Episode 3 Final Report Performance Aspects Ex-Com #6 - Brussels, December 15th 2009

1. Episode 3 Final Report Performance Aspects Ex-Com #6 - Brussels, December 15th 2009 laurent.tabernier@eurocontrol.int, giuseppe.murgese@eurocontrol.int

2. Performance Aspects – Chapter 6 Introduction Performance Framework Assessment of the KPAs EP3 Final Report - Performance 2

3. EP3 Final Report – Performance Introduction • Activity contractually limited in Scope and Depth • Activity aligned to SESAR Definition Phase • Development performance driven rather than technology driven • Early stage of maturity of the SESAR ConOps • Approach characterised by two main activities • Perf Framework complemented by the development of a model-based technology • Run a small number of validation exercises and use results to exercise models designed for future ECAC-wide assessments • Output • NO performance assessment of SESAR Concept but, • Proposed approach and a set of lessons learnt derived from EP3 experience

4. EP3 Final Report – Performance Activity approach details • Methodology • Capture of elements contributing to/influencing performance (Influence Diagrams) • Development of an ECAC-wide model representing the elements linked and the mechanism to combine their influence (Influence Model) • Definition of a catalogue of common Performance Indicators as references to ensure consistency about the influencing factors (from exercises, expert groups, etc….) This ECAC-wide approach has been complemented by specific approaches for Safety and Environment

5. EP3 Final Report – Performance Activity approach details • Performance Indicators structure/layers • ECAC • European Generic for Airport, TMA, En-Route • Local Performance Indicators for Airport, TMA, En-Route • How the model works • It needs to be populated with validation data (from a range of validation activities, according to a defined validation strategy) to obtain an ECAC-wide assessment • Once an initial assessment obtained, a “sensitivity analysis” could provide info on the uncertainty factors associated with results The development of the framework also demonstrated that not all performance aspects should be computed within this framework because of the complexity of modelling (for example, NOX, HC, CO emissions correlated with engine)

6. EP3 Final Report – Performance Assessment of KPAs • EP3 applied two approaches for the assessment of the concept • ECAC-wide validation exercises • Local validation exercises, focusing on specific geographical areas for a limited number of operational improvements. The modelling could either provide direct measurements of key PIs (from fast-time simulations) or was limited to observing general trends (in gaming exercises) • For each KPA results from EP3 validation exercises (gaming, modelling, prototyping sessions) have been shown, focusing on those bringing potential improvements

7. EP3 Final Report – Performance Assessment of KPAs • Special cases: Safety and Environment • ConOps not mature enough • EP3 validation activities running in parallel (few Safety experts, mainly involved in DODs review and some expert groups) • Work based on previous activities EP3 completed a first preliminary risk picture for SESAR EP3 provided a preliminary comparison of the SESAR Safety criteria EP3 developed a comprehensive methodology for a unit-specific IRP (the accident-incident Model) EP3 completed a first attempt to assess the environmental benefit of SESAR OIs on Local Air Quality EP3 developed the Env Validation Assessment Framework to complement the overall EP3 Performance Framework

8. Remember Performance Framework Quotation Development of the ECAC model Understanding the influences, Modelling THANK YOU 8