Report on Service Areas and DLS overall architecture FPA No MOVE/E /SESAR FPA - Programme and Support Actions

Transcription

1 Report on Service Areas and DLS overall architecture FPA No MOVE/E /SESAR FPA - Programme and Support Actions Deliverable 12.2 September 29 th,

2 Report on Service Areas and DLS Overall Architecture (D12.2 of SGA3) Control Approved by Massimo Garbini Managing Director Date 29/09/2017 Signature Signed Reviewed by Nicolas Warinsko Deputy Managing Director Date 29/09/2017 Signature Signed Director Technical and Operations Prepared by Mariagrazia La Piscopia Deputy Director Technical and Operations Date 29/09/2017 Signature Signed DP Planning Manager Davide Corinaldesi DLS Implementation Project Manager Date 29/09/2017 Signature Signed 2

3 Report on Service Areas and DLS Overall Architecture (D12.2 of SGA3) Table of Contents Introduction... 4 Addendum 1 - Service Areas proposal Overview Principles for the Service Areas definition Main considerations for the Service Areas definition Service Areas scenarios SDM criteria and Service Areas identification SDM proposal List of Acronyms Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture Overview Main inputs for the overall architecture definition SDM considerations for the overall architecture definition High-level principles SDM considerations on the technical architecture proposals Architecture proposal SDM evaluation on architecture proposal Architecture proposal SDM evaluation on architecture proposal Complementary communication technologies Impact analysis of the Model D implementation on the aircraft avionics Further elements to be considered in the detailed design SDM conclusions and way forward List of Acronyms

4 Report on Service Areas and DLS Overall Architecture (D12.2 of SGA3) Introduction On 18 th October 2016, the European Commission mandated the SDM to act as Data Link Services (DLS) Implementation Project Manager, responsible for organizing, implementing and monitoring the activities identified in the recovery plan as necessary for the implementation of the DLS transitional solution and the preparatory actions for the full achievement of the European target solution, Model D, in order to achieve the implementation of AF6 in accordance with the deadlines defined in the PCP Regulation. This role shall include managing the overall set-up, steering and coordination of the technical approach through: Identification of homogeneous service area starting from thorough analysis of the current situation in EU Member States; Definition of the target ground architecture per service area in cooperation with the local stakeholders; Interconnection of sub-networks within each service area to achieve a European distributed network and a European common approach; Updated CBA and expected contribution to SES performance objectives. 1 According to the EC mandate, the SDM has performed specific activities towards the implementation of the target solution, through the implementation of ELSA recommendations, in order to grant the required datalink performance needed to achieve full AF6 implementation. Considering the DLS Recovery Plan, as well as the DLS IR (Reg. (EU) No 2015/310), the SDM has organized its activities in two paths, supported by specific projects submitted for the 2016 CEF Transport Calls, as outlined below: Path I Implementation of the DLS transitional solution: aims at identifying the deployment activities needed to deploy the envisaged transitional solutions (Model B or Model C with Multifrequency (MF)) and encompasses 1 Multi-stakeholder project 2 and 5 Airborne-Related initiatives (i.e. 5 Implementing Projects (IPs) leaded by some of the major European Airspace Users (AUs)); Path II Preparatory activities towards the target solution: aims at identifying the steps towards the envisaged target solution (Model D) and includes 1 Multi-stakeholder project 3, in which 20 ANSPs, 2 CSPs, 3 AUs ant the ESSP are involved. In particular, for what concerns Path II initiatives, the SDM, covering the role of architect, is responsible to perform several activities aimed at paving the way for the Model D implementation throughout Europe; more in detail, the SDM has performed specific activities, including the analysis of all the technical aspects that will be part of the future European DLS technical infrastructure, as well as the monitoring of the establishment of the governance mechanisms that will be necessary for a proper an efficient management of the aforementioned technical domain. In the light of above, the SDM has elaborated this Report on Service Areas and overall DLS architecture (D12.2 of SGA3) as an intermediate report, presenting the progress achieved to date by SDM regarding Path II/Model D implementation preparation, highlighting the points of convergence (e.g. DLS service areas) as 1 Extract from EC mandate to SDM 18th October _161_AF6 General Call - DLS Implementation Project - Path 1 "Ground" stakeholders submitted for the 2016 CEF Transport Calls by 16 ANSPs (Austrocontrol, Croatia Control, DCAC, DFS, DSNA, EANS, ENAIRE, ENAV, HCAA, Hungaro Control, LFV, LGS, MATS, NAV Portugal, Oro Navigacija, PANSA) and 2 CSPs (Arinc, SITA) _159_AF6 - DLS Implementation Project - Path 2 participated by: 21 ANSPs (ENAV, Austrocontrol, BULATSA, Croatia Control, DCA, DFS, DSNA, EANS, ENAIRE, Finavia, Hungaro Control, LFV, LGS, LPS SR, MATS, MUAC, NATS, NAV Portugal, Oro Navigacija, PANSA, ESSP), 2 Service Providers (Arinc, SITA), 3 Airspace Users (Lufthansa, Ryanair, TAP Portugal). 4

5 Report on Service Areas and DLS Overall Architecture (D12.2 of SGA3) well as remaining open issues. This report also builds on the support gained by SDM through the Path II Multistakeholder project. This report has been through 2 cycles of stakeholders consultation between May and September 2017, also benefiting from their feedbacks through SDM s Stakeholders Consultation Platform (SCP) and Cooperative Arrangements (CAs). The comments and opinions of the stakeholders are reported in details into the Consultation Campaign Report (D1.5) jointly delivered with this report. It is worth mentioning that the stakeholders have expressed an overall positive opinion regarding this report, recognizing it as a fair and transparent picture of current state of play. Whilst this report cannot be a final proposal on what to implement as the target Model D and how to implement and operate it, it is a significant enough step forward to be used as a basis to set the necessary complementary projects required to pursue the effort towards Model D implementation, in accordance with the mandate given to SDM. More in detail, the document is composed of two independent sections, which are structured as follows: Addendum 1 Service Areas proposal, which has been elaborated based on the work developed by Path II project, taking into account the main findings stemming from the deliverable D2.1 - Requirements Identification Report which purpose was to identify the best way for the deployment of ELSA study 4 findings, also in line with the indications reported in the SDM DLS Recovery Plan. The SDM has then performed a further analysis of the elements and proposed Service Areas scenarios collected in the D2.1 and has elaborated an initial draft proposal for the Service Areas definition. Addendum 2 Report on the Overall Architecture, in which two architecture proposals are presented and analysed starting from Path II deliverable D3.1 Technical Architecture definition developed by the Work Package 2 ( Technical architecture definition ) of the above-mentioned Path II project. The detailed analysis, comprehensive of risks and technical open issues, is further complemented by SDM conclusions and proposed way forward. 4 VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis and Simulation Campaign by the ELSA Consortium and Programme Partnership

6 Addendum 1 - Service Areas proposal FPA No MOVE/E /SESAR FPA - Programme and Support Actions Deliverable

7 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal 1. Overview The Addendum 1 - Service Areas proposal document has been elaborated by the SDM with the aim to provide a proposal for the Service Areas definition as a first and initial step towards the implementation of the DLS target solution throughout Europe. According to EC mandate the SDM has elaborated this document supported by the 26 partners 5 in the Multistakeholders Implementation Project 2016_159_AF6 - DLS Implementation Project - Path 2 submitted to CEF Transport Calls Specifically, the Addendum 1 - Service Areas proposal has been developed based on the deliverable D2.1 - Requirements Identification Report, developed by the Work Package 1 (Deployment of ELSA outcomes for the achievement of the Target Solution (Model D)) of the mentioned project. The D2.1 has aimed at identifying the best way for the deployment of the ELSA study 7 findings also in line with the indications reported in the SDM DLS Recovery Plan. In fact, the D2.1 includes not only a detailed technical analysis of the main features that a Service Area shall have in order to allow the effective implementation of Model D but also a proposition of the possible scenario to be evaluated for the Service Areas definition. The SDM, considering the main elements and the proposed scenarios collected in the D2.1, has performed a dedicated analysis in accordance to specific criteria, from which its proposal for the Service Area definition has been derived partners: 21 ANSPs (ENAV, Austrocontrol, BULATSA, Croatia Control, DCA, DFS, DSNA, EANS, ENAIRE, Finavia, Hungaro Control, LFV, LGS, LPS SR, MATS, MUAC, NATS, NAV Portugal, Oro Navigacija, PANSA, ESSP), 2 Service Providers (Arinc, SITA), 3 Airspace Users (Lufthansa, Ryanair, TAP Portugal).. 6 The Path II project has been kicked off on 2 nd of March in anticipation to European Commission s award decision which is still pending. 7 VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis and Simulation Campaign by the ELSA Consortium and Programme Partnership

8 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal 2. Principles for the Service Areas definition The Service Areas definition represents an important cornerstone to be achieved in the transition towards the implementation of the DLS target solution in Europe. In fact, taking into consideration the transitional solutions deployed in Europe (Model B or Model C/Multi Frequency), the Service Areas identification is the first step towards Model D, representing the basis firstly for the definition of the overall architecture and then for the evolution of the existing network architecture towards the target solution. As stated before, the Service Areas definition is fed by the main findings and outcomes stemming from the WP1 Deployment of ELSA outcomes for the achievement of the Target solution (Model D) of Path II multistakeholders project, mainly its deliverable D2.1 - Requirements Identification Report. The report presents a detailed analysis to identify the elements and high-level principles that shall/should be satisfied in order to ensure the effective Model D implementation, through the Service Areas definition. The Service Areas concept 8, introduced in the ELSA study, consists in the grouping of several airspaces in a single entity, from the VDL2 implementation point of view. This concept, based on the following elements, enables the provision of the Data-Link Services in the most effective and efficient way all over the European airspace: Geographical and operational association of homogeneous regions in areas capable of optimizing both their VDL2 RF network deployment and their ground-ground network (by giving the conditions for minimizing the number of the ATN routers); in this view, Service areas may allow to minimize number of A/G ATN routers, while G/G ATN routers should remain as interface between A/G ATN routers and the ANSP ATN domains; Facilitating the harmonized transition of each homogeneous region towards the Model D; Facilitating the harmonization of the VDL2 RF networks deployment of a few Service Areas, also in this case, avoiding and/or limiting the VGSs coverage overlapping near the boundaries. Model D implementation consists in the implementation of an overall pan-european VDL2 system, meaning a system based on a distributed architecture, a network of networks architecture whose components are the VDL2 RF and ATN GND networks, one for each Service Area. Furthermore, a distributed architecture, allowing to easily scale from a single site to a state-wide network, enables the achievement of the following benefits: Expandability, a flexible approach consisting in the possibility to start small and then add more equipment to expand as needed; Scalability to accommodate additional capacity by adding frequencies/sites; Reliability and resilience, consisting in the provision of multiple levels of redundancy as each site is capable of performing wide area system functions. It is worth noting that, considering the Model D structure, two key needs are expected to be taken into account: the interoperability among different implemented networks; 8 According to ELSA study, the Service Areas are defined as portions of airspace, homogeneous in terms of operational and technical needs to provide data-link services in a safe, secure and efficient way. They could be identical with FABs or as new entities established regardless of state boundaries. 8

9 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal the need of a strict coordination among the Service Areas. 3. Main considerations for the Service Areas definition The paragraph aims at introducing the main considerations and inputs stemming from the Path II deliverable D2.1 - Requirements Identification Report, that have been considered for the SDM proposal on Service Areas definition. Specifically, the main elements considered for the Service Areas definition are grouped in the following areas: Definition and scope; Geographical features and constraints; Design principles; Air traffic regional features; Conflicting needs; Interoperability among different implemented systems; Other technical considerations. It is worth noting that Service Areas shall support ATS and AOC service provision. Regarding this requirement, it will be duly taken into account that VDL2 system shall at least provide the same level of service for AOC, including airport coverage, as achieved by the Path I implementation. Definition and scope According to ELSA study 9, the Service Areas are defined as portions of airspace, homogeneous in terms of operational and technical needs to provide data-link services in a safe, secure and efficient way. They could be identical with FABs or as new entities established regardless of state boundaries. A FAB means an airspace block based on operational requirements and established regardless of State boundaries, where the provision of air navigation services and related functions are performance-driven and optimized with a view to introducing, in each functional airspace block, enhanced cooperation among air navigation service providers or, where appropriate, an integrated provider. Moreover, from a technical perspective, the Service Area is characterized by the following elements [ ] all ground stations operating on VDL2 frequencies, in a given Service Area, work together under one unique frequency licensee responsible for managing the traffic on the RF network. This model allows the frequency licensee to manage the load balancing in a dynamic way. Indeed, it is also important to define the scope of the target architecture, identifying all the elements of the technical solution, as outlined in ELSA study: Identification of geographical boundaries of the Service Areas; Considering that Model D implies a single RF network in one (each) Service Area, for each Service Area, it is important to consider the structure of the RF network (VGSs number, location and 9 VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis and Simulation Campaign by the ELSA Consortium and Programme Partnership

10 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal coverage, the RF network, architecture of the VDL2 ground system, the Service Areas common functionalities/sub-systems, etc.); Internal interfaces within a Service Area and the external interfaces among the identified Service Areas. Geographical features and constraints According to the above-mentioned definition of Service Area, it is clear that geographical features are of special importance, such as: the position and national boundaries of each State; the morphology of each region, including the presence of mountains and large portions of sea without possibility to place VGS; the presence/position of major airports; the already deployed VDL2 RF networks; the existing FABs configuration. Considering the similarity between the Service Areas and the FABs definitions and considering that the above mentioned geographical features have been taken into account for the FAB design, it is recommended to consider the FABs concept as a starting point, properly fine-tuned, in the Service Areas design. Design principles A set of design principles, originated from the experience of ANSPs and CSPs as well as from technical literature and discussion in the VDL2 stakeholders community, are expected to be taken into account in the Service Areas design and can be grouped as follows: SADP_1 SADP_2 SADP_3 The overall locations of VHF ground stations (VGSs) shall be designed according to the intended service coverage (airport surface, TMA, En-route) each of them being treated independently. The VDL2 RF ground systems of each Service Area should be scalable to accommodate additional capacity. Service areas shall be deployed by means of an open and scalable architecture in order to integrate complementary technologies to VDL2 for the full implementation of AF6 (i4d) in accordance with SESAR and European ATM Master Plan. Safety SADP_4 SADP_5 In each Service Area the provision of VDL2 ATN services shall be guaranteed in terms of VDL2 system QoS (Quality of Service), generally in terms of performance required. In each Service Area there shall be a mean to check constantly the service level and relevant reports shall be delivered periodically (the time rate of reporting shall be first agreed and then established by regulation). 10

11 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal Operational SADP_6 SADP_7 Aircraft hand-off (between different VDL2 Service Areas) shall be done on a make before break principle, at the ground ground network level irrespective which VDL frequency is in use. Service areas definition shall be optimized to allow for an efficient management of hot spots, in particular in terms of traffic and service (AOC/ATS). 10 Implementation SADP_8 SADP_9 Service Areas should integrate national ATM DL architectures already deployed and under deployment as an enabler for eventual integration. Service Areas definition shall consider the current VGS deployment and should limit the impact on the existing infrastructures. 11 Technical SADP_10 SADP_11 SADP_12 SADP_13 The location of VGSs (both the already in place and the planned ones) shall be identified to minimize the hidden terminal transmissions effect of VDL2. 12 Service Areas definition shall guarantee for a minimum of A/G data exchange of routing information. 13 Service Areas definition shall guarantee for an optimized (i.e. minimal) number of A/G-ATN routers. 14 A/G-ATN Routers interconnected between different Service Areas should use a standardized protocol for the needed message exchange in order to solve the routing ambiguity. Interoperability SADP_14 SADP_15 The currently faced routing ambiguity shall be avoided for aircraft passing from a Service Area to another one. A/G-ATN Routers interconnected between different Service Areas should use a standardized protocol for the needed message exchange, in order to solve routing ambiguity. SADP_16 A/G-ATN Routers interconnection to VGS should use a standardized protocol From ELSA Final Report D11 - Hot Spots: The current zones/times showing the highest AOC/ATN load 11 VGS locations should not be defined from scratch. Already deployed infrastructure and locations should be taken as a starting point for the optimization 12 This is of specific interest in the border regions between different Service Areas. 13 IDRP message exchange required to support routing provides a high amount of data and should be avoided to the maximum extent possible to save VDL bandwidth; in this view, ELSA recommends to stop using routing information exchange on the A/G segment (future standards). 14 According to ARINC specification aircraft should try to be connected to the actual A/G-ATN router as long as possible (with acceptable link quality). Unfortunately, a clear description of the algorithm behind and a definition of what acceptable link quality means is lacking. 15 A public description of a common interface, waiting the formal standardisation from EASA and EUROCAE/ETSI, is planned to be achieved. 11

12 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal Air traffic regional features Considering that the Service Areas are expected to present a high level of homogeneity from the operational point of view, it is fundamental to take into account, in the design phase, air traffic features like the air traffic density, the air traffic flows and the route network infrastructure as well as remarkable differences in air traffic flows. Specifically, it is necessary to take into account another important consideration on air traffic flows: the Service Areas boundaries should avoid to coincide or be close to important air traffic flows direction: the optimal configuration is to have that Service Areas boundaries cross the major air traffic flows direction in a perpendicular way. Conflicting needs As the Service Areas definition and design is a new and complex topic that has to take into account several operational and technical elements, it is necessary to consider and investigate potential conflicting needs that can arise during this process, like the: AOC and ATN: different services with different performance requirements and strong different traffic amount among ground and en-route airspaces; Current VDL2 architectures (in place or planned) and Regional VDL2 target architecture (Model D ready); Target architecture DL system and current architecture of DL systems: from several RF networks to one single RF network per service area, considering also the introduction of the Dual DSP ID System. AOC and ATN: For the Service Areas definition, it is important to take into account the potential conflict that might arise from the coexistence on the same RF channel of two types of data, different in Quality of Service (QoS), average amount of channel occupancy, service features. Specifically, as the majority of AOC messages exchanges takes place in the airport side and the ATN ones in the En-route (ENR) phase, it follows the need to install more VGSs in some portions of airspace to provide the AOC services in the airports, including also the most important airports requiring the installation of more VGS in a relatively small portion of airspace. This need is in conflict with the need to optimize the ENR coverage. With regard to this, it is suggested that one portion of airspace with many major airports, namely hot spots 16, should be contained in the same Service Area in order to have only one entity managing the complex environment. Current VDL2 architectures (in place or planned) and Regional VDL2 target architecture (Model D ready) The implementation of the target architecture implies several important changes in the European VDL2 system organization, as the Model D is not only an architecture but is characterized by a combination of many aspects like the management of the RF frequencies and networks. Given that no particular issues, related to RF Frequencies management, have been noted, any change in the management of RF networks, both currently deployed or planned in the future, should be carefully analysed and taken into account. It is fundamental also to take into account the current DLS status of implementation 16 As major airports the ones referred to in the PCP regulation are taken into consideration 12

13 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal in each European Country in order to consider and include the Countries having a similar starting status and common technical needs, in the same Service Area. Target architecture DL system and current architecture of DL systems According to ELSA study, it is recommended to implement the Model D throughout Europe starting from the existing technical status or the planned transition model. It is worth noting that the transition from Model B to Model D requires a transition from an architecture based on multiple deployed RF networks to an architecture based on a single RF network. In fact, Model D implies a single RF network in one (each) Service Area. Interoperability among different implemented systems In the implementation of the overall VDL2 system in Europe, it is fundamental to tackle interoperability aspects that can arise among neighboring regions using different VDL2 networks working with the same or different GSIF. For the implementation of target architecture in Europe, two transition domains are expected to be taken into account: 1. the ATN domain transition, where it might arise the ATN routing ambiguity when aircraft move from a VDL2 network to another one; 2. the VDL2 network transition, where the AVLC Link Management via HO could be optimized to improve the performances of the Data Link network. Both of them are relevant to the passage of an aircraft from a link to a VGS belonging to one CSP s network to the link with another VGS belonging to another CSP s network. With regard to the above-mentioned issues, some technical solutions and optimizations have been identified to solve the ATN ambiguity issues 17. The interoperability issues affect both the operational environment relevant to the border between Model B and Model C and the future one, with different VDL2 networks belonging to different Service Areas. The relevant activities, aiming to further develop, assess and test the technical solutions already identified, are part of the activities within the framework of Path I in order to solve the same interoperability aspects among the Countries of Path I Stream 1 and 2. Other technical considerations Considering that the Service Areas definition and design is a complex process that has to take into account several elements and constraints, it is worth noting that the definition of one Service Area could be influenced and modified properly by the definition of the other Service Areas, taking into account that each scenario represents a picture of a set of Service Areas, covering the overall European airspace. 17 More details are listed in D2.1 - Requirements Identification Report document, produced by Work Package 1 of the Multi-stakeholders Implementation Project 2016_159_AF6 - DLS Implementation Project - Path 2 submitted to 2016 CEF Transport Calls. 13

14 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal Moreover, the design of the VDL2 system within each Service Area shall be carried out taking into consideration the design of adjacent Service Areas, so a high level of coordination among the implementers is required. The interactions between two adjacent Service Areas concern: RF coverage Ground-ground networks interoperability ATS messages transport responsibility CVME/LM In the design of Service Areas VDL2 system, the first point represents the most critical one. In fact, one of the main reason for the Service Areas introduction is the potential lack of harmonization of the coverage provided by RF networks serving different airspace. The possible solution for this issue is the establishment of larger (and, as much as possible, homogeneous) portions of airspace where both the RF network implementation and management are carried out as a unicum, allowing their optimization. It is worth noting that the coordination of the design of the RF networks of adjacent Service Areas represents an opportunity for the network rationalization. 4. Service Areas scenarios Starting from all the elements expected to be taken into consideration in the Service Areas definition, it is deemed necessary the identification of those scenarios able to satisfy them and to ensure a full and timely DLS implementation. The analysis of the elements outlined in the previous paragraph, in fact, has the scope to constitute a basis upon which to build some relevant scenarios where Service Areas are defined in terms of European airspace compliant with the identified elements. Considering the elements described in the previous chapter, the 9 FABs have been considered as the starting point in the Scenarios identification and then in the Service Areas definition: South West FAB: Portugal, Spain. UK-Ireland FAB: Ireland, UK. FABEC: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherland, Switzerland. NEFAB: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway. DK-SE FAB: Denmark, Sweden. Baltic FAB: Lithuania, Poland. FAB CE: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia. Danube FAB: Bulgaria, Rumania. Blue Med FAB: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta. Moreover, two important areas are expected to be considered in the Service Areas definition: Balkan region constituted by Albania, FYROM, Montenegro and Serbia; the Russian portion of airspace, from the VDL2 point of view, placed on the southern Baltic coast, should be considered as a part of the Baltic FAB (at least for the en route coverage). On the basis of these considerations, a set of 8 scenarios have been identified. The identified scenarios, proposed by the multi-stakeholders project 2016_159_AF6, include a set of European regions that meet the above mentioned elements and design principles needed for the Service Areas definition. These 14

15 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal configurations cover all the European airspace, aiming at provide ATN service to all ANSPs for en-route operations and AOC service for CSPs. The following tables describe the 8 identified scenarios with an overview of the main elements: SCENARIO 1 Scenario Number 1 Scenario Name Scenario 1 Number of Service Areas 3 Service Areas Composition SCENARIO DETAILS Service Areas FABs Countries Service Area 1 Service Area 2 Service Area 3 South West FAB FABEC UK-Ireland FAB BALTIC FAB FABCE (partially) NEFAB DK-SE FAB BLUE MED FAB FABCE (partially) DANUBE FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland United Kingdom & Ireland Lithuania & Poland Czech Rep., Hungary & Slovak Rep. Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway Denmark & Sweden Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia & Slovenia Bulgaria, Romania Airspace (km 2 ) Table 1 Scenario 1 15

16 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO DETAILS Scenario Number 2 Scenario Name Scenario 2 Number of Service Areas 4 Service Areas FABs Countries Airspace (km 2 ) Service Area 1 South West FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Service Area 2 FABEC Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland Service Areas Composition FABCE Czech Rep., Hungary & (partially) Slovak Rep. Service Area Estonia, Finland, Latvia & NEFAB Norway DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Service Area 4 FABCE Austria, Bosnia-Herz., (partially) Croatia & Slovenia DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania Table 2 - Scenario 2 16

17 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 3 Scenario Number 3 Scenario Name Scenario 3 Number of Service Areas 3 Service Areas Composition SCENARIO DETAILS Service Areas FABs Countries Service Area 1 Service Area 2 Service Area 3 South West FAB FABEC UK-Ireland FAB BALTIC FAB FABCE (partially) NEFAB DK-SE FAB DANUBE FAB BLUE MED FAB FABCE (partially) Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland United Kingdom & Ireland Lithuania & Poland Czech Rep., Hungary & Slovak Rep. Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway Denmark & Sweden Bulgaria, Romania Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia & Slovenia Airspace (km 2 ) Table 3 - Scenario 3 17

18 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 4 SCENARIO DETAILS Scenario Number 4 Scenario Name Scenario 4 Number of Service Areas 4 Service Areas FABs Countries Airspace (km 2 ) Service Area 1 South West FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Service Area 2 FABEC Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland FABCE Czech Rep., Hungary & Service Areas Composition (partially) Slovak Rep. Service Area 3 Estonia, Finland, Latvia & NEFAB Norway DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Service Area 4 FABCE (partially) Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia & Slovenia Table 4 - Scenario 4 18

19 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 5 Service Areas Composition SCENARIO DETAILS Scenario Number 5 Scenario Name Scenario 5 Number of Service Areas 5 Service Areas FABs Countries Airspace (km 2 ) Service Area 1 South West FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Service Area 2 FABEC Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland Service Area 3 BALTIC FAB NEFAB DK-SE FAB Lithuania & Poland Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Service Area 4 Croatia, Czech Rep., FABCE Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. Service Area 5 BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Table 5 Scenario 5 19

20 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 6 SCENARIO DETAILS Scenario Number 6 Scenario Name Scenario 6 Number of Service Areas 3 Service Areas FABs Countries Airspace (km 2 ) South West FAB Spain & Portugal Service Area 1 FABEC France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland Service Areas Composition Austria, Bosnia-Herz., FABCE Croatia, Czech Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Service Area 2 Rep NEFAB Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania Service Area 3 BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Table 6 Scenario 6 20

21 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 7 Scenario Number 7 Scenario Name Scenario 7 Number of Service Areas 4 Service Areas Composition SCENARIO DETAILS Service Areas FABs Countries Service Area 1 Service Area 2 South West FAB FABEC UK-Ireland FAB BALTIC FAB NEFAB DK-SE FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland United Kingdom & Ireland Lithuania & Poland Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway Denmark & Sweden Airspace (km 2 ) DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Service Area 3 Croatia, Czech Rep., FABCE Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. Service Area 4 BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Table 7 Scenario 7 21

22 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 8 Scenario Number 8 Scenario Name Scenario 8 Number of Service Areas 1 Service Areas Composition SCENARIO DETAILS Service Areas FABs Countries Service Area 1 South West FAB FABEC UK-Ireland FAB BALTIC FAB NEFAB DK-SE FAB DANUBE FAB FABCE BLUE MED FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland United Kingdom & Ireland Lithuania & Poland Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway Denmark & Sweden Bulgaria, Romania Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia, Czech Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy Airspace (km 2 ) Table 8 Scenario 8 22

23 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal 5. SDM criteria and Service Areas identification Considering the scenarios described in the previous paragraph, the SDM has defined a set of criteria to perform a specifc analysis to identify the scenario representing the most proper configuration for the Service Area definition. This configuration represents, therefore, the best grouping of Countries for a Service Area from a technical, geographical and operational point of view, according to the specific criteria, described below: FABs and Service Areas: taking into account the SES regulation on FABs establishment as well as the mentioned similarity between the Service Areas and the FABs, scenarios where the FABs configuration is maintained will be preferred. It means that for the Service Areas identification, the existing 9 FABs might be merged but not separated. It results that the range of possible values for the Service Areas identification might be from 1, merging all the 9 FABs, to 9 leaving the existing 9 FABs configuration. Geopolitical constraints: as the Service Area is defined as a portion of airspace presenting some operational features, the identification of a Service Area will be firstly characterized by geographical. It is worth noting that the sum of the portions of airspace included in the identified Service Areas are expected to cover the full European airspace. Interfaces optmization: the identification of links and interfaces among Service Areas are expected to be optimized, enabling the implementation of full-mesh networks, where all nodes are interconnected. Specifically, it is important to take into account: o Interfaces with No-Eu Countries: it is recommended to have a minimum number of interfaces towards No-EU Countries (like Russia), merging the FABs properly. o No-neighboring FABs: it is worth noting highlighting that only neighboring FABs are expected to be linked and connected; no interfaces among no-neighboring FABs are needed. Specific needs for the service Provision: it is fundamental to identify specific needs for the DL service provision in some areas of Europe, e.g. those Countries towards the ocean (like Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland) having specific and common communication needs; as a result, it is not beneficial to separate these areas into different Service Areas. DLS current status of implementation: it is fundamental to take into account the current DLS status of implementation in each European Country in order to consider and include the Countries, having a similar starting status and common technical needs, in the same Service Area. Specifically, it is important to remind that the Path I, consisting in the implementation of a transitional solution (Model B or Model C wih MF), includes two Streams: Stream 1 including the transition from Model A to Model B and Stream 2 including the transition from Model C to Model C with MF. With regard to this, it is relevant to take into account the following considerations: o Countries included in Stream 1, with a similar starting point, are expected to be included in a Service Area, where no Countries of Stream 2 are included, and viceversa; o Countries, not involved in the Path I implementation but neighboring with Countries involved in the Path I will be included in a related Service Area in order to have the same implemetation stauts in a Service Area. Considering the SDM criteria described above, as well as the proposed 8 scenarios, the SDM has performed a preliminary evaluation and has identified its proposal for the Service Areas, to facilitate the implementation of the Model D, ensuring DLS a full AF6 implementation, together with an improvement of the overall performances. 23

24 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal With regard to the identified 8 scenarios and taking into account the SDM criteria, it results that the first four scenarios (scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4) do not maintain the current FABs composition, since they split FABCE among two different Service Areas. As stated before, the FABs establishment, according to the SES regulation, means the establishment of homogenous airspace blocks based on operational requirements, where the provision of air navigation services and related functions are performance-driven and optimized with a view to introducing, in each functional airspace block, enhanced cooperation among air navigation service providers or, where appropriate, an integrated provider. Considering that data-link services provision is intended as a common European service 18, the DLS implementation on FABs basis might be considered a minimum requirement in order to avoid to split FABs into different Service Areas. It follows that among scenarios presenting the same technical aspects to fulfil the DLS provision, scenarios maintaining the FABs configurations will be preferred. SDM considers appropriate to maintain this configuration and, as a consequence, the analysis is expected to be focused on the remaining four scenarios (scenario 5, 6, 7 and 8) that are compliant with this criterion. These four scenarios, therefore, represent a short list to be evaluated by SDM in order to identify the SDM final proposal. Each of the four scenarios (scenario 5, 6, 7 and 8) is described in a dedicated table, with a brief description in terms of Service Areas composition (number of Service Areas, involved Countries) taking into account the evaluation of the SDM criteria. 18 A6 study "New European Common Service Provision for PENS 2 and DLS" and Eurocontrol CS9 study have been taken into account 24

25 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 5 Scenario Number 5 Scenario Name Scenario 5 Number of Service Areas 5 Service Areas FABs Countries Service Area 1 South West FAB Spain & Portugal France, Germany, Belgium, Service Area 2 FABEC Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland Service Area 3 NEFAB Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania Service Area 4 Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia, Czech FABCE Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. Service Area 5 BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy SCENARIO EVALUATION Criteria Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Relevant FABs and Service Areas X Geopolitical constraints X Interfaces optimization X Specific needs for the Service Provision DLS Current Status of implementation X Table 9 Scenario 5 Evaluation X 25

26 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 6 Scenario Number 6 Scenario Name Scenario 6 Number of Service Areas 3 Service Area Name FABs Countries South West FAB Spain & Portugal Service Area 1 FABEC France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland NEFAB Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway Service Area 2 DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania FABCE Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia, Czech Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. Service Area 3 BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy SCENARIO EVALUATION Criteria Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Relevant FABs and Service Areas X Geopolitical constraints X Interfaces optimization X Specific needs for the Service Provision DLS Current Status of implementation X Table 10 - Scenario 6 Evaluation X 26

27 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 7 Scenario Number 7 Scenario Name Scenario 7 Number of Service Areas 4 Service Area Name FABs Countries South West FAB Spain & Portugal Service Area 1 France, Germany, Belgium, FABEC Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland Service Area 2 NEFAB Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania Service Area 3 Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia, Czech FABCE Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. Service Area 4 BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy SCENARIO EVALUATION Criteria Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Relevant FABs and Service Areas X Geopolitical constraints X Interfaces optimization X Specific needs for the Service Provision DLS Current Status of implementation X X Table 11 Scenario 7 Evaluation 27

28 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal SCENARIO 8 Scenario Number 8 Scenario Name Scenario 8 Number of Service Areas 1 Service Area Name FABs Countries South West FAB Spain & Portugal FABEC France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Switzerland UK-Ireland FAB United Kingdom & Ireland Service Area 1 BALTIC FAB Lithuania & Poland NEFAB Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Norway DK-SE FAB Denmark & Sweden DANUBE FAB Bulgaria, Romania FABCE Austria, Bosnia-Herz., Croatia, Czech Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Slovak Rep. BLUE MED FAB Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy SCENARIO EVALUATION Criteria Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Relevant FABs and Service Areas X Geopolitical constraints X Interfaces optimization X Specific needs for the X Service Provision DLS Current Status of implementation X Table 12 Scenario 8 Evaluation 28

29 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal 6. SDM proposal Based on the previously mentioned criteria, the SDM has focused its analysis on a scenarios short list, composed by four scenarios (scenario 5, 6, 7 and 8), compliant with the FABs configuration and including a number of Service Areas ranged from 1 to 5. In this analysis, the SDM has taken in duly consideration also the design principles outlined in the paragraph 1.1, especially the two ones recommending that the Service Areas definition shall guarantee for a minimum of A/G data exchange of routing information and shall guarantee for an optimized number of A/G-ATN routers. It follows that the higher the number of Service Areas, the greater the complexity to deal with, also considering the complex transition from the current technical status to target solution and that Data-link services are currently in operations. In this view, the passage from transition models to the target one will be analysed in depth within Path II WP4 Transitional Activities towards target solution and, in particular, the following transfer of communication will be made reliable as a prerequisite: Between regions where model B is implemented and regions where Models C or D are implemented; Between regions where model A is implemented and regions where Models C or D are implemented; Among regions where model D is implemented. According to these principles, the preferred option is a scenario with a minimum number of Service Areas, in order to optimize the number of interfaces and reduce the complexity related to the management of the infrastructure. In this view, it results that: the scenario 5 does not fulfill not only this criterion, since it duplicates the external interfaces, but also does not fulfill the criteria that takes into account the specific needs for the service provision (in this scenario, there are FABs, characterized by common oceanic needs, that are not gathered in one single Service Area); the scenarios 6 and 7 might be too fragmented and would lead to a complex handling also from a technical point of view as too many transit areas between these Service Areas would exist (they don t fulfil the criteria on interfaces optimisation). It follows that even if the scenario 8 does not currently satisfy completely the criteria on DLS current status of implementation (different models implemented in European Countries), it represents the SDM proposed optimal scenario able to meet the above-mentioned principles, as it includes one single Service Area, grouping the 9 FABs. Specifically, this scenario represents an optimal technical solution for the following reasons: Optimization of the borders: minimization of internal borders avoiding a further fragmentation of the current situation and better management of European borders; Rationalization of the network: optimization of the overall infrastructure, ensuring a better homogeneity, ensuring the same QoS across Europe and simplifying the technical transition from the current situation to the target one; 29

30 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal Simplification in the monitoring approach and frequency management: coordination between different Service Areas is no more required as well as the optimization of the frequency ENR transitions are easier to be managed. Nevertheless, considering the tight timeframe envisaged in the PCP regulation and outlined in the DLS Recovery Plan, it might be difficult to implement this scenario in the short term due to the following reasons: Different current technical situation in the European Countries (currently, the related SDM criteria is not completely satisfied by scenario 8) 19 European implementation cannot be achieved in a single phase due to its complexity; ANSPs contractual constraints with the CSPs (different timelines); The need to amortize the investments already done (Model B); Need to involve and coordinate all the European Countries, including those ones not participating in the Path I project. Based on these considerations, SDM proposes a two steps approach to achieve the implementation of scenario 8 (single Service Area) as the final step, through a first step that will duly take into account the different DLS current status of implementation. Finally, the scenario 8 (single Service Area) will satisfy all SDM criteria. The proposed step is a scenario with two Service Areas: one Service Area composed by FABs with countries implementing model B; one Service Area formed by FABs with countries implementing model C/MF. This scenario, has been identified considering the following elements: Natural evolution of Path I project towards the European target solution: o Common and homogenous technical status of implementation in each European Country according to the DLS Recovery Plan - Path I Stream 1 (Countries implementing the transition from Model A to Model B) and Stream 2 (Countries implementing the transition from Model C to Model C with Multi-frequency). Optimization of the internal and external interfaces: o Only two interfaces with Africa and Middle-East; o Single interfaces with Oceanic area and Russia; o Only one interface internally. Independent transition to Model D with a coordinated and synchronized timeline. In the light of above, the SDM proposes to follow a two steps approach: 1. First step - two Service Areas implementation of Model D. Implementation of a scenario with two Service Areas in correspondence with the two Streams included in Path I by December 2022, according to the DLS Recovery Plan; 19 Even if the SDM criteria (DLS current status of implementation) is not completely satisfied by scenario 8, it will be satisfied by the SDM proposed two steps approach including the achievement of scenario 8 as a final step, through a first step that will duly take into account the different DLS current status of implementation. 30

31 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal 2. Final step - single Service Area implementation of Model D. Implementation of a single Service Area (Scenario 8) by The table in the following page shows the proposed approach, outlining the two described steps: SDM proposal for Service Areas definition two steps approach First step (2 SAs) Final step (Single SA) Scenario Two Service Areas implementation of Model D. Single Service Area implementation of Model D SAs # 2 1 Service Areas structure Service Area 1 composed by: South West FAB: Portugal, Spain. UK-Ireland FAB: Ireland, UK. FABEC: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherland, Switzerland. NEFAB: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway. DK-SE FAB: Denmark, Sweden. Baltic FAB: Lithuania, Poland. FAB CE: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia. Danube FAB: Bulgaria, Rumania. Service Area 2 composed by: Blue Med FAB: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta Table 13 SDM proposal for Service Areas definition Service Area 1 composed by: South West FAB: Portugal, Spain. UK-Ireland FAB: Ireland, UK. FABEC: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherland, Switzerland. NEFAB: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway. DK-SE FAB: Denmark, Sweden. Baltic FAB: Lithuania, Poland. FAB CE: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia. Danube FAB: Bulgaria, Rumania. Blue Med FAB: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta The SDM proposal based on a two steps approach is directly driven by the current DLS status of implementation and investments already made between Countries heading for a Model B and those heading to a Model C with Multi-frequency. In this context, the decoupling in space with two Service Areas would enable, if necessary, a decoupling of the timeline for each Service Area to target the Model D. This approach is promoted by SDM with the idea that with one Service Area moving ahead of the other, lessons learnt on one side would be beneficial and facilitate progress on the other side. Once both Service Areas would reach model D through their respective path and timeline, then convergence to a single Service Area should be smooth. Moreover, this process is intended to be developed taking into account PENS as a reference for the ground transportation network. Further details on the feasibility of the proposal will be provided with the overall architecture definition, the elaboration of the Business Case (considering also the Business Model associated to Model D) and the 31

32 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal transition plan from the transitional solution to the target one. Indeed, also the DLS Governance establishment (under the responsibility of the WP5 of the Multi-stakeholder project) will provide a fundamental contribution to the overall picture in terms of identification of roles, responsibilities and processes, including the management of all the technical and operational aspects needed for a common approach for the DLS implementation. It is worth mentioning that this approach, even if focused on the ATS provision, will consider also the AOC service as essential for the airspace users. Considering that Model D implies a single VDL 2 frequency licensee (for all available VDL 2 frequencies) in a Service Area, the implication of an unique service provision in a large or single service area should be carefully considered (in WP5) for a successful DLS implementation. A strong user driven governance should be established in order to allow an efficient and fair service provision. 32

33 Addendum 1 -Service Areas Proposal 7. List of Acronyms ACSP Alternate frequency ANSP AOC ATC ATM ATN ATSU AVLC CPDLC CSC DSP Dual DSP ID System Air/Ground Communications Service Provider In the MF environment, a frequency (channel) other than CSC Air Navigation Service Provider Airline Operational Control Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Management Aeronautical Telecommunication Network Air Traffic Services Unit Aviation VHF Link Control Controller/Pilot Data Link Communications Common Signalling Channel Data-link Service Provider It means that any VGS broadcasts the IDs of multiple DSPs in its GSIF frames on the RF channel EASA European Aviation Safety Agency EC European Commission ELSA Enhanced Large Scale ATN deployment ESSP European Satellite Service Provider GSIF Ground Station Information Frames HO Hand-Off IDRP Inter Domain Routing Protocol MF Multi-Frequency PA Provide Abort RF Radio Frequency RF Network operator The entity licensed for operating on RF frequencies SJU SESAR JU SQP Signal Quality Parameter VDL2 VHF Digital Link (VDL) Mode 2 VGS VDL Ground Stations 33

34 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture FPA No MOVE/E /SESAR FPA - Programme and Support Actions Deliverable

35 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture 1. Overview The Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture document has been elaborated by the SDM with the aim to provide a complete overview on the overall architecture definition as the main step towards the implementation of the DLS target solution, the so-called Model D 20. This solution is clearly aiming at improving the overall European DLS performance. According to EC mandate the SDM has elaborated this document supported by the 26 partners 21 in the Multistakeholders Implementation Project 2016_159_AF6 - DLS Implementation Project - Path II (hereinafter Path II project) awarded in the framework of CEF Transport Calls Specifically, the Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture has been developed on the basis of the deliverable D3.1 Technical Architecture definition (hereinafter D3.1), developed by the Work Package 2 ( Technical architecture definition ) of the mentioned project. The D3.1 has aimed at identifying a set of architecture proposals for implementing future Datalink Model D. The SDM, taking into account its two-steps approach related to the Service Areas definition and the main findings collected in the D3.1, has analysed the two architecture proposals, from which its considerations have been derived. 20 VDL Mode 2 Measurement, Analysis and Simulation Campaign by the ELSA Consortium and Programme Partnership partners: 21 ANSPs (ENAV, Austrocontrol, BULATSA, Croatia Control, DCA, DFS, DSNA, EANS, ENAIRE, Finavia, Hungaro Control, LFV, LGS, LPS SR, MATS, MUAC, NATS, NAV Portugal, Oro Navigacija, PANSA, ESSP), 2 Communication Service Providers (Arinc, SITA), 3 Airspace Users (Lufthansa, Ryanair, TAP Portugal). 22 The Path II project has been kicked off on 2 nd of March 2017 in anticipation to European Commission s award decision. 35

36 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture 2. Main inputs for the overall architecture definition The overall architecture definition represents an important step in the transition towards the Model D implementation. It represents a technical pillar for a timely and synchronized DLS implementation throughout Europe. In this context, the following elements should be considered: Technical requirements included in the European and international regulations; Outcomes of technical studies (e.g. the ELSA study and its related recommendations); Main findings stemming from SDM activities performed within Path II context as architect and DLS Implementation Project Manager (i.e. Service Areas Proposal). Specifically, the main requirements are clearly set by the following: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 29/2009 amended by IR (EU) 2015/310; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 716/2014; ETSI Data Link Services (DLS) System Community Specification EN ; EASA Datalink Report Other related supporting material: o EUROCAE and ETSI standards, Guidance material (EUROCONTROL); o ICAO SARPs, ICAO docs; o AEEC (ARINC specifications). Moreover, also the other relevant legislative framework has to be taken into account, as well as the outcomes from tasks mandated by the EC to EASA, when available, aimed at defining the End to End (E2E) certification and safety oversight approach of the future DLS provision. In addition to the Air Traffic Services (ATS), already taken into account in the IR (EU) 29/2009, the following services are expected to be addressed, i.e.: The services related to the extended data link operations stemming from the PCP AF6 (mainly ADS- C/EPP for i4d implementation); ATN B2 services (e.g. D-TAXI, DCL and D-ATIS) as indicated in the EC mandate to EASA; Furthermore, with regard to ELSA study, the following recommendations, related to the ground domain, have been addressed in the present document, in particular: Ground-02: Progressively implement additional VDLM2 frequencies in accordance with the traffic level; Ground-03: Optimise the en-route VGS network coverage; Ground : Favour alternative communications means for AOC, with a priority to the airport domain; Ground-08: Implement the MF VDLM2 target technical solution: in each Service area, one single RF network that operates reserved VDL frequencies supporting two-gsif channels. Moreover, the architecture design will take into account the potential interfaces with future complementary technlogies (for example Satcom) in accordance to the DLS Recovery Plan. 23 This recommendation has been complemented in the Recovery Plan as follows: Complementary technologies are envisaged as from 2025, taking over part of the increased data traffic out of VDL Mode 2 and Extending VDL Mode 2 lifespan. 36

37 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture Finally, the architecture definition considered the main outcomes stemming from SDM activities and presented in the Service Areas proposal document. The Service Areas proposal document was submitted and reviewed in the first consultation cycle, according to the existing SDM consultation mechanisms (Stakeholder Consultation Platform process and Cooperative Arrangements). It has been considered as a starting point for the present document With regard to this, according to its role of architect and DLS implementation project manager, the SDM, in cooperation with the 2016_159_AF6 Multi-IP Stakeholders has proposed to implement a scenario with a single Service Area as the optimal one. Nevertheless, considering the tight timeframe envisaged in the PCP regulation and outlined in the DLS Recovery Plan, the SDM has proposed a two steps approach to achieve the implementation of a single Service Area as the final step, through a first step that takes into account the different DLS current status of implementation: 3. First step - two Service Areas implementation of Model D. Implementation of a scenario with two Service Areas in correspondence with the two Streams included in Path I by December 2022, according to the DLS Recovery Plan; 4. Final step - single Service Area implementation of Model D. Implementation of a single Service Area by The table recaps the proposed approach, outlining the two described steps: SDM proposal for Service Areas definition two steps approach First step (2 SAs) Final step (Single SA) Scenario Two Service Areas implementation of Model D. Single Service Area implementation of Model D SAs # 2 1 Service Areas structure Service Area 1 composed by: South West FAB: Portugal, Spain. UK-Ireland FAB: Ireland, UK. FABEC: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherland, Switzerland. NEFAB: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway. DK-SE FAB: Denmark, Sweden. Baltic FAB: Lithuania, Poland. FAB CE: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia. Danube FAB: Bulgaria, Rumania. Service Area 2 composed by: Blue Med FAB: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta Service Area 1 composed by: South West FAB: Portugal, Spain. UK-Ireland FAB: Ireland, UK. FABEC: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherland, Switzerland. NEFAB: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway. DK-SE FAB: Denmark, Sweden. Baltic FAB: Lithuania, Poland. FAB CE: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia. Danube FAB: Bulgaria, Rumania. Blue Med FAB: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta 37

38 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture As stated in its proposal, this approach is promoted by SDM with the idea that with one Service Area moving ahead of the other, lessons learnt on one side would be beneficial and facilitate progress on the other side. In the light of above, it results that the definition of an architecture proposal should take into account the final scenario of a single Service Area. Furthermore, it is worth noting that, in the overall architecture definition, the same VDL M2 infrastructure is expected to support both ATS (ATN and FANS services with safety-critical nature) and AOC (services with mission-critical nature) data exchanges between aircraft and ground. Therefore, it is necessary to properly design the DL infrastructure considering the implementation of the VDL M2 in the RF layer, taking into account the ATS (ATN Segment) and AOC requirements since the infrastructure shall be used both by ANSPs and CSPs. Moreover, the safety critical nature of ATS, regulated by SES legislative framework, and the mission critical nature of AOC services data exchanges shall be reflected in the architecture definition, granting the DL system technical performances needed to face with the required ATS and AOC service performances. 38

39 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture 3. SDM considerations for the overall architecture definition Considering the main findings outlined in the Path II project deliverable D3.1 and the high-level principles stemming from the international regulatory framework and dedicated studies, the SDM has focused its analysis on two technical architecture proposals, the complementary technologies and the potential impacts of them D implementation on the aircraft avionics. Furthermore, the SDM has properly identified additional elements that are requested to be considered in the architecture detailed design (further details in paragraph 3.5). 3.1 High-level principles The European technical architecture definition has to take in duly consideration the framework set by international regulations, which gives clear indications on the general structure to be adopted. In this context, ETSI 24 defines the Data Link system architecture as an architecture composed by three domains, as outlined in the following figure: An Aircraft Domain; An ATSP Domain; A CSP Domain. Figure 1 Data Link system architecture according to DLS Community Specification 25 With regard to the ETSI scheme describing the ATN communication domain, the scope of the overall architecture definition, outlined in the present document, is highlighted with an orange box in the Figure 1. Although the ETSI scheme represents a fundamental reference for the high-level architecture definition, it is worth noting that for a proper implementation, a detailed and more technical description of the ATN communication domain with all its components is needed. 24 European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 25 ETSI EN v1.2.1 DLS System; Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation EC 552/2004; Requirements for ground constituents and system testing, April

40 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture In this sense, the following figure provides a more detailed picture of the overall architecture, previously presented, in terms of data flows and interfaces among the various components. Moreover, the Figure 2, highlights, in orange the previously mentioned ATN communication domain, outlined in the ETSI scheme. Figure 2 Data Link ATN System Architecture detail The Figure 2 provides a detailed overview of the overall ATN data flow, identifying the different domains and the related interfaces, as follows: 1. Interface between ACC ATM function and Data Link Server; 2. Interface between Data Link Server and ATN G/G Router of the ANSP; 3. Interface between ATN G/G-Router of the ATM and CSP domain; 4. Interface between ATN G/G-Router and the ATN A/G-Router of the CSP domain; 5. Interface between ATN A/G-Router of the CSP domain and the VDL Mode 2 VGSs. As stated before, the SDM intends to focus its attention on dataflow from interfaces 3 to 6, defining all the components and functionalities needed for the target model implementation. Furthermore, considering the ETSI framework as a starting point, the ELSA study has aimed at further investigating the ETSI scheme, identifying the target high level technical architecture, focusing on the ATN systems for the ATS provision, as well as on the allocation of the AOC service, in order to provide a complete picture of the overall technical architecture. The ELSA study recommends the Model D as the target high level architecture solution, enabling the provision of DLS, when the current DL system will show its limits (around 2025), as well as to face further capacity needs as per PCP AF6. The following figure presents the Model D technical architecture as recommended by ELSA study: 40

41 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture Figure 3 - Target solution architecture overview (from ELSA study) Model D consists of a European distributed architecture based on the Service Areas concept. For each Service Area, the following main elements are included: RF network: MF VDL M2 VGS implementing Dual DSP ID technology; Ground network: IP network for internal and external components connections (the AOC transport is also considered); ATN Ground Network: composed by ATN A/G and G/G routers in a dedicated ATN domain interfacing with other Service Areas and other potential air/ground communication technologies; Network support systems: monitoring, recording, billing and network management systems; Network interfaces: Firewall/Gateways for external interfaces for AOC services. Moreover, the main characteristics belonging to Model D are enlisted hereinafter: Optimisation of the RF spectrum usage; Single RF network; Clear assignment of the channel technical management responsibility; VHF ground stations, implementing Dual DSP ID RF network; VDL Management Entity (VME), focusing on the load balancing functionality. 3.2 SDM considerations on the technical architecture proposals As stated before, the present document is fed by the main findings and outcomes stemming from the WP2 Technical architecture definition of Path II project, outlined in its related deliverable D3.1- Technical Architecture definition. For sake of clarity, the following actors, which will be further referenced to, are clarified: 41

42 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture RF Operator: The entity in charge of operating the RF frequencies, usually the frequencies licensee; ATN Operator: The entity in charge of operating the ATN network; Service Area Operator: The entity in charge of operating the Data-link Services in the Service Area. Specifically, the following paragraphs aim at introducing the two architectural proposals stemming from the mentioned deliverable D3.1, that have been proposed by the Path II Stakeholders Architecture proposal 1 The architecture proposal 1 has been proposed by the Path II project stakeholders to the SDM as a feasible model for the implementation of the DLS Target solution.the following figure provides an overall and general view of the Architecture proposal 1: Figure 4 - Architecture proposal 1: global view As outlined in the Figure 4, each VGS supports ATS and AOC traffic. It shows the interconnection to 2 AOC networks (namely from SITA, ARINC). The ATS Traffic runs over a dedicated ATN-network described mainly through the functions of an ATN A/G-Router and an ATN G/G-Router. The ATN G/G-Router has BIS26 capability and handles the interconnection to the ANSP networks. Very specific to this proposal is that both the AOC network and the ANSP network provides input to the VME function; the MF algorithm could be hosted at the VME centralized level and at VGSs local level (depending from the adopted solution to guarantee the service performance), in order to cope with the traffic needs of the whole RF infrastructure handling ATS and AOC 26 BIS Boundary Intermediate System 42

43 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture traffic as well. These dashed lines represent a specific ICD, which requires further definition in a follow-on project. Following the main outcomes of the ELSA study, the architecture proposal 1 presents a single RF network and is characterised by the following elements, articulated in three different layers: RF layer (outlined in the figure 5) including the following main elements: o VDL Ground Stations (VGSs) implementing Dual DSP ID RF network technology, able to manage at least up to five VDL Mode 2 frequencies (Common Signalling Channel CSC, plus up to four alternate channels) and at least two frequencies working on CSP plain Old ACARS (POA) channels (these are the SITA and ARINC ACARS base frequencies, on which the presence of the VDL M2 service is currently advertised, according to AEEC standards); by including this functionality within the VGS, one-single RF Network would allow the link establishment and/or link handoff for all aircrafts (both CSPs and non CSPs customers); o VDL Management Entity (VME), a functionality for the managing of the required number of VDL frequencies (up to five), including a load balancing and geographical functions; Figure 5 - Architecture proposal 1: RF Layer Ground/Ground Layer including the ATN Air/Ground and Ground/Ground routers in the dedicated ATN domain and the IP network for data transport; with regard to this, it is important to remark that, in order to maximize the network performance, the number of deployed ATN Air/Ground routers and ATN Ground/Ground routers are recommended to be optimized, i.e. the number of A/G routers needs to be kept minimal, in order to reduce the problem of routing ambiguity and the hand-over numbers. Support systems layer, including the following systems: o Infrastructure Supervision, responsible for the monitoring and controlling of the RF infrastructure and the ground infrastructure. The RF Operator and the ATN Operator will be responsible for the monitoring and controlling of the RF infrastructure (including VHF Ground 43

44 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture Stations (VGS), VDL Management Entity (VME), figure 6) and of the ATN one (including ATN Air/Ground router and ATN Ground/Ground router, figure 7) respectively. For each of the components of these infrastructures a dedicated interface has been identified for the mentioned purposes. Moreover, real time supervision of the systems will be performed by the RF Operator Monitoring Office and the Service Area Provider Monitoring Office, including remote configuration, real-time faults monitoring and status reporting. Figure 6 RF Operator supervision Figure 7 ATN operator supervision The Recording including Legal Recording: The Recording System shall store the messages exchanges within the ATN infrastructure. This storage will be done within log files, containing at least information about aircraft ID and date and time (timestamp) of log generation. The Recording System shall have enough capacity to comply with the legal register (30 days). It must be noticed that different kind of legal recording mechanisms can be put in place. 44

45 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture o The Perfomance Monitoring at Service and Network levels: the monitoring of the Performance at Service and Network level, both at a local (ANSPs) and at a global basis (Service Area Provider), shall be performed. For this reason, the definition of performance monitoring interfaces (from ANSPs and Service Area Provider points of view) and the identification of the parameters to be monitored on a periodic and on a real time basis shall be defined and should be further investigated SDM evaluation on architecture proposal 1 The architecture proposal 1 has been proposed by the Path II project stakeholders to the SDM as a feasible model for the implementation of the DLS Target solution and covers the complete network aspects (from the third to the sixth interface) as highlighted in yellow in the following figure: Figure 8 - Data Link System Architecture detail regarding architecture proposal 1 From a pure technical point of view, this proposal embodies the main Model D characteristics according to ELSA study, as follows: Optimisation of the RF spectrum usage, since up to five VDL mode 2 frequencies are made available, giving proper operational flexibility, implementing an efficient system scalabilty; Presence of a single RF network through a rationalisation of the RF networks already implemented and consequently the possibility to clear assign the channel technical management responsibility; Presence of ground stations supporting DUAL DSP ID (Dual Language) belonging to ARINC and SITA (routing each AOC messages separately on their respective networks), avoiding the avionic systems upgrade to new GSIFs; Presence of the VDL Management Entity (VME) as a key element for managing the required number of VDL frequencies, including the load balancing and geographical functions. Although this proposal considers all Model D pillars pointed out in ELSA study, key technical elements need to be further investigated and concluded prior to any decision to fully implement this architecture proposal 1. 45

46 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture These open points are reported below: VME identification: there are not enough technical details on how the VME should be designed and implemented (in terms of load balancing and geographical principles of VME functionalities), even if some cases of VME implementation are in place in other specific and different contexts and they could be considered as reference for the development of the required VME to cover both ATS and AOC service requirements. IoP aspects in implementing the single RF network and the related ATN routing ambiguity: this is being addressed in Path I project 27, from which it appears that an agreement among ATN vendors (currently there are only 2 in the world) is expected to guarantee the global interoperability. Lack of standardization in the interfaces between VGS ATS and ATN A/G Routers: the solution of this aspect could be helpful in order to facilitate the integration of the legacy systems in the new single RF network. Support system layer not fully addressed in the proposal because of a lack of common understanding of the requirements defined in the IR (EU) 29/2009. With regard to this, the SDM, EASA and Network Manager (NM) are cooperating on this topic to clarify how to manage this open point considering their respective roles and responsibilities in DLS provision. Frequency planning scheme not characterised: considering that this topic has relevant impacts on the Data link system design, the SDM and the NM are working on it. In the light of above, this proposal fulfills the main technical principles enlisted by ELSA study. This first proposal is worth to be discussed in the light of the outcomes stemming from the governance definition and business case. Moreover, there are several technical and non-technical open points to be further investigated Architecture proposal 2 The architecture proposal 2 has been proposed by Path II stakeholders and then submitted to SDM as a feasible technical proposal for the implementation of the future DL system in Europe. The proposed model does not include a single VHF infrastructure. The aim of this proposal is to find an alternative way to bridge the needs of ANSPs for a safety-critical infrastructure supporting ATS communications, and CSPs for a mission-critical infrastructure supporting AOC. The following figure provides an overall and general view of the Architecture proposal 2: _161_AF6 - DLS Implementation Project - Path I "Ground" stakeholders 46

47 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture Figure 9 - Architecture proposal 2: global view The architecture proposal 2 presents multiple RF networks and is characterised by the following elements, articulated in different colours: Green: depicts the Service Area Operator. This is the entity under ANSP control, acting for the whole service area (i.e. the whole European airspace). It contracts VHF operators for the VHF level, and operates the ATN messaging level. The Service Area Operator operates under EASA/NSA supervision. Red, Blue, Purple: depict the VHF Operators. SITA and ARINC would be such VHF Operators. Other entities could very well be another service Operators. Each VHF Operator owns and operates its own infrastructure implementing the VHF level and the supporting systems. This entails that each VHF Operator deploys and runs its own CVME (Centralised VDL Management Entity). VHF operators advertise to aircraft the GSIF pertaining to the SITA and ARINC services, in the case of SITA and ARINC through a network of single GSIF stations, in the case of other VHF Operators through a network of dual-gsif stations. VHF operators must evidence compliance to requirements established by the Service Area Operator, fulfil the contracted service up to these requirements, and report about the service achievements to the NM according to applicable regulations enacted by EASA. Yellow: depicts the supervisory environment. It comprises: o EASA-enacted Single Sky regulations applicable to the Service Area Operators and to VHF Operators; o NSAs in their role of enforcing EASA regulations; o The NM in its role of monitoring the datalink service and reporting on shortcomings, according to applicable Singe Sky regulations SDM evaluation on architecture proposal 2 The Architecture proposal 2 has been proposed by the Path II project stakeholders to the SDM as a feasible technical proposal for the implementation of the future DL system in Europe. The aim of this proposal is to 47

48 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture present an alternative solution, which is able to give an improvement to the current operational scenario on one hand, and to highlight SITA and ARINC technical point of view on the other hand. According to the ELSA study the target solution is based on one single RF network (ref. Ground ), while multiple RF networks are dedicated to transitional solutions (Model B); therefore the proposal is not compliant with the ELSA recommendations, as it does not include a single VHF infrastructure. In particular, this proposal covers the part highlighted in yellow in the following figure: Figure 10 - Data Link System Architecture detail regarding architecture proposal 2 From a pure technical point of view, this proposal presents the following characteristics compared with the target Model D ones, as identified by the ELSA study: G/G layer: a single G/G ATN network (in line with Model D high level definition); RF layer: is the same of Model B (detailed in the ELSA study) and presents the following elements: o RF spectrum usage: as Model B implementation in Europe; o Multiple RF networks already implemented as Model B (each with its different VDL Management Entity (VME) and VHF stations supporting only one GSIF belonging to a single CSP (ARINC or SITA)); o Channel technical management responsibility as Model B. The most important criticality of this proposal is the simultaneous presence of multiple RF networks. This aspect, on one hand, ensures to keep the ARINC and SITA GSIFs (even if it is not a requirement), on the other one, collides with one of the Model D cornerstone, as stated in the ELSA study (i.e. one RF network for each Service Area for a better use of spectrum considering the limited number of VDL M2 channels). Moreover, the adoption of this solution implies the lack of the benefits coming from a unique infrastructure throughout Europe. Moreover, IoP aspects in implementing the single RF network and the related ATN routing ambiguity should be taken in duly consideration; this is being addressed in Path I project, from which it appears that 28 Ground-08: Implement the MF VDLM2 target technical solution: in each Service area, one single RF network that operates reserved VDL frequencies supporting two-gsif channels 48

49 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture an agreement among ATN vendors (currently there are only 2 in the world) is expected to guarantee the global interoperability. In the light of above, the architecture proposal 2 should be considered as an enhancement of the ground segment of the Model B currently under deployment by Path I project 29, but not the Model D implementation, recommended by ELSA study. Despite of this, considering the single G/G ATN network approach, this solution represents a step forward to reach Model D implementation and should be considered as a remarkable technical input to be taken in consideration in continuing discussions and analyses. This second proposal is worth to be discussed in the light of the outcomes stemming from the governance definition and business case and from EASA's task mandated by the EC aimed at defining the end to end certification and safety oversight approach in DLS. 3.3 Complementary communication technologies In order to give a comprehensive view of the overall technical architecture, several complementary technologies should be taken in duly consideration, as stated by the DLS Recovery Plan, since they could be useful or may be required for Model D to meet the PCP regulation by to taking over part of the increased data traffic out of VDL Mode 2 and extending its lifespan. These new systems, even if not yet ready, are foreseen to be adopted in the medium and long term, with different levels of performance and at various stages of evolution; at this stage, an implementation roadmap of the mentioned complementary technologies is under consolidation in a R&D context, with the last published version included in the in-force European ATM Master Plan and updated in the "Future ATM COM Infrastructure strategy" of the DG MOVE. Moreover, it is important also to consider how these complementary technologies will be used in the operational environment (for example, providing only AOC service in some areas, or only ATS in some others or mixing them). The Multilink is the functionality dedicated to this specific aspect and it is currently not enough mature, since it is under definition. For this purpose, each architecture proposal should consider all the interfaces needed to achieve a full technical integration with those new complementary technologies. Anyway, each architecture proposal should consider all the interfaces needed to achieve a full technical integration with those new complementary technologies. These complementary technologies are reported below: Satellite-based Communication (SatCom) System is recognized as the unique technology to provide adequate coverage over large and/or remote geographic areas and widely used in oceanic airspace supporting ATS and AOC services. Nowadays, the technology is being enhanced to cover other airspaces, like continental areas, as a complement to the terrestrial infrastructure in order to jointly meet the future stringent requirements in the high density continental airspace. Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communication System (AeroMACS), is a new wireless technology using ATN/IPS and operating in the aeronautical C-band. AeroMACS was identified as the new highperformance airport surface datalink to support ATS, AOC and airport authority communications for both fixed and mobile aeronautical users _161_AF6 - DLS Implementation Project - Path I "Ground" stakeholders 49

50 Addendum 2 Report on DLS overall architecture L-band Digital Aeronautical Communication System (LDACS) is a new terrestrial A/G datalink using ATN/IPS and operating in the L band. LDACS was identified as the most promising candidate to augment VDL mode2 in continental areas as VHF band for Aeronautical Communications is becoming congested and new enhanced Data-Link services demand increasing performances. All the technologies above mentioned are characterised by different maturity levels and evolution stages; as a consequence, an implementation roadmap of the mentioned complementary technologies operating in a Multilink environment is under consolidation. Moreover, given that each of the above-mentioned technologies is characterized by different performance and airspace domains, the Model D overall technical architecture should be ready to link with them, ensuring the proper level of performance. Consequently, it is considered strategical to adequately pre-arrange the interfaces intended to be used with each of the complementary technologies described before. While the architecture proposal 1 briefly analyses this aspect, the architecture proposal 2 does not take into account any of them (even if the same approach used by the architecture proposal 1 could be applied); anyhow, the new A/G technologies could fit with both architecture proposals in the same way. With regard to the architecture proposal 1, the following figure provides an illustrative example of the Model D architecture focused on the external interface with the current SatCom system implementing Class B services (according to ICAO definition): VME Figure 11 - Proposed architecture for Class B SatCom: external Interface The main characteristics of the Model D Architecture related to the external interfaces with SatCom, outlined in the architecture proposal 1, are identified below: Two types of domains, namely VDL mode2 Service Area domain and SatCom Service Area domain shall be identified. Within each of them, the boundary systems that act as an interface between each other shall be as follow: o Within each VDL mode2 Service Area, the boundary system shall be an ATN G/G Router set up as BIS; o Within each SatCom Service Area, the boundary system shall be either ATN A/G Router or optionally an ATN G/G Router. 50