令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

４．SWIM による軌道ベース運用に関する実証実験
航空交通管理領域

監視通信領域 ※呂 暁東，森岡 和行，金田 直樹，古賀 禎
ビクラマシンハ ナヴィンダ キトマル，平林 博子，ブラウン マーク

information of relevance to trajectory prediction, no
1. INTRODUCTION

consistent view of an expected trajectory is maintained

Global harmonization of Air Traffic Management

using

the

best-known

information.

Moreover,(ATM) systems is envisioned and described in thedecision-making is either not informed by a trajectory

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

or is based on trajectories that are managed locally

Global ATM Operational Concept (GATMOC) [1].

withinThe GATMOC presents a holistic vision to improve

collaboratively-obtained reference.

systems,ratherthanasharedandthe safety, operating economics, environmental

The TBO concept aims to coalesce the GATMOC

sustainability, and security of civil air transportation.

components during tactical, planning and flight

Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) is fundamental tooperations in the ATM system by coordinating therealizing the benefits anticipated from the GATMOC

view of the trajectory between different actors in aconcept. An underlying premise of TBO is “ATMcollaborative

considers the trajectory of a manned or unmanned

between the trajectory and restrictions that originate

vehicle during all phases of flight and manages thefrom the various GATMOC components and actors

interaction of that trajectory with other trajectories orthat shape this trajectory. TBO represents a shift fromhazards to achieve the optimum system outcome, withpresent operations towards the use of a shared,

minimal deviation from the user requested flightcollaboratively-developed trajectory which more

trajectory, whenever possible”.

closely meets AU objectives and serves as the basis forenvironment,

ensuring

consistency

This idea of TBO outlined in the GATMOC is notdecision-making across ATM system actors. It thus

new, but it is maturing as the advancement of concept

provides an opportunity to increase the predictability

development and standardization of System Wideof flight operations, with flight-impacting decisions

Information Management (SWIM) [2] and Flight andbeing coordinated across concept components [4]. The

Flow Information for a Collaborative Environment

TBO concept also incorporates the dynamic and(FF-ICE) [3] make its implementation more feasible.

flexible operational demands of real-time information

Based on the definition and the scope of TBO

exchange between AUs and ASPs necessary fordescribed in the ICAO Global TBO Concept [4], it isCollaborative

therefore now an appropriate time to discuss technical

Performance Based Navigation (PBN).

solutions and approaches for TBO implementation.

Decision

Making(CDM)

andIn order to validate this concept and promote the

There are several current limitations preventing theshift from current voice-based operation to TBO, therequirements of GATMOC being fulfilled. Lack ofMulti-Regional TBO Demonstration (MR TBO)

information sharing between Airspace User (AU) andproject has been conducted by the Federal Aviation

ATM Service Provider (ASP), both within ASP

Administration (FAA) cooperating with international

systems and between ASPs, leads to inconsistent andpartners (NAV CANADA, AEROTHAI, the Civil

inaccurate trajectory predictions. As air traffic control

Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and the(ATC) voice clearances might not be input into

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)) through tabletop

automation and systems might not share known

exercises and technical interchanges. This-21-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

Figure 1: TBO Tree (https://www4.icao.int/ganpportal/ASBU/TBO/Graph)collaborative effort explores the impacts of TBO

section 3, discussions of scenarios and operational

related to post-departure flight operations, withvalues of TBO are presented. In section 4, thevarious levels of equipage and crew capabilities,

development and analysis of the ENRI test system forwithin the context of ATM system modernization

TBO demonstrations are presented. The paper is

initiatives, supporting the development of dataconcluded in section 5.

exchange standards and relevant ICAO provisions,2. SWIM, FF-ICE AND TBO

standards and guidance materials.
As a technical supporter of JCAB, the Electronic

2.1 GANP

Navigation Research Institute (ENRI) has developed aFigure 1 shows the roadmap towards the fulltest facility environment that provides simulation

implementation of TBO published in the ICAO GANP

capabilities for TBO demonstration in collaboration[5]. The GANP identifies necessary capabilities andwith NEC Corporation. In this paper, the observations

technologies and breaks them down using the Aviation

and analyses of MR TBO demonstrations consisting ofSystems Block Upgrade (ASBU) framework to

scenario discussion and function development forprovide a roadmap of incremental ATM system

TBO implementation is reported. Moreover, theupgrades that will allow the global ATM community

coordination method and information exchange

to more efficiently move into the TBO future. It

between SWIM-based services in the post-departure

provides a comprehensive understanding of the intent

phase of flight for how to use managed trajectories isof, and delivery mechanisms for, the ATM system

discussed. Finally, the lessons learned and challenges

envisioned in the GATMOC. The ASBUs are divided

for trajectory sharing, management, and utilization are

into temporal Blocks to guide the ATM community’s

discussed.

implementation of these new capabilities.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next

Flowing from the GANP are more focusedsection, the roadmap of Global Air Navigation Plan

individual concepts called threads, and threads are(GANP) for full TBO implementation is introduced. In-22-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

comprised of elements. Threads are distinct from each

Exchange Model (IWXXM) [8]. Moreover, theother; for example FF-ICE and SWIM are two threads

operational and data frameworks for flow management,that have dependencies upon one another at theflight planning, and trajectory management provided

element level as well as sharing common enablers in

by FF-ICE are also necessary for TBO implementation.

other threads.
3. SCENARIO AND OPERATIONAL VALUES

2.2 RelationshipTo explore the primary characteristic of TBO that

SWIM provides a digital data-sharing infrastructure

includesthat facilitates the data sharing required by TBO.

trajectory

sharing,management

andutilization, we consider a scenario with multiple flights

SWIM consists of standards, infrastructure andin a trajectory-managed environment. Both eASPs

governance enabling the management of ATM-related(FF-ICE-capable ASPs) and eAUs (FF-ICE-capable

information and its exchange between qualified partiesAUs) benefit from this process by collaboratively

via interoperable services [2]. SWIM delivers

establishing a mutually acceptable 4D trajectory for a

integrated digital aeronautical information, weather

flight not only prior to departure but also during theinformation, constraint information while enabling theflight itself. Trajectory negotiation is conducteddata collection and data sharing necessary for user

between eASPs and eAUs through the timely

collaboration and improved management of flightexchange of flight constraints and traffic flow

constraints. This will enable increased common

information. This real time information sharing andsituational awareness and improved ASP agility to

trajectory negotiation support common situationaldeliver the right information to the right people at theawareness across stakeholders, creates more accurate

right time.

demand predictions, and improves the safety,

Building on SWIM, FF-ICE provides a globally

efficiency and capacity of operations.

harmonized process for planning and sharing

3.1 Scenario

consistent flight information. The FF-ICE concept is
split into two development cycles: provisions,

The scenario shown in Figure 2 consists of threestandards and guidance for the first FF-ICE

flights: UAL5 and UAL7 departing from Denverdevelopment cycle (FF-ICE/R1) focus on flight

International

planning and trajectory negotiation from submission

International Airport (KIAH) respectively to Narita

of a flight plan or up to the flight’s departure. The

International Airport (RJAA), and JAL9 departing

initial concept for the second FF-ICE developmentfrom San Francisco International Airport (KSFO) also

cycle (FF-ICE/R2) focuses on the execution of the

to RJAA. Data exchanges include the participation offlight and post-departure trajectory negotiation. FF-

two eAUs (United Airlines (UAL) and Japan Airlines

ICE relies on the mutually-agreed 4 Dimensional(JAL)) and three eASPs (FAA, NAV CANADA and

Trajectory (4DT) of an aircraft from gate to gate toJCAB). The eAUs are able to publish FF-ICE Flightallow ASPs and AUs an improved understanding ofPlan and related messages to share and negotiate theoperational expectations.

trajectory of the flight with the eASPs. FAA, NAV

Airport(KDEN)

andHoustonTBO relies on a globally standardized exchange of

CANADA and JCAB are able to provide FF-ICE

data via SWIM. The SWIM Global Interoperability

services and SWIM-enabled applications for pre-Framework consists of information exchange models

departure and post-departure trajectory negotiationsuch as the Flight Information Exchange Modelwith all downstream and upstream FIRs (Flight(FIXM) [6], Aeronautical Information Exchange

Information Region). This scenario focused on the

Model (AIXM) [7] and ICAO Weather Information

post-departure phase with the integration of technical-23-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

Figure 2: Trajectory Based Multiple Flights Operation
actions and strategic plan by cooperating with Air

4)

Shortly after the CPL message has been sent,

Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) services. The

the crew of UAL5 observes volcanic ash (VA)

operational flow of this scenario using FF-ICE

ahead on its flight planned route, so requests

services over SWIM is as follows:

100nm left deviation to KZAK. Since this1)

At approximately four hours prior to scheduled

deviation will also affect the trajectory indeparture, the UAL dispatcher submits Filed

Fukuoka FIR, the FAA sends a CDN

Flight Plans for UAL7 and UAL5 to the FAA,

(Coordination) message to JCAB to respond to

NAV CANADA and JCAB, and receives a

the urgent request. Fortunately, there is no

response of “Acceptable” from all three.

other traffic affected, and JCAB responds with

Four hours prior to departure, the JAL Flightan ACP message to the FAA.

2)

Operations Center (FOC) submits a Filed

3)5)

JCAB publishes a SIGMET message regarding

Flight Plan to the FAA and JCAB for JAL9,

the VA, which imposes a constraint that flights

and also receives a response of “Acceptable”

should not enter the affected area (Figure 2).

from both.

This triggers the re-evaluation of FF-ICE

When UAL5 is 90 minutes from the Fukuoka

Filing service to send an Enroute Status

FIR boundary, the FAA sends an ABI

message with Not-Acceptable to UAL7,(Advance Boundary Information) message forindicating that its current flight plan route is no

UAL5 to JCAB. At 30 minutes from thelonger acceptable.

boundary, the FAA sends a CPL (Current

6)

The crew of UAL7 discuss the situation with

Flight Plan) message for UAL5 to JCAB andthe UAL FOC on “company” frequency andreceives an ACP (Accept) response. (The FAA

they agree to negotiate a new route to avoid thealso sends an ABI for UAL7 to JCAB 90

restricted area to the south. The UAL FOC thenminutes before the FIR boundary.)

sends a Trial Request message to FAA and-24-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

of “Acceptable” (Figure 2).

JCAB, and receives a “Concur” response from

12) Similarly, JCAB then sends a Proposal Request

both, indicating that the proposal is possible to
7)

8)

9)

be acceptable.

with a revised CTO at LEPKI to UAL7. After

The UAL FOC sends a Revision Request to theevaluating the proposal, UAL FOC responds to

FAA to “lock in” the proposal as a formal

JCAB with “Concur”. As this is a minor change

update to the agreed trajectory, and receives anto the trajectory that does not require a new“Acceptable” response. To notify the revised

clearance, the UAL FOC then sends a

trajectory to downstream eASPs, the FAA thenTrajectory Update message to JCAB withpublishes the Agreed Trajectory to JCAB.

agreed condition and receives a Submision

UAL7 is cleared to execute the agreed

Response of “ACK”.

trajectory by the KZAC controller. The FAA13) After receiving Enroute Status of Acceptablethen sends a CPL message for UAL7 to JCAB

for its proposal to JAL9, JCAB issues

and receives an ACP response.

clearance to JAL9 for step climb to FL360 at

After UAL7 and JAL9 cross the boundary into

37E/150E.

Fukuoka FIR, a runway (16R/34L) at RJAA is

14) When UAL5, UAL7 and JAL9 cross theclosed for two hours due to an oil spillage, andwaypoint LEPKI, JCAB’s ATFM service

a corresponding NOTAM (Notification To

sends a Object Update message with ATO

Airmen) of the runway closure is published via(Actual Time Over) to its AMAN (Arrival

SWIM (Figure 2).

Manager) service to initiate their arrival
handling processes.

10) After issuing this NOTAM, JCAB initiates
GDP (Ground Delay Program) for domestic

Note that in some urgent situations, shorter-term

departures to reduce the traffic flow into RJAA

tactical interventions and actual clearances to modify

and updates the CLDTs (Calculated Landing

the flight path or speed will still be coordinatedTime) of affected flights that are alreadybetween ATC systems using AIDC and handled

airborne. JCAB then submits a GDP message

between the air traffic controller and the flight crewin FLXM (Flow information Exchange Model)using voice or CPDLC via data link services. How toformat to UAL5, UAL7 and UAL9 to negotiate

integrate these tactical actions with SWIM based

the updated landing time [9].

strategic trajectory management is a future reaserch
topic for us.

11) According to the agreed 4D trajectories of
UAL7 and JAL9, there is a potential conflict at

3.2. Operational Values

the waypoint LEPKI. To avoid this potential
risk,

JCAB

sends

a

Proposal

In a current environment, it is difficult to precisely

Requestcalculate and predict the crossing time at certain

specifying a revised CTO (Calculated Time

waypoints for arrival management. Moreover, theOver) and altitude (FL360) at point 37N/150E

labor is required to address constraints for runway

to JAL9. After evaluating the operational

closure and optimal flight level requests once anviability of the proposal of JCAB, JAL FOC
responds with a Proposal Response of “Concur”
to JCAB to indicate that the proposal isaircraft is in flight. A runway closure at a hub airport
may affect hundreds of flights. With the opportunity
for early information exchange, trajectory sharing andacceptable. Finally, JAL FOC amends thenegotiation among stakeholders that FF-ICE andplanned trajectory by submitting a Revision

ATFM services provide, problems in all phases ofRequest message with the same parameters toflight that can exact a high cost in both financial and

JCAB, and receives a Enroute Status response-25-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

workload terms can be solved more efficiently and
expeditiously. This improvement offers enhanced
predictability to both ASPs and AUs. Even whenairborne, the flight crews can initiate strategic
negotiation to request a better route or flight level
depending on actual flight conditions. As a result, thefollowing operational values can be considered to be
improved through TBO:

Enhanced Predictability

Alignment of Tactical Actions and Strategic

Figure 3: Test System ArchitecturePlan

Increased Reliable Flexibility

Improved Strategic Planning

Decreased Uncertainty

environment that allows the MR TBO demonstrations
to carry out the required exchanges of information
between all actors for both pre-departure and postdeparture phases of flight. The test system as a whole

4. TBO DEMONSTRATION

provides not only Ground/Ground (G/G) SWIM

4.1. Test System

information services but also Air/Ground (A/G)

The ENRI SWIM test system used by JCAB in the

SWIM information exchange between an Electronic

MR TBO demonstrations provides a basic technical

Flight Bag (EFB) on each aircraft and ground-based

infrastructure, information services, and some SWIM-

Data Management Services (DMS) [11]. In addition, aenabled applications to support the development,

trust framework and security service have beenvalidation and demonstration of SWIM concepts anddeveloped to enable secured information exchange

services built on its infrastructure [10]. Figure 3 shows

between trusted identities [10]. Moreover, data

the high-level system architecture (blue box in theexchange between the surface/enroute/oceanic Air

figure) and international system connections (orange

Traffic Control (ATC) systems in Japan and thebox) of the JCAB system in the MR TBO

aircraft onboard Flight Management Systems (FMS)

demonstrations. NEC is a Asian GEMS (Global

can be simulated by the Trajectorized Oceanic Traffic

Enterprise Messaging Service) provider who provides

Data Processing System (TOPS) provided by NEC.

connectivity between Local SIWM test systems and4.2. Trajectory Management

SkyFusion Frontier (SFF), which connects to the FAA
and NAVCANADA test systems. The communication

In the post-departure phase, the eASP and the eAU

between the SFF and NEC Corp. uses TCP/IP withmay have to manage three sets of trajectories

Transport Layer Security (TLS). An IPsec VPN is usedassociated with a flight created by different operational

for the network connection within Asian GEMS

processes: the Aircraft Trajectory (i.e., without ATC

between AEROTHAI, CAAS and JCAB.

involvement), ATC Trajectory (i.e., with ATC

To ensure the interoperability of the exchanged

involvement) and Agreed Trajectory (with FF-ICE

information, GEMS providers enforce the use of theservices), and mismatches may arise between them. It

standardized

weather

is difficult to make large changes to well-establishedexchange models (AIXM, FIXM and IWXXM) with

ATC systems and procedures in the short or medium

the updated versions for each of their SWIM users.

term. It will become necessary to understand how to

The ENRI facility contains the simulation and test

work with current ATC systems to reflect the least

aeronautical,

flightandmodifications of tactical actions in strategic plans. An-26-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会

approach to share the updated trajectory and assure

trajectory consistency of in-flight aircraft, a ATFM

trajectory consistency between different stakeholders

trajectory monitoring service has been developed byand systems is therefore necessary in a TBO

cooperating

environment,.

discrepency of position and/or time between a flight’swithsurveillanceservice.

Ifthe

In some situations, circumstances such as urgency

surveillance-derived position and a 4D point included

will make it difficult to perform strategic negotiationin the Agreed Trajectory is more than a certain

between stakeholders before a tactical action isthreshold, a notification will be published from therequired, and it will be necessary notify the updated

ATFM service to the aircraft and eAU. When the

4DT following a tactical intervention to a flight toaircraft’s EFB receives such a notification from therelated systems and downstream eASPs. In the

DMS, a re-calculation of current Aircraft Trajectorydemonstration, if an amended clearance was issued bywill be triggered via trajectory synchronization

ATC system or the sector controller, the Agreed

process.

Trajectory was updated with current ATC Trajectory
5. CONCLUSIONS

and the updated Agreed Trajectory was disseminatedThis paper presents an operational view of theto relevant downstream eASPs via the FF-ICE

capabilities and services supporting TBO and

Notification Service.
Trajectory management will consist of two

introduces the development of the demonstration forfunctions to evaluate an Agreed Trajectory. The first

MR TBO international project based on the ENRI

function is expected to involve a re-evaluation process

SWIM Test Bed. Through the scenario discussion, theto confirm the effect of new constraints on the Agreed

operational values of TBO and potential operational

Trajectory. The second function is expected to involve

feasibility challenges between eASPs and eAUs area monitoring process to align the Aircraft Trajectory

clarified. Moreover, additional functional capabilities

with the Agreed Trajectory.

of service and application required to support TBO are

The re-evaluation process of FF-ICE Filing Service

identified. Finally, the coordination approaches

will be triggered when a new constraint is issued by

between ATFM and FF-ICE to achieve trajectory

Constraint Reference Service (CRS). If this constraint

management of TBO is discussed and the efficiency isaffects currently managed Agreed Trajectories, anshown by the scenario-based demonstration.

updated Filing Status of “Not-Acceptable” andREFERENCES

information on the constraint (in AIXM or IWXXM[1] Global Air Traffic Management Operational
Concept, ICAO Doc. 9854, 1st Edition, 2005.
[2] Manual on
System Wide
Information
Management (SWIM) Concept, ICAO Doc 10039,
ICAO, 2015.
[3] Manual on Flight and Flow - Information for a
Collaborative Environment, ICAO Doc. 9965,
ICAO, 2012.
[4] Global TBO Concept, ICAO ATMRPP, V0.11.
[5] Global
Air
Navigation
Plan
Portal,https://www4.icao.int/ganpportal/.
[6] AIXM - aeronautical information exchange model,
http://www.aixm.aero/.

formats) will be published to relevant eAUs. However,
not all Limitations/Restrictions/Constraints used incurrent operations should be considered as a“constraint” on flight planning or execution. For
example, because of dynamic time property, it isdifficult to allow forecast airspace congestion to
trigger the re-evaluation process and be returned as anairspace entry constraint. To enable the eASP to
allocate the access to resources and allow eAUs toswap access to airspace between flights, coordination
between FF-ICE and ATFM has been implemented in
the demonstration system.
Moreover, in the ENRI test system, to assure-27-

令和 4 年度(第 22 回)電子航法研究所研究発表会[7] FIXM - flight information exchange model,
http://www.fixm.aero/.
[8] Manual on the Digital Exchange of Aeronautical
Meteorological Information, ICAO Doc.10003,
2014.
[9] FAA, Development of the Flow Information
Exchange Model (FLXM), ICAO ATMRPPWG/39.
[10] X.D Lu, K. Morioka, T. Koga and Y. Sumiya,“Air-Ground
SystemWide
Information

Management to Achieve Safe Flight Operation,”
IEEE HASE2019, January 2019.
[11] X.D. Lu, K. Morioka, T. Koga and Y. Sumiya,“Collaborative Flight and Flow Information
Exchange to Achieve Seamless Air Traffic
Management Operation,” IEEE ISADS2019,
April 2019.

-28-