曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
5.3.21 “Free Route” initiatives will continue to evolve in the coming years with further projects
in Finland, Norway, MUAC, Serbia plus other projects in the context of the FABs. The
PRR 2009 Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance
55
further deployment of the European night direct routes network will continue in the
context of FABEC, BLUEMED, FABCE, DANUBE. The efforts for network
harmonisation of the free routes initiatives must be fully supported.
LISBOA
FIR/UIR
Portugal > FL245- May 2009
More direct Night route network
Ireland/UK/Maastricht/Germany
Figure 67: Examples of national and local flight efficiency initiatives
5.3.22 Figure 68 shows the
improvement in flight
efficiency in Portuguese
airspace following the
implementation of free
route selection above FL
245 in May 2009.
5.3.23 A year on year comparison
for June shows an
improvement of 0.6% for
2009 which is a
considerable reduction of
en-route extension.
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Source: PRC analysis
Improved flight efficiency in Portugal
(fight efficiency within State)
Figure 68: free route selection - Portugal
5.3.24 The national and regional impact on horizontal flight efficiency is addressed in more
detail in section 5.4 of this chapter.
ROUTE UTILISATION
5.3.25 The route utilisation component addresses flight planning. It relates the filed route (F) to
the shortest available route (S) and accounts for 0.6% of the distance flown in 2009 (see
Figure 66). Compared to last year, route utilisation improved by approximately 0.4 km
per flight which corresponds to a total saving of 3.4 million km in 2009.
5.3.26 There are several reasons as to why there is a difference between the shortest plannable
route and the route filed by aircraft operators:
the shortest route might only be temporarily available due to airspace restrictions;
airspace users may file longer routes due to wind effects, lower route charges or to
avoid ATFM restrictions and;
airspace users might simply not be aware of the shortest available route.
PRR 2009 Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance
56
5.3.27 As outlined in 5.3.13, the Flight Efficiency Plan [Ref. 19] aims at improving airspace
utilisation and route network availability.
5.3.28 Considerable savings can be achieved by improving the user routing16 and by further
reducing the number and duration of RAD restrictions, particularly during night times.
5.3.29 Improvements in route utilisation will require the full collaboration of all involved
parties.
ATC ROUTING
5.3.30 The ATC routing component addresses tactical changes in routing in the en-route phase
given by air traffic controllers and therefore relates the actual flown routes (A) to the
routes filed by the airspace users (F).
5.3.31 Similar to 2008, more direct ATC routings are estimated to reduce the flight distance by
0.8% on average in 2009 (see Figure 66). Frequently, ATC shortcuts given on a tactical
basis are usually associated with the flexible use of airspace.
5.4 National and Regional Impact on horizontal flight efficiency
5.4.1 Figure 69 provides indicators of route extension per Functional Airspace Block (FAB). It
furthermore identifies route extension due to internal State airspace design issues (dark
blue), interfaces across States within the FAB (blue) and interfaces with other FABs
(yellow). More details can be found in a specific PRR report [Ref.11].
Additional en-route distance per FAB 2009
3.3%
2.9%
2.9%
1.0%
2.3%
1.0%
1.3%
1.2%
0.8%
1.0%
0.8%
1.4%
0.8%
1.6%
1.0%
4.8%
4.1%
4.0%
3.3%
3.4%
3.0%
2.4%
2.0%
1.9%
1.2% 0.7%
0.5%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%
FAB EC
Blue Med
UK-Ireland
FAB CE
SW Portugal-
Spain
Danube
Baltic
NUAC
NEFAB
Routing within state
State interfaces within FAB
FAB interfaces
European
average
(excluding TMA
interface)
Source:
PRC Analysis/ CFMU
3.9%
Additional en-route distance
/ Great Circle Distance
24.7%
10.7%
64.5%
Figure 69: Additional en-route distance per FAB in 2009
5.4.2 A further breakdown of the flight efficiency indicators by States is given in Figure 70. It
shows that especially for smaller States a large proportion of the horizontal en-route
extension is due to the interface with adjacent States (i.e. FYROM) which may not always
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Performance Review Report 2009(45)
