2(a).COLLABORATIVE DECSION MAKING What exactly is CDM? Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) is not a new concept.

It is being practiced to a certain degree both in the US and in Europe, focus being on en-route in the former and airports in the latter. Mature as the concept may be, surprisingly we still see experts who seem to believe that CDM is little more than a few wise men sitting together and deciding things for the benefit of the community Little wonder that they see a role for CDM that is strictly limited to the strategic planning phases. They seem to hang on to this view even in the face of actual CDM implementations at some airports (e.g. Munich) which are anything but limited to the strategic phase. So, what is CDM? The concept of CDM is very simple. Decisions on all levels must be made not in isolation but based on a shared, common view of the state of the ATM network with full awareness of the consequences of the decisions on every aspect of the operation. Collaborative in this context does not necessarily imply people sitting together or working together remotely. A single person can also make a collaborative decision if the decision is based on the shared information provided by the partners and if it takes into account the impact of the decision on those partners and the ATM network as a whole. So, CDM starts with the sharing of information and then the making of decisions based on the shared information. As we will see, this understanding of CDM opens up all kinds of interesting possibilities for the future. Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) History and current practice The concept of Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) was originally defined in the United States by a group of airlines, led by US Air, in response to what the airlines perceived as inadequate co-operation between airports, the FAA and the airlines themselves. They formed the so called CDM Group, members of which visited several airports with traffic flow problems and analyzed the reasons.

Significantly, they discovered that in many cases the reasons were in fact quite trivial. In one case, a missing telephone connection between the FAA tower and the Delta ramp controller was found to be at the root of major departure delays; in another case the secret nature of cancelled flights was found to be the cause of unused slots at an otherwise seriously congested airport. The CDM Group in its original reports had actually established three of the most basic rules of CDM which remain valid to this day even if, unfortunately, in some cases they are being ignored. The three rules are: Most problems have simple causes with simple solutions Better information sharing eliminates a very large proportion of the problems CDM can only be successful if trust is established between the partners as the first step. Although the CDM Group did at first address problems at airports (Atlanta and Philadelphia) when the FAA embraced the concept, they focused on applying it in the en-route environment. This was a natural consequence of the US scene where capacity constraints were present en-route while airports were almost all free flow at the time. Nevertheless, US airports got involved in CDM early as a result of the FAAs ground delay concept. The value of information sharing was shown right from the start. Just by being better informed, airlines were able to respond to the restrictions in a much more efficient manner. The initiative in the early 1990s called FAA/Airline Data Exchange (FADE), supported among others by Northwest Airlines, can be seen as the direct forerunner of what evolved into the US CDM project of to-day. The CDM concept was brought to Europe by experts of IATA and at first it was treated as a research topic and as such, assigned to the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre. Several years passed and the concept was stuck on the research agenda while the need for better decision making grew every day. At the time, also in Europe most of the delay problems had their origins in the en-route environment and of course the power of CDM could have brought the same level of relief as it did in the US if only States had gotten together and

implemented CDM. But this did not happen in spite of repeated pleas by the airspace users. CDM APPLICATIONS IN THE US AND EUROPE EUROCONTROL and the FAA actively cooperate on many aspects of CDM. There are several European ideas and procedures that are being considered for inclusion in the US CDM projects, among them the better utilization of Target Off-Block Time (TOBT) and next day planning. The US CDM project has several sub-teams and they manage a range of CDM sub-projects, most of which are specific to the integrated US air traffic management environment. It is important to note that the US CDM projects can benefit from a lot of information sharing functionality already available in the FAAs systems. These capabilities are being delivered by the US System Wide Information Management (SWIM) program which has as its main task the data level integration of the legacy systems as well as the new system elements being implemented. A lot of the US CDM activity is dealing with items that in Europe would fall under the purview of the CFMU. Examples are the Integrated Collaborative Rerouting (ICR), Airspace Flow Program (AFP) or the Unified Ground Delay Program (UDP). Others, like the integration of the Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) and the Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM) or the Control by Time of Arrival (CbTA) concept are more on the control centre level. The US CDM scene is also influenced to a large degree by the initiatives taken by some airlines to improve their own operations. This is a US peculiarity mainly because there is no comparable operational density anywhere in Europe. The Surface Management Systems (SMS) used by UPS in Louisville and by FedEx in Memphis hold a lot of important lessons that can be utilized also at other airports. CDM in the USA can be seen as encompassing the whole operation and is not split into clearly identifiable elements like airport CDM and network CDM. This is not surprising if we consider that creating A-CDM in Europe was an artificial division to begin with. In Europe, CDM is currently instantiated in the form of clearly defined concept elements which are in fact applications that can be realized in software also. They cover areas where a shortcoming had been identified and are meant to directly address those shortcomings. In this way, we have CDM Information Sharing (the basis for everything else), Variable Taxi Time Calculation but also Collaborative Flight Data Update which is in fact a network CDM elements bringing the CFMU into the picture.

Unfortunately, information sharing in Europe is still in its infancy and the only real islands of SWIM-like activity are the airports even if the information sharing practiced there is local and a far cry from the flexible information sharing envisaged by the SWIM concept. Nevertheless, airport level information sharing has shown conclusively the power of shared information to improve decisions across the board.

Needless to say, the CFMU has several tools used to establish network demand and capacity and to influence both. They do interact with both the users and the providers but their activity is not fully recognized as part of the CDM concept. This should change however as the CFMU moves progressively from a prescriptive to collaborative approach to flow management. CDM APPLICATION BENEFITS In 2007-2008, EUROCONTROL had commissioned the production of CDM CBAs for Barcelona, Zurich, Brussels and Munich. At the time, also a generic CBA was produced, taking a typical EUROPEAN airport as the baseline. In 2008, a CDM CBA was also ordered for Prague. Originally it was the intention to show the benefits of CDM in general but also the specific benefits attributable to the different CDM applications, like information sharing, variable taxi time calculation and so on. This was meant to enable planners to set implementation priorities and find the best possible combination of applications for any given airport. At that time there was no airport where all the applications had been implemented and so some of the work had to be undertaken using projections and wellreasoned assumptions based on interviews with operational experts. The conclusions were predictable and not at all surprising as they lined up perfectly with the most basic tenets of the CDM concept. In excess of 90 % of the benefits attributable to CDM were in fact generated by information sharing. Other applications added only small, incremental improvements and the order of implementation was also of little impact on the actual benefit picture. It was therefore not possible to really quantify the benefits of applications, or combinations of applications, beyond information sharing as the additional improvements were well within the error range of the calculations.

Although EUROCONTROL has started to promote a more prescriptive approach to CDM in recent years specifying the implementation order of CDM applications, the fundamental benefit balance of those applications has not changed. A new feature of CDM of course is the network version where several airports start to collaborate with each other and the CFMU using information sharing and the other applications. This kind of network CDM forms the basis of the SESAR concept of operations also. In this context we must remember that information sharing as defined for CDM is in fact an early instantiation of the System Wide Information Management (SWIM) concept and at some point SWIM will overtake this aspect of CDM. The benefits will not diminish since support for decision making and the current and future CDM applications will of course continue.

What is the scope of CDM? The current practical scope of CDM came about mainly as a result of the ATM problems prevalent in the environment in which the concept was first introduced. Getting collaborative decisions on manipulating traffic flows was a natural in the US while trying

to sort out airport problems in Europe led to Airport CDM (A-CDM) as the first manifestation on the European continent. Of course this division is not black and white. A-CDM works together with the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU), improving also the en-route situation. The overall scope is also influenced by the scope of the shareable data available. In respect of A-CDM, this means activities on the airside of the airport. Is this scoping correct and are the current limits inviolate? Certainly not as we will see.

Advantages to related parties (EUROCONTROL ) a.Airport Operators

Enable the existing gates and stands are being utilized effectively and efficient to enhance airport slots are fully being operated most of the time. Generate more revenue from airlines and passengers due to the availability of flights increase at the airport. Reduce time of airside mishandling and delays caused by uncertainties from airside operators. Create better airport reputation to customers b.Air Traffic Control

Provide accurate information of runway capacity for controllers Reduce stress and workloads of controllers Reduce apron and taxiway congestion More flexible for controllers to pre plan departure schedule and increase their situational awareness. c.Pilots and Airlines

Reduced fuel cost from unnecessary ground movements Improve situational awareness especially during delays caused by uncertainties

Enhance fleet reliability of being on time for departure and arrival Reduce delays and operational efficiency

d.Ground Handlers/ Ramp services:

Maximize the use of available resources to increase operational efficiency Enhance better pre planning Reduce lack of responsibility from ground operators to perform activities in a hurry.

e.CFMU and ATM relationship:

Provision of accurate estimated departure demand for future branch marking. Improve flow of air traffic and maximize airport capacity Reduce number of wasted slots

f.passengers:

Reduce annoyed passengers from delays of flights. Enhance services during disruption periods

Environment: It also provides a more environmental friendly aspect to airport and regions due to the decrease of fuel being burnt by aircrafts on taxiways and apron waiting to depart. The amounts of wasted water will decreased as aircrafts are being departed on time hence reduce the need of re-de icing aircrafts. On the other hand, reduction of aircrafts being held at holding points hence less noise pollution. Munich Airport as an example of ACDM: Munich Airport is an example of ACDM being implemented into the airport operation in May 2004. The focus of ACDM for Munich Airport was to improve the turn round process and the setting up of a pre departure sequence using the Target Off Block Time ( TOBT) procedure. After a detailed gap analysis carried out by EUROCONTROL, the project has been started based on the existing procedure to improve the arrival and departure information and providing a pre departure sequence hence enhancing efficiency of ground operation and air traffic procedures (MUNICH AIRPORT,2010.

The ATM environment of the future CDM will be called upon to deliver its benefits taking due account of the two main characteristics of the future ATM system, namely net-centricity and trajectory based operations (TBO). The aim of net-centric operations is to increase the information available to the participating entities and to ensure that data is usable by both anticipated and unanticipated users assuming that they possess the requisite access rights. Collaborative decisions are them made in the context of the interconnected community of systems, applications and people, sharing a common situational awareness of the past, present and future state of the ATM network. Net-centric operations do entail a commitment from the participating entities to share their information and to make use of the information shared by others. In the CDM context, this commitment represents the key to achieving the necessary common situational awareness, interactions between partners on the basis of this awareness and decision making that considers all aspects and consequences of the decisions, not only locally but in the whole of the net-centric environment. Future of ACDM (EUROCONTROL,2010 ) The EUROCONTROL ACDM teams gather various airport operation procedures to develop the best practical manual and new concepts to accommodate different for different airports. Such project can be affected by landside events, connection of land transportations, security checks, check in system etc. The following procedures will be improved and coordinated for the future.

Pre- departure procedures, rules and processes for aircraft start up and pushback for Departure manager. Anti-icing procedures Voice clearance delivery with ACDM requirements Processes for alerts ACDM processes for Departure Planning Information Message.

The need for a process based, service oriented view Current CDM implementations and the concept itself are based on defined processes, A-CDM being anchored in the aircraft turn-round process. Service orientation in air traffic management is however new, as it is indeed new for the SESAR concept itself.

Service orientation is a means of separating the business aspects and the IT aspects of the enterprise, thereby enabling the business aspects to drive IT rather than the other way round (as is often the case in legacy systems). From the perspective of ATM and airport collaborative decision making, we might say that there are two main processes to be considered. One process is the management of the trajectory the other the management of passenger and baggage flow. From the perspective of an airline or handling company, there are several other important processes (like crew to aircraft, fuel and catering to aircraft, etc.) but from a CDM perspective, these can be ignored. Their effects will be incorporated into the trajectory management process in the form of eventual distortions to the traject ory (mainly but not exclusively the time dimension). In order to be executed, the operational processes require various services. They also fall into several categories, related to one or the other (or several) of the processes mentioned above. Later on in this document I will describe certain novel services that will become possible as a result of the net-centric environment. Obviously, there are certain services that exist already to-day (even if they are not called services in the legacy environment) and even more services will be defined in the future as the full power of the SWIM based net-centric environment takes hold. The services in turn support end-user applications which are the operational interface to the outside world (for humans) or other systems, as appropriate. Decision making and two-way access to information is realized via the end-user applications enabled by the services. Airside/landside division, does it make sense? The airside/landside division at airports is not something that was introduced in reaction to an operational need. It has everything to do with security, a vitally important aim in itself but not something that should necessarily limit the scope of collaborative decision

making. The fact that the definition and actual location of the airside/landside boundary changes from place to place, further (and unnecessarily) complicates things.

We will recall that currently A-CDM is limited to airside processes and there is considerable opposition to considering what is happening on the landside. In other words, an artificial, more or less administrative boundary is limiting the full exploitation of CDMs potential. This will have to change in the future for two reasons: in the net centric environment there is no shortage of information from anywhere, including the landside; secondly, as will be shown, the whole idea of airside and landside should be made invisible from a CDM perspective. Of the two main processes of concern to A-CDM, passenger and baggage flow extends on both sides of the airside/landside boundary, irrespective of its actual location at any particular airport. The processes require various services and we concerned with the decisions associated with the delivery of those services. The sequence in which the services are delivered does depend on local circumstances (e.g. the Passenger Screening service may be applied to the passenger flow just after check in or shortly before boarding) but the sequence is not necessarily affected by the location of the airside/landside boundary. The conditions and restrictions applicable to those delivering services may be different depending on where the service is delivered but this does not affect the service itself. It is evident that the existence of a designated airside and landside on any airport is of no consequence for the processes CDM has to consider. From the CDM perspective, the airport can be as a single continuum in which the processes are executed through the application of the required services, without the processes and services being divided by an airside/landside boundary. This single airport continuum approach does not preclude the existence of an airside/landside boundary if maintaining or establishing one is found necessary for other purposes but it should never be allowed to be a limiting factor on the effective execution of the various processes.

Mr. Smith proceeds to your gate or we will off-load your luggage At many airports, the above text has become a mantra repeated endlessly and one can only hope that the Mr. Smiths and others like him still listen to what is being said. Clearly, the problem of passengers getting lost between check-in and the gate has become a major issue. True, you can always off-load the bags and leave the passenger behind but this is not the most customer friendly solution not to mention the fact that even with a strict and timely decision a departure delay is difficult to avoid. For CDM aficionados however the above announcement indicates a brave new field where CDM, building on the basically unlimited scope of SWIM, can introduce totally new services, some of them completely automated, to get a better handle on the flow of passengers and their luggage. Part of the problem of straying passengers comes of course from a basic conflict of interest between airports and their airline customers. With more and more of the airport revenue coming from concessions and the supermarket and mall style shopping areas popping up at airports everywhere, it in the airports interest to keep passengers in the shopping areas for as long as possible in the hope of enticing them to spend money on everything from expensive sunglasses to even more expensive sandwiches. And they do, with passion and enthusiasm so much so that a lot of them almost forget the purpose of their coming to the airport in the first place to catch an aircraft. Airlines of course would like to see their customers come to the gate in a timely manner, not too early but certainly not too late things we humans are not that good in withou t effective guidance. But if we go beyond the shopping mall and consider how many random events there are that can potentially impact a passengers ability to arrive at the airport on time (an accident on the access road, industrial action of the train drivers, traffic jams caused by ice on the road to name just a few), we might say it is a wonder that so few of them arrive actually too late However, the fact remains that an airline has precious little knowledge of, or control over, what its passengers are doing until they discover that one or several of them are missing when it is time to board. With home check-in commonplace these days, the time span of the big unknown has only increased.

Freeing CDM from its shackles and limited scope can help here and the result is a major improvement of operational predictability and efficiency.

Embracing new CDM partners The upwards open scope of SWIM should give us a hint as to how the scope of CDM can also be seen as limited only by the actual need for decision making information. To properly appreciate the potential of a true SWIM environment, we do need to adjust our thinking. An information driven system needs a major jump in how we see the world. In this expanded scope CDM and SWIM environment, a lot of new, raw data is suddenly available. On the user end, we then have end-user applications that put the data into context, creating information that we can use in any number of ways. Just imagine that you have the railway company, the taxi companies, the police, the motorway maintenance outfit, the GSM operators, the airport parking garage, etc., etc. all on board as CDM partners, sharing their data. Enduser applications of the airport, of airlines or the taxi folks themselves, are constantly shifting through the information and draw the appropriate conclusions Lots of GSM calls going to a single airline number? Fewer than average taxis heading to the airport at a given moment? Parking garage full? Or just empty??Trains running late?Queues unduly long at the security check point? Or there is no queue at all when in fact there should be one? It is possible to deduce a lot of planning information from these seemingly disconnected elements and if they are available, there will be developers who create the applications needed. The nice thing about this is that we are not talking about a one way street here. If a given conclusion is strong enough and there is still time, passengers can be warned via sums and push email to come earlier or do other things to ensure proper flow towards the aircraft. Some airlines already offer a sums warning when check in opens for their flight home. The new CDM scenario will open a much more effective range of interaction with the passengers.

The future system must embrace all CDM partners who have useful information to share, regardless of how close or apparently remote they are from traditional ATM.

Examples of novel services In the following a number of novel services will be described without any claim of being comprehensive or thoroughly validated. They are given here as examples which may very well be implemented in the not too distant future. The selection focuses on passenger flow. Similar services could be defined for example for the luggage flow also. Airport Status Report Service Under trajectory-based operations (TBO) it is no longer sufficient to have an indication of when delays are likely. A delay is the representation of only one aspect of the 4D trajectory (time) and distortions in the other dimensions may be even more important under certain circumstances. The Airport Status Report Service provides a trigger that can be graduated to represent potential trajectory distortions in different dimensions or combinations thereof and as such, is a much finer tool to trigger intervention than simple congestion warnings. The benefits would appear even during the transition period towards full TBO, an important consideration in the quest for early benefits.

This service is coupled with the Airport Operations Plan where available and is also feeding into the Network Operations Plan. The Airport Status is an index developed on the basis of appropriate algorithms taking present and future circumstances into account, each having a weight attached to it. Each index/airport combination indicates the degree to which the known business trajectories would suffer an impact. The indexes are updated dynamically but with sufficient latency to ensure stability of the system. The index can serve as the primary trigger for users of the airport to consider eventual collaborative modifications to their trajectories. The modifications are coordinated and

agreed through the planner end-user applications. These facilitate real collaborative decisions on the most effective, minimum impact changes. .The agreed changes are published and the Queue Management Service evaluates their impact. The aim is to achieve, if at all possible, a new index for the airport, representing a lower level of overall trajectory distortion. The Airport Status Report Service would be subject to all the characteristics and limitations that its users agree to, including for instance the maximum acceptable distortion to any one trajectory.

Timely Passenger Delivery Service Passengers who fail to arrive at the boarding gate on time are a significant source of disruption especially if checked luggage needs to be off-loaded as a result. Even if a given late passenger has no checked luggage and hence the flight can depart without him without delay, the resulting situation of an irate customer having to be reaccommodated is something that is better avoided.

Innovative information management techniques, building on the net-centric environment, can be used to motivate passengers to proceed to the boarding gate in a timely manner. The means available to influence behavior (both desired and incidental) while the passenger is in transit from his or her off-airport departure location are limited. The means expand however once the passenger is on the airport and in particular when he or she enters the passengers-only area. The business model of most airports prefers to keep passengers in the concession areas to maximize revenue from the concessions. This preference also helps in managing passenger flow towards the gates, avoiding congestion in the gate areas. The tools used to influence passenger behavior are rather simple, usually not being more than posting the departure gate numbers a short time before the designated boarding time. Passengers do not receive an active reminder that the gate has been posted. The result is often missing passengers at the gate.

While the interests of the airlines and the airports appear to be at odds in this context, the net-centric environment and its expanded partner scope offers a service based solution to the problem. Reconciling the difference in a sensible manner is important also because time spent in the concession area is an important part of the passenger experience and keeping it pleasant while also ensuring timely departures is in the airline interest too. The Timely Passenger Delivery Service is a service to be offered by the airport operator to airlines on terms to be agreed locally. It is an example of the practical application of the collaborative decision making principles in the expanded scope of CDM in the future.

With this service, the airport undertakes to introduce and maintain effective, agreed measures designed to motivate passengers to move towards the boarding gate on a timely basis, the motivation being unobtrusive but geared to the urgency of the particular situation. In practical implementation, an airport providing this service would need to make full use of the net-centric environment to gather information from hitherto uninvolved partners like the Passenger Screening services (queue situation), concession operators, etc. The airport would need to ensure their becoming partners in the net-centric environment and also the definition of hitherto unused dynamic information items (e.g. flights closing soon, etc.). The measures that can be taken as part of the content of this service might include: Individual tagging (RFID) of passengers and personalized voice and visual announcements Scanning the boarding passes at the entrance of all major concessions (something usually done on exit anyway) and generating an immediate warning to the passenger if flight departure is within a set time period Having dedicated displays showing those flights still missing passengers and which will be closing soon

The list of flights to which passengers need to hurry or risk being left at the airport and having their luggage off-loaded can then be used in several innovative ways (some of which were listed above) to trigger the passengers to move. The same information with slightly different time horizon can be used to even catch passengers who have not yet arrived at the airport. A generic version of this type of service is available already where, on request and on passenger cost, a text message is sent on status changes of the flight concerned. The Timely Passenger Delivery Service is more targeted, focusing on ensuring on-time departure rather than just providing raw information.

In support of this service, the concept of Control Over Passenger Behaviors Points could be defined. The parts of the passenger flow process, delimited by these points, are designated according to the level of uncertainty of the passenger position along the process and the level of influence the provider of the service has on the behavior of the passenger. This latter is dependent also on the means available in the particular circumstances for exerting the required influence. As an example, the period while the passenger is in transit to the airport is considered as being of high uncertainty/low influence/few means. A passenger in the concession area is on the part of the process that is considered as being of medium uncertainty/high influence/multiple means. The points delimiting the sections are identified and agreed by the CDM partners. The concept of Control Over Passenger Behavior Points enables the provider of the service to properly estimate the effectiveness and cost of the service required along different parts of the passenger flow process and to generate an offer accordingly. The users of the service can then decide on an agreed, common basis whether the service is cost effective for them and which part(s) of the service they want to sign up for. Passenger Flow Information Service The passenger flow process is subject to several possible disturbances at different points of the flow. The effects of a disturbance depend to a large extent on the organization of the process which determines where the source of the disturbance is located along the process. Tightened security or a scanner failure will impact the process differently if the passenger screening is centralized or boarding gate based.

With the expanded scope of future CDM, influences as diverse as airport access road conditions and train driver industrial action can be included to generate a good picture of the evolution of the passenger flow process. The time scope is not limited to the present or immediate future. Planned industrial action several weeks or even months in the future are also considered by the service. In terms of granularity, the service aims primarily to generate state (current and future) information based on the global aspects of the passenger flow process. This means that the basic Passenger Flow Information Service does not differentiate between the effects on the operation of individual partners. Only the (potential) global distortions are signaled. There is no reason however why a partner should not request a more detailed version of the service and why it should not be provided under the right conditions. The information generated by this service is published into the shared information space to be made use of by different end-user applications. The Passenger Flow Information Service will require the implementation of facilities that can monitor the passenger flow at different, required points, correlating the movement data and trends to generate the appropriate conclusions. It is important to remember that passenger tracking may involve issues related to the need for protecting personal data. Such issues will have to be addressed and properly resolved.

In conclusion It is a fallacy to pretend that the predictability of ATM operations is not affected by events, information and processes that have hitherto been disregarded for various reasons. The current land-side services are among those that are meeting opposition when it comes to defining future CDM developments. At the same time, the fine tuning of CDM in the traditional sense will soon reach the area of diminishing returns and hence further improvements will not be found in those areas. Expanding the scope is the most efficient manner of finding new improvement potential. We have seen that SWIM and net-centric operations open up a whole new stage for CDM enhancements. Even the classical airside/landside division may very well disappear from the CDM perspective as it has no usable meaning in an information driven environment.

CDM is a very powerful concept and has no built in limitations. If information is made available from traditional as well as new partners, quality decision making can grow in line with the growth of the partner scope. The net result is much improved overall decision making in ATM itself.