| 5. 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 |
|---|
| title | 10. 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 |
|---|
| title | 11. 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 |
|---|
| title | 36. 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 |
|---|
| title | 53. 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
x | Expand |
|---|
| title | 3. 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 |
|---|
| title | 6. 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 |
|---|
| title | 12. 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 |
|---|
| title | 29. 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 |
|---|
| title | 31. 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 |
|---|
| title | 32. 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
 Questions copied from the document SESAR SWIM Workshop 15.03.2022 QA v1.docx, last modified on 14-Feb-2022.
| Expand |
|---|
| title | 4. 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 |
|---|
| title | 14. 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 |
|---|
| title | 15. 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 |
|---|
| title | 19. 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 |
|---|
| title | 21. 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 |
|---|
| title | 42. 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 |
|---|
| title | 55. 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 |
|---|
| title | 54. 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 |
|---|
| title | 2. 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 |
|---|
| title | 20. 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 |
|---|
| title | 13. 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 |
|---|
| title | 9. 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 |
|---|
| title | 16. 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 |
|---|
| title | 17. How long the translation service will last after 2025? |
|---|
| As long as needed. |
| Expand |
|---|
| title | 18. How long will NM support a translation service for after 2025? |
|---|
| As long as needed. |
| Expand |
|---|
| title | 22. 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 |
|---|
| title | 23. 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 |
|---|
| title | 25. 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 |
|---|
| title | 27. Will NM continue to support FPL 2012 distribution by AMHS/AFTN |
|---|
| | Yes |
| Expand |
|---|
| title | 28. 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 |
|---|
| title | 46. 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. |