any other changes to theagreed network could also be included.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Chapter 5 - Summary of Results and Conclusions Page 25
EUROCONTROL
The simulation was carried out using a base 1994 traffic sample. During the course of the study,traffic in the area has increased. Should the Black Sea boundary issue remain unresolved while thetraffic continues to increase there will be a high loading on the Istanbul to JULIA (BKS), KEREK andKARIL routes. The solution to this problem will require the retention of the ARGES to ORA (KEREK)route as an important offload for the parallel KOMAN-BKS route.
Finally, the study concludes that Version 2 of the EUR-ANP will provide an overall better balanceddistribution of traffic and workload. It will reduce the loadings in the bottleneck areas and, therefore,should increase overall capacity. However, the full benefits of Version 2 are dependent upon theimplementation of the new routes over the Black Sea, so the consequential increases in capacity canonly be realised when these routes have been implemented. A resolution of the Black Sea FIRboundary issue is, therefore, an urgent necessity.
Rapport Final de la Simulation Top-Down pour la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Turquie CEE
Version française du sommaire et des conclusions Page 26
EUROCONTROL
Rapport CEE Nº 293Tâche CEE AF52
Tâche EATCHIP ASM.ET1.ST02Date : janvier 1996
VERSION FRANCAISE DU SOMMAIRE ET DES CONCLUSIONS
SIMULATION PAR MODELE ESPACE ETUDE TOP-DOWNDU RESEAU DES ROUTES ET DU DEVELOPPEMENT
DES ESPACES AERIENS DE LA BULGARIE, LA ROUMANIE ET LA TURQUIE
de
R. Dowdall
SOMMAIRE
En raison de l’accroissement du trafic en Bulgarie, en Roumanie et en Turquie, accentué par lasituation en ex Yougoslavie, et par l’éventualité d’une solution pour les limites de la FIR de la MerNoire (Simferopol), il a été décidé par le développement EATCHIP, de réaliser une simulationModèle Espace de ces régions afin d’évaluer l’impact d’un futur réseau de routes sur l’espace aériendéjà existant.
L’approche top-down de la modélisation d’un espace consiste à examiner les principaux flux de trafic(généralement libre-profil vertical) et la façon dont ils se mélangent au sein de n’importe quel espaceaérien multinational. L’idée purement expérimentale est de développer un système idéal d’espaceaérien qui ne subisse aucune contrainte quelle qu’elle soit, ni en raison des limites existantes de laFIR/UIR, ni de facteurs politiques.
Le but de cette étude était d’évaluer un réseau de routes ATS (ARN) en respectant la sectorisationaérienne, mais sans tenir compte des actuelles contraintes de limites de la FIR. Ce réseau devait :
l Tenir pleinement compte des demandes, en termes d’espace aérien, du trafic civil et militaire,qu’il soit actuel ou futur.
l Avoir la capacité de gérer les demandes futures du trafic.l Etre fondé sur le réseau de routes ATS (ARN) approuvé, et être une des composantes de son
futur développement.l Offrir une flexibilité totale, en accord avec le concept d’utilisation flexible de l’espace aérien.l Réduire dans la mesure du possible, la longueur des routes pour les compagnies.l Recevoir l’entière approbation des représentants civils et militaires bulgares, roumains et turcs.
Deux organisations principales ont été simulées :
l Une organisation dite de référence simulant le réseau des routes en vigueur au 15/16 juillet 1994(vendredi/samedi), utilisant un échantillon de trafic de 24 heures pour chaque jour.
l Une future organisation, idéale, sans contraintes liées au problème de la Mer Noire, testant unréseau de routes basé sur la Version 2 du plan de la Navigation Aérienne Européenne (EUR-ANP), tel que décrit en Carte 2 (2 février 1995). Les deux échantillons de trafic de l’organisationde référence ont été amendés en accord avec ce plan. Les échantillons ont été ensuite modifiésen tenant compte des flux conseillés dans l’annexe 8/tableau 8B du rapport EATCHIP "RouteNetwork Development and Associated Sectorisation Improvements in the ECAC Area"(EUROCONTROL Doc. 957005).
L’espace aérien simulé était la TMA et les secteurs en route des FIR/UIR de la Bulgarie, de laRoumanie et de la Turquie, ainsi que la partie de la FIR/UIR de Simferopol sur la Mer Noire qui étaitaffecté par les changements de routes. Les limites 1995 de la FIR/UIR ont été utilisées pour cesdeux organisations.
Rapport Final de la Simulation Top-Down pour la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Turquie CEE
Version française du sommaire et des conclusions Page 27
EUROCONTROL
La simulation de l’organisation de référence a montré que :
l Parmi les trois Etats simulés, les résultats indiquent que c’est la Roumanie qui a le plus importantpotentiel de capacité.
l Les zones présentant les problèmes les plus importants sont (voir Carte 3 en annexe A) :⇒ Bulgarie - MATEL à RIXEN et de Bailovo (BLO) à Radovets (RAD);⇒ Turquie - ADELI à RIXEN, BERGO à Biga (BIG), Afyon (KFK) à KUMRU et de Goynuk
(GOY) à PETAR.
l Mis à part la plus large utilisation de l’espace aérien au-dessus de la Mer Noire et l’harmonisationdes flux en vue de soulager l’encombrement de la région d’Istanbul, il était nécessaire de :⇒ Dédoubler l’U/G1 entre Constanta (CND) et Istanbul.⇒ Dédoubler l’UA4 entre BLO et Istanbul.⇒ Utiliser Chouchouligovo (CCO) pour le trafic vers le sud et RODOP pour le trafic vers le nord
et étudier l’introduction d’un système d’allocation de niveaux de vols (FLAS) à l’intersection deces vols avec l’UA4.
⇒ Donner des routes séparées pour les vols en provenance et à destination de Burgas et Varnavia CND, ainsi que pour ceux d’Izmir et d’Antalya.
Puisque la future sectorisation de la Mer Noire est toujours inconnue, ce sont les limites de 1995 desFIR/UIR qui ont été choisies pour la future organisation. Les résultats des nouveaux flux et dunouveau réseau de routes simulés (incluant les routes au-dessus de la Mer Noire) utilisant les limites1995 de la FIR/UIR, ont montré que :
l La redistribution des avions a résulté en une baisse de trafic de 17% pour la Bulgarie et unebaisse de 10% pour la Roumanie, alors que les chiffres demeuraient inchangés pour la Turquie.
l Le nombre de conflits radar pour l’espace tout entier a baissé de 40%, la plus forte baisseconcernant le nombre de conflits de direction opposée, qui a baissé de 85%, grâce à la séparationdes flux de direction opposée, en montée et en descente.
l La Roumanie a été le seul pays qui ait connu une augmentation du nombre total de conflits radar- jusqu’à 60%, mais sur une base très faible. La Bulgarie et la Turquie ont connu respectivementune baisse de 70% et de 45%.
l Quelques problèmes demeurent pour certaines régions (voir Carte 6 en annexe A) :⇒ Bulgarie - de BLO à RADS;⇒ Roumanie - la région de Galati (GLT) et la route de Arad (ARD) à DOMNA, au sud de
CND.⇒ Turquie - de LTBAJ à RAD et de ADORU à RDBAI;⇒ Mer Noire - DOMNA.
Simuler les limites 1995 de la FIR/UIR a entraîné une sous estimation du nombre d’avions quidevraient être contrôlés par la Bulgarie et la Roumanie dans le cadre de nouvelles frontières. Pourla Roumanie, n’importe quel changement de limite impliquerait d’inclure DOMNA dans son espace eten conséquence d’intégrer également le trafic qui passe par ce point via KORAT ou ANGOL. Pour laBulgarie, les changements de limites impliqueraient d’inclure soit la route bi-directionnelle Baglum(BAG)-DOMNA seulement, ou bien cette même route plus la route uni-directionnelle DOMNA àTALIK, plus chargée.
Afin de déterminer l’influence de ces nouveaux flux et réseau de routes dans le cadre d’éventuelsfuturs changements de limites, de plus amples études ont été menées et démontrent que :
l L’influence de ces nouvelles routes et nouveaux flux permettrait de réduire de 35% le nombre deconflits radar par rapport à l’organisation de référence.
Rapport Final de la Simulation Top-Down pour la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Turquie CEE
Version française du sommaire et des conclusions Page 28
EUROCONTROL
l Les résultats pour la Turquie resteraient les mêmes que dans l’organisation future.
l L’intégration de DOMNA dans l’espace aérien roumain, ce qui entraînerait l’inclusion du traficsurvolant KORAT ou ANGOL, générerait une réduction moyenne de 6% du nombre d’avions parrapport à l’organisation de référence.
l Les conflits radar de la Roumanie doubleraient presque par rapport à l’organisation de référence(mais sur une base relativement faible) en raison du nombre élevé de conflits de croisement.
l Pour la Bulgarie, l’intégration de la route bi-directionnelle BAG-DOMNA seulement n’aurait quepeu d’impact.
l L’intégration de la route BAG-DOMNA plus celle, plus chargée, de DOMNA à TALIK entraîneraitune réduction moyenne de 5% du nombre d’avions, par rapport à l’organisation de référence.
l Des réductions similaires dans le nombre de conflits radar se produiraient pour la Bulgarie dans lecadre de la future organisation simulée avec les limites 1995, ainsi que dans le cas del’intégration des deux routes.
Rapport Final de la Simulation Top-Down pour la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Turquie CEE
Version française du sommaire et des conclusions Page 29
EUROCONTROL
CONCLUSIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS
Cette simulation offre une vue d’ensemble de la charge de trafic et des conflits sur les routesproposées dans la version 2 de EUR-ANP. En tant que tel, c’est un système idéal qui ne tient pascompte des contraintes actuelles imposées aux planificateurs par la situation dans l’ex Yougoslavie,ni des problèmes politiques du tracé des limites de la FIR de la Mer Noire. Les résultats peuventnéanmoins être pris en compte pour l’amélioration du réseau de routes dans cette région.
Les résultats montrent que les nouveaux flux et les nouvelles routes engendreraient une organisationplus efficace de l’espace aérien en Bulgarie et en Turquie, et permettraient d’accroître la capacité.La Roumanie connaîtrait une augmentation modérée de la charge de travail avec l’intégration deDOMNA dans son espace aérien.
La simulation de flux séparés pour les descentes et les montées de direction opposée en Bulgarie eten Turquie a montré des avantages considérables. Pour faire de ceci une réalité et permettre uneplus grande flexibilité de l’utilisation de l’espace, une coopération plus étroite entre les autoritésciviles et militaires tant en Bulgarie qu’en Turquie serait nécessaire, les résultats montrant quel’interface civile/militaire est clairement définie dans ces deux pays.
Lors de la présentation finale des résultats, le point de vue de la délégation turque n’a pu êtreexposé, ses représentants n’ayant pu participer à la réunion. Bien que les avantages révélés parcette étude ne fassent aucun doute, l’absence d’un tel état pivot ne peut être que regrettable. Ilserait donc souhaitable, bien que non indispensable, de simuler l’optimisation du nouveau réseau deroutes dans le cadre d’une prochaine étude. Dans le cas où elle serait réalisée, tout différent pointde vue significatif émis par la Turquie, ou toute autre modification du réseau approuvé pourrait êtreprise en compte.
La simulation a été menée sur la base d’un échantillon de trafic de 1994. Pendant son déroulement,le trafic de cette région a augmenté. Si le problème des limites du secteur de la Mer Noire demeureirrésolu, alors que le trafic continue d’augmenter, une forte charge se produira sur les routesd’Istanbul à JULIA/KEREK/KARIL. Résoudre ce problème passera par le maintien de la route deARGES à Oradea (ORA)/KEREK comme une route de soulagement pour la route parallèle KOMAN-JULIA.
Enfin, l’étude conclut que la Version 2 de EUR-ANP produirait une distribution d’ensemble pluséquilibrée du trafic et de la charge de travail. Les goulots d’étranglement seraient réduits et lacapacité totale devrait être augmentée. Cependant les avantages de la Version 2 dépendent de lamise en place de nouvelles routes sur la Mer Noire, alors l’augmentation de capacité qui en découlene pourrait se produire qu’une fois ces routes mises en place. La résolution de la position des limitesde la FIR de la Mer Noire est une urgente nécessité.
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey Top-Down Final Report EEC
Appendix A - Contents Page 30
EUROCONTROL
APPENDIX A
MAP 1 - Simulation Route Map Reference Organisation
MAP 2 - Significant Flows Reference Organisation
MAP 2A - Major Flows Reference Organisation
MAP 3 - Major Conflict Areas FL165+ Reference Organisation
MAP 4 - Simulation Route Map Revised Scenario
MAP 5 - Significant Flows Revised Scenario
MAP 5A - Major Flows Revised Scenario
MAP 6 - Major Conflict Areas FL165+ Revised Scenario
LRTR
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 1SIMULATION ROUTE MAP
REFERENCE ORGANISATION
RAD
RIXEN
SOMOV DINRO
BULENOSTOVLOMOS
KOMANARGES
PINAR
DERYA
ADASAYTS
DALALPAY MUT
ADAWAYTEAYTADA
ADAE
GAZ
MILAS AIARRKABAN
BRONZ
KAVAK DAMLAKUMRU
ADANOKESA SEHIR
CRDNARLI
DIYTOROS SRTREDRA
OBRUKSITRU HISAR
ROBINIMR
ERH VANERHAN
KULARBAYIR
EZSKFK
BERGOGEM
TELVOHALIL
MARTIHAY BAKIR
KARGI
YUCELASKAM SIV
KUBERYAYLABUDAK
IGDIRBANDOERZ
IKINABAG
BEY GURBU
PETAR
ILHNSBUK
BIGGOY
ILHAN
SALGOYAA KAR
ASTALMNIDENIZ
ERSEN
LTAPJEKI
TBNBKZ
LTBA3
GOTAN
SMNLTBAJ ORMAN
ADELI
GERZEINB
LBUZJ SIN
PDV
ROMEOIVKINBOROV
TANGOSFTMS
BGTMSSFTMT BGD2
SFTMW BGD1 BGSWAK
BGD3 BGSNBLO
SOFSFD1SFD3BOZ
SFD2BGTME
LKWBGTMN MATEL
BGTMWWNTME
GOL WND2
SFTME GRNWND1
SFTMNTARGO DWN
WND3
WNTMNSAMIL
RUS
VALPA EFORIOMIDU
CNDEA RITOV
MOVILTANDI
FLORA FLR BSENILOV OTR
GALITBARIM
CETULTNDURZ
LOPRABRAVO
RASVA
CATALSEVER BABAD
STJ DANULDELUX
PNTBRTLCMZL
MOKRUTGJ
CAGNANDO
LUNCACSTME
IRMALGLTCRS PELES
TIMIS CROSA
SODNISBTME BRV
LUGOJKESIS
SASIBPNTAR SBTMWFAGET
BEIUS
ROTBADVABANAT
FOCSATALAKBATIN COPSA
LIPOVARD BLAJA
ARPUXSIGHI GORUN
TIRNA TASITRIMETBARUL TGMCRISA PADUR
TOMET BUCSA
BCU
MOLNAMOMIC
TURDA
CIMPA TOGANNAPOC SECUI
ROGANCLJROSIA
DECANANTAL
VADUL MIRONPANTI
DRAGUORA
BIBOR UNIRAIASDANAL PASCA
JIBOU LOZNA KULEN
SCVBMR
SAM
BADRA
VESARDOREN
TOMBI
BANRO
TUSYRLTBS
LTAILTAJ
LTAFLTAG
LTCHLTBV
ALRAM
LTCCLTCJ
BONAM
LTBJ
VEXOLLTAT
LTCILTCA
LTCKLTAHLTAU
DASIS
AMANI
LTBN
LTBFLTCD
LTBI
LTARLTCE
LTAC
LTBE
LTBGLTCF
LTAPGOLDO
LTBA LTCG
LTAQCCO
RODOP
LBUZ
LBPD
TALIK TUDEKLBGIVAKLA
LBSZLBBZ
LBBG
LBSF
KALANGOL
LBGO
LBWN KORAT
LBBK
ROMOR
LRCKLRBS
LROPVEG
LRTCMAVIT
LRCS
BIKAR
SORET
LRSB
MOPUG LRARBATOG
DOMBI
LRTM LRBC
JULIA
KOTEG POGAVLRCL
GARSI LROD
BEVARLRIA
KEREKNARKA
TIKRU LRBMLRSV
LRSM
KARIL
BUKOV
RUMUK
KEY
Internal Entry/Exit Point
Internal Intermediate Point
External Entry/Exit Point
Internal Boundary Point
VESAR
TOMBI
BONAM
CCO
TALIK
KAL
SORET
BATOG
NARKA
TIKRU
BUKOV
VESAR
TOMBI
DASIS
CCORODOP
TALIK
KAL
KORAT
MOPUG
JULIA
KEREK
KARIL
BUKOV
234246
230265
230265
236246
4056
5764
217221
74101
4959
3034
3034
2418
2042
2043
4133
1233
1525
1725
1433
1235
2429
3133
3522
4959
3947
260
4984
115118
102151
116117
141200
5486
3740
2519
75154
139143
106123
107123
116164
109149
144199
6951
6152
6262
6157
3558
3552
7892
7892
117150
114150
111148
108147
103140
9477
9477
7869
7667
8769
98124
98124
80156
2656
54100
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
RADRIXEN
SOMOV
DINROBULENOSTOVLOMOS
KOMAN
DALMUTAYT
MILAS BRONZKAVAK
KUMRU
OKESA
HISAR
IMR
VANKULARBAYIR
EZSKFK
BERGO GEM
MARTIKARGI
SIV
KUBER
BUDAK ERZBAG
GURBU
PETAR
BUKBIG GOY
SALGOYAA
ASTAL
ERSENEKI
BKZLTBAJ
ADELI
BOROV
BGS
BLO
LKWMATEL
TARGO DWN
CNDTANDI
FLR
GALITBARIM TND
MOKRUTGJ
CAGNANDO
GLT
PELES
BRVSA
DVABANAT
ARD
231240
ARPUX
TGMBCU
NAPOC
CLJ
VADUL
ORA
PASCA
SCV
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 2SIGNIFICANT FLOWS (23+/24hrs)
REFERENCE ORGANISATION
144199
184212
189209
263258
128166
6951
2825
1555
1555
3571
7677
8683
8582
7984
4733
2414
2413
4621
4921
5151
8081
5761
9287
8986
5962
8282
5660
7280 71
79
6978
5558
7185
7287
7387
2326
1826
2123
5989
4369
5989
1929
1842
2456
2758
2153
3033
7750
4229
4637
4046
3958
8371
2412
3537
8491
9379
4656
124167
101125
94104
8356
79109
79109
10895
10198
10198
158185
119158
161185 122
159
7585
106104
6166
2441
8151
165143
1525
xxxyyy
FridaySaturday
KEY
Southbound
Northbound
Line Thickness
Up to 50 aircraft
51 to 100 aircraft
101 to 150 aircraft
151 to 200 aircraft
201 to 250 aircraft
251 to 300 aircraft
340
4959
145202
218246
264258
206235
6951
144199
185215
00
00
9477
169
112131
80156
00
234246
230265
230265
236246
217221
74101
115118
102151
116117
141200
75154
139143
106123
107123
116164
109149
144199
7892
7892
117150
114150
111148
108147
103140
98124
98124
80156
54100
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
RADRIXEN
SOMOV
DINROOSTOV
KOMAN
MUT
IMR
KFK
KARGI
PETAR
BIG GOY
YAA
EKI
BKZ
BLO
MATEL
DWN
CNDTANDI
FLRBARIM TND
TGJCAG
PELES
BRV
DVABANAT
ARD
231240
ARPUX
TGM
NAPOC
CLJ
VESAR
KALKAL
BATOG
JULIA
TIKRU
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 2AMAJOR FLOWS (92+/24hrs)
REFERENCE ORGANISATION
144199
184212
189209
263258
128166
124167
101125
94104
79109
10895
10198
158185
119158
161185 122
159
106104
165143
xxxyyy
FridaySaturday
KEY
Southbound
Northbound
Line Thickness
92 to 150 aircraft
151 to 200 aircraft
201 to 250 aircraft
251 to 300 aircraft
145202
218246
264258
206235
6951
144199
185215
00
169
112131
80156
00
60
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
RIXEN
SOMOV
DINROBULENOSTOVLOMOS
KOMAN
MUT
KUMRU
KFK
BERGO
KARGI
BAGPETAR
BUKBIG GOY
YAA
BKZ
MATEL
CND
ARD
BONAM
DASIS
CCO
RODOP
TALIK
KAL
KORAT
SORET
BATOG
JULIA
KEREK
NARKA
TIKRU
KARIL
BUKOV
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 3MAJOR CONFLICT AREAS FL165+
REFERENCE ORGANISATION
FriSat
FriSat
XXXXX
KEY
Southbound
Northbound
Line Thickness
Up to 50 aircraft
51 to 100 aircraft
101 to 150 aircraft
151 to 200 aircraft
201 to 250 aircraft
251 to 300 aircraft
2629
3222
33
TOMBI
102
1313
VESAR
1534
1516
BLO
2638
RAD
3433
DVA
1316
PELES1812
1528
EKI3
14
3027
1538
822
910
416
1310
9391
3328
ADELI
1711
3615
MOPUG
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 4SIMULATION ROUTE MAP
REVISED SCENARIO
KEY
Boundary Point with Blacksea
Internal Boundary Point
Internal Entry/Exit Point
Internal Intermediate Point
New Route
Existing Route
External Entry/Exit Point
DOREN
PINAR
DERYA
ADASAYTSDAL
ALPAY
MUTAYTE ADAWAYTADA
ADAE
GAZ
URFMILASKAVKE
BRONZKAVAK
DAMLAKUMRU
ADANOKESA SEHIR
CRD
DIYTOROS
OBRUKHISAR
ROBINMENIMR
ERH VANERHANKULAR
BAYIR
EZS MUSKSRKFK
BERGOGEM
TELVO
HALILMARTI
HAY BAKIRKARGI
KARGE YUCEL
ASKAM
SIVADOIM KUBERYAYLA
BUDAKBANDO
ERZBAG GURBUPETAR
ILHNSBUKBIG
GOY ILHANSALGO
YAA KARERIBA
ASTALMNI
DENIZ ERSENLTAPJEKI
ISTRDBAI TBNTOP
BKZGOTANSMN
LTBAJORMAN
ADELI TBAJEADORU TBAJW
GERZEINB
LBUZJ SINPDV
ROMEO
BOROVTANGO
RIXJBGTMSSFTMT
BGDOJBGD2
SFTMW BGSWAKBGD3
BGSNRPOVJBLO
SOFSFD1
SFD3BOZ
SFD2
BGTMELKWLSCCJ
BGTMNKALMATEL
LBWNJBGTMW
WNTMEGOL
BGWNJRDOVJ
WND2
SFTME GRN WND1SFTMN TARGO
DWN
UKRA
BGWNI
DOMNA
UKRCVALPA
EFORI
OMIDUCNDUKRBRITOV TANDI
FLORA FLRBSE
NILOVOTR
GALIT
BARIMCETULBARM1 TND
URZ
LOPRA RASVASEVER BABAD
STJDANULDELUX TLCMZLMOKRU
TGJDUNAVCAG NANDO
LUNCACSTME
GLTCRS PELES
TIMISCROSA SODNISBTME
BRVLUGOJ KESISSASIBPNTAR
SBTMWFAGETBEIUS
ROTBADVA
BANAT FOCSATALAKBATIN COPSA
LIPOVARD
BLAJAARPUX SIGHI GORUNTIRNA TASIT
BARUL ODESATGMCRISA PADUR
TOMET BUCSA
BCUMOLNA
MOMICTURDA
CIMPA TOGANNAPOC SECUI
ROGANCLJ
ROSIA DECANANTAL
VADUL MIRONPANTI
DRAGUORA BIBOR
DANAL PASCAJIBOU LOZNA
SCVBMR
SAM
VESAR
TOMBI
TUSYR
BONAM
VEXOLBNMXX
DASIS
AMANI
GOLDO
CCO
RODOP
VAKLA
MAVIT
BIKAR
SORET
MOPUGBATOG
DOMBI
JULIAPOGAV
GARSI
NARKA
TIKRU
KARIL
BUKOVRUMUK
RADS
RADRADE
RIXWWRIXNW
RIXENRIXNE
RIXEE DOMNS TALKW TALIK TUDEK
ANGOL
KORAT
BULN1
SOMOVDINRO
DINRW DINREBULEN
OSTV1CNDSLOMS1
OSTOVLOMOS ROMRS
KOMANROMRN
ARGES
CATLS
CATAL
LTBS
LTAILTAJ
LTAFLTAG LTCH
LTBV
LTCC LTCJLTAN
LTBJ
LTAT LTCI
LTBL LTCA
LTCKLTAHLTAU
LTBN
LTBFLTCD
LTBI
LTAR
LTADLTCE
LTAC
LTBE
LTBGLTCF
LTAP
LTBA LTCG
LTAQ
LBUZLBPD
LBGI
LBSZLBBZ
LBBG
LBSF
LBGO
LBWN
LBBK
LRCKLRBS
LROP
LRDVLRTC
LRCS
LRSB
LRTR
LRAR
LRTMLRBC
LRCLLROD
LRIA
LRBM
LRSV
LRSM
BGD1
ARD
RAD
DINRW
CNDSDINRE
BULN1
OSTV1LOMS1
KOMAN
DALMUTAYT
MILAS BRONZ
CRD
KAVAK
KAVKE
KUMRU
OKESA
HISAR
IMR
VANKULARBAYIR
EZSKFK
BERGO GEM
MARTIKARGI
BANDO
SIV
KUBER
TELVO
BUDAK ERZBAG
GURBUPETAR
BUKBIG GOYSALGO
YAA
ASTAL
INB
TBN
ERSEN
EKI
ADORU
AMANI
ADOIM
BKZLTBAJ
RDBAI
BGS
LKW
DOMNA
TARGO DWN
CND
TLC
TANDI
STJ
NILOVGALIT
BARIMBARM1 TND
TGJCAG
NANDO
CATAL
CATLS UKRB
UKRA
UKRC
ODESA
GLT
BEIUS
BRV
SIGHI
TOMET
SA
DVABANAT
ARDARPUX
TGMBCU
NAPOC
CLJ
VADUL
ORA
PASCA
SCV
VESAR VESAR
TOMBI TOMBI
BONAM
BNMXX
DASIS
CCO
RODOP
TALIK
KALKAL
KORAT
SORET
MOPUG
BATOG
JULIA
NARKA
TIKRU
KARIL
BUKOV BUKOV
IST
RADS
BLO
RPOVJ
SFTME
SFTMT
RDOVJ
OSTOV
SOMOVBULEN
RIXEN
LOMOS
LSCCJ
RADERIXWW
MATEL
BGWNJ
BGDOJ
BGTMS
BGWNI
RIXNWRIXNE
RIXEEDOMNS TALKW
DINRO
ROMRS
ROMRN
ADELI
TBAJE
TBAJW
PELES
DENIZ
KARGE
LBWNJWND1
7085
7285
5564
3527
93123
93123
1917
3727
86131
3344
3344
5777
5777
5779
5779
1333
1524
1724
1533
3346
165201
163210
168212
3322
129140
122125
8478
7677
7787
3444
3450
4332
4332
5261
3322
125121
122119
118118
118118
115116
86131
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
185195
109108
109108
109108
109108
136123
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 5SIGNIFICANT FLOWS
REVISED SCENARIO
5462
10671
7172
2440
2847
6469
10783
10783
2412
2412
4521
116
10279
231416
969
9557
179
2114
1715
2521
2921
2620
2822
2016
2420
1717 16
16
9196
99105
8387
4754
3031
1722
2726
5386
2726
5386
1624
1223
2654
3056
2454
7280
3131
8097
9365
148162
1129
6553
5387
5387
5687
3230
3421
3840
1524
xxxyyy
FridaySaturday
KEY
Southbound
Boundary with Blacksea
Internal Boundary
Northbound
Line Thickness
24 to 50 aircraft
Up to 23 aircraft
51 to 100 aircraft
101 to 150 aircraft
151 to 200 aircraft
201 to 250 aircraft
170205
170205
75106
72103
67107
5998
3955
3953
3039
3841
1131
2840
3347
199
199
3347
96103
96103
98104
2430
5127
1628
105148
2739
5065
3344
5261
79947994
7994
7167
7994
126121
128121
7268
1334
1533
1522
7887
7887
7887
2911
2911
7887
4421
2419
8587
7887
8387 77
87
66
196
94
94
94
136
136
1919
1414
1414
136
136
136
66
5089
5089
5285 118
118
3538
4074
4278
2028
81106
3421
2833
199
02
0283
80 6671
4675
1719
1215
2018
2929
2730
3945
4646
2515
2312
1818
1717
03
94
97
97
1010
10
22
10
93123
86131
165201
163210
168212
129140
122125
125121
122119
118118
115116
86131
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
RAD
DINRW
DINREOSTV1
IMR
VAN
ERZ
BUKSALGO
ASTAL
INB
ERSEN
ADORU
ADOIM
BKZLTBAJ
RDBAI
DOMNA
CNDTANDI
BARM1 TND
TGJCAG
GLT
BRV
SIGHI
DVA
ARD
185195
109108
109108
109108
136123
TGM
NAPOC
CLJ
BONAM
DASIS
RODOP
TALIK
KALKAL
BATOG
JULIA
TIKRU
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 5AMAJOR FLOWS (94+/24hrs)
REVISED SCENARIO
10671
10783
10783
10279
9557
9196
99105
8097
148162
xxxyyy
FridaySaturday
KEY
Southbound
Northbound
Line Thickness
94 to 150 aircraft
151 to 200 aircraft
201 to 250 aircraft
IST
170205
170205RADS
BLO
RPOVJ
SFTME
SFTMT
LSCCJ
75106
72103
67107
5998
BGWNJ
BGDOJ
RIXNW
96103
96103
98104
105148
7994
7994
126121
128121
118118
81106
LBWNJ
DINREBULN1
OSTV1LOMS1
KOMAN
BAG
BUK
YAA
BKZLTBAJ
RDBAI
BGS
DWN
CND
TGJCAG
CATAL
BEIUS DVA
ARD
VESAR
TOMBI
BNMXX
DASIS
CCO
RODOP
TALIK
KAL
KORAT
SORET
BATOG
JULIA
NARKA
TIKRU
KARIL
BUKOV
IST
RADS
BLO
RPOVJLSCCJ
RADERIXNW
DINRO
PELES
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
GLT
DOMNA
1619
159
ADORU84
RAD
1516
2537
2217
BULGARIA/ROMANIA/TURKEYTOP-DOWN - AF52
MAP 6MAJOR CONFLICT AREAS FL165+
REVISED SCENARIO
KEY
Southbound
Northbound
Line Thickness
24 to 50 aircraft
Up to 23 aircraft
51 to 100 aircraft
101 to 150 aircraft
151 to 200 aircraft
201 to 250 aircraft
146
720
XXXXXFriSat
FriSat
BONAM
MOPUG
Top Related