.
Omission or overlooking of some critical factor.
Whilst these two inter-related factors appear anecdotal, they unfortunately and undoubtedly reflect the reality of some implementation efforts.
For this reason, this chapter focuses on Implementation Planning: because it is the planning for implementation that makes successful implementation possible. It will be seen, that implementation planning includes Review and that Review is the final ‘full-stop’ in the post-implementation phase.
This requirement to organise and plan is not new in the Implementation and Review phase: it is equally in evidence during Project Planning – Part B, development of the Design Concept
– Part C, and during the validation Phase – Part D.
1
.
2
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
F
O
R
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Each ANSP should have a concrete Implementation Planning Process. In recognition of the fact that ANSPs will either already have or develop their own process, this section will first provide a high level overview of implementation planning followed by a quick reference list of the factors that should be accounted for prior to Implementation.
Figure 1 - 1: Overview of Planning for Implementation
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
A
i
r
s
p
a
c
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
-
P
a
r
t
D
1.2.1 IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA
It is usually during the validation process that it becomes evident whether the proposed design can be implemented. (This was alluded to in Chapter 1 of Part D). The decision to go ahead with implementation needs to be decided at a particular date in the life-cycle of a project.
The decision of whether to go, or not to go ahead with implementation is based on certain deciding factors i.e. Implementation Criteria, not the least of which are whether Safety and Performance Criteria have been satisfied (see Part C, Chapter 3). But there is more than satisfying Safety and Performance Criteria when deciding whether or not to go ahead with Implementation. Other factors can prevent a ‘go’ decision. For example –
.
A change to the ATM system, needed to support the implementation, may prove impossible to realise despite careful identification of this enabler and a go-ahead being given by ATM systems engineers;
Or, For example -
.
Dramatic political events which have nothing to do with the Terminal Airspace design and which could never have been foreseen when the Traffic Assumptions were chosen, could nullify the entire Terminal Airspace design project. This could occur, for example, if the entire design concept rested on the (traffic) assumption that 80% of the traffic would enter the Terminal Airspace from the west and unforeseen political events change the geographic distribution of traffic completely;
.
Unforeseen change by lead operator concerning aircraft equipment upgrades causes collapse of the Business Case or, for example, Navigation assumptions.
It can therefore be said that it is the possibility of unexpected events that explain why it is necessary to fix a go/no-go date. (In ‘purist’ terms, the occurrence of a foreseeable event is not strictly an implementation issue but rather one of Project Planning which affects Implementation).
1.2.2 PRE-IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
At this go/no go date, a Pre-Implementation Review is undertaken, the result of which decides the next project step. During the Pre-Implementation Review, the Terminal Airspace design project’s progress is measured against the implementation criteria selected during the planning stage.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：EUROCONTROL MANUAL FOR AIRSPACE PLANNING 2(118)
