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