224 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
224 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 1 ===
|
|||
|
|
Proposal Evaluation Form
|
|||
|
|
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
|
|||
|
|
Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
|
|||
|
|
Evaluation Summary
|
|||
|
|
Report - Research and
|
|||
|
|
innovation actions
|
|||
|
|
Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
|
|||
|
|
Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
|
|||
|
|
Proposal number: 101290642
|
|||
|
|
Proposal acronym: STRATUS
|
|||
|
|
Duration (months): 30
|
|||
|
|
Proposal title: STRATUS — Safety & Transformed Resilience for high-Altitude Traffic Unified Services
|
|||
|
|
Activity: ER-03-WA2
|
|||
|
|
N. Proposer name Country Total
|
|||
|
|
eligible
|
|||
|
|
costs
|
|||
|
|
% Grant
|
|||
|
|
Requested
|
|||
|
|
%
|
|||
|
|
1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE
|
|||
|
|
SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
|
|||
|
|
BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
|||
|
|
2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 73,235 3.56% 73,235 3.56%
|
|||
|
|
3 ENAV SPA IT 73,924.08 3.60% 73,924.08 3.60%
|
|||
|
|
4 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 180,375 8.78% 180,375 8.78%
|
|||
|
|
5 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 119,684.75 5.82% 119,684.75 5.82%
|
|||
|
|
6 ENAIRE ES 95,975 4.67% 95,975 4.67%
|
|||
|
|
7 ENTE NAZIONALE PER L'AVIAZIONE CIVILE - ENAC
|
|||
|
|
ITALIAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
|
|||
|
|
IT 102,268.75 4.98% 102,268.75 4.98%
|
|||
|
|
8 CONSORCIO AERODROMO AEROPUERTO DE TERUEL ES 88,000 4.28% 88,000 4.28%
|
|||
|
|
9 SkyNav Europe BE 253,269.75 12.32% 253,269.75 12.32%
|
|||
|
|
10 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 78,250 3.81% 78,250 3.81%
|
|||
|
|
11 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI
|
|||
|
|
SCPA
|
|||
|
|
IT 53,907.5 2.62% 53,907.5 2.62%
|
|||
|
|
12 STICHTING KONINKLIJK NEDERLANDS LUCHT - EN
|
|||
|
|
RUIMTEVAARTCENTRUM
|
|||
|
|
NL 157,795.25 7.68% 157,795.25 7.68%
|
|||
|
|
13 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC
|
|||
|
|
CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATIONS
|
|||
|
|
CA 63,125 3.07% 63,125 3.07%
|
|||
|
|
14 INGENIERIA Y ECONOMIA DEL TRANSPORTE SME MP SA ES 97,575 4.75% 97,575 4.75%
|
|||
|
|
15 CENTRO DE REFERENCIA INVESTIGACION
|
|||
|
|
DESARROLLO E INNOVACION ATM, A.I.E.
|
|||
|
|
ES 59,250 2.88% 59,250 2.88%
|
|||
|
|
16 INSTITUUT VOOR INFRASTRUCTUUR, MILIEU EN
|
|||
|
|
INNOVATIE
|
|||
|
|
BE 33,462.5 1.63% 33,462.5 1.63%
|
|||
|
|
17 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 7,237.5 0.35% 7,237.5 0.35%
|
|||
|
|
18 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT
|
|||
|
|
EV
|
|||
|
|
DE 153,000 7.44% 153,000 7.44%
|
|||
|
|
19 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 280,175 13.63% 280,175 13.63%
|
|||
|
|
20 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES OU EE 84,656.25 4.12% 84,656.25 4.12%
|
|||
|
|
21 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
|||
|
|
101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 1 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 2 ===
|
|||
|
|
22 UDARAS EITLIOCHTA NA HEIREANN THE IRISH
|
|||
|
|
AVIATION AUTHORITY
|
|||
|
|
IE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
|||
|
|
Total: 2,055,166.33 2,055,166.33
|
|||
|
|
Abstract:
|
|||
|
|
STRATUS (Safety and Transformed Resilience for High-Altitude Traffic Unified Services) will define a modular and scalable framework for
|
|||
|
|
integrating Higher Airspace Operations (HAO) and Space Transport Operations (STO) into the European ATM framework. The focus is on the low-
|
|||
|
|
density airspace above conventional traffic, generally above flight level FL550. This is where high-performance supersonic and hypersonic aircraft,
|
|||
|
|
automated High Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS) fleets, and sub-orbital operations are expected to multiply in the coming decade.
|
|||
|
|
Building on the exploratory CONOPS produced in the ECHO project, and taking into account the work now underway in ECHO2, STRATUS will
|
|||
|
|
expand the scope to cover a wider set of operational scenarios, vehicle types and service models. It will address the operational, functional, technical
|
|||
|
|
and regulatory foundations required for integration, in line with the priorities of the European ATM Master Plan for higher-airspace operations,
|
|||
|
|
dynamic airspace configuration, service-oriented architectures and cyber-secure digitalisation. Concentrating on the higher airspace, where traffic
|
|||
|
|
density is relatively low, provides the opportunity to mature and validate innovative concepts and technologies while limiting operational risk to
|
|||
|
|
existing ATM.
|
|||
|
|
The objectives of STRATUS follow a logical progression from establishing operational demand in higher airspace, through the development of
|
|||
|
|
concepts and supporting frameworks, to the consideration of regulatory and other relevant implications that may influence successful implementation.
|
|||
|
|
Evaluation Summary Report
|
|||
|
|
Evaluation Result
|
|||
|
|
Total score: 10.40 (Threshold: 10 )
|
|||
|
|
Criterion 1 - Excellence
|
|||
|
|
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
|
|||
|
|
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
|||
|
|
- Clarity and pertinence of the proposal: degree to which the objectives, scope and requirements set out in the call material are well understood and
|
|||
|
|
fully addressed.
|
|||
|
|
- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions and
|
|||
|
|
interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and
|
|||
|
|
the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users
|
|||
|
|
where appropriate.
|
|||
|
|
- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D
|
|||
|
|
work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates innovation potential.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal's objectives are pertinent to the scope of the work programme responding to the identified R&I need 10. “Innovative methodologies for ATM safety,
|
|||
|
|
security, and resilience.” The proposal is focused on developing methods that will integrate higher airspace operations (HAO) and space transport operations (STO)
|
|||
|
|
into the European ATM framework. However, the objectives of the proposal are only briefly described. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal’s discussion of automation focuses only on the service architecture framework rather than automation level 4 functions. The targeted automation
|
|||
|
|
levels of the proposed service architecture are not adequately specified. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal includes considering and assessing the potential impact of the proposed regulatory evolutions on military aviation, in particular military operations
|
|||
|
|
and training.
|
|||
|
|
The methodology is well-structured and coherent, following logical progression from problem definition and concept development to assurance and regulatory
|
|||
|
|
analysis. It demonstrates awareness of SESAR’s expectations for Exploratory Research at TRL 2, with appropriate reliance on expert review and desk-based
|
|||
|
|
validation rather than prototypes or flight trials.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal initiates at less comprehensive TRL2 than the target TRL. So, the initial TRL is unclear lying between 1 and 2. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
Research data management is briefly described and appropriately built into the methodology. The data management plan (DMP) is planned early (M3) with an
|
|||
|
|
update at M12 and is embedded in the Project Management Plan (PMP), ensuring findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) data, repository use and
|
|||
|
|
open formats for primarily textual/desk-study outputs in line with open science practices. The gender dimension is considered: there is no gender dimension in the
|
|||
|
|
research content.
|
|||
|
|
There is a clear awareness of the state of the art, and the proposal builds on prior research in the area - SEC-AIRSPACE on cyber security, FARO on resilience
|
|||
|
|
metrics, and FCDI.
|
|||
|
|
Criterion 2 - Impact
|
|||
|
|
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.00
|
|||
|
|
101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 2 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 3 ===
|
|||
|
|
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
|||
|
|
- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material.
|
|||
|
|
- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation
|
|||
|
|
(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal does not demonstrate methodological depth for ensuring credible, transferable, and measurable results within the SESAR Performance Framework.
|
|||
|
|
This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
There is insufficient indication of which Key Performance Areas (KPAs) the proposed activities address. The performance metrics and assessment methods are not
|
|||
|
|
adequately defined. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
As a result, it is not clear how the project’s outcomes will contribute to measurable improvements in ATM performance or align with SESAR’s overarching
|
|||
|
|
performance ambitions. This hampers the credibility of the expected impact and the traceability of results within the SESAR Innovation Pipeline. This is a
|
|||
|
|
shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
Broader societal and economic impacts are clearly articulated, even if brief.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal provides only a general outline of the dissemination, communication, and exploitation (DCE) plan. Beyond listing a project website, workshops, and
|
|||
|
|
participation in relevant events, there are insufficient details on objectives, target audiences, key messages, communication channels, or timelines. This is a minor
|
|||
|
|
shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The exploitation activities are not adequately described. The strategy for identifying or engaging potential users or for translating project results in concrete uptake
|
|||
|
|
pathways in unclear. The limited level of detail hampers the project’s capacity to maximise visibility, stakeholder engagement, and long-term impact. This is a
|
|||
|
|
shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
|
|||
|
|
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.40
|
|||
|
|
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
|||
|
|
- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources
|
|||
|
|
overall.
|
|||
|
|
- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal's work plan deliverables and target dates are consistent with the SESAR 3 JU Project Handbook requirements.
|
|||
|
|
The work packages themselves do not sufficiently include any defined tasks or sub-tasks, which does not provide sufficient details on how the work will be
|
|||
|
|
organised and implemented in practice, who will be responsible for specific activities, and how effort will be distributed among partners. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The insufficiently described tasks hamper the traceability between objectives, activities, and expected outputs, reducing the overall credibility of the implementation
|
|||
|
|
plan and the ability to monitor progress effectively. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The exit maturity gate is specified at M22 with the production of the Exploratory Research Report (ERR, D4.3), although no explicit Exit Maturity Gate is identified
|
|||
|
|
at TRL-2. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
Some of the participants have already worked together on relevant projects (i.e., ECHO and ECHO2) - this is evidence of a consortium that has the ingredients to
|
|||
|
|
collaborate well and have the necessary expertise to achieve the proposal objectives.
|
|||
|
|
Scope of the application
|
|||
|
|
Status: Yes
|
|||
|
|
Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Exceptional funding
|
|||
|
|
A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme
|
|||
|
|
their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research
|
|||
|
|
infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more
|
|||
|
|
information, see the ) HE programme guide
|
|||
|
|
Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why.
|
|||
|
|
Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 3 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 4 ===
|
|||
|
|
If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the
|
|||
|
|
reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Use of human embryos
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Activities excluded from funding
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
If YES, please explain.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Do no significant harm principle
|
|||
|
|
Status: Yes
|
|||
|
|
If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Exclusive focus on civil applications
|
|||
|
|
Status: Yes
|
|||
|
|
If NO, please explain.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Artificial Intelligence
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
|
|||
|
|
Overall comments
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 4 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 5 ===
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your
|
|||
|
|
organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally
|
|||
|
|
sealed.
|
|||
|
|
This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely
|
|||
|
|
binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European
|
|||
|
|
Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity.
|
|||
|
|
Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your
|
|||
|
|
organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt.
|
|||
|
|
Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic
|
|||
|
|
signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation
|
|||
|
|
symbol.
|
|||
|
|
More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders
|
|||
|
|
Portal.
|
|||
|
|
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq)
|
|||
|
|
|