draft concept of operations conops for cs 1 fas n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for CS#1- FAS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for CS#1- FAS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 18
Download Presentation

Draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for CS#1- FAS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

inari
93 Views
Download Presentation

Draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for CS#1- FAS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for CS#1- FAS Centralised service on Flight Plan and Airport Slot Consistency (FAS) Matthis Birenheide Project Manager FAS 11 October 2013

  2. Flight Plan and Airport Slot Consistency Service - FAS CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  3. FAS context • Today, 97 airports are coordinated in EUROCONTROL Member States covering between 85% to 95% of all traffic • Coordination means more demand than capacity • Airport slots are allocated by independent Coordinators to balance agreed capacity and demand • Planning is not normally taken into account in flow management • The airport slot is not referenced in the flight plan • Flow managers and ATC do not take the agreed airport slots into account • The consequence is unexpected over-demand leading to: • ATFM regulations • Delay for a number of flights over a certain period instead only to the flight that creates the problem • Less predictability in the system FAS – Flight Plan and Airport Slot Consistency Service

  4. Scope of the FAS • The service will be proposed for all EUROCONTROL Member States • 40 Member States as from 2014 • Currently 21 States have at least one coordinated airport • The role and responsibilities of Airport Coordinators remain unchanged • The responsibilities of Member States remain unchanged • Responsibility for the Flight Plan remains unchanged with the Airspace Users CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  5. Proposed level of service • Warning messages will be issued if no or an incorrect airport slot (e.g. off-slot or syntax error) are identified • No general rejection of flight plans, unless a Member State specifically requests it and mandates the Agency accordingly CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  6. Components of the FAS (1) • A central and dynamic database will be established within the service • Storage of the airport slot information for the matching process • Providing slot information for statistics • Coordinators will feed this database with all relevant information on airport slots allocated and any changes thereto • Coordinators will be required to enable their local systems providing live updates on all changes CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  7. Components of the FAS (2) • A matching service will be developed • Requires algorithms to match flight plan data with airport slot information • High accuracy level envisaged CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  8. Components of the FAS (3) • The Initial integrated Flight Planning System (IFPS) will be upgraded to: • Feed the matching service with required flight plan data • Issue warning messages to airspace users triggered by the matching service, copy to Coordinators and Airports (A-CDM systems) • Reject flight plans where a Member States specifically requests this and mandates the Agency accordingly (no manual suspensions or rejections are foreseen due to high workload) CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  9. Components of the FAS (4) • A post-operations statistical function will be developed within the FAS and will: • Be fed with the matching history, and • Be fed by the NM data warehouse information on e.g. ATFM regulations applied • Provide initial information on potential violations CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  10. FAS information flows CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  11. Roles and responsibilities (1) • Member States will have to ensure that: • Coordinators are connected to the FAS • BA/GA traffic is included in the slot allocation, where this is not the case • Inform the NM if they wish to exercise their right to reject flight plans and mandate the NM accordingly CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  12. Roles and responsibilities (2) • Airport Coordinators will have to: • Enable their local allocation systems to provide live information on any slot allocation and changes thereto • Provide the detailed national allocation schemes for developing the correct algorithms • Inform on cases where an airport slot ID is used at national level and for which kind of traffic • Provide the local slot tolerances for post-operations statistics • Ensure that slot allocation performed during out-of-office hours will be input in their local systems immediately CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  13. Roles and responsibilities (2) • The Network Manager (NM) will: • Enable its systems to provide all required flight plan data for the matching process • Enable its systems to hold flight plans until the matching result is provided from the FAS (within reasonable time limits) • Enable its systems to issue warning messages to airspace users and Airport Coordinators • Enable its systems to reject flight plans in case a Member State wishes to exercise its right to do so • Enable its systems to provide ATFM information to the service for post-operations statistical services CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  14. Roles and responsibilities (3) • Airspace Users will: • Ensure that their operations centres are aware of the relevant allocated airport slots for flights to/from coordinated airports. • Contact the Airport Coordinator in case of a warning message received and rectify the mismatch • Re-file flight plans once the mismatch is rectified, where needed CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  15. Roles and responsibilities (4) • The FAS service provider will: • Ensure the 24/7 operations of the service • Establish and maintain a Quality and Safety Management System • Ensure that the post operational data and statistics are available during office hours. CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  16. Future possible evolutions (1) • Enhancing the matching accuracy • Introduction of European-wide harmonised Airport Slot ID • Mandatory use in the Flight Plan (field 18 first, later possible dedicated field) • Benefits • One means of compliance with existing and future regulation • Less operating cost for FAS • Less complexity concerning GA/BA and code-shared flights CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  17. Future possible evolutions (2) • Harmonised application of rejections • In case of NO Airport Slot • Same application in all States • Harmonised tolerances • Benefits • Fair system (one affected not many) • Network performance improvement • Higher predictability • Reduced ATFM delays • Better effectiveness on out-of-area traffic CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS

  18. Thank You CS1 – FAS – Draft CONOPS