Referenced material and Publications

EU Directives (sorted by year of pubblication)

  1. European Commission. 2013. “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 Laying down a Performance Scheme for Air Navigation Services and Network Functions Text with EEA Relevance.” Lex: (EU) 390/2013.
  2. ———. 2010. “Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 Laying down a Performance Scheme for Air Navigation Services and Network Functions and Amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 Laying down Common Requirements for the Provision Of Air Navigation Service.” Lex: (EU) 691/2010.
  3. ———. 2010. “Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 Laying down Common Rules on Air Traffic Flow Management (Text with EEA Relevance).” Lex: (EU) 255/2010.
  4. European Parliament, and Council of the European Union. 2008. “Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council of 21 May 2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe.” Lex: 2008/50/EC.
  5. European Commission. 2006. “Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 Laying down a Common Charging Scheme for Air Navigation Services.” (EC) 1794/2006.
  6. ———. 2005. “Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 Laying down Common Requirements for the Provision of Air Navigation Services.” Lex: (EC) 2096/2005.
  7. ———. 2004. “Commision Regulation (EC) No 793/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 Amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on Common Rules for The Allocation of Slots at Community Airports.” Lex: (EC) 793/2004.
  8. European Parliament, and Council of the European Union. 2004. “Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament And of the Council of 10 March 2004 Laying down the Framework For the Creation of the Single European Sky (the Framework Regulation) (Text with EEA Relevance) - Statement by The Member States on Military Issues Related to the Single European Sky.” Lex: (EC) 549/2004.
  9. European Council. 1993. “Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 On Common Rules for the Allocation of Slots at Community Airports.” Lex: (EEC) No 95/93.

Performance and Aviation (sorted by year of pubblication)

  1. Performance Review Unit. 2017. “ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2015 Benchmarking Report with 2016-2020 Outlook.” Report. Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.
  2. Peeters, Sam, and Guglielmo Guastalla. 2017. “Analysis of En-Route Vertical Flight Efficiency.” 00-04. Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.

    Abstract: Description of the conceptual, matematical, and platform independent approach for the analysis of en-route vertical flight efficiency, as used by the Performance Review Unit of EUROCONTROL

  3. ———. 2017. “Analysis of Vertical Flight Efficiency during Climb and Descent.” 00-04. Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.

    Abstract: Description of the conceptual, matematical, and platform independent approach for the analysis of vertical flight efficiency during the climb and descent phases of flights, as used by the Performance Review Unit of EUROCONTROL

  4. EUROCONTROL/PRC. 2016. “Review of Civil Military Coordination and Cooperation Arrangements.” Eurocontrol/PRC. PDF.

    Abstract: Summary of the feedback received from civil and military stakeholders in order to highlight possible deficiencies and inconsistencies in the way civil military cooperation and coordination is performed throughout the Member States.The results are based on a survey carried out between October 2015 and March 2016.

  5. European Commission, EUROCONTROL/PRU on behalf of the. 2016. “U.S. – Europe Comparison of ANS Cost-Efficiency Trends (2006-2014).” Performance Review Unit. PDF.

    Abstract: Factual high-level comparison of Air Navigation Services (ANS) provision costs in Europe and the United States of America (US), based on comparable data and the well-established ACE economic performance framework. It is an update of the comparison of ANS cost-efficiency trends published in 2013 and focuses on the period from 2006 to 2014.

  6. EUROCONTROL, and FAA. 2016. “2015 Comparison of Air Traffic Management-Related Operational Performance: U.S./Europe.” Performance Review Unit. PDF.

    Abstract: This report is the 5th in a series of joint ATM operational performance comparisons between the US and Europe. It represents the 2nd edition under the Memorandum of Cooperation between the United States and the European Union. Building on established operational key performance indicators, the goal of the joint study conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and EUROCONTROL on behalf of the European Union is to understand differences between the two ATM systems in order to further optimise ATM performance and to identify best practices for the benefit of the overall air transport system. The analysis is based on a comparable set of data and harmonised assessment techniques for developing reference conditions for assessing ATM performance.

  7. Performance Review Unit. 2016. “Performance Review Report (PRR) 2015.” Report. Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.
  8. Pavlovic, Goran. 2016. “Borealis HFE Analysis.” Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.
  9. Performance Review Unit. 2016. “ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2014 Benchmarking Report with 2015-2019 Outlook.” Report. Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.
  10. Peeters, Sam. 2016. “Vertical Flight Efficiency During Climb and Descent.” Performance Review Unit. PDF.
  11. Proceedings of the 2016 Integrated Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS). 2016. Proceedings of the 2016 Integrated Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS). IEEE.
  12. Peeters, S., H. Koelman, R. Koelle, R. Galaviz-Schomisch, J. Gulding, and M. Meekma. 2016. “Towards a Common Analysis of Vertical Flight Efficiency.” In 2016 Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance (ICNS), 7A2-1-7A2-11. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICNSURV.2016.7486368. PDF.

    Abstract: Significant efforts are underway to modernize global air traffic management systems. Flight efficiency is a major political design criterion. This paper addresses the identification and measurement of ATM related constraints on vertical flight efficiency with a focus on continuous descent operations. Efficiency of flight operations has become a key driver for identifying bottlenecks and constraints imposed by ATM on airspace user preferred flight trajectories. In particular, measures aiming at fuel-efficient operations attract a lot of attention. This paper reports on the work jointly performed by the FAA and EUROCONTROL to address vertical flight efficiency. Based on an empirical study of trajectory data for US and European airports, a vertical profile analysis algorithm has been developed considering research experiences and stakeholder consultations of both teams. This work was performed as the preparatory action of the joint US/Europe comparison report. The results include a joint and harmonized algorithm to describe the vertical trajectory profile and the initial definition of metrics for the performance measurement. This harmonized algorithm will be further be validated and refined as part of the US/Europe comparison report including a wider set of airports. Demonstrating the general feasibility, the algorithm will be further promoted for use in international performance activities under ICAO.

  13. STATFOR. 2016. “EUROCONTROL Seven-Year Forecast – February 2016.” 15/12/17-52. EUROCONTROL. PDF.
  14. Performance Review Body. 2016. “Dashboard RP2.” URL.
  15. University of Westminster. 2015. “The Cost of Passenger Delay to Airlines in Europe.” 2nd ed. London, UK. PDF.
  16. IATA. 2015. “Worldwide Slot Guidelines.” IATA. URL.
  17. Cappelleras, Laura. 2015. “Additional ASMA Time Performance Indicator Document.” 00-06. Eurocontrol/PRU. URL. PDF.

    Abstract: Description of the conceptual, informational, and implementation independent model of the additional ASMA time performance indicator

  18. ———. 2015. “Additional Taxi-Out Time Performance Indicator Document.” 00-04. Eurocontrol/PRU. URL. PDF.

    Abstract: Description of the conceptual, informational, and implementation independent model of the additional taxi-out time performance indicator

  19. Wikipedia. 2015. “IATA Delay Codes.” URL.
  20. Performance Review Body. 2015. “Dashboard RP1.” URL.
  21. Canarslanlar, A.O., Usanmaz O., Turgut E.T., Cavcar M., Dogeroglu T., Yay O.D., and Armutlu K. 2014. “The Measurements of Turkish Airspace ATM Efficiency Based on Actual Flight Data.” Poster. PDF.
  22. Schinwald, C., and M. Hornung. 2014. “Methodical Approach to Determining the Capacity Utilisation of Airports: the Development of the European Air Traffic System Between 2008 and 2012,” November. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2014, Augsburg. PDF.
  23. Guastalla, Guglielmo. 2014. “Performance Indicator – Horizontal Flight Efficiency.” 01-00. Eurocontrol/PRU. URL.

    Abstract: Description of the horizontal flight efficiency indicator and its two versions used in the Performance Scheme Regulation – KEP and KEA

  24. National Air Traffic Services. 2014. “Reporting of Environmental Performance - 3Di.” URL.

    Abstract: 3Di (three dimension inefficiency score) is a pioneering metric developed by NATS to measure the environmental efficiency of UK airspace

  25. Lexicon, Eurocontrol ATM. 2014. “User Preferred Route.” Eurocontrol ATM Lexicon. URL.
  26. ICAO. 2013. Aviation System Block Updates - The Framework for Global Harmonization. ICAO. PDF.
  27. Performance Review Unit. 2013. “ATM Cost Effectiveness (ACE) Reports.” Report. Eurocontrol/PRU. URL.
  28. Peeters, Sam. 2013. “Adaptation of Continuous Descent and Climb Operational Techniques at Brussels Airport Aiming at Cost Efficiency.” Master's thesis, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussel. PDF.
  29. Nero, Giovanni, ed. 2012. EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure. 3.0 ed. EUROCONTROL. URL.
  30. IATA. 2012. Airport Handling Manual - Standard IATA Delay Codes (AHM730). IATA. PDF.
  31. European Commission. 2011. “‘Better Airports’ Package Launched.” Press Release. URL.
  32. Performance Review Unit, and ATMAP MET Working Group. 2011. “Algorithm to Describe Weather Conditions at European Airports.” Technical Note version 2.3. Brussels, Belgium: Eurocontrol/PRU. PDF.
  33. Larsson, Peter. 2011. “CCD versus CDA.” Scandinavian Airlines System. PDF.
  34. De Wandeler, Yves. 2011. “Planning for Delay: Influence of Flight Scheduling on Airline Punctuality.” Eurocontrol/CODA. URL.
  35. Eurocontrol. 2011. “IR691 - Data Collection Process.” Eurocontrol. URL.
  36. Department of Transport Studies. 2011. “European Airline Delay Cost Reference Values.” ver 3.2. London, UK: University of Westminster. PDF.
  37. Eurocontrol. 2011. Base of Aircraft Data (BADA). 3rd ed. Brussels, Belgium: Eurocontrol/Research and SESAR. URL.
  38. ICAO. 2011. Doc 9829. Guidance on the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management. Second. ICAO. URL.
  39. Eurocontrol. 2010. “Data Specification for Airport Operators (EC Reg 691/2010, Annex IV).” Eurocontrol. PDF.
  40. ———. 2010. “Data Specification for Air Carriers (EC Reg 691/2010, Annex IV).” Eurocontrol. PDF.
  41. Jetzki, Martina. 2009. “The Propagation of Air Transport Delays in Europe.” Master's thesis, Aachen, Germany: Department of Airport and Air Transportation Research, RWTH Aachen University. PDF.
  42. Performance Review Unit. 2009. “ATM Airport Performance (ATMAP) Framework.” 1. Performance Review Commission. PDF.

    Abstract: Description of the performance framework and the data requirements for the assessment of the performance of aircraft movement operations at major airports (in the movement area) and nearby airspace (maximum range 100 Nm radius from the airport).

  43. ———. 2009. “ATM Airport Performance (ATMAP) Framework.” 1. Performance Review Commission.

    Abstract: Description of the performance framework and the data requirements for the assessment of the performance of aircraft movement operations at major airports (in the movement area) and nearby airspace (maximum range 100 Nm radius from the airport).

  44. Performance Review Commission. 2008. “Vertical Flight Efficiency.” PDF.
  45. ———. 2007. “Terms of Reference & Rules of Procedure.” PDF.
  46. ICAO. 2007. Air Traffic Management. ICAO. URL.
  47. ———. 2006. Aircraft Operations - Flight Operations. Vol. 1. ICAO. URL.
  48. ACE Working Group on Complexity. 2006. “Report on Complexity Metrics for ANSP Benchmarking Analysis.” PDF.
  49. ICAO. 2006. Doc 8168. Aircraft Operations. Fifth. ICAO. PDF.
  50. ———. 2005. Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept. Vol. Doc 9854. Montreal, Canada: ICAO. PDF.
  51. Airbus. 2004. Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy. Getting Grips With. Airbus. URL. PDF.
  52. Transport Studies Group. 2004. “Evaluating the True Cost to Airlines of One Minute of Airborne or Ground Delay.” London, UK: University of Westminster. PDF.
  53. De Neufville, R., and A.R. Odoni. 2003. Airport Systems: Planning, Design, and Management. Aviation Week Books. McGraw-Hill.
  54. Airbus. 2002. Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance. Getting Grips With. Airbus. URL. PDF.
  55. ———. 1998. Getting to Grips with the Cost Index. Getting Grips With. Airbus. URL. PDF.

Statistics, Data Visualizations et al. (sorted by year of pubblication)

  1. Satyanarayan, Arvind, Ryan Russell, Jane Hoffswell, and Jeffrey Heer. 2015. “Reactive Vega: A Streaming Dataflow Architecture For Declarative Interactive Visualization.” IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis). URL.
  2. Wickham, Hadley. 2014. “Tidy Data.” Journal of Statistical Software 59 (10). American Statistical Association: 23. URL.

    Abstract: A huge amount of effort is spent cleaning data to get it ready for analysis, but there has been little research on how to make data cleaning as easy and effective as possible. This paper tackles a small, but important, component of data cleaning: data tidying. Tidy datasets are easy to manipulate, model and visualize, and have a specific structure: each variable is a column, each observation is a row, and each type of observational unit is a table. This framework makes it easy to tidy messy datasets because only a small set of tools are needed to deal with a wide range of un-tidy datasets. This structure also makes it easier to develop tidy tools for data analysis, tools that both input and output tidy datasets. The advantages of a consistent data structure and matching tools are demonstrated with a case study free from mundane data manipulation chores.

  3. Satyanarayan, Arvind, Kanit Wongsuphasawat, and Jeffrey Heer. 2014. “Declarative Interaction Design for Data Visualization.” In ACM User Interface Software & Technology (UIST). URL.
  4. Nikola Sander, Ramon Bauer, Guy J. Abel, and Johannes Schmidt. 2014. “Visualising Migration Flow Data with Circular Plots.” Working papers 02/2014. Wohllebengasse 12-14, A-1040 Vienna, Austria: Vienna Institute of Demography.

    Abstract: Effective visualisations of migration flows can substantially enhance our understanding of underlying patterns and trends. However, commonly used migration maps that show place-to-place flows as stroked lines drawn atop a geographic map fall short of conveying the complexities of human movement in a clear and compelling manner. We introduce circular migration plots, a new method for visualising and exploring migration flow tables in an intuitively graspable way. Our approach aims to provide detailed quantitative information on the intensities and patterns of migration flows around the globe by using a visualization design that is effective and visually appealing. The key elements of the design are (a) the arrangement of origins and destinations of migration flows in a circular layout, (b) the scaling of individual flows to allow the entire system to be shown simultaneously, (c) the expression of the volume of movement through the width of the flow and its direction through the colour of the origin. Drawing on new estimates of 5-year bilateral migration flows between 196 countries, we demonstrate how to create circular migration plots at regional and country levels using three alternative software packages: Circos, R, and the JavaScript library d3.js. Circular migration plots considerably improve our ability to graphically evaluate complex patterns and trends in migration flow data, and for communicating migration research to scientists in other disciplines and to the general public. Our visualisation method is applicable to other kinds of flow data, including trade and remittances flows.

  5. Rogers, Simon. 2012. “Data Are or Data Is?” URL.
  6. Bertin, Jacques. 2010. Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. First. Esri Press.
  7. Consortium, MathJax. 2010. “MathJax.” MathJax Consortium. URL.

    Abstract: A JavaScript display engine for mathematics that works in all browsers.

  8. Wickham, Hadley. 2010. “A Layered Grammar of Graphics.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 19 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1198/jcgs.2009.07098.
  9. Tufte, Edward R. 2006. Beautiful Evidence. Graphics Press. URL.
  10. ———. 2006. The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within. Graphics Pres. URL.
  11. MacFarlane, John. 2006. “Pandoc - a Universal Document Converter.” URL.

    Abstract: Pandoc can convert documents in markdown, reStructuredText, textile, HTML, DocBook, LaTeX, MediaWiki markup, TWiki markup, OPML, Emacs Org-Mode, Txt2Tags, Microsoft Word docx, EPUB, or Haddock markup to HTML formats: XHTML, HTML5, and HTML slide shows using Slidy, reveal.js, Slideous, S5, or DZSlides. Word processor formats: Microsoft Word docx, OpenOffice/LibreOffice ODT, OpenDocument XML Ebooks: EPUB version 2 or 3, FictionBook2 Documentation formats: DocBook, GNU TexInfo, Groff man pages, Haddock markup Page layout formats: InDesign ICML Outline formats: OPML TeX formats: LaTeX, ConTeXt, LaTeX Beamer slides PDF via LaTeX Lightweight markup formats: Markdown, reStructuredText, AsciiDoc, MediaWiki markup, DokuWiki markup, Emacs Org-Mode, Textile Custom formats: custom writers can be written in lua.

  12. Wilkinson, Leland. 2005. The Grammar of Graphics. 2nd ed. Secaucus, NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. doi:10.1007/0-387-28695-0.
  13. Tufte, Edward R. 2001. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second. Graphics Press. URL.
  14. ———. 1997. Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence And Narrative. Graphics Press. URL.
  15. ———. 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press. URL.
  16. Cleveland, William S. 1985, revised 1994. The Elements of Graphing Data. Second. Summit, New Jersey, USA: Hobart Press.