Title: CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES
1CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ONSINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES
2AGENDA ITEM 1WELCOME - OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
3THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY
REGULATION Overview by the European Commission
4INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES
By Jean-Luc Garnier Head Regulatory Unit SES
Interoperability Mandates Manager
5First Three Interoperability Mandates
- Article 3(5) of the Interoperability Regulation
- 3 Mandates sent to EUROCONTROL on 5th April 2004
to assist the European Commission in the
development of Implementing Rules (IR) for
interoperability on - Co-ordination and Transfer
- Flight Message Transfer Protocol
- Initial Flight Plan
6Subject of the mandates
- Draft implementing rules
- Identification of means of compliance
- Eurocontrols actions to support implementation
of the rules
7General requirements (1)
- Systems, constituents, and associated procedures
of EATMN shall comply with IR throughout their
life cycle - IR shall determine any specific requirement that
complement or refine the essential requirements
(ER) - IR shall ensure coordinated introduction of new,
agreed and validated concepts - IR concerning a system shall determine the
constituents - IR shall describe conformity assessment (CA)
procedures - IR shall identify tasks to be carried out by
Notified Bodies
8General Requirements (2)
- IR will rely on rules and standards developed by
EUROCONTROL ICAO - IR shall specify conditions of implementation
- EUROCONTROL shall develop Impact Assessments
- EUROCONTROL shall establish a Consultation Process
9Deliverables
- Initial Plan April 2004
- Draft Final Report October 2004
- Final Report January 2005
10Management Process (1)
11Management Process (2)
12Work Breakdown Structure
- Structured on 3 parts
- Part 1 - Development of regulatory products and
justification material - WP1.1 Definition of the regulatory approach
- WP1.2 Drafting of regulatory products
- WP 1.3 Consultation
- WP1.4 Review of comments
- WP1.7 Safety Analysis
- Part 2 - Implementation of Regulatory Provisions
- WP2.1 Definition of EUROCONTROL support for the
implementation of regulatory provisions - Part 3 - Regulatory Assurance Activities
- WP3.1 Definition of EUROCONTROL support for
regulatory assurance activity
13SES Mandates on Interoperability - Timetable
14Consultation Process
- Informal Consultation Process
- Collect Stakeholders opinion in order to draft
first draft regulatory proposal to be the subject
of formal consultation - Nominated experts from EUROCONTROL existing
working arrangements (ACG) act as Sounding Board - Supported by One Sky Teams
- Concluded by first Workshop
- Formal Consultation Process
- EUROCONTROL Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ENPRM)
- Drafting, Consultation and Review of Comments
- 2 Months
- Results presented to second Workshop
15Informal Consultation
- Triggered by the definition of the Regulatory
Approaches - Done through the sounding boards designated for
each interoperability mandate - Approx 30 comments on the proposed approaches,
addressing - The structure of the implementing rule
- The content of the implementing rule and/or
associated material - The structure/content of the Regulatory
Approaches - Comments taken into account in the drafting phase
16General structure of an Interoperability IR
Community Specification (s) (as appropriate)
17Conformity Assessment
- Growing need for an overall approach addressing
safety, performance and interoperability aspects - Harmonized application of conformity assessment
procedures required for SES implementation - EUROCONTROL, CAAs, ANSPs have thorough experience
on verification / approval of ATM systems - Joint RU/SRU Task Force created to address
conformity assessment issues
18Next Steps
- Draft Final Report 29 October 2004
- Formal Consultation November 2004 early Jan.
2005 - Final Report January 2005
-
19Conclusions
- Learning process
- Challenging timescales
- Significant new developments ahead
20CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ASPECTS
21Conformity Assessment in Global Approach
22Conformity Assessment Task Force
- Ad-Hoc Task Force co-chaired by EUROCONTROL
Regulatory Unit and Safety Regulation Unit - Goals
- Study Conformity assessment matters
- Propose relevant material to support conformity
assessment activities - Act as consultation body endorsing the Conformity
assessment requirements to be included in the IRs - Ensure consistency of interoperability conformity
assessment and safety oversight processes
23CA Basic principles CA Goal
- High level of confidence in the capability of two
different declared conformant implementations to
interoperate within the EATMN - Implementation ? constituent(s) and/or system(s)
- Declared conformant means either
- The constituent(s) has (have) an EC declaration
of conformity for use - The system(s) has (have) an EC declaration of
verification
24Conformity Assessment for COTR /FMTP
- Points to be addressed by the conformity
assessment requirements - What shall be verified?
- Which test practices to support the conformity
assessment? - Which test tool capability to support the
conformity assessment? - Which documentation material (technical file) to
support the conformity assessment? - Which roles for the stakeholders of the
conformity assessment?
25Application of Conformity Assessment Scenario 1
- ANSP defines the technical solution and
subcontracts the development of constituent(s) to
a manufacturer(s) - ? Manufacturer shall
- Meet the CA requirements (for the development
phase) - Issue an EC declaration of conformity
- ? ANSP shall
- Meet the CA requirements (Entry into service
Operations phases) - Issue an EC declaration of verification
26Application of Conformity Assessment Scenario 2
- ANSP defines and develops the technical solution
- ? ANSP shall
- Meet the CA requirements (Development, Entry into
service Operations phases) - Issue an EC declaration of verification
27Supervision of compliance
- In both cases the National supervisory authority
retains overall responsibility that - Manufacturers
- ANSPs
- comply with the regulation
28CA requirements of the IR
Entry into service
Development
Operations
Report of inspections and tests achieved during
this phase
Technical documentation as described in the CA
requirements
?
EC declaration of conformity
EC declaration of verification
Manufacturer
NSA
ANSP
Authorisation for putting into service
29Conformity Assessment for IFPL
- Points to be addressed by the conformity
assessment requirements - What shall be verified?
- Which documentation material to support the
conformity assessment? - Which roles for the stakeholders of the
conformity assessment?
30CO-ORDINATION AND TRANSFER MANDATE Presentation
Discussion
31Operational Context
- Notification, Co-ordination and Transfer between
civil ATC Units defined by ICAO - Requirements for civil/military situational
awareness and airspace crossing co-ordination - Major task for the Planner Controller if done by
telephone - Connections between FDPSs to replace the verbal
estimates ? On-Line Data Interchange (early
1980)
32Operational Context
- Common rules and message formats aligned to
European practices ? EUROCONTROL OLDI Standard
edition 1 (1992) - OLDI Standard edition 2.2 (9/1998)
- 3 mandatory messages
- No formal conformity assessment process
- Combined mandatory and recommended requirements
- OLDI Standard edition 2.3 (12/2001)
- Inclusion of aircraft capability in support of
RVSM and 8.33KHz - Rationalization of optional flight plan data
- Update of Revision message
33Operational Context
- Draft OLDI Standard 3.0
- 3 new mandatory messages
- New ground/ground situational awareness messages
- Civil/Military co-ordination messages
- New messages added in support to Arrival
Management, Transfer of Control, Air/Ground Data
Link - Update of existing messages
34Current Regulatory Situation
- Council Directive 93/65/EEC
- Definition and use of compatible technical
specifications for the procurement of ATM
equipment and systems EUROCONTROL standards
made mandatory under Community law (Including an
indicative list of Eurocontrol standards) - Council Directive 97/15/EC (amending 93/65/EEC)
- OLDI 1st Edition specifically identified
- Commission Regulation (EC) 2082/2000 (amending
97/15/EC) - OLDI Edition 2.2 adopted in the framework of
Directive 93/65/EEC - Commission Regulation (EC) 980/2002 (amending
(EC) 2082/2000) - OLDI Edition 2.3 adopted in the framework of
Directive 93/65/EEC - These directives/regulations will be repealed 18
months after the entry into force of the SES
Interoperability Regulation (20 October 2005)
35Mandate development
November/December
July-October
January 2005
May/June
April 2004
Drafting
Initial Plans
Review of comments
Formal Consultation
Regulatory Approach
36Regulatory Approach
- Document defining the structure and the content
of the regulatory package including draft rule
and justification material - Triggered the 1st step of the Informal
Consultation (done through the sounding boards
designated for each interoperability mandate) - Proposed structure of the rule modified following
the consultation - Roles responsibilities, minimal information to
be exchanged, performance requirements
(functional operational requirements) part of
the Implementing Rule - Detailed message definition, formats to be used,
data insertion rules (based on the draft OLDI v.
3.0) Community Specification identified as
means of compliance with the rule
37Conclusions of the Regulatory Approach
- Implementing rule Community specification
- Technical solution not imposed by the rule
- Guideline clarifying implementations aspects
(assumptions, recommendations, description of
data flows not covered by the rule) - Traceability to the relevant Essential
Requirements ER 1 to 5 (seamless operations,
support to new concepts of operations, safety,
civil-military co-ordination, environment) - ER 6 and 7 not addressed by the rule ?
constituents and systems implementing the rule,
not identified
38Structure of the COTR IR
Community Specification (s)
39Development COTR IR
- Interoperability and Performance requirements
- Defined in terms of data flows (conceptual form
with emphasis on operational needs) - Mandatory and voluntary data flows (implemented
based on bilateral agreements) - Input
- Interoperability Requirement Document for
Co-ordination and Transfer - OLDI 3.0 (38 messages)
- Output
- General requirements
- 6 mandatory data flows
- 15 voluntary data flows
40Development of the COTR IR
- Safety requirements
- Defined following the Air Navigation System
Safety Assessment Methodology - Functional Hazard Assessment session with safety,
operational and technical experts (for both COTR
and FMTP) - Preliminary System Safety Assessment leading to
safety requirements - Development of a Safety Summary, describing the
above process for inclusion in the Justification
material - Analysis of the identified requirements and
selection of those to be included in the rule as
specific Safety requirements
41Development of the COTR IR
- Conformity Assessment requirements
- Not addressed in the OLDI Standard
- Identification of the basic principles, goals and
objectives - Identification of specific CA requirements for
COTR - Verification Objectives
- Test practices and test tools
- Technical file supporting CA
- Roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders
42Development of the COTR IR
- Quality of Service requirements
- Defined in terms of
- Transaction times
- Reliability
- Availability
- Area of Application requirements
- European Air Traffic Management network
- Implementation Condition requirements
- Relative to the date of entry into force (not an
absolute date) - Differentiated between the 3 data flows already
mandatory and the new 3 data flows proposed to be
mandatory
43Overview of the draft rule for COTR
- Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
- Chapter I General
- Objective and Scope
- Definitions Abbreviations
- Area of Application
- Chapter II Co-ordination and Transfer
- Interoperability and Performance requirements
- Quality of Service requirements
- Safety requirements
44Overview of the draft rule for COTR
- Chapter III Conformity Assessment
- National supervisory authorities
- Verification objectives
- Testing practices and testing tools
- Technical file
- Procedures, roles and responsibilities
- Presumption of conformity
- Chapter IV - Final Provisions
- Implementation conditions
- Transitional arrangements
- Entry into force
45Overview of the draft rule for COTR
- Annex I Interoperability and Performance
requirements - Part A General requirements
- Part B Requirements for the mandatory data
flows - Part C - Requirements for the voluntary data
flows - Annex II Quality of Service requirements
- Annex III Safety requirements
- Annex IV Conformity Assessment requirements
46Conclusions
- New mandatory data flows
- Reduced workload for operational staff
- Improved efficiency safety
- Technical solution left at the level of Community
specifications - Formalized, mandatory, safety and conformity
assessment requirements - Rule making through the EC/SES mechanisms
- Enforcement through the EU legal mechanisms
47Draft rule for COTR
48Discussion
- Article 1 - Objective and Scope
- Article 2 - Definitions Abbreviations
- Article 3 - Area of Application
- Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance
requirements - Article 5 - Quality of Service requirements
- Article 6 - Safety requirements
- Article 7 - National supervisory authorities
- Article 8 - Verification objectives
- Article 9 - Test practices and test tool
- Article 10 - Technical File
- Article 11 - Conformity assessment procedures
49Discussions
- Article 12 - Presumption of conformity
- Article 13 - Implementation conditions
- Article 14 - Transitional arrangements
- Article 15 - Entry into force
- Annex I - Part A
- Annex I - Part B
- Annex I - Part C
- Annex II - QoS requirements
- Annex III - Safety requirements
- Annex IV Conformity assessment
50FLIGHT MESSAGE TRANSFER PROTOCOL MANDATE
Presentation Discussion
51Current situation
- EC Regulation 980/2002 amending EC Regulation
2082/2000 adoption of EUROCONTROL standard FDE
ICD Part 1 for procurement of new systems - COM Strategy ?migration of X.25 to IP
- Industrial offer of X.25 products ?
- Maintenance costs of X.25 products ?
- ECIP COM 4 ?migration of FDE - ICD Part 1 over
X.25 towards FDE - ICD Part 2 over TCP/IP - Existing specifications combine mandatory
requirements and recommendations - Responsibility of stakeholders for conformity
assessment not defined
52Objective and Scope of the IR
- Objective of the IR
- Interoperability of ground-ground communications
for co-ordination and transfer and civil-military
co-ordination - Scope of the IR
- System information exchange supporting
- Co-ordination and transfer of flights
- Civil-military co-ordination
- End systems supporting co-ordination and
transfer, civil-military co-ordination - Fixed ground network not addressed
53Conclusions of the informal consultation about
the Regulatory Approach /1
- One single IR embedding
- Obligations on stakeholders
- Mandatory interoperability, QoS, safety
requirements applicable to the protocol - Mandatory conformity assessment requirements
- No need for a specific Community Specification
- Possible Guideline to clarify some implementation
aspects
54Conclusions of the informal consultation about
the Regulatory Approach /2
- IR contributes to Essential Requirements
- Seamless operations
- Co-ordinated introduction of new technology
- Safety
- The choice of the technical solution in terms of
constituents and systems implementing FMTP is
left to stakeholders
55Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
- Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
- Chapter I General
- Objective and Scope
- Definitions Abbreviations
- Area of Application
- Chapter II Flight Message Transfer Protocol
- Interoperability and Performance requirements
- Quality of Service requirements
- Safety requirements
56Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
- Chapter III Conformity Assessment
- National supervisory authorities
- Testing practices and testing tools
- Technical file
- Procedures, roles and responsibilities
- Chapter IV - Final Provisions
- Implementation conditions
- Entry into force
57Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
- Annex I Interoperability and Performance
requirements - Annex II Quality of Service requirements
- Annex III Safety requirements
- Annex IV Conformity Assessment requirements
58FMTP / IR Annex I Interoperability
performance requirements
- FMTP message formats
- FMTP dynamic behavior
- FMTP state tables
- TCP transport interface settings
- IP network interface settings
- References to IETF ISO/IEC standards.
59FMTP / IR Annex II III- Quality of Service
Safety requirements
- Quality of Service
- Requested by the co-ordination and transfer IR
- Safety
- Verification that the QoS provided to
co-ordination and transfer meets the expected
level.
60FMTP / IR Annex IV- Conformity assessment
requirements
- Verification objectives
- Testing practices and test tool
- Technical file
- Procedures
61FMTP / IR - Conclusions
- COM Strategy ECIP COM 04 ? migration from X.25
to TCP/IP - IR consistent with operational requirements on
co-ordination and transfer - Low-risk validated solution
- Cost-effective solution
- Contributes to the interoperability and
harmonization of ground-ground communications in
the EATMN
62Draft rule for FMTP
63Discussion
- Article 1 - Objective and Scope
- Article 2 - Definitions Abbreviations
- Article 3 - Area of Application
- Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance
requirements - Article 5 - Quality of Service requirements
- Article 6 - Safety requirements
- Article 7 - National supervisory authorities
- Article 8 - Verification objectives
- Article 9 - Test practices and test tool
- Article 10 - Technical File
- Article 11 - Conformity assessment procedures
64Discussions
- Article 12 - Implementation conditions
- Article 13 - Entry into force
- Annex I - Interoperability and Performance
requirements - Annex II - QoS requirements
- Annex III - Safety requirements
- Annex IV Conformity assessment
65INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN MANDATE Presentation
Discussion
66Initial Flight Plan
- Concept
- Current limitations
- Regulatory Intent
- Scope, Objectives, Content
67Strategy
Independent Study for Improvement of ATFM (2000)
ATFCM Strategy (1/4/2004)
Ensure Flight Data Consistency and Disseminate
accurate flight data
- Principle of sharing of information, e.g. flight
plan conformity feedback
- Consideration of airspace changes after flight
plan filing
68Achieving Consistency
Pilot
ATCO
Induced Consistency
ATFM
Aircraft Operator
CFMU IFPS
ANSP FDPSs
Enforced Consistency
Flight planning
Airspace Data
69 Current Limitations
- Some of the rules for managing FPLs are imprecise
or missing. (e.g. when aircraft is taxiing) - The ownership of flight plan information is
vague. - The dynamics of European airspace are not always
reflected in FPL processing. - ATM may require to unilaterally change an
accepted Flight Plan.
result
gtgtgt
70 Current Limitations
Result Reference to exact flight intentions may
sometimes be lost.
Each actor may have their own version of the
FPL - no common reference.
71 Outcome
- Aircraft types and equipage may not be updated.
- Different versions of the en-route portion of the
flight may exist (CDR network). - Deviations to the RFL not reported.
Impact Potential Safety Issues Capacity
wastage Additional coordination needs for
ATC Fuel calculation inconsistencies
72 Flight Plan Differences
(Examples from Flight Plan Consistency
studies)
Not all differences represent inconsistencies!
73Regulatory Intent
Ensure that all parties responsible for the safe
conduct of a flight shall be in possession of a
minimum consistent set of key elements of the
flight plan
- Improving flight plan consistency between AO -
ATC - CFMU.
74 Scope - IFP Data Flows by time
6 days
6 months
Missing FPL
3 hrs.
20 hrs.
1 hr
14 hrs.
EOBT
AIRAC
CRAM
75 Scope - IFP Data Flows by actor
ATS RO
FPL Agency
ACC1
ACC2
Pilot
AO Dispatch
IFPS
ACC.
NAV Dept.
RFPS
ACC.
RPL Office
76Objectives
- To clarify the roles/ responsibility of each
actor in respect of initial flight planning. - To implement a fully controlled procedure for the
handling of changes to already accepted FPLs
(including airspace updates).
77Key Requirements (1)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
- Establish a formal status for IFPLs and clarify
roles and responsibility of each actor. - Define the minimum set of IFPL and profile
characteristics needed to serve as the common
basis for consistency between all actors.
78Key Requirements (2)
IMPLEMENT IFPL CHANGE MECHANISMS IN THE
PRE-FLIGHT PHASE
- Develop procedures for handling changes to
accepted FPLs. - Develop FPL reprocessing to reflect dynamic
airspace changes. - Develop procedures and communication means to
ensure changes reported in pre-departure phase.
79A common reference
80Important note!!
Intention is NOT to prevent changes to the IFPL
but to ensure that changes are
- Properly coordinated.
- Disseminated early enough to enable appropriate
action to be taken.
For each Flight there should be one single,
common IFPL view.
81Key elements
- Aircraft Identification
- Aerodrome of Departure and arrival
- Estimated Off-Block Date and time
- Route (excluding SID, STAR)
- Cruise speed(s) and requested flight level(s)
- Aircraft Type and Wake Turbulence category
- Flight Rules and Type of flight
- Aircraft equipage Equipment Field 10 and all
related field 18 information - IFPS Flight Plan Identification (once issued)
82Pre-flight Phase
- The period from the first submission of a flight
plan until the termination of one of the
following events - Engine start-up at aerodrome of departure within
the airspace of application. - First delivery of airways clearance within the
airspace of application. - First ATC activation at aerodrome of departure
within the airspace of application.
83Conclusions
THE INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN CONCEPT IS AN ENABLER
OF ATFCM OPTIMISATION AND FUA. THE INITIAL
FLIGHT PLAN IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF INTEROPERABILITY AND CDM. THE
INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN WILL CONTRIBUTE TO SAFETY.
84Regulatory Approach
- Document defining the structure and the content
of the regulatory package including draft rule
and justification material - Triggered the 1st step of the Informal
Consultation (done through the sounding boards
designated for each interoperability mandate) - Drafting as proposed in the Regulatory Approach
defined by EUROCONTROL - Rule addressing high level procedures to be
followed by Aircraft Operators, ATS Reporting
Offices, ANSPs and CFMU-IFPS - Detailed implementation solution left at the
level of Community Specifications (e.g. updated
IFPS User Manual).
85Conclusions of the Regulatory Approach
- Implementing rule Community specification
- High level rule, addressing procedures
- Detailed solution not imposed by the rule
- Traceability to the relevant Essential
Requirements ER 1 to 3 (seamless operations,
support to new concepts of operations, safety) - ER 6 and 7 not addressed by the rule ?
constituents and systems implementing the rule,
not identified
86Development of the IFPL IR
- Identification of
- Roles and responsibilities of the parties
involved in completion, submission and
modifications of flight plans in the pre-flight
phase - Aircraft Operators
- ATS Reporting Offices
- CFMU-IFPS
- ANSPs
- Key elements of the flight plan that need to be
kept consistent in the pre-flight phase
87Development of the IFPL IR
- Safety requirements
- Defined following the Air Navigation System
Safety Assessment Methodology - Functional Hazard Assessment session with safety,
operational experts, service providers and
aircraft operators - Preliminary System Safety Assessment leading to
safety requirements - Development of a Safety Summary, describing the
above process for inclusion in the Justification
material - Analysis of the identified requirements and
selection of those to be included in the rule as
specific Safety requirements
88Development of the IFPL IR
- Conformity Assessment requirements
- Specific issues, different of COTR and FMTP
- An EC declaration addressing the compliance of
procedures is not defined in the SES
Interoperability Regulation - The rule addresses all persons and organisations
that submit flight plan and associated messages ?
an uncountable multitude of parties distributed
in various locations, who cannot be addressed in
a single way - A single conformity assessment mechanism cannot
therefore be applied to all parties concerned by
the IR - CA requirements addressing CFMU-IFPUs, ANSPs,
AROs and (some) Aircraft Operators might be
considered
89Development of the IFPL IR
- Area of Application requirements
- Referred to Article 1 (3) of the Airspace
regulation EUR AFI regions where Member
States are responsible for ATS - Parties involved in the flight planning process
- List of the key elements
- Implementation Condition requirements
- Relative to the date of entry into force (not an
absolute date) of the Regulation
90Overview of the draft rule for IFPL
- Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
- Chapter I General
- Objective and Scope
- Definitions Abbreviations
- Area of Application
- Chapter II Initial Flight Plan
- Interoperability and Performance requirements
- Safety requirements
91Overview of the draft rule for IFPL
- Chapter III Conformity Assessment
- National supervisory authorities
- Documentation material
- Procedures, roles and responsibilities
- Presumption of conformity
- Chapter IV - Final Provisions
- Implementation conditions
- Transitional arrangements
- Entry into force
- Annex I Safety requirements
92Conclusions
- Identification of the roles responsibilities
for the parties involved in flight planning in
the pre-flight phase - ? consistent flight plan information between
Pilot, ANSP, CFMU-IFPS - Solution left at the level of Community
specifications - Formalized, mandatory, safety requirements
- Possible application of conformity assessment
processes - Rule making through the EC/SES mechanisms
- Enforcement through the EU legal mechanisms
93Draft rule for IFPL
94Discussion
- Article 1 - Objective and Scope
- Article 2 - Definitions Abbreviations
- Article 3 - Area of Application
- Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance
requirements - Article 5 - Safety requirements
- Article 6 - National supervisory authorities
- Article 7 - Verification objectives
- Article 8 Documentation material
- Article 9 - Conformity assessment procedures
95Discussions
- Article 10 - Presumption of conformity
- Article 11 - Implementation conditions
- Article 12 - Transitional arrangements
- Article 13 - Entry into force
- Annex I Safety requirements
96CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ONSINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES