CCS : on the track to swim compliance
An advanced flight data processing system to deliver remote flight plans
AGENDA / WELCOME
1. CCS presentation
2. CCS swim services status
3. CCS achievements
4. CCS feedbacks and Further
steps
2
What is CCS ?
3
Innovative concept of remote delivery of flight data processing services to ANSPs, relying on Coflight
Winning collaboration between DSNA, ENAV, Skyguide and MATS
Open architecture based and interoperable, CCS is relying on :
- Services definitions from SESAR Virtual center activities PJ16.03
- SWIM requirements
CCS use case : rationalisation of infrastructure using SWIM services
4
DSNA and ENAV ADSP located in
PARIS and Roma ACC delivering
ATM flight data services
Main CCS Customer :
ATSUs that want to share cost of
infrastructure
CCS : Technical Integration Architecture and Services
5
Flight data distribution
Flight data management
Coordination and transfermanagement
Correlation management
Correlation distribution
Airspace status
distribution
Operational supervision
management
Operationalsupervision distribution
Technicalsupervision distribution
Simulation management
FDO management
Datalinkmanagement
FDP ADSP ATSU
Simulated data and
messages, IFPL , OLDI,
surveillance tracks,
meteo
CCS SWIM
services
CCS SWIM Services Portfolio
CCS service
desk
CCS support
services
CCS provider
CCS : Swim Services delivery Roadmap
6
2017 – 2020 Service
development
March 2020 beginning of
Technicalintegration
Service delivery
2020 – XXX Service evolutions
Define and develop
services
Build the infrastructure and
test and deploy
incrementally
Define SLA
Monitor technical
integratin service
according to
Customer SLA
Align with customer
expectations
Align with standards
Implementation status
7
CCS SWIM Services Descriptions Status
8
Derived directly from PJ 16.03 SDD
• Following strict derivation rules
Self assesment
• General description “Candidate” schema
• General description “Definition” schema
• Abstract description schema
• Concrete description schema
Missing elements (under assessment)
• QoS, Throughput, Availability
• Currently under assessment
On going Work
• Complete set of services submitted to SWIM Governance for assessment
• Publication of 1st service as candidate in the European SWIM registry :
• http://dev.eur-registry.swim.aero/services/dsna-ccs-operationalconfigurationmanagement-010
100% of mandatory fields
provided
92% of mandatory fields
provided100% of mandatory fields
provided100% of mandatory fields
provided
CCS infrastructure : TI Y Profile implementation status
9
Choice of Yellow profile SWIM TI YP
•The only specification available
•Fits for the next service to be delivered
•Upgrade of technology will be studied by CCS partners if needed and depending on the availability of profiles and usage by CCS Customer
Self compliance assesment
•Service interfaces technology binding :
•AMQP 1.0
•Protobuf
•Network bindings
• IPSEC / IPV4, TCP
•No usage of ICMP
•Assumptions about standards compliance (RFC)
• Infrastructure capabilities
•Some Requirements not applicable or not assessed as ncesseray in the frame of the next operations
•List of applicable requirements agreed with the customer
•Synchronisation with customer’s implementation
90% of mandatory
requirements implemented
30% of mandatory
requirements
implemented
100% of mandatory fields
provided
Consistent with the technical
integration service
Information Definition status
100 20 40 60 80
partially compliant
compliant
not applicable
status of information definitionrequirements (%)
Rely on strong assumptions about the Service Definition
• Service definition agreed betwen PJ16.03 partners will be standardized
• Traceability to Information Reference Model (AIRM) is done by service designers at the PJ16.03 Service Definition level
• CCS service designers have applied strict derivation rules from the PJ16.03 service definition to the CCS service description
Philsophy seems agreed with Swim governance
CCS achievements
11
CCS achievements : 1/2
PJ 16.03 Demonstration in Vienna (Frequentis : Virtual center @ next level)
12
EXE-PJ16.03-TRL6-
TVALP-001
Frequentis (Lead), DFS (co-
lead), DSNA, ENAV,
Eurocontrol, Hungarocontrol,
Enaire, Indra, Integra, LPS SR,
NATS, skyguide, Thales Air Sys
Demonstrate technical use cases of delegation of ATS services and
contingency in a Virtual Centre environment. The airspace of the
exercise used cover the southern part of Germany (Karlsruhe UAC)
and Switzerland. Swiss airspace has been delegated to Eurocontrol,
DFS and Hungarocontrol. German airspace has been delegated to
NATS, ENAIRE and skyguide.
Service Orientation ATSU can subscribe to services
Multi-vendorsATSU can subscribe to services offered by an ADSP. ATSU and ADSP have different
suppliers.
CWP Cross-validation CWP(s) developed by a vendor can subscribe to services offered by different vendors
ADSP Cross-validationCWP(s) developed by different vendors can subscribe to services offered by one
ADSP
Remote usage ATSU(s) can connect remotely to ADSP(s) through a WAN
QoS expectationsAn initial estimation of Quality of Service indicators for the Virtual Centre concept can
be obtained from exercise data.
Service Orientation ATSU can subscribe to services
Rationalisation of infrastructure
Step1: Initial operations
Step2: Re-sectorisation Grouping (CCS)
Step4: Re-sectorisation De-Group (CCS)
Delegation of airspaceStep6: Delegation to Eurocontrol (skyguide / Eurocontrol)
Step7: Delegation to another CWP located in Europe
Contingency Step9: Contingency: Switch ZU controlled by DFS with CCS
Flight data distribution
Flight data management
Coordination and transfermanagement
Correlation distribution
Airspace status
distribution
Operational supervision
management
Operationalsupervision distribution
Medium density traffic (app
100 correlated flights in 40
minutes)
QoS :
Short process (request-
request report <500ms)
Long process (>1s, <1,5s)
CCS achievements : 2/2
Joint and progressive validation with Customer (skyguide)
Test Cases covering different situations and services planned in the scope of the acceptance
Test topics to be covered (corresponding to frequent nominal control situations)
Over 16 TC already «potentially validated » in November(according to Skyguide acceptance criteria)
19
77
11
CCS Feedbacks and further steps
14
CCS challenges
15
Traceability to a service definition that is not yet in the registry
• When ? Do we need a complete standardisation process within SESAR, within Eurocae, to the publication of the registry
Managing a portfolio of consistent services
• Frequent releases of service, complexity of incremental validation
Stepwise approach : what is an Operational service ?• CCS partners philosophy : every service that is consumed by a
customer according to a SLA is operational
• Allow a stepwise approach
Further steps
16
Work hand in hand with SWIM governance for the publication of services in the registry
• « Candidate » for the other services of the set
• « Compliant » as soon as possible
Maintain and Enlarge the Services offer
• Maintain existing services aligned with « standards » (SESAR Virtual center activities, Eurocae standards)
• New services to be delivered in the next coming months (SSR code management, SSR code distribution, FDO 2nd part, ….)
Improve architecture for next services
• To propose different SLA according to Customers expectations
• To integrate security, safety regulations
Involve ANS (Providers and Customer)
• As soon as possible
Questions
Feedbacks ?
Thank you for your attention !
A REMOTE FLIGHT DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM
INNOVATING AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT