On 14/11/2011, in TITAN, by steve
No, this is not something new for your Wii or other gaming platform… sorry.
True, experts participating in the TITAN project gathered in Budapest’s Airport Hotel for a gaming exercise but this was serious business. The project has reached an important phase in its development: it was time to validate the services and information defined as the basis of the TITAN concept of operations.
As you will recall, TITAN is about optimizing the aircraft turnaround process by making it more predictable. This is achieved by creating a picture of the turnaround that shows much more detail than was previously the case. TITAN uses a service oriented architecture and some elements of the SWIM concept have also been incorporated. All information is shared and users access information via subscriptions and in accordance with the access rights defined as one of the characteristics of the various data elements.
Gaming is more or less what its title suggests: you get some folks together, assign them various roles that correspond to the roles in the real life environment you are trying to validate and they “play” out their role as pre-written scenarios evolve. In the case of TITAN, the whole affair started with the selected participants being asked to subscribe to the information they thought would be required to perform their roles. So, the persons acting as ground handler, airport operator, airline and ATC had to stop and think what exactly they would need to facilitate the turnaround, knowing of course that asking for too much information is both expensive and can lead to information overload.
Click here to read the full article
On 27/09/2011, in Events, by steve
The objective of the 1st NEWO project Workshop is to identify new operational approaches for the queue management of departures in the air transport network. The approach is to explore complex networks solutions for solving capacity problems at nodes/edges implying the application of prioritisation criteria for the distribution of elements in the network. Isdefe’s team will raise the problem and experts from ATM but also from other domains related to the management of complex networks such as logistic, energy and telecommunication will discuss about any potential solution that is applied in their domain and which could be mirrored in the air transport world. Innovative ideas will be captured by means of Expert Groups, questionnaires and brainstorming sessions.
The contribution and knowledge of the experts from different domains (logistics, energy, ICT, air transport…) is appreciated. The event will:
The workshop is open to participation and interests are gathered by the workshop point of contact. Funding for attendance is also available on a “first-come first-served” basis. Contributions other than attendance to the workshop are welcomed through downloading and filling the questionnaire you can find under the “Documentation” heading on the NEWO webpage and sending it to the NEWO WS point of contact.
You can download the workshop brochure here.
On 24/03/2011, in SWIM, by steve
Whatever the context, this is a very true statement. And I hate it from the bottom of my heart.
Why?
Because in the area closest to my heart, air traffic management, it has been used over the years as the (rather lame) excuse for not harmonizing things, be it implementation dates, system functionality or the working position user interface. The results were inevitably increased costs, missed project deadlines, unachieved goals or goals achieved that were different from what the ATM community needed.
When the concept of a Single European Sky first surfaced, even its name was refreshing as it suggested a departure from the old buzzword and a bright new future where things would finally work to the same gauge everywhere. What a naïve thought…
At the ATM Global conference in Amsterdam recently, the top guy of DSNA, the French air navigation service provider, talking about the Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB), informed his audience that no single FAB would fit all and that FABs were bringing European diversity to SESAR.
It was rather disappointing to hear him use this well worn excuse for Europe’s inability once again to set up a truly single sky! One would have hoped for a more modern (digital?) excuse but that was probably expecting too much…
I got another jolt last night when the SWIM thread on LinkedIn directed my attention to new information on SWIM posted on the SESAR web site. There I found another echo of this hated claim.
Click here to read the full article
On 08/02/2011, in TITAN, by steve
Delays in the turnaround are a major cause for low predictability in commercial aviation. The SESAR ConOps describes the paradigm shift towards trajectory based operations. Turnaround Integration into Trajectory And Network (TITAN) extends the view by proposing a concept of operations which integrates the turnaround of aircraft into trajectory and network based on Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) principles. You can read more about TITAN here.
The first TITAN Workshop was held back in March 2010. It was a well attended event that defined the basis of the TITAN concept and provided a first opportunity for all stakeholders to contribute their particular points of view.
The Second TITAN Workshop will be held in Madrid, Spain on 22 February 2011.
Since the start of the project and the First Workshop, a lot of work has been completed, forming the basis of this second meeting to which all interested stakeholders are cordially invited.
Click here to read the full article
On 03/01/2011, in FAB News, by steve
FABs may be the highest political priority for the European Commission and they certainly are the source of high flying political statements, but I still do not like them. Why? Well, the idea when it first came up was a good one. At the time, functional fragmentation of air traffic management in Europe was costing airspace users billions and in spite of all the projects being considered, there was little hope for structural reform.
In order to break the logjam, and fully aware that there was no hope for getting the whole of Europe to co-operate and create a single sky, the EC very pragmatically proposed that groups of States get together and create functional airspace blocks (FAB) along the lines of their ATM “interests”, optimizing and aligning procedures and services inside their FAB… This way, the argument went, at least there would be a single sky of sorts inside the FAB and later on the FABs themselves could be harmonized for a truly single European sky.
Pragmatic and logical as the idea may have been, it was not received by the ANSPs with open arms.
Click here to read the full article
On 20/12/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
A working group with a wide representation of operational expertise from the general aviation (GA) and rotorcraft communities commenced a study to enhance the SESAR Concept of Operations (ConOps) from a specific GA and rotorcraft perspective. The task of the group is to integrate GA and rotorcraft specific needs to the SESAR ConOps and to provide necessary complementary guidance material for the SESAR programme. This study follows on from the earlier exercise undertaken to integrate military needs into the SESAR ConOps that was concluded earlier this month. The members of the general aviation and rotorcraft group are Peter Norton (British Helicopter Association), Philippe Rollet (Eurocopter Group), Nigel Talbot (AgustaWestland), Michael Erb (AOPA), Jo Konrad (Microlight Specialists), Julian Scarfe (PPL-IR), René Meier (Europe Airsports).
The group met for the first time from 23 to 25 November at the SJU premises and is expected to deliver its final report in April 2011. Once approved, the updated version of the ConOps including the GA and rotorcraft aspects will be integrated into the relevant SJU programme work packages.
Well, I should be sleeping much better now, except for one thing. This piece of news, which is positive after all, does show up once again that European air traffic management still has not gotten over its silo mentality.
Click here to read the full article
On 06/12/2010, in TITAN, by steve
I have always wondered whether passengers notice the organized chaos that characterizes aircraft at the gate, getting ready for its next trip. Whether it is a 737 operated by a low-cost carrier getting turned around in as little as 20 minutes or a 747 heading to the other side of the world and readied for departure in less than 90 minutes, the picture is much the same: a lot of machines, a lot of people, a lot of activities which magically all terminate all of a sudden as if on command and the aircraft is ready to go!
This is the turnaround process, one of the most critical phases of a flight. Yes, strange as it may sound, an aircraft on the ground being serviced for its next flight faces many organizational and technical hurdles, the handling of which introduces a degree of unpredictability seldom if ever encountered in actual flight.

Mess up the turnaround process and an immediate delay ensues which can throw the whole schedule of that particular airframe out of whack for the rest of the day. The nightmare of all airlines.
Of course what we see around the aircraft is only part of the show. Inside the terminal scores or hundreds of passengers will be streaming towards their gate and some will stop to shop, some to eat, others just to gape… in any case, their on time arrival at the gate is anything but certain. Another potential source of departure delay…
Click here to read the full article
On 05/11/2010, in SWIM, by steve
A great document from unexpected quarters
Before anyone misunderstands, I would like to stress that receiving a great document from the Air Traffic Management and Performance Panel (ATMRPP) is not what is unexpected. It is more the scope of the document that was surprising, given its relatively humble beginnings. That the document is also visionary and uses the correct terminology throughout is just icing on the cake.
So what is this doc that has moved this arch-critic of the more common, poorly structured, inconsistent products using poor terminology to such words of praise?
When I was sent a copy of “Flight and Flow Information for a Collaborative Environment – A Concept”, produced by the ATMRPP, my interest was picked immediately. A few years ago when this document was in its infancy, I had the honor of being able to advise EUROCONTROL on how to interpret the advanced flight planning vision we wrote into the SESAR Concept of Operations. I recalled clearly how different experts had different views on the subject and it looked like achieving consensus would be all but impossible. So, if for nothing else, I was curious to see what the result was in the end.
Why did I say that the document, in spite of its lofty title, had humble beginnings? Well, the work that culminated in this beauty had set out originally to create a new ICAO flight plan to replace the current, hopelessly outdated product. In the end, a two step approach was agreed with a new, updated flight plan coming in the near future (read more about that here) to take care of the immediate needs. After this first step, the second aims to implement what they called the FF-ICE, covering the time frame up to 2025. FF-ICE stands for Flight and Flow Information for a Collaborative Environment and the document is in fact the description of the FF-ICE concept.
Setting out to remedy the pretty bad scene around the existing flight plan and its contents, the experts could not fail to realize that a solution that addressed only the flight plan as such would not bring about the much needed improvement. Only a wholesale revamping of the information management environment of which flight plans and their content are a part would ensure that the well-known problems disappear and the whole thing become future proof.
The ATMPRPP created a concept that aligns well with System Wide Information Management (SWIM) as being planned in Europe and the US and it also covers the new ideas on how flight planning should work as described in the SESAR Concept of Operations.
Click here to read the full article
On 19/07/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Over the past year we have published several posts dealing with SESAR in general and the SESAR concept of operations in particular. Some of those posts voiced concerns and uncertainties. In an exclusive interview with Michael Standar, SJU Chief Air Traffic Management, published here in May 2010, we attempted to answer the concerns… to some extent anyway. In SESAR Magazine Issue 3, published in July 2010, Michael now answers three short questions on the Concept of Operations. We bring you the full text as it appeared in SESAR Magazine in the hope of making the ConOps picture a bit clearer.
Michael, where are we today with the SESAR Concept of
Operations (ConOps)?
The first thing to remember is that the SESAR ConOps was set out in the SESAR Definition Phase. In the SJU ConOps storyboard it was structured into three steps to realize the paradigm shift necessary to modernize the European ATM system. In step 1, we move from the current day to time-based operations, focused on better use of existing technology and optimizing communication between ground and airborne equipment. Step 2 introduces trajectory based operations through the 4D trajectory. As new technology is involved, international standardization bodies and ICAO will be engaged. The third and final step will be a fully integrated performance based ATM System supported by System Wide Information Management, SWIM – the intranet of the air. These three steps are not sequential but start in parallel, aiming at gaining early benefits for the air transport sector.
Click here to read the full article
On 17/05/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve

Michael Standar
Since the inception of the current phase of the SESAR program, we have come to expect regular updates published by the SESAR Joint Undertaking telling the ATM community how things were going. SESAR has introduced a refreshingly innovative way of communicating with the world, making use of all the modern communications means from electronic newsletters to the social media.
Communications issued so far have focused on the achievements but like all major projects, SESAR is also not without problems and issues that they need to address. This is normal and problems are there to be solved. The main thing for managers is to figure out how to solve the problems and not necessarily to avoid them at any cost.
In this exclusive interview with Michael Standar, Chief Operational Concepts and Validation, we talk about the inevitable problems and how the SJU is going about solving them.
It is said that the reduction in traffic has reduced ANSP revenue and as a result, ANSPs had to cut back their resources. As a consequence, they were forced to allocate to the SESAR work experts who are less familiar with the discussions in the Definition Phase, less familiar with the exact meaning of the Concept of Operations. Does this have an impact on the work and if yes, how will it be countered?
SESAR is a major programme including all aviation stakeholders. Through its construction of the three phases, there will always be new faces joining in the work. But we place a great emphasis on sharing the exact meaning of the ConOps through innovative internal communication features.
This being said, we are prepared to share and communicate to each and every individual working in or with SESAR the concept implications in terms of change in procedures and systems. This will be a continuous learning process for many years to come.
Click here to read the full article
On 22/09/2009, in Buzzwords explained, by steve
The birth of the SESAR Concept of Operations (CONOPS), perhaps not unexpectedly, was not an easy process. Although SESAR is claimed to be a user-driven project, when the airspace users tried to drive the development of the CONOPS, the road proved to be anything but smooth. Plenty of natural and artificial obstacles had to be negotiated before the final product was crafted and pronounced airworthy. In the end, the CONOPS had turned out to be much more than the usual representation of the smallest common denominator, agreed and supported by most, criticized by others.
Now, some two years after version 1 of the CONOPS saw the light of day, we still see a worrisome degree of misunderstanding, hesitation and claimed or actual ignorance persist around the concept. Apparently, some people just continue with legacy thinking, pleading ignorance that there is any direction being set that is relevant to them. Ignoring the guidance encapsulated in the CONOPS or giving it a new interpretation not in line with what was originally intended represents a grave danger to the effectiveness of the new air traffic management system and the SESAR project itself.
In this article, I will try to clarify a number of issues still burning around the CONOPS, answering also questions which have been put to us in recent months. Some items may appear trivial to those who have been involved in the SESAR definition phase but will be useful to our worldwide readers many of whom are innocent when it comes to any phase of SESAR.
Click here to read the full article