In my previous article, I compared aircraft manufacturers and airlines with DPOs and ANSPs respectively. However, there is a major difference: airlines have many aircraft, but ANSPs have one ATM system. ATM systems are also far less standardised than aircraft. Even in procurement alliances like COOPANS or iTEC, every ANSP has a different variant of a basic product. ANSPs often aim for an 80% standard product and 20% local customisation, although in practice even that target is often not achieved. Let’s look how this combines with the new DPO framework proposed by EASA.
Dual centralisation at EASA
EASA has two critical roles within the new framework: certify ATM system providers as DPOs and examine changes made to ATM systems. Certifying DPOs is a new process now underway and each certification takes several months. Inspecting and, in some cases, approving changes will be labour-intensive and EASA will need new experts to perform those activities. Today, that expertise resides within ANSPs, national regulators and industry. Will enough of those experts join EASA to enable the processes to run smoothly and swiftly?
Shouldering the burden
The additional management work required will impact industry providers differently depending on their size. Managing these obligations is easier for organisations employing hundreds or thousands of people than for companies with only a dozen staff and a handful of customers. The extra price tag also varies with each provider’s number of customers.
DPO advocates argue that a certification valid throughout Europe will make market access easier. This will mainly be true if the same product can be reused at different ANSPs without any design change. Every ANSP I know of has either specific requirements or a few pieces of equipment filling little gaps in larger systems. This is likely to lead to variations in design, potentially triggering additional certification activities.
Moreover, some ANSPs develop systems in-house, ranging from simple data converters to full ATM systems. Continuing such activities implies that those ANSPs will have to be certified as DPOs. Skyguide, for example, plans to move all software development activities to SkySoft, to avoid needing two DPO certifications in the group. Other ANSPs with development departments and commercial subsidiaries plan to do the same but these decisions are yet to be finalised.
The twilight zone between configuration and design
While design changes have to be made by DPOs, ANSPs can modify system configuration on their own. Changing the IP address of a server or the colour of a button does not constitute a design change. But is this the case for any configuration change?
What about changing the duration a display system waits before changing data source when no data is received? Or setting the number of consecutive radar detections before a new radar track is created? Many configuration changes have safety impacts, even if they are not modifying the equipment’s design.
If such changes ultimately fall within the DPO scope, it will force ANSPs to become DPOs and increase the risk of bottleneck. And if not, the overall framework loses a part of its value as it will not fully guarantee fitness for purpose.
The challenges of integration
With the new software delivery model (SDM) promoted by SESAR, ATM systems will be made of platforms that enable smaller software services – possibly from different suppliers – to interact. The idea is to make the certification of changes faster and easier, as changes will be at service level and not at full system level.
Could two modules, each certified individually, nevertheless fail to work together as intended? Does the overall system need certification? Integrators, which can be either industry providers or ANSPs, will play a key role there and will need to be DPO-certified too.
Only time will tell…
Will the combination of SDM and DPO lead to a future where ANSPs get custom-made systems built by picking the best software modules from multiple suppliers across Europe? Will it rather end up in a market locked by three major suppliers? Will the DPO framework turn into a real advantage for the industry, or become a paper tiger?
It is hard to tell at this stage and there is no consensus in the industry. The stakes are high and the practical benefits remain difficult to assess.
