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
AMAN/DMAN tools, PBN, etc) .
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
Istanbul
(IST)
Frankfurt
(FRA)
Vienna
(VIE)
Athens
(ATH)
London
(LHR)
Brussels
(BRU)
Munich
(MUC)
Madrid
(MAD)
Paris
(CDG)
Paris
(ORY)
ATFM delay [min/arrival]
All other codes
Weather Code (W)
Capacity Code (G,C,S)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
Zurich
(ZRH)
Amsterdam
(AMS)
Dusseldorf
(DUS)
London
(LGW)
Milan
(MXP)
Roma
(FCO)
Copenhagen
(CPH)
Oslo
(OSL)
Barcelona
(BCN)
Stockholm
(ARN)
ATFM delay [min/arrival]
W Weather
G Aerodrome Capacity
C ATC Capacity
S ATC Staffing
Source : CFMU
Period : 2008 - 2009
0600 to 2159
Figure 77: Arrival ATFM regulations at the top 20 airports
6.3.7 Further analyses have shown that, in normal operating conditions, Istanbul used arrival
ATFM regulations with a capacity higher than the declared value, while Athens and Wien
systematically used arrival ATFM regulations with a capacity lower than the declared
value. This shows that ANS at the latter two airports (Athens and Wiens) cannot sustain
the airport declared capacity in daily operations. Same situation in Madrid for a
significant amount of ATFM regulated periods.
ADDITIONAL TIMES IN THE ARRIVAL SEQUENCING AND METERING (ASMA) AREA
6.3.8 Figure 78 shows the average additional time experienced by arrival traffic for each
airport23. Improvement can be seen in most of airports, but particularly at London LHR
(20% of time reduction compared to a 2% of traffic reduction). The additional time
reduction in Athens is offset by an increase of arrival ATFM delays (see Figure 77).
Further investigations to explain yearly variations should be conducted.
23 Due to the level of accuracy for landing times at Istanbul (IST) and Stockholm (ARN) in 2008 presently available
within EUROCONTROL, the airport was not included in this analysis.
PRR 2009 67 Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
London (LHR)
Frankfurt (FRA)
Vienna (VIE)
Munich (MUC)
Zurich (ZRH)
Madrid (MAD)
London (LGW)
Dusseldorf (DUS)
Athens (ATH)
Roma (FCO)
Barcelona (BCN)
Milan (MXP)
Paris (ORY)
Oslo (OSL)
Paris (CDG)
Brussels (BRU)
Copenhagen (CPH)
Amsterdam (AMS)
Stockholm (ARN)
Istanbul (IST)
ASMA additional time [min/arrival]
2008
2009
Source : CFMU
Period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159
Top 20 average
2008 : 3.0 min/arrival
2009 : 2.8 min/arrival
Figure 78: Approach (ASMA) additional time (40 NM-landing) at top 20 airports
PRE DEPARTURE DELAYS
6.3.9 When there are constraints at the departure airport or in nearby airspace (TMA and/or
approach airspace), departure traffic may be kept on hold at the stand, but without issuing
ATFM regulations. Pre-departure delays due to airside and nearby airspace constraints are
recorded in the ECODA delay reporting system; IATA delay codes 89, (airside and ATC
constraints), 71, 75, 76 (mostly freezing conditions). In a few cases, such as in Munich
(MUC), CDM applications are used to convert a part of taxi-out additional times into offblock
delays. However, it is not yet common practice to intentionally convert additional
taxi-out times into off-block delays.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Departure Congestion
(IATA code 89)
Departure Weather (IATA
code 71, 75, 76)
Predeparture delays [min/departure]
2008
2009
89 Restriction at Airport of departure including ATC
71 Departure Station
75 De-icing of Aircraft
76 Removal of snow , ice, w ater and sand from airport
data source : CODA - perio d : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159
Figure 79: European Pre-departure delays (top 20 busy airports)
6.3.10 Figure 79 shows pre-departure delays due to constraints in the departure movement area.
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(52)
