Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

38 The purpose of this chapter is not to promote specific airport operations enhancement projects over others but to provide typical examples and case studies of successful ACDM improvements. Several of these improvements are discussed in detail in the “Operate” section of the toolbox. Additional resources are proposed in the eLibrary of the toolbox. For some—but not all—of the issues mentioned below, collaborative tools and templates have been developed. When mentioned below, the tool is available in the eLibrary and the “Operate” section of the toolbox, and training materials can be downloaded from the “Train” section of the toolbox. 4.1 Defining Key Performance Indicators Defining key performance indicators (KPIs) agreed upon among the stakeholders of airport operations for monitoring and decision-making purposes is typically a fundamental element of an ACDM implementation roadmap. This will facilitate discussions on other ACDM projects and real-time operations as well, by establishing a common language throughout the operations community. These KPIs should all describe the performance of the airport. Below are examples of a simpli- fied set of KPIs for a commercial service airport: • Airport capacity (including ATC rates), • Throughput (departures and arrivals per hour), • Taxi-in and taxi-out times (min/flight), • Departure queue hold time (min/flight), • Adherence to earliest off-block time (EOBT) (min/flight), • Gate occupancy (percentage of contact stands), • Remote parking occupancy (percentage of total remote overnight parking capacity), • TSA and Customs and Border Protection checkpoint waiting times (min/passenger), • Bag claim waiting time (min/bag), and • Congestion level of ground access and curbside(s) (level of service). Other KPIs such as the average aircraft de-icing time or the adherence of the actual off-block time (AOBT) to the EOBT can be added, as long as these KPIs are accessible. The approved KPIs should be monitored, as far as practicable in real time, and communicated to the community of airport operations—typically through an application or a website. The definition of KPIs can be an opportunity to redefine the local notions of capacity and throughput and discuss the means to monitor flows (e.g., boarding pass scan and collection of these times along the passenger journey). C H A P T E R 4 Featured ACDM Projects

Featured ACDM Projects 39 Such an approach applies to smaller airports (e.g., gathering an exact count of aircraft opera- tions at non-towered airports) and statewide airport systems (e.g., applying the dashboard on the availability of aviation facilities for emergency management purposes, available in the toolbox). 4.2 Daily Coordination Calls and Airport Status Reports The survey conducted as part of this ACRP project reveals that most airports—including commercial service facilities—do not hold regular calls with the stakeholders of airport operations. Such daily coordination can significantly improve collaboration and readiness by raising awareness on ongoing issues and sharing information on the coming operations. It also contributes to team- building across the operations community by increasing the frequency of direct contacts among its individual members. A daily coordination call can be as short as 10 to 20 minutes, and it should be open to all the internal and external stakeholders. Calls can be organized and supervised by the Airport Operations Manager. The list of items for this call may vary from one airport to another, but the overall idea is to let the operations lead of each stakeholder give the “heads up” for the next 12 or 24 hours. In parallel, a status report should be sent daily to a broader range of stakeholders. The status report can serve as minutes of the coordination call. The objective is to make sure that the whole community of operations has access to the information and that records are available for the performance reviews. Templates of the airport status report (.eml and .docx) are available in the “Operate” section of the toolbox. 4.3 ACDM Website An ACDM website should be created to provide the following: • Real-time airport operations information (KPIs) at a glance (dashboard). • Real-time flight information (see section 4.5, Milestone Approach and Departure Metering). • Specific information on approaching and ongoing adverse conditions. • Analysis of previous adverse conditions and lessons learned. • Repertory of ACDM procedures and other documents of reference. The airport dashboard can also feature a general indicator of the status of operations, as suggested in the daily status report template available in the “Operations” section of the toolbox. The ACDM website or intranet portal should be accessible to the members of the ACDM initiative only, because it features information shared under the provisions of the ACDM MoU and service- level agreement. 4.4 Integrated Airport Operations Center Collaboration can be difficult if the stakeholders of the real-time operations are spread around the airport. Great benefits of consolidation or integration of airport operations have been seen at airports in the U.S. and abroad. The concept of an integrated Airport Operations Center— referred to as “APOC” by ICAO—is being adopted by a growing number of hub airports. The internal stakeholders and some external stakeholders are integrated on the same floor plan and typically share visual displays and indicators on a wide video wall. Such an operations

40 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions center brings all the real-time players of the airport operator under the direct supervision or coordination of the Airport Operations Manager. It increases the coordination with the external stakeholders that can have a workstation at the APOC. It can provide additional facilities to support the collaborative decision-making process, such as a separate meeting room equipped with remote meeting capability and used for the briefings, a decision corner, and other facilities. It calls for defined communication protocols between the APOC and the individual stakeholder operations centers (e.g., airline operations control centers), with both facilities monitoring ATC movements and performance. 4.5 Milestone Approach and Departure Metering The ATM component of ACDM is not the subject of this project. However, research efforts in the U.S. and achievements of non-U.S. airports already show significant benefits of this compo- nent of ACDM that include the reduction of the taxi-in and taxi-out times, an increase of overall punctuality, and noticeable fuel and emission savings. The main takeaways of the ATM component of ACDM are: • Segmenting the turnaround process into fundamental elements and defining milestones of the flight turnaround process. • Optimizing ground operations with a focus on making the aircraft ready for pushback on time and providing notice if more time is needed in revising the EOBT of the flight. • Switching from a “first called, first served” to a “first scheduled, first served” approach to departure sequencing (FAA Order JO7110.65Y, Paragraph 2-1-4) (FAA 2019). ACRP Report 137: Guidebook for Advancing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at Airports provides more information on these aspects of ACDM and its interface with the existing FAA/ Industry CDM process (Vail et al. 2016). FAA Order JO 7110.65Y: Air Traffic Control provides procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing ATC services, and it features useful guidance as well (FAA 2019).