Airports& NM integration strategic fit with PCP and DP 2016 European Organisation for the Safgety of Air Navigation
Strategic Fit with Pilot Common Project (PCP) Implementing Regulation Airports & NM data exchanges are addressed by several provisions of PCP IR ( Commission regulation 716/2014) as: A-CDM is declared as the essential pre-requite for s-af2.1 (Departure Management Synchronised with Pre-departure sequencing). It does include the DPI and FUM data exchanges without specifying the integration modalities. The integration of Network Operation Plan (NOP) and Airport Operation Plan is an integral part of S-AF4.2 (Collaborative NOP). It addresses the interfaces between NM and airports which need to be SWIM based. S-AF 5.6 (Flight information exchange) addressees the different type of flight data exchanges, the ones that are important for airport and NM are related to flight lists, detailed flight data and departure information. All these exchanges should be using the SWIM yellow profile. The integration of Target Times with AOP is listed for S-AF 4.3 (CTOT to Target Time for ATFCM Purposes) without sufficient level of details. 2
Strategic Fit with Pilot Common Project (PCP) Implementing Regulation A-CDM is required to be deployed as part of S-AF 2.1 by 25 PCP airport as from 1 January 2021. AOP/NOP integration ( scope and timing is not well defined by PCP IR) but according to DP 2016 should be deployed by 25 PCP airports and NM as from 1 January 2022. Flight information exchanges are required to be deployed by all EU Members States (plus States having the Aviation agreement with EU) as from 1 January 2025. Target Times are required to be deployed by all EU Members States (plus States having the Aviation agreement with EU) as from 1 January 2022. 3
Strategic Fit with Deployment Programme (DP) In order to ensure synchronised, coordinated and time deployed of PCP AFs, SESAR Deployment Manager (SDM) developed the agreed implementation plan for PCP called Deployment Programme (DP). DP 2015 has been used as the specification call for CEF 2015 while DP 2016 is going to be used as main reference for the next CEF 2016 call. PCP AFs and S-AFs have been further detailed by 48 families what describes with sufficient level of details what when and how specific PCP items need to be deployed. Within DP 2016, the maturity of each family has been indicated as high, medium and low readiness for deployment 4
DP 2016 families for airport & NM integration Family 2.1.3 ( basic A-CDM) addresses the DPI/FUM message changes. This family is indicated in DP 2016 as high readiness family, therefore the Operational Stakeholder should consider to submit a project for this family if the gap has been identified. However, Airport & NM B2B integration is not specifically addressed by this family but it can be used as the secondary family to cover the gap. Family 2.1.4 (Initial AOP) addresses the airport actions to development and deployment of AOP. This family is indicated in DP 2016 as high readiness family, therefore the Operational Stakeholder might consider to submit a project for this family. 5
DP 2016 families for airport & NM integration Family 4.2.4 (AOP/NOP information sharing) addresses the SWIM interfaces for AOP/NOP integration. This family is indicated in DP 2016 as high readiness family, therefore the Operational Stakeholder should consider to submit a project for this family is the gap has been identified. Family 5.6.1 ( Upgrade/Implement flight information exchange system/service supported by Yellow Profile) addresses the flight list, detailed flight data and DPI using B2B interfaces. This family is indicated in DP 2016 as high readiness family, therefore the Operational Stakeholder should consider to submit a project for this family is the gap has been identified. Family 4.3.2 ( Reconciled Target Times for ATFCM and arrival sequencing) addresses the target times and AOP. This family is indicated in DP 2016 as low readiness family, therefore the Operational Stakeholder are not encourage to prepare/submit projects for CEF 2016. 6
Identified gaps for Airport & NM integration related families (1) The following airports are identified as gap for Family 2.1.3 as : Berlin, Istanbul, London Stansted, Palma de Mallorca and Manchester. The following airports are considered as a complete gap for Family 2.1.4 as: Barcelona, Berlin, Dublin, Istanbul, Madrid, Manchester, London Stansted, Oslo, Palma de Mallorca, Copenhagen, Dusseldorf, Milan, Rome and Vienna plus additional airports that are considered as partial gap. 7
Identified gaps for Airport & NM integration related families (2) For family 4.2.4, all Stakeholders are considered as gap except NM, Paris CDG and Orly, London Heathrow, Frankfurt and Copenhagen. All States and concerned airports except NM ( partial gap)are considered as Gap for family 5.6.1. All States are considered as gap for family 4.3.2. 8
Potential CEF 2016 projects for airport s& NM integration (1) Airports might consider to prepare projects related to families 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 4.2.4 and 5.6.1 if they are indicated as gap by DP 2016 Monitoring View. Airport might consider to put standalone projects for these families, or to team up with other airports or with NM in order to submit multi Stakeholder projects. NM is willing to take a lead or contribute to Multi-Stakeholder Projects particularly in Family 4.2.4 and 5.6.1 addressing also the B2B data exchanges between Airport and NM. 9
Potential CEF 2016 projects for airports& NM integration (2) NM has already provided the initial scope of such Multi-Stakeholder project to ACI in September 2016 within SDM s Indication of Interest action related to CEF 2016. The airports that are interested to prepare the Multi-Stakeholder project with NM for B2B data exchanges are invited to contact Dimitris Apsouris who is charge to coordinate NM s CEF 2016 projects (dimitris.apouris@eurocontrol.int) 10