222 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
222 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
|
# SkyNav SESAR Winning Proposal Template
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#Literature #StrategicStudies
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 1. Proposal Overview
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Project Title:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Acronym:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Call / Topic:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Duration:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Coordinator:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Consortium Partners:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 2. Strategic Framing
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Problem Statement
|
|||
|
|
- What systemic European ATM / HAO / STO problem are we solving?
|
|||
|
|
- Why is this problem urgent now?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Strategic Context
|
|||
|
|
- Alignment with SESAR / ATM Master Plan
|
|||
|
|
- Link to ECHO / ECHO2 / prior work
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Value Proposition
|
|||
|
|
- What capability gap are we filling?
|
|||
|
|
- Why SkyNav is uniquely positioned
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 3. Objectives
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Primary Objective
|
|||
|
|
- Clear, single-line mission outcome
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Supporting Objectives
|
|||
|
|
- Obj 1:
|
|||
|
|
- Obj 2:
|
|||
|
|
- Obj 3:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 4. Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Operational Concept
|
|||
|
|
- How the system operates at network level
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Key Features
|
|||
|
|
- Real-time integration
|
|||
|
|
- Situational awareness
|
|||
|
|
- Decision support
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Operational Impact
|
|||
|
|
- Safety improvement
|
|||
|
|
- Efficiency gains
|
|||
|
|
- Regulatory enablement
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 5. Technical Approach
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Architecture
|
|||
|
|
- Modular design
|
|||
|
|
- API-based integration
|
|||
|
|
- Scalable framework
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Core Modules
|
|||
|
|
- Data ingestion
|
|||
|
|
- Processing / analytics
|
|||
|
|
- User interface
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Innovation Elements
|
|||
|
|
- What is new vs current state
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 6. Work Packages (WPs)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### WP1 – Project Management
|
|||
|
|
- Governance
|
|||
|
|
- Reporting
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### WP2 – Requirements & CONOPS
|
|||
|
|
- Stakeholder engagement
|
|||
|
|
- Operational scenarios
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### WP3 – System Design & Development
|
|||
|
|
- Architecture
|
|||
|
|
- Prototype
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### WP4 – Validation & Demonstration
|
|||
|
|
- Simulation
|
|||
|
|
- Live trials
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### WP5 – Dissemination & Exploitation
|
|||
|
|
- Publications
|
|||
|
|
- Industry engagement
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 7. Consortium Structure
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Partner Roles
|
|||
|
|
- Coordinator:
|
|||
|
|
- SkyNav: Regulatory / operational / software
|
|||
|
|
- ANSPs: Validation
|
|||
|
|
- Industry: Technology
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Value of Each Partner
|
|||
|
|
- Why each is essential
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 8. Impact
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Scientific Impact
|
|||
|
|
- Advancement of ATM / HAO knowledge
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Operational Impact
|
|||
|
|
- Improved safety and coordination
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Economic Impact
|
|||
|
|
- Market creation
|
|||
|
|
- Cost reduction
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Regulatory Impact
|
|||
|
|
- Policy influence
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 9. Exploitation Strategy
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Commercialisation Path
|
|||
|
|
- SaaS integration (SkyLex / SkySafe)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Revenue Model
|
|||
|
|
- Subscription
|
|||
|
|
- Consulting follow-on
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Market Entry
|
|||
|
|
- EU regulators
|
|||
|
|
- ANSPs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 10. Risk Management
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|
|||
|
|
|------|------------|--------|-----------|
|
|||
|
|
| Regulatory delays | | | |
|
|||
|
|
| Technical complexity | | | |
|
|||
|
|
| Consortium alignment | | | |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 11. Implementation Timeline
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Phase 1
|
|||
|
|
- Setup
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Phase 2
|
|||
|
|
- Development
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Phase 3
|
|||
|
|
- Validation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Phase 4
|
|||
|
|
- Deployment
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 12. Key Success Factors
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Strong consortium
|
|||
|
|
- Clear role for SkyNav
|
|||
|
|
- Alignment with SESAR priorities
|
|||
|
|
- Demonstrable operational impact
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 13. Common Pitfalls (Avoid)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Overly technical detail
|
|||
|
|
- Weak partner roles
|
|||
|
|
- Lack of system-level framing
|
|||
|
|
- No clear exploitation path
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 14. Final Checklist
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- [ ] Aligned with SESAR priorities
|
|||
|
|
- [ ] Clear system-level impact
|
|||
|
|
- [ ] Strong consortium logic
|
|||
|
|
- [ ] Defined SkyNav advantage
|
|||
|
|
- [ ] Commercialisation pathway clear
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Reflective Prompt
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
How does this proposal translate SkyNav’s regulatory and operational expertise into a scalable, system-level capability that creates long-term competitive advantage beyond the research programme?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Related Resources
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- SESAR ATM Master Plan
|
|||
|
|
- ECHO / ECHO2 documentation
|
|||
|
|
- SkyNav Strategic Plan
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|