EUROPEAN ORGANISATION

FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

SOFT
(Study of Operational Flight-plans and Trajectories)
Experimental Summary

EEC Note No. 17/98

EEC Task R23

EATCHIP Task CSD-4-E3

Issued: July 1998

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and no part should be reproduced in
any form without the Agency’s permission.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference: Security Classification:

EEC Note No.17/98 Unclassified
Originator: Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:
EEC - FDR EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
(Flight Data Research) BP15
91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEX
FRANCE
Telephone : (33-1) 69 88 75 00
Sponsor: Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:
EATCHIP Development Directorate EUROCONTROL Agency
DED.2 Rue de la Fusée, 96
B -1130 BRUXELLES
Telephone : +32-(0)2-729 90 11
TITLE:

SOFT
(Study of Operational Flight-plans and Trajectories)
Experimental Summary

Author Date Pages Figures Tables Appendix References

W. Göttlinger 7/98 iv + 18 1 4 3 2

EATCHIP Task EEC Task No. Task No. Sponsor Period

Specification
CSD-4-E3 R23 1997 to 1998
Distribution Statement:
(a) Controlled by: Head of FDR
(b) Special Limitations: None
(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO
Descriptors (keywords):

Operational Flight Plan, BADA, Trajectory prediction

Abstract:

SOFT focuses on the relationship between ICAO ‘filed’ Flight Plans (FPLs) and Operational Flight Plans
(OFPLs) prepared and delivered by AOC’s.
Traditional implementations of Flight Data Processing Systems rely on a central database management
system and trajectory prediction which may differ strongly from the real world.
It is proposed to develop a system linked to the appropriate service of airlines (Dispatch) which provides
Operational Flight Plan Data (containing detailed aircraft data, fuel and takeoff weight etc.) to improve
trajectory prediction.
This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

Publications Office
B.P. 15
91222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX
France
SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
EUROCONTROL

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
2. OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 1
3. PROJECT BENEFITS ......................................................................................... 1
4. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 1
5. PHASES OF THE PROJECT SOFT .................................................................... 2
5.1 Phase 1 : Contacts with Airlines and ATC ...............................................................2
5.2 Phase 2 : Data Collection on 17 June 1997 .............................................................2
5.3 Phase 3 : Design of a Data Base ..............................................................................3
5.4 Phase 4 : Processing of Data....................................................................................3
5.4.1 OFPL data .............................................................................................................3
5.4.2 System Flight Plan Data And CFMU Flight Plan Data ..........................................3
5.4.3 Radar Data ............................................................................................................3
5.4.4 Problems processing received Data .....................................................................4
5.5 Phase 5 : Feedback to Participating Airlines...........................................................4

6. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 5
6.1 Forum..........................................................................................................................5
6.2 Future Data Collection...............................................................................................5

7. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 5
8. SOFT TEAM MEMBERS ..................................................................................... 5
9. GLOSSARY......................................................................................................... 5
9.1 FPL: The ICAO filed flight plan format .....................................................................5
9.2 OFPL: Operational flight plans .................................................................................7
9.3 SFPL: System Flight Plans of the contacted Area Control Centres ....................10
9.4 RADAR DATA: Radar data Description ..................................................................12
9.5 METEO: Meteorological Data..................................................................................13
9.6 CFMU Data................................................................................................................14

ANNEX I CFMU - ATFM DAILY SUMMARY ......................................................... 16

ANNEX II BUSINESS OBJECTS IN ATC .............................................................. 17
ANNEX III ................................................................................................................ 18

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 iii

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
EUROCONTROL

Liste of Tables and Figures

TABLE 1 : ICAO FILED FLIGHT PLAN DATA ......................................................................................................... 6

TABLE 2 : FORMAT OF A SYSTEM FLIGHT PLAN .................................................................................................... 11
TABLE 3 : EXAMPLE OF RADAR DATA ................................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 4 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ALL_FT FILE ................................................................................................... 14

FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE OF FPL AND RADAR PLOTS FOR ONE FLIGHT .......................................................................... 4

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 iv

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

1. Introduction
The project SOFT was executed in the frame of the EATCHIP domain ODP «Operational
Requirements and Data Processing Systems» to meet the requirements of DPS.ET1.ST05.

2. Objectives
The objective of SOFT was to study the possibilities to improve trajectory prediction in ATC by
using operational flight-plans (OFPLs).
An OFPL is prepared by the airlines in their flight planning systems. It is composed of AOC
internal data, contains the most precise TOW (take-off weight) and the requested flight profile
which is given to the crew at the moment of briefing. You will find an example of such an OFPL
inchapter 9.2, Operational flight plans, calculated by the Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) SYSTEM.
Other objectives were to :
• establish contact with airlines for close co-operation
• study the exchange of operational flight-plans between airlines and ATC
• study other benefits of the use of operational flight-plans

Specific objectives for the partners involved were:

• AOC :
∗ improve operational flight-plans (OFPL)
• ATC :
∗ improve trajectory prediction
• CFMU :
∗ analyze tactical flight models
• EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre :
∗ validation of aircraft performance model and improvement of quality of aircraft
performance in the EEC simulators

3. Project Benefits

The long term benefits of this type of research & development are:
• increase precision of trajectory prediction (objective: 1 nautical mile deviation 20 minutes
ahead)
• increase capacity, through efficient use of airspace by improving
∗ conflict prediction
∗ CFMU flight planning (slot allocation)
• improve quality of operational flight-plans (OFPL)

4. References
[1] (Requirements for Advanced Flight Plan Information, Ralf SCHUPPENHAUER - EEC
Note 14/98)
[2] Trajectory Prediction (TP) for the ‘TP Drafting Group of ODT’, Georges MYKONIATIS

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 1

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

5. PHASES of the Project SOFT

5.1 Phase 1 : Contacts with Airlines and ATC

The flight planning sections of the participating airlines were contacted. All contacted partners
agreed with the objectives of the project and expressed their desire to co-operate in the planned
experiment.
The following airlines participated (alphabetical order):
• AIR FRANCE
• BRITISH AIRWAYS
• CONDOR
• KLM
• LUFTHANSA
• LTU
• OLYMPIC AIRWAYS
• SAS
• SWISS AIR
• TAT
• VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRLINES

The following OFPL providers have participated:

• SITA
• JEPPESEN

The following ATC & ATM centres and authorities have participated :
• CRNA EST (Reims)
• CRNA NORD (Athis Mons)
• DFS FRANKFURT
• CFMU

A fruitful co-operation has been established with the ‘service d’exploitation’ and ‘service d’étude’
of CRNA EST and NORD.

5.2 Phase 2 : Data Collection on 17 June 1997

Data collection was successfully carried out on 17 JUNE 1997. The Airlines, ATC and other
organisations transferred their data to the EEC by means of SITA lines, e-mail, floppy disc and
CD-ROM. The following data were received:

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 2

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

RADAR data CRNA EST: 3266 correlated flights (but only 2593 call signs)
CRNA NORD: 1974 correlated flights (but only 1832 call signs)
This corresponds to 250 Mbytes of radar data.
The discrepancy between correlated flights and the number of call
signs shows that several flights were filed with the same callsign.
FLIGHT Airlines: approximately 1000 OFPL’s
PLANS This corresponds to 6 Mbytes

ATC: 6700 flight plans (all flights over France)

This corresponds to 3 Mbytes.

CFMU: all regulated flights

This corresponds to 15 Mbytes
(see extract of CFMU statistics in ANNEX I)

Flights of TAP AIR PORTUGAL, who have many flights into and out of Paris, are missing. SITA
did not send the corresponding data. Since this represents a significant part of the traffic it should
be made sure to obtain these data in a future data collection.

5.3 Phase 3 : Design of a Data Base

The database has been designed in collaboration with the Technische Universität Berlin (TU).
The EEC has sponsored the thesis of R. Schuppenhauer of the TU (Requirement Definition for
Advanced Flight Plan Information [1]). This thesis deals with Business Objects and proposes
their use in air traffic control (see Annex II, Business Objects in ATC).
The Design Tasks were :
• definition of a common structure for the data of different origin
• definition of the extended FPL (XFPL)
• merging of the Radar data from CRNA NORD and EST

5.4 Phase 4 : Processing of Data

5.4.1 OFPL data

The operational flight plans have been checked concerning their syntax, semantics and
consistency.

5.4.2 System Flight Plan Data And CFMU Flight Plan Data

The system flight plans of CRNA EST and NORD and the CFMU flight plans are considered as
additional information on creation and evolution of a flight (plan).

5.4.3 Radar Data

Only the radar information from participating parties were considered for use in the data base
(flights from TAP, IBERIA and TWA have been handled specifically on demand of the respective
station managers).

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 3

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

5.4.4 Problems processing received Data

• Nested flight plan data, via SITA network caused an additional programming effort.
• LIDO® Data for short haul flights were NOT for operational use.
• Operational flight plan within Airlines have not been homogenious in layout.
• Radar Data from Reims were divided in four parts due to technical reasons, re-
assembling caused extra effort.
• No reliable access to Meteo Data

5.5 Phase 5 : Feedback to Participating Airlines

After a first analysis the EEC re-contacted the airlines and presented the draft results. This had a
positive response. Each Airline was presented a file containing: horizontal and vertical profiles of
OFPL’s, system FPLs, radar data.
These profiles show:

• Flight profiles are very different from the one calculated for the OFPL. Amongst the 1000
only 15 flights could be used to improve the EEC data base of aircraft performances
(BADA).
• Calculated TOC and realised TOC are different, this may be due to the fact that the
trajectory is always based on the longest possible SID. In addition LIDO® OFPL’s for short
haul flights have been experimental and could not be taken into account.
• ATC has given clearances for routes forbidden by the TOS.
• Controllers do not always update ATC system flight plans.

Figure 1: Example of FPL and RADAR Plots for one Flight

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 4

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

6. Recommendations
6.1 Forum

It is intended to organise a forum inviting all partners in order to present the results of the study.
This forum will also be an opportunity to present other projects of the Experimental Centre and
the IFPU 2, i.e. a Real Time Simulation, the projects RAMS and FREER and FASTER.
The Forum should intensify the contacts with the airlines and involve the airlines more closely in
the definition of future ATM systems.

6.2 Future Data Collection

It appears that a one-day experiment is not sufficient (please refer to conclusion in the next
paragraph. It is recommended that a new data collection be carried out covering two weeks, one
in spring (which is generally a quieter time) and one in summer.
During a future data collection KLM could also provide FMS data downlinked via the ACARS
system.
Currently trajectories are published on the Intranet . The presentation of the project and this note
are available on Internet (http://www.eurocontrol.fr).

NOTE : For legal reasons Radar data may NOT be displayed on the external Web.

7. CONCLUSION

Good contacts with airlines have been established and need to be maintained and expanded.
The collected data have been used by other projects of EUROCONTROL, especially the
Trajectory Prediction (TP) for the ‘TP Drafting Group of ODT’ [2] and for the validation of aircraft
performances of BADA.
Only 1.5 % of the data could be used for the improvement of the aircraft performance data (see
Annex III). It is recommended that a new data collection be carried out covering two weeks, one
in peak season and one in a low traffic season. This would provide significant flight data including
CFMU data, system FPLs, operational flight plans and radar tracks to improve the aircraft
performance data in BADA and thus in trajectory prediction in ATC.

8. SOFT Team Members

Ralf SCHUPPENHAUER TU-BERLIN (presentation of thesis on 14 November 1997), Arjan BOS

(APO), CoE MON (P. BOSMAN, Yvan CORDILLET), André MARAYAT, Christophe LABOUISSE,
Georges MYKONIATIS, Arnaud PODDANY.

9. GLOSSARY
9.1 FPL: The ICAO filed flight plan format

RPL FILED: SAS561 MD80M ENFB0605

-N0438F350 UB88 VES UA7 EEL UR1 PAM/N0442F330 UB31
NEBUL DCT TARIM DCT BSN DCT

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 5

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

Table 1 : ICAO Filed Flight Plan Data

Item name Description
Message type Filed Flight Plan
Aircraft Identification ICAO designator for the aircraft.
Flight rules I (IFR), V (VFR), Y (IFR first), or Z (VFR first)
Type of flight Scheduled, Non-scheduled, general, military,
other.
Number Number of aircraft, if more than one.
Type of aircraft ICAO appropriate designator.
Wake turbulence category Heavy, Medium, or Light
Equipment Radio communication, navigation, and approach
aid equipment, including SSR equipment.
Departure aerodrome The ICAO four-letter location indicator.
Time The estimated off-block time in UTC.
Cruising speed True air speed in km/h, machnumber, or knots.
Level Cruise flight level in feet*100.
Route The departure aerodrome followed by a list of
ATS route segments, or significant points.
Destination aerodrome The ICAO four-letter location indicator.
Total EET Estimated elapsed time in four digits.
Altn. aerodrome The ICAO four-letter location indicator of the first
alternative aerodrome.
2nd altn. aerodrome The ICAO four-letter location indicator of the
second alternative aerodrome.
Other information

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 6

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

9.2 OFPL: Operational flight plans

Sample Skandinavian 561

SK561 PROG 1706 TTL FUEL 8.1 LFPO 2.2 1

17JUN97 ENFB-LFPG-10 LN-RMJ/M82 BLFP AMT 204 WC -8 ISA DEV +5
FL350/PAM/370 358/09 195/04

PSGR..../.../...ZFW41.2/.....TOW49.1/.....LW43.9/....LI....MACZ.. ..

ATIS................................................QNH....MACT.. ..
AWY REP FREQ CS TIME ETO/RTO/ATO FUEL WIND AMT D

SKED DEP 0605 OFF BLOCK .. ..

OFF OSLO-FORNEBU (54FT) TKOF ..... 7.9/. ..

N59 53.8 E010 37.1
SID BABIN 22 .../.../.... 6.2/.... 137
0:22
UB88 (VESTA) D116.6 VES 20 .../.../.... 5.5/.... 194 141
0:42
UA7 (TUSKA) 5 .../.../.... 5.3/.... 203 39
0:47
UA7 (WELGO) 6 .../.../.... 5.0/.... 202 45
0:53
UA7 (JUIST) 7 .../.../.... 4.8/.... 202 47
1:00
UA7 EELDE D112.4 EEL 3 .../.../.... 4.6/.... 202 26
1:03
UR1 +PAMPUS D117.8 PAM 11 .../.../.... 4.2/.... 230 76
1:14
UB31 (LEKKO) 4 .../.../.... 4.1/.... 207 27
1:18
UB31 (LARAS) 1 .../.../.... 4.0/.... 207 6
1:19
UB31 (WOODY) 4 .../.../.... 3.9/.... 207 29
1:23
UB31 NICKY D117.4 NIK 2 .../.../.... 3.8/.... 207 16
1:25
UB31 (CHIEVRES) D113.2 CIV 5 .../.../.... 3.6/.... 203 38
1:30
UB31 (NEBUL) 2 .../.../.... 3.5/.... 189 13
1:32
TARIM 8 .../.../.... 188 53

BOURSONNE 112.5 BSN 4 .../.../.... 236 28

IAL PARIS-DE GAUL (387FT) 14 .../.../.... 2.7/.... 23

N49 00.6 E002 32.9 1:58 TTL D 721
SKED ARR 0820 ON BLOCK .... DIV FUEL/FL 2.7/FL090

ATIS.........................................FCST QNH....ACT QNH. ..

SENT
QX PAREE7X CPHOUSK
*****************************************************************************
***
QX PAREE7X
.CPHOWSK 161813
SK561 FL350/PAM/370 2/2
TAXI 0.2/ 0:00
WINDS TRIP WC -8 5.2/ 1:58

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 7

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

FL370 261/21 RTE RES 6 0.5/ 0:14

FL236 256/15 LFPO/R +2 1.1/ 0:24
FL183 247/11 FINAL RES 1.1/ 0:30
FL099 083/04 COMP 0.0/ 0:00
FL048 013/10 EXTRA 0.0/ 0:00
APPROVED BY ............... TTL FUEL/TIME 8.1/ 3:06
ACT FUEL .../ . ..
FUEL INFO FOR OPTIONAL ALTN:
ALTN WC ALTN FUEL DIV FUEL/FL TTL FUEL/TIME
LFQQ +0 1.3/0:29 2.9/FL130 8.3/ 3:11
LFOB/R -1 1.0/0:22 2.6/FL080 8.0/ 3:04
EBBR +8 1.7/0:39 3.3/FL180 8.7/ 3:21
LFSD/R +4 1.6/0:36 3.2/FL170 8.6/ 3:18
ELLX/R +17 1.7/0:39 3.3/FL210 8.7/ 3:21
EBOS/R +1 1.9/0:43 3.5/FL230 8.9/ 3:25
CORR PARAMETERS BURN/ TIME
LW 43T FL310/PAM/330 +300/+0:01
LW 43T FL350/PAM/330 +200/+0:01
LW 46T/42T +200/ -100
WC +20KT -100/-0:04
WC -20KT +200/+0:06

RPL FILED: SAS561 MD80M ENFB0605

-N0438F350 UB88 VES UA7 EEL UR1 PAM/N0442F330 UB31
NEBUL DCT TARIM DCT BSN DCT

The previous example shows a sample operational flight plan from Scandinavian Airlines (SAS).
This OFPL contains the following items that are of interest:

¥ Flightnumber: SK561 callsign of the aircraft.

¥ Date: 17JUN97 date of flight.

¥ City Pair: ENFB-LFPG departure and arrival airport in ICAO code.

¥ Registration: LN-RMJ aircraft registration.

¥ Type: M82 aircraft type (MD 82).

¥ ISA DEV: +5 deviation from international standard atmosphere.

¥ FL: 350 planned cruise flight level in feet * 100.

¥ ZFW: 41.2 zero fuel weight in kg *1000.

¥ TOW: 49.1 take-off weight in kg *1000.

¥ LW: 43.9 landing weight in kg *1000.

¥ SKED DEP: 0605 scheduled departure time in UTC.

¥ SKED ARR: 0820 scheduled arrival time in UTC.

¥ AWY: UB31 name of an airway.

¥ REP: BOURSONNE name of a radar beacon or a reporting point.

¥ FREQ: D117.8 radar frequency emitted by a beacon.

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 8

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

¥ TIME: 22 - 0:22 total time since take-off in hours:minutes, and in between beacons.

¥ FUEL: 7.9 remaining fuel in tons.

¥ WIND: wind heading in degrees and magnitude in knots.

¥ AMT: 194 magnetic track.

¥ D: 137 distance between waypoints in nautical miles.

¥ TTL D: 721 total distance flown in nautical miles.

¥ WINDS: FL370 261/21 wind information in knots/heading for different flight levels.

¥ RPL FILED: information about a repetitive flight plan.

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 9

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

9.3 SFPL: System Flight Plans of the contacted Area Control Centres

Sample system flight plan SK561 in the COURAGE format:

05
11
20 SAS561 ENFB LFPG 3868 +0 MD80
21 366 330 442
31 NIK CIV NEBUL TARIM BIBOP BSN BSN2 PGNR
32 456 461 463 471 472 475 475 480
33 330 296 250 240 240 110 110 40
41 EY UR TE RB
42 451 453 458 458
43 456 463 473 483
44 490
12
20 =
21 365 350 444
31 SFD RO DPE DPE2 SOKMU MERUE PGNR
32 491 495 499 499 504 507 516
33 350 350 260 240 190 150 40
41 EG TP RB
42 486 486 486
43 491 494 515
44 516
50 32 402 ENFB
51 TPPG17E EGCLW17 EGNOR17

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 10

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

Table 2 : Format of a system flight plan

Line No. Description
00 Comment line
01 Current version of data format
02 Date on which the plans were archived
03 Date
04 Number of flight plans contained in the file
05 Indicates beginning of plan description
11 Indicates beginning of description type DEMANDED
20 Aircraft ID-departure aerodrome-arrival aerodrome-No CAUTRA-relative
date (in days, relating to reference day)-aircraft type
21 Departure time UTC (in minutes)-RFL-ground speed
31 List of beacons ordered according to followed route
32 Time over each beacon (in minutes)
33 Flight level for each beacon
41 List of traversed sectors ordered according to followed route
42 Strip entry time for every sector (in minutes)
43 Geo entry time for every sector (in minutes)
44 Exit time of last sector (in minutes)
50 Delay ATC-time allocated (in minutes)-point of allocation
51 List of regulations concerning the flight
12 Indicates beginning of description type REALIZED. The rest is identical to
the DEMANDED plan, if the data is identical there is a ‘=’ sign in the
corresponding line

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 11

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

9.4 RADAR DATA: Radar data Description

Table 3 : Example of radar data

NM-x indic Vitesse FL Heure CAUTR CAUTR GM - LAT GM -
AX AY LONG
1 AFR1466 000 kts 000Õ 23h59:31.0 5828 4186 47N03Õ55 05E12Õ30
2 PNR601 490 kts 350Õ 01h06: 3.0 4531 5875 50N41Õ52 01E25Õ10
3

¥ NM-x: Line number; irrelevant for the project.

¥ Indic: Callsign of the aircraft.

¥ Vitesse: Ground speed in knots.

¥ FL: Flight level in feet * 100.

¥ Heure: Time UTC at which the aircraft passes over a given point.

¥ CAUTRA X: Coordinate point in the CAUTRA format.

¥ CAUTRA Y: Coordinate point in the CAUTRA format.

¥ GM LAT: Latitude coordinate in format WGS 84.

¥ GM LONG: Longitude coordinate in format WGS 84.

We have collected radar data from the CRNA Nord in Athis-Mons and the CRNA Est in Reims.
Every CRNA carries out its recordings in the same format. The position of each flight is recorded
every eight seconds by radar, so that one receives a very precise trajectory recording with all the
above information.

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 12

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

9.5 METEO: Meteorological Data

The collected meteorological data is provided by Meteo France. There is an updated set of
weather information every three hours UTC time about the outside air temperature (in degrees
Kelvin), the wind heading (in degrees) and the wind magnitude (in metres/second). The
measurements are taken at intervals of 10,000 feet up to an altitude of 50,000 feet; these
altitudes are not expressed as flight levels but as air pressure (in Isobars).
Latitude and longitude co-ordinates together with the altitude form a point in space. For each
latitude value there are ten longitude values in steps of 15 minutes. The latitude values are also
separated in steps of 15 minutes.
In order to find out the actual weather conditions for a given radar track, it will be necessary to
interpolate between different values obtained from Meteo France.

¥ Temperature: Parameter «T»

LONGITUDE 3500 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 275.718750
LONGITUDE 3250 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 275.687500
LONGITUDE 3000 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 275.750000
LONGITUDE 2750 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 275.781250
.....

¥ Wind heading: Parameter «DD»

LONGITUDE 3500 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 162.619049
LONGITUDE 3250 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 162.097092
LONGITUDE 3000 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 156.841644
LONGITUDE 2750 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 151.066879
.....

¥ Wind magnitude: Parameter «FF»

LONGITUDE 3500 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 7.378403
LONGITUDE 3250 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 6.102624
LONGITUDE 3000 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 4.472177
LONGITUDE 2750 LATITUDE 5000 VALEUR 3.377075
.....

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 13

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

9.6 CFMU Data

Sample of an All_Flights plan SK561 (the field separator is ‘;’):

ENFB;LFPG;SAS561 ;SAS;MD80;9706170630;AA10356769;9706170605;FPL;
SAS561 ;350;NEXE;NEXE;N;N;N;9706170637;9706170605;TE;SI;NS;000566266
;_;_;_;_;N;TPPG17E ;4;0;RDY;CHG;SAM;_;PFD;FPL;_;_;_;0610:ENFB:ENFBSKI1A:0
0615:GRS:ENFBSKI1A:076 0623:SKI:UA7:203 0635:SVA:UA37:347 0645:DANKO:UA37:350
0656:GARNA:UA37:350 0701:DANDI:UA37:350 0707:ABSIL:UA37:350 0713:SAMON:UA37:350
0716:MULIT:UA37:350 0720:BEENO:UA37:350 0722:SITKO:UA37:350 0722:KOMIK:UA37:350
0727:SPRAT:UA37:350 0730:BASAV:UA37:350 0731:GABAD:UA37:350 0734:LOGAN:UR1:350
0737:TRIPO:UR1:350 0739:MANGO:UR1:350 0740:WESUL:UR1:350 0742:LAM:UR1:350
0748:MID:UB39:330 0753:SFD:UA47:337 0755:WAFFU:UA47:297 0756:HARDY:UA47:275
0757:*LFG2:UA47:250 0802:DPE:LFPGDPE1P:190 0806:*2CRL:LFPGDPE1P:150
0808:*1CRL:LFPGDPE1P:150 0809:MERUE:LFPGDPE1P:142 0818:LFPG:LFPGDPE1P:0 ;
0610:ENOSTMA:0619 0619:ENOSSW:0627 0627:ENOSUPP:0645 0645:EKDKUSN:0701
0701:EGTTBNH:0729 0729:EGTTCLE:0733 0733:EGTTCW1:0740 0740:EGTTLUE:0746
0746:EGTTLUW:0751 0751:EGTTWOR:0757 0757:LFFTP:0809 0810:LFFZDAW:0817

Table 4 : Description of the ALL_FT file

Field no. Description
1 ADEP
2 ADES
3 Aircraft_ID
4 Aircraft_Operator
5 Aircraft_Type_ICAO_ID
6 AOBT
7 IFPS_ID
8 IOBT
9 Flight_Data_Quality # FPL, RPL
10 Flight_ID
11 First_Requested_Flight_Level
12 Exemption_Reason_Type
13 Exemption_Reason_Distance
14 Late_Filer
15 Late_Updater
16 North_Atlantic
17 COBT
18 EOBT
19 Flight_Status # TE (terminated), CA (cancelled),
AA (ATC-activated), FI (filed), FS (filed and slot
issued), TA (TACT activated)
20 Status_Previous_To_Activation # FI (filed), SI
(slot issued), NE (not exempted)
21 Suspension_Status # NS (not suspended), SM
(slot missed), TV (trafic volume condition)

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 14

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

Field no. Description

22 TACT_ID
23 SAM_CTOT
24 SAM_SENT
25 SIP_CTOT
26 SIP_SENT
27 Slot_Forced
28 Most_Penalizing_Regulation
29 Nr_Of_Regulations_Affected_By
30 Nr_Of_Regulations_Excluded_From
31 Last_Received_ATFM_Message
32 Last_Received_Msg
33 Last_Sent_Msg
34 FIELD_34
35 Original_Flight_Data_Quality # FPL, PFD, RPL
36 Source
37 FIELD_37
38 FIELD_38
39 Min_To
40 Point_Profile ::= TimeOver:Point:Route:Level
41 Sector_Profile ::= EntryTime:Sector:ExitTime

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 15

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

ANNEX ICFMU - ATFM Daily Summary

Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Traffic Demand: 23435 flights

Total Number of Regulated Flights: 6656 flights
Total Number of Delayed Flights: 4128 flights
Total CASA Delay: 77643 minutes
Mean Delay of Delayed Flights: 18.81 minutes
Mean Delay of Regulated Flights: 11.67 minutes
Mean All Flights: 3.31 minutes
Number of Regulations: 133

Traffic Demand in CFMU Area. The number of flight plans having been activated in TACT.
Number of (All) Regulated Flights: Number of flights passing through one or more regulations
protecting the country or the ACC.
Number of (most Penalising) Regulated Flights: Only the flights for which the regulation is the
most penalising are taken in account.
Number of Delayed Flights: Number of flights delayed by a regulation, i.e. for which CTOT -
ETOT > 0.
Total ATFM Delay: The sum of the delays calculated from the CASA regulations.
Mean Delay per Delayed Flight: The Total ATFM Delay divided by the Number of Delayed Flights.
Mean Delay per Regulated Flight: The Total ATFM Delay divided by the Number of Regulated
Flights.
Mean Delay for the Traffic Demand: The Total ATFM Delay divided by the Traffic Demand.

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 16

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

ANNEX II Business Objects in ATC

It is intended to find a means for optimisation of the existing ATC system by defining common,
modular and reusable business objects as a design option for future systems. Following the ideas
of Oliver Sims [Sim94] the ATC domain can be decomposed into prototypical business objects.
Focusing on flight plans, as the central information source for pilot intentions, requirements for
the definition of such business objects have to be detected.
The shift in paradigm from monolithic systems to reusable independent components will result in
new architectures for industry-scale systems. The central objective of this thesis is the definition
of a common and reusable business object to be used in a distributed architecture for the ATC
domain. The ATC domain can be decomposed into prototypical BOs. With special regard to flight
plans, requirements for the definition of business objects have to be elicited. This raises the
following questions:

• How should the various requirements of the clients be classified?

• What sources of information are relevant for the definition of ATC BOs?
• How can the different data formats be adequately reflected in future BOs
• Which aspects concerning the operational environment of the BO may influence its design?

Consequently, this thesis shall propose business objects for the ATC domain with special regard
to flight plans. On the basis of the «CFPS/SOFT» project, existing data sources have to be
evaluated and their relationships to requirements defined by a set of clients/actors have to be
studied. The available information sources, e.g. operational flight plans provided by different
airlines, have to be analysed with respect to their structure and semantics. Relating the
requirements of individual actors/clients to the available information analysed in the previous
phase will outline the structural requirements for the BO.

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 17

SOFT
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE EUROCONTROL

ANNEX III

«The following is an explanation of what has been done with regard to the analysis of the radar
data and the problems that were encountered:
• Some 800 radar trajectories in total were available.
• The OFPL was available for some of these flights (no exact number). Of those flights for
which both radar and OFPL data was available only a limited number had a complete
coverage of the climb or descent trajectory (to or from approximately. 1500 ft). Within this
group some of the actual cruise levels did not match the levels indicated in the OFPL, making
a good comparison between OFPL and radar data quite hard.
• Only 15 - 20 flights from the total of 800 could be used to compare the radar , OFPL and
BADA data. The BADA data is used to see if the knowledge of parameters like weight,
speeds accurate wind and temperature could lead to a more accurate trajectory prediction.

Another exercise over a longer period of time is required and it is imperative that this time all the
correct OFPLs are collected. With approximately 100 useable flights a proper statistical analysis
can be made.»

EEC Task N° R23 - EEC Note No. 17/98 18