Coordination and Transfer of Control
Elements Proposed for FIXM 2.0
Marina Brabham, Lockheed Martin
1/24/13
Coordination and Transfer of Control
• FIXM 2.0 will include elements for Coordination and Transfer of
Control, supporting:
• Awareness and notification of flights entering Air Traffic
Service Unit (ATSU)’s Area of Interest (AOI)
• Transfer of communications and control between ATSUs
• Purpose of Coordination and Transfer of Control white paper:
– Propose Coordination data elements
– Highlight areas of commonality between existing and
proposed interfaces
– Identify where standardization is required to support
automation
• Basis for discussion by stakeholders of alternatives to
arrive at FIXM data elements for Coordination
1/24/2013
2
Coordination Dialog
• Dialog must be followed to coordinate a flight
– Coordination and Transfer of Control is currently
accomplished using various sequences of
messages (ICD dependent)
• The elements needed to express Coordination must be
defined in FIXM, regardless of method of flight data
distribution
• Definitions in FIXM should aim to accommodate the
information defined in existing ICDs to encourage
adoption of FIXM model
1/24/2013
3
Coordination Interfaces - References
• ICDs and Specifications
– Asia/Pacific Regional ICD for AIDC, version 3, September 2007:
Coordination of flights to and from Asia and the South Pacific
– NAT ICD, Version 1.2.8 December 2010: Coordination of flights
to and from Canada and Europe
– NAM Common Coordination ICD, VOLUME 1, 1/20/12: Used
between the United States and Canada, the United States and
Mexico, the United States and Cuba
– OLDI Specification, Edition 4.2, December 16, 2010: Used
within Europe.
– SESAR Deliverable 10.02.05.D26, Edition 00.01.01,
Requirements for future Coordination and Transfer of Control
in Europe
– Flight Object (FO) data model, 10.02.05, version 00.00.05,
accompanying Flight Object data model
1/24/2013
4
Analysis Process
• Review reference documents and identify relevant messages
– Exclude general purpose messages, messages not relevant to
Coordination
– Relevant/Not Relevant messages listed in white paper, by ICD
• Study relevant messages and identify candidate fields
Criteria
Already defined ICAO 4444 and included in FIXM core 1.0
with identical semantics.
Not relevant to Coordination or Transfer of Control.
Include /
Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Low level data needed for physical implementation (not
logical in nature).
Present in FIXM Core, but with different semantics.
Exclude
Not excluded by any of the above categories
Include
Include
• Analyze relevant fields and classify as being additions to FIXM or
impacting existing elements
– Provide rationale for excluded items
1/24/2013
5
Analysis Output
Column
Content
ICD Name
The name of the ICD or source document where the field is defined.
ICAO 4444 Field Type
Number
ICAO 4444 Field Type
Name
Non ICAO 4444 Field Type
Number
Non ICAO 4444 Field Type
Name
Details About Usage in ICD
If the field is defined in ICAO 4444, the ICAO field type number.
If the field is defined in ICAO 4444, the ICAO field type name.
Potential Candidate /
Impact to FIXM 2.0?
Rationale for Exclusion
The field type number from the ICD or source document, for fields not
defined in ICAO 4444.
The field type name from the ICD or source document, for fields not
defined in ICAO 4444.
Information about the usage of the field from the ICD or source
document.
Yes or No, indicating whether or not the field is a candidate for FIXM 2.0
or impacts an existing FIXM 1.0 data element.
If the field is not categorized as a candidate for FIXM 2.0, the rationale.
Notes
Notes about the field or the proposed FIXM element.
Proposed Data Element
Name
Modified 1.0 Data Element
Name
The proposed name of the FIXM 2.0 data element. The data element is
defined in the FIXM 2.0 data dictionary at www.fixm.aero.
For FIXM 1.0 data elements that may be impacted by the field, the
name of the FIXM 1.0 data element.
1/24/2013
6
Logical Model – Flight
Includes proposed
Coordination and
Transfer of Control
elements only
01/24/13
7
Logical Model – Flight Plan
Includes proposed
Coordination and
Transfer of Control
elements only
01/24/13
8
Areas Requiring Discussion:
Distribution of Flight Information
• Initial distribution of flight information prior to traversal of
downstream ATSU’s AOR or AOI
– For Coordination, Time/Distance in advance of flight’s
estimated crossing time coordination information is sent
– Universally established or set by each ATSU?
• Could be dynamically specified when ATSU initializes
(dynamic subscription parameter)
– Other reasons an ATSU receives or can request the FIXM
Flight Object?
• Who can initiate Transfer of Control?
– Next in 4DT sequence can request
• Requested on Frequency
– Can Current Controlling offer?
• Should a Coordination status be added to support this?
1/24/2013
9
Areas Requiring Discussion:
Coordination Status
• Note that statuses below do not account for fact that a third party may be
responsible for incorporating updates from the Transferring and Accepting ATSUs
and disseminating the Flight information
– Offered: Upstream ATSU populates estimate data for this downstream ATSU
crossing, and sets the status to ‘Offered'
– Accepted: Downstream ATSU acknowledges receipt and acceptance of the
initial or revised coordination conditions
– Rejected: Downstream ATSU rejects proposed coordination conditions. If
coordination conditions were agreed to prior to the rejection, they remain
unchanged. Verbal coordination may be initiated to request a new crossing
clearance.
• Status applies only to civil flights crossing into military airspace or vice
versa
– Requested on Frequency: Downstream ATSU updates the coordination data
with the intended frequency
– Frequency Changed: The flight instructed to change frequency to that of
receiving unit
– Assumed: Downstream facility assumes responsibility for the Flight. Flight
information is updated to reflect this facility as Controlling Facility
1/24/2013
10
Areas Requiring Discussion:
Coordination Status (Cont.)
– Backward Coordinating: The new controlling ATSU is proposing
changes to the Coordination conditions while the flight in the ACI
– Backward Coordinating – Accepted: ATSU accepts the proposed
update to Coordination conditions
– Backward Coordinating – Rejected: ATSU rejects the proposed
update to Coordination conditions; Coordination conditions remain
unchanged
– Abrogated: Coordination is abrogated. Flight is no longer expected
to traverse Facility.
– ATSU Skipped: ATSU crossing is not negotiated via FIXM
– Release Requested: Receiving ATSU proposes release of a flight from
agreed transfer conditions after initial coordination has taken place,
or immediately flight is coordinated and transfer of communication
has taken place
– Released: Transferring ATSU accepts release of a flight from agreed
transfer conditions.
– Release Rejected: Transferring ATSU rejects release of flight from the
agreed transfer conditions
1/24/2013
11
Areas Requiring Discussion:
Coordination Status (Cont.)
• Diagram illustrates a simple example of changes in Coordination status
– One set of Coordination conditions are offered, and accepted
– A third party may be responsible for incorporating updates from
ATSUs and disseminating; this is not shown below
1/24/2013
12
Areas Requiring Discussion:
Coordination Status (Cont.)
1/24/2013
13
Negotiation of Proposed Changes
• During coordination, downstream entity may wish to change route
– In FIXM, are separate elements needed to differentiate the
proposed route from the current route?
– Proposed changes will only be disseminated if they are
accepted
• Proposed routing will be requested in the Route data
element, but would only be incorporated into the Route
element if accepted
– Automation will need to take into account
– What business and processing rules will govern the
negotiation of route amendments from downstream ATSUs?
1/24/2013
14
Handover Interfacility vs. Intrafacility
• Coordination also occurs within a facility
– CRQ message in OLDI from the Tower to the TMA
unit to request a departure clearance containing the
coordination point and time
• FIXM 1.0 elements Boundary Crossing Time and
Boundary Crossing Level can communicate this
information
• To allow FIXM to be used for interfacility as well as
intrafacility coordination, revisit element definitions to
ensure both cases are covered
1/24/2013
15
Inputs to Trajectory in SESAR Model
• SESAR model includes constraint information that
serve as input to computation of the trajectory
• Provide rationale for recommending exclusion of this
information from FIXM 2.0
• Coordination constraints include:
–
–
–
–
Coordination Point
Coordination Time
Transfer Flight Level
Supplementary Flight Level
• Overlap with data introduced in FIXM 1.0
• Usage of constraints is to assess whether a proposed
change is compatible with the existing trajectory, and
to apply constraints to trajectory
1/24/2013
16
Facility and Sector Crossing Information
• Element “Traversed Facility List” is proposed for the
ordered list of facilities the flight will traverse
– Criteria is traversal of the Facility’s AOR by the
flight’s planned route and altitude
• Only facility traversal, or facility and (optional) sector
crossings?
• Include crossings to destination
1/24/2013
17
CPDLC and ADS-C Information
• Messages in OLDI Specification that forward Data Link connection
information
– LOF: Provides the ATN or FANS/1A logon parameters to the receiving
ATSU, to allow the unit to use the data link applications
– NAN: Notifies the receiving ATSU that it can initiate a CPDLC Start
Request with the aircraft
• Aircraft authorized to accept a CPDLC connection request from
the receiving air/ground ATSU
• Messages in Asia/Pacific and NAT ICDs that forward Data Link
connection information
• FAN message: includes information to establish CPDLC and/or ADS-C
connections with a FANS equipped aircraft
• FCN message: includes in a free text field information containing
status of the CPDLC connection
• Is there additional CPDLC or ADS-C data that should be included
in FIXM 2.0 and 3.0?
1/24/2013
18
ADS-C Report
• ADS-C reports generated automatically from the aircraft to
ground system based on established contract
• Multiple ATSUs can have simultaneous ADS-C
connections
• No constraints on which ATSUs can connect
• Contract type determines content and frequency of report
generation
• In Asia/Pac ICD, ADS message transfers contents of ADS-C
report from one ATSU to another
• Single, optional element for contents of the ADS-C report,
rather than breaking into multiple elements
• Report data varies greatly depending on the contact type
• Multiple stakeholders can receive the ADS-C report by
establishing a contract with the aircraft outside of FIXM
1/24/2013
19
Reviewers
• Seeking reviewers to provide feedback on proposed
data elements and areas requiring further discussion
• Incorporate feedback into proposed/updated data
elements
• Formulate business rules for FIXM data elements
• Provide your contact information if you would like to
be a reviewer or contact me at:
marina.brabham@lmco.com
1/24/2013
20