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.
What is a DLM and what is a DLT?
In the SESAR definition phase, a number of formal deliverables had to be produced, these were identified as DLMs. DLMs addressed a wide range of subjects from the technical to the financial and everything inbetween and were in fact the basis on which the European ATM Master Plan was to be built. By necessity, the contents of those DLMS were of a rather high level.
Feeding into the DLMs were the DLTs. These came from the various working groups and their content was integrated to create the DLM of a given subject area.
Why was the DLM and the DLT of the operational concept special?
The Concept of Operations was part of Deliverable 3 (D3) of the definition phase. DLM3 in other words. The corresponding DLT was coming from Work Package 2.2.2… Sounds complicated? Never mind, we will get to the real stuff in a moment but it is important to grasp the basics here so that we also understand the implications.
When creating the deliverables (the DLMs), the DLTs were integrated as I said above. But this integration often meant paraphrasing of the DLTs and the result was not always… well, what people had hoped for.
In the case of the Concept of Operations (CONOPS), while the CONOPS DLT was a comprehensive description of how the future ATM system would work the corresponding parts in the DLM turned out to be so vague that it was judged unsuitable for guiding the future work. Rewriting the DLM would have taken far too long and in any case, there was the CONOPS DLT that was eminently suitable for doing just that…
The problem was resolved by putting a cross reference into the DLM, saying that the CONOPS defined by the 2.2.2 folks was to be used as the primary reference for all future SESAR developments.
This is the only instance where a lower level source document is in fact in the left seat!
What is the status of the 2.2.2 CONOPS and the D3 DLM?
Strictly speaking, only DLMs re recognized as official documents delivered by the SESAR definition phase. However, since DLM3 expressly identifies the 2.2.2 DLT as the primary reference, it stands to reason that it is that DLT, the SESAR CONOPS that must be used in all cases where a conceptual reference is required.
Anybody saying that there is no sufficient guidance or that it is not clear what follows what is of course wrong. The document commonly known as D3 provides the high level principles which are in turn underpinned by the detail given in the 2.2.2 document, the CONOPS itself.
The CONOPS as such had several comments against it when the work was finished and these will need to be resolved in time. But this does not diminish the status of the CONOPS from being the only one in SESAR. The single unique reference.
What is the relationship between the SESAR CONOPS and the ICAO Global ATM Concept?
The ICAO Global ATM Concept was written well before the SESAR CONOPS was conceived. The ICAO material is clearly identified by ICAO itself as high level guidance for regional implementation and its elements (the famous concept components) are shown as constructs to help in understanding the concept.
Clearly, ICAO never intended to suggest that a project like SESAR should take the ICAO concept components and incorporate them into its own CONOPS without the mental exercise required to create a globally interoperable but still regionally optimized operational concept.
The SESAR CONOPS does reference the ICAO concept components but it also shows clearly how they are going to be applied in the Europe. In other words, the SESAR CONOPS is compliant with the ICAO concept but is not a simple copy of it.
The SESAR concept does contain certain proposals the implementation of which will require amendments to existing ICAO provisions. This is not an issue though. ICAO provisions evolve with time when required just like everything else.
What are the most important new elements of the SESAR CONOPS?
The SESAR CONOPS describes a net-centric, trajectory based ATM system, supported by system-wide information management (SWIM) and collaborative decision making (we will be exploring these features under the blog category Buzzwords explained). The concept involves several important paradigm changes from how separation is provided to the move away from an airspace based to a trajectory based approach to air traffic management. Another important consideration is the integration of all ATM partners, airports included.
Is the SESAR CONOPS compatible with the NextGen CONOPS?
Throughout the development of the SESAR CONOPS, the experts working on it were mindful of the parallel developments taking place in the USA on the NextGen concept. If anything, the SESAR CONOPS is striving for advanced solutions that are less emphasized by the NextGen concept. On the level of data management (perhaps the most important compatibility issue) the two concepts fit like a glove.
Beautifully put, Steve, let’s hope someone is out there reading.