1. RAD Evolution Workshop Current RAD status
Structure, Content, Findings
RAD WS
DEC 2018, Brussels, Belgium
Tihomir Todorov
Head of Section Airspace Design
12 DEC 2018

2. Current RAD Content

3. RAD Structure - RAD1813 7 (six) Appendices:
Appendix 1 - General Description
Appendix 2 - Area Definition
Appendix 3 - Flight Level Capping limits
Appendix 4 - En-route DCT limits
Appendix 5 - Airport connectivity
Appendix 6 - Flight Profile Restrictions
Appendix 7 - FUA Restrictions
Network wide Pan-European Annex
Annex for special events, if necessary (restrictions of temporary nature for European Sport Events, World Sport Events, Olympic Games, Large scale Military exercises, Economic forums, etc.

4. RAD Appendix 2 - RAD1813 98 airport areas and groups defined
2 created by NM for NMOC system purposes defining the North Atlantic and Outside IFPS area airports
Findings:
RAD area/group definitions are different from those used for Traffic Volumes and Scenarios
Currently no issues reported by the Operational Stakeholders

5. RAD Appendix 3 - RAD1813 665 Flight Level Capping limits
Around 20 includes duplicated FL capping different Summer/Winter
Findings:
Majority of FL capping applicable during Summer period at lower FLs than during Winter period
Majority of FL capping applicable H24 (necessity might under question)
Request for improvements for content improvement was presented by the Operational Stakeholders and will be incorporated as from RAD1902

6. RAD Appendix 4 - RAD1813 4485 Direct (DCT) options defined
3996 Allowed (Y) / 489 Not Allowed (N) DCTs
Findings:
(Y) DCTs available within FRA applicability hours
(Y) DCTs available as cross-border in none cross-border FRA environment (in majority of cases these DCTs are not used due to their length)
(Y) In FRA environment available DCTs are used to allow border clipping allowed by States / FABs / ANSPs
(Y) Possibility of restrictions structure improvement and simplification
(N) Mainly used in FRA environment to prevent flight in close proximity to FIR boundary
(N) Used by States / FABs / ANSPs with big horizontal DCT limits to channel flights via ATS routes
(N) Potentiality for reduction

7. RAD Appendix 5 - RAD1813 74 general limits and SID/STAR requirements
692 DEP requirements
635 ARR requirements
Findings:
ARR/DEP DCT limits for airports without SIDs/STARs
Requirements for use of SIDs/STARs (e.g. whole length, mandatory)
Requirements for filing of SIDs/STARs (e.g. last point, start points)
General Limits coded in CACD but not coded in RAD where explained as plain text
Procedures / limitations via defined departure connecting points
FRA Departure Connecting routes
Procedures / limitations via defined arrival connecting points
FRA Arrival Connecting routes
Possibility of restrictions structure improvement and simplification

8. RAD
Appendix 7 - RAD1813
1411 FUA restrictions referenced to relevant RSAs and FBZs
Findings:
Incoherent data between RAD and CACD due to data provision by States / FABs / ANSPs via NEC/AMC and not via NRC
Inclusion of FUA restrictions based on H24 unavailable RSAs
Restrictions structure of all restrictions based on negative approach by using “Not available for .. ”

9. RAD Network wide Pan-European Annex - RAD1813
4643 State / FAB / ANSP restrictions
Findings:
FRA and non-FRA restrictions based on significant point/s
FRA and non-FRA restrictions based on airspace volume
Non-FRA restrictions ATS route segment/s
Use of all possible and allowed types of restrictions for the usage of the restricted object and for the combination of elements that define the flow of traffic
Very long, complicated and difficulty understandable restrictions in some States / FABs / ANSPs
Non-FRA environment restrictions to prevent inventive flight planning by forbidding turn angles. In majority of cases, very rarely States / FABs / ANSPs perform discussions with AOs and CFSPs to understand the reason for such planning. Usually restrictions are requested immediately and introduced as a last minutes change pretending that the reason is safety related issue despite that happen once per day.

10. RAD Increment File - Last Minutes Change
Promulgated via the “Increment File” the “Last minute” is a change required due to exceptional circumstances and/or only when it has a significant impact on operational requirements.
Requires clarification on what in general “exceptional circumstances and/or significant impact on operational requirements” mean. It is to avoid massive and frequent RAD changes outside the AIRAC cycles. The NM proposal was not accepted by States / FABs / ANSPs.
In majority of cases, very rarely States / FABs / ANSPs provide the last minute changes well in advance. Usually restrictions are requested “at daily bases” with requests for immediately introduction with well know reason - safety related issue.
Several cases encountered for last minute changes introduced during exceptional circumstances for European Network such as strikes. AOs tried to find the most optimum flight path in such abnormal situations and this shall not be a justification for establishment of RAD restriction.
In the “Increment File” with will not be the primary source, as such change will be presented as live update and more structured coordination and publication process might be required to limit the changes to those really having significant impact on Network operational requirements and to avoid frequent RAD changes outside the AIRAC cycles.

11. Current RAD Structure and Use
Findings

12. RAD Findings Structure
Difficulties with existing restriction structure due to increased number of available options in FRA environment.
Difficulties in system processing depending on restriction structure mainly when expressed by “Only available” in FRA environment. In non-FRA environment the significant point based options are limited but in FRA environment due to available combinations system “engine” has search all possible positive options.
Negative RAD restriction structure when expressed by “Not available” easy for system processing as it presents what is not allowed.
Some compulsory RAD restrictions also reported that creates processing problems.
Especially in FRA environment the expression “Not available … except …” found better than “Only available … ” despite the same meaning. Currently stated in ERNIP that the expression “Not available for traffic except …” shall be avoided, “Only available for traffic…” shall be used instead.

13. RAD Findings Content / Length
Importance on restriction content length and combination of currently allowed types of restrictions for the usage of the restricted object (Only available, Not available, Compulsory) and for the combination of elements that define the flow of traffic (Inclusive, Exclusive).
Same restricted object logically shall have one single restriction. Due to complexity and length the best option is several short and clear restrictions for restricted object. Several simple restrictions are easily processed then single complex and long restriction.

14. RAD Findings RFL - Existence and To-date developments
Reported that term Requested Flight Level (RFL) used in RAD is still unclear or understood differently by States / ANSPs, CFSPs and EUROCONTROL
It is known that term RFL was invented and used in EUROCONTROL systems on the request of the ANSPs
RAD NOV The term Requested Flight Level (RFL) was used for the first time as part of RADAN EG (With RFL Above FL245)
Around 7 years - no external definition given or explanation what RFL means and how it is used by EUROCONTROL systems
RAD MAY Appendix 1 amended as follows:
3.9 The TERM RFL is used to determine the actual flight plan (Field 15) requested Flight Level. Where it is used it shall be applied only to the state in question unless otherwise specified. If a restriction specifies FL that is understood to be the level measured against the CFMU calculated profile and is checked accordingly.

15. RAD Findings RFL - To-date developments
RMG/1 - The first meeting was held in MAY 2005 with no issues related to RFL despite that term entered into RAD in 2004
RMG/18 - JUN RFL issue included for the first time in discussions
RFL - Mr. Vince stated that it is difficult for computers to comprehend “anticipated flight levels” especially over extended airspace portions (e.g. NTFSRs in EG/EI) and requested that this should be confined to the airspace of the state requesting the RFL. The Chairman stated that this was generally the case, but in some instances where the requirement extends beyond national boundaries, then the states in question are listed, for example “With RFL not above FL295 in ED**, LO**, LH**”
RMG/21 - NOV Initial proposals for additional RMG/22 agenda items:
“RFL use, term, definition” - proposal by CFSPs (Jeppesen). The idea of RFL use by Jeppesen came as part of comments to RAD Definitions of Terms document to try to eliminate the term RFL from the RAD as means nothing to a computer.
RMG/27 - NOV RAD Definitions of Terms
The issues related to RFL and different profile calculations (e.g. descent sometimes already before the point where a descent is indicated by FL change or descent after the point or no indication of the descent in FPL required, but internal with coordinates, etc.) were not discussed and will be further tabled at expert Workshop related to flight profiles and RFL and their impact on RAD as announced by Lufthansa Systems. ….
NM Flight Planning Requirements - Guidelines

16. RAD Findings RFL - Current Definition and Explanation
ICAO Doc In flight plan ITEM 15 the planned cruising level for the first or the whole portion of the route to be flown shall be inserted. The cruising level is a level maintained during a significant portion of a flight. 
The term RFL is used for RAD purposes and refers to the actual requested cruising level in FPL
A flight plan can have a single or several RFLs which represent different requested cruising levels at different locations during the flight.
Each RFL is indicated by a speed/level group which marks the point where the transition from the previous RFL to the new RFL is commenced.
Due to the limited content of flight plan ITEM 15, the exact length which is required for the transition from the previous to the new RFL is not transparently available to all users of the flight plan. Hence, the RAD must consider that the new RFL is not reached at the point where the change of speed/level is indicated but somewhere downstream of the flight path.

17. RAD Findings RFL - Use and Processing
If in RAD restriction RFL is used, it is checked for all portions of the trajectory which are located within the relevant ATC unit (unless otherwise specified). If the restricted object is ATS route segment flights are not allowed to use it if the RFL is less then defined value in relevant RAD restriction.
RAD is checked against the IFPS calculated profile. In the climb/descend phase the profile FL may not be the same as the RFL in the FPL. Therefore a FPL could be invalidated which will be checked by an IFPO who will then check the use of RFL if published in the RAD restriction. If the use of RFL is in the RAD restriction and is respected in the FPL the IFPO may ignore the error caused by the FPL profile.
Where the filed FPL does not include aircraft operator provided profile information, the IFPS calculated profile may differ from that of the aircraft operator in the climb/descend phase. Due to these differences, IFPS might incorrectly reject a FPL. For this reason, IFPS can manually accept FPLs where the climbing/descending profile is compliant with the vertical limits of a segment at entry or at exit point and also fulfils the RFL requirements after/before the respective location. This procedure must explicitly be approved for IFPS.

18. RAD Findings
RFL - ????
Discussion to ….