Expected Outcome:To significantly advance the following development actions:

IR-1-02 Development of FF-ICE, including FF-ICE pre-departure enhancement and FF-ICE/R2.IR-1-03 Advanced network trajectory synchronisation in the execution phase.IR-1-04: Connected and integrated flight management system (FMS), electronic flight bag (EFB) and flight operations centre (FOC) functionalities for trajectory optimisation.IR-1-05: Dynamic route availability document (RAD) towards a RAD by exception environment. Note that IR-1-01 is covered in WA 3 because ATC TBO R&I activities require the development of the next generation of ATS platforms.

This includes advancing the capabilities of the following systems:

Airborne systems: improved FMSs and EFBs.Ground systems: improved FOC/WOC, ATS and NM systems. Scope:The following list of R&I needs is proposed as an illustration of the potential project content, but it is not meant as prescriptive. Proposals may include other research elements beyond the proposed research elements below if they are justified by their contribution to achieve the expected outcomes of the topic and are fully aligned with... ver más

Expected Outcome:To significantly advance the following development actions:

IR-1-02 Development of FF-ICE, including FF-ICE pre-departure enhancement and FF-ICE/R2.IR-1-03 Advanced network trajectory synchronisation in the execution phase.IR-1-04: Connected and integrated flight management system (FMS), electronic flight bag (EFB) and flight operations centre (FOC) functionalities for trajectory optimisation.IR-1-05: Dynamic route availability document (RAD) towards a RAD by exception environment. Note that IR-1-01 is covered in WA 3 because ATC TBO R&I activities require the development of the next generation of ATS platforms.

This includes advancing the capabilities of the following systems:

Airborne systems: improved FMSs and EFBs.Ground systems: improved FOC/WOC, ATS and NM systems. Scope:The following list of R&I needs is proposed as an illustration of the potential project content, but it is not meant as prescriptive. Proposals may include other research elements beyond the proposed research elements below if they are justified by their contribution to achieve the expected outcomes of the topic and are fully aligned with the development priorities defined in the European ATM Master Plan.

TBO integration activities and global interoperability This element covers the TBO content integration activities across the programme, including development of the SESAR TBO concept of operations, integrating network, ATC and intra-European (regional) TBO processes, and update of the document based on R&I results (e.g., integration of the IR1 results after the projects conclude). The document must include a human-machine teaming annex describing the ATC TBO automation concepts and the evolution of the role of the human. The development of this annex requires close coordination with WA 3 projects.

At global level, this element covers the international coordination, including in particular support to the TBO related activities of the ICAO ATMRPP panel.

ANSP-triggered impact assessment This research element addresses the development of NM capabilities to respond to a request from the ATC ground system to probe in real-time what the impact on the network would be of an ATC clearance that deviated from the agreed trajectory as per the eFPL. It is a support feature that does not deliver clearances but supports the ATC system in the clearance delivery process. This is an extension of the NM network impact assessment (NIA) B2B service, which is already in place today to allow ANSPs to trigger a network impact assessment for a re-routing proposal (RRP) within a pre-defined RRP catalogue.

This element would benefit from NM-ANSP integrated validation activities addressing the full process from the NM side (covered in WA 1) and ANSP side (covered in WA 3).

Unconstrained desired trajectory (UDT) All TBO actors should aim at continuously optimising the trajectory. To do this, the FOC must ensure that the information of the optimum trajectory is made available to NM and the ANSPs, who will take it in consideration. However, the TBO Agreed trajectory represents the accepted flight plan to be taken as a reference for the flight, which often includes ATM constraints and therefore may not represent the trajectory the AU would desire.

The preliminary flight plan as per the FF-ICE/R1 planning services provides means to share a trajectory with fewer constraints before the submission of the flight plan. The objective of the preliminary flight plan is to support increased dynamicity in the application of constraints (e.g., preliminary flight plans could be used to get early information on traffic demand to assess which RAD measures are the best candidates for waving via the dynamic RAD concept). However, it is expected that the preliminary flight plan will still have some constraints (e.g., constraints that are considered by the AU not to be candidates for removal in the pre-departure phase). In contrast, the UDT should be completely unconstrainted.

The UDT and preliminary flight plan are compatible and complement each other. Even in the case of flights where the preliminary flight plan has a truly unconstrained trajectory that could be used as a reference for ATM on what the AU would like to fly at the time it was submitted, the preliminary flight plan may not continue to be a valid reference in case the desired trajectory changes due to a re-optimisation process[1] (e.g., winds different from forecast, turbulence, etc.), because the preliminary flight plan will remain frozen after there is an accepted FF-ICE flight plan.

The objective of the UDT is to provide a means for the completely unconstrained trajectory desired by the AU to always be available as a reference to ATM. This research element covers:

Extension of the eFPL to include the true desired trajectory (completely unconstrained) when the flight plan is filed before departure.The development of an FF-ICE/R2 precursor service to allow the FOC to submit to NM an updated UDT at any time, during the pre-departure or the post-departure phase. The research may investigate alternative means for the AU to provide the UDT in the planning phase and update it during the flight, e.g. the UDT could be provided though the EFB being directly connected to ATC using the applicable air/ground SWIM standard using the connected aircraft concepts.The use of the UDT by NM to improve the efficiency of the flight in planning and execution. In addition to supporting continuous optimisation concepts, the UDT is useful for post-operations performance assessment purposes. The development of performance metrics for assessing flight efficiency based on UDT is also in scope.

Note FF-ICE/R2 has not yet been defined by the ICAO ATM requirements and performance panel (ATMRPP). This element is considered an FF-ICE/R2 precursor. The output of the R&I will contribute to building the global concept.

This element would benefit from integrated validations including the NM and FOC prototypes (covered in WA 1) and the ANSP prototypes (covered in WA 3).

FF-ICE/R2 precursor for the revision of the agreed trajectory in strategic execution This research element aims at defining the operational processes, services, and systems to support strategic trajectory revisions in execution that can be initiated by either the flight operations centre (FOC), the Network Manager (NM), or local air traffic flow management (ATFM) units. The trajectory revision processes concerned by this element are changes to the trajectory where the point of deviation from the current flight plan is beyond the horizon of interest ATC. This process requires all actors concerned with the revision of the trajectory to have deployed the FF-ICE/R1 services. The solution will provide to airspace users flexibility to reoptimize the trajectories in execution and will increase the network manager trajectory through the anticipation of trajectory changes.

This element covers only the interaction between the FOC and the NM and the intra-European coordination between NM and the concerned ANSPs. It includes the collaborative process from the moment the revision is requested by the FOC, NM or ANSPs to the moment the trajectory is agreed, and the revised flight plan is sent to all concerned actors.

The research needs to establish how the new trajectory will be sent to the flight deck and how the flight crew will implement it; if the new agreed trajectory changes the 2D route of the aircraft, the change means the aircraft will fly a trajectory that is different from what was in the departure clearance (which included the original 2D route):

The departure clearance is not amended: in this case, the trajectory revision is sent to the flight deck via the dispatcher and either no clearance is delivered (safety case to be developed, e.g. based on comparing ground with air downlinked trajectory or with “check route” CPDLC FANS message where FANS is available) or each ATSU delivers a clearance for the portion of the trajectory within the AoR; orThe departure clearance is amended: in this case, the clearance for the new trajectory has to be transmitted by ATC using a downstream clearance. In this case, once the new trajectory is agreed by NM and the impacted local ATFM units and the FOC, NM should send a message to the ATSU currently in contact with the flight with the request for the clearance to be provided. This clearance amends the departure clearance. The planned validation activities must include the validation of the airborne aspects. For cases where the 2D trajectory changes, the validations must address how the new trajectory will be implemented in the navigation system and later flown by the flight crew through either live trials or high-fidelity cockpit simulators, based on one of the two options outlined above or on a different option to be described in the proposal.

This element would benefit from integrated validation covering the network aspects (covered in WA 1) and the ANSP aspects (covered in WA 3).

Note FF-ICE/R2 has not yet been defined by the air traffic management requirements and Performance Panel (ATMRPP). This FF-ICE/R2 precursor can be deployed before full FF-ICE/R1 is available. The end target FF/ICE/R2 process will require all actors concerned with the revision of the trajectory to have deployed the FF-ICE/R1 services. The output of the R&I will contribute to building the global concept. The project must plan adequate resources to contribute to the international coordination activities.

FF-ICE/R2 trajectory revision and/or update in execution for arrivals into Europe from non-FF-ICE areas (ASPs that are not eASPs) This research element allows flights arriving in Europe (potentially from non-FF-ICE areas) to benefit to use FF-ICE collaborative processes for the optimisation of the route in European airspace. The element considers the discontinuity in terms of which FF-ICE services are deployed in the ATSUs that the flight will fly through. The objective is to allow the process to take place even when not all the ANSPs between the current position of the aircraft and the point of deviation from the current trajectory are at the same level of FF-ICE deployment.

The research element addresses one or more of the following processes:

eFPL update initiated by the FOC to update the times in the flight plan during the execution phase before the flight enters European airspace. The objective is to provide the European network with a more accurate time for entry into the European area when the flight is still hours away from Europe.Modification of the 2D route in the eFPL for an airborne flight that is inbound the European airspace but has not yet the border of the initial flight plan processing system (IFPS) at the time the revision is made by the FOC. The objective is to allow as an example, a long or medium-haul flight departing from outside the European area and having been re-routed in flight will use this process to update the 2D route in the IFPS zone (IFPZ) hours before entering European airspace, providing NM a more accurate picture of the traffic demand. This is a revision process subject to approval via a trial-request process, but it contains an element (entry point into the IFPZ) that has been modified, so that the point of deviation from the original route is outside of the IFPZ due to the flight has been re-routed by a non-European ATM service provider (ASP). The entry point into the IFPZ would to some extent be a “fait accompli”, while the route in the IFPZ would be subject to approval by NM. Research aims at determining the boundary between revision and update needs. The research may also investigate the potential benefits of defining a similar process for departures from Europe with destinations out of the IFPZ.

This research element would benefit from simulations integrating airborne prototypes and NM prototypes.

Evolution of military flight planning The improved operational air traffic (iOAT) flight plan supports improved civil-military collaboration but is based on the FPL2012. The objective is to build on the iOAT flight plan to define a new FF-ICE-based flight plan and processes for mission trajectory management (including ARES CDM processes and the utilisation of features such as flexible parameters) that moves civil-military collaboration to the next level. The new format and processes should support dynamic coordination between military actors and local DAC actors, specifically national airspace management (ASM) and local air traffic flow & capacity management (ATFCM), throughout CDM on a single 4D Mission Trajectory data, but also provide means for collaboration when military needs do not allow sharing of full set of trajectory data.

Integration of flight operations centre (FOC), electronic flight bag (EFB), flight management system (FMS) and ATC platforms The main flight optimisation tool used by pilots today in the execution phase is the FMS, but emerging FOC/EFB applications are challenging this status quo. The development lifecycle of the FMS is slow in comparison, due to the strict software development conditions required by its flight path management capabilities. In contrast, FOC-EFB[2] tools can be rapidly developed, potentially including the use artificial intelligence (AI) tools whose certification for the FMS would be very challenging.

The EFB-optimised trajectories may include speeds different from those planned by the FMS, which need to be implemented by the pilot by overriding FMS speeds. In some cases, this is done by manual entry into the FMS, while in other cases the flight crew enters the optimised longitudinal or vertical speeds on the flight control unit (FCU) / mode control panel (MCP). The EFB may also recommend that descent start before or after the FMS TOD downlinked via ASD-C, which is the point ATC expects descent to start if the flight is cleared to “descend when ready” or “descend at own discretion”. The use of the EFB for flight optimisation by flying selected or manual instead of in managed mode reduces the predictability of the flight for the ATM system.

The objective of this concept element is to develop full FOC-EFB-FMS-ATM integration during the flight execution. This may include, for example:

The seamless integration in the FMS of optimisation constraints calculated by FOC-EFB tools[3]. The optimisation constraints will be considered by the FMS as long as they are consistent with the ATC constraints and ATM planning constraints. The element also includes support for flight crews to request an amendment of the ATC clearance where needed (e.g., if the FOC-speed is outside the +/- 5% from the flight plan speed, if they need to request a different flight level for the cruise, or a different rate of climb or descent, etc.) or a revision of the FF-ICE flight plan (in an FF-ICE/R2 revision process) if appropriate (strategic change to the trajectory in execution).The direct connection from the FOC or the EFB and ATC systems as an alternative way to route FMS trajectory information from the FMS to ATC systems, and potentially additional trajectory information elements, e.g. aircraft equipped with Revision A could downlink Revision B elements via the EFB. The FMS trajectory information could be transmitted from the FMS to the EFB or be calculated by the EFB through an FMS-twin service (hosted on-board at the EFB or on the ground at the FOC[4]). The FMS-twin could allow a more rapid implementation of new trajectory exchange messages than if an update of the FMS were required, e.g. new interrogation messages from ATM to the aircraft that are not in ATS B2 standards for ATM to interrogate the aircraft systems on how the trajectory would change under certain hypotheses. Research shall investigate the feasibility and acceptability of this solution. Please note that it is not foreseen that the ATC to EFB connection be used for the transmission of ATC clearances (i.e. routing of ADS-C information via the EFB to ATC is in scope, but routing of CPDLC messages through the EFB is out of scope).EFB/FOC developments to support the A/G exchanges between the FOC and the flight deck during the execution phase for both A/G FF-ICE/R2 negotiations for the update of the trajectory during the execution phase beyond the horizon of interest of ATC and A/G exchanges in support of the ATC TBO concepts. Note that trajectory optimisation tools at the FOC, the EFB or the FMS are covered in WA 5-3 “Environmentally driven trajectory planning”, while the integration of FOC-EFB-FMS is covered in this element. A key objective of this element is to avoid the increased use of advanced FOC-EFB trajectory optimisation tools results in a reduced use of FMS managed mode.

The EFB connection to ATC systems is expected to use the applicable air/ground SWIM standard. The research must investigate if the update of the standard currently under development (building on the work of MIAR SESAR solution 0335 “SWIM TI purple profile for air/ground safety-critical information sharing”) is appropriate to cover each of the use cases that are investigated, or a further update is needed.

Connected aircraft Network TBO (airline information services domain (AISD)) This element addresses the development of AISD flight-deck connectivity to support the connection from the flight deck to:

NM/local ATFM units, to participate in the FF-ICE/R2 trajectory negotiations (flight-deck acting as its own FOC) or trajectory negotiations.The FOC, in support of the TBO FOC trajectory negotiations (so the negotiation happens between the FOC and NM/local ATFM units): this element covers the FOC coordination with the flight deck).Increased dynamicity in the application of RAD/LoA constraints The objective of the research is to allow for increased dynamicity in the application of one-size-fits all constraints, be them pre-departure RAD measures (with or without a corresponding LoA) or LoA constraints without a corresponding RAD measure. This concept supports the evolution from the current paradigm or managing traffic flows to the tailored management of individual flights with the objective of increasing flight efficiency. This will pave the way for the target RAD by exception concept, where the RAD is reduced to a minimum, and the AU typically submit the flight plan with the unconstrained desired trajectory (UDT). In a RAD-by-exception environment, NM replies to the flight plan submission with the UDT with a proposed trajectory where the constraints that are strictly necessary have been applied, which the AU can either accept or make a counterproposal to.

The research should address the applicability of the increased dynamicity all along the trajectory lifecycle:

Automation support for the provision of the Preliminary flight plan (PFP) by AU and processing by NM and local ATFM units.In the pre-departure phase, up to 2-3 hours before departure, FMP automation tools should identify which RAD measures (with or without a corresponding LoA) could be waived based on the prediction of traffic demand developed by before flight plans are submitted combined with information on preliminary FF-ICE flight plans when available.Shortly before departure, when the demand is better known, automated tools could support the identification of individual flights with an already accepted flight plan that is subject to a RAD constraint for which the RAD constraint could be removed. In some cases, it may be possible to remove a RAD measure for a full traffic flow. The concerned AU would be informed of the improvement opportunity, and if interested they would revise the flight plan as per the FF-ICE processes.In the strategic execution phase, FMP automation should continuously look for RAD waving opportunities. When an opportunity is identified, the airline should be informed and if interested they should revise the flight plan as per the FF-ICE revision process.In the tactical execution phase, ATC automation should identify the individual trajectories or traffic flows for which RAD/LoA constraints could be waived, coordinate the new improved trajectory between ATC sectors or across ATSU borders (typically through an approval-request process) and deliver the ATC clearance to the aircraft. In some cases, a positive network impact assessment will be needed to ensure no negative downstream impact. The research may investigate whether this process could be reversed, at least for some routes, e.g. in the vertical dimension, even with a RAD or LoA measure in force, ATC does not issue the clearance for the constraint- for example an early descent to cross the border with the next ATSU or sector at or below a certain level – unless the ATC automation shows an alert requiring the clearance. The research may address concepts to increase the predictability for the AU of which RAD measures are likely to be applied, e.g. by providing a catalogue of conditions (times, days. MET conditions) in which the RAD measure is more likely to be applied (conditional RAD).

Note there is on-going research on PFP, LoA constraint management and dynamic RAD in the ongoing Network TBO and HERON projects.

Develop a digitalised letters of agreement (LoA) repository and their provision to NM In order to deploy the Network 4DT (4D Trajectory) CONOPS, the objective of the research is to create an interactive digitalised repository of LoAs to be embedded in the Network Manager (NM) systems in order to allow for an improved processing the submitted flight plans. Electronic copies of LoA shall be provided to the NM by ANSPs in the strategic phase and maintained as appropriate. For this purpose, NM needs to establish and closely follow-up the process of LoA provision, as well as the provision of subsequent amendments and modification. The LoA effect is implemented through the addition of 4D points to the list of ordered elements within the NM Trajectory. Digital LoAs will be shared with all relevant actors.

This research elements covers in particular the provision of LoAs to NM. NM needs to establish and closely follow-up the process of LoAs provision and as well as the provision of subsequent related amendments and modification.

Specific minimum requirements for this topic:

Integration of flight operations centre (FOC), electronic flight bag (EFB), flight management system (FMS) and ATC platforms: consortia for this topic shall:

Either include an established FOC system manufacturer or provide evidence that the consortium has the operational and technical capability to build the FOC prototypes required for the research at the required maturity level.Either include an established ATS system manufacturer or provide evidence that the consortium has the operational and technical capability to build the ATS system prototypes required for the research at the required maturity level.Either include an established FMS system manufacturer or provide evidence that the consortium has the operational and technical capability to build the FMS system prototypes required for the research at the required maturity level. [1] Note FF-ICE/R2 will allow the request for a revised trajectory but will not allow a change to the preliminary flight plan.

[2] EFB in this context refers to any COTS or purpose-built on-board computer without flight-path control capabilities that handles trajectory data either directly or through a connection to FOC computers. EFBs can be portable or permanently installed in the cockpit. In contrast, FMS is an on-board computer with flight path control capabilities.

[3] Optimisation parameters calculated by the EFB and entered in the FMS are referred to as optimisation constraints because they constrain the way the FMS can plan the flight path.

[4] Note that even if the FMS-twin located at the FOC, there is no plan for an extra connection from the FOC to ATC ground systems, and hence the connection from the FMS-twin to the ATM systems would have to be routed via the EFB.

ver menos