This section aggregates requirements on the consumption of the NM B2B Services in support of the FF-ICE/R1 information exchanges, to help concerned Stakeholders conform to the applicable CP1 requirements. The conformity checklists captured in the Handbook for ANSPs and the Handbook for AUs then identifies the requirements that need to be satisfied in order for a concerned Stakeholder to achieve a particular objective set by CP1 and the SESAR Deployment Programme.
Status
Information Exchange Requirements
The CP1 regulation states that:
(a) related to FF-ICE Release 1 Services:
- flight plan and routes generation and validation;
- flight plans, 4D trajectory, flight performance data, flight status;
- flights lists and detailed flight data;
These statements in CP1 context means:
- routes generation and validation: this relates to the Expanded Route as described in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix E-3. (An expanded route contains every significant point that is in the route. While a Route has only the entry and exit point from each ATS route traversed, the expanded route contains each significant point traversed along each ATS route.)
- 4D trajectory: this relates to the Trajectory as specified in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix B-3 and Appendix E-3.
- flight performance data: this relates to the Route/Trajectory Specific Performance Data as described in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Chapter 10.3, table 2. It comprises Climb and descent speed schedule, Take-off mass and Performance climb and descent profile. This also relates to the weigh evolution along the flight (weight at route/trajectory elements), which is part of the European extension to the eFPL.
- Flight status: this relates to the Operator Flight Plan Version and the Filing Status (ACCEPTABLE, NON-ACCEPTABLE) as described in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix B. This also relates to the NM Revalidation status (COMPLIANT, ADVISORY or SUSPENDED). Note: The term "Flight Status” used in CP1 does NOT refer to Field 18 STS, sometimes called status field, which captures the Reason for special handling by ATS. In FF-ICE, this piece of information is explicitly represented by the Data Item “Special Handling” in Data Category “Flight Characteristics”.
- flights lists: the notion of "Flights Lists" is not described in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual. It is therefore considered that this particular wording relates related to flight identification based on GUFI.
- detailed flight data: This relates to the eFPL content that is not new compared to what is currently exchanged, i.e. this relates to the flight plan data items already exchanged in FPL 2012 format.
The Information Exchange Requirements below are specified based on this meaning. They complement the IERs for FF-ICE/R1 that are specified in Appendix B and Appendix C of the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual.
In the next tables, the following wording and convention are used:
[Wording]
- The ‘filed eFPL’ designates the flight information that is sent by an Airspace User to the Network Manager using the FF-ICE Filing Service.
- The ‘desired route/trajectory‘ designates the route/trajectory group that is provided by an operator when submitting or updating an eFPL using the FF-ICE Filing Service.
- The ‘distributed eFPL’ designates the flight information that is sent by the Network Manager to ANSPs using the FF-ICE Publication Service.
- The ‘flight (plan) data response’ (resp. ‘flight (status) data response’) designates the flight information that is sent by the Network Manager as a response to a valid Flight Data Request of type “FLIGHT_PLAN” (resp. of type “FLIGHT_STATUS”) made by an ANSP using the FF-ICE Flight Data Request Service.
[Convention]
- MUST - indicates an IER that has be satisfied in order to comply with CP1;
- SHOULD - indicates an IER that is recommended in order to maximise the benefits of the implementation;
- MAY - indicates an optional IER that is nice to have.
Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users (Filing Service)
Exchange of flight information - Route and 4D trajectory | ||
---|---|---|
REQ | The desired route/trajectory of the filed eFPL MUST contain an expanded route. | |
REQ | The desired route/trajectory of the filed eFPL MUST at least contain: - One Initial Prediction Point; - One End Prediction Point; - Top of Climb (TOC) points for the initial cruising level and every subsequent requested cruising level change after a climb; - One Top of Descent (TOD) point where the trajectory begins a descent from the final cruising level. - Trajectory Change Point – Vertical (TCP-V) points where a level segment (intermediate or cruise) is initiated or terminated. | |
RATIONALE | A Route/Trajectory is distinguished by the type of route provided, and the type of trajectory information provided. The ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix E-3. Route/Trajectory, specifies the five options for the level of details of the route/trajectory information in an eFPL, described as packages: The exchange of a 4D trajectory is explicitly mandated by CP1, and the CP1 wording routes generation and validation is interpreted as relating to the Expanded Route. Therefore, the minimum requirement from a CP1 perspective is that Package 2B (Expanded Route with selected trajectory points) is supported in the filed eFPL. The selection of trajectory points to be supported compulsorily is based on the minimum trajectory requirements specified in the NM IFPS User Manual R27.0. | |
Exchange of flight information - Flight Performance Data | ||
REQ | The estimated take-off mass, the performance profile and the speed schedule: - MUST be provided in the filed eFPL for Commercial Air Transport Operations (1) and Military Flights operating GAT. - SHOULD be provided in the filed eFPL for other types of aircraft operations, such as General Aviation Operations (2). | |
REQ | The weight of the aircraft at each route/trajectory element: - SHOULD be provided in the filed eFPL for Commercial Air Transport Operations and Military Flights operating GAT. - MAY be provided in the filed eFPL for other types of aircraft operations, such as General Aviation Operations. | |
RATIONALE | The ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual Chapter, chapter 10.3, recognises that the provision of the performance data items could be done as logical combinations (“estimated take-off weight with speed schedule” OR “performance profile”). However, the use of all three data items is expected to be highly beneficial in Europe. Therefore, the exchange of the estimated take-off mass, the performance profile and the speed schedule is declared mandatory (must) for Commercial Air Transport Operations and Military Flights operating GAT. The exchange of these data items is recommended (should) for other types of aircraft operations in order to acknowledge that the information, although nice to have, may be harder to originate for e.g. General Aviation Operations. The exchange of the weight of the aircraft at each route/trajectory, which is part of the European extension to the eFPL, is recommended (should) for Commercial Air Transport Operations and Military Flights operating GAT and optional (may) for other operations, in order to acknowledge that while the information can be beneficial to enhance the trajectory predictions, its further exchange by the Network Manager to ANSPs may not always be possible or relevant – see below the rationale for the IERs on the Publication Service / Flight Performance Data. | |
Exchange of flight information - Flight status | ||
REQ | The operator flight plan version MUST be provided in the filed eFPL. | |
RATIONALE | The term "Flight Status” used in CP1 refers to the Data Category of the same name specified in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual Appendix C, which for the filed eFPL comprises the Operator flight plan version. Note: The operator flight plan version is already declared mandatory in the filed eFPL in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix C-4. | |
Exchange of flight information - Flights lists | ||
REQ | The Globally Unique Flight Identifier (GUFI) MUST be provided in the filed eFPL. | |
RATIONALE | This is to enable the flight / flight plan identification based on GUFI. Note: The GUFI is already declared mandatory in the filed eFPL in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix C-4. | |
Exchange of flight information - Detailed flight data | ||
REQ | The eFPL data items that are not new compared to what is currently exchanged in FPL 2012 format MUST be provided in the filed eFPL. | |
RATIONALE | This is to ensure that the filed eFPL does not miss information compared to its ATS message counterpart. Note: This is specified in ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, Appendix C-4. |
(1) Commercial Air Transport Operation = An Aircraft Operation involving the transport of passengers, Cargo or Mail for remuneration or hire. [ICAO]
(2) General Aviation Operation = An Aircraft Operation other than a Commercial air transport operation or an Aerial work Operation. [ICAO]
Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users (Trial Service)
Airspace users, when testing out alternative trajectories using the Trial Service, are expected to submit “what-if eFPLs” with the same required content as the filed eFPLs. Therefore, the Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users specified above for the Filing Service are equally applicable to the trial request of the Trial Service.
Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service)
Exchange of flight information - Route and 4D trajectory | ||
---|---|---|
REQ | The agreed route/trajectory MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
REQ | The agreed route/trajectory that is provided in the distributed eFPL MUST have the same level of detail as the desired route/trajectory provided in the filed eFPL. | |
REQ | The agreed route/trajectory that is provided in the distributed eFPL MUST identify, where appropriate, the constraints impacting the desired route/trajectory, if any. | |
REQ | The desired route/trajectory provided by the airspace user in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL in addition to the agreed route/trajectory. | |
RATIONALE | The exchange of the agreed route/trajectory as part of the distributed eFPL is mandatory because it is the route/trajectory on record within the IFPS Zone against which the airspace user is recommended to synchronise its own desired route/trajectory. See FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, chapter 6.3.5 for further details on the recommendation on the Airspace Users to react to agreed route/trajectories and synchronise their own route/trajectories. Synchronising trajectories is one of the main objectives of trajectory based operations allowing both the operator and the ATM functions to obtain the benefits that improved predictability can provide in terms of flight efficiency and ATM resource management. The requirement on the preservation of the level of details between the agreed and desired route/trajectories ensures that that Package 2B (Expanded Route with selected trajectory points) is equally supported in the distributed eFPL, as a minimum requirement. Additionally, the agreed route/trajectory must identify, where appropriate, the constraints (PTRs) impacting the desired trajectory by adding the necessary constraint points and references to the PTR identifiers, where appropriate. The exchange of the desired route/trajectory in the distributed eFPL is mandatory (must). The outcome of the trajectory synchronisation between Airspace Users and the Network Manager during the planning phase is expected to minimise the differences between the desired and agreed route/trajectories. However, differences might still exist within acceptable limits, as acknowledged by the FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, chapter 6.3.5, and the knowledge by ATC of the desired route/trajectory as provided in the field eFPL will prove helpful in some particular circumstances. | |
ASSOCIATED ANSP USE CASES | Use of eFPL Trajectory Instead of RFL Profiles Use of (Expanded) Route Start Points for Trajectory Computation Use of Route/Trajectory Data for ToD/ToC ANSP Use of AU Filed Desired Route/Trajectory | |
Exchange of flight information - Flight Performance Data | ||
REQ | The estimated take-off mass, the performance profile and the speed schedule provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
REQ | The performance profile, when provided in the filed eFPL, MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
REQ | The speed schedule, when provided in the filed eFPL, MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
REQ | The weight of the aircraft at each route/trajectory element MAY be provided in the distributed eFPL, where appropriate. | |
RATIONALE | This ensures that all flight performance data as specified in the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual that is provided to the Network Manager by the Airspace User is also available to the ANSPs. The exchange of the weight of the aircraft at each route/trajectory, which is part of the European extension to the eFPL, is optional (may) as part of the distributed eFPL. The agreed route/trajectory may introduce lateral and/or vertical changes compared to the desired route/trajectory, therefore affecting the estimation of the weight evolution provided by the airspace user. Consequently, it may not always be appropriate to reuse the “weight at route/trajectory element” information from the desired route/trajectory into the agreed route/trajectory. | |
ASSOCIATED ANSP USE CASES | Processing of the Performance Profile for Trajectory Computation Aircraft Performance Data for Flight Monitoring Aircraft Performance Data for Traffic Complexity Tool Aircraft Performance Data for MTCD Aircraft Performance Data for Sector Sequence Aircraft Take-off Mass & Speed Schedule for Trajectory Computation Display of the Aircraft Take-off Mass to the ATCO Mass per Point | |
Exchange of flight information - Flight status | ||
REQ | The operator flight plan version provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
REQ | The revalidation status MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL, whenever the outcome of the flight plan revalidation needs to be exchanged. | |
RATIONALE | The exchange of the operator flight plan version (which in FF-ICE belongs to the Data Category Flight Status) is mandatory (must) in the distributed eFPL, in so far as the knowledge by ANSPs of this piece of information is essential in order to guarantee that only the most recent and up-to-date flight plan data is used. The exchange of the NM Revalidation status in the distributed eFPL is also mandatory when appropriate in order to ensure that ANSPs are always informed of a change of eFPL status, e.g. when an eFPL is suspended. | |
ASSOCIATED ANSP USE CASES | Management of Operator Flight Plan Version Display of the Operator Flight Plan Version to the ATCO | |
Exchange of flight information - Flights lists | ||
REQ | The Globally Unique Flight Identifier (GUFI) MUST be provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
RATIONALE | This is to allow the flight / flight plan identification based on GUFI. | |
ASSOCIATED ANSP USE CASES | Use of GUFI for FF-ICE Message Association FF-ICE Message Received with Unknown GUFI | |
Exchange of flight information - Detailed flight data | ||
REQ | The eFPL data items that are not new compared to what is currently exchanged in FPL 2012 format MUST be equally provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
RATIONALE | This is to ensure that the distributed eFPL does not miss information compared to what is currently distributed to ANSPs. |
Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Flight Data Request Service)
Exchange of flight information - Route and 4D trajectory | ||
---|---|---|
REQ | The agreed route/trajectory MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response. | |
REQ | The agreed route/trajectory that is provided in the flight (plan) data response MUST have the same content as the agreed route/trajectory provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
REQ | The desired route/trajectory provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response, in addition to the agreed route/trajectory. | |
RATIONALE | The requirements aim to ensure that the route/trajectory information provided to ANSPs upon request via the Flight Data Request Service is similar content-wise to the route/trajectory information pushed to ANSPs via the Publication Service. The exchange of the agreed route/trajectory as part of the flight (plan) data response is mandatory because it is the route/trajectory on record within the IPFS Zone against which the airspace user is recommended to synchronise its own desired route/trajectory. The exchange of the desired route/trajectory is mandatory as part of the flight (plan) data response, to be consistent with the similar IER above related to the Publication Service. This is also consistent with the FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual, chapter 10.1.1, that states that An eASP may provide the Desired or Agreed route/trajectory group in a Flight Data Response to a legitimate Flight Data Request message. | |
Exchange of flight information - Flight Performance Data | ||
REQ | The estimated take-off mass provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response. | |
REQ | The performance profile provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response. | |
REQ | The speed schedule provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response. | |
REQ | The weight of the aircraft at each route/trajectory element MAY be provided in the flight (plan) data response, where appropriate. | |
RATIONALE | The requirements aim to ensure that the flight performance data provided to ANSPs upon request via the Flight Data Request Service is similar content-wise to the flight performance data pushed to ANSPs via the Publication Service. | |
Exchange of flight information - Flight status | ||
REQ | The operator flight plan version provided in the filed eFPL MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response. | |
RATIONALE | The Filing Status value MUST be provided in the flight (status) data response. | |
Exchange of flight information - Flights lists | ||
REQ | The Globally Unique Flight Identifier (GUFI) MUST be provided in the flight (plan) data response and flight (status) data response. | |
RATIONALE | The requirement aims to ensure that the data provided to ANSPs upon request via the Flight Data Request Service is similar content-wise to the data pushed to ANSPs via the Publication Service. | |
Exchange of flight information - Detailed flight data | ||
REQ | The eFPL data items that are not new compared to what is currently exchanged in FPL 2012 format MUST be equally provided in the distributed eFPL. | |
RATIONALE | The requirement aims to ensure that the data provided to ANSPs upon request via the Flight Data Request Service is similar content-wise to the data pushed to ANSPs via the Publication Service. |
Information Exchange Requirements for ANSPs (Notification Service)
No specific IER beyond the applicable ones specified in Appendix B and Appendix C of the ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual.
Summary Tables for the eFPL content
FF-ICE Data item presence in the filed eFPL
The table below provides a recap of the rules on the presence of fields for the filed eFPL (i.e. the eFPL sent by an eAU to NM). The table should be read as follows:
- Columns 1 and 2 contains the name of the Data Category and Data Item as listed in ICAO Doc 9965 Ed2 Volume 2 (the FF-ICE/R1 Implementation Guidance Manual), chapter C-4 Filed Flight Plan. A data item displayed in italic is an FF-ICE data item that is specific to Europe.
- Use of symbol indicates that the FF-ICE Data Item is new in the eFPL compared to the legacy FPL content.
- Columns 3 to 7 describe the rules on the presence of the FF-ICE Data Item in the filed eFPL.
- Column 3 indicates whether the data item is declared Mandatory (M) or Optional (O) in the message template for the filed flight plan provided by FIXM's FF-ICE Message Application 1.1.0, which generally reflect the rules on the presence of fields from ICAO Doc 9965 Ed2 Volume 2, Appendix C.
- Column 4 indicates whether the data item is considered mandatory (M) as per CP1. Use of the character "-" indicates that CP1 does not specify any rule for that item.
- Column 5 indicates whether the data item is considered Mandatory (M), Optional (O), forbidden (F), or not needed by NM. Use of the character "-" indicates that no rules are specified on top of what FIXM specifies.
- Column 6 indicates whether the data item is considered Mandatory (M) from the perspective given Use cases (ANSPs).
- Column 7 provides the aggregated rule on the presence of the data item, which corresponds to the most stringent of the FIXM, CP1, NM and Use Cases rules.
- Column 8 provides an indication whether the data item is supported by the current NM systems, based on the NM B2B R27 documentation. Use of symbol means that the data item is supported by the NM B2B R27 Filing Service. Use of symbol indicates that data item is either partly supported (e.g. can be received but cannot be processed yet) or not supported.
- Column 9 may capture additional notes in relation to the requirements on the data item presence, such as the justification for a particular CP1 requirement that is more stringent than what ICAO specifies.
Content of | Requirements on Data Item presence in the filed eFPL | |||||||
Data Category | Data Item | From FIXM | From EU CP1 | From NM B2B | From Use Cases | Aggregated Requirement | NM R27 Capabilities | Notes / Justifications |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Message Information | List of Recipients | O | - | Not needed | - | Not needed | The FIXM template leaves these fields optional, even though they are described as mandatory in ICAO Doc 9965 Ed2 Volume 2 Appendix C-4, to allow these fields to be absent from the XML body of the FF-ICE message if they can be exchanged/retrieved through other means, as is the case in the NM B2B implementation. | |
Message Originator | O | - | Not needed | - | Not needed | |||
Request for Translation and Delivery | O | - | Not needed | - | Not needed | This item identifies the eASP that has been requested to translate and deliver the Flight Plan to identified Requested Recipients. In the context of the European implementation of FF-ICE, this eASP is always NM. The information is therefore implicit and the field is irrelevant. | ||
Requested Recipients | O | - | - | - | O | This implements the (IFPS Users Manual) Re-addressing Function. | ||
Request for Forwarding | O | - | Not needed | - | Not needed | This item identifies the eASP that is requested to forward the Flight Plan to all Relevant ASPs. In the context of the European implementation of FF-ICE, this eASP is always NM. The information is therefore implicit and the field does not need to be provided. | ||
Relevant ASPs | M | - | - | M | ||||
Message Date-Time | O | - | Not needed | - | Not needed | See Notes above for "Message Originator" | ||
Message Identifier | O | - | M | - | M | |||
Type of Request/Response | O | - | M | - | M | |||
AFTN Address | O | - | - | - | - | ? | ||
Contact Information | O O | - | Not needed | - | Not needed | The NM B2B services implements an authentication mechanism (using digital certificates – PKI) which makes the exchange of contact information about the sender not needed as part of the FF-ICE Message. | ||
Flight Identification | GUFI | M | - | - | - | M | ||
Aircraft Identification | M | - | M | - | M | |||
Flight Status | Operator Flight Plan Version | M | M | - | - | M | See Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users: (Filing Service), part Flight status. | |
Flight Characteristics | Flight Rules | M | - | - | - | M | ||
Type of Flight | O | - | M | - | M | |||
Special Handling | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Flight Plan Originator | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Remarks | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Operator | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Equipment and Capabilities | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Supplementary Information Source | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Required Runway Visual Range | O | - | - | - | O | |||
EUR Special Handling | N/A | - | O | - | O | |||
Aircraft Characteristics | Total number of aircraft | O | - | - | - | O | ||
Registration | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Aircraft Address | O | - | - | - | O | |||
SELCAL Code | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Mode A Code | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Number and type of aircraft | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Wake Turbulence Category | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Aircraft Approach Category | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Departure/Destination Data | Departure Aerodrome | M | - | - | M | |||
Destination Aerodrome | M | - | - | M | ||||
Estimated Off-Block Time | M | - | - | M | ||||
Departure Airport Slot Identification | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Destination Airport Slot Identification | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Departure Runway | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Destination Runway | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Alternates | Alternate Destination Aerodrome(s) | O | - | - | - | O | ||
Alternate Take-Off Aerodrome(s) | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Alternate En-Route Aerodrome(s) | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Desired Route/Trajectory | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Route/Traj. Group | Aircraft Take-off Mass | O | M | - | - | M | ||
Requested Cruising Speed | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Requested Cruising Level | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Total Estimated Elapsed Time | O | - | M | - | M | |||
General Flight Constraint | O | - | F | - | F | N/A | ||
Route/Traj. Element | M (2+) | M (2+) | M (2+) | - | M (2+) | |||
Along Route Distance | O | - | M | - | M | |||
Route Element Start Point | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Route to Next Element | O | - | - | - | O | The ICAO FF-ICE/R1 Manual states that the field is required on each element, except when the element is the last point of the route. | ||
Route Truncation Indicator | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Requested Change | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Route/Trajectory Constraints | O | - | F | - | F | N/A | ||
Trajectory Point | O | M (Cond) | - | - | M (Cond) | See Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users: (Filing Service), part Route and 4D trajectory. The minimum requirement from a CP1 perspective is that Package 1B (= Route with selected trajectory points) is supported. This implies that a selection of 4D Trajectory Points have to be exchanged in the filed eFPL, but not necessarily for all the constituting Route/Trajectory Elements. Therefore, the CP1 Rule is set to M (Conditional). | ||
Geo Position | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Time | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Level | M | - | - | - | M | |||
Predicted Airspeed | O | - | - | - | M | |||
Predicted Ground Speed | O | - | - | - | M | |||
Wind Vector | O O O | - - - | M M M | - - - | M M M | |||
Assumed Altimeter Setting | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Temperature | O O | - | M M | - - | M M | |||
Trajectory Point Property | O M O O | M (Cond) - - - | - - - - | - - - - | M (Cond) M O O | See Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users: (Filing Service), part Route and 4D trajectory. A trajectory can either involve a selection of trajectory points, or be a complete trajectory. In the former case, the data item Trajectory Point Property MUST always be provided, because all the 4D trajectory points that constitute the selection must be qualified. In the latter case, only a subset of the trajectory points will be qualified; the other 4D trajectory points added to the complete trajectory will have no Trajectory Point Property. The CP1 Rule is set to M (Conditional) in order to reflect this. | ||
Planned Delay | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Weight at Point | N/A | O | O | - | O | See Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users: (Filing Service), part Flight Performance Data. | ||
Route/Traj. Aircraft Performance | Performance Profile | O O M (1+) O M M M M | M (Cond) M (Cond) - - - - - - | - - M (3+) - - - - - | - - - - - - - - | M M M (3+) O M M M M | See Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users: (Filing Service), part Flight Performance Data. | |
Speed Schedule | O O M M | M (Cond) M (Cond) - - | - - - - | - - - - | M M M M | See Information Exchange Requirements for Airspace Users: (Filing Service), part Flight Performance Data. | ||
Route to Revised Destination | Revised Destination | O | - | - | - | O | ||
Route String to Revised Destination | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Dangerous Goods | Dangerous Goods Information | O | - | - | - | O | ||
AIRAC | AIRAC Reference | O | - | - | - | O | ||
Supplementary Information | Fuel Endurance | O | - | - | - | O | ||
Persons on Board | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Emergency Radio | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Survival Capability | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Life Jacket Characteristics | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Aircraft Colour and Markings | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Pilot in Command | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Dinghies | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Remarks | O | - | - | - | O | |||
Other European Items | Stay Information | N/A | - | O | - | O | ||
EUR Special Handling | N/A | - | O | - | O | |||
FF-ICE Data item presence in the distributed eFPL (Summary table)
The table below provides a recap of the rules on the presence of fields for the distributed eFPL (i.e. the eFPL sent by NM to ANSPs). The table follows the same conventions as the previous table and can be read in a similar manner.
The distributed eFPL is sent by NM to ANSPs using the FF-ICE Publication Service. ICAO Doc 9965 Ed2 Volume 2 does NOT specify the FF-ICE Messages exchanged by this Publication Service. As a result:
- no tabular description of the distributed eFPL can be found in Appendix C of ICAO Doc 9965 Ed2 Volume 2. The table shown below is however inspired by ICAO Doc 9965 Ed2 Volume 2, chapters C-4 Filed Flight Plan and C-5 Filing Status, with altogether provides a good baseline for outlining the content of the distributed eFPL.
- no XML message template exists in the FIXM "FF-ICE Message" Application 1.1.0 that can support the exchange of the distributed eFPL. The NM B2B Publication Services actually exchanges the distributed eFPL using a message named “FficePublicationMessage”, which is a bespoke NM B2B message. This message, however, still uses FIXM Core 4.3.0 for the representation of the flight data. It should be noted that all flight data items in FIXM Core 4.3.0 are declared optional. Therefore, for readability purpose, the column "From FIXM" outlining the requirements on the presence of fields is not shown in the table below.
Content of | Requirements on Data Item presence in the distributed eFPL | ||||||
Data Category | Data Item | Mandatory in filed eFPL? | From | From Use Cases | Aggregated Requirements | NM R27 Capabilities | Notes / Justifications |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flight Identification | GUFI | Yes | - | M | |||
Aircraft Identification | Yes | - | M | ||||
Flight Status | Operator Flight Plan Version | Yes | M | M | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service), part Flight status. | ||
Revalidation Status | N/A | M (Cond) | M (Cond) | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager The CP1 rule is set to M (Cond) to acknowledge that the distributed eFPL will only include a revalidation status if a re-evaluation has effectively taken place whose outcome needs to be communicated to relevant eASPs. | |||
Revalidation Status Explanation | N/A | - | O | ||||
Flight Characteristics | Flight Rules | Yes | - | M | |||
Type of Flight | Yes | - | M | ||||
Special Handling | No | - | O | ||||
Flight Plan Originator | No | - | O | ||||
Remarks | No | - | O | ||||
Operator | No | - | O | ||||
Equipment and Capabilities | Yes | - | M | ||||
Supplementary Information Source | No | - | O | ||||
Required Runway Visual Range | No | - | O | ||||
Aircraft Characteristics | Total number of aircraft | No | - | O | |||
Registration | No | - | O | ||||
Aircraft Address | No | - | O | ||||
SELCAL Code | No | - | O | ||||
Mode A Code | No | - | O | ||||
Number and type of aircraft | Yes | - | M | ||||
Wake Turbulence Category | Yes | - | M | ||||
Aircraft Approach Category | No | - | O | ||||
Departure/Destination Data | Departure Aerodrome | Yes | - | M | |||
Destination Aerodrome | Yes | - | M | ||||
Estimated Off-Block Time | Yes | - | M | ||||
Departure Airport Slot Identification | No | - | O | ||||
Destination Airport Slot Identification | No | - | O | ||||
Departure Runway | No | - | O | ||||
Destination Runway | No | - | O | ||||
Alternates | Alternate Destination Aerodrome(s) | No | - | O | |||
Alternate Take-Off Aerodrome(s) | No | - | O | ||||
Alternate En-Route Aerodrome(s) | No | - | O | ||||
Desired Route/Trajectory | Yes | M (Cond) | O | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service), part Route and 4D trajectory. | |||
Agreed Route/Trajectory | N/A | M (Cond) | M (Cond) | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager CP1 requires a trajectory to be exchanged as part of the eFPL. However, an eFPL that becomes invalid after a flight plan re-evaluation will not contain an agreed route/trajectory. Therefore, the rule on the presence of the field is set to M (Conditional). | |||
Route/Traj. Group | Aircraft Take-off Mass | Yes | M | M | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service), part Flight Performance Data. | ||
Requested Cruising Speed | Yes | - | M | ||||
Requested Cruising Level | Yes | - | M | ||||
Total Estimated Elapsed Time | Yes | - | M | ||||
General Flight Constraint | No | - | TBD | ||||
Route/Traj. Element | Yes | M (2+) | M (2+) | ||||
Along Route Distance | Yes | - | M | ||||
Route Element Start Point | Yes | - | M | ||||
Route to Next Element | No | - | O | Required on each element, except when the element is the last point of the route. | |||
Modified Route Indicator | No | - | O | ||||
Route Truncation Indicator | No | - | O | ||||
Requested Change | No | - | O | ||||
Route/Trajectory Constraints | No | - | TBD | ||||
Trajectory Point | Yes (Cond) | M (Cond) | M (Cond) | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager | |||
Geo Position | Yes | - | M | ||||
Time | Yes | - | M | ||||
Level | Yes | - | M | ||||
Predicted Airspeed | Yes | - | O | ||||
Predicted Ground Speed | Yes | - | O | ||||
Wind Vector | Yes Yes Yes | - - - | TBD TBD TBD | ||||
Assumed Altimeter Setting | No | - | O | ||||
Temperature | Yes Yes | - - | TBD TBD | ||||
Trajectory Point Property | Yes (Cond) Yes - - | M (Cond) - - - | O M O O | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service), part Route and 4D trajectory. | |||
Planned Delay | No | - | O | ||||
Weight at Point | No | - | O | ||||
Route/Traj. Aircraft Performance | Performance Profile | Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes | M M - - - - - - | M M M (3+) O M M M M | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service), part Flight Performance Data. | ||
Speed Schedule | Yes Yes Yes Yes | M M - - | M M M M | See Information Exchange Requirements for the Network Manager (Publication Service), part Flight Performance Data. | |||
Route to Revised Destination | Revised Destination | No | - | O | |||
Route String to Revised Destination | No | - | O | ||||
Dangerous Goods | Dangerous Goods Information | No | - | O | |||
AIRAC | AIRAC Reference | No | - | O | |||
Supplementary Information | Fuel Endurance | No | - | O | |||
Persons on Board | No | - | O | ||||
Emergency Radio | No | - | O | ||||
Survival Capability | No | - | O | ||||
Life Jacket Characteristics | No | - | O | ||||
Aircraft Colour and Markings | No | - | O | ||||
Pilot in Command | No | - | O | ||||
Dinghies | No | - | O | ||||
Remarks | No | - | O | ||||
Other European Items | Route Text | N/A | - | O | |||
Ifps Identifier | N/A | - | O | ||||
Stay Information | No | - | O | ||||
AO What-If ReRoute Indicator | N/A | - | O | ||||
Replacement Flight Plan Indicator | N/A | - | O | ||||
Other requirements
Requirements on the connection to NM B2B Services
FFICE-REQ-001 - Signature of an agreement with NM
Title | Signature of an agreement with NM |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-001 |
Stakeholders | ANSP, AU |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST sign an agreement with NM in order to be able to consume the NM B2B Services. |
Rationale | Access to the NM B2B Services is subject to eligibility and usage conditions. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
|
FFICE-REQ-002 - Access request to NM B2B Filing service
Title | Access request to NM B2B Filing service |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-002 |
Stakeholders | AU |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST request access to the NM B2B Filing Service. |
Rationale | Access to this NM B2B service is necessary for Stakeholders seeking to consume the FF-ICE Filing service provided by NM. See FF-ICE in the NM B2B for details. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
FFICE-REQ-003 - Access request to NM B2B Trial service
Title | Access request to NM B2B Trial service |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-003 |
Stakeholders | AU |
Requirement | The Stakeholder SHOULD request access to the NM B2B Trial Service. |
Rationale | Access to this NM B2B service is necessary for Stakeholders seeking to consume the FF-ICE Trial service provided by NM. See FF-ICE in the NM B2B for details. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
FFICE-REQ-004 - Access request to NM B2B Flight Data Request service
Title | Access request to NM B2B Flight Data Request service |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-004 |
Stakeholders | ANSP, AU |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST request access to the NM B2B Flight Data Request service. |
Rationale | Access to the NM B2B Flight Data Request service is necessary for Stakeholders seeking to consume the FF-ICE Flight Data Request service provided by NM. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
FFICE-REQ-005 - Access request to NM B2B Notification service
Title | Access request to NM B2B Notification service |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-005 |
Stakeholders | ANSP |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST request access to the NM B2B Notification service. |
Rationale | Access to this NM B2B service is necessary for Stakeholders seeking to consume the FF-ICE Notification service provided by NM. See FF-ICE in the NM B2B for details. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
FFICE-REQ-006 - Access request to NM B2B Publication Service
Title | Access request to NM B2B Publication service |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-006 |
Stakeholders | ANSP |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST request access to the NM B2B Flight Management service. |
Rationale | Access to NM B2B Publication Service service is necessary for Stakeholders seeking to consume the FF-ICE Data Publication service provided by NM. See FF-ICE in the NM B2B for details. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance | Fill in the form as follows: ... |
Requirements on the management of subscriptions to FF-ICE information
FFICE-REQ-007 - Subscription to relevant eFPLs
Title | Subscription to relevant eFPLs and associated changes |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-007 |
Stakeholders | ANSP |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST manage its subscriptions appropriately using the NM B2B Publication Service so that it receives all relevant eFPLs filed by the eAUs and accepted by NM, as well as any subsequent changes to the ePFLs acceptance status. |
Rationale | |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | This replaces the current reception of FP messages (IFPL, ICHG...) through AFTN. It materialises the paradigm shift from a provider-driven "push" of legacy IFPL/ICHG messages to consumer-driven subscriptions to eFPLs & subsequent changes. |
Guidance | See NM B2B documentation |
FFICE-REQ-008 - Subscription to relevant notifications of departure and arrival
Title | Subscription to relevant notifications of departure and arrival |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-008 |
Stakeholders | ANSP |
Requirement | The Stakeholder SHALL manage its subscriptions appropriately using the NM B2B Subscription Management so that it receives all the notifications of departure and arrivals relevant to their operations. |
Rationale | |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance | See NM B2B documentation |
Requirements on the development, testing and validation of NM B2B client applications
FFICE-REQ-xxx - Development based on latest NM B2B release
Title | Development based on latest NM B2B release |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-xxx |
Stakeholders | AU, ANSP, ARO |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST consider the latest NM B2B release available at the start of their B2B client application development. |
Rationale | NM has been deploying new releases of its software on a regular basis. Since 2018, each new release has gradually incorporated new or enhanced FF-ICE-related capabilities. Starting the development of a client application based on the latest release of the NM B2B guarantees that these development are based on the most up-to-date implementation of FF-ICE services by NM. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
FFICE-REQ-xxx - Development and testing in PRE-OPS
Title | Development and testing in PRE-OPS |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-xxx |
Stakeholders | AU, ANSP, ARO |
Requirement | The Stakeholder MUST develop and test its B2B client application supporting FF-ICE/R1 exchanges using the PREOPS platform. |
Rationale | NM deploys the NM B2B services on distinct platforms with distinct purposes, enabled services, data and access. The main purpose of the PREOPS platform is to support the development and testing of B2B client applications without impacting the operations. This platform is also used to validate the correct behaviour of client applications and to assess their readiness to be connected to the Operational platform. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
FFICE-REQ-xxx - Validation for OPS usage
Title | Validation for OPS usage |
---|---|
Identifier | FFICE-REQ-xxx |
Stakeholders | AU, ANSP, ARO |
Requirement | The Stakeholder having performed the necessary developments and tests in PREOPS MUST get their client application validated by NM for OPS usage. |
Rationale | The operational use of the B2B Services will be allowed only after the Stakeholder has successfully executed the NM acceptance validation processes. This process is established in order to make sure that only client applications with correct behaviour use the operational system. |
CP1 Mandate | |
Notes | |
Guidance |
|