269 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
269 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 1 ===
|
||
Proposal Evaluation Form
|
||
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
|
||
Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
|
||
Evaluation Summary
|
||
Report - Research and
|
||
innovation actions
|
||
Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
|
||
Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
|
||
Proposal number: 101288550
|
||
Proposal acronym: SCAN
|
||
Duration (months): 36
|
||
Proposal title: SCAN: Reviewing, Adapting and Developing CNS Infrastructure and Services to Ensure the Safe
|
||
Integration of HAO And STO Vehicles
|
||
Activity: IR-02-WA3-2
|
||
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 137,681.25 1.42% 137,681.25 1.42%
|
||
3 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 254,709.88 2.63% 254,709.88 2.63%
|
||
4 EUROPEAN SATELLITE SERVICES PROVIDER SAS FR 95,988.2 0.99% 95,988.2 0.99%
|
||
5 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 56,147.79 0.58% 56,147.79 0.58%
|
||
6 DIRECTION DES SERVICES DE LA NAVIGATION
|
||
AERIENNE
|
||
FR 182,656.25 1.89% 182,656.25 1.89%
|
||
7 SkyNav Europe BE 561,397.73 5.80% 561,397.73 5.80%
|
||
8 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 124,162.5 1.28% 124,162.5 1.28%
|
||
9 LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITET SE 99,225 1.02% 99,225 1.02%
|
||
10 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI
|
||
SCPA
|
||
IT 178,190.46 1.84% 178,190.46 1.84%
|
||
11 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 3,586,975 37.03% 3,586,975 37.03%
|
||
12 SKYDWELLER CANARIAS SL ES 1,339,800 13.83% 1,339,800 13.83%
|
||
13 SKYDWELLER SL ES 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
||
14 PARQUE TECNOLOGICO DE FUERTEVENTURASA MP ES 164,281.25 1.70% 164,281.25 1.70%
|
||
15 Elson Space España S.L. ES 911,562.75 9.41% 911,562.75 9.41%
|
||
16 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT
|
||
EV
|
||
DE 687,225.88 7.09% 687,225.88 7.09%
|
||
17 PILDO CONSULTING SL ES 233,187.5 2.41% 233,187.5 2.41%
|
||
18 ENAIRE ES 322,866.25 3.33% 322,866.25 3.33%
|
||
19 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 81,279.63 0.84% 81,279.63 0.84%
|
||
20 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES UK LTD UK 193,909.63 2.00% 193,909.63 2.00%
|
||
21 SKYPUZZLER APS DK 475,343.75 4.91% 475,343.75 4.91%
|
||
22 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
||
Total: 9,686,590.7 9,686,590.7
|
||
Abstract:
|
||
101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 1 /
|
||
6
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 2 ===
|
||
In the context of integrating Space and Higher Altitude Operations in European ATM, there is a need to evaluate and mitigate the potential
|
||
performance gap between current CNS and HAO specific requirements. Moreover, it has been established that altimetry solutions based on
|
||
barometric measurements are not reliable for safe operations above FL 600. It is therefore needed to identify non-barometric altimetry solutions
|
||
compatible with HAO.
|
||
SCAN will build on the outcome of CNS infrastructure studies and flight trials currently ongoing in the ECHO2 project and will move forward with
|
||
the ambition to:
|
||
a. Propose a set of feasible technical components and services to serve the CNS needs for diverse vehicles operating in the higher airspace within
|
||
Europe and beyond;
|
||
b. Engage with airspace users (conventional aviation and HAO operators), ANSPs, industry and aviation authorities to align expectations on benefits
|
||
and operational acceptability of the proposed CNS solutions or new paradigms for air traffic management.
|
||
c. Support a clear path forward for future CNS developments, including standardisation and regulatory framework evolution to support the European
|
||
pioneer initiatives on HAO.
|
||
Evaluation Summary Report
|
||
Evaluation Result
|
||
Total score: 14.76 (Threshold: 10 )
|
||
Criterion 1 - Excellence - weight 40%
|
||
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.90
|
||
101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 2 /
|
||
6
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 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:
|
||
- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives: degree to which the objectives and scope are compliant with the call material, well understood
|
||
and fully addressed.
|
||
- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions from their initial to their target maturity level, 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 breakthrough
|
||
innovation potential.
|
||
Proposal’s objectives are in scope of the call addressing R&I needs for IR-3-01 CNSaaS specific to HAO and IR-3-09 CNS for more robust ATM system.
|
||
The proposal is delivering one Solution “CNS means to serve HAO” with several clearly stated objectives around the CNS for Higher Airspace Operations (HAO)
|
||
including technological, financial, operational and regulatory and standardization goals, including flight trails of HAPs and a rocket launch, which is line with the
|
||
Call specification. The objectives are very clear and pertinent to the work program and the Call specification. The high level objective to identify the best CNS
|
||
means to serve HAO is highly relevant.
|
||
The proposal starts with TRL 2 and aims to reach TRL 6, in line with the call conditions. The proposal intends to complete TRL 6 based on validation in
|
||
operational environments with flights of different vehicles, which is adequate.
|
||
The objective to use the geometric altimetry in the higher airspace to deal with current limitations of barometric altimetry due to very low air density is relevant.
|
||
The combination of flight trials to collect CNS performance data in higher airspace, with a gap analysis and feasibility study of new CNS technologies is useful.
|
||
The methods used are straight forward and use mainly using legacy CNS technologies to be tested in HAO. A big number of technologies will be assessed using
|
||
different platforms, which is a plus.
|
||
The focus on quantitative assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) using flight trials (in upper airspace) is an effective way to select CNS technologies for
|
||
HAO.
|
||
Although the diversity is critical for testing the CNS solutions in varied operational environments, it is noted that the Skydweller operates up to FL500, while the
|
||
targeted environment is above FL500. The inclusion of this vehicle is insufficiently justified. However, as other vehicles are also included that operate above
|
||
FL500. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
The inclusion of a CBA per technology is a useful consideration when selecting CNS technologies for HAO.
|
||
A list of CNS technologies to be assessed has been provided and it is sufficiently complete.
|
||
Although the notion of non-cooperating traffic is mentioned, a consideration is missing on the fact that for some HAO the control center may be on the ground with
|
||
no need for A/G communication. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
The concepts, models and assumptions are clear and sound. The validation activities with different flying platforms are described in a very detailed,
|
||
comprehensive and credible way. The use of special directional antennas to avoid jamming and interference is strong.
|
||
The project adequately builds on the previous SESAR projects ECHO and ECHO2. An explanation of where the boundaries lie between ECHO2 and SCAN is
|
||
provided. The relation to the Concept of Operations developed by the ECHO project is sufficiently explained.
|
||
It is expanding the maturity of the current R&D towards feasible technical components and services in CNS for HAO.
|
||
There are a lot of ground breaking research items, especially the end-to-end layered approach that integrates all enablers, e.g. NAV, telemetry, data fusion and
|
||
distribution to authorized stakeholders in a novel approach.
|
||
The project’s methodology supports open science principles. Non-sensitive datasets, interface definitions, and technical documentation will be made openly
|
||
available, enabling other research and operational projects to build on SCAN’s outputs. The research data management activity is dealt with a Data Management
|
||
Plan (WP2) , maintained with update iterations during the length of the project.
|
||
The use of AI is not considered.
|
||
The topic does not aim at increasing automation to level 4 and it does not explain how the concept can operate in a level 4 environment. This is a shortcoming.
|
||
Criterion 2 - Impact - weight 40%
|
||
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )5.00
|
||
101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 3 /
|
||
6
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 4 ===
|
||
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.
|
||
- Appropriateness of the contribution to standardisation and regulation: the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project will
|
||
contribute appropriately to the relevant standardisation and regulatory activities.
|
||
- 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 is declaring in a clear and traceable manner the impact of its results.
|
||
The concepts and technologies supporting operations in high altitude airspace are not covered today. The proposal will assess CNS technologies with real flight trials
|
||
with various vehicles, hence various trajectories. This is essential for the further development of future High Altitude Operations (HAO).
|
||
The contribution of the project towards the expected outcomes of the topic in terms of KPA/KPI and the wider impacts (ATM Master Plan 2025), in the longer term
|
||
towards 2030 and 2045 are explained very well, are credible but they are not quantified. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
There is one WP dedicated to the development of CNS as a Service, which is in line with the New Service Delivery Model.
|
||
The relevance of HAO for telecommunications, disaster relief, antenna relay, earth observation and scientific exploration is explained adequately.
|
||
Standards and regulations issues are addressed very well and all related regulatory and standardization organizations e.g. ICAO, EUROCAE, EASA are identified.
|
||
The process of interacting with these organizations including the proper deliverables and processes are also very well explained.
|
||
The proposal convincingly justifies the clear and pressing need for updated standards and regulations across multiple domains, including ATM, UTM, CNS
|
||
tracking, deconfliction, and the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) framework. This requirement is thoroughly addressed, with all relevant regulatory
|
||
bodies and standardization organizations (e.g. EUROCAE) listed.
|
||
This is done by contributing validated evidence and operational concepts from European HAO trials to EUROCAE and JARUS, facilitating recognition as global
|
||
standards at ICAO level.
|
||
Moreover, the procedures for engaging with these organizations, along with the expected deliverables, are articulated with clarity and precision.
|
||
The communication, dissemination and exploitation (CDE) plan will consider the relevant measures that are introduced in the proposal. Target groups are identified
|
||
very well and grouped according to Communication and Dissemination activities. Target group(s) are also very well addressed (e.g. scientific community, end users,
|
||
military financial actors, public at large).
|
||
Exploitation is specifically mentioned but only at high level. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
IP aspects are briefly but sufficiently explained referring to the to-be signed Consortium Agreement (CA).
|
||
The results of the proposal will be shared with stakeholders and the society according to the content excluding those deliverables with security critical or sensitive
|
||
information.
|
||
All deliverables listed are of public (PU) nature.
|
||
Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation - weight 20%
|
||
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.80
|
||
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.
|
||
WP tasks are aligned with allocated resources.
|
||
The work breakdown is clear and consistent with the needs of the project, distinguishing conceptual and analytical foundations from the validation exercises. The
|
||
proposal provides an extensive list of clear activities and milestones with adequate target dates as well as the Exit Maturity gate planned in line with the project
|
||
handbook requirements.
|
||
All technical deliverables are identified in accordance with the Handbook
|
||
Milestones including the Exit Maturity Gate milestone/date per SESAR Solution are identified
|
||
The final technical deliverables are planned for M34, while it should be M32 according to the project handbook. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
The proposed work break down structure is compliant with the handbook.
|
||
The lump sum approach is applied. The allocated resources are adequate for the identified WP tasks. However, sub-WPs are defined but not the partners who are
|
||
working in the specific sub-WPs. Only for the flight trails of the different vehicle provides is clear who of the partners are the main contributors. In general, the
|
||
missing association of partner in the SOWs can lead to uncertainties within the partnership and worst case to duplication of work or no one doing the work needed.
|
||
This is a shortcoming.
|
||
A comprehensive risk assessment is provided with severities and impacts well defined. Also, several valid mitigation options are provided and are sufficiently
|
||
practical.
|
||
Although the budget seems very high for the development of a roadmap, it is actually justified by the need to work with single-use HAPS, including a sounding
|
||
rocket.
|
||
There are two partners with around 1% share of the efforts, another with less than 1% of the workshare (and significantly high rates), representing ANSPs. There
|
||
are other ANSPs in the consortium with more effort. There is not enough evidence provided where the two small partners are contributing. It cannot be expected
|
||
that there is specific know-how available from these ANSPs than from the other ANSPs involved. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
The consortium looks very complete and fit to do the job. The consortium would operate under the lead of ECTL (that has been leading ECHO and ECHO2
|
||
already), with participation from Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for High Altitude Platforms (HAPS) and Operators, ANSPs, U-space in dustry,
|
||
research institutes.
|
||
The individual partners are insufficiently providing evidence of their capabilities in similar activities. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
However given the nature of those companies developing HAPS, there is a high risk that these partners will get into financial issues and might drop out . There is a
|
||
risk associated that cannot be neglected. In the risk assessment this risk is not mentioned. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
||
Scope of the application
|
||
Status: Yes
|
||
101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 4 /
|
||
6
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 5 ===
|
||
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
|
||
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
|
||
101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 5 /
|
||
6
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 6 ===
|
||
Status: No
|
||
If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
|
||
Overall comments
|
||
The subcontracting costs of SCEYE for external software and cybersecurity support and Elson Space cost for performance degradation of solar arrays would
|
||
benefit of further clarification.
|
||
101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 6 /
|
||
6
|
||
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
|
||
|
||
=== PAGE 7 ===
|
||
|
||
|
||
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)
|
||
|