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