Exclusive interview with Michael Standar, Chief Operational Concepts and Validation, SESAR Joint Undertaking.
Since the inception of the current phase of the SESAR program, we have come to expect regular updates published by the SESAR Joint Undertaking telling the ATM community how things were going. SESAR has introduced a refreshingly innovative way of communicating with the world, making use of all the modern communications means from electronic newsletters to the social media.
Communications issued so far have focused on the achievements but like all major projects, SESAR is also not without problems and issues that they need to address. This is normal and problems are there to be solved. The main thing for managers is to figure out how to solve the problems and not necessarily to avoid them at any cost.
In this exclusive interview with Michael Standar, Chief Operational Concepts and Validation, we talk about the inevitable problems and how the SJU is going about solving them.
It is said that the reduction in traffic has reduced ANSP revenue and as a result, ANSPs had to cut back their resources. As a consequence, they were forced to allocate to the SESAR work experts who are less familiar with the discussions in the Definition Phase, less familiar with the exact meaning of the Concept of Operations. Does this have an impact on the work and if yes, how will it be countered?
SESAR is a major programme including all aviation stakeholders. Through its construction of the three phases, there will always be new faces joining in the work. But we place a great emphasis on sharing the exact meaning of the ConOps through innovative internal communication features.
This being said, we are prepared to share and communicate to each and every individual working in or with SESAR the concept implications in terms of change in procedures and systems. This will be a continuous learning process for many years to come.
We keep hearing that in the recent past the SJU was suggesting to the members, but was turned down by them, that the project should be halted for a few months to better organize the co-ordination of the multitude of projects to ensure that their results fit together properly in the end. Has this problem been resolved?
SESAR is about creating “one ATM system” with the target concept as the goal to achieve the required performance: To do this we need to make the best use of available knowledge, procedures, technical enablers and the best fitting regulatory arrangements amongst all ATM stakeholders.
We are in this process right now in order for the best and coherent solutions from the SESAR projects to come in place at the right time. This is especially important in the light of the focus to deliver tangible results in terms of validated solutions in the 2011/2012 timeframe. Quite necessarily we have to agree on priorities in terms of content that is high on value for the end customer and the society a large.
At a recent industry partner meeting in Vienna there was apparently some major disagreement between the bigger partners and the smaller companies on what should be offered as industrial products to the project. What is the SJU’s position on this?
I did not personally attend this meeting but would in general say that the issue of integrating different technical solutions in a service based architecture of systems from different partners requires us to focus on the need for the technology to support the targets of the overall ATM system. We have to look for our own similar experiences and examples as well as to the experience of other lines of businesses that have already gone through a similar process. Again, SESAR is about changing the paradigm and this takes time. Time, we do not have when we look at the needs and goals of SESAR and therefore the examples of others is a smart way of shortening a lengthy process . It is in this context, also worth pointing out that the SESAR change of paradigm does impact all stakeholders businesses, not only controllers and pilots. It is something that concerns all ATM and I believe this is getting more and more apparent as we progress.
How will the SJU ensure that a fair share of the effort stays firmly on “SJU Step 2” (the foundation of the SWIM based concept) while the deadlines set for Step 1 are not being met and then Step 1 perhaps becomes the prime focus over the next 3-4 years using up much of the SJU effort?
The whole programme covering all steps are in place and the work described and allocated in time. The issue you bring up is clearly linked to the fact that the definition phase of SESAR concluded that the so called IP1 activities must be in place before IP2 will be able to deliver successfully. When and where this is not the case the SJU need to properly highlight the needs of a particular implementation to be in place for successful validation activities to be performed. I would however not assume that this distracts us from finding the foundations for the SWIM based concept. As a matter of fact it will most probably have to come in earlier than expected as the demand increases for more and accurate information to be shared in order to cater for efficient 4-D business/mission trajectories. It is important that we remain flexible and dynamic to any needs of change as we progress with the programme.
How will the evolution of the concept be managed? How will full stakeholder involvement be assured in such tasks as “Update and maintenance of the development of the Concept of Operations” (WP B) and “Master Plan Maintenance” (WP C)?
I believe that the concept will probably not evolve as much as one might think bearing in mind that it is probably more the application of the concept that is the real issue. From this standpoint confidence can be built and proven to the whole ATM community. The SJU places great emphasis in including all stakeholders. The SESAR Validation Strategy is clear in aiming all Validation activities to be performed in small result driven steps of tangible value. Being as close as possible to the real operational environment to create as much visibility and possibility to participate is an ingredient of the validation strategy we put great emphasis on. As the validation results are delivered they will pass through the design gates of the programme resulting in a possible proposal for a Master Plan updates (WP C): This potential proposal will have to go through the mechanisms of consultation of each the SJU members including the Executive Directors consultative arrangements with the SPP (SESAR Performance Partnership) before decisions are taken. This process means that every ATM stakeholder in Europe will have a say and involvement in the process.
At a recent conference organised by the German Institute of Navigation, a presentation was made on the need to break down the silos between ATM disciplines, like C and N and S. One of the participants enquired how this message will be passed to the SJU and what the SJU will do about it. The rest of the audience was in full support making one believe that there is a perception out there that may be the silos are not being handled as they should by the SJU. What is your opinion about this?
Again we are talking about recognising the fact that the future ATM system will be considerably different from the one today. I think it was already in the late 1990´s and in the ICAO Global ATM Operational Concept that the acronym CNS/ATM went towards ATM/CNS and later to ATM supporting the fact the CNS enablers shall be explored across for best synergies.
We have to accept that these things take time. CNS are surely handled by the SJU in terms of integrating the three domains where and whenever necessary.
In the recently released video explaining the SESAR project, the reference to CPDLC as practiced in Maastricht was most unfortunate, not only ignoring the huge amount of international work that has already been carried out, bringing CPDLC to operational readiness, but even creating the impression that the subject was something new, brought by SESAR. A lot of eyebrows went up…
I´d say that the SJU is building as much as possible on good work already been done elsewhere which is in line with the concept of operations. Doing things this way is extremely important as we do not want to duplicate work and we do want to find as many synergies with experience already achieved. These examples are often used to provide for a good understanding of the content of SESAR to the many audiences of SESAR. Of course in some cases it might be perceived as we have completely ignored the amount of work already been done or even as you say might lead to believe that it was a SESAR new thing. This is certainly not the intention. It was rather a way to say that there are good examples out there on which we need to build on towards an implementation readiness level acceptable to the ATM Partners who will invest in SESAR. By the way, we strongly encourage everyone interested in the SESAR programme to subscribe to our regular newsletter via our website www.sesarju.eu.
Thank you for your time and the clear answers. I think everyone in this great ATM family is rooting for SESAR to succeed and we see successes and problems as normal elements of family life. A good, frank chat like this can only benefit any family!
1 comment