View
235
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Cross-border Free Route Airspace
Implementation Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations
29 – 30 JUN 2015
2
• 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
Item 1: Cross-border expansion of FRA (1)
3
• 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
Item 1: Cross-border expansion of FRA (2)
4
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 2015
Item 2: Cross-border FRA: Airspace Design
5
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 2015
Item 2: Cross-border FRA: AIS Publication
6
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
Item 3: FRA - the ASM Dimension (1)
7
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
Item 3: FRA - the ASM Dimension (2)
8
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.
Item 4: FRA and NM Systems’ Evolution (1)
9
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
Item 4: FRA and NM Systems’ Evolution (2)
10
• 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!
Item 5: FRA: the impact on local ATM systems
11
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).
Item 5: FRA: AFP Message (1)
12
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
Item 5: FRA: AFP Message (2)
13
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
Item 6: FRA: Flight Planning Evolution (1)
14
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
Item 6: FRA: Flight Planning Evolution (2)
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 6.5.6 – FRA Checklist of Implementation Actions
16
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
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Recommended