Docstoc

th th October Eurocontrol

Document Sample
th th October Eurocontrol Powered By Docstoc
					          CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON
             SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
          INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
            AGENDA ITEM 1
WELCOME - OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY
                REGULATION –
     Overview by the European Commission




  11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
   INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE SINGLE
EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES


                    By Jean-Luc Garnier
                   Head Regulatory Unit
           SES Interoperability Mandates Manager


 11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
  First Three Interoperability Mandates

 Article 3(5) of the Interoperability Regulation

 3 Mandates sent to EUROCONTROL on 5th April 2004 to
  assist the European Commission in the development of
  Implementing Rules (IR) for interoperability on:
        Co-ordination and Transfer
        Flight Message Transfer Protocol
        Initial Flight Plan




11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   5
Subject of the mandates


   Draft implementing rules

   Identification of means of compliance

   Eurocontrol’s actions to support implementation of the
    rules




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   6
  General requirements (1)

Systems, constituents, and associated procedures of EATMN
 shall comply with IR throughout their life cycle
IR shall determine any specific requirement that complement or
 refine the essential requirements (ER)
IR shall ensure coordinated introduction of new, agreed and
 validated concepts
IR concerning a system shall determine the constituents
IR shall describe conformity assessment (CA) procedures
IR shall identify tasks to be carried out by Notified Bodies


11th-12th October 2004     Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   7
  General Requirements (2)


 IR will rely on rules and standards developed by
  EUROCONTROL & ICAO
 IR shall specify conditions of implementation
 EUROCONTROL shall develop Impact Assessments
 EUROCONTROL shall establish a Consultation Process




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   8
  Deliverables




          Initial Plan               April 2004
          Draft Final Report         October 2004
          Final Report               January 2005




11th-12th October 2004    Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   9
Management Process (1)




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   10
         Management Process (2)


                                    Mandate Manager

              Review Group



Implementing Rule           Safety Focus          Justification                  Support
  Drafting Group               Group             Drafting Group               Services Group




       11th-12th October 2004              Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   11
  Work Breakdown Structure
 Structured on 3 parts:
           Part 1 - Development of regulatory products and justification material
                  WP1.1 Definition of the regulatory approach
                  WP1.2 Drafting of regulatory products
                  WP 1.3 Consultation
                  WP1.4 Review of comments
                  WP1.7 Safety Analysis
           Part 2 - Implementation of Regulatory Provisions
                  WP2.1 Definition of EUROCONTROL support for the implementation of
                    regulatory provisions
           Part 3 - Regulatory Assurance Activities
                  WP3.1 Definition of EUROCONTROL support for regulatory assurance
                    activity

11th-12th October 2004                 Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   12
       SES Mandates on Interoperability - Timetable

    Delivery date            Deliverable                            Scope
30 April 2004            Initial plan          Development plan
11-12 October 2004                             Informal Consultation Workshop
29 October 2004          Draft final report      Draft Implementing Rule containing regulatory
                                              provisions
                                               Justification material
                                               Identification of Means of Compliance.
                                              …subject to formal consultation
31 January 2005          Final report            Draft Implementing Rule containing regulatory
                                              provisions
                                               Justification material
                                               Identification of Means of Compliance
                                               EUROCONTROL proposals to                 support
                                              stakeholders.


       11th-12th October 2004                   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   13
  Consultation Process
    Informal Consultation Process:
               Collect Stakeholders’ opinion in order to draft first draft regulatory
                proposal to be the subject of formal consultation
               Nominated experts from EUROCONTROL existing working
                arrangements (ACG) act as Sounding Board
               Supported by “One Sky Teams”
               Concluded by first Workshop


   Formal Consultation Process:
               EUROCONTROL Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ENPRM)
               Drafting, Consultation and Review of Comments
               2 Months
               Results presented to second Workshop


11th-12th October 2004               Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   14
  Informal Consultation


 Triggered by the definition of the Regulatory Approaches
 Done through the “sounding boards” designated for each
  interoperability mandate
 Approx 30 comments on the proposed approaches, addressing:
       The structure of the implementing rule
       The content of the implementing rule and/or associated material
       The structure/content of the Regulatory Approaches
 Comments taken into account in the drafting phase



11th-12th October 2004           Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   15
General structure of an Interoperability IR




                                                     Community
                                    +              Specification (s)
                                                   (as appropriate)




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   16
  Conformity Assessment

 Growing need for an overall approach addressing safety,
  performance and interoperability aspects
 Harmonized application of conformity assessment procedures
  required for SES implementation
 EUROCONTROL, CAAs, ANSPs have thorough experience on
  verification / approval of ATM systems
 Joint RU/SRU Task Force created to address conformity
  assessment issues




11th-12th October 2004    Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   17
    Next Steps




   Draft Final Report         29 October 2004

   Formal Consultation        November 2004 – early Jan. 2005

   Final Report               January 2005




    11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   18
Conclusions


    Learning process

    Challenging timescales

    Significant new developments ahead




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   19
     CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ASPECTS




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
Conformity Assessment in Global Approach


  is defined by…         CA requirements (included in the Implementing rule)


 is applied to…           Constituents                  Systems

is attested by…
                                 Declaration of
                                  conformity           
                                                                   Declaration of
                                                                   verification

                                                              
                         Manufacturer                       ANSP




11th-12th October 2004             Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   21
     Conformity Assessment Task Force
Ad-Hoc Task Force co-chaired by EUROCONTROL Regulatory
 Unit and Safety Regulation Unit
Goals:
   Study Conformity assessment matters
   Propose relevant material to support conformity assessment
    activities
   Act as consultation body endorsing the Conformity assessment
    requirements to be included in the IRs
   Ensure consistency of interoperability conformity assessment and
    safety oversight processes




   11th-12th October 2004        Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   22
      CA Basic principles – CA Goal


   High level of confidence in the capability of two different declared
    conformant implementations to interoperate within the EATMN

   Implementation  constituent(s) and/or system(s)

   “Declared conformant” means either:
         The constituent(s) has (have) an EC declaration of conformity for
          use
         The system(s) has (have) an EC declaration of verification




       11th-12th October 2004        Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   23
     Conformity Assessment for COTR /FMTP
Points to be addressed by the conformity assessment
  requirements:
   What shall be verified?
   Which test practices to support the conformity assessment?
   Which test tool capability to support the conformity assessment?
   Which documentation material (technical file) to support the
    conformity assessment?
   Which roles for the stakeholders of the conformity assessment?




   11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   24
    Application of Conformity Assessment – Scenario 1

   ANSP defines the technical solution and subcontracts the
    development of constituent(s) to a manufacturer(s)
     Manufacturer shall:
          Meet the CA requirements (for the development phase)
          Issue an EC declaration of conformity
     ANSP shall
          Meet the CA requirements (Entry into service & Operations
           phases)
          Issue an EC declaration of verification



    11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   25
    Application of Conformity Assessment – Scenario 2

   ANSP defines and develops the technical solution
           ANSP shall
          Meet the CA requirements (Development, Entry into service
           & Operations phases)
          Issue an EC declaration of verification




    11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   26
    Supervision of compliance


   In both cases the National supervisory authority retains
    overall responsibility that
     Manufacturers
     ANSPs
comply with the regulation




    11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   27
                   CA requirements of the IR

                                     Entry into
      Development                     service                            Operations


                                       +
  Report of inspections           Technical documentation as
   and tests achieved                described in the CA
    during this phase                    requirements

                                 
Manufacturer EC declaration of ANSP EC declaration of NSA
                conformity             verification
                                     Authorisation for
                                    putting into service
         11th-12th October 2004              Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   28
     Conformity Assessment for IFPL
Points to be addressed by the conformity assessment
 requirements:
   What shall be verified?
   Which documentation material to support the conformity
    assessment?
   Which roles for the stakeholders of the conformity assessment?




   11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   29
CO-ORDINATION AND TRANSFER MANDATE –
        Presentation & Discussion




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
                      Operational Context
                                                                            Notification, Co-ordination and
                                                     SECTOR
                                                    BOUNDARY
                                                                             Transfer between civil ATC Units
                                                                             defined by ICAO
               Notification      Co-ordination   Transfer
                                                                            Requirements for civil/military
                                                                             situational awareness and airspace
                                                                             crossing co-ordination
                                                                            Major task for the Planner Controller
TRANSFERRING




                                                                             if done by telephone
                                                            RECEIVING

                                                                            Connections between FDPSs to
                                                                             replace the verbal “estimates” 
                                                                             On-Line Data Interchange (early
                                                                             1980)

                      11th-12th October 2004                     Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   31
      Operational Context

   Common rules and message formats aligned to European
    practices  EUROCONTROL OLDI Standard edition 1 (1992)
   OLDI Standard edition 2.2 (9/1998)
     3 mandatory messages
     No formal conformity assessment process
     Combined mandatory and recommended requirements
   OLDI Standard edition 2.3 (12/2001)
     Inclusion of aircraft capability in support of RVSM and 8.33KHz
     Rationalization of optional flight plan data
     Update of Revision message



      11th-12th October 2004            Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   32
      Operational Context

   Draft OLDI Standard 3.0
     3 new mandatory messages
     New ground/ground situational awareness messages
     Civil/Military co-ordination messages
     New messages added in support to Arrival Management, Transfer of
      Control, Air/Ground Data Link
     Update of existing messages




      11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   33
          Current Regulatory Situation
   Council Directive 93/65/EEC
      Definition and use of compatible technical specifications for the procurement of
       ATM equipment and systems – EUROCONTROL standards made mandatory
       under Community law (Including an indicative list of Eurocontrol standards)
   Council Directive 97/15/EC (amending 93/65/EEC)
      OLDI 1st Edition specifically identified
   Commission Regulation (EC) 2082/2000 (amending 97/15/EC)
      OLDI Edition 2.2 adopted in the framework of Directive 93/65/EEC
   Commission Regulation (EC) 980/2002 (amending (EC) 2082/2000)
      OLDI Edition 2.3 adopted in the framework of Directive 93/65/EEC
   These directives/regulations will be repealed 18 months after the entry
    into force of the SES Interoperability Regulation (20 October 2005)
          11th-12th October 2004             Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   34
Mandate development




                         Informal Consultation




11th-12th October 2004              Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   35
         Regulatory Approach

   Document defining the structure and the content of the regulatory
    package including draft rule and justification material
   Triggered the 1st step of the Informal Consultation (done through the
    “sounding boards” designated for each interoperability mandate)
   Proposed structure of the rule modified following the consultation:
         Roles & responsibilities, minimal information to be exchanged,
          performance requirements (functional & operational requirements) –
          part of the Implementing Rule
         Detailed message definition, formats to be used, data insertion rules
          (based on the draft OLDI v. 3.0) – Community Specification identified
          as means of compliance with the rule

         11th-12th October 2004        Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   36
         Conclusions of the Regulatory Approach


   Implementing rule + Community specification
   Technical solution not imposed by the rule
   Guideline clarifying implementations aspects (assumptions,
    recommendations, description of data flows not covered by the rule)
   Traceability to the relevant Essential Requirements – ER 1 to 5
    (seamless operations, support to new concepts of operations, safety,
    civil-military co-ordination, environment)
   ER 6 and 7 not addressed by the rule  constituents and systems
    implementing the rule, not identified

         11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   37
Structure of the COTR IR




                                                     Community
                                    +              Specification (s)




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   38
        Development COTR IR
   Interoperability and Performance requirements
     Defined in terms of “data flows” (conceptual form with emphasis on
      operational needs)
     Mandatory and voluntary data flows (implemented based on bilateral
      agreements)
     Input:
        Interoperability Requirement Document for Co-ordination and Transfer
        OLDI 3.0 (38 messages)
     Output
        General requirements
        6 mandatory data flows
        15 voluntary data flows

        11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   39
     Development of the COTR IR
Safety requirements
   Defined following the Air Navigation System Safety Assessment
    Methodology
   Functional Hazard Assessment session with safety, operational and
    technical experts (for both COTR and FMTP)
   Preliminary System Safety Assessment leading to safety
    requirements
   Development of a Safety Summary, describing the above process
    for inclusion in the Justification material
   Analysis of the identified requirements and selection of those to be
    included in the rule as specific Safety requirements
   11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   40
      Development of the COTR IR
Conformity Assessment requirements
   Not addressed in the OLDI Standard
   Identification of the basic principles, goals and objectives
   Identification of specific CA requirements for COTR
        Verification Objectives
        Test practices and test tools
        Technical file supporting CA
        Roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders




    11th-12th October 2004           Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   41
     Development of the COTR IR
Quality of Service requirements
   Defined in terms of:
         Transaction times
         Reliability
         Availability

Area of Application requirements
   European Air Traffic Management network
Implementation Condition requirements
   Relative to the date of entry into force (not an absolute date)
   Differentiated between the 3 data flows already mandatory and the new 3
    data flows proposed to be mandatory

   11th-12th October 2004        Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   42
     Overview of the draft rule for COTR
Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
Chapter I – General
   Objective and Scope
   Definitions & Abbreviations
   Area of Application
Chapter II – Co-ordination and Transfer
   Interoperability and Performance requirements
   Quality of Service requirements
   Safety requirements



   11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   43
     Overview of the draft rule for COTR
Chapter III – Conformity Assessment
   National supervisory authorities
   Verification objectives
   Testing practices and testing tools
   Technical file
   Procedures, roles and responsibilities
   Presumption of conformity
Chapter IV - Final Provisions
   Implementation conditions
   Transitional arrangements
   Entry into force
   11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   44
     Overview of the draft rule for COTR
Annex I – Interoperability and Performance requirements
   Part A – General requirements
   Part B – Requirements for the mandatory data flows
   Part C - Requirements for the voluntary data flows
Annex II – Quality of Service requirements
Annex III – Safety requirements
Annex IV – Conformity Assessment requirements




   11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   45
     Conclusions
New mandatory data flows
   Reduced workload for operational staff
   Improved efficiency & safety
Technical solution left at the level of Community specifications
Formalized, mandatory, safety and conformity assessment
 requirements
Rule making through the EC/SES mechanisms
Enforcement through the EU legal mechanisms




   11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   46
  Draft rule for COTR




                         Discussion…




11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   47
  Discussion
Article 1 - Objective and Scope
Article 2 - Definitions & Abbreviations
Article 3 - Area of Application
Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance requirements
Article 5 - Quality of Service requirements
Article 6 - Safety requirements
Article 7 - National supervisory authorities
Article 8 - Verification objectives
Article 9 - Test practices and test tool
Article 10 - Technical File
Article 11 - Conformity assessment procedures

11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   48
  Discussions
Article 12 - Presumption of conformity
Article 13 - Implementation conditions
Article 14 - Transitional arrangements
Article 15 - Entry into force
Annex I - Part A
Annex I - Part B
Annex I - Part C
Annex II - QoS requirements
Annex III - Safety requirements
Annex IV – Conformity assessment



11th-12th October 2004           Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   49
 FLIGHT MESSAGE TRANSFER PROTOCOL
             MANDATE –
                     Presentation & Discussion




11th-12th October 2004     Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
     Current situation
EC Regulation 980/2002 amending EC Regulation 2082/2000 adoption
 of EUROCONTROL standard FDE – ICD Part 1 for procurement of new
 systems
COM Strategy migration of X.25 to IP
      Industrial offer of X.25 products 
      Maintenance costs of X.25 products 
ECIP COM 4 migration of FDE - ICD Part 1 over X.25 towards FDE -
 ICD Part 2 over TCP/IP
Existing specifications combine mandatory requirements and
 recommendations
Responsibility of stakeholders for conformity assessment not defined

     11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   51
Objective and Scope of the IR
        Objective of the IR
                 Interoperability of ground-ground communications for co-
                  ordination and transfer and civil-military co-ordination
        Scope of the IR
                 System information exchange supporting
                          Co-ordination and transfer of flights
                          Civil-military co-ordination
                 End systems supporting co-ordination and transfer, civil-military
                  co-ordination
                 Fixed ground network not addressed




11th-12th October 2004                    Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   52
Conclusions of the informal consultation about the
Regulatory Approach /1
        One single IR embedding
                 Obligations on stakeholders
                 Mandatory interoperability, QoS, safety requirements
                  applicable to the protocol
                 Mandatory conformity assessment requirements
        No need for a specific Community Specification
        Possible Guideline to clarify some implementation
         aspects



11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   53
Conclusions of the informal consultation about the
Regulatory Approach /2
        IR contributes to Essential Requirements
                 Seamless operations
                 Co-ordinated introduction of new technology
                 Safety
        The choice of the technical solution in terms of
         constituents and systems implementing FMTP is
         left to stakeholders




11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   54
     Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
Chapter I – General
   Objective and Scope
   Definitions & Abbreviations
   Area of Application
Chapter II – Flight Message Transfer Protocol
   Interoperability and Performance requirements
   Quality of Service requirements
   Safety requirements



   11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   55
     Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
Chapter III – Conformity Assessment
   National supervisory authorities
   Testing practices and testing tools
   Technical file
   Procedures, roles and responsibilities


Chapter IV - Final Provisions
   Implementation conditions
   Entry into force




   11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   56
     Overview of the draft rule for FMTP



Annex I – Interoperability and Performance requirements
Annex II – Quality of Service requirements
Annex III – Safety requirements
Annex IV – Conformity Assessment requirements




   11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   57
FMTP / IR Annex I – Interoperability & performance
requirements
          FMTP message formats
          FMTP dynamic behavior
          FMTP state tables
          TCP transport interface & settings
          IP network interface & settings
          References to IETF & ISO/IEC standards.




11th-12th October 2004     Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   58
FMTP / IR Annex II & III- Quality of Service & Safety
requirements
          Quality of Service
                 Requested by the co-ordination and transfer IR
          Safety
                 Verification that the QoS provided to co-ordination
                  and transfer meets the expected level.




11th-12th October 2004           Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   59
FMTP / IR Annex IV- Conformity assessment requirements

          Verification objectives
          Testing practices and test tool
          Technical file
          Procedures




11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   60
FMTP / IR - Conclusions
          COM Strategy – ECIP COM 04  migration from X.25 to
           TCP/IP
          IR consistent with operational requirements on co-
           ordination and transfer
          Low-risk validated solution
          Cost-effective solution
          Contributes to the interoperability and harmonization of
           ground-ground communications in the EATMN




11th-12th October 2004        Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   61
  Draft rule for FMTP




                         Discussion…




11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   62
  Discussion
Article 1 - Objective and Scope
Article 2 - Definitions & Abbreviations
Article 3 - Area of Application
Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance requirements
Article 5 - Quality of Service requirements
Article 6 - Safety requirements
Article 7 - National supervisory authorities
Article 8 - Verification objectives
Article 9 - Test practices and test tool
Article 10 - Technical File
Article 11 - Conformity assessment procedures

11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   63
  Discussions
Article 12 - Implementation conditions
Article 13 - Entry into force
Annex I - Interoperability and Performance requirements
Annex II - QoS requirements
Annex III - Safety requirements
Annex IV – Conformity assessment




11th-12th October 2004    Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   64
         INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN MANDATE –
             Presentation & Discussion




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates
 Initial Flight Plan


Concept
Current limitations
Regulatory Intent
Scope, Objectives, Content




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   66
             Strategy

    Independent Study for                        ATFCM Strategy (1/4/2004)
       Improvement of ATFM
              (2000)


                      Ensure Flight Data Consistency and
                         Disseminate accurate flight data


   Principle of sharing of information, e.g. flight plan conformity feedback

   Consideration of airspace changes after flight plan filing



        11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   67
           Achieving Consistency



                     Pilot                                      ATCO


                                                                                  Induced
                                                                                  Consistency

                                       ATFM



                   Aircraft            CFMU                    ANSP
                   Operator            IFPS                    FDPSs              Enforced
                                                                                  Consistency
Flight
planning
                                    Airspace Data




           11th-12th October 2004             Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   68
                   Current Limitations

 Some of the rules for managing FPLs are imprecise or
  missing. (e.g. when aircraft is taxiing)

 The ownership of flight plan information is vague.

 The dynamics of European airspace are not always reflected
  in FPL processing.

 ATM may require to unilaterally change an accepted Flight
  Plan.                                 result >>>

       11th-12th October 2004     Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   69
              Current Limitations


Result:                   Reference to exact flight intentions may
                          sometimes be lost.



                          Each actor may have their own version of the
                          FPL - no common reference.




          11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   70
                     Outcome
 Aircraft types and equipage may not be updated.
 Different versions of the en-route portion of the flight may
  exist (CDR network).
 Deviations to the RFL not reported.


Impact:              Potential Safety Issues
                     Capacity wastage
                     Additional coordination needs for ATC
                     Fuel calculation inconsistencies

          11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   71
                   Flight Plan Differences
                 (Examples from Flight Plan Consistency studies)
AO-CFMU
2.2% of FPLs have a difference in Route or A/C type.
44% of FPLs have a difference in Cruise Level.
ATSU-CFMU

13% - 44% (depending on ATSU) have a 2D Route difference (minor &
major)
All actors

2.3% aircraft type
12.3% 2D route
       Not all differences represent inconsistencies!
        11th-12th October 2004            Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   72
        Regulatory Intent

Ensure that all parties responsible for the safe conduct of a flight
shall be in possession of a minimum consistent set of key elements
of the flight plan:


 Improving flight plan consistency between AO - ATC -
  CFMU.




        11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   73
         Scope - IFP Data Flows by time

6 months                  6 days                          3 hrs.            Missing FPL

                                   20 hrs.
                                                                  1 hr
RPL                                          14 hrs.
                                                                         EOBT
          NLST                                 FPL Submission
                                             IFPL ACK, MAN, REJ
                    RLST
RPL submission process
                                 FPL
RPL acknowledgement procedures
                                             CHG                          DEP                   ARR
                                             DLA
                                                          CNL                   Out of scope
                                                                           AFIL           FNM
                                                                           AFP            MFS
                         AIRAC                                                            AFP

                                         CRAM                                   Flight Phase
                                                       Late NOTAM1,
                                                       Other closures


        11th-12th October 2004                          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   74
              Scope - IFP Data Flows by actor
                     FPL ACK, MAN, REJ
                                              ATS
                                              RO                                 FPL reception feedback

                                   FPL Submission                               FPL distribution



                              FPL Agency                                                           ACC1



                                                                                                   ACC2
                    AO Dispatch
 Pilot                                                          IFPS

Intra
                                             Internal
                                                                                                   ACC.
company              NAV Dept.
                                             CFMU DF
 data flows


                                                                RFPS
                     RPL Office                                                                    ACC.

                                         RPL submission process


                               RPL acknowledgement procedures


              11th-12th October 2004                     Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   75
    Objectives



 To clarify the roles/ responsibility of each actor in
  respect of initial flight planning.

 To implement a fully controlled procedure for the
  handling of changes to already accepted FPLs
  (including airspace updates).




    11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   76
     Key Requirements (1)


                   GENERAL PRINCIPLES

 Establish a formal status for IFPLs and clarify roles
  and responsibility of each actor.
 Define the minimum set of IFPL and profile
  characteristics needed to serve as the common
  basis for consistency between all actors.



    11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   77
      Key Requirements (2)

   IMPLEMENT IFPL CHANGE MECHANISMS IN
           THE PRE-FLIGHT PHASE
 Develop procedures for handling changes to accepted
  FPLs.
 Develop FPL reprocessing to reflect dynamic airspace
  changes.
 Develop procedures and communication means to ensure
  changes reported in pre-departure phase.

      11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   78
      A common reference

Common reference means :
 Actors have the freedom to use the reference data for
  their own purposes and according to their own
  requirements.
  (e.g. own flight format etc.)

HOWEVER

 Changes to the common reference data in the pre-
  flight phase must be notified to all relevant affected
  actors.
      11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   79
      Important note!!

Intention is NOT to prevent changes to the IFPL but to
ensure that changes are :

     Properly coordinated.
     Disseminated early enough                          to       enable
      appropriate action to be taken.

For each Flight there should be one single, common IFPL
view.


     11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   80
Key elements
 Aircraft Identification
 Aerodrome of Departure and arrival
 Estimated Off-Block Date and time
 Route (excluding SID, STAR)
 Cruise speed(s) and requested flight level(s)
 Aircraft Type and Wake Turbulence category
 Flight Rules and Type of flight
 Aircraft equipage – Equipment Field 10 and all related field 18 information

 IFPS Flight Plan Identification (once issued)




11th-12th October 2004              Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   81
        Pre-flight Phase

      The period from the first submission of a flight
          plan until the termination of one of the
                      following events:
   Engine start-up at aerodrome of departure within the airspace of
    application.
   First delivery of airways clearance within the airspace of application.
   First ATC activation at aerodrome of departure within the airspace of
    application.


        11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   82
  Conclusions

THE “INITIAL” FLIGHT PLAN CONCEPT IS AN
ENABLER OF ATFCM OPTIMISATION AND FUA.

THE “INITIAL” FLIGHT PLAN IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE      FURTHER       DEVELOPMENT     OF
INTEROPERABILITY AND CDM.

THE “INITIAL” FLIGHT PLAN WILL CONTRIBUTE
TO SAFETY.



  11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   83
         Regulatory Approach

   Document defining the structure and the content of the regulatory
    package including draft rule and justification material
   Triggered the 1st step of the Informal Consultation (done through the
    “sounding boards” designated for each interoperability mandate)
   Drafting as proposed in the Regulatory Approach defined by
    EUROCONTROL:
         Rule addressing high level procedures to be followed by
          Aircraft Operators, ATS Reporting Offices, ANSPs and CFMU-
          IFPS
         Detailed implementation solution left at the level of Community
          Specifications (e.g. updated IFPS User Manual).
         11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   84
         Conclusions of the Regulatory Approach


   Implementing rule + Community specification
   High level rule, addressing procedures
   Detailed solution not imposed by the rule
   Traceability to the relevant Essential Requirements – ER 1 to 3
    (seamless operations, support to new concepts of operations, safety)
   ER 6 and 7 not addressed by the rule  constituents and systems
    implementing the rule, not identified




         11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   85
         Development of the IFPL IR
   Identification of:
     Roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in completion,
      submission and modifications of flight plans in the pre-flight phase:
         Aircraft Operators
         ATS Reporting Offices
         CFMU-IFPS
         ANSPs
     “Key elements” of the flight plan that need to be kept consistent in
      the pre-flight phase




         11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   86
      Development of the IFPL IR
Safety requirements
   Defined following the Air Navigation System Safety Assessment
    Methodology
   Functional Hazard Assessment session with safety, operational experts,
    service providers and aircraft operators
   Preliminary System Safety Assessment leading to safety requirements
   Development of a Safety Summary, describing the above process for
    inclusion in the Justification material
   Analysis of the identified requirements and selection of those to be
    included in the rule as specific Safety requirements




    11th-12th October 2004        Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   87
      Development of the IFPL IR
Conformity Assessment requirements
   Specific issues, different of COTR and FMTP
        An EC declaration addressing the compliance of procedures is not defined
         in the SES Interoperability Regulation
        The rule addresses all persons and organisations that submit flight plan
         and associated messages  an uncountable multitude of parties
         distributed in various locations, who cannot be addressed in a single way
        A single conformity assessment mechanism cannot therefore be applied to
         all parties concerned by the IR
        CA requirements addressing CFMU-IFPUs, ANSPs, AROs and (some)
         Aircraft Operators might be considered



    11th-12th October 2004           Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   88
     Development of the IFPL IR
Area of Application requirements
   Referred to Article 1 (3) of the Airspace regulation – EUR & AFI regions
    where Member States are responsible for ATS
   Parties involved in the flight planning process
   List of the “key elements”
Implementation Condition requirements
   Relative to the date of entry into force (not an absolute date) of the
    Regulation




   11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   89
     Overview of the draft rule for IFPL
Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
Chapter I – General
    Objective and Scope
    Definitions & Abbreviations
    Area of Application
Chapter II – Initial Flight Plan
    Interoperability and Performance requirements
    Safety requirements




   11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   90
     Overview of the draft rule for IFPL
Chapter III – Conformity Assessment
   National supervisory authorities
   Documentation material
   Procedures, roles and responsibilities
   Presumption of conformity
Chapter IV - Final Provisions
   Implementation conditions
   Transitional arrangements
   Entry into force
Annex I – Safety requirements

   11th-12th October 2004       Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   91
     Conclusions
Identification of the roles & responsibilities for the parties involved
 in flight planning in the pre-flight phase
   consistent flight plan information between Pilot, ANSP, CFMU-IFPS
Solution left at the level of Community specifications
Formalized, mandatory, safety requirements
Possible application of conformity assessment processes
Rule making through the EC/SES mechanisms
Enforcement through the EU legal mechanisms



   11th-12th October 2004      Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   92
  Draft rule for IFPL




                         Discussion…




11th-12th October 2004          Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   93
  Discussion
Article 1 - Objective and Scope
Article 2 - Definitions & Abbreviations
Article 3 - Area of Application
Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance requirements
Article 5 - Safety requirements
Article 6 - National supervisory authorities
Article 7 - Verification objectives
Article 8 – Documentation material
Article 9 - Conformity assessment procedures




11th-12th October 2004         Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   94
  Discussions




Article 10 - Presumption of conformity
Article 11 - Implementation conditions
Article 12 - Transitional arrangements
Article 13 - Entry into force
Annex I – Safety requirements




11th-12th October 2004           Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates   95
          CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON
             SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
          INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES




11th-12th October 2004   Consultation Workshop – SES Interoperability Mandates

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/28/2012
language:Latin
pages:96