CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 96
About This Presentation
Title:

CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES

Description:

IR shall describe conformity assessment (CA) procedures ... Harmonized application of conformity assessment procedures required for SES implementation ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:54
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 97
Provided by: ingrid76
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES


1
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ONSINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES
2
AGENDA ITEM 1WELCOME - OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
3
THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY INTEROPERABILITY
REGULATION Overview by the European Commission
4
INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES
By Jean-Luc Garnier Head Regulatory Unit SES
Interoperability Mandates Manager
5
First Three Interoperability Mandates
  • Article 3(5) of the Interoperability Regulation
  • 3 Mandates sent to EUROCONTROL on 5th April 2004
    to assist the European Commission in the
    development of Implementing Rules (IR) for
    interoperability on
  • Co-ordination and Transfer
  • Flight Message Transfer Protocol
  • Initial Flight Plan

6
Subject of the mandates
  • Draft implementing rules
  • Identification of means of compliance
  • Eurocontrols actions to support implementation
    of the rules

7
General requirements (1)
  • Systems, constituents, and associated procedures
    of EATMN shall comply with IR throughout their
    life cycle
  • IR shall determine any specific requirement that
    complement or refine the essential requirements
    (ER)
  • IR shall ensure coordinated introduction of new,
    agreed and validated concepts
  • IR concerning a system shall determine the
    constituents
  • IR shall describe conformity assessment (CA)
    procedures
  • IR shall identify tasks to be carried out by
    Notified Bodies

8
General Requirements (2)
  • IR will rely on rules and standards developed by
    EUROCONTROL ICAO
  • IR shall specify conditions of implementation
  • EUROCONTROL shall develop Impact Assessments
  • EUROCONTROL shall establish a Consultation Process

9
Deliverables
  • Initial Plan April 2004
  • Draft Final Report October 2004
  • Final Report January 2005

10
Management Process (1)
11
Management Process (2)
12
Work Breakdown Structure
  • Structured on 3 parts
  • Part 1 - Development of regulatory products and
    justification material
  • WP1.1 Definition of the regulatory approach
  • WP1.2 Drafting of regulatory products
  • WP 1.3 Consultation
  • WP1.4 Review of comments
  • WP1.7 Safety Analysis
  • Part 2 - Implementation of Regulatory Provisions
  • WP2.1 Definition of EUROCONTROL support for the
    implementation of regulatory provisions
  • Part 3 - Regulatory Assurance Activities
  • WP3.1 Definition of EUROCONTROL support for
    regulatory assurance activity

13
SES Mandates on Interoperability - Timetable
14
Consultation Process
  • Informal Consultation Process
  • Collect Stakeholders opinion in order to draft
    first draft regulatory proposal to be the subject
    of formal consultation
  • Nominated experts from EUROCONTROL existing
    working arrangements (ACG) act as Sounding Board
  • Supported by One Sky Teams
  • Concluded by first Workshop
  • Formal Consultation Process
  • EUROCONTROL Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ENPRM)
  • Drafting, Consultation and Review of Comments
  • 2 Months
  • Results presented to second Workshop

15
Informal Consultation
  • Triggered by the definition of the Regulatory
    Approaches
  • Done through the sounding boards designated for
    each interoperability mandate
  • Approx 30 comments on the proposed approaches,
    addressing
  • The structure of the implementing rule
  • The content of the implementing rule and/or
    associated material
  • The structure/content of the Regulatory
    Approaches
  • Comments taken into account in the drafting phase

16
General structure of an Interoperability IR

Community Specification (s) (as appropriate)

17
Conformity Assessment
  • Growing need for an overall approach addressing
    safety, performance and interoperability aspects
  • Harmonized application of conformity assessment
    procedures required for SES implementation
  • EUROCONTROL, CAAs, ANSPs have thorough experience
    on verification / approval of ATM systems
  • Joint RU/SRU Task Force created to address
    conformity assessment issues

18
Next Steps
  • Draft Final Report 29 October 2004
  • Formal Consultation November 2004 early Jan.
    2005
  • Final Report January 2005


19
Conclusions
  • Learning process
  • Challenging timescales
  • Significant new developments ahead


20
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ASPECTS
21
Conformity Assessment in Global Approach
22
Conformity Assessment Task Force
  • Ad-Hoc Task Force co-chaired by EUROCONTROL
    Regulatory Unit and Safety Regulation Unit
  • Goals
  • Study Conformity assessment matters
  • Propose relevant material to support conformity
    assessment activities
  • Act as consultation body endorsing the Conformity
    assessment requirements to be included in the IRs
  • Ensure consistency of interoperability conformity
    assessment and safety oversight processes

23
CA Basic principles CA Goal
  • High level of confidence in the capability of two
    different declared conformant implementations to
    interoperate within the EATMN
  • Implementation ? constituent(s) and/or system(s)
  • Declared conformant means either
  • The constituent(s) has (have) an EC declaration
    of conformity for use
  • The system(s) has (have) an EC declaration of
    verification


24
Conformity Assessment for COTR /FMTP
  • Points to be addressed by the conformity
    assessment requirements
  • What shall be verified?
  • Which test practices to support the conformity
    assessment?
  • Which test tool capability to support the
    conformity assessment?
  • Which documentation material (technical file) to
    support the conformity assessment?
  • Which roles for the stakeholders of the
    conformity assessment?

25
Application of Conformity Assessment Scenario 1
  • ANSP defines the technical solution and
    subcontracts the development of constituent(s) to
    a manufacturer(s)
  • ? Manufacturer shall
  • Meet the CA requirements (for the development
    phase)
  • Issue an EC declaration of conformity
  • ? ANSP shall
  • Meet the CA requirements (Entry into service
    Operations phases)
  • Issue an EC declaration of verification

26
Application of Conformity Assessment Scenario 2
  • ANSP defines and develops the technical solution
  • ? ANSP shall
  • Meet the CA requirements (Development, Entry into
    service Operations phases)
  • Issue an EC declaration of verification

27
Supervision of compliance
  • In both cases the National supervisory authority
    retains overall responsibility that
  • Manufacturers
  • ANSPs
  • comply with the regulation

28
CA 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
29
Conformity Assessment for IFPL
  • Points to be addressed by the conformity
    assessment requirements
  • What shall be verified?
  • Which documentation material to support the
    conformity assessment?
  • Which roles for the stakeholders of the
    conformity assessment?

30
CO-ORDINATION AND TRANSFER MANDATE Presentation
Discussion
31
Operational 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)

32
Operational Context
  • Common rules and message formats aligned to
    European practices ? EUROCONTROL OLDI Standard
    edition 1 (1992)
  • OLDI Standard edition 2.2 (9/1998)
  • 3 mandatory messages
  • No formal conformity assessment process
  • Combined mandatory and recommended requirements
  • OLDI Standard edition 2.3 (12/2001)
  • Inclusion of aircraft capability in support of
    RVSM and 8.33KHz
  • Rationalization of optional flight plan data
  • Update of Revision message

33
Operational Context
  • Draft OLDI Standard 3.0
  • 3 new mandatory messages
  • New ground/ground situational awareness messages
  • Civil/Military co-ordination messages
  • New messages added in support to Arrival
    Management, Transfer of Control, Air/Ground Data
    Link
  • Update of existing messages

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

35
Mandate development
November/December
July-October
January 2005
May/June
April 2004
Drafting
Initial Plans
Review of comments
Formal Consultation
Regulatory Approach
36
Regulatory Approach
  • Document defining the structure and the content
    of the regulatory package including draft rule
    and justification material
  • Triggered the 1st step of the Informal
    Consultation (done through the sounding boards
    designated for each interoperability mandate)
  • Proposed structure of the rule modified following
    the consultation
  • Roles responsibilities, minimal information to
    be exchanged, performance requirements
    (functional operational requirements) part of
    the Implementing Rule
  • Detailed message definition, formats to be used,
    data insertion rules (based on the draft OLDI v.
    3.0) Community Specification identified as
    means of compliance with the rule

37
Conclusions of the Regulatory Approach
  • Implementing rule Community specification
  • Technical solution not imposed by the rule
  • Guideline clarifying implementations aspects
    (assumptions, recommendations, description of
    data flows not covered by the rule)
  • Traceability to the relevant Essential
    Requirements ER 1 to 5 (seamless operations,
    support to new concepts of operations, safety,
    civil-military co-ordination, environment)
  • ER 6 and 7 not addressed by the rule ?
    constituents and systems implementing the rule,
    not identified

38
Structure of the COTR IR

Community Specification (s)

39
Development COTR IR
  • Interoperability and Performance requirements
  • Defined in terms of data flows (conceptual form
    with emphasis on operational needs)
  • Mandatory and voluntary data flows (implemented
    based on bilateral agreements)
  • Input
  • Interoperability Requirement Document for
    Co-ordination and Transfer
  • OLDI 3.0 (38 messages)
  • Output
  • General requirements
  • 6 mandatory data flows
  • 15 voluntary data flows

40
Development of the COTR IR
  • Safety requirements
  • Defined following the Air Navigation System
    Safety Assessment Methodology
  • Functional Hazard Assessment session with safety,
    operational and technical experts (for both COTR
    and FMTP)
  • Preliminary System Safety Assessment leading to
    safety requirements
  • Development of a Safety Summary, describing the
    above process for inclusion in the Justification
    material
  • Analysis of the identified requirements and
    selection of those to be included in the rule as
    specific Safety requirements

41
Development of the COTR IR
  • Conformity Assessment requirements
  • Not addressed in the OLDI Standard
  • Identification of the basic principles, goals and
    objectives
  • Identification of specific CA requirements for
    COTR
  • Verification Objectives
  • Test practices and test tools
  • Technical file supporting CA
  • Roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders

42
Development of the COTR IR
  • Quality of Service requirements
  • Defined in terms of
  • Transaction times
  • Reliability
  • Availability
  • Area of Application requirements
  • European Air Traffic Management network
  • Implementation Condition requirements
  • Relative to the date of entry into force (not an
    absolute date)
  • Differentiated between the 3 data flows already
    mandatory and the new 3 data flows proposed to be
    mandatory

43
Overview of the draft rule for COTR
  • Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
  • Chapter I General
  • Objective and Scope
  • Definitions Abbreviations
  • Area of Application
  • Chapter II Co-ordination and Transfer
  • Interoperability and Performance requirements
  • Quality of Service requirements
  • Safety requirements

44
Overview of the draft rule for COTR
  • Chapter III Conformity Assessment
  • National supervisory authorities
  • Verification objectives
  • Testing practices and testing tools
  • Technical file
  • Procedures, roles and responsibilities
  • Presumption of conformity
  • Chapter IV - Final Provisions
  • Implementation conditions
  • Transitional arrangements
  • Entry into force

45
Overview of the draft rule for COTR
  • Annex I Interoperability and Performance
    requirements
  • Part A General requirements
  • Part B Requirements for the mandatory data
    flows
  • Part C - Requirements for the voluntary data
    flows
  • Annex II Quality of Service requirements
  • Annex III Safety requirements
  • Annex IV Conformity Assessment requirements

46
Conclusions
  • New mandatory data flows
  • Reduced workload for operational staff
  • Improved efficiency safety
  • Technical solution left at the level of Community
    specifications
  • Formalized, mandatory, safety and conformity
    assessment requirements
  • Rule making through the EC/SES mechanisms
  • Enforcement through the EU legal mechanisms

47
Draft rule for COTR
  • Discussion

48
Discussion
  • Article 1 - Objective and Scope
  • Article 2 - Definitions Abbreviations
  • Article 3 - Area of Application
  • Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance
    requirements
  • Article 5 - Quality of Service requirements
  • Article 6 - Safety requirements
  • Article 7 - National supervisory authorities
  • Article 8 - Verification objectives
  • Article 9 - Test practices and test tool
  • Article 10 - Technical File
  • Article 11 - Conformity assessment procedures

49
Discussions
  • Article 12 - Presumption of conformity
  • Article 13 - Implementation conditions
  • Article 14 - Transitional arrangements
  • Article 15 - Entry into force
  • Annex I - Part A
  • Annex I - Part B
  • Annex I - Part C
  • Annex II - QoS requirements
  • Annex III - Safety requirements
  • Annex IV Conformity assessment

50
FLIGHT MESSAGE TRANSFER PROTOCOL MANDATE
Presentation Discussion
51
Current situation
  • EC Regulation 980/2002 amending EC Regulation
    2082/2000 adoption of EUROCONTROL standard FDE
    ICD Part 1 for procurement of new systems
  • COM Strategy ?migration of X.25 to IP
  • Industrial offer of X.25 products ?
  • Maintenance costs of X.25 products ?
  • ECIP COM 4 ?migration of FDE - ICD Part 1 over
    X.25 towards FDE - ICD Part 2 over TCP/IP
  • Existing specifications combine mandatory
    requirements and recommendations
  • Responsibility of stakeholders for conformity
    assessment not defined

52
Objective and Scope of the IR
  • Objective of the IR
  • Interoperability of ground-ground communications
    for co-ordination and transfer and civil-military
    co-ordination
  • Scope of the IR
  • System information exchange supporting
  • Co-ordination and transfer of flights
  • Civil-military co-ordination
  • End systems supporting co-ordination and
    transfer, civil-military co-ordination
  • Fixed ground network not addressed

53
Conclusions of the informal consultation about
the Regulatory Approach /1
  • One single IR embedding
  • Obligations on stakeholders
  • Mandatory interoperability, QoS, safety
    requirements applicable to the protocol
  • Mandatory conformity assessment requirements
  • No need for a specific Community Specification
  • Possible Guideline to clarify some implementation
    aspects

54
Conclusions of the informal consultation about
the Regulatory Approach /2
  • IR contributes to Essential Requirements
  • Seamless operations
  • Co-ordinated introduction of new technology
  • Safety
  • The choice of the technical solution in terms of
    constituents and systems implementing FMTP is
    left to stakeholders

55
Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
  • Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
  • Chapter I General
  • Objective and Scope
  • Definitions Abbreviations
  • Area of Application
  • Chapter II Flight Message Transfer Protocol
  • Interoperability and Performance requirements
  • Quality of Service requirements
  • Safety requirements

56
Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
  • Chapter III Conformity Assessment
  • National supervisory authorities
  • Testing practices and testing tools
  • Technical file
  • Procedures, roles and responsibilities
  • Chapter IV - Final Provisions
  • Implementation conditions
  • Entry into force

57
Overview of the draft rule for FMTP
  • Annex I Interoperability and Performance
    requirements
  • Annex II Quality of Service requirements
  • Annex III Safety requirements
  • Annex IV Conformity Assessment requirements

58
FMTP / IR Annex I Interoperability
performance requirements
  • FMTP message formats
  • FMTP dynamic behavior
  • FMTP state tables
  • TCP transport interface settings
  • IP network interface settings
  • References to IETF ISO/IEC standards.

59
FMTP / IR Annex II III- Quality of Service
Safety requirements
  • Quality of Service
  • Requested by the co-ordination and transfer IR
  • Safety
  • Verification that the QoS provided to
    co-ordination and transfer meets the expected
    level.

60
FMTP / IR Annex IV- Conformity assessment
requirements
  • Verification objectives
  • Testing practices and test tool
  • Technical file
  • Procedures

61
FMTP / IR - Conclusions
  • COM Strategy ECIP COM 04 ? migration from X.25
    to TCP/IP
  • IR consistent with operational requirements on
    co-ordination and transfer
  • Low-risk validated solution
  • Cost-effective solution
  • Contributes to the interoperability and
    harmonization of ground-ground communications in
    the EATMN

62
Draft rule for FMTP
  • Discussion

63
Discussion
  • Article 1 - Objective and Scope
  • Article 2 - Definitions Abbreviations
  • Article 3 - Area of Application
  • Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance
    requirements
  • Article 5 - Quality of Service requirements
  • Article 6 - Safety requirements
  • Article 7 - National supervisory authorities
  • Article 8 - Verification objectives
  • Article 9 - Test practices and test tool
  • Article 10 - Technical File
  • Article 11 - Conformity assessment procedures

64
Discussions
  • Article 12 - Implementation conditions
  • Article 13 - Entry into force
  • Annex I - Interoperability and Performance
    requirements
  • Annex II - QoS requirements
  • Annex III - Safety requirements
  • Annex IV Conformity assessment

65
INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN MANDATE Presentation
Discussion
66
Initial Flight Plan
  • Concept
  • Current limitations
  • Regulatory Intent
  • Scope, Objectives, Content

67
Strategy
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

68
Achieving 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!
73
Regulatory Intent
Ensure that all parties responsible for the safe
conduct of a flight shall be in possession of a
minimum consistent set of key elements of the
flight plan
  • Improving flight plan consistency between AO -
    ATC - CFMU.

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
76
Objectives
  • To clarify the roles/ responsibility of each
    actor in respect of initial flight planning.
  • To implement a fully controlled procedure for the
    handling of changes to already accepted FPLs
    (including airspace updates).

77
Key Requirements (1)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
  • Establish a formal status for IFPLs and clarify
    roles and responsibility of each actor.
  • Define the minimum set of IFPL and profile
    characteristics needed to serve as the common
    basis for consistency between all actors.

78
Key Requirements (2)
IMPLEMENT IFPL CHANGE MECHANISMS IN THE
PRE-FLIGHT PHASE
  • Develop procedures for handling changes to
    accepted FPLs.
  • Develop FPL reprocessing to reflect dynamic
    airspace changes.
  • Develop procedures and communication means to
    ensure changes reported in pre-departure phase.

79
A common reference
80
Important note!!
Intention is NOT to prevent changes to the IFPL
but to ensure that changes are
  • Properly coordinated.
  • Disseminated early enough to enable appropriate
    action to be taken.

For each Flight there should be one single,
common IFPL view.
81
Key elements
  • Aircraft Identification
  • Aerodrome of Departure and arrival
  • Estimated Off-Block Date and time
  • Route (excluding SID, STAR)
  • Cruise speed(s) and requested flight level(s)
  • Aircraft Type and Wake Turbulence category
  • Flight Rules and Type of flight
  • Aircraft equipage Equipment Field 10 and all
    related field 18 information
  • IFPS Flight Plan Identification (once issued)

82
Pre-flight Phase
  • The period from the first submission of a flight
    plan until the termination of one of the
    following events
  • Engine start-up at aerodrome of departure within
    the airspace of application.
  • First delivery of airways clearance within the
    airspace of application.
  • First ATC activation at aerodrome of departure
    within the airspace of application.

83
Conclusions
THE INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN CONCEPT IS AN ENABLER
OF ATFCM OPTIMISATION AND FUA. THE INITIAL
FLIGHT PLAN IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF INTEROPERABILITY AND CDM. THE
INITIAL FLIGHT PLAN WILL CONTRIBUTE TO SAFETY.
84
Regulatory Approach
  • Document defining the structure and the content
    of the regulatory package including draft rule
    and justification material
  • Triggered the 1st step of the Informal
    Consultation (done through the sounding boards
    designated for each interoperability mandate)
  • Drafting as proposed in the Regulatory Approach
    defined by EUROCONTROL
  • Rule addressing high level procedures to be
    followed by Aircraft Operators, ATS Reporting
    Offices, ANSPs and CFMU-IFPS
  • Detailed implementation solution left at the
    level of Community Specifications (e.g. updated
    IFPS User Manual).

85
Conclusions of the Regulatory Approach
  • Implementing rule Community specification
  • High level rule, addressing procedures
  • Detailed solution not imposed by the rule
  • Traceability to the relevant Essential
    Requirements ER 1 to 3 (seamless operations,
    support to new concepts of operations, safety)
  • ER 6 and 7 not addressed by the rule ?
    constituents and systems implementing the rule,
    not identified

86
Development of the IFPL IR
  • Identification of
  • Roles and responsibilities of the parties
    involved in completion, submission and
    modifications of flight plans in the pre-flight
    phase
  • Aircraft Operators
  • ATS Reporting Offices
  • CFMU-IFPS
  • ANSPs
  • Key elements of the flight plan that need to be
    kept consistent in the pre-flight phase

87
Development of the IFPL IR
  • Safety requirements
  • Defined following the Air Navigation System
    Safety Assessment Methodology
  • Functional Hazard Assessment session with safety,
    operational experts, service providers and
    aircraft operators
  • Preliminary System Safety Assessment leading to
    safety requirements
  • Development of a Safety Summary, describing the
    above process for inclusion in the Justification
    material
  • Analysis of the identified requirements and
    selection of those to be included in the rule as
    specific Safety requirements

88
Development of the IFPL IR
  • Conformity Assessment requirements
  • Specific issues, different of COTR and FMTP
  • An EC declaration addressing the compliance of
    procedures is not defined in the SES
    Interoperability Regulation
  • The rule addresses all persons and organisations
    that submit flight plan and associated messages ?
    an uncountable multitude of parties distributed
    in various locations, who cannot be addressed in
    a single way
  • A single conformity assessment mechanism cannot
    therefore be applied to all parties concerned by
    the IR
  • CA requirements addressing CFMU-IFPUs, ANSPs,
    AROs and (some) Aircraft Operators might be
    considered

89
Development of the IFPL IR
  • Area of Application requirements
  • Referred to Article 1 (3) of the Airspace
    regulation EUR AFI regions where Member
    States are responsible for ATS
  • Parties involved in the flight planning process
  • List of the key elements
  • Implementation Condition requirements
  • Relative to the date of entry into force (not an
    absolute date) of the Regulation

90
Overview of the draft rule for IFPL
  • Structured on Chapters, Articles, Annexes
  • Chapter I General
  • Objective and Scope
  • Definitions Abbreviations
  • Area of Application
  • Chapter II Initial Flight Plan
  • Interoperability and Performance requirements
  • Safety requirements

91
Overview of the draft rule for IFPL
  • Chapter III Conformity Assessment
  • National supervisory authorities
  • Documentation material
  • Procedures, roles and responsibilities
  • Presumption of conformity
  • Chapter IV - Final Provisions
  • Implementation conditions
  • Transitional arrangements
  • Entry into force
  • Annex I Safety requirements

92
Conclusions
  • Identification of the roles responsibilities
    for the parties involved in flight planning in
    the pre-flight phase
  • ? consistent flight plan information between
    Pilot, ANSP, CFMU-IFPS
  • Solution left at the level of Community
    specifications
  • Formalized, mandatory, safety requirements
  • Possible application of conformity assessment
    processes
  • Rule making through the EC/SES mechanisms
  • Enforcement through the EU legal mechanisms

93
Draft rule for IFPL
  • Discussion

94
Discussion
  • Article 1 - Objective and Scope
  • Article 2 - Definitions Abbreviations
  • Article 3 - Area of Application
  • Article 4 - Interoperability and Performance
    requirements
  • Article 5 - Safety requirements
  • Article 6 - National supervisory authorities
  • Article 7 - Verification objectives
  • Article 8 Documentation material
  • Article 9 - Conformity assessment procedures

95
Discussions
  • Article 10 - Presumption of conformity
  • Article 11 - Implementation conditions
  • Article 12 - Transitional arrangements
  • Article 13 - Entry into force
  • Annex I Safety requirements

96
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ONSINGLE EUROPEAN SKY
INTEROPERABILITY MANDATES
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com