Post on 02-Apr-2021
Supporting
European
Aviation
2020 Local Single Sky
Implementation (LSSIP) event
20 October 2020
1
Supporting
European
Aviation
2020 LSSIP EventATM Master Plan Level 3 - Progress Report 2020
(reference year 2019)
Octavian Cioara – NMD/INF/PAS
Outline
3
• What’s new?
• Implementation Progress Report
• Structure
• Findings
• Can we/you make it any better?
• Questions
What’s new in the Report?
4
• Evolution, not Revolution!
• Alignment with the latest Executive View of the Master
Plan
• Structured on “Essential Operational Changes –
EOCs” instead of “Key Features – KF”
• Histogram showing distribution of the implementation
progress among States/Airports which have not yet
completed the implementation included in each DV
• Graphical representation of the completion rate as well as
of the average implementation progress at EOC level
including evolution since previous year
• New format for the completion rate evolution
• Newcomers in the Applicability Area (MA, IL + some
airports)
5
Structure (1/4)
• Stable over the last years
• Executive Summary
• The most important findings
• Overall progress including “best
performers”:
• objectives implemented by the highest number of States in 2019 compared to 2018
• Objectives having the highest completion rate (percentage of States/Airports within the applicability area which have finalised implementation)
• Most important implementation
evolutions per EOC
6
Structure (2/4)
• Synoptic View (the section formerly know n as Strategic View )
• General info
• Overall progress of implementation of SESAR Solutions
• Allocation of Implementation Objectives per EOC
• Per EOC (as defined in the MPL3 Executive
View 2020)
• Consolidated view of Objectives (per EOC) at the end of 2019 (and evolution compared to 2018)
• Plots showing the Completion Rate, as well as on the average progress among States/Airports which have not yet finalised the implementation. The evolution compared with the previous year is also shown in the same graph.
• Outlook of future implementation evolutions supported by a consolidated completion rate evolution
• Aggregated elements related to the progress of implementation of the SESAR Solutions not covered by implementation Objectives
7
Structure (3/4)
• Deployment View
• Detailed info at Objective level – main 2019 developments & implementation status
• Expected completion rate evolution (% of States that have completed the objective)
• Histogram showing the progress among States/Airports that have not yet completed the Objectives
• Performance expectations (from the MPL3 Plan)
• Map view of the implementation progress across the applicability area of the Objectives and changes to the applicability area since previous editions
• Lists of relevant references showing the multiple interdependencies affecting each individual Objective (e.g. related SESAR Solutions, PCP Sub-functionality, ICAO ASBU, OI Steps, NSP)
8
Structure (4/4)
• Annexes
• Consolidated mapping of Objectives to EOCs,
SESAR Solutions, DP families, ICAO ASBUs,
EASA’s EPAS, NSP, AAS TP and SESAR Key
Features
• Consolidated progress of implementation in
2019, status at the end of 2019 and estimated
achievement for all Objectives
• List of SESAR Solutions per EOC and
“committed/non-committed” status
• Acronyms
9
Overall findings (1/2)
• The implementation progress is steady, with advances in
implementation across all the ECAC area
• For 34 Objectives at least one State/Airport has finalised completion in
2019.
• Best performers in 2019 are:
• ITY-ACID (+7 States)
• COM12 (+6 States)
• ITY-AGVCS2, ATC15.1, AOM21.2, INF07 (+5 States)
• 12 Objectives have a completion rate (States having completed the
Objective within the applicability area) above 50%
• Top performers (cumulative progress) are:
• ITY-FMTP (77%)
• AOP04.1 (70%)
• SAF11, ATC02.9 (69%)
10
Overall findings (2/2)
• Of the 7 implementation Objectives expected to be completed in 2019,
none has been achieved
• Currently 18 Objectives are late (the agreed FOC date has passed but
the implementation has been completed by less than 80% of the States in
the applicability area)
• Other 8 Objectives are not yet late but based on the current
implementation status and the closeness of their respective FOCs, they
are either at risk of delay or delays in implementation are already planned
• For 9 Objectives the current information does not allow a reliable
estimation of the expected achievement date (e.g. too many “Not Yet
Planned”).
• 11 Objectives expected to be completed in 2020 , but… COVID…
11
Findings per EOC
• CNS Infrastructure and Services
• Even if “Late” (almost) all Objectives show progress.
• Many assignments (5700/9500) have already been
converted to 8.33 kHz (source: EUROCONTROL 8.33
KHz Implementation Support Group)
• ASP SLoAs of ITY-SPI (safety and interoperability) are
almost completed
• The risk of delay of ITY-ACID has been confirmed but
the deployment of infrastructure is progressing
• Substantial regress for NAV10, because of the PBN IR
(many stakeholders have reopened the previously
completed Objective in order to address the
development of a Transition Plan)
12
Findings per EOC
• ATM Interconnected Network
• EOC focused on the integration between the
operational stakeholders and the NM in the process
of flow and capacity management.
• Mixed level of progress
• More and more smaller airports integrated in the
Network (AOP17 on provision of departure planning
info to NM)
• Good progress of NewPENS (6 States finalised
implementation)
• Objective FCM08 on EFPL, deleted, to be replaced in
due time by ICAOs FF-ICE
• FCM03 – clarification in the User Manual on ASP06
expected to unblock implementation
13
Findings per EOC
• Digital AIM and MET services
• Both Objectives are “Late” but individual
progress needs to be recognised
• Objectives are extremely complex, involving a
multitude of stakeholders (including from outside
the ATM “world”)
• Some SLoAs on the critical path for ADQ
compliance (e.g. establishment of formal
arrangements) show good progress – 20 ANSPs
have “completed” that SLoA
• Still, complete implementation of the Objectives
is not foreseen in the near future
14
Findings per EOC
• Virtualisation of service provision
• One Objective grouping 4 SESAR Solutions:
• Single RTWR operations for medium traffic volumes
• Remotely provided ATS for contingency situations at aerodromes
• Remote TWR for 2 low density aerodromes
• ATC and AFIS service in a single low density aerodrome from a remote CWP
• Objective implemented in 4 locations
• Almost 450% increase expected by 2022
15
Findings per EOC
• Airport and TMA performance
• Very heterogeneous EOC – 17 Objectives –
difficult to aggregate…
• Substantial reduction of the NAV03.1 completion
rate because of the need to develop a transition
plan (required by the PBN IR)
• Good CCO progress (9 airports completed)
• Applicability area of AOP04.1/04.2 (A-SMGCS
L1 & L2) keeps growing
• Mitigated interest in the new AOP local
objectives
16
Findings per EOC
• Fully dynamic and optimized airspace
• EOC about airspace management, Free Route,
AMAN extension and controller tools
• Good progress of Free Route deployment with
more and more cross-border implementations
• 15 States have deployed LARA (Local and sub-
Regional ASM Support System)
• 5 States have finalised the extension of AMAN to
En-route (ATC15.1) in 2019
• ITY-FMTP slowly approaching completion.
• Growing interest in the deployment of Multi –
Sector Planner (5 implementations planned by
2021)
17
Findings per EOC
• Trajectory Based Operations
• Deployment of Safety Nets (in particular STCA)
• Good progress for all SNETs:
• Area Proximity Warning is virtually achieved (84% completion)
• Minimum Safe Altitude Warning reached 72% completion
• Approach Path Monitor – 57%
• Most TMAs have STCA using the en-route
(linear) algorithm
• Multihypothesis algorithm only of interest to few
very complex TMAs
• STCA enhanced with DAPs already operational
in 10 States
18
Findings per EOC
• Multimodal Mobility and Integration of all
Airspace Users
• Covered by only one Objective (IFR routes
for rotorcraft operations)
• Objective changed from “Local” in the light
of the PBN IR (e.g. development of the
Transition Plan)
• Reduction in the Completion Rate
• Quite low interest in deployment (9
States/Ongoing and 2 States/Planned) –
lack of ops/business needs
19
Can we do better?
• YES, WE CAN! But not without YOU!
• Be as precise and complete as possible
• Be consistent
• Improve planning reliability
• Check all Objectives, including those which used to be N/A in the
previous cycles
• Do not abuse the “NYP” status (sometimes it is used instead of N/A).
The two statuses are treated differently by the analytical tools!
• Do not remove info from the DB once the Objectives are completed
(e.g. dates)
• Provide info at all levels, down to checkpoints
• When doubts, ask your CP! We’re here to help
• We’ll try to have a look at the post-implementation performance benefits
20
Can you do better?
• Review all objectives! Including the N/A of previous years. Sometimes the obj
change (e.g ATC02.9, no reference to “enhanced” anymore). Or local conditions
change! Or the scope is enlarged… so the Objective may become relevant!
21
Can you do better?
• Check consistency at all levels!
22
Can you do better?
• Check consistency at all levels!
23
Can you do better?
• Check consistency with the scope of the Objective!
• ITY-AGDL Initial ATC Air-Ground Data Link Services
above FL 295
24
Can you do better?
• Improve consistency among stakeholders
25
Can you do better?
• EU States cannot opt-out from the implementation of objectives derived
from EU legislation!
• E.g. FCM06 Traffic Complexity Assessment
• State X is an EU member State so shall implement all applicable EU legislation
26
Can you do better?
• Justify the N/A for the local objectives. They do not have a predefined
applicability area!
27
Can you do better?
• Don’t use NYP in place of N/A! The two statuses are treated differently by the
analytical tools (NYPs are considered within the applicability area)!• NYP to be used when:
• The Stakeholder has not yet defined a project management/implementation plan but has the
intention to implement it for the next year or
• The Stakeholder cannot develop a project management/Implementation plan due to (local/national)
austerity measures, but has the general intention to implement it or
• The Stakeholder is in the scoping phase where he is developing a feasibility study including a cost
benefit analysis etc. and hence has not yet finally decided.
• For any case, all relevant information must be explained.
Questions?
Thank you for your attention
28