Mission Trajectory Step 1

1. Mission Trajectory Step 1 From planning to deployment

2. The SESAR concept SESAR Steps are capability-based (not fixed in time) Step 3 Performance-based Operations Step 2 Trajectory-based Operations Step 1 Time-based Operations Deployment Baseline (formerly: IP1)

3. SESAR : Business/Mission Trajectory • 4D Mission Trajectory same principles as Business Trajectory but enables complex military operations: • Airspace reservations part of trajectory definition • Synchronisation of multiple trajectories for complex missions • Formation flights with trajectory split/join up • Confidentiality & security requirements of exchanges between WOC-NM-aircraft-ATC 4D Business Trajectories data linked and negotiated between AOC-NM-aircraft-ATC Trajectory negotiation 4DT 4DT 4DT 4DT 4DT 4DT

4. Mission Trajectory Business/Mission Trajectory Not a new way to fulfill missions - A new way to share information, negotiate trajectories and allocate airspace during planning cycles and execution phase, - A new way for flights description, richer than today’s Flight Plan - A new way to provide Air Navigation Services - A new challenge for civil/military coordination

5. Civil military airspace management systems to distribute planned airspace usage & airspace status and to allow more modular airspace structures. • Harmonised military flight planning & aeronautical information systemsto support improved “Operational Air Traffic” • Secure gatewaysto interconnect military systems to the ATM network • Uplink & downlink of trajectory datathrough data link (Transport type only for time based operations) • Enhanced airborne navigation and surveillance systems (Transport type only for time based operations) Technical Enablers Main Step 1 system changes in support of Mission Trajectory & Network performance • Mission Trajectory requirements • Unrestricted access to airspace for high priority missions • Operational Air Traffic Transit Service across Europe • Sufficient airspace for training • Confidentiality & security • Compatibility with FABs & NM • Network Shortcomings • Lack of Airspace management flexibility (inability to exploit capacity opportunities) • Lack of integration of Network, ATC and AOC/WOC operations (limited reliability of available information by different actors) implies: • Limited predictability • overprotection in term of capacity, • Local actions with negative impact on Network • 2 hours gap between ATFM and ATC (limited flexibility and reactivity)

6. Mission trajectory development Baseline ASM local simulation/negotiation Projects 7.5.2 13.2.1 ATC ASM simulation/negotiation Based on flight intents A/C Project 7.5.2 7.6.2 13.2.1 15.2.10 ATC ATFCM ASM simulation/negotiation Based on Mission requests Project 7.6.2 11.1.1 STEP 1 WOC ATFCM ATC Aircraft Meteo

7. Main challenges Level 1 Level 3 Performances & Maturity Analysis, Business cases Master Plan Common Projects (Business view) CFT Network Strategy Plan Implementation Projects ESSIP • Monitoring execution • Ensuring Consistency • Trigger and support corrective actions Level 2 7

8. Planning exercise/No CBA • Prioritisation based on: • Mission trajectory needs • Network performance • synchronisation

9. Military priorities • deployment decision taken • no need for Cost Benefit analysis * maturity linked to PBN mandate

10. Deployment based on European ATM Master Plan • Refined Performance needs • Refined Cost Benefit Analysis • Updated with R&D results and maturity checks • With updated OIs/enablers/lines of action