Three short questions on the SESAR Concept of Operations answered
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
SESAR Concept of Operations in limbo?
On 28/05/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by cleo
One of the more unfortunate developments during the SESAR definition phase concerned the Concept of Operations. At first what passed as the concept was basically inadequate and it was only after the insistence of the airspace users that work started on what in the end became the SESAR Concept of Operations or CONOPS. Peculiarly, it was never really recognized as an official deliverable although, again on the insistence of the airspace users, a reference was inserted in one of the official deliverables that pointed to the CONOPS as the basis of everything else.
Few definition phase documents generated so much debate and even enmity as the CONOPS. Its novel nature and truly forward looking ideas were hailed by some, hated by others. In the end the released version, which was in many ways a compromise between the parties concerned, still contained enough guidance to ensure that a system built to realize it would do justice to the needs of future air traffic management.
And now we jump to the present where rumors abound about the SESAR concept work once again being in trouble. Last I heard, people seem to be saying that the concept is currently a blank box in the SESAR work and there will be no ops concept on the table until 2011. What about the original CONOPS? The answer is an enigmatic: they do not like it any more.
Click here to read the full article
ADS-B and MLAT – No technology war
On 19/05/2010, in Buzzwords explained, by steve
There will still be people who remember what a VHS cassette looked like and a few who remember the epic technology war between Betamax, System2000 and VHS. More recently, the Blu-Ray disc won in a similar battle in the consumer electronics field only to face quick extinction as the world moves towards on-line entertainment distribution.
In air traffic management such an epic battle was raging a few years ago between VDL Mode 2 and VDL Mode 4. They were vying for the privilege of becoming the prime technology for air/ground digital link, one of the most important enablers of the new air traffic management system. VDL Mode 2 won in the end mainly for practical reasons and certainly not because of technical superiority.
A cursory glance at the surveillance landscape shows that yet again there are two technologies aiming to replace expensive and cumbersome radar and one might conclude that a new technology war is in the offing.
The technologies concerned are Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Multi-lateration (MLAT). Just to recap, ADS-B is a surveillance solution where
aircraft broadcast their GPS-derived position (ADS-B out) and the messages received on the ground are used to create air situation displays for air traffic controllers. When aircraft are able to receive the same messages (ADS-B in), these enable them to do airborne separation assurance, among other things.
Multi-lateration uses the replies from SSR transponders, timing their arrival at ground receiving antennas and calculating aircraft position from those time differences. WAM is Wide Area Multilateration, in effect the MLAT technology applied for surveillance in a given area.
The potential accuracy of both technologies is phenomenal and is far better than that of conventional radar. The icing on the cake is that the cost of implementation and ownership is a fraction of those outdated monsters.
Click here to read the full article
SESAR’s progress – real achievements, real issues
On 17/05/2010, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
Exclusive interview with Michael Standar, Chief Operational Concepts and Validation, SESAR Joint Undertaking.
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
Military accepts the idea underlying the business trajectory
On 05/11/2009, in SESAR's Palace, by steve
One of the most important paradigm shifts in the SESAR air traffic management operational concept of the future is the move from an airspace based approach to a trajectory based one. It would be a bit lengthy to explain the difference here (there will be a blog article on the subject soon) so let it suffice to say: trajectory based operations are the key to the required predictability and efficiency of the new system.
During the creation of the SESAR Concept of Operations (CONOPS) our military colleagues at first had some difficulty in accepting this new approach. After all, most military operations tend to require a huge piece of real estate that equates to airspace rather than trajectories.
Click here to read the full article
(Before) all else fails… read the Concept! Part 3.
On 24/09/2009, in Buzzwords explained, by steve
What is TMR?
The abbreviation of Trajectory Management Requirements and an item that has been misunderstood in several ways (some quite surprising). Obviously, the CONOPS did not do a very good job of explaining this simplest of elements (mea culpa…). An aircraft flying its 4 dimensional trajectory will do so with an agreed precision and the trajectory to be flown will not deviate from the one agreed by more than prescribed limits. The aircraft system does not need to re-publish its trajectory as long as any deviation that may occur remains within those limits.
TMR is nothing more than an automated instruction to the aircraft containing the applicable limits. In other words all TMR does is set the triggers for re-publishing the trajectory. An aircraft may be given different limits as it flies, depending on the changing requirements along its trajectory, resulting in several TMR messages.
Restricting the number of instances of trajectory publishing to that actually required saves bandwidth and processing resources.
Click here to read the full article
(Before) all else fails… read the Concept! Part 2.
On 23/09/2009, in Buzzwords explained, by steve
What is a net-centric system?
Net-centric, in its most common definition, refers to “participation as a part of a continuously evolving, complex community of people, devices, information and services interconnected by a communications network to optimise resource management and provide superior information on events and conditions needed to empower decision makers.” It will be clear from the definition that “net-centric” does not refer to a network as such. It is a term that covers all elements constituting the environment referred to as “net-centric”.
Exchanges between members of the community are based not on cumbersome individual interfaces and point to point connections but a flexible network paradigm that is never a hindrance to the evolution of the net-centric community. Net-centricity promotes a “many-to-many” exchange of data, enabling a multiplicity of users and applications to make use of the same data which in itself extends way beyond the traditional, predefined and package oriented data set while still being standardized sufficiently to ensure global interoperability. The aim of a net-centric system is to make all data visible, available and usable, when needed and where needed, to accelerate and improve the decision making process.
Click here to read the full article
(Before) all else fails… read the Concept! Part 1.
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
Trajectory ownership: dogfight or guiding principle?
On 13/09/2009, in Buzzwords explained, by steve
Few elements of the SESAR Concept of Operations (CONOPS) have generated more controversy than the idea of trajectory ownership did. Regrettably, the controversy still boils. Some experts dismiss the whole thing as a “political dogfight”, others conduct lengthy debates on how trajectory ownership will work (or not work) in daily operations. They are both on the wrong track, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the CONOPS is trying to say. It is time we put the matter out of its misery and recognize trajectory ownership for what it was always meant to be: a strategic guiding principle with a fundamental impact on future air traffic management.
First and foremost, we must realize that, except for the smallest and lightest aircraft, almost all flying machines are in fact business tools of differing sophistication. From rented aircraft to the most modern airliners, they fulfill a mission and are meant to generate revenue for their operators. The Sunday leisure flyers apart, this is true of business jets, crop sprayers, airline transports and even the military.
Click here to read the full article
