Stakeholders Consultation Workshop

1
Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on the Draft
Regulatory Approach for Surveillance Performance
and Interoperability Requirements
5 July 2007, Brussels, EUROCONTROL
European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
2
Agenda Item 1 Welcome and Introduction
Workshop Objectives

• Jean-Luc GARNIER
• Head of Regulatory Unit (RU)
• EUROCONTROL

European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
3
AGENDA
4
AGENDA
5
Agenda Item 2 The SES Interoperability
Regulation

• E. MORERE MOLINERO
• DG TREN
• European Commission

European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
6

• Interoperability of the
• European ATM network
• for the
• Single European Sky

7

• Regulation (EC) N 552/2004
• of 10 March 2004
• concerning the interoperability
• of the
• European ATM network
• OJ L 96 of 31 March 2004

8
Objectives

• Interoperability between the different systems,
  their constituents and associated procedures of
  the European ATM network
• Coordinated introduction of new agreed and
  validated concepts of operations or technology

9
ScopeSystems and procedures for

• Airspace Management (ASM)
• Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM)
• Air Traffic Services (ATS)
• Communication/Navigation/Surveillance
• Aeronautical information services
• Meteorological information

10
Essential Requirements (ER)

• Essential Requirements (ER) are defined in order
  to achieve interoperability.
• Systems, procedures and constituents shall be
  compliant with the ER
• General ER are defined in Annex II, Part A and
  specific ER in Annex II, Part B.

11
General Essential Requirements (ER)

• Seamless operation
• Safety
• Civil-military coordination
• Support of new concepts of operation
• Environmental constraints
• Principles governing the logical architecture
• Principles governing the construction of systems

12
Implementing Rules (i)

• Implementing Rules (IR) shall determine any
  specific requirement that complement or refine
  the Essential Requirements
• IR shall also describe the coordinated
  introduction of new, agreed and validated
  concepts of operation or technology
• IR for interoperability will be compulsory

13
Implementing Rules (ii)

• Draft IR to be developed by Eurocontrol in
  conformity with the mandates issued by the
  Commission
• IR shall specify the conditions of implementation
  (including dates)
• IR shall be adopted by the European Commission
  following the opinion of the Single Sky Committee
  (SSC) and published in the Official Journal

14
Community Specifications

• Community Specifications (CS) are means of
  compliance and will be mandated by the Commission
• CS may be European Standards drawn up by
  CEN/CENELEC/ETSI in cooperation with EUROCAE
• CS may be a Eurocontrol specification for
  operational coordination

15
Conformity assessment

• IR will describe the specific conformity
  assessment procedures
• EC declaration of conformity of constituents
  issued by the manufacturer
• EC declaration of verification of systems issued
  by the air navigation service provider

16
Mandates to Eurocontrol on IR for
Interoperability (I)

• Initial Flight Plan Commission Regulation N
  1033/2006 (OJ L 186, 7.7.2006, p. 46)
• Co-ordination and Transfer Commission
  Regulation N 1032/2006 (OJ L 186, 7.7.2006, p.
  27)
• Flight Message Transfer Protocol Commission
  Regulation N 633/2007 (OJ L 146, 8.6.2007, p.7)

17
Mandates to Eurocontrol on IR for
Interoperability (II)

• Air-Ground Voice Channel Spacing (formal
  favourable vote of SSC on 21 June 2007)
• Data Link Services
• Mode S Interrogator Code Allocation
• Aeronautical Data Integrity
• Surveillance performance interoperability
  requirements

18
Agenda Item 3The Surveillance Environment
Melvyn REESHead of Surveillance
Division EUROCONTROL
European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
19
What is Surveillance?

• ATM Surveillance is the observation of an area or
  space for the purpose of determining the position
  and movement of aircraft or vehicles in that area
  or space to enable Air Traffic Control.
• ATM surveillance is one of the key CNS
  (Communications, Navigation and Surveillance)
  enablers for Air Traffic Control.
• Current Surveillance systems have the capability
  to extract parameters from the aircrafts systems
  (mode A/C/S and DAPs or ADD) and provide that
  data to ground based systems, including safety
  nets, and the Air Traffic Controller.

20
Different types of Surveillance

• Independent Surveillance
• Determines the position (2-D) without reliance on
  aircraft
• avionics
• Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR)
• Co-operative Independent Surveillance
• Utilises the aircraft transponder to derive
  position and other
• avionic data
• (Monopulse) Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR),
  SSR Mode S, Multilateration (MLAT) and Wide Area
  Multilateration (WAM)
• Co-operative Dependent Surveillance
• Utilises the aircraft derived position (GPS or
  INS) and other
• avionic data to broadcast air-ground and
  air-air
• ADS-B

21
Surveillance Strategy
3 pillars of mutually interoperable and
compatible technologies
MSSR SSR Mode S
ADS-B
MLAT WAM
Surveillance Data processing systems
22
Redundancy / Fall back
Eurocontrols Surveillance Standard requires 2
cooperative layers of Ground Surveillance
coverage in En Route and TMA airspace. At least
one of these layers should be an independent
surveillance to meet safety requirements. Example
Layer 2
Layer 1
MSSR/SSR Mode S
MSSR/SSR Mode S
WAM
MSSR/SSR Mode S
ADS-B
MSSR/SSR Mode S
WAM
ADS-B
PSR (Major TMAs)
23
Not included in the Implementing Rule

• Airborne Surveillance systems
• Based on TCAS
• Airborne Separation Assistance Systems (ASAS),
  based on ADS-B
• Weather Surveillance (ground based and airborne
  based)
• Wake Vortex Surveillance (ground based and
  airborne based)
• Special surveillance systems, like Precision
  Approach Radars

24
Interoperability

• For any given Surveillance application (e.g. 5nm
  separation) all mutually acceptable technologies
  must provide the same capability.
• Need for a definitive document to detail what are
  these fundamental requirements that facilitate
  the necessary interoperability between systems
  and yet give Users the maximum flexibility in
  choice..

• Choice of ground based Surveillance Systems
  depends on
• Operational requirements
• Safety Assessment
• Geography, cost, topology, preference,
  integration risk, redundancy and integrity.

25
Why an Interoperability Rule?

• Complement to the Eurocontrol Surveillance
  Standards.
• Describes the fundamental features that every
  system must provide, irrespective of technique or
  technology.
• Technical details of specific technologies are
  captured in Community Specifications produced by
  Industry (EUROCAE).
• Different applications require different
  Surveillance performance (3nm vs 5nm vs 10 nm)
• Ideally based on Required Surveillance
  Performance (RSP) but no RSP standards are yet
  available. ICAO is working on it.
• In response to EC and ICB request the IR will
  focus on 3/5nm separation applications in TMA and
  En-Route. Additional applications can be added
  later, as required.

26
Why an Interoperability Rule? (cont)

• The IR forms a stable platform that can be used
  to under-pin the Surveillance requirements of the
  SESAR Master Plan.
• Initial IR does not cover Air-Air surveillance or
  ADD reqts.
• Industry (SESAR) recognises that a single avionic
  package, enabling all forms of Surveillance
  currently foreseen, would be an enormous benefit
  to the establishment of the Master Plan.
• It would facilitate an expeditious route to
  implement the airborne infrastructure to support
  short, medium and longer term (airborne)
  surveillance applications.
• Within Option 3 of the IR, the above
  requirements could become a reality.

27
Summary

• The Eurocontrol Surveillance Strategy is firmly
  based on a 3 pillar structure of mutually
  interoperable and compatible techniques.
• Interoperability must be assured.
• Initial IR only covers ground based, 3/5nm
  surveillance applications.
• SESAR would like a single avionic package.
• Technical details of means of Compliance in
  separate Community Specifications, based on the
  Eurocontrol Surveillance Standard.

• All can be accomplished through the establishment
  of a Surveillance Performance and
  Interoperability Implementing Rule (SPI IR).

28
Agenda Item 4 The SPI mandateContext and
requirements
Jean-Luc GARNIER Head of Regulatory Unit
(RU) EUROCONTROL
European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
29
SES Context

• Interoperability Regulation (Essential
  Requirements)
• Intermediate (binding) layer added
• Implementing rules to complement
• and refine the Essential Requirements
• Technical solutions kept at voluntary level

30
Mandate Deliverables (1/4)

• Initial plan
• Regulatory Approach
• Draft Final Report
• Final Report

31
Mandate Deliverables (2/4)

• REGULATORY APPROACH
• Current environment
• Institutional, technical and operational
• Benefits of the regulatory action
• Interoperability analysis
• Identification of the subjects to be covered by
  regulatory requirements
• Alternatives for the regulatory approach
• Identification of possible scenarios
• Description and regulatory coverage
• Initial impact assessment
• Conformity assessment
• Implementation conditions
• Objective and scope of the IR

32
Mandate Deliverables (3/4)

• DRAFT FINAL REPORT
• Based on the scenario selected following the
  Regulatory Approach
• Proposed Draft Implementing Rule
• Draft Justification Material
• Impact assessment (safety, civil/military
  organisation, efficiency and economic aspects)
• Current and desired regulatory situation
• Draft identification of Means of Compliance
• Draft IR submitted to formal consultation
  (ENPRM)

33
Mandate Deliverables (4/4)

• FINAL REPORT
• Following the consultation on the Proposed Draft
  Implementing Rule
• Draft Implementing Rule
• Justification Material
• Impact assessment (safety, civil/military
  organisation, efficiency and economic aspects)
• Current and desired regulatory situation
• Identification of Means of Compliance
• Summary of comments received during the formal
  consultation and the associated responses
• Identification of EUROCONTROL actions to support
  the implementation of the implementing rule

34
Specific issues of the Mandate (1/2)

• THE IR NEEDS TO IDENTIFY
• The objective and scope of the rule
• The performance requirements of surveillance
  information (accuracy, availability, continuity,
  integrity) and of surveillance systems in
  general
• The coverage and redundancy requirements
  associated to specific airspaces and separation
  standards
• The ground and airborne interoperability
  requirements (data interchange, minimum set of
  surveillance data, minimum resolution and data
  fusion requirements)

35
Specific issues of the Mandate (2/2)

• THE IR SHALL IDENTIFY
• The requirements related to surveillance spectrum
  protection (as appropriate)
• The implementation conditions (implementation
  dates and transitional arrangements)
• The conformity assessment requirements including
  the use of test tools.
• The IR shall take into account the ICAO on-going
  work on RSP and the SESAR working item on
  surveillance.

36
Agenda Item 5Overview of the Regulatory
Approach
Octavian CIOARA Regulatory Unit (RU) EUROCONTROL
European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
37
Objective of the RA

• Formal deliverable required by the mandate
• Objective
• Description of the current environment
• Identification of the regulatory coverage of the
  rule
• Proposals for several options for the development
  of the implementing rule,
• Initial impact assessment
• Conformity assessment
• Implementation conditions
• Objective and scope of the IR
• Submitted to a written consultation
• This is not the implementing rule!!!

38
Initial development of the RA (1/2)

• Questionnaire distributed to the focal points
  (informal consultation) summer 06
• Help focus the development of the regulatory
  approach
• An initial identification of the regulatory
  coverage of the future implementing rule and of
  the possible options to be followed
• 12 responses Service providers, civil and
  military authorities

39
Initial development of the RA (2/2)

• TOPICS ADDRESSED BY THE QUESTIONNAIRE
• Associated procedures
• Performance requirements
• Boundary of the surveillance system
• Interoperability requirements
• Rationalization of surveillance infrastructure
• RF Spectrum efficiency
• System Performance Assessment
• Wind Turbines

40
Consultation

• Draft RA submitted to a formal consultation
• Consultation period 2 April 4 June 2007
• Stakeholders invited to
• express the preference for one of the proposed
  options
• make comments on any other section of the RA
• Workshop to present the results 5 July 2007
• Delivery of the Regulatory Approach to the
  European Commission
• August 2007

41
Draft RA proposed options

• Option 1 it mostly harmonizes and consolidates
  the current best practices by putting them in a
  clear regulatory framework (no mandatory
  carriage)
• Option 2 based on Option 1 supplemented with
  carriage of airborne equipment (Mode S ELS, SI
  capable)
• support for the MSI implementing rule
• facilitation of Mode S ELS introduction in the
  SES airspace
• Facilitation of WAM deployment
• Option 3 builds on option 2 (Mode S ELS, SI and
  1090 ES capable)
• allows for new technologies/functionalities (e.g.
  EHS, ADS-B out) to be deployed based on common
  needs/criteria

42
SPI option 1

• REQUIREMENTS FOR
• ANSPs to set up separation minima to ensure
  seamless operations
• Performance of surveillance systems when 5NM and
  3NM separations are used
• Generic interoperability whenever surveillance
  data is exchanged
• Establishment of Service Level Agreements for the
  exchange of surveillance data
• Safe design, deployment and operations of the
  surveillance systems
• Procedures addressing the overall assessment of
  the performance of surveillance systems
• Issuance of the appropriate declarations as
  defined by the interoperability Regulation
  552/2004

43
SPI option 2

• OPTION 2
• BASED ON OPTION 1, SUPPLEMENTED WITH
• Possible identification of interoperability
  functional requirements depending on the type and
  the source of surveillance data (supported by
  detailed Community Specifications based on the
  ASTERIX categories)
• Mandatory carriage and operation of specific
  airborne equipment
• Mode S transponders Level 2s (SI code capable)
  compliant with EASA/JAA TGL13 revision 1 or later
  issue on all the IFR/GAT flights within the SES
  airspace
• BENEFITS
• Support for the MSI implementing rule
• Introduction of Mode S elementary surveillance in
  the SES airspace
• Facilitation for the deployment of WAM

44
SPI option 3

• OPTION 3
• BASED ON OPTION 2, EXTENDED IN TERMS OF
  AIRBORNE EQUIPMENT
• Mandatory carriage by IFR/GAT traffic within the
  SES airspace of Mode S transponders Level 2es
  (1090 ES and SI code capable)
• Possible to define higher equipage requirements
  based on common criteria (EHS or ADS-B based on
  1090ES technology and the associated
  functionalities)
• ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
• Interoperability of the airborne equipment with
  the current and foreseen surveillance
  technologies
• Open the way for the deployment of new
  technologies (e.g. ADS-B) or new functionalities
  (e.g. EHS) based on common needs/criteria

45
Agenda Item 6 Results of the Consultation

• Octavian CIOARA
• Regulatory Unit (RU)
• EUROCONTROL

European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
46
Comments/Stakeholders (1/3)
47
Comments/Stakeholders (2/3)
48
Comments/Stakeholders (3/3)
49
Generic Comments

• Very good level of support for option 3
  (including aircraft operators)
• Among those not in favor of option 3, some
  nuanced responses (option 3 subject to certain
  clarifications)
• The editorial comments to be reflected in the
  updated Regulatory Approach
• The comments grouped by categories and the
  responses are provided in the Summary of
  Responses
• All the received comments available in an Annex
  to the SoR

50
Specific Comments (1/10)

• Comment Need for a more precise impact
  assessment (CBA)
• The draft RA presents only a (very) preliminary
  impact assessment. The final report will contain
  a Justification material providing a more
  detailed RIA
• Comment The added value of the rule to be
  better explained
• The objective is to
• supplement and refine the essential requirements
• to harmonize the design, deployment and the
  operation of surveillance systems within the
  entire EATMN

51
Specific Comments (2/10)

• Comment How is the harmonization with other
  regions taken care of?
• Early contacts have already been taken (notably
  the FAA).
• Proper coordination with stakeholders outside
  the SES area is planned to take place also in
  subsequent phases of the work
• Comment Clearer requirements relative to the
  deployment and use of surveillance
  infrastructure/applications should be put on the
  service providers
• It is intended to address the possibility to
  link the obligation to equip the aircraft to the
  obligation for the ANSPs to provide services
  using the capabilities of the equipment made
  mandatory

52
Specific Comments (3/10)

• Comment Applicability and requirements for
  ADS-B need further clarification and detail
• Option 3 allows the mandatory carriage of
  ADS-B out to be imposed in certain areas,
  based on common criteria
• The mandatory carriage of ADS-B and the
  associated timeframes will take into account
  the
• availability of certification material
• costs for equipage of different categories of
  airspace users
• availability of surveillance services based on
  ADS-B
• specificities of such technologies (e.g. security
  issues)

53
Specific Comments (4/10)

• Comment Clarification on mandating specific
  separation minima (will 3/5 NM be mandatory)
• Two possibilities to address this
  harmonisation were identified in the
  questionnaire
• the definition in the rule of specific separation
  minima to be applied in a given environment or
• the obligation of the ANSPs to ensure that, when
  using given separation minima (such as 3 or 5 NM)
  they comply with specific performance
  requirements
• It is not intended to mandate 3/5 NM
  separations in the implementing rule.
• However, the rule will identify the performance
  requirements that will have to be respected by
  the surveillance systems whenever the ANSPs
  choose to apply 3/5 NM

54
Specific Comments (5/10)

• Comment The specific issues of State aircraft
  need to be addressed
• The particular case relative to the equipage
  of State aircraft (flying IFR/GAT) will be
  specifically addressed in the draft rule
• large fleets
• long procurement cycles
• expensive retrofits, etc
• The draft implementing rule will identify
• specific transitional arrangements
• exemption policies
• requirements on the ANSPs to accept non-equipped
  State aircraft, provided that they can be safely
  handled within the capacity limits
• Comment Applicability to non-EU aircraft should
  be clarified
• The mandatory carriage of equipment will be
  applicable to all aircraft flying IFR/GAT
  within the airspace of application

55
Specific Comments (6/10)

• Comment The issues related to spectrum
  protection and rationalization of the
  surveillance infrastructure need to be clarified
• the rationalisation will be addressed through
  high level requirements to explore
  surveillance data sharing and exchange
  opportunities before deploying the surveillance
  infrastructure
• detailed requirements addressing the spectrum
  protection, being technology specific will be
  left at the level of Community Specifications

56
Specific Comments (7/10)

• Comment The conformity assessment processes
  applicable to the airborne components should
  be included in the appropriate EASA
  airworthiness processes
• For the EU-registered aircraft
• It is proposed to consider the airworthiness
  processes performed by EASA as acceptable
  procedures for satisfying SES conformity
  assessment requirements,
• Provided they include the demonstration of
  compliance with the Regulation
• Itll avoid the duplication of showing compliance
  in front of two different bodies (EASA and a
  "SES" one).
• This approach can only apply to aircraft
  certified by EASA (within the scope of article 4
  of 1592/2002).

57
Specific Comments (8/10)

• Comment The conformity assessment processes
  applicable to the ground systems need to be
  addressed (mainly when the performance of the
  ground system depends on the airborne
  components)
• the impact of the airborne component and of
  the possible carriage exemptions on the
  performance of ground systems and the
  associated verification procedures will be
  addressed during the drafting phase

58
Specific Comments (9/10)

• Comment The development of CSs should have the
  appropriate visibility and stakeholders
  involvement before their adoption/recognition
  as means of compliance.
• The final report will include a document
  identifying the proposed means of compliance
  with the draft implementing rule
• The development process will take place
  according to Article 4 of the SES Framework
  Regulation (549/2004) through
• the European Standardisation Organisations with
  support from EUROCAE (on technical issues) as
  European Standards or
• EUROCONTROL (mainly on operational matters) as
  EUROCONTROL Specifications, before their
  recognition as Community Specifications.

59
Specific Comments (10/10)

• Comment The implementing rule should be more
  precise with regard the geographical
  applicability of requirements and the
  implementation conditions (dates)
• By default the SES interoperability Regulation
  applies to
• Systems
• Constituents
• Associated procedures within the EATMN.
• The scope of application can be fine-tuned in
  each implementing rule. A phased approach may
  be considered with regard the implementation
  conditions. This approach will address
• Phased deployment on the ground
• Exemptions where compliance is not justified
• Dates relative to the mandatory carriage of
  airborne equipment,
• forward fit
• retrofit

60
Agenda Item 7 The Way Forward - Next Steps

• Jean-Luc GARNIER
• Head of Regulatory Unit
• EUROCONTROL

European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
61
The way forward

• Release of the SOR
• Update of the Regulatory Approach to address
  the received comments
• Delivery of the RA to the European Commission
• Initiation of the IR drafting following the
  acceptation of the RA by the EC