Cross-border Free Route Airspace Implementation Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations

Transcription

1 Cross-border Free Route Airspace Implementation Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations JUN 2015

2 Item 1: Cross-border expansion of FRA (1) Harmonised CONOPS PMP and management structure Important with clear mandates and roles in a complex decision structure globally Include all expertise Address both development and implementation The importance of a clear back up plan to make the complicated decisions easy The balance in CONOPS and TECH spec. Clear guidance, but keep flexibility for possible mitigations feasible within the given timeframe Risks mitigation in a flexible manner Implementation Project Multi-disciplinary teams A phased implementation should be considered System support ready first, it s clear that system support is essential Ensure fast and real time simulations 2

3 Item 1: Cross-border expansion of FRA (2) Coordination with Network Manager Network view and network inter-connectivity with neighbouring ANSPs/FABs Airspace design coordination and support Network tools and data Fast and real time simulations Airspace validations in NM ops systems AIS publications Consistency with Network FRA CONOPS and Technical Specifications Coordination with other specific expert teams in EUROCONTROL Coordination with neighbouring ANSPs/FABs LoAs Working practices System support Overall connectivity Coordination with NSAs 3

4 Item 2: Cross-border FRA: Airspace Design Further refine definition of FRA Significant Points To enable harmonised network application Essential for cross-border applications FRA Entry Point FRA Exit Point FRA Arrival Transition Point FRA Departure Transition Point FRA En-route Transition Point FRA intermediate point for avoidance of segregated airspace Table 4.4. or RAD Appendix 7 FRA Point Publication in the AIP Table 4.4 Optimise implementation of new 5LNCs in FRA (to address rationalisation, optimum horizontal distribution and facilitation of optimum vertical flight profiles) Following implementation of H24 FRA withdraw ATS route network. Avoid use of FRA points defined by geographical coordinates or by bearing and distance Define better minimum FL for FRA application Ensure update of ERNIP before end

5 Item 2: Cross-border FRA: AIS Publication Ensure involvement of AIS from the start of the FRA projects Apply in a harmonised manner provisions in ERNIP Part 1 on FRA publication and ensure updates following subsequent amendments For cross border FRA Maintain current publication practices Publish only reference to the cross border project and reference to adjacent airspace AIP Include fictitious examples to accompany the guidance Address further AUA vs FIR publications in EAD and NM systems Guidance already exists in ERNIP Part1 Implementation to be addressed with AIS and NSAs The identified enhancements to ERNIP related to AIP placeholders & and expanded instructions and on the publication concepts (e.g. on duplicated publ.) were supported EAD SDO data harmonisation objective development for FRA in progress to facilitate FRA airspace upload and the significant points relation Input on end-users requirements on published FRA information and the impact on AIS production systems was noted Ensure update of ERNIP before end

6 Item 3: FRA - the ASM Dimension (1) ERNIP Part 3 adaptations to FRA Finalised in 2013 Alignment to ERNIP Part 1; All changes implemented in the NM systems No significant difference to fixed route operations Enhance management of airspace volumes in alternative to CDR through the EAUP/EUUP process; Revision of FUA Indicators; Introduction of a new Indicator: RoAA= rate of Areas Availability; Similar to RoCA; Not yet measured due to the lack of areas information by some States. Usage of EAUP/EUUP processed automatically via B2B Adaptation of FUA restrictions to FRA Make mandatory publication of FUA restrictions through RAD Appendix 7 Implementation of the Flight Planning Buffer Zone to ensure protection from segregated airspace Pre-validation strongly recommended 6

7 Item 3: FRA - the ASM Dimension (2) Tactical management Extensive use of EAUP/EUUP; validity time for any EUUP change. promote management of volume closure (force airspace users to re-file). Improve accuracy airspace booking; Enhance usage procedure 3. Promote coordination of tactical management at FAB level Coordination of areas allocation to minimise impact on traffic flows and ensure synchronisation Analyse solutions to support harmonised publications (EAUP/EUUP) instead of NOTAM Analyse Prior Coordination Airspace and Reduced Coordination Airspace with respect to FRA operations Analyse OLDI Messages for OAT coordination (XRQ, ACP, XAP, RJC) To be revised to reflect also FRA Encourage airspace users to improve flight planning systems and operations through the utilisation of EAUP/EUUP 7

8 Item 4: FRA and NM Systems Evolution (1) Enablers for FRA implementation: Undefined Routes: Introduction of the capability to disable the route network during Free Route times Sector Cluster Introduction: Required to correctly model AUA and allow the correct definition of the DCT related to FRA FRA concept implemented as Restrictions in CACD, IFPS, ETFMS, Path Finder. All business about En-route DCT limits reworked, adaptation of the DCT Restriction model to support Free Route Two models of FRA are supported: All points inside the FRA are intermediate points by default Only specific points inside the FRA are intermediate points All values are possible for FRA applicable times FRA Vertical limits Map allowing presentation of the FRA points of the FRA airspaces that the profile plotted is crossing. CHMI Map Display will include the temporality FL range for correcting/validating FPL's. When a FPL is rejected (automatic and manual) by IFPS for Profile or Routing Errors, a route proposal will be automatically generated and added to the REJ Operational Reply Message. 8

9 Item 4: FRA and NM Systems Evolution (2) New algorithm in IFPS for distance FRA Entry Point FRA Border IFPS FRA process improved, Border Clipping reduced from 15NM to 0 NM IFPS 0.1 % rule changed, IFPS replaces a DCT by a co-located route only if it exactly the same segment IFPS DCT process improved, DCTs close to Airspace borders become invalid Further changes to take place in 2016 to include dynamic airspace volumes for crisis, ASM and FRA NM systems ready for full FRA implementation 9

10 Item 5: FRA: the impact on local ATM systems FRA has an impact on systems (GND and AIR) and vice-versa Local implementation of standards may lead to differences in system behaviours Cooperation, testing, (pre)-validation is needed! 10

11 Item 5: FRA: AFP Message (1) AFP Requirements Shall only be sent for airborne flights Shall only be sent by ATC Shall be sent only for flights for which the ATC unit has assumed control of the flight. change of route where the exit point from the flight data processing area (FDPA) has changed. The route field shall only contain the route part on which the flight has been cleared or is about to be cleared by the AFP originator ATC unit. It shall not contain the upstream part of the route compared to the area of responsibility of the AFP originator ATC unit. An ATC unit shall stop transmitting AFP messages from the moment it has transferred control of the flight Input to IFPS is an AFP. Output is: An APL to those ATC centres to whom the IFPS did not send flight plan data for the flight (the new concerned units) or An ACH to those ATC centres to whom the IFPS has already sent flight plan data for the flight (the old concerned units). 11

12 Item 5: FRA: AFP Message (2) Use NM documentation Coordinate implementation in local ATM system with NM NM and NEFRA to address a number of implementation aspects and additional parameters required for the AFP message Organise a further dedicated workshop on NM/local ATM systems interfaces 12

13 Item 6: FRA: Flight Planning Evolution (1) Cross border Free Route Airspace will allow even more optimal planning, as we are not forced to deviate from our optimum track to file a FIR border point Flight planning should move away from using only pre-defined DCT s. Sector data needs to be coded and manageable Open and closure of FUA areas via the EAUP/EUUP without issuing NOTAM s Leave waypoints in the airspace for planning. Use already implemented/agreed procedures. Implementing FRA should simplify the airspace. Don t implement a lot of hidden constraints via the RAD. It must be implemented following the right steps in close coordination with AOs and NM AO s are using different CFSP s, offering different solutions more or less sophisticated. The greater potential offered, the bigger incitement to change/optimize the flight planning systems 13

14 Item 6: FRA: Flight Planning Evolution (2) No need to publish route extensions for extra fuel carriage Apply a common FRA design methodology Implement large cross-border FRA which increase flight efficiency and reduce the flight planning complexity due to decreased fragmentation Allow a variety of 5LNC Points in FRA airspace, define their types, Segment Length parameters and Maximum Turn Angle Make the transition from a segment based to a point / volume based set of traffic flow restrictions Increase the temporal stability of the flight plan by implementing H24 FRA Introduce the 4D Profile exchange between AO and IFPS Study the impacts related to possible limitations of DCT length in FPL (e.g. to 200NM) DCTs do not always allow optimum vertical (climbing/descending) profiles Organise NM/CFSPs/AOs Workshop to define a clear roadmap on alignment between NM systems and Flight Planning System Use SESAR Deployment Manager processes to ensure financing of flight planning systems evolutions or any other FRA related projects based on the Deployment Programme V1 (DP V1) - Deployment_Programme_Version 1 Annex_Deployment_Programme_Version_1 14

15 Item 7: FRA: Project Validation with NM Important for both ANSP-NMOC mutual understanding of the project. It helps to identify coding error in NMOC systems. It helps to identify operational issues (departing & arriving TFC through FRA area). It helps to identify operational issues with neighbouring ANSP s. A minimum period of 5 months prior Ops implementation is required. It will allow further coordination and changes. It helps NM FP staff to be better prepared for the Ops implementation. It gives confidence to the ANSP s for a smooth OPS implementation Encourage ANSPs and NM to invite Aircraft Operators to participate in airspace pre-validations Checklist of actions published in ERNIP Part 1 Paragraph FRA Checklist of Implementation Actions 15

16 FINAL CONCLUSIONS Addressed cross-border implementation aspects Identified any strictly required further improvements Better link NM local systems flight planning Facilitate continuous implementation Conclusions to be reflected in ERNIP documentation during second half 2015 and in further NM and operational stakeholders evolutions 16