110 likes | 209 Views
Conclusions Final Workshop. 7-8/06/04 , Madrid. “Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools”. Common Model for Integration Common implementation approach. Project Objectives vs Achievements (1).
E N D
ConclusionsFinal Workshop 7-8/06/04 , Madrid
“Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools” Common Model for Integration Common implementation approach Project Objectives vs Achievements (1) • Main objective of LEONARDO (as of DOW): “Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools”
“Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools” Integration at Madrid-Barajas Integration at Charles De Gaulle Integration at CDMMA Test Bench Project Objectives vs Achievements (2) • Main objective of LEONARDO (as of DOW): “Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools”
“Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools” Trials at Madrid-Barajas Trials at Charles De Gaulle CDMMA Test Bench evaluation Safety Capacity Efficiency Project Objectives vs Achievements (3) • Main objective of LEONARDO (as of DOW): “Define the method and demonstrate the feasibility of integrating airport traffic planning and management tools”
Remaining work Anything? • Additional research is needed • Transfer to implementation is mandatory
30 25 ETOT-ATC & Airline 20 15 MTOT-DMAN 10 MTOT-CDM (only flights on time) 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 LEONARDO Results Up to 80% improvement Up to 50% improvement Up to 50% improvement In-block Predictability Off-block Predictability Take-off Predictability CDM has positive effect on efficiency, further improvement possible
Overall conclusions • 3 European sites participated in similar and comparable CDM evaluations • End-users were involved and reacted positively • Evolutionary approach works out positively: info-exchange>>>collaborate>>>negotiate • Very useful technical and operational information was obtained • about the CDM information exchange in terms of: • what to exchange, • when and • how to use this information • A lot of knowledge was gained to bring CDM in practice
Leonardo Conclusion • CDM makes sense • Experiments in the three sites confirm us the same tendency: • Improvement in predictability of operations • Better management of existing resources (stands, handling equipment, runway) • Improvement of decision-making processes • LEONARDO was a very meaningful project for Europe • The R&D results are available and stakeholders should use them
Still Key issues to look at • Inclusion of airline priorities • To guarantee accuracy of information • Incentives • Penalties • Right balance between accuracy and earliness • Solution at European level
What’s next • Results to implementation • Concept is ready • Benefits are demonstrated • No need to wait for implementation • Continuation of research activities • Cluster of airports • CFMU involvement in the trials • ACARE activities • Integration with other CDM activities
LEONARDO ends here but should be continued in Europe