NEFAB Project Initiative 9 Commonality of CNS/ATM Systems

NEFAB Project Initiative 9 Commonality of CNS/ATM Systems Page 1 of 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE... 4 3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE... 5 4. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT STATE... 6 4.1 Agreements and Regulatory Issues 6 4.2 Structural and Organisational Issues 6 4.3 Human Resources 7 4.4 Infrastructure Status 8 4.5 ATM/ATC Technology 9 5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT... 10 5.1 Baseline Assumptions 10 5.2 CNS-ATM infrastructure 10 6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT... 12 6.1 Minimum Scenario 12 6.2 Performance Scenario 12 7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS... 14 7.1 Expected Benefits of the Minimum Scenario, 2020 14 7.2 Expected Benefits of the Performance Scenario, 2020 15 8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION... 17 8.1 Preconditions and Assumptions 17 8.2 High level Implementation Activities 17 8.3 Implementation Cost for the Minimum Scenario, 2020 18 8.4 Implementation Cost for the Performance Scenario, 2020 18 9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION... 19 10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS... 20 Page 2 of 20

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The initiative explores and describes the possibilities that common system and infrastructure between the involved ANSPs would bring. The initiative is interdependent with initiatives 1, 3 and 4, and gives a joint estimated evaluation on the reduced costs for cooperation, especially for the core ATM systems. To be able to support the Operational Concept a coordinated framework is required. The initiative investigates and evaluates potential benefits and costs related to investments in ATM and CNS systems. This initiative focuses on coordinated planning and investment planning for cooperative use of a common system and functionality. More effective use of staff as a result of increased commonality is accounted for in the initiative Common System Maintenance (Initiative 11) and initiative Supervision and monitoring of CNS infrastructure (Initiative 8). The initiative is depending on initiative Joint procurement (Initiative 12) and Joint evaluation of Technology within CNS and ATM (Initiative 10). The Minimum Scenario is based on what current systems shall do to support a static re-sectorisation as described in Initiative 3. The Performance Scenario introduces the concept of dynamic airspace configurations enabled by enhanced ATM infrastructure. Therefore the enablers for the Performance Scenario 2020 are to a large extent technological in nature. Dynamic cross-border sectors, both in the en-route environment and with regard to TMAs require: Advanced system support to manage the dynamic airspace configurations; Advanced system support to manage the airspace configurations between systems and to provide the ATCOs with safety nets and traffic/conflict management tools in an inherently complex operational environment; Advanced CDM processes and SWIM-enabled information sharing to ensure sufficient lead times and proactive management of the airspace configurations and the regional network. The initiative mainly enables the reduction in investment and maintenance costs through commonly used functionality, systems and infrastructure. Implementing a FAB that requires the cooperation of 5 different countries entails many risks to consider. This report identifies the expected implementation risks, which include political, technological and social factors. Page 3 of 20

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE The initiative deals with the opportunities provided in the complete system chain, from specification to decommissioning of systems and infrastructure. Benefits can be realised for each ANSPs if common/similar equipment is implemented and used throughout NEFAB. It is essential to reach the harmonised functionality within NEFAB. This initiative, if realised, goes well beyond the 2020 milestone, since it depends on the life time of the existing infrastructure, together with the plans for the future. At the same time it meets the requirements from operational service provision and airspace design. Out of Scope Support systems used for the provision of AIM, ATS and CNS services that are not directly required for performing the operational service are left out of the current study. For example the following can be mentioned: Billing systems and other external systems that only rely on information from ATS systems to be able to produce non-ats services; TWR and APP systems outside of ATCC, primarily providing approach control services; MET and other airport related systems. Page 4 of 20

3. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF THE INITIATIVE The purpose of the initiative is to decrease the fragmentation of current system services in support of operational functionality used within NEFAB. The effectiveness and efficiency of the technical support services for the different ATM services will increase. These improvements in turn facilitate reduced costs for the ANSPs, which can then be passed on to the customer in the form of lower en-route charges. Advantages of cooperation: Common procurement of systems provided that time and investments permit this. Common procurement is considered to increase bargaining power with the potential of achieving improved contract conditions. The joint procurement is handled separately in the Initiative 12; Reduction of validation activities as a consequence of less variation of and fewer systems; Internal NEFAB sharing of system specialists leading to a reduction of duplicated effort; Sharing of CNS Services in cross-border areas. This can improve safety and the ability to handle contingency situations. It should also be possible to achieve benefits by reducing the total need for infrastructure required in support of ATS Routes and Sectorisation; The management and logistics in relation to spare parts could be more efficient; The necessary support contracts with suppliers can be negotiated with higher volumes, leading to lower costs; System development of common functionality as per Initiatives 3 and 4, can be planned and developed jointly, leading to a reduction on investment costs and plans. Page 5 of 20

4. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT STATE Note that the rest of this chapter is to a large extent reused from the NETECH 1-3 report. Some progress has been done in the quick wins area. Each ANSP has provided and presented their existing CNS infrastructure, inventory of surveillance sensors are finished already. The feasibility report focuses on areas where opportunities for cooperation can be found and it highlights the variations in infrastructure. 4.1 Agreements and Regulatory Issues 4.1.1 Agreements between ANSPs Different types of agreements exist today for different types of services, such as: Letters Of Agreement for OLDI; Radar data sharing agreements; Data COMmunication (Nordic ring); Voice Communication System services. 4.1.2 Relations with Regulators Currently, similar processes for achieving technical and operational approval from regulatory units are used. However there are variations in how deep and in which way the regulators are involved in the safety approval. There are also differences in the requirements from the regulators. This is further described in Initiative 13. 4.2 Structural and Organisational Issues Currently, ownership related to existing systems and infrastructure differs. Some ANSP have divided their system ownership into en-route (ANSP) and TWR (Airport) owned ATM infrastructure. This needs to be accounted for and raised in the future organisation. 4.2.1 Change Management and Investment Planning The investment process is varying by each ANSP. It must be clarified how the process is done and how far future investment planning could be streamlined. The increased pressure within the Airspace community from airspace users to reduce investment costs and en-route charges gives raise to further cooperation and initiatives. Page 6 of 20

4.2.2 5 Years Investment Plan No synchronization of the contents in the five years investment plans is in place currently. Early cooperation and planning are needed to make sure that areas for improvements and reduced costs are pinpointed. It is important to ensure that planning is coordinated to reach appropriate timely investments required to get maximal benefits from the cooperation. 4.3 Human Resources 4.3.1 Competence Level and Skills Preliminary analysis shows that the available technical personnel for performing this initiative tasks is in the same competence level: According to the existing practice of concerned ANSPs the qualification skills for an ATSEP should be high school or University degree with general focus on electronics, telecommunication or IT, if no other specific qualification exists; Basic training is mostly performed in house; For qualification training of system engineers in level 1, most of the training is performed in house. For level 2, EUROCONTROL - IANS is mostly used for ATS related training; System training is acquired during system implementation; Equipment rating and competency review is done by appointed managers and specialists when applicant has passed required trainings and has shown maturity of practical competency; Some ANSPs (Avinor) use tests also for renewal of certification, while the rest do a personal judgement based on the work performed by the individual engineer. Page 7 of 20

4.4 Infrastructure Status Within NEFAB similar kinds of infrastructure exist. Status for current systems is included in the table below. The following Clauses 4.4.1 4.5.1 contain an overview of the submitted by ANSPs data, including both current Infrastructure/Systems and trends for the further upgrade/development. Country COM NAV SUR Other Norway Avi-COM-V0[1].2.pdf Avi-nav-v 02.pdf Avi - SUR v-0,2.pdf Estonia EANS_CNS-status_2 008.pdf Finland FINAVIA_NEAP-TEC H 1-3.pdf Latvia LGS equipment.pdf 4.4.1 Communication (Com) In the short term there is no foreseeable change in the use of the common protocols for voice communication. As backup, the use of connection via PABX/PSTN is a common method. On the G-G communication side, the infrastructure varies between leased lines/tdmnetworks and IP-networks. Most of the providers are evaluating rationality of use of the PENS and EUROCAE work on common requirements for VoIP G/G, A/G. A common view for the future is replacement of X.25 connections, implementation of AMHS and A-G Datalink. Page 8 of 20

4.4.2 Navigation (Nav) In the short term any drastic changes in the NAV area regarding the ground infrastructure is not foreseen. The continuous use of DME and ILS is required, which are deemed to live for quite some time. However it is clear that the aircraft performance and procedures is pointing towards implementation of PRNAV, PBN. ANSPs have started implementing of GNSS based procedures. 4.4.3 Surveillance (Sur) Each ANSP bases their operational service on MSSR. Some have begun to have Mode S capable radars. Focus on supporting the SPI (Surveillance Performance Interoperability) and ACID (Aircraft Identification) Implementing Rules based on radar, WAM and ADS-B are currently on-going. The most cost effective system seems to be Wide Area Multilateration, which provides both Mode-S and ADS-B service to core ATM system. Due to individual Surveillance strategies, within the NEFAB region, not every ANSP has chosen the technology already. 4.5 ATM/ATC Technology 4.5.1 ATM EANS and Finavia primarily use various versions of Thales Eurocat and they are in process in aligning their systems. This cooperation gives a good base for future system requirements. Cobham RDS 1600 is used as a fallback system by EANS. Finavia uses Thales MUST as primary, and Thales RFB as fallback. Planning for migration to ARTAS in 2011 is on-going. Avinor uses a version of Raytheon/Indra Autotrack based on mosaic, without multi radar tracker. The ARTAS tracker is planned to be used from 2011. Avinor has started the work on a strategy for how they will go to the next generation of ATM systems. Avinor uses RAADS, which is the same, but developed by Avinor, who has given TERMA the rights to the system. LGS uses modern ATC System (ATRACC) manufactured by SiATM, Sweden which provides full set of advanced ATC functionality and supports multi-radar and multisensor tracking (radar + multilateration data). Page 9 of 20

5. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Baseline Assumptions The overlaying issues described in para from 4.1 to 4.3, have to be solved when NEFAB is established. It is assumed that each of the involved ANSPs will fulfil the legal requirements put on them through different regulations from the ICAO, European Commission, EASA and other legislating organisations. It is also assumed that each of the ANSPs will individually meet the SESAR IP 1 and ESSIP requirements. 5.2 CNS-ATM infrastructure The existing on-going development mainly refers to system changes due to fulfilment of ICAO requirements, ESSIP, European regulations and SESAR IP1 requirements. This is including: Coordination and Transfer: In this area there are two different requirements setting the scene for 2015. These are: ITY-COTR, which is based on the European Regulation 1032/2006, supports the automated coordination and transfer functionality between air traffic control units; ITY-FMTP, which is based on the European regulation 633/2007, supports a Flight Message Transfer Protocol for information exchange between flight data processing systems for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between air traffic control units and for the purposes of civilmilitary coordination, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006. Safety Nets: 1 All of the involved ANSPs have already implemented or have plans on implementing the requested functionality in ESSIP: ATC02.2, ATC02.5, ATC02.6, ATC2.7 and ATC12. This includes automated support for STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert), APW (Area Proximity Warning), MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) and to some extent also APM (Approach Path Monitor). Arrival Management (AMAN): In the ESSIP ATC07.1 basic AMAN functionality is required. This is already in place for the airports that has such a need. It s likely to believe that within NEFAB by 2015 further improvements towards a more advanced AMAN can exist 1 This is not exhaustive list of requirements Page 10 of 20

Air Ground Datalink: ITY-AGDL, which is based on European Regulation 29/2009, supports the interoperable implementation of the first set of en-route non-time critical air ground data link services DLIC, ACL, ACM and AMC. Ground Ground communication: As an example the Nordic ring is a first very good initiative and the extension of it has to be encouraged and further developed. Currently each ANSP is planning towards an IP based data communication network. Finavia and Avinor have signed an agreement with EUROCONTROL towards PENS (Pan European Network Service). Another current area within the Communication domain which could be worthy of extra attention is the common cooperation towards use of a central AMHS service provision implementation. The work is on-going and a decision is anticipated in 2011. In addition to the above mentioned requirements, there are some that are mainly affecting systems only and not directly the operational side. This is mainly communication issues (AFTN/CIDIN -> AMHS, ATS-Qsig, X.25 -> IP, voice spacing above FL 195) and issues related to training for non-atco safety related personnel. Surveillance: The two existing ESSIP SUR02 and SUR04 regarding elementary and enhanced Mode S functionality are not directly applicable to the NEFAB area. Although all of the ANSPs are working towards this and by 2015 it is likely that there will be Mode S information available to the controllers in the larger part of the area. In support of Implementing Rule on Surveillance Performance Interoperability and Aircraft Identification, Mode S service is mandated throughout Europe by 2020, at the latest. The technology to be used between WAM, radar and ADS-B is still open and could be discussed. Environmental: The ENV01 requests implementation of Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) techniques for environmental improvements. This is continuously on-going all over the FAB and by 2015 it will be a natural part when designing the approach airspace and the required infrastructure. Navigation: ESSIPS- NAV03, NAV06 and NAV07 navigation is based on satellite navigation and less ground based navigation. This is well developed within the NEFAB area, the dismounting of older navigation equipment is on-going and DME implementation as navigation backup is almost done. Page 11 of 20

6. FUTURE SERVICE CONCEPT The NEFAB initiative is built around a vision or concept of how Commonality of CNS/ATM systems can be achieved in a future ATM environment considering such things as systems development and limitations, harmonisation issue, as well as regulatory and political issues. The future service concept explains what the NEFAB project hopes to achieve by 2020 under both the Minimum and Performance Scenarios. For both scenarios it is important to understand that as long as there are many different NEFAB members, there will be a variation between the level of commonality, due to different operational prerequisites, existing infrastructure and timing for replacement/new investments. 6.1 Minimum Scenario In the minimum scenario a reduction of system types and streamlining of technology/systems used such as ARTAS, WAM, and DME is taking place. Common specifications of new features are developed for CNS/ATM systems according to the requirements from operational service provision and airspace design. Where appropriate and necessary, common/joint procurement is initiated (Initiative 12). As a minimum scenario, benefits are realised in cooperation and coordination of activities relating to: Common/Joint specifications are to be developed and for procurement to be handled by each ANSP individually or in group when it is feasible; Description of the difference between what is available today and where over coverage or gaps exist; Clear NEFAB guidelines regarding sharing of information, use of resources etc.; Joint evaluation of the NEFAB perspective is initiated when each individual ANSP is buying new infrastructure. 6.2 Performance Scenario In the performance scenario centralised systems, providing uniform functionality within the FAB, are utilised, thus increasing data quality and information flow, supporting a higher need for consolidated data packages. Within the performance scenario, dynamic sectorisation and management has been implemented, but is not in full operational use, supporting central Air Traffic Management for the future. The Performance Scenario for 2020 represents a major conceptual change to the Minimum Scenario 2020. It introduces the concept of dynamic airspace configurations, enabled by enhanced ATM infrastructure. Therefore the enablers for the Performance Scenario 2020 are to a large extent technological in nature. Page 12 of 20

Dynamic cross-border sectors (both in the en-route environment and with regard to TMAs) require: Advanced system support to manage the dynamic airspace configurations; Advanced system support to manage the airspace configurations between systems and to provide the ATCOs with safety nets and traffic/conflict management tools in an inherently complex operational environment; Advanced CDM processes and SWIM-enabled information sharing, to ensure sufficient lead times, and proactive management, of the airspace configurations and the network managed within; Advance support to flow management. To reach the high degree of services to support the Dynamic cross-border sectors, NEAP guidelines exist and are enforced for common use of CNS infrastructure and ATM functionality. Full support and strong leadership is required to attain: Central core ATM system functionality and services supporting the NEFAB area with a standardised interface; A clear understanding how cross-border investments are funded and shared both initially and over time in support of the requirements set forth to support an effective and improved use of the NEFAB airspace; Service Lifecycle process according to Best Practice for all work with the common infrastructure must be established. Special attention shall be paid to change- and release management. Page 13 of 20

7. DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED BENEFITS The underlying driver for the creation of the NEFAB is the requirement to provide a more efficient ATM. In order to determine improvements attributable to NEFAB the following Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are used: Capacity Cost efficiency Safety Environment The initiative is considered to support 3 out of 9 SES FAB requirements, those being: Be justified by their overall added value, including optimal use of technical and human resources; Ensure a fluent and flexible transfer of responsibility for air traffic control; Facilitate consistency with Community-wide performance targets. This chapter describes the expected benefits that service providers can expect as a result of the formation of the NEFAB in terms of the KPAs. 7.1 Expected Benefits of the Minimum Scenario, 2020 7.1.1 Capacity Increased capacity of the systems enables to cope more easily with traffic increase and assistance in handling of traffic in contingency situation at border areas. 7.1.2 Cost Efficiency Enables retro savings due to limiting/reducing technical over coverage. Enables closure or re-usage in other areas; Savings in man time for each ANSP in production of each common specification; Reduces investments/yearly costs due to a reduced need for radars, DMEs etc.; Mitigates the risk of additional infrastructure due to cross-border sectors. Eliminates discussions on lower level in each individual case; Will make sure no possibilities for coordination are lost. Page 14 of 20

Following table gives some example of quick wins in next 2-3years: Area Reduction of radars due to over coverage Common implementation of new SUR technology Enhanced Data link implementation base on one data link network in the NEFAB area AMHS Potential savings from not having a server in each country Benefit Reduction in running cost Reduction in investments Reduction in investments, running cost and implementation efforts Reduction in staffing and service cost 7.1.3 Safety No direct impact. The cost efficiency has to be gained without any safety implication. 7.1.1 Environment Less equipment due to the harmonisations leads to the decreased use of natural recourses (materials, power etc.). 7.1.2 Enabler Natural sharing of know-how between involved specialists; Streamlines CNS infrastructure and ATM tools and interoperability over time, and thereby enables further cooperation; Enables all the possibilities that occur later in the system chain, for example production of common specifications, common maintenance, common/joint procurement and harmonised supervision of central systems, accounted other technical initiatives. 7.2 Expected Benefits of the Performance Scenario, 2020 7.2.1 Cost Efficiency Cost savings due to more efficient use of infrastructure Cost savings due to central core ATM systems Page 15 of 20

Coordination makes sure that all cross-border investments are optimised in implementing schedule. 7.2.2 Environment Less equipment due to the harmonisations leads to the decreased use of natural recourses (materials, power etc.). 7.2.3 Enabler Natural sharing of know-how between involved specialists Streamlines CNS infrastructure and ATM tools and interoperability over time, and thereby enables further cooperation Enables all the possibilities that occur later in the system chain, for example production of common specifications, common maintenance, common/joint procurement and central Helpdesk service, accounted other technical initiatives. Page 16 of 20

8. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR BENEFIT REALISATION 8.1 Preconditions and Assumptions The investments and associated costs for achieving the benefits are as today. No extra costs are needed to achieve the benefits. IP 1 and ESSIP implementations done according to plans and requirements; It is with high importance to bring the systems harmonisation and investments planning to the NEAP level as much as possible, the winnings are much higher within bigger area; Since the systems harmonisation needs lot of cooperation and coordination work, well working governance shall be in arranged. 8.2 High level Implementation Activities Implementation activities are following: Setting up NEFAB technical governance structure responsible for: o supporting implementation of NEFAB Operational Concept, Airspace design, Service and Management; o analysing the differences between existing and required CNS infrastructure; o o o o analysing the potentials for common use of existing CNS infrastructure; creation of NEFAB wide strategies, common specifications, SLAs and other technical documentation; investments plans alignment work; identification and prioritisation of potential areas for commonality of CNS/ATM systems for long perspective. Creation of common set of guidelines about common usage of infrastructure, both existing and new one, recourse and information sharing; Co-ordination of activities on NEAP level. 8.2.1 Activities Related to Minimum Scenario, 2020 Following are the specific system level activities necessary to bring this initiative into life: Main task is to perform reassessment of the differences between what is available today and where over coverage or gaps exist; Page 17 of 20

Preparation of plan for cross-border sectorisation implementation in cooperation with operational specialists; Development of common or joint (in some new areas) specifications when feasible; Joint evaluation from the NEFAB perspective is initiated when each individual ANSP is buying new infrastructure. 8.2.2 Activities Related to Performance Scenario, 2020 Following are the concrete system level activities necessary to bring this initiative in life: Advanced system support to manage the dynamic airspace configurations; Advanced system support to manage the airspace configurations between systems and to provide the ATCOs with safety nets and traffic/conflict management tools in an inherently complex operational environment; Advanced CDM processes and SWIM-enabled information sharing; Work on creation of common infrastructure according to the strategies and in conjunction with other technical initiatives. 8.3 Implementation Cost for the Minimum Scenario, 2020 Some costs related to the team work are required. Size of the investments is mainly the recourses already planned by each ANSP, some reduction can be found if some commonality is applied (size depends from the individual project CBA). 8.4 Implementation Cost for the Performance Scenario, 2020 Some costs related to the team work are required. Investment plans will be revised and harmonised according to the approved common strategies and specifications, the CBAs shall be performed. Page 18 of 20

9. HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE FOR REALISATION High level roadmap Start date Duration 1. NEFAB guidelines for common use of CNS infrastructure. 2012 1 year 2. GAP analysis: Operational requirements compared to existing infrastructure. 2011-2012 2 years 3. Identify potential areas for common use of existing CNS infrastructure. 2011 2012 (ongoing) 2 years 4. Identify and prioritise potential areas for commonality of future CNS/ATM systems. 2012 1 year 5. Establishment of NEFAB technical governance structure. 2011 3 months 6. Plan to support new airspace design and static re-sectorisation, using current system functionality. 2013 2 years 7. Creation of common strategies for technical domains. 2013 2 years 8. Project established to support Dynamic Cross-border sectorisation. 2015+ By 2017 pre tactical operational support is given By 2020 full Operational Tactical support is established and operational Page 19 of 20

10. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS Risk Description Probability Impact Missing commitment due to the level of independency each ANSP want to keep Commercial interests from states or other might prohibit the sharing of information required H L H L-M Lack of harmonised strategies/plans M H A common set of guidelines are neither established nor mature enough Operational concept (initiatives 1, 3 and 4) not fully developed; systems requirements unclear Missing or weak coordination of infrastructure development with NEAP members M L M H H L-M Slow decision process H M Underestimating the complexity in terms of system interdependencies and system interfaces M M Common rules from regulators not achieved L M Organisational changes and cultural difference and differences in size of the organisation Lack of internal resources / delivery capacity to deliver according to schedule Risk of loosing the local content while developing the Common Specification. This might result either in the overloaded or poor delivery for individual ANSP, which turns out in non-customer-tailored functionality and financial loses M H M M M M Page 20 of 20