CEATS SAAM4 Phase01 Lowrez

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
AIR NAVIGATION
AIRSPACE MANAGEM ENT AND NAVIGATION UNIT
CEATS
AIRSPACE STRUCTURE
Fourth CEATS SAAM Evaluation – Phase One
Airspace Structure Development
Edition : 0.2
Edition date : January 2003
Status : Released Draft
Class : EUROCONTROL
SAAM evaluation no. 49
EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Document Title
CEATS Airspace Structure

Fourth CEATS SAAM Evaluation – Phase One
PROGRAMME REFERENCE INDEX: EDITION: 0.2 Released Draft
EDITION DATE: January 2003

Abstract
This study is a follow-up of previous Simulations/Evaluations (SAAM 1&2&3, RTS 1&2, FTS 1&2)
carried for the CEATS airspace and is meant to macroscopically assess various proposals
establishing the baseline sectorisation for the proposed implementation of the Central European Air
Traffic Services.
The study was made with input from the CEATS Airspace Planning and Implementation Group –
CAPIG - and in co-ordination with CEATS Strategic Planning and Development Unit (CSPDU).
The main objective of the first phase of the Fourth CEATS SAAM Evaluation is to pre-validate the
CEATS Reference Sectorisation as resulted after CEATS FTS2 and after modifications proposed by
CAPIG (CEATS Airspace Planning and Implementation Group) members.
The results of this and future SAAM evaluations will be used in the preparation of the fast and real
time simulations to be carried out by the CEATS Simulation and Research & Development Centre
(CRDS) at Budapest and in the preparation of the CEATS Airspace Plan. The resulting baseline
sectorisation will be used for establishing the minimum operational requirements for the CEATS
UAC and for initiating the transition to implementation of CEATS.
The study was made at the request of the CEATS Airspace Planning and Implementation Group –
CAPIG.
CONTACT PERSON: George RANGA TEL: 93233 UNIT: AMN
DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE
STATUS CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION

Working Draft þ Executive Task o General Public þ
Draft o Specialist Task þ EUROCONTROL þ
Proposed Issue o Lower Layer Task o Restricted o
Released Issue o
ELECTRONIC BACKUP
INTERNAL REFERENCE NAME: CEATS_SAAM4_rep01

HOST SYSTEM MEDIA SOFTWARE
Microsoft Windows Type: Hard disk SAAM; Office 97
Media Identification: M:\CAPIG_SAAM4\Final_report\
CEATS_SAAM4_rep02.doc
Released draft
i
DOCUMENT APPROVAL
The following table identifies all management authorities who have successively approved the present
issue of this document.
AUTHORI TY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE
Task Leader AMNU
EUROCONTROL Mr George RANGA
Task Leader CSPDU
EUROCONTROL Ms Vesna KOJIC
Airspace Structure
Project Leader AMNU

Mr Alain DUCHENE
EUROCONTROL
Senior Operational Expert

CSPDU
Mr Petr PODHRAZSKY
EUROCONTROL
The following people contributed to the Fourth CEATS SAAM Evaluation:
AMNU CSPDU CAPIG
Mr T. Champougny Ms V. Kojic Mr Kristian WOLLNER

Mr A. Duchene Mr P. Podhrazsky Mr Sinisa BELOSEVIC
Mr R. Falk Mr Roman KURAL
Mr A. Joubert Mr Zdenek NOHAVA
Mr G. Ranga Mr Tibor KOVALIK
Mr Janos SZABÓ
Mr Sauro FIORANI
Mr Igor URBANIK
Mr Gregor JANHUBA
Released draft
ii
DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD
The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document.
SECTIONS
EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE PAGES
AFFECTED
0.1 11.02.2003 Incorporate comments from AMNU & CSPDU all
Released draft
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET.................................................................................................i
DOCUMENT APPROV AL ..................................................................................................................ii
DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD.......................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... vi
1. BACKGROUND and INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1
2. OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.1.1 Objectiv e 1.................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.2 Objectiv e 2.................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Phase 2 ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.2.1 Objectiv e 1.................................................................................................................. 2
2.2.2 Objectiv e 2.................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Initial baseline conditions................................................................................................... 3
3. DELIVERABLES.................................................................................................................... 3
4. S AAM (System for analysis and assignment at a macroscopic level) .......................................... 4
5. Details of the evaluation ........................................................................................................ 4

5.1 Traffic Sample................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Traffic assignment............................................................................................................. 5
5.3 Route Network .................................................................................................................. 5
5.4 Sectorisation .................................................................................................................... 6
5.4.1 Naming of Sectors ........................................................................................................ 6
5.4.2 CEATS FTS/2 sectors ................................................................................................... 6
5.4.3 Organisation A - Baseline sectorisation ............................................................................. 6
5.4.4 Organisation B - CAPIG proposed sectorisation.................................................................. 6
5.5 Sector capacities............................................................................................................... 9

5.6 Flight Level Distribution ................................................................................................... 10
5.7 Use of SHER and Workload .............................................................................................. 11
6. SCENARIOS PRESENTED.................................................................................................... 13
RESULTS OF SCENARIOS ........................................................................................................ 14
Scenario 1.1 - Map of the CEATS sectors A and of the route network ARN V4bis ............................. 15
Scenario 1.2 - Map of the CEATS sectors B and of the route network ARN V4bis ............................. 17
Scenario 1.3 - Map of the CEATS sectors A & B and of the route network ARN V4bis ....................... 19
Released draft
iv
Scenario 1.4 - Map of the CEATS sectors A and of the route network ARN V4bis loaded with the
CEATS traffic........................................................................................................................... 21
Scenario 1.5 - Map of the CEATS sectors B and of the route network ARN V4bis loaded with the
CEATS traffic........................................................................................................................... 23
Scenario 1.6 – Map of the CEATS sectors A & B and of the route network ARN V4bis loaded with the
CEATS traffic........................................................................................................................... 25
Scenario 1.7 – Comparative analysis of the CEATS sectorisations A & B ........................................ 27
Sector C1 ........................................................................................................................... 28
Sector C2 ........................................................................................................................... 31
Sector C3 ........................................................................................................................... 34
Sector C4 ........................................................................................................................... 37
Sector C5 ........................................................................................................................... 40
Sector C6 ........................................................................................................................... 43
Sector C7 ........................................................................................................................... 46
Sector C8 ........................................................................................................................... 49
Sector C9 ........................................................................................................................... 52
Sector C10 ........................................................................................................................... 55
Sector C10A ........................................................................................................................... 59
Sector C11 ........................................................................................................................... 62
Sector C12 ........................................................................................................................... 65
Sector C13 ........................................................................................................................... 69
Sector C14 ........................................................................................................................... 72
Sector C14 A ........................................................................................................................... 75
Sector C15 (in organisation B includes study of the C15_1 & C15_2) ........................................................ 78
Sector C16 (in organisation B includes study of the C16_1 & C16_2) ........................................................ 82
7. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION...................................................................................... 85
8. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 85
ANNEX A ........................................................................................................................... 88
ANNEX B (Czech Republic proposal) .............................................................................................. 90
ANNEX C (Croatian proposal)......................................................................................................... 91
Released draft
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the first phase of the fourth SAAM evaluation of the
CEATS - Central European Air Traffic Services airspace.
CEATS SAAM/4 w as conducted by the EUROCONTROL Airspace Management and
Navigation Unit (AMNU) in co-ordination w ith CEATS Strategic Planning and
Development Unit ( CSPDU). It incorporates the proposals provided by the CEATS
Airspace and Implementation Group – CA PIG - members.
CEATS SAAM/4 is a follow -up of previous Simulations/Evaluations (SAAM 1&2&3,
RTS 1&2, FTS 1&2) carried for the CEATS airspace and is a macroscopic
assessment of various proposals establishing the baseline sectorisation for the
proposed implementation of the Central European Air Traffic Services.
The main objective of this first phase of the Fourth CEATS SAAM Evaluation is to
pre-validate the CEATS Reference Sectorisation as resulted after CEATS FTS2 and
after modifications proposed by CA PIG ( CEATS Airspace Planning and
Implementation Group) members.
SAAM/4 studied tw o baseline sectorisations for the CEATS airspace:
Organisation A - basically similar w ith the CEATS FTS/2 sectors, except that, since
FTS/2 a number of route changes/adaptations w ere made on V4bis, some small
changes w ere made to the FTS/2 sectors to adapt them to the route netw ork
underneath. The logic of each sector was how ever kept.
Organisation B – the sectorisation derived from FTS/2 sectors amended w ith
proposals from the CA PIG members. The first meeting of CAPIG decided to take the
opportunity to integrate in the previously developed sectorisation plans for CEATS
the operational experience of the airspace planners from the CEATS States. All
these changes proposed by CAPIG, w ith this view , w ere incorporated in the
Organisation B.
In general, SAAM/4 results indicate that organisation B is providing a better
solution for the handling of traffic than organisation A.
This study also identifies opportunities for improvement in a number of areas where
the combination airspace constraints / route netw ork is still to be resolved - the
evaluation highlights these areas on a case by case basis.
Detailed conclusions are to be found in the Paragraph 8 of the study and on the
analysis of each CEATS sector under Paragraph 6 – Scenario 1.7.
The results of this and future SAAM evaluations w ill be used in the preparation of
the fast and real time simulations to be carried out by the “CEATS Simulation and
Research & Development Centre” (CRDS) at Budapest and in the preparation of the
CEATS Airspace Plan.
The resulting baseline sectorisation w ill be used for establishing the minimum
operational requirements for the CEATS UAC and for initiating the transition to
implementation of CEATS.
For this study, the V4bis route network was retained as a starting assumption.
Therefore the results depend strongly on these conditions, under which
sectorisation has reached its optimum.
The study indicates that further improvement could be achieved with the
introduction of CEATS. These would require the consideration of a complete
review of the route network and the associated sectorisation in the CEATS
area including the interfaces with adjacent areas. (e.g. Munich area, the
interface with Romania and Yugoslavia etc.)
This approach should always consider development phases imposed by the
constrain of progressive transition steps from National provision into CEATS
provision of service.
Released draft
vi
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The CEATS planned area of responsibility is the airspace above FL285 over the follow ing
States: Austria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, part of Italy
(ACC Padua), Slovakia and Slovenia. Currently, the start of operations is planned for
2007 and it is aimed for a gradual implementation of sector groups.
The period 2004-2007 is seen as an “early benefits” period and w ill ensure the gradual
transition to the new CEATS airspace structures.
The CEATS Programme originated from the decision of seven Central European States 1
to co-operate in the provision of air traffic services within their upper airspace to:
· Ensure maximum efficiency at minimum cost for all airspace users while safeguarding the
required level of safety, and
· Contribute to the creation of a uniform European Air Traffic Management System
(EATMS)
This programme is to be implemented by EUROCONTROL under the provision of the
“Agreement relating to the provision and operation of air traffic services and facilities by
EUROCONTROL at the Central European Air Traffics Services (CEATS) Upper Area
Control Centre (UAC)”, signed in Brussels on 27 June 1997.
The follow ing are the CEATS simulations/evaluations carried from March 2000 to
February 2003:
_ The First CEATS SAAM Evaluation - SAAM1, DSA/AMNU, Completed in April 2000
_ The Second CEA TS SAAM Evaluation - SAAM2, DSA/AMNU, Completed in December
2000
_ CEA TS FTS1 (Fast Time Simulation) - FTS1, EEC Completed in November 2000
_ CEA TS RTS Ph1 ( Real Time Simulation) - RTS1, EEC Completed in May 2001
_ CEA TS RTS Ph2 ( Real Time Simulation) - RTS1, CRDS Completed in November 2001
_ The Third CEA TS SAAM Evaluation - SAAM3, DSA/AMNU, Completed in December
2001
_ CEA TS FAP/ Capacity St udy - EEC/ CEF, Capacity results in January 2002
_ CEA TS FTS2 (Fast Time Simulation) - FTS2, EEC/ CRDS, Complet ed in February
2002
_ CEA TS SSRTS 1 ( Small Scale Real Time Simulation) - SSRTS1, CRDS, Completed in
March 2002
_ CEA TS SSRTS 2 ( Small Scale Real Time Simulation) - SSRTS2, CRDS, Completed in
November 2002
The SAAM Macroscopic evaluations carried out during the year 2000, the First and
Second CEA TS SAAM Evaluation, gave the results for the main objectives to develop and
evaluate proposals for future CEATS sectorisation in support to CEATS Programme.
Results w ere used in the preparation of fast and real time simulations, and SAAM w ill
continue to be used throughout the CEATS Programme, to provide quick evaluations for
proposed changes to airspace structure.
The Third CEATS SAAM Evaluation w as the first CEATS study of the interface betw een
the CEA TS airspace and the national sectors underneath and on the initial implementation
level of the CEA TS sectorisation.
Relevant to this evaluation is CEATS FTS2 that provided the basic CEA TS Reference
sectorisation (FTS2 organisations C and D).
1
(Bosnia & Herzegovina jo ined on 14 th September 2001).
Released draft
1
As in the first three CEATS Evaluations, the details and results w ere obtained using the
SAAM© analyser (System for Assignment and Analysis at Macroscopic level).
Im portant: This SAAM evaluation, like all activities proposing airspace changes, requires
validation of any changes it may propose to the structure of the CEATS airspace.
CEATS airspace implementation plan and further development of its airspace structures
are dependent on national airspace know ledge and involvement in program.
All the above elements are met in the CEATS Airspace Planning and Implementation
Group – CAPIG. In accordance w ith CA PIG TORs, CA PIG it is responsible for the
production of the CEATS Airspace Plan.
The CEATS Reference Sectorisation as resulted after FTS2 - and proposed as a basis for
discussion - was amended by the CAPIG members. This fourth SAAM evaluation is
evaluating these proposals and w ill provide CAPIG w ith the first pre-validation of a CEA TS
Reference sectorisation based on w hich the CEATS Airspace Plan is to be build.
2. OBJECTIVES
The study addresses the collection and pre-validation of proposals for the future CEATS
Reference Sectorisation in support to the w ork of the CEATS Airspace Planning and
Implementation Group – CA PIG - and the CEATS Programme. This evaluation should
also support CEATS FTS4 and CEATS RTS2.
The study is likely to be carried in tw o phases and the objectives of each are listed below .
2.1 Phase 1
2.1.1 Objective 1
To evaluate the various adjustment proposals by CAPIG on the CEATS Sector Groups
and CEA TS Reference Sectorisation (result of CEATS FTS2)
2.1.2 Objective 2
To propose and evaluate, if required, an overall AMNU solution to the problems identified
(if any)
2.2 Phase 2
2.2.1 Objective 1
To generate new traffic sample to be used in 2003 simulations
- further details to be developed
Released draft
2
2.2.2 Objective 2
To evaluate sector collapsing scenarios for all sector groups

- further details to be developed
2.3 Initial baseline conditions
In order to progress in the requirements above, the follow ing initial baseline conditions
were applied:
· the route netw ork used for traffic distribution is the latest ARN V4bis – as agreed by
RNDSG;
· the traffic sample show s an increase of ~36% compared w ith the 2002 traffic levels for the
CEATS area GND – UNL (similar percentage of increase as in previous evaluations);
· the traffic distribution is made on the principles of the shortest route;
· all know n and required flight profile constraints are to be applied (2D/3D);
· the initial FTS2 CEA TS reference sectorisation w as corrected when obvious design errors
(sector clipping, etc.) w ere found;
· capacity values for the sectors are those obtained from the CEATS FTS/2. For the new
sectors a capacity value of 45 acfts/hour was used as a basic value;
· sectors to be called w ith C (CEATS), number and then U (Upper), UH ( Upper-High) and T
(Top).
3. DELIV ERABL ES
Phase 1
Objective 1 - Evaluate the various amendment proposals by CA PIG on the CEATS Sector
Groups and CEA TS Reference Sectorisation (result of CEATS FTS2).
Will consist on a comparison betw een the CEATS Reference Sectorisation (from CEA TS
FTS 2) and the various CA PIG proposals and the results are in the form of:
- maps
- SHER
- Workload
- Interpretation of results
Objective 2 - Propose and evaluate, if required, an overall AMNU solution to the problems
identified.
Follow ing the interpretation by AMNU of the results obtained w ithin the first objective, an
overall AMNU proposal w ill be elaborated and tested.
Results are in the form of:

- maps
- SHER
- Workload
Phase 2
Released draft
3
tbd
4. SAAM (SYSTEM FOR ANALYSIS AND ASSIGNM ENT AT A MACROSCOPIC L EV EL)

The study makes extensive use of the SAAM tool. SAAM is a statistical analysis tool
developed at EUROCONTROL Headquarters. The tool is w idely used in support of the
work of the Route Netw ork Development Sub-Group ( RNDSG) of the Airspace and
Navigation Team (ANT) and its use spreads currently to other areas like EUROCONTROL
CRCO, CFMU, EEC, etc.
SAAM provides statistical data in the form of maps and graphs, traffic loading on
individual segments of the route netw ork and sector loads w ithin a specified volume of
airspace.
SAAM’s quick response time and user-friendly graphical interface means that it is possible
to quickly reconfigure airspace structure, and test alternative proposals. This allow s for
the evaluation of a w ide range of scenarios after which the more promising can be
developed further using Fast-Time Simulation or Real- Time Simulation tools.
This evaluation also uses calculated w orkload as a mean of evaluation. SAAM w orkload
indication is under continuous development and results are consistent w ith those obtained
both from FTS and/or RTS evaluations and analytically from the Sector Load Graph
analyses of Sliding Hourly Entry Rate – SHER and are considered to be useful for
comparative analysis. An explanation of how to read the sector load graphs is given at
Annex A. SAAM w orkload indicator is also described in Annex A.
5. DETAILS OF T HE EVALUATION
5.1 Traffic Sam ple

The evaluation used one traffic sample obtained by increasing one day of operation
(busiest day of June 2002 – Friday 28th June) w ith a global percentage of about 22% - for
the w hole ECA C area – resulting in an increase of about 36 % for the CEATS area (this
corresponds to an increase to the traffic levels of the year 2010). The traffic increase was
made by EUROCONTROL/STATFOR in accordance w ith their latest forecast.
The details of the traffic sample increase are listed below :
Whole ECAC CEATS GND-UNL CEATS above

FL285
Current traffic 27282 5299 3537
(no. flights)
Traffic sample 33286 7234 4720
(no. flights)
Percentage of 22 % 36.5 % 33.4 %

increase
Released draft
4
The percentage of traffic increase is similar to the one applied to obtain the traffic sample
used for SAAM/3 and it w as obtained on similar assumptions, thus allow ing for
comparison w ith the future airspace evaluations.
The ter m “ CEATS traffic” is used thorough this study and represents all the flights entering
CEATS airspace above FL285.
Note: SAAM/3 – The traffic sample considered 33641 total flights for the whole ECAC
region, the CEATS area GND-UNL being crossed by a number of 6366 flights - 4878
flights above FL285 and 2881 flights above FL345.
5.2 Traffic assignment
The traffic sample w as created using SAAM. The process of creating the traffic sample
can be summarised as follows:
· From the CFMU records and STAFOR estimation a file is extracted containing – for
the required day of operation – all the flight plans for the completed flights; this is
called: “traffic demand”
· The traffic demand is then processed w ith the help of SAAM w hich uses only a
number of the initial parameters of the flights: flight ID, type of aircraft, departure time,
maximum requested flight level, airport of departure and airport of arrival
· The assignment made by SAAM is based on the follow ing assumptions:
- The route netw ork used for traffic distribution is the latest ARN V4bis – as agreed
by RNDSG;
- Traffic is assigned on the shortest route betw een the airport of departure and
airport of destination
- All know n/required flight profile constraints are to be applied (2D rules – rules to
route the ARR/DEP traffic on certain SID/STAR or specialised routes / 3D rules –
rules applied to the vertical profile of an aircraft by imposing a specific FL
restriction - w hen required);
- Traffic is assigned on the maximum requested flight level (as the traffic increase
was made on an RVSM traffic sample the result is RVSM compatible)
- TRAFFIC reaches the maximum FL indicated in the FPL
The effects of each of these assumptions w as presented by AMNU to various evaluation
beneficiaries (and previously agreed w ith CSPDU) and these assumptions represents the
final agreement reached on the creation of the traffic sample for this type of evaluations.
There is a need for the future evaluations to consider – in the creation and validation of
the traffic sample – the feedback from the Fast Time and Real Time Simulations (in
particular w hen building the 2D/3D constraints to the flight profiles). The principles and
methods to be applied regarding the creation of the traffic sample are still under study.
One of the possibilities considered is to translate the traffic sample resulted from the Fast
Time and Real Time Simulations into assumptions for the SAAM traffic assignment
facility.
5.3 Route Network
The study uses the latest available ARN V4 route netw ork – including all the changes
notified to EUROCONTROL/RNDSG up to mid-August ’01 (as valid from 29th November
2001). A map w ith this netw ork in the CEA TS area is in Annex C.
ARN Version 4 incorporates all the changes necessary to ensure that RVSM can be
implemented efficiently in the ECAC area. In particular, ARN Version 4 includes those
Released draft
5
additional routes required to facilitate the handling of the transition task at the periphery of
the RVSM area, and the revised sector configuration w ith new Division Flight Levels,
where appropriate.
ARN Version 4 w as developed in the per iod June 1999 to September 2000 in a series of
six RNDSG meetings attended by representatives from 33 ECA C and interface States
and four International Aviation Organisations. The Airspace and Navigation Team - at its
24th meeting in February 2001 - endorsed version 4.
5.4 Sectorisation
Throughout this report three denominations w ill be used to identify the various
organisations studied, each of them being explained in the follow ing paragraphs.
Im portant: All the previous airspace studies on the CEA TS airspace used FL285 as the
base FL for the entire CEATS airspace. This w as done w ith the purpose of having a
uniform reference and is not compliant w ith the CEATS agreement w here a number of
States indicated FL290 as the base FL for their delegated airspace. One of the CA PIG
tasks is listed as being to come up w ith proposals for the base FL for CEATS (uniform or
not) in order to match all operational requirements. This study is making no exception
from the previous ones - in this respect - and FL285 w as used as the base FL throughout
it.
5.4.1 Nam ing of Sectors
The CEATS sectors, in both Organisations A and B already have a stabile numbering
carried forw ard for a couple of years already and, according to the vertical layer they are
part of they are named w ith U (Upper), UH (Upper-High), T ( Top) or TH (Top-High).
In this study, for ease of reference, the vertical boundaries are also indicated next to the
name of the sector.
5.4.2 CEATS FTS/2 sectors
CEATS FTS/2 organisations C and D provided the initial sectorisation for this study, the
sectorisation sent for comments to the CA PIG members. This sectorisation only served as
an initial basis and w as not evaluated in SAAM/4.
5.4.3 Organisation A - Baseline sectorisation
This sectorisation is basically similar w ith the CEATS FTS/2 sectors, except that, since
FTS/2 a number of route changes/adaptations w ere made on V4bis, some small changes
were made to the FTS/2 sectors to adapt them to the route netw ork underneath. The logic
of each sector was kept and this sectorisation is used in the evaluation as the baseline for
comparison.
Maps of this sectorisation can be found in Scenarios 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 under
paragraph 6 of this report.
5.4.4 Organisation B - CAPIG proposed sectorisation
On response to a w orking package, the CA PIG members proposed a number of changes

to the CEATS FTS/2 sectors. All the proposals coming from the CEA TS states are listed
Released draft
6
below and were incorporated in the Organisation B. A number of changes/solutions w ere
proposed by AMNU and are presented on a case by case basis on Paragraph 6.
Country Proposal Comments

Austria · stick as close as possible to the proven sectorisation of the national · ARN V4bis is the
ANSPs - designed to accommodate the current traffic f lows with least f ollower of V4 and,
delay f or the CEATS area,
· neglect the future airspace concepts at the moment and stick to the ARN no signif icant
V4 (current route network) as they assure that the interf ace with the non changes are
CEATS states will match. incorporated
· the sectorisation shown at the CAPIG kick off is for the Austrian · Changes proposed
sectorisation useable, howev er the current MURA-sector (south of GRZ) f or C8, C11 (and C5
shouldn’t be div ided - it should be within the C8 or C11. f or the Munich
· Sector C8 should be according to FTS 1&2 and RTS 1 (to cope with interf ace) were
EDDM Entry and Exit requirements. incorporated
· South & South-
Eastern borders of
C8 are as in FTS 1
and FTS 2. RTS 1
didn’t study the
sector C8.
Bosnia and · Nil · Message f rom Mr.
Hertegovina Heinz Herlinger that
issue is under
discussion. Nothing
f or SAAM/4.
Czech · The v ersion of ARN presented does not contain all changes (short term · See Annex B
Republic improv ements) submitted to RNDSG for implementation in 2002 (e.g. · Only the f light
dualisation of UM748 (interface ODNEM – MAVOR), interf ace OKG – prof ile constraints
ODOMO and CERNO – DOMAL. below FL285 were
Flight profile constraints: incorporated, the
Currently there are the following f light profile constraints applied in FIR Praha reason being that the
which hav e influence on the CEATS sectorisation (assuming that CEATS constraints at FL345
sectors limits are FL285 – FL345 and FL345 – UNL): are dependent on the
Flights permanently restricted below FL285: sector cut which may
· Domestic f lights except of special activities (test flights). be diff erent than 345.
· Departures f rom LKPR, LKKB, LKVO v ia OKG, RAPET, VARIK, HDO, · Route network was
OKX, LAGAR, KOLAD, CERNO, LANUX updated with the
· Arriv als to LKPR, LKKB, LKVO, LKPD v ia ODOMO, OMELO, HDO, inf ormation prov ided
OKX, LANUX, DOMAL, AGNAV · Modif ications f or
· Departures f rom LKMT v ia MIKOV, SUMEK, BILNA, MAVOR C1, C2, C3 were
· Arriv als to LKTB, LKMT v ia MIKOV, MAVOR, BILNA, SOPAV incorporated.
· Departures f rom EDMM, LOWL, LOWS to EDDT, EDDI, EDDB via
AGNAV
· Departures f rom EDDT, EDDI, EDDB to A/D within EDMM, LOWL,
LOWS, LOWI v ia MAREM
· Departures f rom LOWW to EDDT, EDDI, EDDB v ia LANUX
Flights restricted below FL285 only when entering CTA Praha:
· Departures f rom LOWW via LANUX, MIKOV
· Departures f rom A/D within EDMM, LOWL, LOWS v ia LUSAN
· Departures f rom EPKT, EPKK v ia SOPAV
· Departures f rom EDDC, EDDP, EDAC via OMELO, HDO
Flights restricted below FL285 just when leav ing CTA Praha:
· Arriv als EPWR, EPKT via BAVOK, EPKK v ia PADKA
· Arriv als at A/D within EDMM, LOWL, LOWS v ia CERNO, KOLAD
· Arriv als LOWW via LANUX, ASTUT, MIKOV
· Arriv als LZIB a LZPP via ODNEM
· Arriv als EDDP, EDBM, EDVE, EDDE, EDDC, EDAC, EDAB via HDO
· Arriv als EDDN via OKG
· Arriv als EDDC, EDAB v ia KILNU
· Arriv als EDDE v ia VARIK
Flights permanently restricted below FL345:
· Departures f rom EDDT, EDDI, EDDB to LOWW via HDO
Released draft
7
· Flights v ia OKX to EDDF, EDDS, EDDK, EDFH, EDRZ, EDDN, EDDM,
ETAR, EDFM, EDMA, EDDR, EDQU, ETID, EDDP
· Flights f rom FIR EPWW to LOWW and A/D within FIR LZBB
· Arriv als to LKPR, LKLB, LKVO, LKPD, LKKV v ia BABUS
· Arriv als to A/D within FIR EDMM, LOWS, LOWI, LOWL via MAREM
· Arriv als to EDDC via AGNAV
Flights restricted below FL345 only when entering CTA Praha:
· Departures f rom EDBB v ia HDO
· Departures f rom EDDF, EDDS v ia OKG, VEMUT
Flights restricted below FL345 just when leav ing CTA Praha:
· Arriv als to EDDF, ETOU, ETID, EDDK, EDFE, EDDS, EDFZ, ETID,
ETOU, EDGS, EDTY, EDMA
Proposal of the CEATS sectorisation related to FIR Praha (sectors C1, C2
and partly C3):
· Sectorisation proposal in the f orm of a chart
· Hav ing in mind the current traffic f lows and proposed cross border
sectorisation (e.g. C3) , new sector borders are proposed for sectors C1,
C2 and C3. The proposed sectorisation will better separate the main
traff ic flows. The proposed sectorisation will better match with the
sectorisation bellow FL285, which has to take into account the traffic
f lows to and from Prague (LKPR). The proposed sectorisation will also
enable to keep C2 as one sector only (FL285 – UNL). The sector C3 has
to be further div ided any way.
· C1 – sector with f urther vertical split (F285 – F345 and F345 – UNL)
· C2 – F285 – UNL
· C3 – sector with f urther vertical split (F285 - F345 and F345 – UNL)
Croatia · Sectorisation proposal in the f orm of a chart · See Annex C
· Routes which are not on ARN V4bis map and are already implemented: · The route network
EVEN (mainly westbound routes are blue, and ODD (mainly southbound was updated as
routes are green). UL863, UN748, UN737, UR49 proposed
Responsibilities of each proposed sector: · Sectors C11, C15
· C31 – Takes care of the major crossings southbound at ZAG and VBA and C16 were
together with traffic north-south. It also takes care for westbound traffic at modif ied according to
ZAG and MACEL. This sector takes care f or traffic descending dest the proposal new
LDZA from the east, and traffic descending to LHBP, LOWW, LOWG, sectors resulting and
LZIB. coded as C15_1,
· C32 – Takes care to resolv e southbound conv erging at SOLGU, C15_2, C16_1 and
crossings along UL698, crossings along UL615, arranging descent/climb C16_2. Howev er,
f or traffic to and f rom LDSP and LQSA, and converging at ZAG from C16 was studied as
south. the grouping of the
· C33 – Takes care for the most congested westbound flows along C16_1 and C16_2
UL608, UL604 and UL615. It takes care f or traffic dest/dep LQSA f rom (C35 and C36
the east and f inal descend/climb f or LQSA from the west and south. It indicated in the
also takes care f or eastbound traffic converging at GILUK and with proposed map).
UL614.
· C34 – It is highly congested sector and the proposed resolution is almost
the same as CEATS ref erence sector with slight modiffications. It takes
care f or westbound crossings along UL615, UL862, UN606 and UM986.
Southbound crossings are along UL614, UN606, UL862, UN748, UN737
and UL868. It also takes care for climbing/descending traffic dest/dep
LDSP and LDZA f rom/to west.
· C35 – It takes care f or all conv ergences at SPL, southbound and
westbound along UN606, UL862, UG23, UB25, UM725. It also takes
care f or traffic dest/dep LDSP.
· C36 – It takes care f or arranging southbound traffic along UL607
towards the non-radar environment in Albania (you know what that
means), and also takes care for coordination and data exchange
manually as Belgrade does not prov ide OLDI. This sector also takes care
f or southbound traffic converging at AIOSA along UL862 and UZ740, and
westbound traffic conv erging at SPL along UL611 and UL862. The task
encompasses also descending/climbing traffic dest/dep LDDU, LY PG,
LY TV, LDSP from the east. This sector provides service f or NATO
special flights in SLICE area. Normally, this sector does not require
div ision of Upper and Top (DFL 345).
Generally, all these sectors are presently devided at FL335 or FL345 as
Released draft
8
required. There is no possibility (high demanding periods) to combine traffic
within lower and upper airspace, because of the increased vertical
mov ements, and also because of the lack of airspace as the NATO areas
SPEEDY, SONNY, LION, PAM, FORUM and HARLEY are extensively used
mainly up to FL250/280. This traffic is also under ACC Zagreb responsibility,
either as f ull ATS prov ision or as in/out accomodation and airspace
reserv ations.
Our opinion is that it is essential to have all these sectors av ailable (as
f unctional blocks of airspace, the principle we already use) where
conf iguration depends on demand and traffic conf iguration. Presented
sectorisation is compliant with our lower sectors below, and flexible
conf iguration (v ertical and lateral) has alrady been applied whenev er
practicable.
Hungary · Sector C4 is dimensionally big and with the present route structure is · Cut of sector C4
complex - propose to split it to an upper and top upper sector. was studied
· Sector C6 -with the present route structure there are some crossing and · Proposed changes
joining tracks near the Austrian / Hungarian boundary. of C6 were
· The C6 southern sector border must be mov ed south, to giv e more time incorporated.
and space f or controllers.
Italy · Use the boundaries as indicated in the CEATS Agreement · Boundaries of
· Ongoing work on the sectorisation and route network CEATS were re-
positioned according
to the CEATS
agreement
· no proposal for
SAAM/4 but it may
be that a specific
study will be required
f or the whole PADUA
area
Slov ak · Split the sector C3 into two sectors with division lev el FL 355 or FL 345. · Split of C3 was
Republic According to real time simulations FL 355 is preferred due to the equal studied
distribution of traffic, nev ertheless FL 345 can also be accepted to ensure · Interf ace C3/C4
unif ormity of division lev els in adjacent sectors. was re-designated to
· Solv e the problem in the vicinity of JAB, by redesigning of sectors sort the JAB
borders (Sector C3 and C4) in order to achieve saf e handling of traffic in conv ergence.
the airspace where the tree sectors are controlling aircraft in the vicinity
of crossing point.
Slov enia · Boundary between 10 and 10A sector is too much to the south; this does · Border between
not comply with proposal made based on FTS2 results. C10 and 10A was
· Sectorisation should comply with FTS2 results and proposals. mov ed
· The baseline it is
compliant with FTS/2.
Maps of this sectorisation can be found in Scenarios 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 under
paragraph 6 of this report.
5.5 Sector capacities
The previous CEATS SAAM evaluations used a uniform value of 40acft/hour as the
maximum capacity acceptable for the sectors. FTS/2 provided the first draft capacity
values to be used for the CEATS sectors and they are used accordingly in SAAM/4.
The capacities deter mined in FTS/2 w ere not for exactly the same sectors as in SAAM/4.
For the sectors w ith significant changes and where FTS/2 indicated a capacity higher than
45acft/hour, a default value of 45 acft/hour was used. This value is an average capacity
for the CEATS sectors as determined in FTS/2 and it w as chosen to be consistent with
the rather “optimistic” capacity values.
The next table contains the sector capacities as used in SAAM/4 for all possible
combination of sectors studied in SAAM/4 – Phase one:
Released draft
9
Sectornam e_Lo wFL_UpperFL Cap. Sectornam e_Lo wFL_UpperFL Cap. Sectornam e_Lo wFL_UpperFL Cap.
C1U_285_345 52 C10UH_335_355 45 C13UH_345_660 46
C1UH_345_660 50 C10UH_335_365 45 C13UH_355_660 46
C1U_285_355 52 C10UH_345_365 45 C13_285_660 45
C1UH_355_660 50 C10UH_345_375 45 C14_285_660 50
C1_285_660 45 C10UH_345_660 45 C14A_285_660 50
C2_285_660 45 C10UH(T)_355_660 45 C15_1U_285_355 45
C3U_285_345 45 C10UH(T)_365_660 45 C15_1UH_355_660 45
C3U_285_355 45 C10UH(T)_375_660 45 C15_1_285_660 45
C3UH_345_660 45 C10_285_660 45 C15_2U_285_355 45
C3UH_355_660 45 C10AU_285_345 45 C15_2UH_355_660 45
C3_285_660 45 C10AU_285_355 45 C15_2_285_660 45
C4U_285_345 45 C10AUH_345_660 45 C15U_285_355 42
C4U_285_355 45 C10AUH_355_660 45 C15UH_355_660 38
C4UH_345_660 45 C10A_285_660 45 C15_285_660 38
C4UH_355_660 45 C11_285_660 45 C16_1_285_660 45
C4_285_660 45 C11U_285_355 45 C16_2_285_660 45
C5U_285_355 51 C11UH_355_660 45 C16_285_660 53
C5UH_355_660 51 C12U_285_325 52
C5_285_660 45 C12U_285_335 52
C6U_285_355 47 C12U_285_345 45
C6UH_355_660 39 C12UH_325_345 57
C6_285_660 39 C12UH_325_355 57
C7U_285_345 50 C12UH_325_365 57
C7UH_345_660 52 C12UH_335_355 57
C7_285_660 45 C12UH_335_365 57
C8U_285_355 60 C12UH_335_660 45
C8UH_355_660 59 C12UH(T)_345_660 45
C8_285_660 45 C12UH(T)_355_660 54
C9U_285_355 50 C12UH(T)_365_660 54
C9UH_355_660 48 C12_285_660 45
C9_285_660 45 C13U_285_345 51
C10U_285_335 49 C13U_285_355 51
C10U_285_345 47
C10U_285_355 45
5.6 Flight Level Distribution

The initial traffic sample (busiest day of June 2002) is using a vertical separation of 1000
feet above FL285 as RVSM w as already implemented at the time. The result is that,
compared w ith previous evaluations (SAAM, FTS or RTS), the traffic sample created is
using the real distribution of traffic on FLs. A number of know n restrictions on the flight
profiles w ere imposed, and, w here relevant to this study, they are mentioned.
Below are the traffic distributions on FLs for the CEATS airspace for both the traffic
samples used in the current evaluation and for the one used in SAAM/3.
Released draft
10
CEATS Area - SAAM/4 Traffic sam ple - FL Distribution
CEATS Area - SAAM/4 Traffic sample - FL Distribution
900
800
700
600
No. Flights
500
400
300
200
100
0
90
00
50
60
0
31
32
33
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
L2
L3
L3
L3
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
F
CEATS Area - SAAM/3

CEATSTraffic
areasample - FL Distribution
800
700
600
500
No flights
400
300
200
100
0
0
0
0
0
40
41
42
43
44
45
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
It can be noted that the FL distribution is not follow ing a similar pattern in both samples.
This can be explained by the fact that the SAAM/3 sample w as created starting from a
non-RVSM traffic sample and the FL distribution w as made on an ideal model. The
SAAM/4 traffic sample started from a real RVSM traffic distribution. How ever, RVSM w as
implemented only at the beginning of 2002 and one may say that the AOs are not yet
applying fully RVSM to their benefit.
The results of the distribution of traffic above FL 285 in the CEATS area indicates that the
optimum sector split w ould occur at FL355 (2326 flights on the FL band 285 -> 355 and
2396 flights on the FL band 355 -> UNL). SAAM/3 identified FL345 as a possible optimum
split.
5.7 Use of SHER and Workload
In order to determine the most balanced situation from the point of view of the loading w ith
traffic of the sectors analysed, the evaluation used the parameters computed by SAAM,
SHER and Workload, in the follow ing manner:
- the maximum value considered as acceptable for SHER w as the capacity as indicated
in the paragraph 5.5.
Released draft
11
- the w orkload indication w as considered as acceptable if:
- it is not above 70 units for more than three consecutive hours and
- it does not peak above 90 units.
A comparison betw een the two indicators is made possible by displaying them both on the
same graph (see Annex A for details) and may provide more indications on the criteria to
consider w hen establishing the capacity of a certain sector. As the SAAM w orkload
indication is analytically obtained a comparison of the w orkload values obtained in this
evaluation and those obtained through real time simulations may be made. SAAM
workload indication is under development but the latest results obtained w ith SAAM in
term of w orkload proved to follow closely the values resulting from real-time simulations.
The combined Workload/SHER graph is, how ever, indicating for all the sectors the limit of
45 acft/hour, to be used as a common reference.
Throughout the study the tendency is to balance the loading criteria more to the w orkload
indicator than to the SHER. An explanation for this is that the capacity values resulted
after FTS/2, w hen compared w ith the currently declared sector capacities for the whole
ECA C, are looking very generous. FTS/2 deter mined CEA TS capacities w ith an average
of 45-50 acft/hour for the CEATS sectors w hile for the whole ECAC sectors the average
capacity is in the range of 35 to 42 acft/hour.
Another obvious advantage of using the analytical w orkload indicator is that the w orkload
is a complex indicator that considers not only the number of aircraft (SHER) in frequency
but also the geometry of the sector through the time in sector and number of conflicts
parameters. (see explanations in Annex A)
Released draft
12
6. SCENARIOS PRESENT ED
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
Route Network Sectors
No. Form at and Output Route Network
CEATS Traffic evaluated
No traffic
loads
1.1 MA P X A
1.2 MA P X B
1.3 MA P X A &B
1.4 MA P X A
1.5 MA P X B
1.6 MA P X A &B
Sector Load Graphs –

1.7 A &B
SHER and Workload
Released draft
13
RESULTS OF SCENARIOS
Released Issue
14
Scenario 1.1 - Map of the CEATS sectors A and of the route network ARN V4bis
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
1.1 MA P X A
The map on the next page show s the overlapping of the CEATS sectors A (FL285 –
FL660) and the ARN V4 bis netw ork used for this evaluation, w ith no traffic loads on
the route segments.
§ Arrows indicate direction of flight for unidirectional routes
§ Green routes: odd flight levels only
§ Blue routes: even flight levels only
§ Orange/Red routes: link routes
Released Issue
15
Released Issue
16
Scenario 1.2 - Map of the CEATS sectors B and of the route network ARN V4bis
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
1.2 MA P X B
The map on the next page show s the overlapping of the CEATS sectors B (FL285 –
FL660) and the ARN V4 bis netw ork used for this evaluation, w ith no traffic loads on
the route segments.
Released Issue
17
Released Issue
18
Scenario 1.3 - Map of the CEATS sectors A & B and of the route network ARN
V4bis
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
1.3 MA P X A &B
The map on the next page show s the overlapping of the CEATS sectors A, B (FL285
– FL660) and the ARN V4 bis netw ork used for this evaluation, w ith no traffic loads on
the route segments.
Released Issue
19
Released Issue
20
Scenario 1.4 - Map of the CEATS sectors A and of the route network ARN V4bis
loaded with the CEATS traffic
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
1.4 MA P X A
The traffic sample w as assigned over the ARN V4 bis route netw ork in accordance
with the assumptions specified in para. 5.2.
The map on the next page is presenting the loading of each of the ARN V4 route
segments above FL285. Note the explanatory legend on the map as it provides
information regarding the colour code used.
Released Issue
21
Released Issue
22
Scenario 1.5 - Map of the CEATS sectors B and of the route network ARN V4bis
loaded with the CEATS traffic
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
1.5 MA P X B
Released Issue
23
Released Issue
24
Scenario 1.6 – Map of the CEATS sectors A & B and of the route network ARN
V4bis loaded with the CEATS traffic
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
X (ECA C
1.6 MA P A &B
Traffic)
Released Issue
25
Released Issue
26
Scenario 1.7 – Comparative analysis of the CEATS sectorisations A & B
ARN V4 bis
ARN V4 bis
No traffic
loads
Sector Load Graphs –
1.7 A &B
SHER and Workload
Released Issue
27
Sector C1
Organisation A Organisation B
FTS/2 FL Cut: 345 FTS/2 FL Cut: 345
FL Cut Studied: 345 FL Cut Studied: 345, 355
FL Cut proposed: 355
Released Issue
28
C1U 285 345 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C1U 285 355 Sher wkl 70 90 Capacity
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
C1UH 345 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C1UH 355 660 Sher wkl 70 90 Capacity
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
C1 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C1 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
29
CAPIG proposal(s) for change:
· Having in mind the current traffic flows and proposed cross border sectorisation (e.g. C3) new sector
borders are proposed for sectors C1, C2 and C3. The proposed sectorisation w ill better separate the
main traffic flows. The proposed sectorisation w ill better match w ith the sectorisation bellow FL285,
which has to take into account the traffic flows to and from Prague (LKPR). The proposed
sectorisation w ill also enable to keep C2 as one sector only (FL285 – UNL). The sector C3 has to be
further divided anyw ay.
· C1 – sector w ith further vertical split (F285 – F345 and F345 – UNL)
Other proposals/comments (AMNU, CSPDU, previous experience w ith CEATS evaluations, etc.)
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the w orkload indicator exceeds the acceptable values for a period totalling more
than 3 hours - so the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0800 - 1700. In organisation B, FL355
appears to better balance the traffic during this period than the FTS/2 proposed DFL at FL345.
SAAM/4 -Phase 2 - w ill provide results on the possibility of grouping, at least for some time, of the w hole,
or part, of this sector w ith the surrounding sectors.
The SHER indicator confirms the above.
Route network/ interface w ith surrounding sectors:
Sector C1 in Organisation B (compared w ith Organisation A) better fits the main flow s of traffic on UL602
/ UZ650 (by not crossing C2 any more) and ensures a better interface w ith the underlying national sectors.
Preferred organisation / option:
Organisation B w ith DFL at FL355.
Released Issue
30
Sector C2
FTS/2 FL Cut: No cut FTS/2 FL Cut: No cut
FL Cut Studied: No cut FL Cut Studied: No cut
FL Cut proposed: No cut
Released Issue
31
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time < 3 hours
Released Issue
32
· C2 – F285 – UNL
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In organisation A, the w orkload indicator exceeds the acceptable values for a period totalling more than
3 hours - so the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0600 - 2100.
In organisation B, the w orkload indicator does not exceed the limit of 70 points for more than 3 hours so
it can w ork w ithout a vertical split.
SAAM/4 -Phase 2 - w ill provide results on the possibility of grouping, at least for some time, of the
whole, or part, of this sector w ith the surrounding sectors.
Sector C2 in Organisation B (compared w ith Organisation A) is not interrupting UL602 / UZ650 ( main
flows of traffic) and ensures a better interface w ith the underlying national sectors.
Organisation B w ith no DFL.
Released Issue
33
Sector C3
FL Cut Studied: No cut FL Cut Studied: 345, 355
Released Issue
34
C3U 285 355 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90

90
45
Time
C3UH 355 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90

90
45
Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
35
· C3 – sector w ith further vertical split (F285 - F345 and F345 – UNL)
· Split the sector C3 into tw o sectors w ith division level FL 355 or FL 345. According to real time
simulations FL 355 is preferred due to the equal distribution of traffic, nevertheless FL 345 can also be
accepted to ensure uniformity of division levels in adjacent sectors.
· Solve the problem near JAB, by redesigning the sector borders (Sector C3 and C4) in order to
achieve safe handling of traffic in the airspace where the tree sectors are controlling aircraft in the
vicinity of crossing point.
A temporary solution to the handling of the traffic near JAB is proposed by AMNU in the Organisation B:
- traffic on LITKU-JED is transferred from C4 to C3 to enable separation w ith the traffic going to JAB and
conflicting (distance betw een transfer points to the Polish sector in the area of JAB is less than 10 NM).
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations w orkload indicator exceeds the acceptable values for a period totalling more than 3
hours - so the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0600 - 1700. FL355 appears to fairly balance
the traffic during this period.
Even if the sector borders are not varying significantly betw een the tw o organisations, the fact that in the
second organisation the traffic LITKU-JED (about 44 acft/day) is handled also by the sector C3 is
resulting into an increase of the SHER and w orkload indicators.
The interface betw een C3 and C4 requires further consideration and should be part of a separate specific
study.
The route netw ork may require adaptations to enable a clear separation of conflicting points betw een
SLC and PITOK into the sectors C3 and C4.
Organisation B w ith the FL split at FL355.
Released Issue
36
Sector C4
FL Cut Studied: No cut FL Cut Studied: 345, 355
(or cut at FL 355)
Released Issue
37

90
45
Time

90
45
Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
38
· Sector C4 is dimensionally big and w ith the present route structure is complex - propose to split it
to an upper and top upper sector.
· Solve the problem near JAB, by redesigning the sector borders (Sector C3 and C4) in order to
achieve safe handling of traffic in the airspace where the tree sectors are controlling aircraft in the
vicinity of crossing point.
A temporary solution to the handling of the traffic near JAB is proposed by AMNU in the Organisation
B:
- traffic on LITKU-JED is transferred from C4 to C3 to enable separation w ith the traffic going to JAB
and conflicting (distance betw een transfer points to the Polish sector in the area of JAB is less than 10
NM).
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations w orkload indicator does not exceed the acceptable values for a period totalling
more than 3 hours - so the sector can normally w ork w ithout a vertical split.
Follow ing the request from CAPIG, a DFL at 345 and at 355 w as also studied and the cut at FL355
appears to fairly balance the traffic (even if not necessarily required from the point of view of a SAAM
evaluation).
The interface betw een C3 and C4 requires further consideration and should be part of a separate
specific study.
The route netw ork may require adaptations to enable a clear separation of conflicting points betw een
SLC and PITOK into the sectors C3 and C4.
Organisation B w ith no FL split.
Released Issue
39
Sector C5
FL Cut Studied: 355 FL Cut Studied: 355
Released Issue
40
C5U 285 355 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C5U 285 355 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
C5UH 355 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C5UH 355 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
41
· stick as close as possible to the proven sectorisation of the national ANSPs - designed to
accommodate the current traffic flows with least delay
· neglect the future airspace concepts at the moment and stick to the ARN V4 (current route
netw ork) as they assure that the interface with the non CEA TS states w ill match.
In Organisation B, C5 sector border:
- w ith the EDDM sectors w as slightly modified to copy the current interface
- w as modified to include the traffic converging in RINIG so to enable resolution of conflict.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the w orkload indicator exceeds the acceptable values for a period totalling more
than 3 hours - so the sector requires a vertical split for the period 1000 - 1700. FL355 appears to fairly
balance the traffic during this period.
Organisation B w ith FL split at 355.
Released Issue
42
Sector C6
Released Issue
43
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time < 3 hours
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
44
· Sector C6 -w ith the present route structure there are some crossing and joining tracks near the
Austrian / Hungarian boundary.
· The C6 southern sector border must be moved south, to give more time and space for controllers.
Follow ing CAPIG recommendations, a temporary solution to the border betw een C6 and C9 is proposed
by AMNU in the Organisation B.
The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sector C6 and C7 requires further consideration and
should be part of a separate specific study.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations, the sector C6 it is a very long and complex sector presenting complex conflict
areas at both extremities. The borders of C6 in Organisation B are allow ing for the solving of a number of
conflict points. The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sector C6 and C7 requires further
consideration (C7 to be extended so to incorporate the eastern part of C6) and should be part of a
separate specific study.
The crossing on the main flow s of traffic UL851 and UL605 w ith the traffic on UM986 requires a
procedural solution (FL allocation etc.).
By moving the southern border of C6 to the South (thus involving an additional flow of traffic) the
workload of the C6UH appears to be higher in the organisation B than in the organisation A.
How ever, the operational management of the crossing points is more favourable in the second
organisation and the new borderline is beneficial to the sector C9.
Organisation B w ith the FL split at FL355.
Released Issue
45
Sector C7
FL Cut Studied: No cut FL Cut Studied: 355
(or No cut)
Released Issue
46

90
45
Time

90
45
Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time > 3 hours Time > 3 hours
Released Issue
47
-
The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sector C6 and C7 requires further consideration and
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
hours - so the sector may require a vertical split for the period 1000 - 1600. FL355 appears to fairly
balance the traffic during this period.
The SHER indicator does not confirm the above in the sense that SHER is not exceeding the FTS/2
calculated capacity for the sector C7.
The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sector C6 and C7 requires further consideration (C7 to
be extended so to reduce the length of C6) and should be part of a separate specific study.
Organisation B w ith the FL split at FL355. The split should be validated through RTS.
Released Issue
48
Sector C8
Released Issue
49
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time < 3 hours Time < 3 hours
Released Issue
50
· neglect the future airspace concepts at the moment and stick to the ARN V4 (current route
netw ork) as they assure that the interface with the non CEA TS states w ill match.
· the sectorisation show n at the CAPIG kick off is for the Austrian sectorisation useable, how ever the
current MURA-sector (south of GRZ) shouldn’t be divided - it should be w ithin the C8 or C11.
· Sector C8 should be according to FTS 1&2 and RTS 1 (to cope w ith EDDM Entry and Exit
requirements.
In Organisation B, C8 sector border:
- w ith the EDDM sectors w as slightly modified to copy the current interface
- w as modified to exclude the traffic on UL605
- w as slightly extended to the south-east.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the w orkload indicator does not exceed the acceptable values for a period
totalling more than 3 hours - so the sector doesn’t require a vertical split. This can be explained by the
extraction of the traffic on UL605 from the sector. Follow ing FTS/2 a split at FL355 w as tested and
appears to fairly balance the traffic even if not mandatory.
The SHER indicator does not exceed 40 acft/hour in the second organisation for the w hole C8 and
confirms the above.
Organisation B w ith no FL cut. RTS should validate this proposal.
Released Issue
51
Sector C9
Released Issue
52
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time < 3 hours
Released Issue
53
· The C6 southern sector border must be moved south, to give more time and space for controllers.
Follow ing CAPIG recommendations, a temporary solution to the border betw een C6 and C9 is proposed
by AMNU in the Organisation B.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In organisation A, the w orkload indicator exceeds the acceptable values for a period totalling more than 3
In organisation B, the w orkload indicator does not exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours,
so the sector does not require a vertical split.
The move of the C6 sector border to the south extracted two important flow s of traffic from the sector C9
(UL605 and UL851).
A number of crossing points close to the interface betw een C6 and C9 require a procedural solution for
crossing the traffic.
Organisation B w ith the no FL split.
Released Issue
54
Sector C10
FL Cut Studied: 345 FL Cut Studied: 335, 345, 355,

365,375
FL Cut proposed: 345/365
Released Issue
55
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
56
90
45
Time
C10T 365 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90

90
45
Time
Released Issue
57
· Boundary betw een 10 and 10A sector is too much to the south; this does not comply w ith proposal
made based on FTS2 results.
· Sectorisation should comply w ith FTS2 results and proposals.
Follow ing CAPIG recommendations, the border betw een C10 and C10A is changed in the Organisation B
and actually represents more or less, the current interface betw een the Austrian and Slovenian sectors in
the area.
Despite of the changes above, the sectorisation in this area is particularly difficult, an optimum solution
being to separate C10 and C10A along the main East/West flow s of traffic through C10 (UL607, UL608
and UL603). The solution in Organisation B is making easier the crossing of the main East/West flow s
with the traffic to/from the GRZ area but is actually creating a supplementary cut of the main flow (~300
flights).
The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sectors C10 and C10A requires further consideration
(structural solution to the netw ork to enable sectorisation along the main East/West flow s of traffic) and
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In organisation A, the w orkload indicator exceeds the acceptable values for a period totalling more than 3
hours - so the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0500 - 2200. How ever, the FTS/2 proposed
split at FL FL345 does not appear sufficient to balance the traffic during this period. An additional split is
deemed necessary from both the w orkload and the SHER points of view .
In organisation B, the w orkload indicator does exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours, - so
the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0500 - 2200. The cut at FL345 is not enough to balance
the traffic and after testing various solutions the only acceptable is, from 0900 to 1600, to create an
inter mediate layer from FL345 to FL365.
or part, of this sector w ith the surrounding sectors.The SHER indicator confirms the above.
Both organisations are far from optimum. SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the FL split at
FL345 and, at least for a period from 0900 to 1600, an additional cut at FL365.
Released Issue
58
Sector C10A
FL Cut Studied: 345 FL Cut Studied: 345, 355
Released Issue
59
C10AU 285 345 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C10AU 285 345 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
C10AUH 345 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C10AUH 345 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
C10A 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C10A 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
60
· Boundary betw een 10 and 10A sector is too much to the south; this does not comply w ith proposal
made based on FTS2 results.
· Sectorisation should comply w ith FTS2 results and proposals.
Follow ing CAPIG recommendations, the border betw een C10 and C10A is changed in the Organisation B
and actually represents more or less, the current interface betw een the Austrian and Slovenian sectors in
the area.
Despite of the changes above, the sectorisation in this area is particularly difficult, an optimum solution
being to separate C10 and C10A along the main traffic flows crossing East/West the sector C10. The
solution in Organisation B is making easier the crossing of the main East/West flows with the traffic
to/from the GRZ area but is actually creating a supplementary cut of the main flow (~300 flights).
A couple of some other small modifications w ere made to sector C10A in organisation B allow ing for
more space in sector C15 to resolve the conflict in BAMIN and more space in C10A itself at the interface
with C12.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In organisation A, the w orkload indicator does not exceed the acceptable values so the sector appears to
work w ithout a vertical split. The FTS/2 proposed split at FL345 appear to balance the traffic.
In organisation B, the w orkload indicator does exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours, - so
the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0600 - 1600. This is perfectly understandable as the
sector C10A is now crossed by an additional number of about 300 flights coming from C10A. The cut at
FL345 is enough to balance the traffic.
and should be part of a separate specific study.
Both organisations are far from optimum. SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the FL split at
FL345.
Released Issue
61
Sector C11
FL Cut Studied: No cut FL Cut Studied: 335, 345, 355
Released Issue
62

90
45
Time

90
45
Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
63
· Routes w hich are not on ARN V4bis map and are already implemented: EV EN (mainly w estbound
routes are blue, and ODD ( mainly southbound routes are green). UL863, UN748, UN737, UR49
· C31 ( C11 in organisation B) – Takes care of the major crossings southbound at ZAG and VBA
together w ith traffic north-south. It also takes care for westbound traffic at ZAG and MACEL. This
sector takes care for traffic descending dest LDZA from the east, and traffic descending to LHBP,
LOWW, LOWG, LZ IB.
Follow ing CAPIG recommendations, the ARN V4bis w as amended to include the route netw ork
improvements and the sectors C11 and C15 from Organisation A w ere modified so that the new sectors
C11, C15_1 and C15_2 are arranged along the main flow s of traffic.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In organisation A, the w orkload/SHER indicators exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours so
the sector is requiring a vertical split for the period 0800 to 1800.
In organisation B, the w orkload/SHER indicators also exceed the acceptable values for more than 3
hours, - so the sector requires a vertical split for the period 0500 - 2200. The total length of this sector
may pose a problem as it results in a high average time spent in the sector. How ever, this sector is better
fitting the route netw ork by not creating an additional cut of the main flows.
It must be noted that the comparison betw een the tw o sectors can be made only on qualitative basis and
not based on the w orkload/SHER measurements. The main advantage of the organisation B is that it
better fits the traffic flows in the area.
The convergence in ZAG close to the close interface w ith the sectors C8 and C10A requires further
consideration and should be part of a separate specific study. In organisation B, the convergence in ZAG
it is distributed betw een C11 and C15 (or C15_1 as w ill be seen)
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the FL split at FL355.
Released Issue
64
Sector C12
FL Cut Studied: 335 FL Cut Studied: 325, 335, 345,

365
FL Cut proposed: 335/365
Released Issue
65
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
66

90
45
Time
C12T 365 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90

90
45
Time
Released Issue
67
· Use the boundaries as indicated in the CEA TS Agreement
The sector C12, C13 and C14a w ere slightly amended so to reflect the content of the CEATS agreement.
The interface betw een these sectors was also slightly amended to better insert the conflict point w ithin
the sector dealing w ith it.
It should be noted that these changes are in no w ay modifying the values of the w orkload/SHER
indicators but marginally.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the w orkload/SHER indicators exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours
so the sector is requiring a vertical split for the period 0600 to 2100. The FTS/2 proposed cut at FL335 is
not enough to balance the traffic load betw een the tw o resulting U and UH sectors so an additional cut is
required, at least from 0900 to 2000. An additional cut at FL365 w ould then ensure the correct balance of
the traffic (a cut at FL365 w ill also fit w ith the similar cut on the sector C10).
Previous SAAM evaluations and ANTs RNDSG activities already identified the area of BZO as an area
where further improvements are required from the point of view of the route netw ork where the traffic
conflicting in BZO should be separated so that to enable a sectorisation in betw een.
The w hole area requires further consideration and should be part of a separate specific study.
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the FL split at FL335/365.
Released Issue
68
Sector C13
Released Issue
69
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
70
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the w orkload/SHER indicators exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours
so the sector is requiring a vertical split for the period 0800 to 1400. The FTS/2 proposed cut at FL355 is
balancing the traffic load betw een the two resulting U and UH sectors in both scenarios.
This area should be studied in conjunction w ith the sector C12 area.
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the FL split at FL355.
Released Issue
71
Sector C14
Released Issue
72
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
73
routes are blew , and ODD ( mainly southbound routes are green). UL863, UN748, UN737, UR49
· C34 ( C14 in organisation B) – It is highly congested sector and the proposed resolution is almost the
same as CEATS reference sector with slight modifications. It takes care for westbound crossings
along UL615, UL862, UN606 and UM986. Southbound crossings are along UL614, UN606, UL862,
UN748, UN737 and UL868. It also takes care for climbing/descending traffic dest/dep LDSP and
LDZA from/to w est.
improvements.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the sector loads are not exceeding the acceptable values (in both organisation the
sector C14 is the actually the same).
No specific issues are to be mentioned for this sector but may be required that it is revisited after a study
on the area of the sectors C12 and C13 is completed.
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith no FL cut.
Released Issue
74
Sector C14 A
Released Issue
75
C14A 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90 C14A 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
76
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations the sector loads are not exceeding the acceptable values (in both organisation the
sector C14A is the actually the same).
No specific issues are to be mentioned for this sector but may be required that it is revisited after a study
on the area of the sectors C12 and C13 is completed.
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith no FL cut.
Released Issue
77
Sector C15 (in organisation B includes study of the C15_1 & C15_2)
FL Cut Studied: 355 FL Cut Studied: 355, No cut
FL Cut proposed: Horizontal cut

on C15_1 & C15_2 w ith no
vertical cut
Released Issue
78
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time
Released Issue
79
C15 1 285 660 Sher wkl Capacity 70 90

90
45
Time

90
45
Time
Released Issue
80
· C32 ( C15_1 in organisation B) – Takes care to resolve southbound converging at SOLGU, crossings
along UL698, crossings along UL615, arranging descent/climb for traffic to and from LDSP and LQSA,
and converging at ZAG from south.
· C33 ( C15_2 in organisation B) – Takes care for the most congested w estbound flows along UL608,
UL604 and UL615. It takes care for traffic dest/dep LQSA from the east and final descend/climb for
LQSA from the w est and south. It also takes care for eastbound traffic converging at GILUK and w ith
UL614.
improvements and the sectors C11 and C15 from Organisation A w ere modified so that the new sectors
C11, C15_1 and C15_2 are arranged along the main flow s of traffic.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In organisation A, the w orkload/SHER indicators exceed the acceptable values for more than 3 hours so
the sector is requiring a vertical split for the period 0600 to 2200. The split at FL355 is balancing the traffic
load accordingly.
In organisation B, the w orkload/SHER indicators also exceed the acceptable values for more than 3
hours but only if w e consider the sectors C15_1 and C15_2 grouped into a single sector w hich is not
proposed as such. The analysis of the load on the sectors C15_1 and C15_2 is relieving that actually the
workload/SHER indicators are not going above the acceptable w ith no sector cut.
If the sector is combined than the total length of this sector may pose a problem as it results in a very
high average time spent in the sector (~ 22 minutes).
It must be noted that the comparison betw een the tw o organisations can be made only on qualitative
basis and not based on the w orkload/SHER measurements. The main advantage of the organisation B is
that it better fits the traffic flows in the area.
In organisation B, the convergence in ZAG it is distributed betw een C11 and C15_1.
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the separate C15_1 and C15_2 sectors w ithout a FL cut.
Released Issue
81
Sector C16 (in organisation B includes study of the C16_1 & C16_2)
FL Cut proposed: Com bined,

No cut
Released Issue
82
90 90
45 45
0 0
Time Time

90
45
Time

90
45
Time
Released Issue
83
· C35 ( C16_1 in organisation B) – It takes care for all converging traffic at SPL, southbound and
westbound along UN606, UL862, UG23, UB25, UM725. It also takes care for traffic dest/dep LDSP.
· C36 ( C16_2 in organisation B) – It takes care for arranging southbound traffic along UL607 tow ards
the non-radar environment in Albania (you know what that means), and also takes care for co-
ordination and data exchange manually as Belgrade does not provide OLDI. This sector also takes
care for southbound traffic converging at AIOSA along UL862 and UZ740, and w estbound traffic
converging at SPL along UL611 and UL862. The task encompasses also descending/climbing traffic
dest/dep LDDU, LY PG, LYTV, LDSP from the east. This sector provides service for NATO special
flights in SLICE area. Nor mally, this sector does not require division of Upper and Top ( DFL 345).
improvements and the sectors C16 Organisation A w as modified so that to reflect the cut into the new
C16_1 and C16_2.
Conclusion:
Workload/SHER:
In both organisations (A and B w here the sector C16 is considered initially as a combination of the C16_1
and C16_2), the w orkload/SHER indicators does not exceed the acceptable values for more than 3
hours. The sector is normally not requiring a vertical split.
The main characteristic of this sector is the big average time spent w ithin. A horizontal cut, as proposed
in organisation B, in the sectors C16_1 and C16_2 w ill allow for an overall increase of the capacity value
for the area of the sector C16. How ever, this will require an additional position to control this traffic where
actually there is not such a big traffic demand.
In organisation B, the convergence in ZAG it is distributed betw een C11 and C15_1.
SAAM/4 is proposing the organisation B w ith the combined C16_1 and C16_2 sectors without a FL cut.
The division in the sectors C16_1 and C16_2 is to be maintained as a sub-sector division as a possible
backup for reconfiguration of the sectors (C14, C15_1 and C15_2) according to the traffic flows when
required.
Released Issue
84
7. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION
a) The scenarios tested are only some of the possibilities.
b) Evaluation results are only as accurate as the various data input. Any change
to the route netw ork, or distribution of traffic (vertically or horizontally) are
likely to change results accordingly, and this should be considered w hen
draw ing conclusions on the basis of this evaluation.
c) Proposals for changes to airspace structure, including sectorisation, are

required and CAPIG - CEATS Airspace Planning and Implementation Group
is to address all such proposals.
d) All the results of this study are to be considered under the effect of the
assumptions made and explained throughout. Changes to these assumptions
are likely to significantly change the results of this study.
e) The revised/new CEATS reference sectorisation resulted is to be used as the

necessary input to the coming fast and real time simulations on w hich the
organisations pre-validated using SAAM are to be fully tested and validated.
f) The resulting baseline sectorisation w ill be used for establishing the minimum
operational requirements for the CEATS UAC and for initiating the transition
to implementation of CEATS.
8. CONCL USIONS
Results of the analysis of the sectorisation are made on a sector by sector
basis and are provided for each of them in Paragraph 6, Scenario 1.7. This
should be read carefully in conjunction w ith the Executive Summary and
Paragraph 7 - Limitations of the Study.
In general, SAAM/4 evaluated that organisation B is better than
Organisation A.
There is room for improvement in a number of areas where the combination
airspace constraints / route network is still to be resolved - the evaluation
highlighted on a case by case basis these areas.
The main conclusions are summar ised below (X signifies that it w as the
preferred option). The areas w here improvement is required to make a more
efficient handling of the traffic and allow for optimum services are marked
with green in the table below .
Sector A B DFL Comments

Nam e
C1 X 355 Sector C1 in Organisation B (compared w ith Organisation A)

better fits the main flow s of traffic on UL602 / UZ650 and
ensures a better interface with the underlying national
sectors.
C2 X No Sector C2 in Organisation B (compared w ith Organisation A)

cut is not cutting UL602 / UZ650 ( main flows of traffic) and
ensures a better interface with the underlying national
sectors.
Released Issue
85
C3 X 355 The interface betw een C3 and C4 requires further
consideration and should be part of a separate specific study.
The route netw ork may require adaptations to enable a clear

separation of conflicting points betw een SLC and PITOK into
the sectors C3 and C4.
C4 X No The interface betw een C3 and C4 requires further

cut consideration and should be part of a separate specific study.
The route netw ork may require adaptations to enable a clear

separation of conflicting points betw een SLC and PITOK into
the sectors C3 and C4.
C5 X 355 RTS should validate this proposal.
C6 X 355 In both organisations, the sector C6 it is a very long and

complex sector. The borders of C6 in Organisation B are
allow ing for the solving of a number of conflict points. The
route netw ork and the interface betw een the sector C6 and
C7 requires further consideration (C7 to be extended so to
reduce the length of C6) and should be part of a separate
specific study.
The crossing of the traffic on the main flows of traffic UL851

and UL605 w ith the traffic on UM986 requires a procedural
solution (FL allocation etc.) or a re-alignment of routes.
C7 X 355 The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sector C6
and C7 requires further consideration (C7 to be extended so
to reduce the length of C6) and should be part of a separate
specific study.
C8 X No RTS should validate this proposal.

cut
C9 X No The move of the C6 sector border to the south extracted two

cut important flow s of traffic from the sector C9 (UL605 and
UL851).
A number of crossing points close to the interface betw een

C6 and C9 require a procedural solution for crossing the
traffic.
C10 X 345 The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sectors C10
and C10A requires further consideration (structural solution to
365 the netw ork to enable sectorisation along the main East/West
flows of traffic) and should be part of a separate specif ic
study. Both organisations are far from optimum.
C10A X 345 The route netw ork and the interface betw een the sectors C10
and C10A requires further consideration and should be part
of a separate specif ic study. Both organisations are far from
optimum.
Released Issue
86
C11 X 355 The convergence in ZAG close to the interface w ith the
sectors C8 and C10A requires further consideration and
should be part of a separate specific study. In organisation B,
the convergence in ZAG is distributed betw een C11 and C15
(or C15_1 as w ill be seen)
C12 X 335 Previous SAAM evaluations and ANTs RNDSG activities

already identified the area of BZO as an area w here further
365 improvements are required from the point of view of the route
netw ork w here the traffic conflicting in BZO should be
separated so that to enable a sectorisation in betw een. The
whole area requires further consideration and should be part
of a separate specif ic study. Another issue is that of the DFL
where, as it can be noted, in both organisations there is a
need for a third layer and w hich is not matching w ith the
optimum division in the surrounding sectors (C13 for
example).
C13 X 355 This area should be studied in conjunction w ith the sector
C12 area.
C14 X No No specific issues are to be mentioned for this sector but may
cut be required that it is revisited after a study on the area of the
sectors C12 and C13 is completed.
C14A X No No specific issues are to be mentioned for this sector but may
cut be required that it is revisited after a study on the area of the
sectors C12 and C13 is completed.
C15 If the sector is combined than the total length of this sector
may pose a problem as it results in a very high average time
spent in the sector (~ 22 minutes).
C15_1 X No
cut
C15_2 X No
cut
C16 X No The division in the sectors C16_1 and C16_2 is to be

cut maintained as a sub-sector division as a possible backup for
reconfiguration of the sectors (C14, C15_1 and C15_2)
according to the traffic flows when required.
C16_1 The traffic demand on the area of the sectors C16_1 and
C16_2 is not so high so the require the operation of this
sectors alone but combined. They are to be maintained as a
sub-sector division as a possible backup for reconfiguration of
the sectors (C14, C15_1 and C15_2) according to the traffic
flows when required.
C16_2 See above
Released Issue
87
ANNEX A
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTOR LOAD GRAPHS

Understanding SAAM Analysis
SAAM® stands for System for Air Traffic Assignment at Macroscopic level. SAAM is a
multi-functional tool developed w ithin Airspace Management and Navigation Unit of
EUROCONTROL. SAAM evaluations are nor mally required to close the gap betw een
the draw ing board phase of airspace planning and the simulation of those ideas
(either in fast- or real-time). SAAM it is mainly used to macroscopically analyse in a
time-effective and cost-effective manner various airspace scenarios and transform
these scenarios onto computer generated models in preparation for their simulation.
SAAM functionality can be split into tw o main areas: 3D visualisation and statistical
data for sector traffic loading in airspace volumes/sectors. This last mentioned
function is primarily used in this report, and the graphs presented for the various
scenarios may be read as follow s:
Sher wkl Capacity 70 90

1 C15U 285 355
90
3
45
2
0
Time
1 Identification of a Sector being analysed in a given Scenario w ith the flight

level band (format: Sector name minFL max FL).
Sliding Hourly Entry Rate (SHER) represents the number of aircraft

2 entering a sector in a 60 minute period. These periods of 60 minutes are
slid across each hour
Workload (wkl)
3
Workload is calculated for each sector by SAAM in a similar manner to
TAAM (Total Airspace and Airport Modeller), the airspace-modelling tool
developed by TPG, Australia.
As with TAAM, SAAM w orkload is deter mined by an analytical formula that
takes into consideration the volume and complexity of traffic within a
sector:
Workload as computed by SAAM is a variable of 3 parameters:
No. of Conflicts - C
SHER
Average time in the sector expressed in minutes - Avg
Released Issue
88
These parameters are then pondered, the result being a combination of
them as follow s:
wkl = C*p1 + SHER*p2 + Avg*p3
For the purpose of this evaluation p1, p2 and p3 w ere set as for the last
CEATS SAAM/3 evaluation:
p1= 2; p2 = 1; p3 = 2
Im portant: In order to better approximate the conflict calculation (w hich is

heavily influenced by a change in the departure time), SAAM is applying 10
perturbations to the departure time of the traffic the end result being an
average of the 10 conflict counts made.
Released Issue
89
ANNEX B (Czech Republic proposal)
Cu rrent sector
bdry
CE ATS sector 1
bdry
2
C2
NEM/NE 7
SWM/SWU 6 C3
C1
Released Issue
90
ANNEX C (Croatian proposal)
Released Issue
91

CEATS SAAM4 Phase01 Lowrez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEATS SAAM4 Phase01 Lowrez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF

Airspace Structure Development

SAAM evaluation no. 49

EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

CEATS Airspace Structure

PROGRAMME REFERENCE INDEX: EDITION: 0.2 Released Draft

EDITION DATE: January 2003

CONTACT PERSON: George RANGA TEL: 93233 UNIT: AMN

DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE

STATUS CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION

INTERNAL REFERENCE NAME: CEATS_SAAM4_rep01

AUTHORI TY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE

Task Leader AMNU

EUROCONTROL Mr George RANGA

Task Leader CSPDU

EUROCONTROL Ms Vesna KOJIC

Project Leader AMNU

Senior Operational Expert

The following people contributed to the Fourth CEATS SAAM Evaluation:

AMNU CSPDU CAPIG

Mr T. Champougny Ms V. Kojic Mr Kristian WOLLNER

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET.................................................................................................i

DOCUMENT APPROV AL ..................................................................................................................ii

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD.......................................................................................................iii

1. BACKGROUND and INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1

2.1.1 Objectiv e 1.................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.2 Objectiv e 2.................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Phase 2 ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.2.1 Objectiv e 1.................................................................................................................. 2

2.2.2 Objectiv e 2.................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Initial baseline conditions................................................................................................... 3

4. S AAM (System for analysis and assignment at a macroscopic level) .......................................... 4

5. Details of the evaluation ........................................................................................................ 4

5.4.1 Naming of Sectors ........................................................................................................ 6

5.4.2 CEATS FTS/2 sectors ................................................................................................... 6

5.4.3 Organisation A - Baseline sectorisation ............................................................................. 6

5.4.4 Organisation B - CAPIG proposed sectorisation.................................................................. 6

5.5 Sector capacities............................................................................................................... 9

Sector C10 ........................................................................................................................... 55

Sector C10A ........................................................................................................................... 59

Sector C11 ........................................................................................................................... 62

Sector C12 ........................................................................................................................... 65

Sector C13 ........................................................................................................................... 69

Sector C14 ........................................................................................................................... 72

Sector C14 A ........................................................................................................................... 75

7. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION...................................................................................... 85

ANNEX B (Czech Republic proposal) .............................................................................................. 90

ANNEX C (Croatian proposal)......................................................................................................... 91

To generate new traffic sample to be used in 2003 simulations

- further details to be developed

To evaluate sector collapsing scenarios for all sector groups

2.3 Initial baseline conditions

Results are in the form of:

4. SAAM (SYSTEM FOR ANALYSIS AND ASSIGNM ENT AT A MACROSCOPIC L EV EL)

5.1 Traffic Sam ple

The details of the traffic sample increase are listed below :

Whole ECAC CEATS GND-UNL CEATS above

Current traffic 27282 5299 3537

Traffic sample 33286 7234 4720

Percentage of 22 % 36.5 % 33.4 %

5.2 Traffic assignment

5.3 Route Network

5.4.2 CEATS FTS/2 sectors

5.4.3 Organisation A - Baseline sectorisation