aidc/nam/icd — wp/09 · • feedback to assist filers in correcting errors • incentivizes...

AIDC/NAM/ICD — WP/09 25/03/19 NAM/CAR Air Traffic Services Inter-facility Data Communication (AIDC) and North American Interface

Control Document (NAM/IDC) Implementation Follow-up Meeting (AIDC/NAM/ICD ) Mexico City, Mexico, from 8 to 11 April 2019

Agenda Item 1: Status of implementation of automated protocols

USING FLIGHT PLANNING AUTOMATION TO RESPOND TO FILED FLIGHT PLANS TO ACHIEVE QUALITY CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTH AMERICAN, CENTRAL AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN REGION

(Presented by the United States)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This wording paper and accompanying presentation provides information regarding the need to improve the quality of flight plan data through verification of filed flight plans back to the filer. The product of the regional ATC flight data systems is relayed through the enroute, oceanic and terminal Interfacility Data Communications systems in support of domestic and international airspace flight. Action: Suggested actions are presented in Section 4.

Strategic Objectives:

• Safety • Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency

References: • ICAO Doc 4444 1. Introduction 1.1 A communications and data interchange infrastructure significantly reduces the need for verbal coordination between Air Traffic Service Units (ATSUs). ATS Interfaculty Data Communications (AIDC), or similar automation and can provide the means by which automated data exchange will be harmonized between ATSUs providing air traffic service and Flight Information Regions (FIR).

1.2 The United States (U.S.) implemented a flight plan response system back to registered Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network (AFTN) flight plan filers, providing acceptance or rejection to the address or a designated other address. The accompanying presentation provides how the US responds to airline and other filers both domestically and internationally. The US has provided this service for over ten years.

AIDC/NAM/ICD — WP/09 — 2 —

1.3 The impetus of the automation requirement systems from the increasing traffic levels transiting between FIRs in many regions upgrading systems. 1.4 Within these efforts the acceptance of flight plan data which travels through the interfaced systems are often thought of in an ancillary manner since error checks are built into the processing of integrated systems. Data efficiency and integrity issues may be very far removed from the controller display and the cockpit, but these end users are dependent on the acceptance of flight plan filers and the accuracy of this filed critical information.

1.5 The U.S. and North American Common Coordination Interface Control Document (NAM ICD) member states have realized automation gains that provide significant safety and efficiency benefits. While the implementation of the automated data exchange capability provides significant benefits to the controller, there is one area of concern that potentially touches many regions. This issue depends on the quality of the flight plans being filed and the continuity of the data which follows a flight through international ATC systems.

1.6 Automated flight plan acknowledgement is intertwined with quality control. Flight plans received before the system was automated were processed manually. When flight plans are received by automation systems they are much less forgiving of format, syntax and errors which could be absorbed within a manual system. Many errors in filed flight plans which may have gone undetected for years within a manual system are now a challenge within automation. When filed information is in conflict from different flight plan versions, it requires manual intervention and correction else it erodes the benefits of automation.

2 Discussion

2.1 The first FPL Monitoring Group, formed out of the North American, Central American and Caribbean (NAAC) Air Traffic Services (ATS) AIDC Task Force, was assigned with implementing a Quality Improvement Initiative in March 2012 in response to a proliferation of flight plan errors and conflicting data which impacted safety of flight and integrity of flight data being introduced into interfaced ATC systems. The scope of the issue is currently recognized within the FPL Monitoring Group but perhaps demands a wider scope. The front end of the flight planning process provides a flight plan to the point of origin and along the route of flight to destination. Adopting the accept/reject automated flight plan capability to the filer is a key component of flight planning quality control. Without accept/reject a flight plan which may be unacceptable to route of Flight Information Regions may be unknown to the filer. The risk associated the adverse impact on quality of the data being input and processed by international ATC automation systems can nullify many of the benefits associated with automating.


2.2 Benefits include:

• Assurance to filers of flight plan on file • Provides feedback to assist filers in correcting errors • Incentivizes proper format and current routes • Reduced workload on controllers because there is a flight plan on file • Adapting a secondary address for the response message provides flexibility • Responses can be sent to multiple addresses

2.3 The goal of FPL Monitoring Group is currently localized within the NACC but similar efforts within other regions including the South American Region serve to provide awareness and a more unified effort in identifying flight planning errors, correcting those errors at the source and mitigating the impact of problems associated with multiple flight plan submission. These problems span regions and solutions must also have like influence. 2.4 It is believed that the accept/reject capability provides a major benefit to the filers and receivers of the flight plans. The filers receive confirmation of FPL acceptance and the receivers are provided a better flight plan as errors. 2.5 The increasing traffic demand between Flight Information Regions (FIR) drives the need to improve efficiency and maintain the accuracy for the ATC providers. Developing harmonized processes within the AFTN and defining protocols for exchanging data between multiple States/Territories/International Organizations within and across regions is critical to achieving efficiency through automation. Neither the North American Interface Control Document for Common Coordination Data Communications (NAM ICD) between ATS Units in the Caribbean nor the data set for acknowledgement/rejection for FPLs was developed by ICAO. The Acknowledgment (ACK) and Rejection (REJ) fits well underneath the umbrella of the AIDC Task Force and the FPL Monitoring Group. 3 Conclusion

3.1 Currently the analysis of flight plans by ATC systems provides internal feedback to the users whom it serves but does not provide a response to those who filed the flight plan. Coupling automated detection of errors with regional standardization for the filer will serve the users well as implemented responses back to airlines, and flight plan filers provide a consistent and correct pass through the region.


3.2 Note the information presented in this paper and consider an automated initiative to examine data being processed within those ATC systems which consistently examines flight plan data with the intent of identifying the need for quality assurance. International flight plan filers are accustomed to the format and messaging of the US positive verification responses provided by ERAM and is a standard which users of the system have employed for years. In receiving ACKs, REJs with processing errors identified, airlines, flight planning services, ANSPs and flight planners within the NACC are provided a capability by which users may migrate to the single flight, single flight plan concept promoted by the region. 4. Suggested actions 4.1 The meeting is invited to:

a) encourage individual NACC States to consider the current automated flight plan message verification and feedback system of acceptance and rejection of filed flight plans that has been implemented by the U. S. and other regional member states.

b) Enhancement of NACC Regional quality control initiatives taking advantage of the flight planning tool that provides great benefit to the filer and the receiving facility for successful automation implementation.

— — — — — — — — — — —

Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration FAA – Flight Plan

Filing

Acknowledgement and Rejection Response Messages

1 Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration

Flight Plan Response Messages AIDC and NAM ICD Meeting

Background Flight Planning Response Messages • The US first implemented Acknowledgement Messages to Flight

Plans (FPL) in 2005 and was based in the Enroute Automation System (ERAS).

• The ERAS was resident in the 20 Domestic En Route ARTCCs and the capability was ported to the ERAM systems when they replaced the HOST – The capability provided responses to filers on filed flight plans

and subsequent flight plan modifications • Response messages consist of Acceptance = “ACK” or Rejection

= “REJ” messages being sent to the adapted filer.



Flight Planning Response Messages Benefits include: • Assurance to filers of flight plan on file • Feedback to assist filers in correcting errors • Incentivizes proper format and current routes • Reduced workload on controllers because there is a flight plan on

file • Allows adapting secondary address for the response message • Responses can be sent to multiple addresses

Note: NAM ICD message errors logical response messages (LRM) relate to active aircraft messaging between facilities. The Flight Planning Response Messages described in this briefing and in the FPRG refer to pre-active filing of plans by operators and filers .



FAA – ICAO Flight Planning Reference Guide

• This document provides references for filing International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Filed Flight Plans (FPL) and associated flight planning messages for flights within United States domestic airspace.

• The information provided in this document augments instructions found in the ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management, Document 4444 (ICAO Doc. 4444), including Amendment 1 was effective 11/15/2012, and incorporated published supplementary requirements, instructions and guidelines for proper filing of FPLs with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) En Route Automation System (ERAS).



Automated International Boundaries Anchorage

Arctic FIR

Oakland Oceanic

FIR New York Oceanic

FIR

Edmonton FIR

Magadan Oceanic FIR

Magadan/Sokol FIR

(Petropavlovsk Kamchatski and Magadan ACCs)

Fukuoka FIR

Manila FIR

Ujang Pandang

FIR

Nauru FIR

(Brisbane) Port Moresby

FIR Nadi FIR

Auckland FIR

Tahiti FIR

Mazatlan Oceanic

FIR

Mexico FIR

Bermuda

San Juan FIR

Piarco FIR

Santa Maria Oceanic

FIR

Gander Oceanic

FIR

Shanwick Oceanic

FIR

Gander Domestic

FIR

Moncton FIR

Vancouver FIR

Honolulu HCF

Guam CERAP

Habana FIR

Santo Domingo FIR

Curacao FIR

Kingston FIR

Houston Oceanic

FIR

KZWY

KZBW

KZDC

KZJX

KZMA

KZLA

KZAK

KZSE

Montreal FIR

Toronto FIR

Winnipeg FIR

Anchorage Continental

FIR

Murmansk Oceanic FIR

Miami Oceanic

FIR

Anchorage Oceanic

FIR

Interface Key NAM AIDC NAS

COCESNA FIR

KZHU

KZAB

KZLC KZMP

KZOB



Acceptance Messages

ACK Responses • There are no ACK messages defined in ICAO Doc. 4444 that allow

a receiving ATS unit to respond to flight planning messages. • FAA has therefore defined ACK message responses, as outlined

in FAA ICAO Flight Planning Interface Reference Guide (FPIRG) Table 3-6-1.

• Domestic En Route Automation Systems (ERAS) ERAM support use of ACK responses to FPL, CHG, DLA and CNL messages. If ERAS is able to process the FPL and determines there are no errors an ACK message will be provided in the following format:

ACK FPL/004 KZDC AWE603 KBWI 1230 KPHL



ACK Message Composition Field

Element Required/ Optional/ Prohibited

Examples

n/a Message Type Required ACK

n/a Single space character Required

03 (a) Message Type Designator (FPL, CNL, CHG, DLA) of the message being responded to

Required FPL

CHG

03 (b) The FPF supplied Optional Message Number

Optional /004

n/a Receiving unit – Four letter identifier of the ARTCC generating the ACK

Required -KZDC

-KZOB Input message identification:

07 (a) Aircraft Identification Required -AWE603

13 (a) Departure Aerodrome

(b) Estimated Off-Block Time

Required -KBWI1230

16 (a) Destination Required -KPHL



FPL ACK Example • Input from Jet Blue Airlines -FF KZMAZZQA 010426 KJFKJBUH (FPL-JBU2276-IS -A320/M-SDE3GHIM3WZ/SB1 -TJSJ0730 -N0462F340 DCT ACONY Y185 DONQU DCT LUCTI/M078F340 L454 OKUNU/M079F340 L454 WEBBB/N0455F340 L454 GEDIC DCT DPK/N0404F140 DPK3 -KBDL0339 -PBN/A1B1C1D1O1S2T1 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 SUR/260B DOF/190301 REG/N613JB EET/KZMA0028 KZWY0102 KZNY0243 KZBW0308 SEL/BDMP CODE/A7FAAD) • Output to Jet Blue Airlines ACK FPL KZMA JBU2276 TJSJ 0730 KBDL



CNL ACK Example

• Input from Sao Paulo FF KZMAZZQA 010003 SBGRYOYX (CNL-ACA091-SBGR2345-CYYZ-DOF/190228) • Output to Sao Paulo ACK CNL KZMA ACA091 SBGR 2345 CYYZ



CHG ACK Example

• Input from San Jose Costa Rica ATS Reporting Office FF KZMAZZQA 010700 MROC ZPZX (CHG-N111WB-MROC1130-KFXE-DOF/190301 -18/STS/MEDEVAC PBN/A1B2C2D2 NAV/RNAVA1D1 DOF/!(0301 EET/MUFH0126 KZMA0158 OPR/REVA INC. PER/C RMK/CUBA OVF 2131 NIC IAC 8410219) • Output to San Jose ACK CHG KZMA N111WB MROC 1130 KFXE



DLA ACK Example

• Input from Flight Plan Filing Service FF KZMAZZQA 010129 KHOUUVAX (DLA-P4WWS-KIAD0145-SAEZ-DOF 190301 • Output to Flight Plan Filing Service ACK DLA KZMA P4WWS KIAD 0145 SAEZ



Reject Messages

• There are no REJ messages defined in ICAO Doc. 4444 that allow a receiving ATS unit to respond to flight planning messages along with the general reason for the rejection – ERAM only sends the first error which triggers the rejection in

the REJ message • FAA has therefore defined REJ message responses, as outlined in

FAA ICAO Flight Planning Interface Reference Guide Table 3-6-1 • If ERAS identifies errors in the processing of a message, a REJ

message will be provided in the following format: REJ FPL/015 KZDC Reason(Listed in Table 3-7-2 in the Flight Planning Interface Reference Guide)



REJ Message Composition

Output to KATLDALW

Field Element

Required/ Optional/ Prohibited

Examples

n/a Message Type Required REJ

n/a Single space character Required

03 (a) Message Type Designator (FPL, CNL, CHG, DLA) of the message being responded to

Required FPL

CHG

03 (b) The FPF supplied Optional Message Number

Optional /004

n/a Receiving unit – Four letter identifier of the ARTCC generating the ACK

Required -KZDC

-KZOB

n/a Rejection reason Required See Table 3-7-2 Error Messages in ERAM

n/a Input message identification: Required CNL-DAL1964-KDCA2125-KLGA ……

(Entire input message)



FPL REJ Example

• Input from Nassau Bahamas AFTN Office FF KZMAZZQA 010013 MYNNYFYX (FPL-SBM650-IS -SF34/M-SDF/S -MYNN1530 -N0249A090 DCT -MYCB0040 MYNN • Output to AFTN Office REJ FPL KZMA EXACT DUPLICATE FP IN SYSTEM



CNL REJ Example

• Input from American Airlines FF KZMAZZQA 010002 KTULAALD (CNL-AAL1082-KMIA-MKJP-DOF/190208) • Output to American Airlines FF KTULAALD 010002 KZCRZQZX REJ CNL KZMA NO FLT PLAN MNL COOR REQD CNL-AAL1082-KMIA-MKJP-DOF/190228



CHG REJ Example

• Input from Managua Guatemala ATS Office FF KZMAZZQA 010206 MGGTZPZX (CHG-TAI588-MGGT0345-KMIA-DOF/19030 -15/N0469F370 UG765 RIDEM DCT IMATA DCT MAXIM DCT EADEN SURSO5) • Output to Managua ATS Office REJ CHG KZMA MULT FLT PLANS MNL COOR REQD



DLA REJ Example

• Input from Iberia Airlines FF KZMAZZQA 010010 LEMDIBED DLA-IBE6454-SEQM0015-LEMD-DOF/190228 • Output to Iberia Airlines REJ DLA KZMA NO FLT PLAN MNL COOR REQD



Adaptation Overview

• Eight letter AFTN address must be adapted to receive responses from ERAM computer

• Multiple addresses may be adapted and receive responses for the same FPL and subsequent DLY, CNL and CHG messages

• Subsequent changes to an FPL must be received from original eight letter address

• Addresses adapted as capable of receiving response messages are maintained in a common database in all 20 US ARTCCs

• Adapted addresses may also be configured to receive a unique Computer Identification (CID) number for each flight plan



Harmonization is Goal

• Support for bilateral solutions and user collaboration needed to ensure automation compatibility as interface systems evolve

• Solutions must provide extensible compatibility with our North American and international neighbors

• Goal is to extend operational efficiencies through contiguous computer-to-computer coordination across country and system boundaries

• Direct benefit on our collective ability to integrate new technologies by providing ‘automation buyback’ for new controller tasks

aidc/nam/icd — wp/09 · • feedback to assist filers in correcting errors • incentivizes...

Documents