Versions Compared

Version Old Version 38 New Version 39
Changes made by

LEPORI Hubert

LEPORI Hubert

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Panel
borderColorblack
borderStyledashed
Excerpt

This section provides information on frequent questions or concerns about FF-ICE/R1 implementation in Europe.

Table of Contents
maxLevel1
absoluteUrltrue
typeflat
separatorpipe

Warning
titleStatus
WORK IN PROGRESS - content should not be used
Panel
titleFull table of contents

Table of Contents



FAQ - CP1 Scope & affected stakeholders


Are non-EU based airspace users mandated by CP1?

Yes, non-EU based airspace users are mandated by CP1. The EU CP1 regulation introduces FF-ICE/R1 as a requirement for stakeholders (ANSPs, Airspace Users, Network Manager) operating in EU (plus Switzerland and Norway) FIRs/UIRs and SOTA and NOTA of Shanwick FIR, where flight planning is required for IFR flights. CP1 therefore applies to all GAT (General Air Traffic) operating under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) in the area of applicability, including non-EU based airspace users.

More about the Affected Stakeholders


Does CP1 cover VFR traffic?

No, there is an exemption for VFR traffic. The FF-ICE/R1 requirements for airspace users applies to all GAT (General Air Traffic) operating under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) in the area of applicability.

More about the Exemptions


Are there exemptions from CP1?

Yes, there are. The following are exempt from the requirements: VFR Flights, OAT Flights.

More about the Exemptions




Candidates for deletion

Expand
title24. Does CP1 mandates non-EU MS from geographical perspective (EATMN), which have an agreement with EU and committed to contribute to the EATMN?

For the time being the only states non-EU Members who have committed to implement CP1 are Norway and Swtzerland – e.i a solution for UK i´has still not been agreed. Nevertheless implementing FF-ICE on a voluntary basis could be a good option

Expand
titleDoes the CP1 regulation (and so FF-ICE/R!) cover VFR traffic as well or just IFR/GAT traffic?

No, VFR traffic is not covered in CP1



FAQ - eFPL content & usage


Expand
title1. What is expected from ATCO in terms of operational use of FF-ICE, specifically trajectory information

The ATCOs are expected to continue their operational handling of traffic as today and base their clearances and instructions on the route information (equivalent of Item 15 of the FPL) after 2025 CP1 mandates this to be eFPL information.

Expand
title5. What is meant by used in daily operation for FF-ICE R1?

This means that you will have to be able to consume and use the eFPL information in your operational system (FDP). CP1 mandates ANSPs to receive and use the eFPL  where they today receive and use FPL from NM. Stakeholder will have to use the notification service for your FPL updates (DEP, ARR etc) and the Data request service for the request of specific FPL data such as RQP, RQS etc today. This means that all this should be used operational by 2025 impacting both FDP and the briefing office (ARO), who in most cases are sending the DEP, ARR, RQP etc.

Expand
title10. How will NM use the eFPL trajectory information before departure and during the flight in the scope of FF-ICE R1? The assumption is that NM will use the eFPL to generate a 4D profile in NM systems which will be updated during flight execution as well. Will NM as well share these updates with ANSPs? If yes, how?

The FF-ICE/R1 is concerned with pre-departure exchanges. NM will make use of all the detailed information that is communicated in the eFPL (not only the 4D trajectory) and calculate a flight profile that is expected to be close to the one that the AO/CFSP included in the eFPL. FF-ICE/R1 is not concerned with other processes that have an impact on the flight profiles during the post-departure (flight execution) phase. The update and sharing of the info during the flight execution will be done as today (EFDs, etc.)

Expand
title11. What could go wrong operationally if NM works with the eFPL information (including trajectory) and an ANSP still with FPL2012 information?

Obviously, we don’t expect that something will go wrong. It should be clarified that the eFPL trajectory (4D) information is built around the route (2D) information that is the same as the FPL2012 Item 15 (route), plus of course all the other data elements that are part of the FPL2012 (capability, ADEP, ADES, etc.).

Expand
title36. Will the speed profiles eventually be part of the performance data shared with ANSPs via NM B2B?
No plans for the moment. Further debate and consultation is required before requesting the speed schedule to be included in the eFPLs.
Expand
title53. Are there any figures available showing the portion of optional fields in eFPL that will be processed by AUs/ANSPs? by AUs/CFSP
As we do not have any finalised deployments yet, we do not have any specific numbers. However to be compliant with CP1 all information must be consumed and processed by the FPD.



FAQ - Use of SWIM


Expand
title3. What is meant by “consume” in the related CP1 FF-ICE/R1 system requirements for ANSP’s? E.g. when an ATC system can receive the eFPL but only extracts and processes the information which would also be contained in a translated FPL2012 plan, is the ATC sufficiently compliant then?

Consuming a service is receiving the information by means of a Service as defined in the Deployment Programme. In terms of CP1 compliance, it is not enough to receive the eFPL and then translate back to legacy format which will only make you partially compliant with CP1. To become fully compliant with CP1 in terms of FF-ICE R 1 publication service, stakeholders need to use the information in daily operations.

Expand
title6. What is the definition of "consume a service"?

The concept of “consuming a service” has been implemented with SWIM.  SWIM is machine-machine exchanges, thus consuming a service is when your system automatically receives and exchanges information in this case with NM through SWIM. Consuming a service differs from the service provider, as the provider offers a number of actions the consumer will use, e.g. the consumer may provide updated information about the progress of a turn-a-round. On the other hand the service provider may offer to the service consumer facilities to be updated about a flight or flights.

Expand
title12. Is the API for the Swim services in relation to FF-ICE already published and available?

Yes, it is available in the SWIM Registry and in the NM B2B OneSky Teams

Expand
title29. About SWIM connection to NM, it is going to be exclusive trough PENS?
The NM B2B can be accessed both via Internet and newPENS.
Expand
title31. As FIXM is the recommended information model to be used, which other alternatives are there?
No alternative exists as of today. An organisation, or group of organisations, could technically decide to develop an alternative to FIXM. However, this situation is highly unlikely. FIXM is an open standard available for free that satisfies all the applicable ICAO FF-ICE/R1 and SWIM requirements. FIXM is one of the –XMs formally recognised by the ICAO IMP as part of the SWIM concept, it is formally traced to the FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, and it is also formally traced semantically to the AIRM, therefore meeting as well the complementary requirements from the EUROCONTROL Specification on SWIM Information Definition. Putting in place an alternative to FIXM would require 1) Developing that alternative, 2) verifying and validating the alternative, and 3) demonstrating the conformance of the alternative to the applicable ICAO and European requirements for FF-ICE/R1 and SWIM.
Expand
title32. Regarding technical infrastructure used by FF-ICE: for example, accessing FF-ICE services via B2B (e.g., with certificate & via internet) would be compliant - there are no special infrastructure requirements, at least on AU and ANSP side in this case, is this correct?
The NM B2B Services are conformant with the 3 EUROCONTROL Specifications for SWIM, which includes the Technical Infrastructure Yellow Profile. The Conformance Assessment Reports can be consulted in the NM B2B OneSky Teams.
No infrastructure requirements are put on the client side.


FAQ - Compliance


(lightbulb) Questions copied from the document SESAR SWIM Workshop 15.03.2022 QA v1.docx, last modified on 14-Feb-2022.

Expand
title4. What are the mandatory dates and what do they mean for ANSPs?

Deadline for implementation is 31/12-2025, where the ANSPs need to be able to consume the FF-ICE services and use them in operation as stated in the Deployment Programme.

Expand
title14. Is it a possibility for compliance to implement the SWIM services (such as the Data Publication Service) and translate the information into the ICAO FPL 2012 format and use that for the existing and non-adapted systems?

If you receive the eFPL and translates it back to legacy format (FPL), you will only be partial compliant with the CP1 regulation.

Expand
title15. Is it a possibility for compliance to only use the information obtained with SWIM services for automated support for traffic complexity Assessment and receive ICAO FPL 2012 format via the traditional communication means?

Compliance to CP1 in terms of FF/ICE R1 services will only be reached once you use the data you receive ( eFPL, Dep, ARR etc.) received through the implemented B2B services in your operational systems. This means that where you today use FPL information ( FDP, Briefing etc), those systems will have to be updated. It is not enough to e.g ”Only” implement this in your traffic complexity tool.

Expand
title19. As FFICE-R1 deals with planning operations, could it be sufficient if ANSP systems consume eFPL data for ATFCM purposes (and not ATC purposes) at this stage?

No, Compliance to CP1 in terms of FF/ICE R1 services will only be reached once you use the data you receive ( eFPL, Dep, ARR etc.) received through the implemented B2B services in your operational systems. This means that where you today use FPL information ( FDP, Briefing etc), those systems will have to be updated. It is not enough to e.g ”Only” implement this in your traffic complexity tool.

Expand
title21. So, to be fully compliant, our systems shall process eFPL directly, right?

Yes, to be fully compliant with CP1, all systems including FDP, shall be able to process eFPL’s

Expand
title42. The Notification Service is Optional for FF-ICE/R1 - why must ANSPs use it by 31/12/2025? In the previous presentation it was stated that NM will implement it - but that's a choice rather than a regulatory requirement
The notification service is mandated in CP1 as it includes the following exchanges
-    Notification service (departure and arrival events)
This is displayed I the SESAR deployment Programme
Expand
title55. Can full CP1 compliancy be reached by implementing all relevant NM B2B FF/ICE services?
Depends who you represent ANSP, AU, NM…
All defined in CP1 (trial is optrional)
Expand
title54. Must all the new data content be processed to be compliant with CP1?
All data, e.g. flight plans, must be consumed and afterward processed in the FDP to be fully CP1 compliant.


Candidates for deletion






FAQ - FF-ICE Benefits


Expand
title2. What is the advantage for an ANSP of handling an eFPL without Flight Object and/or FF-ICE/R2 updates during the flight?

Although the ANSPs focus is implied to be on the tactical operations, the ANSPs are also concerned with the traffic planning activities. The eFPLs have the potential to support improvement of planning activities and also of the local flight predictions (prediction calculations), using the additional data that can be included in the eFPL, e.g. performance profile, maximum take-off weight, 4D trajectory, expanded route, GUFI, etc.

Expand
title20. For FF-IDE/R1 to be useful do AU have to plan the flight according to FF-ICE/R1 or can AU plan with FPL2012 and that "someone" (NM) adds data for the FPL to become a FF-ICE/R1?

AU plans their flights according to eFPL . ICAO FPL2012 cannot be turned into eFPL by NM (anyone)




FAQ - Status of implementation



Expand
title13. What do we know about airlines' FF-ICE/R1 eFPL implementation plans?

As usual the implementation is needed from all mandated stakeholders, AUs have to implement to actually have eFPLs to use from the ANSPs, who need to be able to use the new enriched data from the eFPL.  with regards to AUs there is a

  • Big variance in AUs’ awareness on FF-ICE/R1, e.g. among civil and military AUs or among civil AUs with different business models. This is also the case for the perceived benefits.
  • Big variance in CFSPs’ FF-ICE/R1 readiness.
  • The amount of CFSPs in the AUs community is quite large. They have dissimilar customer bases and cater for very different business needs. Therefore, development priorities vary greatly from one supplier to another.
  • Limiting our considerations to commercial air transport in Europe (to the airlines):
    • Most of the traffic generated by European airlines (as well as most of the flight plans filed in the ECAC region) is planned by means of systems supplied by a limited number of CFSPs.
    • Among those, the few most important in terms of generated flight plans have already made significant progress in terms of FF-ICE/R1 developments (eFPL + Filing Service consumption), including testing with NM.
    • Deployment of FF-ICE/R1 capabilities at the individual AU can therefore occur well before the CP1 deadline (31.12.2025, Family 5.6.1). This implies that if activated AUs can produce and file eFPLs before the deadline (expecting the relevant benefit).


FAQ - Mixed-mode / transition


Expand
title9. If NM translates the eFPL to FPL2012 format will there be a situation where a specific flight plan is provided to 1 ANSP in both formats? Or will NM filter that so that an eASP does not receive duplicate flight plans?

This is configurable, each eASP to decide what they want.

Expand
title16. How does the NM translation service fit into this, especially in terms of compliance?

The NM translation service is necessary due to several reasons

  • NM has a wider stakeholder costumer baseline than EU and need to be able to serve these stakeholders also
  • There will be a need in the transition from FPL to eFPL, perhaps not all stakeholders will be ready at the same time
  • AUs might start filling eFPL before the 2025 deadline, thus the service will be needed before that
Expand
title17. How long the translation service will last after 2025?

As long as needed.

Expand
title18. How long will NM support a translation service for after 2025?

As long as needed.

Expand
title22. If an ANSP is able to consume eFPL, do we also still have to be able to receive and process FPL 2012 via AFTN in parallel as long as not all AOs are using eFPL?

There will be a transition period where ANSPs will have to keep legacy and also receive eFPL, this transition period is yet to be defined but will be time limited.

Expand
title23. In the transition period: Do ANSPs have to consume the B2B Service for eFPL and the AFTN Service for FPL2012?

Not necessarily. The NM B2B can also be used to receive FPL 2012 flight plans.

Expand
title25. What measured would be put in place to manage interface in the NM between FF-ICE and FPL2012 environment
The IFPS treats both FF-ICE and FPL2012 flight plans and translates FF-ICE flight plans into FPL2012 for those organisations not yet migrated.
Expand
title27. Will NM continue to support FPL 2012 distribution by AMHS/AFTN
Yes
Expand
title28. Will all relevant FPL information, be it eFPL or FPL2012, will be available via B2B, and still with their own formats (i.e., FIXM or ADEXP)
No ADEXP format in NM B2B.
FPL2012 flight plans are available via the NM B2B in an NM proprietary XML schema.
eFPL is available in the NM B2B in FIXM.

Expand
title46. Is there practical guidance for migrating from (provider driven/ "push") FPL message addressing -- basically according to rules wired into the IFPS -- to (consumer driven / "pull") eFPL subscription replicating these rules? The question arises because for migration/certification purposes, ANSP must be able to demonstrably replicate (at least) the current data feed using NM B2B.
The addressing is not only based on the IFPS rules, but also on the configuration of the Units in the ENV system. The ENV system encodes the “message requirements” of each ATS Unit. This is the responsibility of the ENV Coordinator. Both factors determine which units will receive AFTN/AMHS messages.
With the Publish/Subscribe there are also two factors: the IFPS rules, which are the same as above, and the subscription parameters.
I am not aware of that guidance (to check with Augustin); that guidance should indeed be produced and the rules exhaustively tested for each ATS Unit.
Expand
title51. In a mixed mode environment: if an eFPL is distributed to an ANSP will it in parallel be distributed translated in FPL2012 format resulting in ANSPs receiving duplicate flight plan messages? Or will NM filter this?
  • You may receive eFPLs via NM B2B for the FF-ICE ones and FPL2012 for the other ones via AFTN/AMHS OR
  • You may receive eFPLs via NM B2B for the FF-ICE ones and FPL2012 for the other ones via NM B2B OR
  • You may receive eFPLs via NM B2B for the FF-ICE ones and ALL flight plans via AFTN AMHS OR
  • You may receive eFPLs via NM B2B for the FF-ICE ones and ALL flight plans via NM B2B OR
  • You may receive eFPLs via NM B2B for the FF-ICE ones and ALL flight plans via NM B2B and ALL flight plans via AFTN/AMHS
OR yet plenty of other combinations



FAQ - Miscellaneous


Expand
title7. How can we have test sessions with the Network Manager on the implementation of FF-ICE within FDPS?

The work on FF/ICE R1 from ECTL perspective is coordinated through FPFDE TF, part of the Eurocontrol working arrangements. , this is also where the test sessions etc are coordinated and planned

Expand
title8. How does the implementation of FF-ICE change the dynamics of exchanges between the Network Manager and FDPS?

TODO

Expand
title26. Who will calculate the 4D trajectories, and when will it be calculated?
The question is very general. CFSPs/AOs will calculate the trajectory they provide in the eFPL and NM using all the information in the eFPL (including the 4DT provided). However, it is likely that the AOs will not be using all the flight constraints that NM is using, as such NM will calculate the ‘Agreed trajectory’ that includes the impact of known constraints and this is what is then communicated back to AOs and made available to ANSPs. With respect to when is this going to take place, there is no change with regard to the existing rules and processes due to FF-ICE/R1 implementation – it is the same as today.
Expand
title30. Has the State AIP then to refer to the NM FF-ICE/R1 Services? (Since the FF-ICE/R1 Services are solely provided by NM
After the endorsement and applicability date of ICAO PANS IM, the location where information service overviews are available will need to be included in the aeronautical information publication (AIP). For FF-ICE services provided by NM this will the European SWIM Registry that contains this information.
Expand
title33. When can we expect publication of updated ICAO Doc 9965? Is an unedited or draft version available?
An advanced draft of Doc 9965 Ed2 will be available in April 2022 to support the State review of the FF-ICE/R1 provisions. Individuals may be able to request a copy of this draft to their country representative in ATMRPP, as appropriate. The formal publication of Doc 9965 Ed2 should happen no later than 2024.
Expand
title35. How will current OLDI based electronic coordination and coordination supporting dialogues be supported by FF-ICE
FF-ICE/R1 as stated in a previous question, it is concerned with pre-departure exchanges. (OLDI is post-departure coordination and transfer)
Expand
title40. What is the benefit of processing VFR FPLs?
This is not FF-ICE/R1 related. There are several possible benefits for having NM processing VFR FPLs, e.g a repository of VFR FPLS, thus a single point of contact in case of search and rescue, better VFR FPLs standardisation at European level, etc.



Note

Questions copied from the document SESAR SWIM Workshop 15.03.2022 QA v1.docx, last modified on 14-Feb-2022.




Expand
title37. If the recommendation is to not use 4D profiles, then why do ANSPs need to process eFPL data from NM? The only thing we don't get today in FPL 2012 is the 4D profiles and if they are now seen as not recommended it seems very strange
We are not aware of the recommendation not to use the 4D profiles, CP1 clearly mandate the usage of the data received – there must have been a misunderstanding. However, be reminded that the eFPLs have the potential to support improvement of planning activities and of the local flight predictions (prediction calculations), with the additional data that can be included in the eFPL, e.g. performance profile, maximum take-off weight, 4D trajectory, etc
Expand
title38. So, the ANSPs should still calculate their own 4D profile from the 3D profile we receive in Field 15?
It is likely that the ANSPs (as they use local constraints and tweaking of the profiles) will prefer to continue and calculate local 4D profiles. This doesn’t mean that this is the recommendation.
Expand
title39. Would you please provide more details on how the "flight intent" would be used in the (ATM) planning phase?
There is no difference to today, but the information provided with eFPL and FF-ICE/R1 messages has a higher granularity (more detailed information).

Expand
title41. Checks for consistent use of eFPL (at NM) und FPL2012 (at ANSPs) is important and needs to be checked during the transition phase.
Not a question, but rather a statement that has been addressed in several meetings with the stakeholders.

Expand
title43. If eEAD implemented AF 5.6 FF-ICE services, would using the eEAD application ensure FF-ICE compliance?
As part of iNM (NM system modernisation programme) the current EAD will evolve and its capabilities will continue to be provided by the new systems put in place by iNM. iNM will offer the flight filing capability conforming to SWIM and FF-ICE specifications.
Expand
title44. So, to replace the current reception of FP messages (IFPL, ICHG...) through AFTN, the suggested service to be used is the data publication P/S one, is it right?
TODO
Expand
title45. Distribution and Publication on the slide refer both to the "Publication Service"?
TODO

Expand
title47. On what basis do you say that using the NM converter is not CP1 compliant? CP1 states that we must be able to consume eFPLs. As NM is now defined as being an eASP in this context (and in the FPFDE Implementing Documentation) and they are the "front end" for European eFPL services with AUs, it follows then that the sending of the converted FPLs onto us ANSPs should constitute that we are consuming them and are so compliant.
Converted Efpl into ICAO2012 could face lost of info/data provided by AU in Efpl. However converting eFPLs is not CP1 compliant, but could be used as an intermediate step until full use of eFPL by the CP1 deployment deadline.
Expand
title48. Shouldn't the eASPs receive EFPL (FIXM) as shown in slide 77 AND in addition also FPL (propr. format)?
That is entirely possible, you just need to have two subscriptions
Expand
title49. Does the topic (FLIGHT_PLANS) support to filter certain plans (e.g. only to receive plans X hours prior expected entry in the ATSU, etc.) or is that filter logic in general left to the ANSP system implementation?
There are several filters, as listed in the presentation. But the time filter was not implemented.
Expand
title50. Are there any figures/projections available showing the portion of flights in Europe intending to file their flight plan using eFPL?
  • Most of the traffic generated by European airlines (as well as most of the flight plans filed in the ECAC region) is planned by means of systems supplied by a limited number of CFSPs.
  • Among those, the few most important in terms of generated flight plans have already made significant progress in terms of FF-ICE/R1 developments (eFPL + Filing Service consumption), including testing with NM.
  • Deployment of FF-ICE/R1 capabilities at the individual AU can therefore occur well before the CP1 deadline (31.12.2025, Family 5.6.1). This implies that if actually activated AUs can produce and file eFPLs before the deadline (expecting the relevant benefit).

Expand
title52. Apart from ARR/DEP messages, which shall be sent by our FDPS to NM via B2B, which service shall be used to replace ATFM related messages (such as SAM/SRM/FLS...) and other messages (IAFP, FSA...)?
The NM B2B Services support already all ATFCM messages, check the NM B2B OneSky Teams documentation.
Concerning the other flight plan messages the only one not implemented is the AFP. APR, FNM, MFS, FSA are already supported by the NM B2B.

Expand
title56. Did I understand correctly that subscribing to FLIGH_DATA P/S with the FlightPlanPayloadConfiguration FlightExchangeModel set to NM_B2B is not enough to make us compliant with CP1? Only doing so with the FlightExchangeModel set to FIXM makes us CP1 compliant?
The topic is not FLIGHT_DATA, but FLIGHT_PLANS. And, yes, in order to get FF-ICE flight plans you need to select FIXM, because the FF-ICE elements (like GUFI, version) are only available in FIXM. So to be AF5.6.1 CP1 compliant you need to select FIXM. However this is only the first part. Secondly you will also have to update the FDP to be able to consume and process the enriched flight plans and put this into operational use.