1. SAS & RAD Jens Albek Operative Route Analyst
SAS Flight Planning/Flight Dispatch

2. Please don’t take it personally 
Examples
In order to illustrate problematic areas best way possible, some live examples are included in this presentation.
Please don’t take it personally 

3. Aircraft operators must work in an ever changing environment.
Besides the RAD, we need to take following into account when filing a FPL from A to B:
ATFCM delays
FUA (Flexible Use of Airspace)
Scenarios
Military exercises and other temporary changes to the infrastructure imposed by NOTAM, AIP SUPs, AIC and EURO restrictions
Adverse weather
To overcome these challenges we need flexibility.

4. ATFCM summer 2018

5. Flexible Use of Airspace

6. Scenarios
Currently 685 scenarios are stored in the repository containing both re-routing an FL capping scenarios.

7. Military exercise – Trident Juncture 2018

8. CB activity

9. RAD Consolidated Version
887 pages in the PDF issue of RAD Consolidated Version valid from 06DEC18.

10. How does our flight planning system work?
Besides defined company routing(s), the system will produce optimized routings 7 hours prior to SOBT.
The optimized routings will take forecasted wind, expected SID/STAR in use, available CDR’s and charges into account, producing a Minimum Cost Track and a Minimum Time Track.
System will then compare all routings and file the most cost efficient one.

11. How do we work with the RAD?
If FPL is rejected by IFPS, or if ATC reports errors, we will:
Report to our CFSP in case error is detected in an optimized routing.
Fix the routing ourselves in case error is detected in a company routing.
Each AIRAC company routings are checked against ARINC 424 data.
Such check does not exist for the RAD.

12. Main RAD issues for SAS:
RAD depending of the open/closure status of one or more TSA/TRAs (if status is not published via NOTAM).
DCTs depending of the open/closure status of an airway or TSA/TRA.
Fileable airways through a closed TSA/TRA.
RAD that refers to sectors (avoid/via).
RAD referring to a division flight level at high altitude (e.g. only acceptable FL355 and above).

13. If RAD cannot be coded we will:
Define a company routing through the affected airspace.
Define sub routings through the affected airspace.
Avoid the airspace.
Both company- and sub routings are static solutions to overcome a specific problem.
Specially in a FRA environment this is a contradiction.

14. RAD & the rolling UUP
Do not implement RAD restrictions forcing FPL through TRA/TSAs that becomes available via the UUP.
AOs will risk last minute Flight Suspension of the FPL which could lead to:
Loss of CTOT
Exclusion from departure sequence at A-CDM airports
Crew duty hour exceeded (Intereuropean flights with flight time up to 6 hours)
EU261 compensation

15. Rejected FPLs SAS Dispatch handles up to 700 flights daily.
Number of REJ messages is a limiting factor that we need to consider.
We do not have the manpower to introduce unlimited manual routines.

16. The way forward

17. 1) We need flexibility
We need the flexibility of the network to reduce the length of ATFCM and weather re-routings as much as possible.

18. ESSA-EGLL avoid EGNOR sector
Red line blocked by RADs. Would save 97 NM/11 mins. Compared to black line.
EGNOR

19. 2) Creative flight planning
RAD restrictions implemented to keep flights on a “predicted path” can lead to creative flight planning.

20. Creative planning

21. 3) Reduce the complexity of RAD restrictions

22. Example: Black line only avbl when airway UZ662 is not AVBL
(RAD LS2596)
Red line only avbl when airway UZ662 is AVBL
(RAD LS2596)
Green line only avbl when airway Z57 is AVBL
(RAD LS5063-LS5068)

23. Manual solution:
Optimized routings will either fail (if Z57 is not available), or avoid the airspace.
Only solution is to implement three company routings (one for each possibility) and in case Z57 is not available on day of operation, then re-file until one of the variants is acknowledged by IFPS.

24. 4) Cooperation
Creative flight planning is often caused by misinterpretation/miscoding of the RAD.
In case of creative flight planning, approach the aircraft operator/flight planning service provider before implementing a new RAD.
RAD should be implemented as a last resource, not as a precaution.

25. 6) The helicopter view
We need a network approach reviewing the entire RAD.
Restrictions must benefit the network, not local KPI’s.
In case of contingency, e.g. weather and ATFCM delays, RAD’s preventing flight planning needs to be temporarily suspended, and relevant information about this needs to be pushed to aircraft operators.

26. Thank you for your attention