Last week (December 2-4), we were again privileged to be able to attend the 13th Annual Aircraft Commerce / Aircraft IT Flight Operations Conference. To say that Ed, editor of Aircraft IT Magazine, and Charles, editor of Aircraft Commerce Magazine have raised the bar, again, would be an understatement. We consider ourselves well qualified to make such a claim because we've been regulars at Ed and Charles' conferences for quite a few years now.
Each year the Expo gets better and better, and this year, like last, the Expo filled the main conference room meaning smaller breakouts were needed for the plenary sessions. While workable, it's not ideal, but necessary because airline delegate and supplier numbers have grown to such a degree that this arrangement is required to fit everyone in. While we believe the room arrangement has a limited lifespan, it underscores the popularity of the conference and the esteem in which it is held by the industry.
For all the positives, I'm still left shaking my head at the stories too many delegates tell about the difficulty securing approval from their airline management to attend. We have little doubt that any IT related Flight Operations project would yield better outcomes as a result of the information available at this conference. Considering the industry's collective record with these types of projects, rather than a luxury, it should be a mandated prerequisite to progress projects like EFB, digital manuals, electronic tech logs, flight planning systems, fuel-saving programs, profile optimisation - the list goes on. We've no doubt that all these projects would see better outcomes as a result of talking with peers and understanding not only what's possible, but what's needed to get there.
This year the potential of real digitisation is being showcased by many suppliers. An 'about time' evolution from the paper and page based emulation of past technologies. One supplier did not even realise what they had in the bag in one of the products they were sharing. Similarly, in an 'about time too' moment, the forward-looking nature of many of the presentations in the plenary sessions was particularly timely. These presentations were compelling because they moved the discussion away from a focus on technology and apps - to the capability of data. More on that later.
One of the aspects we liked about the conference's arrangement was that each group of presentations in the plenary sessions were, for the most part, complimentary.
The first morning covered documentation in one way or another. There was nothing earth-shatteringly new. However, Air Nostrum and Jeppesen (Boeing) discussing a Human Factors study into taxi charts with own ship position was interesting - for what was missing. While the results showed a positive outcome with demonstrable situational awareness benefits, the presentation did not share the detail of the flight deck procedures that would have been required to deliver said increased situational awareness. For example, what did the handling pilot and the monitoring pilot do differently that led to the "enhanced human factors" outcomes? What, if any, new cockpit procedures resulted from the study? This is our issue with presentations like these. They tease. The "hey, look what we did" only tells half the story, and it is the missing parts that delegates want to take home to the boss because the first question the boss is going to ask is: "Is that something we should be doing?" Followed by "how do we go about it?" And "what do we need to consider?" If presentations aren't going to share all the story, it limits the value to the delegates who give up their time to watch it.
The charts are still static. Imagine if they were genuinely digital, not a screen-based rendition of a paper chart with an electronically positioned overlay. What do we mean by digital?
Imagine if the chart was a digital representation of the airport situation at the time. How about closed taxiways marked up to clearly represent the status, or not shown at all? Ground vehicles and other aircraft, particularly potential conflicts shown in live time? The iteratively cleared taxi route appearing on the chart as it is transmitted, digitally buy the ground controller in the tower rather than by voice requiring read-back, correction and read-back, etc.? Fanciful? Not so. Not at all. We saw a fantastic airport management system from one of the larger integrators at the conference. It had all that capability and more. Keep reading...
The Lufthansa CityLine and Lufthansa Industry Solutions presentation about 'Documentation to the Next Level' showed us what's possible, and how it can be done.
"Metadata is "data that provides information about other data". In short, it's data about data."
In a compelling example about finding obscure information in a time-limited situation, the presentation demonstrated how metadata could be used to speed the search capability in 'real' electronic documents, and how it can transform them to genuinely digital data. It was a great move forward, and forward-looking presentation. But why's it taken so long?
Those of us who are long term digital evangelists know about the power of metadata. Interestingly, so does the industry. Its been around for a long time. Since the mid-'80s in fact when EFB was ELS. Metadata was the secret behind the plan for documents that were going to be 'situationally aware' and pop-up information prompted by EICAS and ECAM. Today, modern aeroplanes know what phase-of-flight they are in at any given time, so metadata can be used to provide highly contextual information to flight crews related to phase-of-flight, EICAS or ECAM messages, MEL, NOTAM and weather messages. Not in the future, now. Since the mid-80s actually.
Metadata is no secret. Multifaceted metadata is indeed a powerful tool. Used in document automation, it is one of the secrets to workload reduction. It has further beneficial uses in SWIM (one of the tenets of TBO) and other data integration needs the industry is craving so that information can be where, when and in the context, it needs to be. And it's quite simple so begs the question, why are we not hearing more questions about its capability or implementation?
Closed Loop's expertise in this area of data management is considerable. Marcus helped write the book on it. Get in touch to discuss it and see how it can really help launch real digital outcomes for your information ecosystems.
The data theme of the conference continued with several other good-value discussions. Norwegian's review of their cruise profile optimisation process was quite informative. The result of the project (yes, they shared it) was compelling but what was more impressive was the simple, yet elegant implementation of a system that was simple in structure and execution. It demonstrated that technology was not necessarily the answer to everything, but more importantly, how available data was used and applied in an uncomplicated system and communicated in a compelling way to the pilots. If the program and benefits shared by Norwegian are not already influencing your fuel-saving strategies, its because you missed the presentation.
Norwegian was followed by LOT Polish Airline's discussion about their Advanced Performance Monitoring Solution. This was a Big Data discussion that wasn't. It was a discussion about the strategic use of data available from different sources to provide insight that is used to bring about real change and operating efficiencies.
There has been a lot of recent discussion in the industry about Big Data, and the difficulty airlines discover when designing and attempting to implement such programs. Industry-wide, there are very few active, or successful programs given the hype that's been associated with it. There are reasons for the poor showing, but LOT's approach was pragmatic and dare we venture, simple. And it has provided demonstrably valuable outcomes and a learning opportunity for those that were in the room.
One of the wins LOT had was the ability to integrate a lot of different data types from its operation, including QAR and FDR data. The information provided in these (coupled with the traditional EHM, LDS and ACARS) data covers the gamut of the aircraft operation from pushback to parking at a very granular level. Such data would tell a great story about opportunities for efficiency but the difficulty for most airlines attempting to realise the gains shared by LOT will be the cage surrounding the use of QAR and FDR data. QAR and FDR data is usually enshrined by pilot union agreements and for most, cannot be used because of how data from these sources have been used punitively in the past. Somehow (how was not shared) this was overcome in the LOT program to the benefit of the airline's bottom line.
ICF continued the data-centric line of the day with their compelling presentation about
how data can be used to benchmark performance and provide insight into where airlines
are "leaking efficiency" (Martin Harrison ICF). ICF has collected a treasure trove of information from global ADS-B data and has
used that to compile contextual reports ranging from sector comparisons of time and
fuel between airlines to gate turnaround performance and most everything in between.
Apart from the value of the right sort of data from which to build a picture, ICF's key point was that benchmarking oneself - against oneself can never reveal the whole story, and by a long way when looking at the data ICF shared. We would add, and we've no doubt ICF would agree, that benchmarking oneself by oneself also likely blinds one to see around the "but its always been done that way" syndrome. This aspect is particularly relevant to one of the critical demonstrations of the ICF presentation comparing two airlines, same aircraft, on the same route over a year with one consistently ahead of the other in time and fuel outcomes - by a significant margin. The point being, data is crucial, but not just your's - you need everyone else's too to maybe even realise there is an issue. You might think you are as efficient as you can be, and as efficient as the next guy, but are you? We'd bet ICF already know the answer.
The data theme concluded the first day with some examples of the types of systems available that either ingest data for airlines to analyse or data-driven applications that we can use to make sure the right aeroplane is on the right mission. One was interesting because it seemed to coach airlines - a bit like the LOT presentation of earlier - that being caught up in the restrictions on data ownership and use implied by the big manufacturers was a choice. The latter was focussed on short-haul operations, but we suspect that was the demo, not a limitation of the database.
For all the forward-looking discussions, there were a few that didn't seem to register with many. These were the "101" discussions about EFB, and other things that addressed the basics of a past era and that we'd heard about for years with nothing new added. There were the few abstracts promising information that wasn't delivered in the presentation and a viewpoint about the industry that hadn't really taken the audience, into account. The discussions about ATC, or, now as it should be referred, Air Traffic Management (ATM) and the raft of standards that are about to become "L" "A" "W" law did, however, command undivided attention from the assembly.
The Regulator Keynote delivered by Henk Hof from Eurocontrol was a timely, high-level alert to airlines about the importance of a forward operational strategy including short and medium-term objectives and a coherent implementation plan for Trajectory Based Operations (TBO). Henk outlined the TBO concept, the current industry strategy to manage the projected growth in passenger numbers and associated traffic and its related components, SWIM and FF-ICE, both of which are now in limited use or trial and already addressing congestion issues. It seems the proposed implementation timelines are still a moving target. However, even the most moderate estimates for full implementation are running at about one-third of the time it took the industry to come to grips with EFB and about a quarter of the time it took for it to get digital data as messed up as it is. Compared to what will be required for TBO, EFB and digital data was a walk in the park. Henk stated quite firmly that TBO was the way to maintaining and improving the capacity and flexibility of the aviation system. While its operational nuances my seem restrictive to the uninitiated, the current system is fast becoming a zero-sum environment. For every flight that gets its optimal levels - when they are wanted, there will be the others, most, that will not. While we are all doing departmentally driven improvement and efficiency projects, most of which are based on assumptions that ours is the only aeroplane out there, TBO is a holistic solution for the entire operating ATM system into the future. Closed Loop has discussed this on a few occasions from the operator perspective. Our discussions are built from the operator perspective. Components of TBO are available now, and it's interesting that more airlines, instead of complaining, are not using them to benefit their operations early.
Davide Bardelli, Director Consultant, Lufthansa Systems, made this point in his presentation illustrating the number of complaints directed against Eurocontrol. While at the same time, Eurocontrol has made available several information-sharing capabilities that airlines can utilise - for free - to ameliorate the issues that everyone is complaining about. It reinforces the adage that you can lead a horse to water...
One sometimes has to wonder; what drives airlines thinking about operational strategy, business improvement and efficiency. Here are alternatives to the status quo that demonstrably improve outcomes but rather than participating - yes, doing things a bit differently, many airlines still sit back and complain. That won't change results or make room for the growth forecasts. When you look at Ian Gilbert's, (Avionics Consultant at IG Avionics) presentation, one starts to wonder whether it's systemic.
Ian shared an extensive list of the upcoming datalink compliance requirements that will be enforced from early next year. Significantly Ian's presentation provided information about the initially planned implementation dates of many of the systems we're all going to rely on to keep our 'planes moving. One is two decades behind its original implementation date; others are not much better. It's not a good look and shines a light on the industry's collective willingness (or unwillingness?) to make the system work. Looking forward, how do we all think something like TBO will go?
Here's the sting. Airlines are looking for growth, but collective knowledge or even basic operational understanding of the tools necessary to make it work flexibly and efficiently is limited. Most seem inwardly focussed, evidenced by a lot of excellent, many forward-looking, presentations about how each is going about trying to improve - their own department. Few seem focussed on broader organisational need and even less, if any, on how departmental projects map to the requirements of the even more complex industry environment.
The continuing and robust 'siloisation' of our industry is exemplified and reinforced by the new airport, tower and underwing management offerings from Honeywell. These apps are singularly brilliant. Data-driven renditions of airport operating efficiency, choke points, passenger transit times and more. It's like a moving data picture inside the airport. This information is worth its weight in gold when you are sitting in the flight deck trying to assess boarding completion and negotiate an airways clearance when a missed slot could mean a three-hour delay. Sending a runner up the aerobridge (jetway) to try and find ground staff only to find these folks don't have any information is as frustrating as it can be costly.
Then, there is the underwing management app. This data is just as valuable as in the previous example. In 2019, it should not require a radio call to Ops to find out how long the fuel truck will be, or how long the high lift for the wheelchair passenger will take, or how many bags are still to load. To get the pilot the answers required to ensure a smooth departure, Ops has to make another call to list of different people to find the answers to each question. They have to do that for each flight under their watch. How confusing, manually inefficient and unnecessary.
Finally, there is the Tower management app. This one is its own source of wonderous information that the ground controller uses to manage the airside aspects of the airport operation. Graphical and labelled Information about aircraft awaiting clearances, pushback and taxi permission, taxiway congestion and closure, conflict alerts, holding point status, tug locations and a raft of other data, geospatially displayed in real-time. All so the ground controller can assess and manage the airport under their watch. And then pass this information to pilots via voice at delivery speeds driven by the traffic density. The controller has to address all of the necessary information to each flight - one at a time. Then, the pilots have to recognise a call, listen to the rapid-fire instructions, assess its meaning, determine the situational outcome and read it all back in the split-second remaining before the controller turns attention to the next aircraft. This would sound funny to people outside the industry who don't know how true it is. Again, it shouldn't be necessary in 2019.
Well, it's not.
The suite of apps described has one thing in common. Data.
Data is easily repurposable, add metadata, and it can be intelligent, drive workload reduction and increase efficiency. Now, with the levels of connectivity available, it can be everywhere, and all this information can be displayed directly to the pilot - now. Sharing of different facets of the data available to others can broaden the flight deck crew's situational awareness and be used to develop a shared mental model of the total operation for the pilots, and every other actor in the operational ecosystem. This capability has significant ramifications for efficiency, flexibility, flow and safety. Especially as traffic levels grow. I wonder...just how fast a ground controller can speak - and I've flown into LAX and JFK.
Does this discussion sound familiar? System-Wide Information Management, SWIM was discussed by Henk in his presentation in the context of ATM, meteorology, trajectory information and the other data necessary to get the 'planes moving from the gate. Airlines need their own SWIM capability to get the 'planes ready to get moving, and most of what is necessary to achieve that is already there. Except, it seems, the will to do it.
Bosses are very adept at declaring that departments must get their house in order and drive the most efficient results for the survival of the airline. More than occasionally, one department carving tight efficiencies is at the expense of another in the war of the silos. But that time is past. It is time to get our industry 'village' in order. Inwardly focussed departmental programs no matter how forward-looking must account for the industry environment or risk early and expensive obsolescence. If the ability of the village to sustain the industry is strained, even the best-intentioned in-house efficiencies will be negated. Simply because most airlines have so far chosen to relinquish any control over the broader issues necessary for the village to survive.
Book an obligation-free virtual meeting via our Contact page to get straight to the point about how Closed Loop can help you and your organisation thrive. You won't be disappointed in the investment of your time.
© 1999–2022 Closed Loop (Australia) Powered by Allette Systems (Australia) and PageSeeder