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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
