Traffic Synchronisation Document information PCP Expert Group 2 Deliverable Name Deployment Analysis Edition 00.00.00 Task contributors List all the Expert Group contributors involved in the task Please complete the advanced properties of the document Abstract Abstract is written for the purpose of succinctly summarizing the main points of the document as objectively as possible. It must be short - only about a paragraph- and has to describe the purpose, the scope, and methods used Use this style/font for writing the abstract.
Transcript
Traffic Synchronisation
Document information
PCP Expert Group 2
Deliverable Name Deployment Analysis
Edition 00.00.0000.00.00
Task contributors
List all the Expert Group contributors involved in the task
Please complete the advanced properties of the document
Abstract
Abstract is written for the purpose of succinctly summarizing the main points of the document as objectively as possible. It must be short - only about a paragraph- and has to describe the purpose, the scope, and methods used
Use this style/font for writing the abstract.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Authoring & Approval
Reviewed By - Reviewers internal to the Expert Groop.
Name & Company Position & Title Date<Name / Company> <Position / Title> <DD/MM/YYYY>
Approved for submission to the SJU By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.
Name & Company Position & Title Date<Name / Company> <Position / Title> <DD/MM/YYYY>
Rejected By - Representatives of the company involved in the project.
Name & Company Position & Title Date<Name / Company> <Position / Title> <DD/MM/YYYY>
Rational for rejectionNone.
Document HistoryEdition Date Status Author Justification
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................7
1 HIGH LEVEL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................12
1.2 HIGH-LEVEL SYSTEM IMPACT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................191.2.1 Candidates.....................................................................................................................................191.2.2 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................23
1.3 HIGH-LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF THE ESSENTIAL DEPLOYMENT BASELINE RELATED ELEMENTS......241.3.1 ATM master plan...........................................................................................................................241.3.2 Baseline consideration..................................................................................................................251.3.3 Links with existing and/or planned implementing rules and/or standards................................261.3.4 Potential risks................................................................................................................................261.3.5 Coherence with ICAO’s Global Air Navigation Plan and Aviation System Blocks Upgrades. .26
2 ARRIVAL MANAGEMENT INTO MULTIPLE AIRPORTS (OI STEP TS-0303)..............................28
2.1 OI STEP DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................282.2 RELATED ENABLERS DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................29
2.3 BACKGROUND & ASSUMPTION...............................................................................................................312.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications......................................................................................................31
THE EXERCISE CONTRIBUTES TO TS-0303 AND TS-0305........................................................................32
THE PROJECT WILL TAKE ONBOARD PART OF THE SCOPE OF P05.06.07.........................................33
2.3.2 Aeronautical services involved......................................................................................................332.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involved..............................................................33
PHASES OF FLOW MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................................33
PHASES OF FLIGHT INVOLVED....................................................................................................................34
2.3.4 Actors involved..............................................................................................................................342.3.5 Flows of information between actors...........................................................................................34
CONCEPT IS MISSING, SO NO FLOWS OF INFORMATION CAN BE IDENTIFIED.............................34
2.3.6 Impact on airborne systems..........................................................................................................342.3.7 Impact on ground systems.............................................................................................................34
2.4 RELATED STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES.............................................................352.4.1 Standards.......................................................................................................................................35
B SEE COMMENT ON 2.3.5...........................................................................................................................35
2.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworks..........................................................................352.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept Blocks..........................................................................................35
2.5 MATURITY AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................352.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release Strategy...................................................35
TS-0303 (ARRIVAL MANAGEMENT INTO MULTIPLE AIRPORTS).....................................................35
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
(OFA 04.01.02 AMAN AND EXTENDED AMAN HORIZON)......................................................................35
2.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered above............................................................36
3 CONTROLLED TIME OF ARRIVAL (CTA) THROUGH USE OF DATALINK (OI STEP TS-0103)......................................................................................................................................................................38
3.1 OI STEP DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................383.2 RELATED ENABLERS DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................41
FIGURE 2: PLAN ARRIVAL SEQUENCE (I4D EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT) PROCESS DIAGRAM.......64
3.3.4 Actors involved...............................................................................................................................643.3.5 Flows of information between actors.............................................................................................65
FIGURE 3: AIR-GROUND EXCHANGES FOR I4D.....................................................................................65
3.3.6 Impact on airborne systems...........................................................................................................653.3.7 Impact on ground systems..............................................................................................................67
3.4 RELATED STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES..................................................................683.4.1 Standards........................................................................................................................................683.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworks.............................................................................703.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept Blocks............................................................................................70
3.5 MATURITY AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................713.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release Strategy.......................................................71
THIS OI STEP TARGET IS RELEASE R4.....................................................................................................71
SE DATA ANALYSIS:........................................................................................................................................73
FIGURE 4 INTER-OFA 04.01.02 AND OFA 04.01.05 DEPENDENCIES AT EXE LEVEL......................74
3.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered above..............................................................75
4 OPTIMISED ROUTE NETWORK USING ADVANCED RNP (OI STEP AOM-0404) AND ENHANCED TERMINAL AIRSPACE FOR RNP-BASED OPERATIONS WITH VERTICAL GUIDANCE (OI STEP AOM-0603)...................................................................................................................77
4.1 OI STEP DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................774.2 RELATED ENABLERS DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................81
4.3 BACKGROUND & ASSUMPTION.................................................................................................................934.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications........................................................................................................934.3.2 Aeronautical services involved.......................................................................................................934.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involved.................................................................934.3.4 Actors involved...............................................................................................................................934.3.5 Flows of information between actors.............................................................................................944.3.6 Impact on airborne systems...........................................................................................................944.3.7 Impact on ground systems..............................................................................................................95
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
4.4 RELATED STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES..................................................................954.4.1 Standards........................................................................................................................................954.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworks.............................................................................964.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept Blocks............................................................................................96
4.5 MATURITY AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................964.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release Strategy.......................................................964.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered above..............................................................964.5.3 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release Strategy.......................................................96
AOM-0404 (OPTIMISED ROUTE NETWORK USING ADVANCED RNP)..............................................96
THIS OI STEP IS INCLUDED IN AN OFA WHICH IS NOT PART OF A PRIORITY BUSINESS NEED.....................................................................................................................................................................96
THIS OI STEP EXISTS IN DS9 IN STEP 1.....................................................................................................96
THIS OI STEP TARGET RELEASE IS NOT DEFINED...............................................................................96
SE DATA ANALYSIS:........................................................................................................................................97
5.1 OI STEP DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................1015.2 RELATED ENABLERS DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................101
5.3 BACKGROUND & ASSUMPTION...............................................................................................................1055.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications......................................................................................................1055.3.2 Aeronautical services involved.....................................................................................................1055.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involved...............................................................1055.3.4 Actors involved.............................................................................................................................1055.3.5 Flows of information between actors...........................................................................................1055.3.6 Impact on airborne systems.........................................................................................................1055.3.7 Impact on ground systems............................................................................................................106
5.4 RELATED STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES................................................................1065.4.1 Standards......................................................................................................................................1065.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworks...........................................................................1065.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept Blocks..........................................................................................106
5.5 MATURITY AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................106
SE DATA ANALYSIS:......................................................................................................................................107
A.0 STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES.............................................................................................................109B.1 LIST OF AERONAUTICAL SERVICES........................................................................................109B.2....................................................................................................................................................................110
B.2.1 LIST OF PHASES OF FLIGHT (as defined by CAST/ICAO)......................................................110B.2.2 LIST OF PHASES OF FLOW MANAGEMENT..........................................................................110
B.3 LIST OF ACTORS (EXCERPT FROM OATA APPROACH).................................................................110B.4 LIST OF EATMN SYSTEMS (AS IDENTIFIED IN ANNEX I OF (EC) 552/2004)..............................111
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Executive summaryExecutive summary is informative and is an expanded version of the abstract (front page). The Executive summary should be maximum 2 pages. The Executive summary must not contain reference to subsequent sections in the document. All statements in the Executive summary should be supported by facts.
In your Executive Summary focus on summarizing your conclusions on:
The technological and/or operational changes resulting from the R&D activities that are within the scope of your Expert Group.
Links with existing and/or planned implementing rules and/or standards.
Potential risks that your Expert Group has pre-identified that would hinder the implementation of the pilot common project (R&D maturity and/or implementation related).
Coherence with ICAO’s Global Air Navigation Plan and Aviation System Blocks Upgrades.
Current conclusions and issues In this current draft, the expert team has reviewed the available material to support the candidate areas of Traffic Synchronisation highlighted within Phase 1 of the Pilot Common Projects Steering Group. In undertaking this analysis this work, the expert team have both reviewed existent material associated with identified Operational Improvements (OIs) and their associated Enablers, but have also reviewed the applicability of other candidate OIs and (in so far has been possible in the timescales) applied expert knowledge to understand the likely scope of change possible associated with the candidate areas.
The candidate areas and a summary of the key findings are presented below:
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Arrivals Management into Multiple Airports (Operational Improvement Ref TS-0303)
Extension of arrival management horizon into the En-Route phase including the arrival management for multiple airports and the integration of departing traffic from airports within the extended arrival management horizon, especially in complex TMAs
Expert Group Comment
The limited results of exercises conducted so far and the planned exercises will give more reliable information on the potential benefit of coordinated arrival management into multiple airports until Release 4, however the associated scope of OIs within the masterplan does not adequately reflect the required operational change, specifically:
The existing description of OI-Step TS-0303 and related chapters in the CONOPS is very limited;
It seems that scope and the operational improvement behind OI-Step TS-0303 is still unclear; There has not been much activity concerning OI-Step TS-0303 yet in the projects and/or
validation exercises; TS-0303 has been addressed so far only in conjunction with TS-0305, where the main focus
was always on TS-0305; Projects planned to cover specifically TS-0303 are still in the PIR phase (although close to
approval) The maturity of TS-0303 cannot be assessed on the basis of the available information, only
the (future) coverage can be stated.
Therefore it is recommended to include TS-0305: “The system integrates information from arrival management systems operating out to a certain distance (e.g. 200 NM) to provide an enhanced and more consistent arrival sequence. The system helps to reduce holding by using speed control to absorb some of the queuing time.”also in the scope of EG2 "Traffic Synchronisation" in order to develop the "complete" picture.
Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) Through Use of Datalink (Operational Improvement Ref TS-0103)
Initial 4D (i4D) and CTA limited to:
• Air ground exchange of 4D trajectory via datalink improving traffic predictability;
• CTA used in the context of moving from CTOT to target time at congestion reducing the impact of ATFM slots for equipped aircrafts.
Expert Group Comment
TS-0103 operation is fully described in the OSED delivered by project 5.6.1 (D67) and the corresponding airborne and ground impacts have their own mature requirements provided by WP9 and WP10. In addition the OSED provides in appendix a list of “concept issues” that have
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
been identified during the concept definition or during the validation exercises and summarises the investigations performed and eventual conclusions made.
Considering the mature documents mentioned above and the fact that required standardization activities are ongoing and should deliver mature standards next year, we consider that the I4D+CTA operation is fit for being part of the PCP and further analysing in the subsequent deployment scenarios and CBA.
In addition, comments received by military experts as regards military equipage suggest CTA impacts transport type state aircraft when flying Business Trajectory the same way as for civil mainline. In step 1 CTA is not relevant for Mission Trajectory as only CTO in relation to ARES entry/exit points are required. In step 1 only transport type state aircraft may be equipped with VDL2 data link (in line with DLS regulation) hence fighter will exchange CTO information through voice. The automated use of Military Mission Systems (MMS) may only be guaranteed for step 2/3 depending on the results from 9.3. Considering estimated equipage (SJU Avionics Study) IOC is proposed for 2019. Results of projects related with military data link accommodation will only have an impact for step 2/3.
It has also been noted that the use of CTA is not considered to be necessary for the majority of the BA fleet which typically operate in and out of airports for which CTAs would not bring benefit.
Results from 5.6.4 exercises demonstrate that considerable benefit can be achieved in high density airspace by transferring delay from the TMA to the en route phase of flight. Furthermore, some additional benefits can be achieved in terms of demand-capacity balancing during the arrival phase. These validation exercises also highlighted that in high-density operations, it was impractical to permit flight crews to vary aircraft speed without specific clearance from controllers as aircraft were frequently in close proximity to each other. However, when there were no separation issues, i.e. aircraft were not close to each other, the passing of an arrival constraint to the flight-deck achieved the desired benefit without adding to ATC workload. The 5.6.4 results suggest that in high density airspace, it is better to meter to a pre-descent point rather than to a TMA entry point or similar lower altitude point. This solves the problem associated with the need to merge aircraft from different flows into a single flow, which in high density airspace usually requires all aircraft to fly controller-prescribed speeds for capacity and separation reasons. In 5.6.4 exercises in lower-density airspace, it appeared possible to use the greater accuracy enabled by i4D-like technology to permit the flight crew to self-manage their descent. It is not clear to what extent this technology offers a benefit in lower density airspace where the need for such constraints is also lower and where a large part of the fleet would incur in disproportioned equipage costs given their current cockpit configuration compared with aircraft flying to more congested airports. The application of CDAs, where needed, would be associated with a specific airport (typically top range airports with a significant degree of congestion) for sequencing purposes only. The information-exchange, specifically ETA min/max, associated with i4D technology seems to offer a benefit in that aligning airborne and ground systems makes sense. However, the ability of an aircraft to meet an arrival constraint with a high degree of accuracy and where the aircraft self-manages its speed, seems less clear, especially in high-density airspace.
Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations (Operational Improvement Ref AOM-0404 “Optimised Route Network using Advanced RNP”, Operational Improvement Ref AOM-0603 “Enhanced Terminal Airspace for RNP-based operations with vertical guidance”)
Development and implementation of Fuel efficient RNP procedures for SID and STAR
Expert Group Comment
Within the time available the Expert Group are clear that this candidate will have benefit and should be taken forward as part of the PCP, however have initiated a discussion (which has not yet been resolved) concerning the use and benefit of different levels or RNP, and in particular RNP AR. At the
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
current time our recommendation is to take forward this uncertainty into the cost benefit analysis where the discussion can be qualified in the light of cost benefit data.
Eurocontrol Quote
Position from the Joint User Requirements Group (JURG) of the International Airlines Association (IATA) and Association of European Airlines (AEA) as presented during the ICAO PBN Workshop (Paris, 25-27 May 2011) is as follows:
RNP AR requires extensive certification and approval efforts similar to a Cat-II/III certification process
RNP AR procedure design is costly and will be recovered from airspace users Therefore, RNP AR is to be used for critical procedures only Proliferation of RNP AR for other than critical procedures should be avoided and should
only apply for those airspace users that will benefit from such procedures As most of Airports International airlines operate to are not terrain or obstacle challenged,
such airports do not fall within the RNP AR category Implementation of RNP AR cannot be based on a generic CBA, only on an airline
individual basis Market for RNP AR is small, i.e. where critical obstacle clearances and critical noise
procedures are an issue RNP AR must be kept as an alternative to normal operations Airlines that are not RNP AR approved shall not be forced to become approved, especially
at those airports where acceptance can also be achieved through the use of RNP APCH.
Industry Quote
The industry (Airbus/Quovadis) does not agree with the above mentioned position, in particular the fact that it has to be used for critical procedures only. RNP AR brings significant benefits in non terrain challenging airports as well:
Definition of shorter procedures thus reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, Noise reduction, Increase airport accessibility
It requires additional level of authorization as compared to RNP APCH, nevertheless, development of RNP AR procedures (in particular in non terrain challenging areas) enable significant cost benefits by reducing flight time and track miles savings.
Advanced Continuous Climb Departures(Operational Improvement Ref TS-0303)Enable the use of continuous climb departure (CCD) in higher density traffic by system support to trajectory management.
Expert Group Comment
Recommendation that CCDs are not included as a separate area in the scope of the PCP. CCDs in step 1 are seen as a potential benefit (together with CDAs) within the ‘Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations’ area.
The provision of CCD through an optimised route network is interlinked with the provision of CDAs, and the 2 concepts should be considered together.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Although Advanced Continuous Climb Departures is currently a step 1 OI, there is a proposal from B4.2 to move AOM-0705 to step 2. Step 2 will enable A-CCDs to be delivered as part of the RBT in a higher density environment; this is out of the timescale of the PCP.
There has only been 1 exercise within SESAR directly addressing AOM-0705 (EXE-05.06.02-VP-561 in Release 2) and the required improvements were not demonstrated. No further exercises are planned by any project in step 1 to address this OI. There is no work foreseen to be scheduled within step 1 to bring AOM-0705 to maturity.
P5.7.4 has conducted exercises, which although not directly addressing AOM-0705, address AOM-0404 and use P-RNAV routes to enable greater use of CDAs and CCDs.
Identified Further Work Associated with Deployment AnalysisPrior to commencing work towards a cost benefit of candidate ATM improvements, further effort is needed within the expert group to address the following issues identified within the team.
Review the OIs associated with Advanced Continuous Departures, as the identified OI does not seem to offer much scope. Further work is needed to assess whether AOM-0404 might be included.
Agree plan of action necessary to reach consensus regarding RNP AR
Ensuring a consistency of information and appropriate level of detail;
Review, analysis and reach consensus regarding ground and air systems impacted by OIs;
Co-ordination with SESAR delivery work packages (4.5 and 5.5.1 – trajectory management framework);
Integration of comments from the EG2 military representative.
Consistency of formatting;
It is anticipated that this work will be covered in subsequent iterations of the document.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
1 High Level Description
1.1 High-Level Operational impact description
1.1.1 Introduction In this document each candidate PCP subject is outlined with a high-level operational description.
Summaries are provided for each candidate according to each OI step and the associated enablers, identifying the high-level operational context, the major system changes and the associated level of maturity.
This document analysis covers 2 PCP candidate areas of interest as follows:
Extended AMAN
Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations
1.1.2 Candidates Overview
1.1.2.1 Extended AMAN
1.1.2.1.1 Introduction:For the purpose of the PCP, ‘Extended AMAN’ specifically considered the following OIs:
Arrival Management Extended to En Route Airspace (TS-0305) Arrivals Management into Multiple Airports (TS-0303)
1.1.2.1.2 Arrival Management Extended to En Route Airspace (TS-0305)Description:
The system integrates information from arrival management systems operating out to a certain distance to provide an enhanced and more consistent arrival sequence reducing holding by using speed control to absorb some of the queuing time.
The current OI step (TS-0305) was defined as deployment baseline but is currently proposed to be replaced by TS-0305-A in Step 1 and TS-0305-B in Step 2 to allow a stepwise implementation of the concept.
The first of these OIs (TS-0305-A) is considered to be in the scope of the PCP and comprises, as a first phase, the simple extension of the AMAN horizon from the current 100-120NM to 180-200NM. This is expected to result in improved arrival flight trajectories for airspace users with efficiency and environmental benefits. The traffic presentation at terminal area entry is greatly improved with the bulk of traffic sequencing being conducted in the en-route and descent phases. This will result in
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
more efficient terminal area operations with greatly reduced low altitude path stretching for sequence building purposes. Efficient overall management of the extended arrival operation is essential including the Sequence Manager role which takes on greater importance when AMAN operations are extended to 180-200NM.
Techniques to manage the AMAN constraints can take the form of tools/advice to controllers such as Time to Lose or Gain and speed advice and the initial implementation is expected to adopt this method.
AMAN constraints can also potentially make use of on-board avionics capabilities to achieve a Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA). The link with the Initial 4D (i4D) concept will have a significant impact on AMAN functionality and the analysis of initial 4D deployment in EG3 is an important consideration.
ATS systems in En-Route units will have to manage arrival constraints in the En-Route sectors which will support AMAN operations in the adjacent/subjacent TMAs . This requires specific enhancement in data exchange, data processing and information display at the relevant Controller Working Positions. The impact of arrival management constraints on en-route sectors is important along with the required co-ordination dialogues between all actors involved in extended arrival management operations. A second complementary phase is Long Range Arrival Management which may be appropriate at specific locations and at specific times of the day. In this option the AMAN horizon is extended to 400-500nm with the objective of pre-sequencing traffic prior to arrival at the extended AMAN horizon and allowing as much delay as practicable to be absorbed at higher altitudes where it can be absorbed more effectively.
In extending the AMAN horizon many more airports fall within the area of influence of AMAN. Methods of managing departures from satellite airports are described so that if necessary delay can be absorbed on the ground and these short-haul flights can enjoy the most efficient flight trajectory possible.
Following the decisions of the PCP steering group this second phase, Long Range Arrival Management, is considered outside the scope of the PCP and as such the PCP will be limited to the initial extension of AMAN to 180-200nm.
OI-Step TS-0305 is already partly addressed in the ESSIP objective ATC15 (FOC: 12/2017).
Transition and Maturity:
This OI step is currently proposed to be split into a TS-0305-A in Step 1 and TS-0305-B in Step 2 to allow a stepwise implementation of the concept.
The scope as defined above, covered by OI TS-0305-A is expected to reach V3 maturity through various exercises from projects 05.06.04 and 05.03 by the end of release 3 in 2013.
The validation work of project 05.06.04 addresses both High Density/High Complexity and Medium Density/Medium Complexity TMA scenarios.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
IOC:
Ready for 2018.
Dependency on CTA/i4D is weak. CTA may be an additional feature in extended arrival management operations which can be included as a supplemental step, where feasible.
There may be further dependency on iSWIM for ATS exchange of flight data and constraints. However in a first step currently available technology can be used for data exchange.
1.1.2.1.3 Arrivals Management into Multiple Airports (TS-0303)Description:
Assistance to Multiple airport arrival management in the terminal area environment is becoming increasingly necessary especially in view of the emerging use of secondary airports which are located in close proximity to major airport hubs. In a complex terminal airspace environment there may be significant interaction between traffic flows into a number of these airports.
This issue is addressed by the extension of arrival management horizon into the En-Route phase including the arrival management for multiple airports and the integration of departing traffic from airports within the extended arrival management horizon, especially in complex TMAs.
It should be noted that this does not include the linking of arrival and departure management.
In complex TMA situations with several airports, AMAN capabilities comprise the simultaneous optimization of traffic streams to different airports at a time, based upon specific prioritization criteria.
In the context of the TS-0305 discussion above, focussing on the initial implementation of the extended horizon AMAN for 180-200 NM it is proposed to go for a simple implementation of OI STEP TS-0305 in this first step, with AMAN for multiple airports to be considered in a subsequent step.
.
Transition and Maturity:
This OI step is partially addressed by 05.06.04 but the material currently available in 05.06.04 is far from complete. Project 05.04.02, which has been approved recently, is planned to complete the validation aspects related to this OI step.
Project 05.04.02 plans to validate TS-0303 “Arrival management multiple airports” together with TS-0302 “Departure Management multiple airports” and together with TS-0305-A Arrival Management extended to en route (Step 1) (see previous section) in 2013/2014.
It should be noted that the link with Departure Management is not within the scope of the PCP and so OI TS-0302 is excluded.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
IOC:
Ready for 2018/2020
1.1.2.2 Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations
1.1.2.2.1 Introduction:ICAO's Performance Based Navigation Concept (PBN) aims to ensure global standardisation of RNAV and RNP specifications and to limit the proliferation of navigation specifications in use world-wide. It is a new concept based on the use of Area Navigation (RNAV) systems. Significantly, it is a move from a limited statement of required performance accuracy to more extensive statements of required performance in terms of accuracy, integrity, continuity and availability, together with descriptions of how this performance is to be achieved in terms of aircraft and crew requirements. The PBN Concept is comprised of three components: The Navigation Specification, the Navaid Infrastructure and the Navigation Application.
The Navigation Specification prescribes the performance requirements in terms of accuracy, integrity, continuity and availability for proposed operations in a particular Airspace. A Navigation Specification is either a RNP specification or a RNAV specification. A RNP specification includes a requirement for on-board self-contained performance monitoring and alerting while a RNAV specification does not.
The Navaid Infrastructure relates to ground- or space-based navigation aids that are called up in each Navigation Specification.
The Navigation Application refers to the application of the Navigation Specification and Navaid Infrastructure in the context of an airspace concept to ATS routes and instrument flight procedures.
The scope of the PCP is “PBN in high density TMAs - Development and implementation of fuel efficient and/or environmental friendly procedures for arrival/departure and approach”, and covers the following navigation specifications:
- RNP 1 SIDs and STARs (with the use of the Radius to Fix attachment described in the PBN Manual Volume II Part C)
- RNP APCH (with LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV minima)
Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations focuses on the use of RNP 1 routes used by P-RNAV-compliant aircraft in high traffic density TMAs including:
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
RNP 1 SIDS and STARS allow the routes in the terminal airspace to be defined to best meet the needs of the airport, the air traffic controller and the pilot. This often means shorter, more direct or more environmental friendly routes with simple connections to the en-route structure.
The greater predictability of the RNP 1 SIDS and STARS improves adherence to the expected trajectory which can support the extended use of AMAN as described in the previous sections of this analysis.
For the purpose of the PCP, ‘Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations refers in part to the following OI:
Enhanced Terminal Airspace for RNP-based operations with vertical guidance (AOM-0603)
The following OI is no longer considered within the scope of the PCP:
Optimised Route Network using Advanced RNP (AOM-0404)
1.1.2.2.2 Optimised Route Network using Advanced RNP (AOM-0404)Description:
No longer in the scope of the PCP
Transition and Maturity
No longer in the scope of the PCP
IOC:
N/A
1.1.2.2.3 Enhanced Terminal Airspace for RNP-based operations with vertical guidance (AOM-0603)
Description:
Terminal Airspace operations can be enhanced with the use of RNP based instrument procedures (e.g. RNP 1 SIDs and STARs and RNP APCH with LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV minima) to increase safety and provide stabilized approaches, thus reducing the potential for CFIT (Controller Flight Into Terrain). Holding areas are redefined in terms of size and location.
RNP APCH is a navigation specification in the PBN Manual (ICAO Doc. 9613) enabling a final approach procedure using GNSS with or without Baro-VNAV (or SBAS). The advantages of RNP APCH are improved airport access and the possibility to design straight-in procedures due to the fact that they are independent from the location of ground navaids, as well as increased safety due stable descent paths thanks to the CDA technique and/or baro-VNAV (or SBAS) functionality.
While performance based procedures provide the most fuel efficient and lowest emission paths to the runway, in high demand conditions can make these procedures difficult to support at the metering fix. In order to service the demand and while maintaining individual flight efficiency, linking
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
the RNP procedures to the AMAN scheduler will allow sequencing of aircraft so they can funnel efficiently and directly to the metering fix from their Top of Descent (TOD) and enable the execution of PBN procedures such as Optimized Profile Descent (OPD). Time-based metering can sequence the incoming traffic via Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) and RNP assignment. Sequencing by CTA ensures the flight enable the utilization of Optimize Profile Descent from the Top of Descent and other RNP procedures to a specific waypoint. Time-based metering allows the continuous utilization of RNP procedures during periods of high traffic volume.
Point-Merge aspects of this OI step are considered to be outside the scope of the PCP.
Transition and Maturity
Release 1 Review 3 Report indicates that the OI was addressed in Release 1 by exercise VP-142 which demonstrated the operational feasibility of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) and Continuous Climb Departures (CCD) in high traffic density scenarios.
IOC:
Ready by 2014
1.1.3 ConclusionOperational Deployment Analysis
OIs IOC Maturity
Arrival Management Extended to En Route Airspace (TS-0305)
2018 Scope of the PCP restricted to the initial step of AMAN extension to 180-200nm.
TS-0305-A is expected to reach V3 maturity through various exercises from projects 05.06.04 and 05.03 by the end of release 3 in 2013.
The validation work of project 05.06.04 addresses both High Density/High Complexity and Medium Density/Medium Complexity TMA scenarios.
Arrivals Management into Multiple Airports (TS-0303)
2018/2020 Project 05.04.02 plans to validate TS-0303 “Arrival management multiple airports” in the years 2013-2015.
Optimised Route Network using Advanced RNP (AOM-0404)
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
1.2 High-Level System impact description
1.2.1 Candidates
1.2.1.1 Extended AMANFor the purpose of the PCP, ‘Extended AMAN’ specifically refers to the following OI:
Arrival Management Extended to En Route Airspace (TS-0305) Arrivals Management into Multiple Airports (TS-0303)
1.2.1.1.1 Arrival Management Extended to En Route Airspace (TS-0305)
1.2.1.1.1.1 Impact on ground equipmentCurrent System Capability:
AMAN systems are already deployed at some ATSUs in Europe, although without a common standard the baseline deployments vary significantly.
New Functionality:
AMAN system tools need to be updated to provide arrival sequence time information into en-route decision making. This is captured in the Link to the System Enabler ER-APP-ATC-111.
There is the need for enhancement of the ATS systems of upstream ATSUs to manage AMAN constraints, i.e data exchange, data processing and information display at controller working positions. Further system enablers to be considered include Air-ground coordination of AMAN constraints (RTA, TTL/TTG, etc.) which may – in an additional step - also link to the initial 4D capability being considered in the Expert Group 3 analysis.
Data provision to downstream ATSUs (AMAN) with flight information of arriving flights can be managed in a first step with current technology. Related enablers are i.a. ER-APP-ATC-110 and NIMS-02.
Future options may consider a link to the iSWIM analysis in EG6.
SESAR projects 10.09.01 (Integration of Queue Management) and 10.09.02 (Multiple airport arrival/departure management) are in charge of specifying and developing AMAN prototypes with the aim of supporting validation activities.
For step 1 both projects developed a first common Technical Specification. which will be updated when all Step 1 operational inputs are available.
For Step 2 both projects are also working in common to develop an updatedTechnical Specification. The Project schedules are being aligned with OFA "Enhanced Arr/Dep Mngt".
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Standards:
Currently there are no standards in place for AMAN, although there have been discussions about the need for AMAN standards in the future, in particular to support means of compliance to the SES Interoperability Regulation. The updates required in the scope of this PCP might provide the opportunity for the development of performance standards for at least the new functionality to ensure it is implemented consistently. Consideration should be given to a new institutional enabler for a standard on advanced AMAN functionalities.
Stakeholder Impact:
The ANSPs will be involved in the implementation of the updated AMAN and other related ATS system modifications as discussed above.
The impact of implementing the required system updates will depend on the baseline AMAN system and will vary on a case-by-case basis.
1.2.1.1.1.2 Impact on airborne equipment
No impact in the initial implementation. Future options may integrate CTA into AMAN and require initial 4D capability on board the aircraft.
1.2.1.1.2 Arrival Management into multiple Airports (TS-0303)
1.2.1.1.2.1 Impact on ground equipmentCurrent System Capability:
AMAN systems are already deployed at some ATSUs in Europe, although without a common standard the baseline deployments vary significantly.
New Functionality:
AMAN system tools need to be updated to serve multiple airports to provide simultaneous optimization of traffic streams into different airports at a time, based upon specific prioritization criteria. This is captured in the Link to the System Enabler ER-APP ATC-109
Standards:
There are not standards available or planned for this functionality.
Stakeholder Impact:
The ANSP will be involved in the implementation of the updated AMAN systems and other related ATS system modifications as discussed above.
The impact of implementing the required system updates will depend on the baseline AMAN system and will vary on a case-by-case basis
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
1.2.1.1.2.2 Impact on airborne equipmentNo impact in the initial implementation.
1.2.1.2 Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based OperationsEnhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations specifically includes:
- RNP 1 SIDs and STARs (with the use of the Radius to Fix attachment described in the PBN Manual Volume II Part C)
- RNP APCH (with LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV minima)
1.2.1.2.1.1 Impact on ground equipmentThe ATC tools and Safety Nets may need to be adapted as indicated in the link to enablers ER-APP-ATC-94a and ER-APP-ATC-134a.
Standards:
There are currently no standards for ATC tools or ground-based safety nets. The updates required in the scope of this PCP might provide the opportunity for the development of performance standards for at least the new functionality to ensure it is implemented consistently. Consideration should be given to a new institutional enabler for a standard on the adapted functionalities.
Stakeholder Impact:
The ANSPs will be involved in the implementation of the updated ATS tools and Safety Nets as discussed above.
The impact of implementing the required system updates will depend on the baseline ATS system and will vary on a case-by-case basis.
1.2.1.2.1.2 Impact on airborne equipmentRNP 1 operations require aircraft conformance to a track-keeping accuracy of +/- 1NM for at least 95% of flight time, together with monitoring and alerting functionality and high integrity navigation databases.
For RNP APCH, as defined in the EASA AMC 20-27, the Lateral and Longitudinal Total System Error (TSE) of the onboard navigation system must be equal to or better than:
a) ±1 NM for 95% of the flight time for the initial and intermediate approach segments and for the RNAV missed approach.
b) ±0.3 NM for 95% of the flight time for the final approach segment.
RNP 1 as well as RNP APCH capability requires inputs from GNSS. Many existing aircraft can achieve RNP 1 capability without additional on-board equipment.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Vertical Navigation in support of APV can be provided by GNSS SBAS or by barometric altitude sensors.
Standards:
The EASA AMC 20 Amendment 5 published in 2009 includes the AMC 20-27 for RNP APRCH.
The standards already exist in support of the required airborne equipment in the form of RTCA DO-236c and EUROCAE ED-75b (RNP for Area Navigation MASPS), but are in the process of being updated with publication of the updated standard expected in 2013.
Stakeholder Impact:
AUs will need to deploy the airborne capability described above, as appropriate to benefit from the improved procedure. The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey carried out in 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of respectively 66% and 52% for RNP APCH (LNAV) and RNP APCH (LNAV/VNAV). The figure was 88% for aircraft having RNAV1 capability required to support RNAV SIDS and STARS.
Applicability (forward fit) to transport type state aircraft (which need to regularly operate as GAT/IFR within busy TMAs) may be envisaged depending of provisions included in the PBN implementing rule under preparation. In that case the capabilities shall be the same as for mainline but deployment dates may differ depending of military procurement cycles.
SJU Military Avionics Study identified a residual number of modern military aircraft already equipped with relevant capability.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
1.3 High-Level description of the Essential Deployment Baseline related elements
1.3.1 ATM master plan The strategic business need is connected to the notion of groupings of projects and usage of Operational Focus Areas (OFAs), so it can be summarized as follows.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
1.3.2 Baseline consideration The following table shows the summary of SESAR baseline considerations
The Baseline concerning Extended AMAN Horizon and AMAN serving multiple Airports:
AMAN systems are already deployed at some ATSUs in Europe, although without a common standard the baseline deployments vary significantly. Currently AMAN systems covers the airspace of the TMA or partly of adjacent ACC units up to a horizon of ~ 100NM. These features correspond to the Basic AMAN implementation. AMAN features to serve multiple airports are currently not available.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
PBN procedures have been implemented in Europe, although not consistently. Procedure titles are often diverting from PBN specifications, indicating e.g. “FMS RNAV”. Convergence to the specifications of the PBN manual is required. RNP APCH operations have been implemented and are required to be further implemented by the ICAO resolution (36th Assembly Oct 2007 and 37th Assembly Oct 2010).
1.3.3 Links with existing and/or planned implementing rules and/or standards
Performance Based Navigation Implementing Rule (PBN-IR)
EASA AMC 20
ICAO Recommendation for implementation of PBN
1.3.4 Potential risksSome of OIs have enabler systems and validation plans (VALP) with exercises achieving V3 maturity by Release 3 or 4; maturity confidence has been judged by experts based on this anticipated validation and not on the basis of concrete elements comparable with completed exercises with validation reports and cases.
1.3.5 Coherence with ICAO’s Global Air Navigation Plan and Aviation System Blocks Upgrades
Extended AMAN
There is a link with the ICAO ASBU Module B1-15 which covers the principle of the extended AMAN horizon but also includes DMAN and surface management aspects (linked to EG4)
PBN
There is a link with the ICAO ASBU Module B1-15 with specific reference to the improved predictability achieved by RNP APCH is support of AMAN.
Module B1-10 deals with the application of PBN in support of Free Routing.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
2 Arrival Management into multiple airports (OI STEP TS-0303)
This description form is a vehicle to summarise what is expected to be achieved operationally from the OI step and who are the actors involved, with the aim to identify all involved stakeholder groups and expected actions to implement the OI step.
This description form must be completed before starting the development of an Implementation Objective. However, it is not self-sufficient as it does not address any geographical applicability, or a time horizon for its putting into operation. These elements will have to be part of the analysis foreseen to be conducted in Q1 2013, based on the positive results of this one.
In case you identify any critical issues with regards to the scope and present level of description of pre-identified OI steps or enablers please contact the Support & Validation Office with a qualification for your change request.
2.1 OI Step description
TS-0303 Arrival Management into Multiple Airports
IOC: 31/12/2017
DESCRIPTION: The system provides support to coordination of traffic flows into multiple airports in the vicinity to enable a smooth delivery to the runways. Linked to CONOPS:F2.6.5/ F3
RATIONALE: Phase: EnRoute to Arrival, at a network level. Assistance to Multiple airport arrival management in the terminal area environment is becoming increasingly necessary especially in view of the emerging use of secondary airports which are located in close proximity to major airport hubs. In a complex terminal airspace environment there may be significant interaction between traffic flows into a number of these airports. The interaction of such traffic flows in relation to arrival management must be analysed. Notes: Multi airport arrival & departure management only appears in the Storyboard at Step 2 (SL3). But in the eATM Master Plan as SL2. The eATM Master Plan is the official agreed publication. This is partially done in the Paris TMA between CdG and Le Bourget and in that case it is easier as the two airports are managed by the same approach controllers. The issue here is sequencing into multiple airports through common en-route/terminal sectors, and with different approach controllers.
COMMENTS: None
Expert Team comment:
This OI step description and rationale is a quotation from the CONOPS. To give the related projects an idea what to deal with it should be further elaborated in the CONOPS.
The last paragraph (“This is partially done in the Paris TMA ...”) should be deleted, because it does not really apply to OI-Step 0303, as the text in the paragraph implies.
Instead the planned activities in project 5.4.x should be quoted, where the London TMAs and the
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
TMAs Duesseldorf and Koeln/Bonn will be investigated concerning multi-airport departure and arrival management, respectively.
It needs to be mentioned that OI-Step TS-0303 does not link arrival and departure management. Either one is considered separately. OI-Step TS-0304 is aimed at covering the link between arrival and departure management.
2.2 Related Enablers description The information presented is extracted from SESAR Data Set 9. To note that Enablers with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) before 12/2013 belong to the Deployment Baseline. The full list of Stakeholder categories presented in the Enabler tables is available in Annex 0 of this document and is consistent with the information provided in the European ATM Master Plan Portal.
2.2.1 System
ER APP ATC 109 Enhance AMAN to serve multiple airports
IOC: 31/12/2017 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: Enhance Arrival Management function to serve multiple airports.
COMMENTS: Needs update when additional 'multi airport' functionality that is needed becomes identified from Ops WPs.
Expert Team comment:Description needs to be more comprehensive.
A possible description can be extracted from the PIR of Project 5.6.7 where it is stated in reference to TS-0303 and ER APP ATC 109:- "In complex TMA situations with several airports, AMAN capabilities comprise the simultaneous optimization of traffic streams to different airports at a time, based upon specific prioritization criteria."-- "This activity concerns the development of arrival management and AMAN [and other] system support and techniques, to assist in queue management for arrivals where destinations in the same general area may be different, but delays and AMAN resolution for one airport may have an impact on other traffic in the same arrival stream [Aircraft under a single AMAN, but arriving through a common fix for airport AAAA may have no delay, but aircraft in the same stream for airport BBBB may be subject to trajectory manipulation to absorb delay]."
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
2.2.2 Procedural
PRO-125ATC Procedures (En-route and TMA) to accommodate mixed traffic streams into multiple aerodromes
IOC: 31/12/2017 IOC Sync none Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: None
COMMENTS: None
Expert Team comment: Description is missing.
A possible description can be extracted from the PIR of Project 5.6.7 where it is stated in reference to TS-0303- "In complex TMA situations with several airports, AMAN capabilities comprise the simultaneous optimization of traffic streams to different airports at a time, based upon specific prioritization criteria."-- "This activity concerns the development of arrival management and AMAN [and other] system support and techniques, to assist in queue management for arrivals where destinations in the same general area may be different, but delays and AMAN resolution for one airport may have an impact on other traffic in the same arrival stream [Aircraft under a single AMAN, but arriving through a common fix for airport AAAA may have no delay, but aircraft in the same stream for airport BBBB may be subject to trajectory manipulation to absorb delay]."
2.2.3 Institutional
ASMGCS-0201 New EUROCAE Standard for A-SMGCS (Level 3&4) including SMAN
IOC: 31/12/2015 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: None
COMMENTS: Potential standardisation enabler currently under review by C.03 - Enabler description not clear.
Expert Team comment:
Listing of this enabler is unclear and should be revised. A connection between A-SMGCS and arrival management into multiple airports cannot be derived from the limited description of the OI step.
Currently no institutional enabler can be identified. The quoted enabler ASMGCS-0201 should be deleted in this context.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
2.3 Background & assumptionThis form is focused on the WHAT of OI steps-related operations (which SESAR Specifictions, which services, which actors, which flow of information, which specifications and standards, which supporting systems, which OSEDs etc.).
2.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications Identify here related SESAR Specifications (OSED, SPR, INTEROP) and any other reference documents (VALPs, any other relevant project/analysis results specifying the source).
Overview
The OI step TS-0303 is mentioned in several documents of related SESAR projects (namely P05.06.04, P05.06.07 and P10.09.02. However, in these documents only little evidence could be found that show a concrete way how this OI step could be validated and implemented. This reason for this might be the only fragmentary description of this OI step that leaves too much space for interpretation.
Two exercises in the framework of P05.06.4 could be identified dealing with TS-0303. However they are not specific to TS-0303 but they (mainly?) cover also TS-0305.
Activity 09 as identified by P05.06.07, can be seen as linkage to TS-0303, as described in the PIR part 2. According to this PIR the work on these activities is allocated to story board step 2 with V3 validation finished earliest in 2015.
The new project P 05.04.02 “Co-operative Planning in the TMA” points out a way towards a solution for TS-0303. However the PIR is still in progress.
Detailed Description
Several projects in SESAR framework are contributing to arrival management processes:
1.- P05.06.04 Tactical TMA and En-route Queue Management:
This is one of the main projects dealing with arrival management into multiple airports and extension of AMAN Horizon. Project contributes to two main OIs:
- TS-0303: Arrival Management into multiple airports
- TS-0305: Arrival Management Extended to En Route Airspace
The project is allocated in Step 1 SESAR Storyboard and is contributing to Releases 1 and 2 with several validation exercises. Following set of documents are already available:
- OSEDs:
o 05.06.04.D06 V1 Initial OSED
o 05.06.04.D29 V2 Preliminary Operational Requirements
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
The following validation exercises had been performed in Release 1 within the OFA04.01.02 AMAN and Extended AMAN horizon:
- 05.06.04-EXE-VP-187: Implementation of AMAN Extended Horizon sequencing traffic to Multiple Airports in Rome TMA (ENAV)
- 05.06.04-EXE-VP-187bis: Extended AMAN Horizon for EHAM with AMAN advice provided to MUAC (LVNL)
- 05.06.04-EXE-VP-188: Use of CTA techniques to absorb delay in En-route airspace (NATS)
- 05.06.04-EXE-VP-189: Advanced Arrival Management in Stockholm including CTA, RNAV/RNP route structures plus management of departures which immediately join arrival queues (NORACON)
All these exercises contribute to TS-0305 and according to Release 1 close out report the validation exercises in London, Rome, Amsterdam and Malmö TMAs showed significant benefits, including substantial environmental gains and successfully demonstrate the maturity of the concept, defined as V2.
So, the assessment is that concept is not already prepared for industrialization, but results will feed into the follow-up activities planned in release 2.
The project in Release 2 is performing a validation exercise in V3 maturity level, with the aim of assessing that the concept is ready for pre-industrialization:
- 05.06.04-EXE-VP-244: Long Range AMAN Horizon Scenario (ENAV/NATS)
The exercise contributes to TS-0303 and TS-0305
Validation report and R2 closeout report are expected to be available by the end of Q1 2013, so, no assessment of maturity level for pre-industrialization can be assessed at this stage.
2.- P05.06.07 Integrated Sequence Building/Optimisation of Queues
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
The project contributes to TS-0305 with a validation exercise, originally included in Release 3 Plan, but according to Release_3_SE_Review_1_Report-01 00 01 exercise has been proposed to keep out of Release 3.
For Step 1 TS-0303 is not planned to be covered in P05.06.07
So, at this stage maturity of this concept for pre-industrialization cannot be assessed.
3.- P05.04.02 Co-operative Planning in the TMA
The project is in the initiation phase, expecting to go into execution phase beginning 2013, contributing, among others, to TS-0303 and TS-0305.
The project will take onboard part of the scope of P05.06.07
A validation exercise is intended to be performed Q4 2013 in V2 maturity level. So, no pre-industrialization assessment can be done based on this exercise.
4.- P05.03 Integrated and Pre-Operational Validation & Cross Validation
As integrated project, P05.03 has performed a validation exercise in Release 2:
- 05.03-EXE-VP034
05 03-D09-VALR_VA1 (step 1) Validation report is already available.
Conclusions on the exercise are that from the airspace users´ perspective it can be drawn that this study has to be complemented with additional validation exercises in order to assess the flight profiles. This will allow obtaining the estimated fuel consumption so that the airspace users can better scope the benefits of the new procedures.
2.3.2 Aeronautical services involvedIdentify all aeronautical services involved in the operations of the OI step. Aeronautical service is used in a wide sense, services as defined by ICAO, SES regulations or other non-regulatory multi-lateral arrangements between organisations, based on a service provision scheme, see Annex A1.
The following listing represents only the ideas of the expert group because of the only fragmentary description of the OI Step
air traffic control serviceo area control service, o approach control service
2.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involvedIdentify all phases of flow management and/or phases of flight involved in the operations of the OI step …Systems automating operations during these phases might be impacted to support operations related to this OI Step or Not Applicable…see Annex A2.
The following listing represents only the ideas of the expert group because of the only fragmentary description of the OI StepPhases of flow management
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
tacticalPhases of flight involved
en route approach
2.3.4 Actors involvedIdentify all actors involved in operations of the OI step. A list of actors is given hereafter in Annex A. Other actors can be introduced provided that a basic definition is given to understand role and responsibility of these new actors.
The following listing of involved actors represents only the ideas of the expert group because of the only fragmentary description of the OI step:
pilot tower runway controller tower supervisor En route executive controller En route planning controller En route multi-sector planner ACC supervisor Approach executive controller Approach planning controller local traffic manager flow manager (?) traffic complexity manager
2.3.5 Flows of information between actorsProvide a high level description of flows of information circulated amongst actors and clarify in which phases of flow management and flight phases, those flows of information are active.
Unclear.
Concept is missing, so no flows of information can be identified.
2.3.6 Impact on airborne systemsOutline the impact of the OI step on A/C systems, in terms of capability upgrade (performance, functionality) and any operational approval, authorisation granted by authorities, required to use this new capability…or Not Applicable.
No impact
2.3.7 Impact on ground systems Outline the impact of the OI step on EATMN systems, in terms of new capability (performance, functionality)…or… Not Applicable. See Annex 4.
No impact on EATMN systems as listed in Annex 4 (AMAN is considered as “Other Systems” in the context of ATS-Systems)
Upgrade of AMAN systems as described in ER APP ATC 109
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
2.4 Related standardization and regulatory activities
2.4.1 StandardsA Identify applicable standards considered as the baseline to automate the aforementioned flows of information and apply relevant operational procedures.
B See comment on 2.3.5.
2.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworksOutline the impact of the OI step on the SES and EASA regulatory frameworks. For example, availability of Community Specifications, Certification Specifications necessary to support implementation …or… Not Applicable.
Not applicable
2.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept BlocksOutline the link to ICAO Blocks to anticipate any issue that might hamper harmonisation and interoperability of deployed solution. If needed, detail the status of ICAO documents on peculiar topics of relevance to implement the OI step. …or… Not Applicable.
TBD
2.5 Maturity and implementation considerationsNote: At the time of submission (10th December) the expert group have not had the opportunity to review and analyse the maturity assessment included in this draft provided by the SJU.
2.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release StrategyIdentify here any pre-identified maturity issues. Note that it was agreed that not all changes should be considered “fully mature”(V3 mature) at the time of preparing the PCP. However there shall be sufficient confidence that V3 maturity will be achieved up to an including Release 4.
TS-0303 (Arrival Management into Multiple Airports)(OFA 04.01.02 AMAN and Extended AMAN horizon)
This OI step target is Release R2 Three Validation Exercises were defined, respectively in R1 (VP-356), R2 (VP-244)
and R3 (VP-580). The R1 Exercise had been allocated to OFA 06.02.01 (SESAR CWP En route and
TMA) which raises a doubt about the focus of the exercise on this OI step The R1 exercise focus was the effective definition of Controller Working Position HMI
Requirements to contribute to proper design of the En-Route and TMA Controller Working Position, related to AMAN.
This explains the link to TS-0303 and the fact that this OI was partially addressed by this exercise.
The Release 1 V3 exit criteria were not fulfilled ([particularly] capture of system requirements).
However, this OIs was NOT addressed in Release 1 according to the Review 3 report.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
One R2 Exercise aimed at Operational validation activities focused on Arrival Management Extended Horizon - RTS (EXE-05.06.04-VP-244). Exercise completion expected mid-December 2012. VALR expected end February 2013. There are 2 minor issues related to the R2 exercise.
One exercise is planned in R3 (VP-580). This exercise was originally planned for R2, and moved to R3. This exercise will focus on Integration of extended horizon arrival manager streaming techniques to more than one airport with AMAN-dependent point merge procedures in a multi-airport TMA (London).
One v2 exercise and three V3 exercises are planned up to the timeframe of R4 that are NOT part of a Release (VP-505, VP489, VP-491, VP-493)
What is the confidence in achieving V3 maturity by Release 4, based on existing plans and results? HIGH
SE data analysis:The following figure represents the current status of the existing links between SE data in WP05
That shows a lack of maturity from the SE data perspective (missing links between DOD-VALS-VALP)
What is the confidence in availability of requirements in a database ?: LOW
Recommendations:Projects should provide deliverables with SE Data in the right format
2.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered aboveIdentify here any additional deployment considerations that you would like to highlight that cannot be directly derived from the information provided in the sections above.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the OI step
3 Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) through use of datalink (OI STEP TS-0103)
3.1 OI Step descriptionScope of the PCP is i4D+CTA limited to:
air ground exchange of 4D trajectory via datalink improving traffic predictability
CTA used in the context of moving from CTOT to target time at congestion reducing the impact of ATFM slots for equipped aircrafts
TS-0103 is therefore the most relevant OI Step to reflect this scope.
However, TS-0103 cannot be looked at in isolation and should be combined with transversal OI Steps supporting the overall I4D concept. The information below is based on ongoing discussions at WP B level on the actual implementation of I4D in the Enterprise Architecture
Mapping of Capabilities / Processes & OIs / Capability Configuration & Enabler for I4D/CTA step 1 in cruise
Capabilities Operational Processes
OIs Capability Configurations
Enablers
Weather situation awareness
Manage flight information
(IP1) FOC / Aircraft (IP1)
Trajectory execution & monitoring
Execute / monitor trajectories
TS103 Aircraft A/C-11
Trajectory revision, update, publication
Revise/update trajectories
AUO-0302-A,AUO-0303-A,
IS-0303-A
Aircraft A/C-31a, A/C-37a
Trajectory execution & monitoring
Monitor / separate traffic
AUO-0302-A,AUO-0303-A,
IS-0303-A
ER ACC ER APP ATC 100a, ER APP ATC 100b, ER APP ATC 100c
Airspace Traffic Sequencing &
Metering Airspace Time assignment
Synchronize traffic
TS-0103 APP ACC ER APP ATC 100a, ER APP ATC 148, ER APP ATC 149
Aircraft: revise/update trajectory (revise with CTA, share new estimates), execute/monitor trajectory (control on CTA)…
The scope of the PCP is limited to the air-ground exchange of 4D trajectory to improve predictability and the use of CTA to support AMAN (or perhaps also enroute for flow management purposes – see next paragraph). We suppose the scope has been restricted like that to give some realistic prospect of deployment by 2019. So we don’t think the objective is to implement the whole of i4D and therefore not all the OI steps considered in the scenario above are relevant. The exact perimeter to be covered is still to be deeper investigated.
For the time being, it seems that TS-0103 has to be fully deployed and that we should add some initial parts of AUO-0302-A and IS-0303-A.
TS-0103 Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) through use of datalink
IOC: 31-12-2020
DESCRIPTION: All ATM partners work towards achieving Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) through use of datalink and with enhanced accuracy to optimize arrival sequence. The CTA (Controlled Time of Arrival) is an ATM imposed time constraint on a defined merging point associated to an arrival runway. The CTA (which may include wake vortex optimization) is calculated after the flight is airborne taking into account the onboard ETA min/max report and published to the relevant controllers, arrival airport systems AMAN System and feedback or any update to the Stand allocation management, Taxi-in profile , user systems and the pilot.
RATIONALE: When initially issued the CTA represents the current optimized arrival sequence that can still be changed if circumstances dictate. For a short flight the CTA should be very close to the pre-take-off Target Time of Arrival (TTA) and should be calculated before takeoff and, if possible, before departure from stand by usage of TOBT and TSAT as soon as the flight is airborne. For longer flights the CTA must be available well before planned Top-Of-Descent and is calculated when the flight passes the AMAN sequencing horizon. The CTA will be allocated by the AMAN on the basis of the ETA min/max down linked by the aircraft to ensure feasibility (and avoid air ground iteration); the CTA will be met with an improved accuracy thanks to enriched meteorological model, better weather data accuracy/resolution, improved control of time constraint in descent down to FAF. Note: 5.2 to coordinate with 4.2. No WP4 project working on this.
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the OI step
Comments from Jorge PEREIRA (Military Representative)
CTA is not relevant to the military in step 1 when operating as Mission Trajectory as only TTO/CTO in relation to ARES entry/exit points are considered (it may apply to transport type
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
state aircraft the same way as for mainline for Business trajectory)
In step 1 only VDL2 data link equipage is envisaged for transport type state aircraft in accordance with the DLS regulation. Other aircraft types (fighters) may exchange time constraints through voice in step 1
Other data link interoperability improvements for military aircraft only in step 2/3 (projects 9.20/15.2.8).
The use of FMS for mainline must acknowledge the availability of MMS in military aircraft. In step 1 way points may have to be inserted manually and only for step 2/3 automated use may be possible depending of 9.3 results.
Patrick LELIEVRE
Contrary to the comment above, P04.03 is working on i4D and has done some validation work e.g. deliverable D14).
The second second bullet of the PCP scope for I4D says “… i4D+CTA limited to … CTA used in the context of moving from CTOT to target time at congestion reducing the impact of ATFM slots …” This implies that the CTA may be used for ATFM purposes and not just AMAN.
A Change Request is in the process of being submitted to either make this OI broader or create an additional OI. This OI seems to specify a particular solution rather than address a broader aim such as the use of arrival constraints to meter (or even stream) arriving traffic. The use of the term ‘CTA’ implies the use of technology to achieve a high degree of accuracy in meeting a constraint; however, it is not clear what benefits this level of accuracy can provide. Use of datalink is one method of achieving the objective of passing an arrival constraint to the flight-deck.
Results from 5.6.4 exercises demonstrate that considerable benefit can be achieved in high density airspace by transferring delay from the TMA to the en route phase of flight. Furthermore, some additional benefits can be achieved in terms of demand-capacity balancing during the arrival phase. These validation exercises also highlighted that in high-density operations, it was impractical to permit flight crews to vary aircraft speed without specific clearance from controllers as aircraft were frequently in close proximity to each other. However, when there were no separation issues, i.e. aircraft were not close to each other, the passing of an arrival constraint to the flight-deck achieved the desired benefit without adding to ATC workload. The 5.6.4 results suggest that in high density airspace, it is better to meter to a pre-descent point rather than to a TMA entry point or similar lower altitude point. This solves the problem associated with the need to merge aircraft from different flows into a single flow, which in high density airspace usually requires all aircraft to fly controller-prescribed speeds for capacity and separation reasons. In 5.6.4 exercises in lower-density airspace, it appeared possible to use the greater accuracy enabled by i4D-like technology to permit the flight crew to self-manage their descent. It is not clear to what extent this technology offers a benefit in lower density airspace where the need for such constraints is also lower. The information-exchange, specifically ETA min/max, associated with i4D technology seems to offer a benefit in that aligning airborne and ground systems makes sense. However, the ability of an aircraft to meet an arrival constraint with a high degree of accuracy and where the aircraft self-manages its speed, seems less clear, especially in high-density airspace.
In summary, a broader interpretation of this OI (for which a Change Request is being submitted) offers considerable benefit and should be supported. The current narrow focus of this OI may offer some benefit in specific scenarios but there is little evidence of its wider applicability so far.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
3.2 Related Enablers descriptionThe information presented is extracted from SESAR Data Set 9. To note that Enablers with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) before 12/2013 belong to the Deployment Baseline. The full list of Stakeholder categories presented in the Enabler tables is available in Annex 0 of this document and is consistent with the information provided in the European ATM Master Plan Portal.
3.2.1 System
A/C-11 Flight management to include single time constraint management (CTA)
IOC: 31-12-2016 IOC Sync 31-12-2016 Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R StakeholderAU Civil Scheduled AviationAU Civil Business AviationAU Civil General Aviation
DESCRIPTION: Flight management to improve single time constraint management, i.e. Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) with control loop in descent down to FAF and accuracy down to +/-10 seconds, improved 4D prediction algorithms using enriched meteorological modelling.
COMMENTS: Air ground data link covered by A/C-31a & A/C-37 Mainline/Airbus: Enabler IOC 2016 or 2018 (depending on V4 launch decision next year) Boeing: CTA current capability. Boeing CTA accuracy 0,1 second. CTA via datalink planned in 2022. BA: CPDLC capability is planned. CTA is discussed for new aircraft acquisition. Beneficial enabler. GA: May cost more than traditional mav computer due to addition of time constraints. Beneficial enabler. No problem with functionality, but won’t be via VDL2. Is +/- 10 seconds actually required for all TMAs? MIL For Business Trajectory it may apply to transport type state aircraft the same way as for mainline taking due regard of equipage requirements in the DLS regulation. CTA does not apply to Mission Trajectory in step 1 (see document Eurocontrol Mission Trajectory Detailed Concept Ed 1.0 22/10/2012). FR 30/11: civil IOC 2018, A400M with civil FMS 2019 propose to shift to IOC to 2019
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
The comment proposes to shift the IOC date to 2019, but the rationale beyond that request is not fully clear. From an airborne perspective 2016 seems achievable. However deeper investigations have to be conducted to understand the rationale behind the comment and properly update the master plan.
The use of CTA is not considered to be necessary for the majority of the BA fleet which typically operate in and out of airports for which CTAs would not bring benefit
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
A/C-31a Uplink of clearances or instructions in step 1
IOC: 31-12-2016 IOC Sync 31-12-2016 Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.AU Civil Business Av.AU Civil General Av.AU Mil TransportAU Mil Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Uplink of clearances or instructions in step 1 i.e. DCL/ATN, CPDLC in Approach, clearance for ATSA-ITP, CTA allocation, clearance for ASPA and clearances for push-back/start-up and taxi route (D-TAXI).
COMMENTS: "9.33 for DCL/ATN, CPDLC in APP, CPDLC for ATSA-ITP, IOC 2015, may be clearance for BTV which has no project today. 9.1 for CTA allocation, linked to A/C-11 9.5 for ASPA clearance, linked to A/C-15 9.13 for D-TAXI services, linked to AC-42a Missing OFA: Surface planning and routing. A/C31a IOC 2016 or 2018 (depending on V4 launch decision next year) Mainline: IOC 2016 or 2018; IOC 2019 MIL (implementing rule). IR exemption cell considers 75% equip in 2016 but later IOC due to new set of msg standardisation. Boeing: "Boeing indicated this would be a FANS3 capability. Boeing is working with industry committees on FANS 3 capabilities. Boeing expects FANS3 in 2022." BA: CPDLC capability is planned. Few BA aircrafts are equipped with FANS. TBC with BA manufacturers for the OI Step function's IOC. Beneficial enabler GA: Will probably be done via VDL2 initially outside of GA, but we will cost out a separate solution (e.g. 4G LTE). For now, we'll call it a "GA datalink". Beneficial enabler but not for all related OI Steps: AUO-0703: GA won’t use brake to vacate - AUO-0704: Possibly not used, GA unlikely to carry out tailored arrivals in Step 1. (and is it really needed in low complexity TMAs?) - AUO-0302-A & AUO-0303-A & CM-0601 & TS-0103: Can be done by GA, but a separate cost figure will need to be used as GA will not use VDL2 (too costly). Note for GA, this may have an impact on IOC/FOC dates. Is this really going to be used in low complexity TMAs in Step 1? - TS-0105: GA won’t do ASPA-S&M in Step 1- AO-0205: GA may use D-TAXI - AUO-0602: not GA for small/remote airports Uplink of D-TAXI clearances at small airports onto a moving map is unlikely. MIL: "Applies to military transport a/c the same way as civil aircraft taking due regard of equipage requirements in the DLS regulation.. For other types of a/c (e.g. fighters) in step 1 will have to be handled with voice. For step 2/3 the results of military data link accommodation projects 9.20 & 15.2.8 may offer other solutions. OC New Tpt: to be forward fitted on a voluntary basis if entering into service after 01 Jan 2014 (ref DLS reg) . . IOC for civil is now 2018. Should align IOC on SPI reg, i.e. 2019". V3 of 9.20/15.2.8 is 2013 => IOC 2017. Note: [Enabler being split by WPB4.3 into 7 enablers according to type of clearance].
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
There is a discrepancy in the ATM Master Plan between IOC dates for individual stakeholders (which are nearly all around end 2019) and the consolidated IOC date which is 2016. From an airborne perspective 2016 seems achievable. However deeper investigations have to be conducted to understand the discrepancy and properly update the master plan.
This enabler is covering all services defined by EUROCAE WG78 / RTCA SC214 and will support the deployment of ATN Baseline 2 in Europe. For this reason, it covers more services than actually required to deploy Initial 4D. However, the whole set of services has to be deployed in a coherent and consolidates manner.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
A/C-37a Downlink of trajectory data according to contract terms
IOC: 31-12-2016 IOC Sync 31-12-2016 Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.AU Civil Business Av.AU Civil General Av.AU Mil TransportAU Mil Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Downlink of trajectory data (e.g. way points, altitude, speed, time constraints and prediction in the 4 dimensions, wind, weight etc) according to contract terms (e.g. change of the route and/or constraints, deviation of the trajectory prediction continuously computed onboard versus the previously shared trajectory prediction more than thresholds (TMR), on request or on periodic basis).
COMMENTS: This enabler includes ADS-C Aircraft Derived Data e.g. ETA min/max and Extended Projected Profile (up to 128 points with e.g. estimates or associated constraints), contract established with up to 5 ANSP during the whole flight from the gate No link with APV, Cruise Climb, CDA, CCD. Missing link with I4d + CTA. V4 start depending on 2012 decision. Mainline: IOC 2016 or 2018 Boeing: Current capability BA: Few BA aircrafts are equipped with FANS (mainly large BA aircrafts). Few BA aircrafts are equipped with ADS-C. ADS-C capability not planned. TBC with manufacturer for ADS-C IOC. Beneficial enabler. GA: Critical component of ground-air shared picture of projected trajectory. Needs a GA version apart from ADS-C-EPP. Beneficial enabler. As for the uplink enabler (A/C-31a), there is no reason why GA could not downlink traj data over a suitable datalink. This won’t be VDL2. Note for GA, this may have an impact on IOC/FOC dates. Is this really going to be used in low complexity TMAs in Step 1? Mil: "Applies to military transport a/c the same way as civil aircraft. For other types of a/c, taking due regard of equipage requirements in the DLS regulation.. For other types of a/c (e.g. fighters) in step 1 the exchange of way points will have to be handled with voice and dialled manually in the Mission Computers. For step 2/3 the results of military data link accommodation projects 9.20 & 15.2.8 may offer other solutions.
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
The comment proposes to shift the IOC date to 2018, but the rationale beyond that request is not fully clear. From an airborne perspective 2016 seems achievable. However deeper investigations have to be conducted to understand the rationale behind the comment and properly update the master plan.
ER APP ATC 100aFDP modified to allow management of those aspects of 4D trajectories implemented in step1 (including clearances, RBT update proposal, constraints, Pilot request, CTA, etc.)
IOC: 31-12-2018 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: FDP modified to allow management of those aspects of 4D trajectories implemented in step1 (including clearances, RBT update proposal, constraints, Pilot request, CTA, etc.)
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
This enabler includes the insertion of the CTA in the FDP computed profile and the enhancement of the computed
IOC Sync is missing.
ER APP ATC 100bEnhance En-route ATC Controller human machine interaction management function to use RBT and PT provided from aircraft systems and provide constraints and clearances implemented in Step1 to aircraft systems
IOC: 31-12-2018 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: Controller workstation, modified to allow management of all aspects of 4D trajectories implemented in Step1 (including clearances, RBT update proposal, constraints, Pilot request, TMR, CTA, etc.).
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
IOC Sync is missing.
ER APP ATC 148 AMAN update to support CTA
IOC: 31-12-2018 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: AMAN modified to be able to sequence the flight and propose a CTA taking into account the ETA min/max down linked by the aircraft
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
We would propose to update the title, because computation of CTA is based not only on ETA min/max but also on the downlinked ETA on the ETA point and on other traffic constraints…
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
ER APP ATC 149 Air-ground exchange to support I4D description including CTA transmission between ATSUs
IOC: 31-12-2018 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: Transmission of relevant arrival manager information directly to the flight crews, within the optimum horizon of the AMAN that could be beyond the limits of the ATSU that contains the flight's destination airport.
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
IOC Sync is missing.
NIMS-21 Flight Planning management enhanced to support 4D
IOC: 31-12-2017 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP CivilANSP Military
DESCRIPTION: Flight Planning management enhanced to process 4D flight plans, flight plans that use free-routing, capable of interfacing with the 4D Common Flight Object, including use of the flight object and updating of its parameters.
COMMENTS: Exchange of EFD (Maastricht experiment in 2013). Will then move further towards the FO concept
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
3.2.2 Procedural
PRO-118 Procedures to identify responsibilities in issuing, receiving and operating in accordance with CTA (timing, sector responsible)
IOC: 31-12-2015 IOC Sync none Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Network Manager
DESCRIPTION: none
COMMENTS: Sam Crompton shall check whether this is needed
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
In the ATM Master Plan and in the SESAR work, procedures are not properly addressed, at least as enablers separate from the OI steps or system enablers. There is a need to refine the need for having these enablers in the picture and how the definition and validation of these is addressed in SESAR.
Note: We are not challenging the need for appropriate procedures but we think that they are an integral part of OI steps and /or system enablers.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
PRO-AC-11 Cockpit Procedures for improved single time constraint achievement
IOC: 31-12-2006 IOC Sync 31-12-2018 Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R StakeholderAU Civil Scheduled Av.AU Civil Business Av.AU Civil General Av.
DESCRIPTION: none
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
In the ATM Master Plan and in the SESAR work, procedures are not properly addressed, at least as enablers separate from the OI steps or system enablers. There is a need to refine the need for having these enablers in the picture and how the definition and validation of these is addressed in SESAR.
Note: We are not challenging the need for appropriate procedures but we think that they are an integral part of OI steps and /or system enablers.
As specifically regards A/C procedures, we can confirm that they are covered in the definition and validation of A/C functions.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
PRO-AC-31a Cockpit Procedures to comply to up linked constraints or clearances
IOC: 31-12-2018 IOC Sync none Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.AU Civil Business Av.AU Civil General Av.AU Mil. Transport
DESCRIPTION: Automatic loading onboard of up linked constraints or clearances
COMMENTS: Datalink Implementing rule will not be enforced untill 2013, which covers ascending and descending transmission of data.
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
In the ATM Master Plan and in the SESAR work, procedures are not properly addressed, at least as enablers separate from the OI steps or system enablers. There is a need to refine the need for having these enablers in the picture and how the definition and validation of these is addressed in SESAR.
Note: We are not challenging the need for appropriate procedures but we think that they are an integral part of OI steps and /or system enablers.
As specifically regards A/C procedures, we can confirm that they are covered in the definition and validation of A/C functions.
IOC: 31-12-2015 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: Revision of EC29/2009 laying down requirements on data link services (DLS IR), to support Initial 4D applications and other datalink services related to SESAR Step 1 deployments (DLS II).
COMMENTS: Proposed activity. C.03 early Regulatory Impact Assessment to be conducted.
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
The work should be assigned to EC.
IOC Sync is missing.
AGDLS-ATC-AC-12a Update ICAO PANS-ATM Doc 4444 for optimised CPDLC message set including oceanic and new continental needs
IOC: 12-2015 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: Planned work of WG78/SC214 in coordination with ICAO ACP WG-M
COMMENTS: STEP 1 - Planned
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
We could imagine that the whole outcome of EUROCAE WG78 / RTCA SC214 is integrated in a single standardization enabler which would ease understanding and linkage with the group.
In addition, we are missing the standardization work on navigation aspects which is performed in EUROCAE WG85 / RTCA SC227 – 4D Navigation.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
AGDLS-ATC-AC-14d New SPR for data link exchange of instructions or clearances related to CTAallocation (4DTRAD)
IOC: 31-12-2013 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: On-going work of WG78/SC214
COMMENTS: STEP 1 - On-Going
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
We could imagine that the whole outcome of EUROCAE WG78 / RTCA SC214 is integrated in a single standardization enabler which would ease understanding and linkage with the group.
In addition, we are missing the standardization work on navigation aspects which is performed in EUROCAE WG85 / RTCA SC227 – 4D Navigation.
The work should be assigned to EUROCAE.
IOC Sync is missing.
AGDLS-ATC-AC-15d New IOP for data link exchange of instructions or clearances related to CTAallocation (4DTRAD)
IOC: 31-12-2013 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: On-going work of WG78/SC214
COMMENTS: STEP 1 - On-Going
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
We could imagine that the whole outcome of EUROCAE WG78 / RTCA SC214 is integrated in a single standardization enabler which would ease understanding and linkage with the group.
In addition, we are missing the standardization work on navigation aspects which is performed in EUROCAE WG85 / RTCA SC227 – 4D Navigation.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
BTNAV-0205 Unpdate of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) manual for Enhanced Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA)
IOC: 31-12-2014 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: Update ICAO Doc 9613 to address 4D navigation performance for enhanced CTA/CTO and multiple CTOs. ED75b/DO236 under development by EUROCAE WG85
COMMENTS: STEP 1 - Planned. No plans for Vertical RNP and enhanced VNAV in ICAO PBN manual.
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
The work should be assigned to ICAO.
IOC Sync is missing.
BTNAV-0212 Performance Based Navigation (PBN) IR
IOC: 31-12-2013 IOC Sync None Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate A Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: The EC have issued a mandate for this regulation to Eurocontrol who are, presently, planning the required work. This will define minimum navigation requirements and introduce a new package of functionalities in en-route and terminal airspace, and also in final approach. The ICB recommended a stepwise approach. Conditional to the selection of the corresponding scenario, final implementation of PBN IR could cover NAV requirements for Initial 4D/CTA.
COMMENTS: Ongoing. Problem analysis and scenarios are currently being developed by EUROCONTROL, to assess whether i4D/CTA aspects will be included in the existing PBN mandate.
Expert Team comment: specify here any complementary comments you may have with regards to the description of the Enabler
The work should be assigned to EC.
IOC Sync is missing.
3.3 Background & assumptionThis form is focused on the WHAT of OI steps-related operations (which SESAR Specifications, which services, which actors, which flow of information, which specifications and standards, which supporting systems, which OSEDs etc.).
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
3.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications Identify here related SESAR Specifications (OSED, SPR, INTEROP) and any other reference documents (VALPs, any other relevant project/analysis results specifying the source).
Related SESAR Specifications
Note: This section details the existing documents and should be complemented with the documents that are planned to be delivered by the projects before 2014.
This document will detail the operational concept, the operational environment, and the requirements & processes to take forward the Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) concept, nominally explored within an Initial 4D (i4D) environment. The concept is based upon the use of advanced RTA functionality available within airborne systems in support of Traffic Synchronisation activities.
05.06.01-D68-Step 1 SPR - Iteration 2.doc
The document includes the initial set of the safety and performance requirements (SPR) for the implementation of the Ground & Airborne Capabilities to Implement Sequence based on the Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) concept. It also describes the safety assessments performed in order to justify the identification of the described requirements.
05.07.02-D05-i4D - Separation operational requirements and procedures identification.doc
The purpose of ‘’i4D Impact on Separation Assurance’’ document is to consolidate separation provision aspects in TMA related to initial 4D (i4D) navigation capabilities, within the scope of SESAR Project 5.7.2 Activity 2. It is focused on SESAR Concept Story Board - Step 1. The documents presents the main assumptions regarding the operational environment, the use cases considered for analysis and the issues and operational requirements identified during the process.
05 05 01-D09-OSED-00 01 00.doc
This OSED addresses the Trajectory Management Framework in Step 1. Thus it describes those Trajectory Management operations which are intended to support the initial 4D (i4D) concept as well as specific applications in the Approach Phase of flight such as ASAS Spacing. The document collates and references all requirements which will then be validated within the scheduled validation exercises at the appropriate level of maturity.
In addition to the Initial OSED (D01) it addresses a number of pending issues which needed to be clarified before moving to the first validation exercise planned in Phase 1 (EXE212, R1). Additionally, the document initiates the place holders for TMF requirements coming from other TMA primary projects, such as 5.6.X and 5.7.X.
This document provides the i4D concept element contribution to the initial Operational Service and Environment Definition for the SESAR Trajectory Management Framework (TMF) in En-Route (task S1.X1.4). It follows the P4.5 OSED template (4.5 D03) to facilitate the future OSED consolidation work.
It is written in collaboration with project 5.5.1: P5.5.1 develops the i4D concept element, including its en-route part. This document cross references the 5.5.1 OSED by mapping the TMF i4D operational requirements identified by P5.5.1 to the TMF services proposed in P4.5. OSED.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Ultimately, the work from the two projects 4.5 and 5.5.1 will need to be combined along with contributions from other projects to produce a single consistent OSED for the TMF. This document therefore represents a contribution to a future overall combined TMF OSED.
05 05 01-D10-SPR-00 01 01.doc
This document addresses, in line with the Advanced TMA TMF OSED for Step 1 (05.05.01-D09), Safety and Performance Requirements for the TMA Trajectory Management Framework in Step 1.
In particular, it updates the initial4D TMF requirements and proposes initial ASPA S&M TMF requirements. Initial4D TMF Safety requirements are derived following WP16.6.1 guidance.
The purpose of this document is to provide interoperability requirements for air traffic services (ATS) supported by data communications in the context of the Operational Concept of Trajectory Management Framework in TMA, which is devoted by the SESAR Project 5.5.1.
This document:
Defines interoperability requirements for the communication services;
Defines interoperability requirements for the ATS applications; and
Allocates the interoperability requirements to stakeholders.
04 05-D102-TMF-TN-for-Step-1-00 01 00.docxThe purpose of the technical note is to describe the collaborative processes by which stakeholders manage the initial Reference Business/Mission Trajectory during flight execution and to consolidate the trajectory management requirements for the En-Route/Approach ATC stakeholder derived from the collaborative processes.
This version of the technical note represents a snapshot of work in progress (within joined 4.5/5.5.1 project). It describes collaborative iRBT processes which the P04.02 DOD identified as requiring trajectory management support.
04.03-D12-i4D+CTA OSED Requirement - Part 1.doc
04.03-D12-i4D+CTA OSED and Requirements - Part 2 SPR.doc
04.03-D12-i4D+CTA OSED and Requirements - Part 3 INTEROP.doc
The contractual deliverable D12 of the Project 04.03 – Integrated and pre-operational validation & cross validation covers Operational Services and Environmental Description (OSED), Safety and Performance Requirements (SPR), and Interoperability requirements (INTEROP) of the “i4D+CTA” quick win.
09.01-D06-FRD SESAR Aircraft and System Performance and Functional requirements - step 2.docx
This document is the “Definition of Aircraft & System Performance and Functional Requirements” related to INITIAL 4D function. The objective of this document is to:
Capture the onboard operational needs to perform Initial 4D operations
Provide onboard operational and functional requirements required to perform Initial 4D
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Provide a list of main assumptions taken onboard
This document covers both mainline and regional operations.
INITIAL 4D function is the A/C function related to INITIAL 4D operational concept. INITIAL 4D operational concept is the 2013-2015 concept of operations derived from SESAR long term (2020) concept.
09.01-D07-Interface document between Aircraft and ATC systems v00 01 00.doc
The document gives the functional objectives and the technical details of the interface between the aircraft and the ATC systems. The set of messages needed to support I4D operations was coordinated with ground and airborne operational stakeholders.
This roadmap describes the path to follow for the Air Traffic Management (ATM) technical systems in order to evolve from the present baseline systems to the system required for Step1.
Following areas are considered: i4D, CTA operations, PRNAV/ADD, ATFCM/FUA, Efficient and Green Terminal Airspace Operations – CDA, and Airborne Spacing and Separation: ASPA S&M.
It explains the improvement steps required for the ground ATM system, the ground communications, the air/ground communications and the air systems, in respective sections.
DEL10.2.1-D72-High Level Trajectory Management Design step1 for release 2-1.doc
The aim of this design document is to provide a decomposition of the TM function through NAF V3 EA sub-views. The objective is to explain for SESAR step 1 how the functional baseline linked to Trajectory Management for ATC systems gets allocated to ER/APP ATC system functions by the means of EA sub-views (mainly NSV-4) and how operational requirements are traced by this design. This ATC design is obtained through the architecture document produced by WB4.3.
It has been built according to the TM roadmap that is defined for Step1.
DEL 10.02.01-D74-ATC TM System Requirements Step 1.doc
This document contains the Step 1 technical requirements for the Trajectory Management function within the ENR/APP ATC System, mainly:
The management of the 2D route including alignment and consistency between ground-ground and air-ground,
The trajectory management of a single CTA constraint,
The use of on board information (EPP, ETA) for trajectory management.
STAR allocation and clearance in order to improve CDA and i4D operations
The use of data from AOC/WOC to improve TP accuracy
Trajectory update for ASPA manoeuvres
It is developed in the form of a technical specification (TS/IRS), to be used as one of the primary inputs to the prototype development and verification phases.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
DEL10.2.2-D01-Assessment of needs and feasibility study for step 1.doc
This paper aims at providing an assessment of the needs in the area of formatting required Trajectory Management related information as well as a paper feasibility study, limited to Step 1 (i4D). A gap analysis is also performed to ensure that needs identified from all the actors involved are considered.
The required TM information to be “formatted” by the corresponding task is provided by the operational projects, mainly P4.5/5.5.1. However, input requirements that are already identified by the work done in other projects different of the SESAR project in this area are also considered. The scope for ground section is limited to the data areas identified in P10.2.1.
It should be noted that the document was produced considering available input; it may need to be revisited at a later stage if/when new information is made available (e.g. more detailed information on P4.5).
DEL10.2.2-D08-Draft Technical Standards proposition for step 1.doc
Based on the experience of Step 1 P10.2.1/P10.2.2 SESAR activities, this document contains a set of change proposals for the update of data exchange standards used for Trajectory Management purposes. The purpose is not to propose a new standard or a new revision of a existing standard, but to support the standardisation bodies making those revisions/standards.
10.09 04-D10-System requirements definition for ATC support to CDA-CCD - Phase 1.doc
For TMA arrivals, during periods of moderate to high-traffic demand, ATC needs to impose control over streams of departing and arriving aircraft which can prevent individual aircraft from flying their optimal profiles. Still ensuring safety, new technologies and practices are necessary to allow aircraft to fly their optimal descent and climb profiles in high density traffic avoiding level-offs and holdings while not dramatically negatively affecting capacity.
To do so, airborne and ground systems need to be improved for better arrival sequencing and to allow controllers to better know aircraft trajectory and behaviour and pilots to follow specific controller’s clearances and flight their optimal profiles. These systems improvements support SESAR JU step 1 (Time based Operations) by setting up and using the down linked aircraft trajectory
P10.07.01-D02_AGDL System Requirements - Phase 1.doc
This document contains the Step 1 System Requirements Specification of the ATC system that supports the Airport and En-Route & Approach ATC information exchanges with the aircraft via Data-link (AGDL). It includes exchanges for I4D operations
Step 1 AGDL System requirements are mainly based on the existing AGDL Air Services System Requirements, on the project scope of Enhanced Datalink Services (directly derived from EUROCAE WG-78/RTCA SC-214 "Interim Draft Standard": Data Communications SPR and INTEROP Rev H that comprises Operational and Technical requirements), as well as on the close coordination with WP9, WP10 and WP12 data link related activities and inputs.
P10.07.01-D04 AGDL Data Requirements Phase1.doc
This “AGDL (Air Ground Data Link) data requirements” document provides the functional objective and the technical details of the data requirements between ATC systems and aircraft.
Based on SC214/WG78 standardization materials, this deliverable describes in accordance with SWP 9.1, 9.33 and 9.13 the data link messages that will be supported by the various 10.07.01 ATC Systems prototypes developed to address enhanced data link services for all phases of flight (i.e. En-Route, Approach and Airport), and especially the messages needed for i4D exchanges..
To be stated if this document has to be part of the list. It deals with CDA, but since it is based largely on the application of I4D concept it might be of interest.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Note: This section details the existing documents and should be complemented with the documents that are planned to be delivered by the projects before 2014.
This document is the validation plan for Exercise 203 within the 05.06.01 project. Exercise 203 is an i4D flight trial taking place within Iteration 1 of P05.06.01. The trial will be performed with an Airbus A320 test aircraft that will fly from Toulouse, through French airspace and then through MUAC and NUAC airspace. The flight will be controlled by operational controllers to ensure separation while datalink communication will take place between the aircraft and a shadow mode position. The validation focuses on the ability of the systems to share and synchronise airborne and ground trajectories and flying to time constraints to optimise sequences as defined by ATC.
This document is the Interim Validation Report for Exercise 203 within the P05.06.01 project. EXE-203 consists of an i4D flight trial that has been performed with an Airbus A320 test aircraft. The aircraft flew from Toulouse-Blagnac Airport, through French airspace and then through MUAC and Danish-Swedish airspace to land at Stockholm Arlanda Airport. A turnaround was then carried out, and the aircraft returned to Toulouse-Blagnac via Copenhagen Airport and MUAC airspace. The flight was controlled by operational controllers to ensure separation while datalink communication took place between the aircraft and a shadow mode position. The validation has focused on the ability of the aircraft and ground system to share and synchronise airborne and ground trajectories and flying to time constraints to optimise sequences as defined by ATC.
Note: This validation report, called Interim report, only assesses the flight trial (VP203) and has been prepared to meet the requirements of being a Release 1 exercise. It shall be noted that the formal full Validation report will only be generated when the simulations from VP204 are carried out as well. That Validation Report will be submitted 24-08-2012.
This document is the Validation Plan for Exercise 204 within the SESAR P05.06.01 project. Exercise 204 is a Real Time Human-In-The-Loop Simulation. The aim of the simulation is to assess the impact of i4D / CTA operations in the Stockholm Arlanda environment. The simulation will be executed using an industrial based platform representing the ground system integrating an air traffic generator and coupled to an Airbus cockpit simulator representing the airborne systems.
This document is the validation plan for exercise 205 within the 05.06.01 project. Exercise 205 is a set of wide scale flight trials taking place within iteration 1 of 05.06.01. The trials will be performed with flights flying into Stockholm-Arlanda airport. The aircraft will be equipped with the FMS RTA function and will have a CTA set to a point during descent at around FL100. The flight trials in exercise 205 will focus on evaluating the experience of pilots and controllers of working with CTA operations. The trials will also evaluate the FMS RTA function with respect to aircraft behavior when controlling to an RTA and achieved RTA accuracy. The effect the quality of the wind information used in the FMS has on the RTA function will also be evaluated. The fuel efficiency of CTA flights will be measured.
This document is the Validation Report for Exercise 205 within SESAR P05.06.01. Exercise 205 was a set of wide scale flight trials taking place within iteration 1 of P05.06.01 during the autumn 2011. 90 flight trials have been performed with revenue flights flying into Stockholm Arlanda Airport, Sweden. The aircraft have been equipped with the FMS RTA function and had a CTA set to a point during descent at around FL100. The flight trials in Exercise 205 have focused on evaluating the experience of pilots and ATCOs working with CTA operations. The trials have also evaluated the FMS RTA
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
function with respect to aircraft behaviour when controlling to an RTA and achieved RTA accuracy. Of the 90 trials, 72 were successfully completed and of these, 92% met their assigned CTA within the given tolerance of ±30 seconds. Recommendations as to how CTA operations can be improved via ground and airside improvements and modifications are provided at the end of the report.
This document is the validation plan for Exercise 207 within the 05.06.01 project. Exercise 207 is a model based fast time simulation without humans in the loop, first iteration. The aim of Exercise 207 is to validate or even find optimum procedures and requirements for CTA applications. Exercise 207 is based on traffic scenarios for a single airport with different mixes of CTA-capability in the aircraft fleet.
This is the validation report for EXE 207 of the 05.06.01 project, which is a model based fast time simulation on a PC-based traffic simulator carried out in December 2011 at DLR German Aerospace Center.
This is the validation plan for EXE-278 of the 05.06.01 project, which is a model based simulation and benefit analysis, to be carried out on a PC-based simulator in Fall 2012 at DLR German Aerospace Centre in collaboration with Airbus.
04.03-D104-i4D+CTA Validation Plan - Step A.doc
This document describes the validation activities required for i4D+CTA exercises conducted under the SESAR SWP 04.03. It outlines the exercises described in the V&V Roadmap consisting of coupled simulations with an Airbus cockpit simulator, non-coupled simulations and a flight trial. Scenarios for each are developed, detailing the higher level scenarios and use cases described in the i4D+CTA OSED. Descriptions of tasks and measures required to validate the impact of the concept on those tasks are developed along with the planning needed to achieve this. At the completion of the exercises described within this document Step A of the SWPi4D+CTA validation sequence will be completed.
04.03-D13-i4D+CTA Integration Plan Step A.doc
This document provides the operational integration plan required for i4D+CTA exercises 4.3-VP029, VP323 and VP330. It describes the operational activities that will need to be completed and gives a high level overview of the technical integration plans. These activities have been coordinated with WP9.1 Airborne Initial 4D Trajectory Management, and where linked through flight trials with P5.6.1 QM1 – Ground and Airborne Capabilities to Implement Sequence.
04.03-D14-i4D+CTA Validation Exercises Plan.doc
This document describes the validation exercises required for i4D+CTA conducted under the SESAR SWP 04.03. It outlines the exercises described in the V&V Roadmap consisting of coupled simulations with an Airbus cockpit simulator, non-coupled simulations and a flight trial. Scenarios for each are developed, detailing the higher level scenarios and use cases described in the i4D+CTA OSED. Descriptions of tasks and measures required to validate the impact of the concept on those tasks are developed along with the planning needed to achieve this. At the completion of the exercises described within this document Step A of the SWPi4D+CTA validation sequence will be completed. This document has been created from 4.3-D104-i4D+CTA Validation Plan and it is completely embedded in it.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
04.03-D111-i4D+CTA Validation Report- Step A.doc
This delivery of the i4D Step A Validation Report describes the validation results of the i4D+CTA exercises conducted under the SESAR SWP 04.03.It outlines the exercises described in the V&V Roadmap consisting of coupled simulations with an Airbus Integration Cockpit Simulator (VP029), non-coupled simulations (VP330) and a Flight Trial (VP323). Scenarios for each are developed, detailing the higher level scenarios and use cases described in the i4D+CTA OSED.
A summary of the exercises outcome, benefit mechanisms investigated, validation objectives, success criteria and assumptions is provided.
Descriptions of tasks and measures performed to validate the impact of the concept on those tasks are developed along with the deviations from the forecasted planning.
Exercises results are analysed to present conclusions over Step A of the i4D concept and raise recommendations for further steps.
04.03-D61-i4D+CTA Validation Plan - Step B.doc
This document describes the validation activities required for i4D+CTA exercises conducted under the SESAR SWP 04.03.
It outlines the exercises described in the V&V Roadmap consisting of non-coupled simulations. Scenarios are developed, detailing the higher level scenarios and use cases described in the i4D+CTA OSED.
Descriptions of tasks and measures required to validate the impact of the concept on those tasks are developed along with the planning needed to achieve this. At the completion of the exercises described within this document Step B of the SWPi4D+CTA validation sequence will be completed.
04.05-D09-S1 i4D_CTA contribution to V2 ValidationPlan_00_01_01.doc
This deliverable is the first issue of the STEP 1 i4D/CTA Validation Plan contribution from the Initial 4D Thread of the 04.05 Project. This contribution will eventually be integrated with the validation plan contributions of the other 04.05 threads into the overall 04.05 STEP 1 V2 Validation Plan D05.
It contains the strategy for validation of the 04.05 deliverable D08: En Route Initial 4D Controlled Time of Arrival OSED contribution, and specifies the currently planned valida-tion exercises focusing in particular on the validation of ground coordination requirements for the Controlled Time of Arrival constraint.
The 04.05 Initial 4D validation planning and activities are being done in collaboration with the Project 05.05.01. This validation exercises specified in this plan are also included in the 05.05.01 Phase 1 Validation Plan.
This document provides the Validation plan for Trajectory Management in TMA, PAC03 Moving from Airspace to Trajectory Management, 4D Trajectory Management Sub Package, Trajectory Management Framework Operational Focus Area (OFA).
Because of the transversal nature of Trajectory Management additional close links have been identified with several other OFA both within and outside PAC-3. The validation plan describes how stakeholder's needs defined and formalised as a set of requirements in [05.05.01-D01: Initial OSED Title of the documentPhase 1 - Validation Plan], [05.05.01-D02: Initial SPR Title of thedocumentPhase 1 - Validation Plan], [05.05.01-D03: INTEROP] and [05.05.01-D04: Step 1 Initial Modelling Studies] are indented to be validated.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
The validation activities detailed in this document will cover Step 1, i4D Operations will take place in two different sites:
Validation Exercise EXE-05.05.01-VP-212). Real Time Simulation (RTS) in Rome TMA centre from July 2011 to October 29th 2011. This exercise will be developed in close co-operation with P4.5 which is responsible for the TMF in En-route.
Validation Exercise EXE-05.05.01-VP-XXX Fast Time Simulations (FTS) at EEC Bretigny. This exercise is not currently included in the V&V Roadmap.
This deliverable is the Validation Report for the Release 1 validation exercise VP-212 and VP-41.It contains the results of real-time simulation validation exercise conducted on the ENAV IBP in Rome. Aspects of the Initial 4D (i4D) concept were studied, focussing on the updating of the ground trajectory by use of data contained in the Extended Projected Profile (EPP) ADS-C report and ground-ground and ground-air co-ordination of Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) with the objective of pre-sequencing inbound traffic to Rome Fiumicino Airport.
Procedures and system support to facilitate the ground-ground co-ordination of CTA established by a Sequence Manager and the subsequent uplink to the flight crew by the current sector using CPDLC were found to be effective.
09.01-D21-002-Validation Report of the I4D first flight_Issue02.01.00.doc
This document is the second and final issue of the Initial 4D flight test report from the P9.01 airborne systems designers’ point of view.
It intends to give, from an airborne point of view, a detailed description of the main observations and consolidated results of the I4D first flight trial conducted on February 10th, 2012, in cooperation between SESAR P9.01, P04.03 and P05.06.01.
This flight trial constituted a successful demonstration of the technical feasibility of Initial 4D operations in real conditions, from an airborne point of view and from an air-ground integration point of view.
However, this document is a flight report from an airborne perspective. It is recommended to also read the flight trial reports provided by P04.03 and P05.06.01 to acquire a comprehensive view on Initial 4D operations maturity, as these reports analyse the flight from a complementary ground perspective.
09.01-D03-Technical Verification Validation Plan - Mainline Aircraft - step1.doc
This document includes the Test and Validation Plan related to Initial 4D function also referred to as i4D. It focuses on the step 1 of the 9.1 project for mainline operations.
4D trajectory management is an ATM function depending on a key aircraft component that enables to build, guide, predict and communicate an A/C 3D + time trajectory. Initial 4D is the first step towards full 4D planned in the SESAR target concept. It is aimed at providing significant early benefits, while being capable to be retrofitted to the whole commercial fleet with limited cost.
This document includes the verification & validation objectives, the validation strategy, and the tests means
This document includes the detailed Human Factor & Operational Validation Objectives related to Initial 4D function also referred to as i4D. It focuses on the step 1 of the 9.1 project for mainline operations: Objectives refined with airspace users, Objectives of WP4.5 & WP5.5.1, Associated validation scenario to be used for coupled simulator sessions will be described, and I4D flight scenario.
This document includes the airborne Human Factors & Operational Validation Objectives, the ground Human Factors & Operational Validation Objectives (for coupled sessions), the airborne/ground coupled sessions scenarios, and the I4D flight trial scenario.
09.01-D20-Technical VV report of integration simulator Issue1.doc
In order to validate the Initial 4D concept, the 9.1 project developed successfully a V3 airborne Initial-4D capability for mainline aircraft: the first step has been the development of prototypes of different airborne systems (Flight Management Systems, Data-Link Communication System, Displays). The second step has been the integration of these prototypes all together, within the real aircraft architecture and make sure they are interoperable with the ground. Then, the airborne I-4D function has been evaluated by pilots and controllers, using cockpit simulators coupled with ground simulators.
Project 9.01 is supporting 5.6.1 and 4.3 validation exercises, by providing the airborne Initial-4D IBP and the associated operators (flight test pilots). The preparation and execution of these tests, were fully coordinated with operational projects (mainly 4.3 and 5.6.1) and ground systems projects (mainly 10.9.4 and 10.7.1), in order to support overall Initial-4D air-ground validation. All functions described in 9.01 D01 and D02, 5.6.1 OSED and 4.3 OSED have been implemented and tested.
This document contains a synthesis of all the V&V tests and results done on integration simulator and flight test within 9.1, including performance assessment, as well as conclusions and recommendations regarding the maturity of Initial 4D aircraft function. The document mainly focus on the Airborne validation. The ground system validation is described in the ground validation reports.
09.01-D11-Technical VV Plan - Regional Aircraft issue 01.doc
This deliverable is the first outcome of the Verification and Validation (V&V) activities to be executed by the 09.01 project within the regional context. It describes the approach and the objectives of such activities. Purpose of the 09.01 V&V Plan is to support the verification and validation of the i4D Trajectory Management application into the SESAR operational scopes of the 4D Trajectory Management and Traffic Synchronization.
This document includes the detailed Human Factor & Operational Validation Objectives related to Initial 4D function also referred to as I4D. It focuses on the step 1 of the 9.1 project for regional aircraft operations.
This document includes the airborne Human Factor & Operational Validation Objectives, and the definition of scenario elements to be used for Validation and Verification simulator sessions
This document presents Step 1 Consolidated Functional Airborne Architecture for civil and military Aircraft, building on the results of the relevant WP9 primary projects and on the high level system of system architecture produced by B.04.03. It should be understood that, from this document, no conclusion can be made on the implementation of Step 1 evolutions. The consolidated functional
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
airborne architecture should be seen as a target architecture considering all Step 1 airborne evolutions, while the actual physical implementations will highly depend on the type of platforms, design choices, technologies adopted, etc.
This document aims at providing an indication of the retrofit challenge of implementing Step 1 capabilities based on a qualitative and technical analysis of the retrofit effort. A set of metrics was developed to support the analysis and ensure a consistent evaluation by all assessors.
The D02 consolidated functional airborne architecture (ref. [1]).has been used as the reference for the retrofit effort assessment.
About 70% of the total civil air traffic has been assessed.
For the military segment, a qualitative assessment was conducted, given that the methodology used for the civil segment could not be applied.
This document presents the Avionics Interoperability Roadmap for Step 1, featuring the industrial readiness for deploying Step 1 capabilities on aircraft, taking into account constraints such as availability of industry standards and certification material, e.g. EASA operational and airworthiness regulations.
The Avionics Interoperability Roadmap has been built with a view to feeding the Integrated Roadmap, the Standardisation & Regulatory Roadmaps but also considering NextGen counterpart avionics roadmap.
3.3.2 Aeronautical services involvedIdentify all aeronautical services involved in the operations of the OI step. Aeronautical service is used in a wide sense, services as defined by ICAO, SES regulations or other non-regulatory multi-lateral arrangements between organisations, based on a service provision scheme, see Annex A1.
The information below is extracted from the OSED produced by SESAR project 05.06.01 (05.06.01-D67-Step 1 OSED - Iteration 2_v1.0_28092012.doc)
The following application and information services are considered:
Application / Information
Services
Identification Description Reference
CPDLC CPDLC Enables exchanges of short messages between Controller and Flight Crew. The messages might be generated automatically on request of either Controller or Flight Crew through dedicated HMI. On board, additional integration of CPDLC terminal with avionics allows to the Flight Crew to instruct FMS directly from clearances or directions received from ground and accepted, with minimal interaction with the HMI.
When checked, analysed and sent by Flight Crew, controllers receive CPDLC messages from AC.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Application / Information
Services
Identification Description Reference
System acknowledgement of messages can be an automated process. However, human response [for example, WILCO, UNABLE, etc] to be sent/received within designated 'operational time-outs', is required for 'operational closure' of many CPDLC messages/exchanges. This is done through the HMI used at the specific location.
ADS-C ADS-C Enables exchanges of data messages (reports) between aircraft and ground systems on the basis of a contract established and activated. The messages are sent directly from the on-board system (i.e. trajectory data) normally without Flight Crew intervention, on regular interval, or on specific events, or on ground request. Note that the only intervention on ADS-C is setting it off or passing it in emergency mode.
AMAN AMAN AMAN is a dedicated arrival management system support tool which provides sequencing and metering capability for an APP unit or airport. Optimised sequences are provided based on demand for the runway at any given time, and on locally-defined optimisation criteria and input, such as required runway through-put, wake-turbulence spacing. AMAN automatically tracks arrival aircraft progress and within set rules it adjusts an aircraft's position/time in the sequence, as required.
GROUND Data Distribution
GDDD For the purposes of this OSED GDDD is limited to OLDI outside the current ATSU
AIRBORNE Data Distribution
OBBB (on board black box).
Refers to a general information service to keep FC aware of relevant 4D information on-board, to make calculation or impact evaluation of proposed constraints, monitoring conformance to an agreed constraint, etc...
Weather information Provision
B4.2_IS.2 Provides meteorological information of arriving aircraft.
Identical to that required in ATIS broadcasts for arriving aircraft as specified in Annex 11.
B4.2, 6.3.2
Wind/temp info Update Provision
B4.2_IS.3 Provides Flight Crew with last winds / temperatures to improve the trajectory predictions computed by aircraft system.
B4.2, 6.3.2
Table 1: List of Relevant Application and Information Services
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
3.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involvedIdentify all phases of flow management and/or phases of flight involved in the operations of the OI step …Systems automating operations during these phases might be impacted to support operations related to this OI Step or Not Applicable…see Annex A2.
The information below is extracted from the OSED produced by SESAR project 05.06.01 (05.06.01-D67-Step 1 OSED - Iteration 2_v1.0_28092012.doc)
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Figure 2: Plan Arrival Sequence (i4D equipped aircraft) Process Diagram
3.3.4 Actors involvedIdentify all actors involved in operations of the OI step. A list of actors is given hereafter in Annex A. Other actors can be introduced provided that a basic definition is given to understand role and responsibility of these new actors.
The roles and responsibilities for each of the primary actors involved in the described concept are provided in full in other documentation, specifically WPB4.2 Actors – Roles and Responsibilities [11]. At a high level, the two principal actors are Air Traffic Controller (Executive Controller) and Flight Crew.
Air Traffic Controller
Whilst there is no change to the responsibilities of the Controller to ensure the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic, i4D and CTA operations will introduce new phraseology and related HMI that will necessitate datalink (via CPDLC) and voice communications.
Flight Crew
Whilst there is no change to the responsibilities of the Flight Crew regarding the safe conduct of the flight, CTA operations will introduce new phraseology and related HMI that will necessitate datalink (via CPDLC) and voice communications as described. Procedures will include additional actions to manage CTA/RTA progress.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
3.3.5 Flows of information between actorsProvide a high level description of flows of information circulated amongst actors and clarify in which phases of flow management and flight phases, those flows of information are active.
The information below is extracted from the OSED produced by SESAR project 05.06.01 (05.06.01-D67-Step 1 OSED - Iteration 2_v1.0_28092012.doc)
Figure 3: Air-Ground Exchanges for i4D
3.3.6 Impact on airborne systemsOutline the impact of the OI step on A/C systems, in terms of capability upgrade (performance, functionality) and any operational approval, authorisation granted by authorities, required to use this new capability…or Not Applicable.
The information below is extracted from the OSED produced by SESAR project 05.06.01 (05.06.01-D67-Step 1 OSED - Iteration 2_v1.0_28092012.doc) and lists main assumptions on the airborne systems.
Assumption C
CTA for aircraft equipped with CPDLC, RTA functionalities of today with less accuracy (+- 30s most of the times).
I4D/CTA for aircraft equipped with CPDLC, ADS-C for reliable ETA Min/Max and EPP downlink and enhanced RTA functionality, as developed by Airbus within P09.01, with enhanced accuracy and predictability. Where aircraft are described as ‘i4D capable’, the required levels of equipage are assumed to be, as a minimum:
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Required Time of Arrival (RTA) functionality capable of achieving target within +/- 10 seconds with 95% confidence.
Improved granularity and fidelity of Meteorological data.
Enhanced Communications functionality, to include:
Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Contract (ADS-C). Number of simultaneous messages limited to two (2).
Controller Pilot Datalink Communications (CPDLC).
The information below is extracted from the analysis performed by SESAR project 05.07.02 on the impact of I4D on Separation Provision (05.07.02-D05-i4D - Separation operational requirements and procedures identification.doc) and lists some Opearational requirements impacting the airborne systems
OR 1: FMS may have standardised Mach/CAS schedules including standard cross-over points to maintain their time spacing between 200nm out and the RTA waypoint.
OR 2: Standardised speed profiles shall be built in the FMS algorithm of i4D aircraft.
OR 6: FMS shall be capable of complying with a speed restriction at and after the CTA point as well as with altitude constraints.
OR 9: The RTA function of the FMS must be capable of accepting a given Mach/speed-ratio that is kept during RTA flight.
OR 10: The RTA function of the FMS must be capable of accepting an upper Mach-limit and/or a lower CAS-limit that is kept during RTA flight.
The information below is extracted from the consolidated Airborne Architecture produced by SESAR project 09.49 (09.49-D02-Step 1 Consolidated functional Airborne Architecture-00.02.00.doc)
Impact on functional airborne architecture
Communication:
CPDLC capability to receive a 3D route clearance and RTA data
ADS-C capability:
o “EPP report” for the downlink of 4D predicted trajectory.
o “ETAmin/max report” for the downlink of ETAmin and ETAmax for ATC requested waypoint.
Datalink (AOC) capability to uplink meteo data
Navigation:
Enhanced RTA function will provide speed (and altitude) guidance enabling the 4D trajectory execution; Enhanced RTA function will be able to deliver the aircraft at any point in descent or climb within +/-10sec or +/-30sec, 95% of the time, taking into account several source of errors (Guidance error (influence TBC with WG85), Generic predictions errors, Wind error, Temperature error)
Computation of 4D predicted trajectory and ETAmin/ETAmax for ATC requested waypoint.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Additional information
Business aircraft
There is no showstopper from the functional point of view with implementing Initial 4D on business aircraft. However, datalink is currently provided in a limited number of business aircraft types. When CPDLC is implemented, integration with FMS ranges from no CMF/FMS link to Route clearance load (including time constraint load in rare cases).
A few Business A/C FMS implement RTA but it is likely that it does not have sufficient performance to support Initial 4D. There is a risk that most current business aircraft FMS will not support ETA computation with the adequate accuracy to support Initial 4D.
Next Generation FMS (e.g. Honeywell NG FMS) will provide the capability to implement all functional requirements. Last generation of business aircraft displays allow a graphical trajectory depiction on primary field of view. Some platforms do not have AOC (to receive weather information).
Regional aircraft
As to regional aircraft, from a functional point of view there is no foreseen obstacle in implementing Initial 4D. However, in the current regional fleet:
Datalink capability is not provided for all aircraft models; older types especially might not be adequately equipped.
FMS models cover a wide range of capabilities from very basic to sophisticated; even the more advanced FMS capabilities should be assessed to evaluate if they can support Initial 4D accuracy requirements.
3.3.7 Impact on ground systems Outline the impact of the OI step on EATMN systems, in terms of new capability (performance, functionality)…or… Not Applicable. See Annex 4.
The information below is extracted from the OSED produced by SESAR project 05.06.01 (05.06.01-D67-Step 1 OSED - Iteration 2_v1.0_28092012.doc) and lists main assumptions on the ground systems.
Assumption A
The i4D and CTA concept is considered within the context of managing air traffic within an Arrival Management (AMAN) environment.
Assumption B
A fully operational AMAN tool is deployed within the operating environment where required. The tool and its associated Queue Management concepts are assumed to be both effective and appropriate to their environment.
The operating horizon of AMAN will need to be sufficient in order to encompass the i4D concept. The minimum time horizon is assumed to be not less than 40 minutes, representing approximately 10 minutes flying time prior to Top of Descent (ToD).
Assumption D
A suitable method for data transmission exists to enable required ground-ground coordination and negotiation between relevant ground actors/systems.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
The information below is extracted from the analysis performed by SESAR project 05.07.02 on the impact of I4D on Separation Provision (05.07.02-D05-i4D - Separation operational requirements and procedures identification.doc) and lists some Operational requirements impacting the ground systems
Ground System
OR 3: Conflict detection tool for tactical purpose of sufficient accuracy and reliability shall be available to the Controller in order to accommodate i4D operations from ground perspective (including predicted conflict detection, predicted spacing infringement detection).
OR 4: Trajectory Prediction function in the ground system shall have sufficient level of quality taking into consideration the trajectories of i4D flights as well as their assigned CTA and other types of constraints (such as speed profiles).
OR 7: The ground system (AMAN) must be notified of all changes in the i4D trajectory.
OR 8: The ground system (AMAN) shall check spacing between all i4D-flights and non-i4D flights and issue related speed advisories to non-i4D flights (see also OR3 and OR4).
Information Management System
OR 5: Non-company specific wind information of sufficient accuracy shall be available to accommodate i4D operations.
3.4 Related standardization and regulatory activities
3.4.1 StandardsIdentify applicable standards considered as the baseline to automate the aforementioned flows of information and apply relevant operational procedures.
The main standardization groups that are linked with Initial 4D are:
EUROCAE WG78 / RTCA SC214 – Next Generation FANS Standards
EUROCAE WG85 / RTCA SC227 – 4D Navigation
ARINC 702A
EUROCAE WG 85 / RTCA SC 227 status
WG85 was initially focusing on the definition of the navigation functions and associated requirements that derive from Initial 4D operational concept. The document updated is the ED75/DO236. Early 2012 RTCA SC227 started a group targeting an update of the DO236, the scope of this RTCA group was including 4D navigation but it was not limited to this function only. WG85 scope was therefore extended to match SC227 TOR and create a joint group. The first joint plenary was held in Brussels 17th to 21st September 2012.
The main functionalities that are studied are the following:
Initial 4D - ED75 addendum: Prediction accuracy, RTA accuracy/reliability, RTA reliable time interval computation (ETA min/max at a waypoint), Alerts, Meteo hypothesis, RTA speed ranges and in-trail catch up potential problems (2 following aircrafts performing RTA), and Means of compliance
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Initial 4D – WG85 related studies/white papers:
ETA min/max white paper: This note clarifies what is and what is not ETA min/max and lists the major technical behaviours and characteristics of any ETA min/ma function.
Distance reduction: This study analyses the rate of minimum distance infringements during Initial 4D operations. This year, an update has been done to take into accound TOAC speed updates during the operation. A second issue of the corresponding white paper is on-going to capture these new results.
Meteo study has been launched and a fist issue of a white paper was finalized, 95% wind/temp error along aircraft trajectory is around 7kts. In parallel another study based on aircraft measured wind tends to show greater error (12kts). The analysis is still on-going.
RTA means of compliance white paper first issue has been finalized. This paper details one example of the activity to be performed to show compliance with the proposed TOAC performance requirements.
ETA uncertainty white paper has been finalized: this paper describes the 95% reliability envelope of the predicted times (ETA) in open loop and while flying a time constraint to a point.
Methodology to approximate initial TOAC speed based on ETA min/max values (to be computed on the ground to anticipate aircraft reaction at the initiation of the operation).
Inputs to WG78/SC214: this paper gathers the remarks and change proposals from NAV experts (Wg85/SC227) on the CPDLC and ADS-C evolutions proposed by SC214/WG78 and related to trajectory based operations.
The group will produce a Revised DO-236B (Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards: Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation) for June 2013
EUROCAE WG 78 / RTCA SC 214 status
WG78/SC214 defines the ATS datalink functions and associated requirements that cover several concepts. Among them, the capacity to exchange trajectories, meteo elements, aircraft characteristic elements (speeds schedule, GW ) and precise RTA orders is included and known as 4DTRAD. This group is common to RTCA and EUROCAE for which the target of this group is to create (amongst others ):
ED/DO-XXX, Safety and Performance Requirements Standard for Advanced ATS Data Communications
ED/DO-YYY, Interoperability Requirements Standard for Advanced ATS Data Communications named for the moment EDXX.
These define an additional standard called ATN baseline 2 / ATN B2 to the standard currently mandated in Europe ATN baseline 1 / ATN B1.
The main functionalities related to initial 4D that are included in 4DTRAD are the following:
CPDLC messages update to include RTA resolution to a second, RTA selectable tolerance, also clarification on route uplinks.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Aircraft Derived Data (optimum CAS/MACH by flight phase, Min/Max speed schedule, aircraft grossweight, prediction status related aircraft current guidance mode)
Aircraft predicted route (Extended Projected Profile) with several ways to define conditions for update sending from the aircraft.
ETA min/max contract (to allow the ground to get ETA min/max on a waypoint of interest).
A second complete draft standard (Interop & SPR version 0.I) was produced in February 2012.
The group will produce the final set of documents by June 2013
ARINC 702 status
This document standardizes the FMS functionalities.
In 2010 the SAI meeting held in Toulouse in October considered the possibility to launch an update of ARINC702 that would include the impacts of SESAR and NEXT GEN concepts.
The main targeted functions were D-TAXI, Initial 4D and ASAS.
SAI decided not to launch immediately an update of 702 due to the lack of validation results on the various considered concepts.
Main objective of 9.01 participating to this meeting was to make sure that coordination between 702 group and WG78/85 would be efficient. In particular avoid that a second standardization group works on the same concepts/functions in parallel with WG78 & 85.
SAI group stressed that A702 work was on the airborne architecture implementation of the functions and performances required by appropriate WG (for I4D WG78 and WG 85) no duplication of work.
The delay on A702 should not put strong risks on 9.01 development & validation activities since A702 impacts are limited to airborne architecture no impact on functions, safety, interoperability.
In 2012, in the frame of 9.01 FMS V2 definition, a joint draft proposal for an AOC wind/temperature uplink able to support uplinks with 10 levels of wind/temperature has been worked by 9.01 members.
When 702 standard is re-opened, this proposal will be submitted.
3.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworksOutline the impact of the OI step on the SES and EASA regulatory frameworks. For example, availability of Community Specifications, Certification Specifications necessary to support implementation …or… Not Applicable.
TO BE COMPLETED
3.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept BlocksOutline the link to ICAO Blocks to anticipate any issue that might hamper harmonization and interoperability of deployed solution. If needed, detail the status of ICAO documents on peculiar topics of relevance to implement the OI step. …or… Not Applicable.
B1-40 Improved Traffic Synchronization and Initial Trajectory-based Operation
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Improves the synchronization of traffic flows at en-route merging points and to optimize the approach sequence through the use of 4DTRAD capability and airport applications, e.g. D-TAXI.
Applicability
Requires good synchronization of airborne and ground deployment to generate significant benefits, in particular to those equipped. Benefit increases with size of equipped aircraft population in the area where the services are provided.
Benefits
Capacity: Positively affected because of the reduction of workload associated to the establishment of the sequence close to the convergence point and related tactical interventions. Positively affected because of the reduction of workload associated to the delivery of departure and taxi clearances.
Efficiency: Increased by using the aircraft RTA capability for traffic synchronization planning through en-route and into terminal airspace. ‘Closed loop’ operations on RNAV procedures ensure common air and ground system awareness of traffic evolution and facilitate its optimization. Flight efficiency is increased through proactive planning of top of descent, descent profile and en-route delay actions, and enhanced terminal airspace route efficiency.
Environment:
More economic and environmentally friendly trajectories, in particular absorption of some delays.
Safety: Safety at/around airports by a reduction of the misinterpretations and errors in the interpretation of the complex departure and taxi clearances.
Predictability:
Increased predictability of the ATM system for all stakeholders through greater strategic management of traffic flow between and within FIRs en-route and terminal airspace using the aircraft RTA capability or speed control to manage a ground CTA. Predictable and repeatable sequencing and metering. “Closed loop” operations on RNAV procedures ensuring common air and ground system awareness of traffic evolution.
Cost: Establishment of the business case is underway. The benefits of the proposed airport services were already demonstrated in the EUROCONTROL CASCADE Programme.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
3.5 Maturity and implementation considerations
3.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release StrategyIdentify here any pre-identified maturity issues. Note that it was agreed that not all changes should be considered “fully mature”(V3 mature) at the time of preparing the PCP. However there shall be sufficient confidence that V3 maturity will be achieved up to an including Release 4.
3.5.1.1 SESAR JU inputs on maturityThis OI step target is Release R4
There are 23 exercises planned for this OI step.
Ten Validation Exercises have been defined in the Releases, respectively in R1, R2 and R3.
Three R1 exercises (VP-323, VP-203, and VP-205) were planned to validate the OIs, with following outcome.
Although recognised as part of a sequence of V3 exercises, the results of this exercise do not comply yet with the V3 exit criteria. Further activities are planned in Releases 2 and 3 (e.g. VP-029/-204/-330). Therefore the V3 maturity will be further monitored as part of the Release 2 Review Session 3 and assessed as soon as the sequence of activities is completed (e.g. Release 3 Review Session 3).
The OFA shall ensure consolidation of operational and system requirements. The projects shall apply B5 and 16.6.x guidance material for assessment of KPAs (Capacity, Safety, Security, HP…) to future activities.
CTA was perceived as a positive way to absorb delays and sequence arriving aircraft in certain situations.
Two R1 exercises (VP-212, and VP-041) were not planned to validate the OIs, but the R1 SE3 Review Report stated that the exercises contributed to the maturity of the OIs with the following outcome.
The Release 1 V3 exit criteria are not completely fulfilled (need to assess applicability, detail reference scenario, assess non-nominal cases, finalise VALR).
The results contribute more appropriately to the OFA i4D+CTA through OI TS-0103 than the OFA TMF, and the OFA i4D+CTA shall take account of the results from VP-041/212. Further exercises are planned for the OFA i4D+CTA under Release 2 (VP-029/-330/-204). Therefore the V3 maturity of the concept option will be further assessed as part of the Release 2 Review session 3.
An updated OSED, SPR and VALR shall be provided by the project to the SJU, which clarifies the core of the developed concept element and assumptions, limitations and constraints; clarifies concept applicability (airspace structure) and clarifies quantitative benefit assessments on efficiency.
Release 2 exercises shall include performance assessment in accordance with B5 and 16.6.x guidance material, notably assessments of impacts on safety, security, capacity and predictability (quantitative measurement).
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
The Review 1 Report showed that one exercise (VP-356) did not cover this OI step, as originally planned.
The Release 1 conclusion was that the OIs maturity was partially fulfilled, requiring further validation.
Three R2 Exercises aimed at Operational validation activities focused on I4D simulations with mainline aircraft integration simulator and connected with MUAC and/or NORACON ATC Centre - Iteration 1 (EXE-04.03-VP-029, EXE-05.06.01-VP-204) and i4D simulations with Airbus 4D predictor integrated at MUAC - Iteration 1 (EXE-04.03-VP-330).
Exercises have been completed and the preliminary conclusion (VP-029, VP-330, VP-323):
9 areas identified from debriefings
Airspace structures not conducive to RTA operations
Workload increase could lead to capacity decrease
Might be beneficial in feeding traffic from MUAC into the TMA
A VALR for VP-204 is expected in January 2013.
Three exercises are planned in R3 (VP-324, VP-463, VP-472). There are no R3 issues.
VP-324 (Step B) and VP-463 (Step C) will focus on I4D simulations with mainline ac integration simulator, connected with MUAC and NORACON ATC Centre. -VP-472 (Step C) will focus on I4D flight trials with mainline ac flying in MUAC and NORACON airspace.
The R3 exercises address the validation of trajectory exchange with the aircraft and the use of this information to support flow/queue management. In particular they will focus on the use of CTA/CTO (time based operations) to manage traffic towards TMAs.
Moreover, there are 10 V3 exercises covering this OIs, planned in 2012, 2013, 2014, that are NOT planned to be part of a Release.
There are four other exercises (V1, V2) planned in timeframes of Releases R1 till R4; none of them is part of a Release.
What is the confidence in achieving V3 maturity by Release 4, based on existing plans and results? HIGH
SE data analysis:
The following figure represents the current status of the existing links between SE data in WP04 and WP05.
That shows a lack of maturity from the SE data perspective (missing links between DOD-VALS-VALP).
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
In the scope of the Release Strategy, a Maturity Assessment Form, containing the TS-0103 analysis, has been provided by 5.2
The output of this OI analysis is the creation of VALS Objectives. These new VALS objectives, if integrated in a future VALS, could provide links between Objectives and DOD requirements and OI step.
What is the confidence in availability of requirements in a database ?: MEDIUM (due to the output of the Maturity assessment form)
Recommendations:
Ensure that all V3 validation activities are planned by R4 and participate in R4.
Projects should provide deliverables with SE Data in the right format
3.5.1.2 Additional maturity elementsAs illustrated in the figure below two EXEs within the OFA and P05.06.01 are dependant of inputs from OFA 04.01.02 in terms of requirements/results.
In the case of EXE-326 in P05.06.01, results from P05.06.04 validations (maturity level early V3) and OSED Operational Requirements (7) is partly addressed and an AMAN prototype system developed from these requirements will be used.
In the case of EXE-477 (and limited in EXE-478) results from P05.06.07, EXE-485 (maturity V3) are taken into account and an AMAN prototype system updated from these results.
OBSERVE - The focus area for each of the 5.6.1 exercises are the CTA issues and the possibilities to implement the sequence, as well as airborne side issues, while 5.6.4/7 focus on the AMAN and the requirements on the sequence build, plan, optimization and stability.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Figure 4 Inter-OFA 04.01.02 and OFA 04.01.05 dependencies at EXE level
3.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered aboveIdentify here any additional deployment considerations that you would like to highlight that cannot be directly derived from the information provided in the sections above.
TS-0103 cannot be looked at in isolation and should be combined with transversal OI Steps supporting the overall I4D concept. The information below is based on ongoing discussions at WP B level on the actual implementation of I4D in the Enterprise Architecture
<<DSI: As I understand it the scope of the PCP is limited to the air-ground exchange of 4D trajectory to improve predictability and the use of CTA to support AMAN (or perhaps also enroute for flow management purposes – see next paragraph). I suppose the scope has been restricted like that to give some realistic prospect of deployment by 2019. So I don’t think the objective is to implement the whole of i4D so I don’t think all the OI steps listed below are relevant (and certainly if they are all to be considered in scope then the 2019 date is not achievable (e.g. IOC date for AUO-0303-A is 2021).
N.B The second sub-bullet of the second bullet in para 1.1 (High-Level Operational Impact description) of the complete document says “… i4D+CTA limited to … CTA used in the context of moving from CTOT to target time at congestion reducing the impact of ATFM slots …” This implies to me that the CTA may be used for ATFM purposes and not just AMAN,
>>
A Change Request is in the process of being submitted to either make this OI broader or create an additional OI. This OI seems to specify a particular solution rather than address a broader aim such as the use of arrival constraints to meter (or even stream) arriving traffic. The use of the term ‘CTA’ implies the use of technology to achieve a high degree of accuracy in meeting a constraint; however,
Legend:Green color indicates the input from OFA 04.01.02 to the Sub-Scenario in relation to AMAN and Extended AMAN.
Blue color indicated input from OFA 04.01.05 to the Sub-Scenario
Red text indicates the coordinated EXEs as part of the META Project/cooperation with NOARCON, MUAC, Thales and Airbus
Arrival Process in M/M:
Dependent of input from P05.06.04
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
it is not clear what benefits this level of accuracy can provide. Use of datalink is one method of achieving the objective of passing an arrival constraint to the flight-deck.
Results from 5.6.4 exercises demonstrate that considerable benefit can be achieved in high density airspace by transferring delay from the TMA to the en route phase of flight. Furthermore, some additional benefits can be achieved in terms of demand-capacity balancing during the arrival phase. These validation exercises also highlighted that in high-density operations, it was impractical to permit flight crews to vary aircraft speed without specific clearance from controllers as aircraft were frequently in close proximity to each other. However, when there were no separation issues, i.e. aircraft were not close to each other, the passing of an arrival constraint to the flight-deck achieved the desired benefit without adding to ATC workload. The 5.6.4 results suggest that in high density airspace, it is better to meter to a pre-descent point rather than to a TMA entry point or similar lower altitude point. This solves the problem associated with the need to merge aircraft from different flows into a single flow, which in high density airspace usually requires all aircraft to fly controller-prescribed speeds for capacity and separation reasons. In 5.6.4 exercises in lower-density airspace, it appeared possible to use the greater accuracy enabled by i4D-like technology to permit the flight crew to self-manage their descent. It is not clear to what extent this technology offers a benefit in lower density airspace where the need for such constraints is also lower. The information-exchange, specifically ETA min/max, associated with i4D technology seems to offer a benefit in that aligning airborne and ground systems makes sense. However, the ability of an aircraft to meet an arrival constraint with a high degree of accuracy and where the aircraft self-manages its speed, seems less clear, especially in high-density airspace.
In summary, a broader interpretation of this OI (for which a Change Request is being submitted) offers considerable benefit and should be supported. The current narrow focus of this OI may offer some benefit in specific scenarios but there is little evidence of its wider applicability so far.
Source: Capabilities from “Capability Taxonomy November 2012.xls” Process model from B4.2 “B4.2 Models v3.zip” and “Cruise screenshot_12.docx “dated November 2012 Capability Configuration and Enablers from ADD step 1 v1 dated October 2012 Operational Improvements (OIs) and Enablers from Integrated Roadmap from DataSet9
Mapping of Capabilities / Processes & OIs / Capability Configuration & Enabler for I4D/CTA step 1 in cruise
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
4 Optimised Route Network using Advanced RNP (OI STEP AOM-0404) and Enhanced Terminal Airspace for RNP-based operations with vertical guidance (OI STEP AOM-0603)
This description form is a vehicle to summarise what is expected to be achieved operationally from the OI step and who are the actors involved, with the aim to identify all involved stakeholder groups and expected actions to implement the OI step.
This description form must be completed before starting the development of an Implementation Objective. However, it is not self-sufficient as it does not address any geographical applicability, or a time horizon for its putting into operation. These elements will have to be part of the analysis foreseen to be conducted in Q1 2013, based on the positive results of this one.
In case you identify any critical issues with regards to the scope and present level of description of pre-identified OI steps or enablers please contact the Support & Validation Office with a qualification for your change request.
4.1 OI Step descriptionScope of the PCP is “PBN in high density airspace - Development and implementation of fuel efficient and/or environmental friendly procedures for en-route transition, arrival/departure and approach”.
It covers the following navigation specifications:
- RNAV1 SIDs and STARs
- Advanced RNP – scope is further detailed below (*)
- RNP APCH
- RNP with Authorization Required (AR)
(*)
• European Community set up a mandate for PBN implementation in view of airspace capacity enhancement.
• Eurocontrol drafted the Interoperability Implementing Rule on PBN based on a selected set of option from the PBN Advanced RNP nav spec.
• The selected regulatory approach is on going.• The cost/benefit analysis (CBA) will be performed on the basis of the selected regulatory
approach and will be part of the justification material that will be delivered with the draft PBN Implementing Rule which is planned to be delivered in September 2013.
Required Aircraft Functionalities (full set) for 2020, as per “Draft Interoperability implementing rule on Performance Based Navigation ref. SES/IOP/PBN/REGAP/0.4”
En-Route Terminal Airspace Final Approach
RNP(1NM) FRT above FL 195 Tactical Parallel
Offset Capability to meet a
RNP (1NM) RF RNAV Holding VNAV Capability to meet a single
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
single time constraint = Current RTA
time constraint (2025) = Initial 4D (TBC)
Important note: The above list contains the full set of proposed functionalities including the ones that are optional and might not be part of the mandate,
The intention of the PCP is to deploy PBN before the dates in the PBN IR. 2020 is currently the target date for compliance for operators and PBN procedures need to be implemented by that date.
Important note: RTA aspects are dealt within another PCP.
AOM-0603
Enhanced Terminal Airspace for RNP-based Operations with vertical guidance
IOC: 31/12/2014
DESCRIPTION: Terminal Airspace is further enhanced with the use of RNP based instrument procedures (e.g. RNP1 SIDs and STARs) with vertical guidance (e.g. Advanced Localizer Precision with vertical approach based on SBAS) to increase safety and provide of stabilized approaches, thus reducing the potential for CFIT (Controller Flight Into Terrain). Holding areas are redefined in terms of size and location
RATIONALE: Based on the application of RNP capability, which may include 3D management on routes, advanced applications are expected from 2015 with metering of aircraft from en-route to Terminal airspace. In future Concept steps, aircraft with 4D capability will then offer potential further benefits by allowing 4D departure and arrival management to minimise environmental impact and to ensure efficient timing and accurate approach sequencing.
COMMENTS: MSW: IOC 2014 possible but needs Procedure En. - If baseline is P-RNAV capability in TMA, what is the benefit of RNP for SID and STAR? Connexion with PBN regulation needs to be monitored. Noted that in baseline AOM-0601, ref. to PRNAV and/or Baro/VNAV are removed as considered best practices).
Expert Team comment:
Description of the OI could be improved this way (changes underlined):
Terminal Airspace is further enhanced with the use of RNP based instrument procedures (e.g. RNP1 SIDs and STARs) with vertical guidance (VNAV)
Approaches with vertical guidance (APV) based on baro or SBAS are expected to increase safety and provide stabilized approaches, thus reducing the potential for CFIT (Controller Flight Into Terrain). Holding areas are redefined in terms of size and location.
APV approach based on SBAS is also called an LPV approach (Approach with Localiser Precision and Vertical guidance)
RNP AR may provide benefits in special situations and could be studied on a case by case basis.
The differences between the approach types and their pro and cons can be further detailed as follows:
RNP APCH is a navigation specification in the PBN Manual (ICAO Doc. 9613) enabling a final
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
approach procedure using GNSS with or without Baro-VNAV (or SBAS). Is the procedure is flown without Baro-VNAV then the LNAV minimum line on the approach chart should be used. If the procedure is fown with baro-VNAV then the LNAV/VNAV minimum line oh the apoproach chart should be used. If the procedure is flown without baro-VNAV, then EU-OPS requires that the approach is flown using the Continuous Descent Final Approach technique (CDFA).
ICAO (36th Assembly Oct 2007) recommends implementation of approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV) (Baro-VNAV and/or augmented GNSS) for all instrument runway ends, either as the primary approach or as a back-up for precision approaches by 2016 with intermediate milestones as follows: 30% by 2010 and 70% by 2014.
The advantages of RNP APCH are improved airport access and the possibilty to design straight-in procedures due to the fact that they are independent from the location of ground navaids, as well as increased safety due stable descent paths thanks to the CDFA technique and/or baro-VNAV (or SBAS) functionality.
RNP AR APCH specification represents the ICAO global standard for developing instrument approach procedures to airports where limiting obstacles exist and/or where significant operational efficiencies can be gained. These procedures require additional levels of scrutiny, control and authorization. The increased risks and complexities associated with these procedures are mitigated through more stringent RNP criteria, advanced aircraft capabilities and increased aircrew training.
Eurocontrol QUOTE
Position from the Joint User Requirements Group (JURG) of the International Airlines Association (IATA) and Association of European Airlines (AEA) as presented during the ICAO PBN Workshop (Paris, 25-27 May 2011) is as follows:
RNP AR requires extensive certification and approval efforts similar to a Cat-II/III certification process
RNP AR procedure design is costly and will be recovered from airspace users Therefore, RNP AR is to be used for critical procedures only Proliferation of RNP AR for other than critical procedures should be avoided and should
only apply for those airspace users that will benefit from such procedures As most of Airports International airlines operate to are not terrain or obstacle challenged,
such airports do not fall within the RNP AR category Implementation of RNP AR cannot be based on a generic CBA, only on an airline
individual basis Market for RNP AR is small, i.e. where critical obstacle clearances and critical noise
procedures are an issue RNP AR must be kept as an alternative to normal operations Airlines that are not RNP AR approved shall not be forced to become approved, especially
at those airports where acceptance can also be achieved through the use of RNP APCH.
Eurocontrol UNQUOTE
The industry (Airbus/Quovadis) does not agree with the above mentioned position, in particular the fact that it has to be used for critical procedures only. RNP AR brings significant benefits in non terrain challenging airports as well:
Definition of shorter procedures thus reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, Noise reduction, Increase airport accessibility
It requires additional level of authorization as compared to RNP APCH, nevertheless, development of RNP AR procedures (in particular in non terrain challenging areas) enable significant cost benefits by reducing flight time and track miles savings.
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of respectively
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
66, 52 and 28% for RNP APCH (LNAV), RNP APCH (LNAV/VNAV) and RNP AR.
AOM-0404 Optimised Route Network using Advanced RNP
IOC: 31/12/2018
DESCRIPTION: Advanced RNP is implemented and supports enhancements of route structure. Spacing between routes is reduced where required, with commensurate requirements on airborne navigation and ground systems capabilities.
RATIONALE: With the introduction of advanced-RNP1, the advantages gained from P-RNAV will be further enhanced by onboard performance monitoring and alerting and the execution of more predictable aircraft behaviour. This will enable the design of e.g. closely spaced parallel routes and procedures including the turns (fixed radius turns). OI linked to aircraft performance.
Expert Team comment: Advanced RNP encompasses the navigation specifications defined for all phases of flight (except take off and landing) (so in particular the ones in the scope of this PCP). Applicability of this OI step for the PCP is en route, arrival and approach phase of flight.
Advanced RNP is a specification in the PBN manual (ICAO Doc. 9613) intended to be used during all phases of flight, requiring GNSS and a set of functionalitities including the Fixed Radius Turn (RF) path terminator. The specification is designed to cover a set of other Navigation Specifications (RNAV5, RNAV1/2, RNP1/2, RNP APCH) so that operators having a single Advanced RNP approval are automatically approved fot the other Navivation Specifications that Advanced RNP encompasses.
The following functionalities are currently optional in Advanced RNP (Navigation Specification in the ICAO PBN Manual):
RNP Scalability Barometric VNAV Time of Arrival Control Fixed Radius Transition
Only functionalities considered in the PBN IR will be considered in the scope of the PCP, and this will refined with the availability of the mandate. Airbus/Quovadis Quote <In particular, RNP scalability concept is not applicable as it is not mature> Airbus/Quovadis Unquote
During the consultation phase of the PBN IR (currently on-going) it will be determined which of the optional functions of Advanced RNP (FRT, RTA, VNAV) will become required functions, if any at all. <Airbus/Quovadis quote> RNP values are fixed.<Airbus/Quovadis quote>
PBN-IR is intended to be applicable from 2018-2020 onwards. In the meantime the most common PBN navigation specification for standard arrival/departure procedures is still RNAV1, which is still expected to provide benefits over conventional navigation as procedures can be designed independently from the location of ground navigation aids.
During discussion preparing this PCP, a requirement expressed by a major European airpsace user was to increase the number normal arrival procedures (STARS) allowing continuous descent operations, using current aircraft capability and with minimum cost. This could be accomplished in the near term with RNAV1 STARS including a vertical path (for example by means of putting altitude constraints) in the procedure. In addition Advanced RNP will allow the design of curved segments in SIDS and STAR through the use of the RF path terminator outside of RNP AR context.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of 70% for aircraft having at least GNSS sensor input and Fixed Radius Turn (RF) capability, core functionality for Advanced RNP.
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of 88% for aircraft having RNAV1 capability.
SESAR JU Avionics Study indicates 75% equipage level for modern transport type aircraft (referring mainly to sensors and not RNAV1 capability as a whole)
4.2 Related Enablers descriptionThe information presented is extracted from SESAR Data Set 9. To note that Enablers with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) before 12/2013 belong to the Deployment Baseline. The full list of Stakeholder categories presented in the Enabler tables is available in Annex 0 of this document and is consistent with the information provided in the European ATM Master Plan Portal.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
A/C-04 Flight management and guidance to improve lateral navigation in approach (2D RNP)
IOC: 12/2007 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Sch. Aviation
AU Civil Bus. Aviation
AU Civil Gen. Aviation
AU Mil. Transport
AU Mil. Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Flight management and guidance to improve lateral navigation e.g. 2D RNP value down to 0.3NM. Enabler for IP1 already available in most Airbus ACFT
COMMENTS: IOC dates correspond to V3 end dates + 2 or 3 years, i.e. initial operational capabilities if standardisation is available, there is no major certification issue and there is a window of opportunity for the implementation within the aircraft. MSW: Connected to the 2nd step on PBN regulation. Comment from C.03: With regard to the "2nd step of PBN regulation", the ICB recommended a stepwise approach to the PBN IR. In all current scenarios, final implementation of PBN IR would cover all NAV requirements for Initial 4D. Note however that final implementation of PBN IR is currently foreseen only in 2025 Mainline: Enabler for IP1 timeframe already available in most A/C. Boeing: "Current fleet capability. Still incompatibility with European legislation (AMC20-26, 20-27)" BA: Most BA aircrafts are certified for 2D RNP0.3 ; Essential Enabler for BA GA: Essential enabler. The IOC/FOC dates may need to be moved for GA. For the low density TMA rows in particular, we have some concerns. A-RNP will not be mandatory by 2021 in these TMAs. The dates should be shifted to 2025 and beyond. Check for over-design e.g. Point merge in complex TMAs is allocated to low density TMAs in the same timescale; no need. Rationale for the GA comment: The RNP lateral accuracy (and possibly integrity/continuity) requirements shouldn?t be an issue for GA. Vertical constraints or turn-based requirements (e.g. FRT, RF) will present an issue for most GA IFR aircraft in the dates suggested (2018 onwards). Also, are we suggesting that every TMA will move to A-RNP by 2021 (i.e. at the same time)? This is unlikely in practice. MIL: Applicability to military aircraft and associated timetable handled by 15.03.01; Military authorities to be consulted.When MMS impact, to be handled by 9.3. Processes for certification by equivalent performance should be provided by 9.49. CMAC (Jpe) 25/11/11: Indirectly solved by the PBN IR. In accordance with 15.3.1 by 2017 it will be available in the majority of transport and some fighters (through equivalent performance). Implemented in A400M (2017); Fighter 2019, ref 15.3.1
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Expert Team comment:
<Airbus/Quovadis quote> Even if it is not part of the PCP, <Airbus/Quovadis quote> There is a very interesting link to SESAR WP9.9 (RNP to xLS). As xLS (in most cases ILS) will still be the most polular and most frequently used final approach navigation system, this project investigates opportunities, benefits and issues related to connecting an RNP procedure to a precision approach (xLS) procedure. A series of flight simulations will be carried out in 2013, investigating to use of the Fixed Radius Turn (RF) path terminator to put an aircraft efficiently on an ILS approach. Similar work has been carried out in the FAA Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC).
<Airbus/Quovadis quote> As per current ATM Master plan, enabler A/C-07 Curved approach e.g. automatic RNP transition to XLS/LPV is not yet in V3 (targeted end 2017 and IOC end 2019. The A/C-07 needs to be revised to cope with current SESAR work. The current scope of 9.9 project deals with manual transition from RNP to xLS (RNP ACH or A-RNP) and its implementation on ATR A/C. Flight trials with ATR are scheduled in 2013.
Mainline, Airbus capability for manual transition from RNP AR to ILS, has already been shown during the VINGA trials and some additional validation activities are envisaged with project 6.8.5 for RNP transition to GLS (RNP APCH or A-RNP with RF in the intermediate approach). At this stage, f RNP AR to XLS is ready to deploy. The RNP transition to xLS still needs an operation approval framework (e.g., procedure design, crew training).<Airbus/Quovadis quote>
EUROCONTROL will undertake an additional study in 2013 investigating the transition from RNP to ILS in other aircraft types.
The transition of an RNP arrival procedure to an ILS will allow the user to fly an efficient profile using A-RNP functionality while being able to fly to low approach minima using the ILS final approach minima.
As a general comment, the other text in the box above which was already in the template before review of the expert team seems to be a collection of fragments of text pasted together and is barely understandable and readable. Therefore it is difficult and actually impossible to comment on this text.
Applicability to military aircraft: Applicability to military aircraft and some associated timetable aspects handled by 15.03.01; Military authorities to be consulted. When MMS impact, to be handled by 9.3. Processes for certification by equivalent performance should be subsequently defined. In accordance with a preliminary impact assessment on civil-military organisation already endorsed by the military authorities (MILHAG) the PBN IR will not be too prescriptive to state aircraft. Very likely the IR will contain provisions only for new transport-type aircraft to be forward fitted with minimum regulatory option (RNP-1 plus vertical guidance). ATS providers will be required to handle non equipped state aircraft and performance based equivalent compliance will be offered as an opportunity for all aircraft types. Due to justified procurement and technical constraints the deployment date will be later than civil ones (5 years later in average). Some limited deployment (non regulated) can take place before as it is the case of fleets like the Airbus A400M or the C-130J. Although fighters can demonstrate some level of compliance on the basis of their available avionics they shall not be considered for the approach/TMA phase of flight.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
A/C-06 LPV approach based on SBAS
IOC: 12/2015 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Sch. Aviation
AU Civil Bus. Aviation
AU Civil Gen. Aviation
AU Mil. Transport
AU Mil. Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Flight management and guidance to perform Localizer Precision with Vertical guidance approach (LPV) based on Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS).
COMMENTS: Scheduled airlines: IOC estimated 2015. To be implemented summer 2012 after checking.
Expert Team comment: Not in the scope of the PCP for Airbus aircraft.
CTE-N3a Aircraft –based augmentation system (ABAS)
IOC: 12/2006 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Sch. Aviation
AU Civil Gen. Aviation
AU Mil. Transport
AU Mil. Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Inertial with Take-Off Update. In order to support RNAV, both GNSS and DME/DME are available infrastructures. However, DME/DME has some drawbacks when compared to GNSS: coverage for take-off and initial climb is often limited.
COMMENTS: Aircraft-based augmentation system (ICAO definition) augments and/or integrates the information obtained from the GNSS elements with other information available on board the aircraft. The aim is to enhance the overall performance of the GNSS equipment on board in terms of integrity, continuity, availability and accuracy. ABAS is the preferred and most cost-effective system which enables this (providing integrity monitoring for APV and en-route navigation Mainline: Enabler date in the past Boeing: "Current fleet capability" BA: RNAV (SID & STAR & APPR) is current fleet capability for most BA aircrafts. Also, most BA aircrafts are baro-VNAV capable (advisory as a minimum), but difficult to comply with AMC 20-27. GNSS/SBAS is the preferred capability for LNAV & VNAV (enabling precision approach). Beneficial enabler for BA GA: Covered by CTE-N3b . This version (a) is likely to be high cost. Unlikely to be needed. MIL: "Schedule to be provided by project 15.3.1. For fighters; V3: 2014, IOC 2019 (ref 9.27). MPG10: DB date very late; to be revisited
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Expert Team comment:
For fighters the dates for compliance are uncertain and the capability shall be demonstrated on the basis of avionics re-use and performance. Consider P9.27. and P9.3.
CTE-N5a DME / DME optimisation
IOC: 12/2006 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R StakeholderANSP Civil
ANSP Military
DESCRIPTION: Update and rationalisation of the DME/DME network.
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment: Usage of DME-DME can be envisaged as a back up to GNSS for RNAV operations.
The role and plans for TACAN must also be discussed as part of the overall rationalisation.
CTE-N5b DME / DME inertial
IOC: 01/2013 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Sch. Aviation
AU Civil Bus. Aviation
AU Civil Gen. Aviation
AU Mil. Transport
AU Mil. Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Onboard DME/DME equipment as an existing RNAV positioning means is retained as a backup means to cover GNSS jamming risks (En route and terminal phases of flight)..
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment: The military use TACAN alternatively which shall be accepted also for compliance.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
ER APP ATC 94a Adapt ATC tools in support of RNP1 aircraft for Approach
IOC: none IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: Conflict Management and monitoring shall be adjusted to cater for RNP1 aircraft capabilities, to avoid false conflict detection when RNP1 based separation is applicable for involved aircraft and to raise deviation alerts as soon as RNP1 accuracy is no longer satisfied
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: This enabler is not applicable as is to the PCP as it is related to RNP1 for approach. Should be reworded to cover en-route.
ER APP ATC 134a Adapt Safety Nets tools in support of RNP1 aircraft for Approach
IOC: none IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP
DESCRIPTION: Safety Nets tools shall adjust the separation to RNP1 aircraft capabilities, to avoid raising false alerts when RNP1 separation based capabilities are in use for involved aircraft.
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: This enabler is not applicable as is to the PCP as it is related to RNP1 for approach. Should be reworded to cover en-route.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
A/C-04a Flight management and guidance to enhance A-RNP
IOC: 12/2018 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R StakeholderAU Civil Scheduled Av.
AU Civil General Av.
DESCRIPTION: Flight management and guidance to enhance A-RNP en route functionality (e.g. scaleable RNP and Fixed Radius Turn) and associated airborne navigation data base
COMMENTS: New A/C-04a required for Advanced RNP En-Route features not yet available in the A/C as well as A424 data evolutions to support A-RNP functionality. MSW: A/C-04a IOC 2018 (earliest IOC depending on Regulation) - Comment from C.03: With regard to earliest IOC, it is too early to tell as PBN IR scenarios are currently being developed. But as far as I know, 2018 would be compatible with the current approaches, so deployment scenarios still have the possibility to drive the regulatory prescriptions; Mainline: First benefit cannot be earlier than 2018 linked to mandate on A-RNP - No enabler date available as long as airworthiness regulation unkown Boeing: Capability before 2020 expected BA: Allocation to BA may be necessary if moving from P-RNAV to RNP TMA. FMS software updates should enable A-RNP down to 0.3 with Fixed Radius Turns (TBC). Not only En-Route, but also terminal area can benefit from A-RNP without requiring additionnal authorisation and qualifications (without Authorisation Required concept). NAV DATAbases is a major challenge in Europe (27 different countries/data sources). Business Aviation can potentially operate into any suitable airport. Essential enabler for BA GA: Essential enabler. The IOC/FOC dates may need to be moved for GA. For the low density TMA rows in particular, we have some concerns. A-RNP will not be mandatory by 2021 in these TMAs. The dates should be shifted to 2025 and beyond. Check for over-design e.g. Point merge in complex TMAs is allocated to low density TMAs in the same timescale; no need. Rationale for the GA comment: The RNP lateral accuracy (and possibly integrity/continuity) requirements shouldn?t be an issue for GA. Vertical constraints or turn-based requirements (e.g. FRT, RF) will present an issue for most GA IFR aircraft in the dates suggested (2018 onwards). Also, are we suggesting that every TMA will move to A-RNP by 2021 (i.e. at the same time)? This is unlikely in practice. MIL: Should apply to transport military aircraft the same way as to commercial aircraft. TBD for other types of military aircraft (impact on automation of flight guidance systems linked to MMS: 9.3). Ref. 15.3.1 A-RNP will be covered by PBN IR. Implementation date for transport likely to be 2020. Fighters may be capable through equivalent performance at a later date. MMS aspects dealt in 9.3
Expert Team comment: As a general comment, the text in the box above which was already in the template before review of the expert team, seems to be a collection of fragments of text pasted together and is barely understandable and readable. Therefore it is difficult and actually impossible to comment on this text.
Applicability to Military: Should apply to transport military aircraft the same way as to commercial aircraft but with later implementation dates. TBD for other types of military aircraft (impact on automation of flight guidance systems linked to MMS: 9.3). Ref. 15.3.1 A-RNP designated functionalities will be covered by PBN IR. In accordance with a preliminary impact assessment on civil-military organisation already endorsed by the military authorities (MILHAG) the PBN IR will not be too prescriptive to state aircraft. Very likely the IR will contain provisions only for new transport-type aircraft to be forward fitted with minimum regulatory option (RNP-1 plus vertical guidance). ATS providers will be required to handle non equipped state aircraft and performance based equivalent compliance will be offered as an opportunity for all aircraft types. Due to justified procurement and
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
technical constraints the deployment date will be later than civil ones (5 years later in average). Some limited deployment (non regulated) can take place before as it is the case of fleets like the Airbus A400M or the C-130J. Although fighters can demonstrate some level of compliance on the basis of their available avionics they shall not be considered for the approach/TMA phase of flight. MMS aspects dealt in 9.3
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of 70% for aircraft having at least GNSS and Fixed Radius Turn (RF) capability, the core requirements of Advanced RNP.
During the consultation phase of the PBN IR (currently on-going) it will be determined which of the optional functions of Advanced RNP (FRT, RTA, VNAV,) will become required functions, if any at all. <Airbus/Quovadis quote>RNP values are fixed<Airbus/Quovadis quote>
With regards to General Aviation (typically, aircraft with Maximum Take Off Weights < 5700kg), it is well understood that these aircraft have a different level of functionality than most commercial aircraft. Therefore it needs to determined as well during the PBN IR consultation phase (currently ongoing) if and how those aircraft need to comply with the PBN IR.
PBN-IR is intended to be applicable from 2018 onwards. In the meantime the most common PBN navigation specification for arrival/departure procedures is still RNAV1, which is still expected to provide benefits over conventional navigation as procedures can be designed independently from the location of ground navigation aids.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
AIMS-14Set up a digital data chain to ensure the Aeronautical Information data provision into on-board avionics systems
IOC: 12/2016 IOC Sync 12/2016 Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
ANSP Civil
ANSP Military
AU Civ. AOC
AU Mil. WOC
DESCRIPTION: Ensure the distribution of aeronautical information from Aeronautical Information sources using digital format in agreed standard format (e.g. AIXM) and their conversion into other agreed standard format (such as Arinc 424 or future Arinc 424A) for further integration without error prone manual intervention into on-board avionic systems. This includes all possible transformations of AIS data required to support on board applications such as FMS, OANS, TAWS... Such a data chain could certainly rely on a number of generic services, from services exposing AIXM data over SWIM to mapping services (e.g. AIXM <=> ED119), "binarisation" services (ED119=> A816 or AIXM=>A424A NDBX), and possibly also validation services (business rules) etc? . This enabler impacts FMS manufacturers, Aeronautical Information Integrators
COMMENTS: H. Robin shall confirm the link to AOM-0404 MIL: "3 remarks: 1/ The allocation of this enabler to CC Aircraft is erroneous. 2/ The scope of the enabler is very wide and needs to be narrowed 3/ The mapping to the OFA 'Optimised RNP Structures' and to OI AOM-0404 is to be clarified.
Expert Team comment: Not in the scope of the PCP.
CTE-N5a DME / DME optimisation
IOC: 12/2006 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R StakeholderANSP Civil
ANSP Military
DESCRIPTION: Update and rationalisation of the DME/DME network.
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment: use of DME-DME can be envisaged as a back up to GNSS for RNAV operations.
The role and plans for TACAN must also be discussed as part of the overall rationalisation
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
ER APP ATC 94b Adapt ATC tools in support of RNP1 aircraft for En-Route
IOC: none IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANS Provider
DESCRIPTION: Conflict Management and monitoring shall be adjusted to cater for RNP1 aircraft capabilities, to avoid false conflict detection when RNP1 based separation is applicable for involved aircraft and to raise deviation alerts as soon as RNP1 accuracy is no longer satisfied.
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment: None.
ER APP ATC 134b Adapt Safety Nets tools in support of RNP1 aircraft for En-Route
IOC: none IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANS Provider
DESCRIPTION: Safety Nets tools shall adjust the separation to RNP1 aircraft capabilities, to avoid raising false alerts when RNP1 separation based capabilities are in use for involved aircraft.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
PRO-AC-04a Cockpit Procedure for Advanced RNP
IOC: 12/2018 IOC Sync none Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.
AU Civil General Av.
AU Mil. Transport
DESCRIPTION: none.
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment: It is envisaged that existing operational procedures for RNAV can be used as much as possible.
4.2.3 Institutional
BTNAV-0206 Certification Specifications for RNP
IOC: 12/2013 IOC Sync none Category: Institutional
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder Unassigned
DESCRIPTION: The draft SES interoperability IR on PBN is being developed in close coordination and cooperation with EASA, notably for what concerns safety aspects and Means of Compliance (MoC). While unique material at the level of implementing rule is not foreseen, it is anticipated that there will be a need for MoC material in the EASA legislative framework, notably with regard to airworthiness certification and operational approval.
COMMENTS: none
Expert Team comment: Existing regulations cover RNAV operations (TGL10), RNP APCH operations (AMC20-27) and RNP AR operations (AMC20-26).
There is no regulatory framework for RNP1.
All existing AMCs and TGLs will be converted to EASA A-CNS from 2013 onwards.
Navigation Specifications for RNP APCH, RNP AR, Advanced RNP and RNAV1 in the PBN Manual (ICAO Doc. 9613).
PBN IR Regulatory Approach Document currently under consultation.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
4.3 Background & assumptionThis form is focused on the WHAT of OI steps-related operations (which SESAR Specifictions, which services, which actors, which flow of information, which specifications and standards, which supporting systems, which OSEDs etc.).
4.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications Identify here related SESAR Specifications (OSED, SPR, INTEROP) and any other reference documents (VALPs, any other relevant project/analysis results specifying the source).
To be completed.
4.3.2 Aeronautical services involvedIdentify all aeronautical services involved in the operations of the OI step. Aeronautical service is used in a wide sense, services as defined by ICAO, SES regulations or other non-regulatory multi-lateral arrangements between organisations, based on a service provision scheme, see Annex A1.
The following services are directly involved:
air traffic control service: area control service, approach control service and aerodrome control service
aeronautical information services
SES Regulation for PBN IR
4.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involvedIdentify all phases of flow management and/or phases of flight involved in the operations of the OI step …Systems automating operations during these phases might be impacted to support operations related to this OI Step or Not Applicable…see Annex A2.
4.3.4 Actors involvedIdentify all actors involved in operations of the OI step. A list of actors is given hereafter in Annex A. Other actors can be introduced provided that a basic definition is given to understand role and responsibility of these new actors.
The same actors than for any IFR procedure are involved in a RNP procedure.
4.3.5 Flows of information between actorsProvide a high level description of flows of information circulated amongst actors and clarify in which phases of flow management and flight phases, those flows of information are active.
As for any IFR procedure, the flows of information are defined:
- Between the pilot and the Air Traffic Control (ACC and Approach)
- Between the ACC and Approach control).
The amount and type of information exchanged however differs for RNP APCH/AR as compared to other IFR procedure. In particular, RNP APCH / RNP AR as well as Advanced RNP and RNAV 1 reduce the amount of ATC instructions by reducing radar vectoring, provided that the controller can cope with the traffic density and keep the aircraft on their routes
There is no change at all to the tower controller flow of information.
4.3.6 Impact on airborne systemsOutline the impact of the OI step on A/C systems, in terms of capability upgrade (performance, functionality) and any operational approval, authorisation granted by authorities, required to use this new capability…or Not Applicable.
For Airbus aircraft: provided they are equipped with the appropriate avionics systems and options, there is no need to develop and certify any additional equipment on Airbus family aircraft. However, for old fleets, some equipment updates/replacement can be anticipated (to be reviewed on a case by case basis)
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of respectively 66, 52 and 28% for RNP APCH (LNAV), RNP APCH (LNAV/VNAV) and RNP AR.
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of 70% for aircraft having at least GNSS sensor input and Fixed Radius Turn (RF) capability, core functionality for Advanced RNP.
The IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionics Survey 2010 indicated aircraft equipage levels of 88% for aircraft having RNAV1 capability.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
4.3.7 Impact on ground systems Outline the impact of the OI step on EATMN systems, in terms of new capability (performance, functionality)…or… Not Applicable. See Annex 4.
Systems and procedures for air traffic services, in particular flight data processing systems, surveillance data processing systems and human-machine interface systems. To be confirmed.
4.4 Related standardization and regulatory activities
4.4.1 StandardsIdentify applicable standards considered as the baseline to automate the aforementioned flows of information and apply relevant operational procedures.
International standards: PBN Manual (ICAO Doc. 9613) containing the navigation specifications for RNP
APCH, RNP AR, Advanced RNP and RNAV1
MASPS RTCA DO-236B / EUROCAE ED-75B, October 2003
MASPS RTCA DO-236C / EUROCAE ED-75C to be completed June 2013
Note that the latter standard will also contain the specifications for the airborne TOAC (Time of Arrival Control) function
Airworthiness and operational approval:
EASA TGL10
EASA ACM20-26
EASA AMC20-27
Note that all existing AMCs and TGLs will be converted to EASA A-CNS from 2013 onwards.
Regulatory activities:
PBN IR Regulatory Approach Document currently under consultation
Procedure design: ICAO doc 8168
ICAO doc 9905
ICAO doc 9906
4.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworksOutline the impact of the OI step on the SES and EASA regulatory frameworks. For example, availability of Community Specifications, Certification Specifications necessary to support implementation …or… Not Applicable.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
4.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept BlocksOutline the link to ICAO Blocks to anticipate any issue that might hamper harmonisation and interoperability of deployed solution. If needed, detail the status of ICAO documents on peculiar topics of relevance to implement the OI step. …or… Not Applicable.B1-65: Optimized Airport Accessibility. To be completed / confirmed
4.5 Maturity and implementation considerations
4.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release StrategyIdentify here any pre-identified maturity issues. Note that it was agreed that not all changes should be considered “fully mature”(V3 mature) at the time of preparing the PCP. However there shall be sufficient confidence that V3 maturity will be achieved up to an including Release 4.
None.
4.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered aboveIdentify here any additional deployment considerations that you would like to highlight that cannot be directly derived from the information provided in the sections above.
None.
4.5.3 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release StrategyIdentify here any pre-identified maturity issues. Note that it was agreed that not all changes should be considered “fully mature”(V3 mature) at the time of preparing the PCP. However there shall be sufficient confidence that V3 maturity will be achieved up to an including Release 4.
This OI step is included in an OFA which is not part of a priority Business Need
This OI step exists in DS9 in Step 1.
This OI step target release is not defined.
However, the Release 1 Review 3 Report indicates that the OIs was addressed in Release 1 by 2 exercises (VP-142, VP-229).The Release 1 conclusion was that the OIs was partially covered by the exercises, requiring further consolidation work.But later 05.07.04 Final Project Report considered that this OI was completely addressed by the sum of the 2 exercises.
The first exercise in R1 (VP-142) demonstrated the operational feasibility of P-RNAV, of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) and Continuous Climb Departures (CCD) in high traffic density scenarios, with the second R1 exercise (VP-229) demonstrating Point Merge.
The R1 VALR provides quantitative and qualitative results.
There are NO validation exercises planned for this OIs (OI step is not in DMT in Annex).
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
What is the confidence in achieving V3 maturity by Release 4, based on existing plans and results? MEDIUM (due to contradictory conclusions from Review and Project)
SE data analysis:
The following figure represents the current status of the existing links between SE data in WP04.
That shows a lack of maturity from the SE data perspective (missing links between DOD-VALS-VALP).
The following figure represents the current status of the existing links between SE data in WP05.
That shows a lack of maturity from the SE data perspective (missing links between DOD-VALS-VALP).
What is the confidence in availability of requirements in a database ?: LOW
Recommendations:
P05.02/04.02 should confirm if the OI step may be considered as V3 ready for transition to V4.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
4.5.4 Any other deployment considerations not covered aboveIdentify here any additional deployment considerations that you would like to highlight that cannot be directly derived from the information provided in the sections above.
AOM-0705 is not currently considered as a mature step 1 concept for PCP inclusion.
B4.2 are considering moving AOM-0705 from step 1 to step 2 and consider that in Step 1 it is not really a new concept for CDA/CCD, just an improvement on the provision thereof.Only 1 exercise has directly addressed AOM-0705 (EXE-05.06.02-VP-561 in Release 2) and the required improvements were not demonstrated. No further exercises are planned by any project in step 1 to address this OI. Advanced Continuous Climb Departure is not currently a mature concept, and there is no work foreseen to be scheduled within step 1 to bring it to maturity.
5.1 OI Step descriptionAOM-0705 Advanced Continuous Climb Departure
IOC: 31/12/2019
DESCRIPTION: Use of continuous climb departure in higher density traffic enabled by system support to trajectory management.
RATIONALE: Managed Departures, managed thrust on take off, continuous climb departure routes all contribute to fuel efficiency and reduction in noise/ emissions. Advanced CCD is generally referring to further developments of CCD, involving PRNAV procedures and appropriate sequencing tools to allow their use even in high density traffic situations. Note: WP4.2 coordinate this with WP5.2.
COMMENTS: noneExpert Team comment: B4.2 are considering moving AOM-0705 from step 1 to step 2 and consider that in Step 1 it is not really a new concept for CDA/CCD, just an improvement on the provision thereof.Only 1 exercise has directly addressed AOM-0705 (EXE-05.06.02-VP-561 in Release 2) and the required improvements were not demonstrated. No further exercises are planned by any project in step 1 to address this OI. Advanced Continuous Climb Departure is not currently a mature concept, and there is no work foreseen to be scheduled within step 1 to bring it to maturity.
5.2 Related Enablers description The information presented is extracted from SESAR Data Set 9. To note that Enablers with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) before 12/2013 belong to the Deployment Baseline. The full list of Stakeholder categories presented in the Enabler tables is available in Annex 0 of this document and is consistent with the information provided in the European ATM Master Plan Portal.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
5.2.1 SystemA/C-04 Flight management and guidance to improve lateral
navigation in approach (2D RNP)
IOC: 12/2007 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.
AU Civil Business Av.
AU Civil General Av.
AU Military Transport
AU Military Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Flight management and guidance to improve lateral navigation e.g. 2D RNP value down to 0.3NM. Enabler for IP1 already available in most Airbus ACFT
COMMENTS: IOC dates correspond to V3 end dates + 2 or 3 years, i.e. initial operational capabilities if standardisation is available, there is no major certification issue and there is a window of opportunity for the implementation within the aircraft. MSW: Connected to the 2nd step on PBN regulation. Comment from C.03: With regard to the "2nd step of PBN regulation", the ICB recommended a stepwise approach to the PBN IR. In all current scenarios, final implementation of PBN IR would cover all NAV requirements for Initial 4D. Note however that final implementation of PBN IR is currently foreseen only in 2025 Mainline: Enabler for IP1 timeframe already available in most A/C. Boeing: "Current fleet capability. Still incompatibility with European legislation (AMC20-26, 20-27)" BA: Most BA aircrafts are certified for 2D RNP0.3 ; Essential Enabler for BA GA: Essential enabler. The IOC/FOC dates may need to be moved for GA. For the low density TMA rows in particular, we have some concerns. A-RNP will not be mandatory by 2021 in these TMAs. The dates should be shifted to 2025 and beyond. Check for over-design e.g. Point merge in complex TMAs is allocated to low density TMAs in the same timescale; no need. Rationale for the GA comment: The RNP lateral accuracy (and possibly integrity/continuity) requirements shouldn?t be an issue for GA. Vertical constraints or turn-based requirements (e.g. FRT, RF) will present an issue for most GA IFR aircraft in the dates suggested (2018 onwards). Also, are we suggesting that every TMA will move to A-RNP by 2021 (i.e. at the same time)? This is unlikely in practice. MIL: Applicability to military aircraft and associated timetable handled by 15.03.01; Military authorities to be consulted.When MMS impact, to be handled by 9.3. Processes for certification by equivalent performance should be provided by 9.49. CMAC (Jpe) 25/11/11: Indirectly solved by the PBN IR. In accordance with 15.3.1 by 2017 it will be available in the majority of transport and some fighters (through equivalent performance). Implemented in A400M (2017); Fighter 2019, ref 15.3.1
Expert Team comment: Not addressed in EXE-05.06.02-VP-561.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
A/C-37a Downlink of trajectory data according to contract terms
IOC: 12/2016 IOC Sync 12/2016 Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.
AU Civil Business Av.
AU Civil General Av.
AU Military Transport
AU Military Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Downlink of trajectory data (e.g. way points, altitude, speed, time contraints and prediction in the 4 dimensions, wind, weight etc) according to contract terms (e.g. change of the route and/or constraints, deviation of the trajectory prediction continuously computed onboard versus the previously shared trajectory prediction more than thresholds (TMR), on request or on periodic basis)
COMMENTS: This enabler includes ADS-C Aircraft Derived Data e.g. ETA min/max and Extended Projected Profile (up to 128 points with e.g. estimates or associated constraints), contract established with up to 5 ANSP during the whole flight from the gate No link with APV, Cruise Climb, CDA, CCD. Missing link with i4d + CTA. V4 start depending on 2012 decision. Mainline: IOC 2016 or 2018 Boeing: Current capability BA: Few BA aircrafts are equipped with FANS (mainly large BA aircrafts). Few BA aircrafts are equipped with ADS-C. ADS-C capability not planned. TBC with manufacturer for ADS-C IOC. Beneficial enabler. GA: Critical component of ground-air shared picture of projected trajectory. Needs a GA version apart from ADS-C-EPP. Beneficial enabler. As for the uplink enabler (A/C-31a), there is no reason why GA could not downlink traj data over a suitable datalink. This won’t be VDL2. Note for GA, this may have an impact on IOC/FOC dates. Is this really going to be used in low complexity TMAs in Step 1? Mil: "Applies to military transport a/c the same way as civil aircraft. For other types of a/c, depends on military data link accomodation, covered by 9.20 & 15.2.8 (step 1); we should not provide an IOC earlier than for civil a/c!"; V3 of 9.20/15.2.8 is 2013 => IOC 2018
Expert Team comment: Not addressed in EXE-05.06.02-VP-561.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
CTE-N3a Aircraft-based augmentation system (ABAS)
IOC: 12/2006 IOC Sync none Category: System
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder
AU Civil Scheduled Av.
AU Civil General Av.
AU Military Transport
AU Military Fighter
DESCRIPTION: Inertial with Take-Off Update. In order to support RNAV, both GNSS and DME/DME are available infrastructures. However, DME/DME has some drawbacks when compared to GNSS: coverage for take-off and initial climb is often limited.
COMMENTS: Aircraft-based augmentation system (ICAO definition) augments and/or integrates the information obtained from the GNSS elements with other information available on board the aircraft. The aim is to enhance the overall performance of the GNSS equipment on board in terms of integrity, continuity, availability and accuracy. ABAS is the preferred and most cost-effective system which enables this (providing integrity monitoring for APV and en-route navigation Mainline: Enabler date in the past Boeing: "Current fleet capability" BA: RNAV (SID & STAR & APPR) is current fleet capability for most BA aircrafts. Also, most BA aircrafts are baro-VNAV capable (advisory as a minimum), but difficult to comply with AMC 20-27. GNSS/SBAS is the preferred capability for LNAV & VNAV (enabling precision approach). Beneficial enabler for BA GA: Covered by CTE-N3b . This version (a) is likely to be high cost. Unlikely to be needed. MIL: "Schedule to be provided by project 15.3.1. For fighters; V3: 2014, IOC 2019 (ref 9.27). MPG10: DB date very late; to be revisited
Expert Team comment: Not addressed in EXE-05.06.02-VP-561.
5.2.2 Procedural
PRO-019ATC Procedures to integrate arrival and departure streams in such a manner as to permit more continuous climb and descent profiles
IOC: 12/2010 IOC Sync none Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: Incorporates mixed mode operations at the runway
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment: Not addressed in EXE-05.06.02-VP-561.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
PRO-090 Airspace design for interlacing departure climb profiles and CDA profiles
IOC: 12/2012 IOC Sync none Category: Procedural
Required/EnHancement/Alternate R Stakeholder ANSP Civil
DESCRIPTION: Airspace designs for interlacing departure climb profiles and CDA profiles require development and proof.
COMMENTS: none.
Expert Team comment:
5.2.3 Institutional: None
5.3 Background & assumptionDEL05.02-D101 – Step 1 DOD Report (Extranet)DEL-05.06.02-Step1V3_VALRDEL-05.06.02-D04-00.01.01 (final OSED)It is assumed that CCD procedures will be implemented together with CDA procedures.
5.3.1 Related SESAR Specifications DEL 05.06.02-D22-00.01.01 (Validation Plan) (Extranet)P5.7.4_OSED (Extranet)
5.3.2 Aeronautical services involvedAir traffic control service
5.3.3 Phases of flow management / Phases of flight involvedInitial climbApproach
5.3.5 Flows of information between actorsCommunication between controller and pilot is via voice (R/T)Coordination takes place with Planning Controller or MSP and adjacent centre/sector Executive Controllers
5.3.6 Impact on airborne systemsAircraft enter SIDs in FMS systems as they do today.Aircraft are required to have P-RNAV approval at minimum.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
5.3.7 Impact on ground systems N/A
5.4 Related standardization and regulatory activities
5.4.1 StandardsProvide departing aircraft with the least penalizing noise abatement departure procedure (NADP) possible : i.e. none, if it is not absolutely needed, and only NADP 2 (see ICAO Procedures for noise certification Annex 16, Volume I Aircraft Noise – and Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems - Doc 9750) if there is a need
Provide aircraft with, as far as possible, a closed-loop continuous climb
Provide the aircraft with procedures which bring them closer to their ‘natural’ or preferred operations (especially in relation to climbing speeds and altitudes)
5.4.2 Impact on SES / EASA Regulatory frameworksN/A
5.4.3 Link to ICAO Global Concept BlocksUnable to define link to ICAO Blocks as SESAR Step for this concept is in question.
5.5 Maturity and implementation considerations
5.5.1 Maturity Issues including link with the SJU Release StrategyOnly 1 exercise has directly addressed this OI (EXE-05.06.02-VP-561 in Release 2) and the required improvements were not demonstrated. No further exercises are planned by any project in step 1 to address AOM-0705. Advanced Continuous Climb Departure is not currently a mature concept, and there is no work scheduled within step 1 to bring it to maturity.
This OI step target is Release R4No Validation Exercises have been defined in any release.
There was one V3 exercise (VP-561) planned in 2012 that was not part of a Release.
The OSED produced by project 05.06.02 that uses the result from VP-561 states:
" The OIs (AOM-0702 and AOM-0705) that are addressed by the project are more related to higher density traffic. These OIs will be addressed by using improved procedures (that are proposed in this Preliminary OSED) and new support tools that will be developed during the 5.6.2 Step 2. These new tools will support the operations for the improved procedures."
In addition, there are six exercises (V1, V2) planned in 2012, 2013, 2014, none of them is part of a Release.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
What is the confidence in achieving V3 maturity by Release 4, based on existing plans and results? MEDIUM (due to lack of evidence of v3 activities and statements related to step 2)
SE data analysis:
The following figure represents the current status of the existing links between SE data in WP05.
That shows a lack of maturity from the SE data perspective (missing links between DOD-VALS-VALP).
The following figure represents the current status of the existing links between SE data in WP06.
That shows a lack of maturity from the SE data perspective (missing links between VALS-VALP).
What is the confidence in availability of requirements in a database ?: LOW
Recommendations:
Ensure that all V3 validation activities are planned by R4 and participate in a Release (R4).Projects should provide deliverables with SE Data in the right format
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
5.5.2 Any other deployment considerations not covered aboveThe concept can be improved with the addition of new tools for the ATCOs which is part of the Step 2 scope and new tools will not be added in the Step 1 concept.
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
Appendix A
THIS APPENDIX SERVES THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO EXPERT GROUP MEMBERS, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN YOUR FINAL
DELIVERABLE TO THE SJU
A.0 Stakeholder CategoriesStakeholder Title Sub-Stakeholder TitleAir Navigation Service Provider ANSP Civil
ANSP MilitaryAirport Operator AP OPR Civil
AP OPR MilitaryAirspace Users AU Civil Airline Operational Control
AU Civil Business AviationAU Civil General AviationAU Civil Scheduled AviationAU Military FighterAU Military Light AircraftAU Military TransportAU Military Wing Operations Centre
Network Manager Network Manager
B.1 LIST OF AERONAUTICAL SERVICES air traffic control service (area control service, approach control service or aerodrome
control service)
communication, navigation, surveillance services
flight information service
alerting service
air traffic advisory service
aeronautical information services
aeronautical meteorological services
central flow management
airspace management
airport operations
other services (not covered by specific Regulations) based on ad-hoc arrangements between organisations (example CCAMS server see:
PCP Expert Group 2 Edition 00.0006.00Deployment Analysis
traffic complexity manager network manager
B.4 LIST OF EATMN SYSTEMS (as identified in Annex I of (EC) 552/2004)
1. Systems and procedures for airspace management.
2. Systems and procedures for air traffic flow management.
3. Systems and procedures for air traffic services, in particular flight data processing systems, surveillance data processing systems and human-machine interface systems.
4. Communication systems and procedures for ground-to-ground, air-to-ground and air-to-air communications.
5. Navigation systems and procedures.
6. Surveillance systems and procedures.
7. Systems and procedures for aeronautical information services.
8. Systems and procedures for the use of meteorological information.
