The Pilot Common Project (PCP) constitutes the first batch of technical and/or operational changes to be implemented in the 2014-2024 timeframe for the first time under the deployment governance. The importance of PCP is not only because it is the first one, but also because it activates a new process and a new way stakeholders and the Commission work to- gether to deploy modernized European ATM infrastructure. One of the most important questions during the PCP consul- tation process was the maturity of the AFs and progress of the pre-requisites’. This analysis provides an assessment of the progress of the PCP pre-requisites. It relies on earlier analysis work done by the Interim Deployment Steering Group . The IDSG work resulted in the mentioned report identifying a limited number of ESSIP objectives as pre-requisites, es- sential pre-requisites or facilitators for the deployment of the PCPs. Those objectives are linked to the ATM Functionali- ties (AFs) in the PCP proposal as follows: • AF1: ATC15, ATC07.1, NAV10 • AF2: AOP05, AOP04.1, AOP04.2 • AF3: AOM19, AOM21, ATC12, FCM05 • AF4: FCM04, FCM05 • AF5: COM09, ITY-FMTP, FCM05, ITY-ADQ • AF6: ITY-AGDL Introduction July 2014 PCP pre-requisites implementation Inside this issue: AF1 1 AF6 3 AF5 3 AF2 1 AF4 3 AF3 2 Progress of PCP at European level 1 PEPR flash Data source The main information sources for the production of this anal- ysis are the LSSIP State re- ports. In order to ensure the quality and consistency of LSSIP information two data assessments took place in 2013: - LSSIP in-cycle review: ob- jective coordinators perform an assessment to make sure that the content is clear, infor- mation complete and guidance for implementation progress applied correctly - ESSIP objective experts re- view: before LSSIP reporting is closed, the information was sent to designated experts in EUROCONTROL for assess- ment. For each ESSIP objec- tive there is a dedicated expert in EUROCONTROL working in the field covered by a spe- cific objective. The purpose of this check is to ensure the consistency of reported infor- mation with other data sources in EUROCONTROL and to challenge the States to report consistently.
4
Embed
PCP pre-requisites implementation - eurocontrol.int · Page 2 PCP pre-requisites implementation Progress of the PCP pre-requisites at European Level AF1: Extended AMAN and PBN in
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Pilot Common Project (PCP) constitutes the first batch of technical and/or operational changes to be implemented in
the 2014-2024 timeframe for the first time under the deployment governance. The importance of PCP is not only because
it is the first one, but also because it activates a new process and a new way stakeholders and the Commission work to-
gether to deploy modernized European ATM infrastructure. One of the most important questions during the PCP consul-
tation process was the maturity of the AFs and progress of the pre-requisites’.
This analysis provides an assessment of the progress of the PCP pre-requisites. It relies on earlier analysis work done by
the Interim Deployment Steering Group .
The IDSG work resulted in the mentioned report identifying a limited number of ESSIP objectives as pre-requisites, es-
sential pre-requisites or facilitators for the deployment of the PCPs. Those objectives are linked to the ATM Functionali-
ties (AFs) in the PCP proposal as follows:
• AF1: ATC15, ATC07.1, NAV10
• AF2: AOP05, AOP04.1, AOP04.2
• AF3: AOM19, AOM21, ATC12, FCM05
• AF4: FCM04, FCM05
• AF5: COM09, ITY-FMTP, FCM05, ITY-ADQ
• AF6: ITY-AGDL
Introduction
July 2014
PCP pre-requisites implementation
Inside this issue:
AF1 1
AF6 3
AF5 3
AF2 1
AF4 3
AF3 2
Progress of PCP at European level
1
PEPR flash
Data source
The main information sources
for the production of this anal-
ysis are the LSSIP State re-
ports. In order to ensure the
quality and consistency of
LSSIP information two data
assessments took place in
2013:
- LSSIP in-cycle review: ob-
jective coordinators perform
an assessment to make sure
that the content is clear, infor-
mation complete and guidance
for implementation progress
applied correctly
- ESSIP objective experts re-
view: before LSSIP reporting
is closed, the information was
sent to designated experts in
EUROCONTROL for assess-
ment. For each ESSIP objec-
tive there is a dedicated expert
in EUROCONTROL working
in the field covered by a spe-
cific objective. The purpose of
this check is to ensure the
consistency of reported infor-
mation with other data sources
in EUROCONTROL and to
challenge the States to report
consistently.
Page 2
PCP pre-requisites implementation
Progress of the PCP pre-requisites at European Level
AF1: Extended AMAN and PBN in high density TMAs
The implementation status for operations in European En-Route environments taking advantage of Basic AMAN operations
shows good progress. Where customer demands and operational needs exist and a business opportunity is demonstrated,
AMAN capabilities have generally been implemented. That situation should provide a robust foundation for AF1.
When it comes to the implementation of PBN/APV, most of the stakeholders report completion within the scheduled dead-
line.
AF2: Airport Integration and Throughput
The above reported implementation status for the ESSIP objectives related to CDM and A-SMGCS indicates that the timely
implementation of the AF2 functionalities may be exposed to a higher risk than identified in the PCP proposal; arising out
of the indication that stakeholders may not be able to provide the enabling system evolution on time. It should be noted that
delays in implementation A-SMGCS Level 1 could impact implementation of Level 2 functionality. The main problem is
the equipage of ground vehicles with transponders (see ESSIP report 2013 for detailed A-SMGCS progress assessment).
2012 2013 2014 2016 2020 2025RP1
C
RP2 RP3
ATC15
ATC07.1
NAV10
AOP04.1
AOP04.2
AOP05
AOM19
AOM21
ATC12
FCM04
FCM05
COM09
AGDL
FCM05
FMTP
FCM05
ADQ
F: Facilitator
P: Pre-requisite
EP: Essential pre-requisite
AF1.1
AF1.2
AF2.3
AF2.4
AF3.2
AF4.1
AF4.2
AF4.3
AF4.4
AF5
AF6
AF2.1
AF2.2
AF2.5
AF3.1
2015 2017 2018 2019 2021 2022 2023 2024 2026 2027
P
F
P
EP
EP
P
P
P
P
P
P
EP
P
P
P*
EP
F
* Intermediary actions not fulfilled
Progress according
to plan
Progress slower
then plan
Progress inconsistent
with plan
Implementation of Short Term ATFCM Measures per phase 1 concepts in the applicable area is
well underway. Likewise the LSSIP reporting indicates that the proliferation of concepts and
methods related to the interactive rolling NOP in the ECAC area is quite satisfactory.
The PCP proposal stipulates that operational stakeholders and the Network Manager shall oper-
ate Network Collaborative Management by 1 January 2022. The above implementation status
indicates that the prerequisites identified above should not hinder the realization of the deploy-
ment of AF4 according to the stipulated time schedule.
Page 3
PCP pre-requisites implementation
Close implementation
monitoring of the pre
-requisites with risk
of delay should be
ensured.
The ESSIP reporting indicates that the implementing States will implement the AOM19 capa-
bilities by the Full Operational Capability date. Concerning the new ESSIP objective AOM21
the implementation status and outlook is also positive so that the planned deployment status
will be achieved, to the full benefit of Airspace Users. Likewise, ANSPs indicate that re-
quired support tools per ATC12 will become available by end 2016. Summarised, the above
implementation status indicates that the mandatory implementation of the first element of
AF3 (direct routing provided in the ECAC area by 1 January 2018 as set forth in the PCP
proposal) should not be at risk due to these three prerequisites.
ESSIP objective COM09 covers the data connectivity requirements between ANSPs, the Net-
work Manager and the EAD. The implementation progress for the COM09 technical enabler for
SWIM is satisfactory. The support of IPv6 by 2014 would seem established, even if IPv6 based
services are not necessarily fully in operation due to time differences in the implementation of
ATM system adaptations to fully support and utilize the backbone infrastructure.
The PCP proposal stipulates that operational stakeholders and the Network Manager shall pro-
vide and operate the iSWIM as of 1 January 2025. In this context it is furthermore assumed that
European centres exhibiting “very high” and “high” capacity needs shall be connected to the
Pan-European Network Services (PENS) by that time. At this stage the infrastructure prerequi-
site measured through the implementation of COM09 is not a limiting factor for the realisation
of the iSWIM capabilities. Implementation issues related to FMTP and ADQ could potentially
appear as a limiting factor if not addressed timely.
The analysis work done by the Interim Deployment Steering Group identified the data link capa-
bility (Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 on data link services refers) as an essential pre-
requisite for this ATM functionality and the PCP proposal supports that view.
The implementation speed of the ITY-AGDL objective has been slower than assumed in the ES-
SIP Plan and recommendations were raised in the ESSIP Report 2012 to pinpoint the risks asso-
ciated with delayed and inconsistent implementation of this objective. In the context of timely
implementation of the PCP AF6 by 1 January 2025, that risk would appear manageable, as the
initial ATC air-ground data link capability is only one item in the larger collections of system
level elements that need to be in place in order to realise the trajectory information sharing.
There are risks of
delays in
implementation of
AF2 and AF6.
AF3: Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route
AF4: Network Collaborative Management
AF5: iSWIM
AF6: Initial Trajectory Information Sharing
EUROCONTROLEUROCONTROLEUROCONTROLEUROCONTROL
Pan Pan Pan Pan ---- European Planning European Planning European Planning European Planning
Monitoring and ReportingMonitoring and ReportingMonitoring and ReportingMonitoring and Reporting
This flash summary is prepared to highlight the most important findings of
the ESSIP Report for 2013 produced under T007 of the SESAR C.02. The
main goal is to emphasize all implementation issues that could hamper the
SESAR Deployment.
The intended readership of this document includes decision makers and
executives that need summarized facts and most important findings pre-
sented in a simple manner without going into detailed analysis.
For more information on the elements presented in this document, please
refer to the ESSIP Report for 2013.
PCP pre-requisites implementation
plementation progress reports. These are later con-
solidated on a European level so that the aviation
community can identify the gap between what is
needed at the European level and what can actually
be done at local and regional level to close that gap.
We make plans and write reports for the European
air traffic management community, so helping them
to plan and then to take corrective action.
The Single European Sky needs concrete implemen-
tation plans for Europe as a whole and these have to
be based on the European ATM Master Plan. Our
Yearly Deliverables are clearly linked with the Euro-
pean ATM Master Plan.
Once a European plan has been agreed to, local and
regional plans have to be drawn up. They will be
used by air navigation service providers, regulatory
authorities, the military, airports, airspace users, etc.
Individual stakeholders then compile their own im-