- 3 -
AIS-AIMSG/1-SN No. 21/ AIS-AIMSG/1-SN No. 21
21/11/08
AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION SERVICES TO AERONAUTICAL
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STUDY GROUP (AIS-AIMSG)
FIRST MEETING
Montréal, 2 to 4 December 2008
Agenda Item / 7 : / Annex Amendment proposals7.1 / Terrain and obstacle data and airport mapping databases
eTOD IMPLEMENTATION
(Presented by Paul Bosman)
SUMMARYAmendment 33 to ICAO Annex 15 introduced requirements for States to ensure that electronic sets of Terrain and Obstacle Data (TOD) are available. The data shall be provided for four distinct areas, with each having differing data collection requirements.
Given constraining time frames (2008-2010), the lack of resources and survey equipment, fragmented responsibilities, ambiguities in requirements and the costs for compliance, the requirements have caused significant concern in States, from both technical and institutional perspectives.
Seven TOD WG meetings have been facilitated by EUROCONTROL, with the most recent taking place on 10-11th September 2008.
This paper contains an overview of the current status of the eTOD implementation activity being undertaken by EUROCONTROL.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Amendment 33 to ICAO Annex 15 introduced the requirement for States to ensure that electronic sets of Terrain and Obstacle Data (TOD) are made available. This data shall be provided for four distinct areas, with each having differing data collection requirements.
1.2 Given the constraining timeframes (2008-2010), a lack of resources and survey capability, fragmented responsibilities and the significant costs incurred in complying, the requirements have caused concern to be expressed by States. This concern is seen from both technical and institutional perspectives and in response to stakeholder requests EUROCONTROL established the TOD Working Group (TODWG). Seven TOD WG meetings have been held, with the most recent taking place on 10-11th September 2008.
1.3 This paper contains an overview of the current status of the eTOD implementation activity being undertaken by EUROCONTROL in support to eTOD Implementation.
2. PROGRESS TO DATE
2.1 Proposals for the four Areas were distributed for review by the Aeronautical Information Team (AI Team) and the TOD WG on the 23rd of May 2008. Subsequently, an ad-hoc meeting of the combined AI Team and the TOD WG was held on 15th July, 2008. The objective of this meeting was to gain consensus with regards to the way forward.
2.2 The main cause of difficulty throughout the TOD WG meetings had been with Area 2 and this proved to be the case during this ad-hoc meeting. Broadly speaking, the Area 1 and 4 requirements instantiated in Chapter 10 were supported, though some fine-tuning of the text was required. In addition, an obstacle data set for Area 4 was agreed as it had been both identified and demonstrated that obstacles exist within this area.
2.3 It was agreed that Area 3 should be changed from a Standard to a Recommended Practice as no clear business requirement had been established as to why a State should provide the data. It is, however, noted that ICAO SARPS are minimum requirements and States may exceed these should they so wish.
2.4 It was clearly evident that no resolution of the Area 2 issues could be established during this ad-hoc meeting and it was agreed that an informal Focus Group, under the chairmanship of a stakeholder, would be formed. This Group met in Lisbon during the last week of July and agreement was reached for Areas 1, 3 and 4. Area 2, once again, proved challenging and consensus could not be agreed. Two proposals were submitted to the TOD WG for review and for discussion during the seventh meeting on 10 – 11th September, 2008 in Belgrade, Serbia.
2.5 At TOD WG #7 some stakeholders, however, expressed concerns about the Area 2 strawman proposals presented by the Focus Group. Consequently, they requested that the two options proposed by the Focus Group and the previously presented TOD WG / EUROCONTROL proposal undergo a high-level safety assessment.
2.6 After further discussions during AI Team #29 it was concluded that the Focus Group should meet for a second time to work to resolve Area 2. The Focus Group was requested to present a revised proposal at TOD WG #8.
2.7 At AI Team #29 it was requested that the agreed change proposals for Areas 1, 3 and 4, and the general changes to ICAO Annex 15, Chapter 10, be submitted to the 42nd meeting of the European Air Navigation Planning Group (EANPG) – the European PIRG – Coordinating Group. This was done and the proposals will now be considered by the EANPG during its meeting concurrent with the AIS-AIMSG #1. The proposals are at Annex A to this paper, along with the rationale for each change.
3. CURRENT ACTIVITIES
3.1 At the time of writing this paper arrangements are being made for a high-level safety assessment of the Focus Group’s proposals and the EUROCONTROL / TOD WG proposal to be carried out, in parallel with the further work of the Focus Group.
3.2 The Focus Group met 20-21st November 2008, with the aim of agreeing a revised proposal for Area 2. At the time of writing this Information Paper the conclusions of the Focus Group are unknown.
4. WAY AHEAD
4.1 The Focus Group’s revised proposals for Area 2 will be presented to TOD WG #8 on the 3-4th December 2008. Following this meeting the resultant proposal(s) will be submitted for formal written consultation in Europe and recognising that this is a global issue it is proposed to extend this consultation to non-European States on individual request. A Consultation Workshop to review the Summary of Responses and agree proposals for change is planned for 1-2nd April, 2009, ensuring that States have a minimum eight week review period. It is anticipated that the high-level safety assessment of the two current Focus Group proposals and the previous EUROCONTROL / TOD WG proposal, for a unidirectional approach, will be available to support this consultation. As a result, it is anticipated that by early summer 2009, a clear European position for Area 2 should be established and that it will be made available to ICAO, after public consultation and validation.
4.2 Subject to public agreement of the proposals for Area 2, there will be a consequent need for a full safety analysis to be undertaken before any submission for change is made to ICAO. This will mean that final agreement on the proposals will not be available before the third quarter of 2009.
4.3 Work is ongoing to support regulators and address the institutional issues associated with eTOD. These issues will be further discussed at TOD WG #8. In particular, a strawman paper on the complex issue of cost recovery will be presented and debated.
4.4 Work on the eTOD Manual will be progressed when a clear way forward is determined. This will provide guidance material to assist States in all aspects of their implementation and wherever possible will include the best practices of European and non-European States. This will, when complete, be offered to ICAO for consideration for issue for global use.
4.5 Three awareness workshops are planned for 2009. Training workshops will also be held once the necessary guidance material has been developed.
4.6 Access by non-European States to all eTOD materials is available on request. An email to is all that is required.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Agreement has been reached on Areas 1, 3 and 4 and on the general changes to Chapter 10 of ICAO Annex 15. The change proposals, along with the rationale for the changes, are included in Annex A.
Action agreed 1/... Terrain and obstacle data-Areas 1, 3 and 4
That the draft proposal for amendment of Annex 15, as presented in the appendix, together with any amendments considered necessary by the group, be endorsed.
5.2 Agreement on Area 2 has been difficult to achieve and further work is needed by the Focus Group to revise the proposals for this area. These proposals will then be submitted to TOD WG #8 and it is hoped that consensus may be gained at the meeting and the proposals can then be submitted to public written consultation. If agreement is achieved through the publication consultation, and a high-level safety assessment supports the agreed way forward, there will be a consequent need for a full safety analysis to be carried out. This will mean that final proposals will not be available before the third quarter of 2009.
5.3 Work is also ongoing to support regulators, address institutional issues and develop comprehensive guidance material for eTOD implementation.
6. action by the group
6.1 The AIS-AIMSG is invited to:
a) note the information in this paper; and
b) decide on the draft action proposed for the group’s consideration.
— — — — — — — —
A-7 / AIS-AIMSG/1-SN No. 21Appendix
AIS-AIMSG/1-SN No. 21
Appendix
APPENDIX
10.1 Function
Amend paragraph 10.1 as follows:
Sets of electronic terrain and obstacle data used in combination with aeronautical data, as appropriate, shall are required to satisfy user requirements necessary to support the following air navigation applications:
Rationale
Paragraph 10.1 of ICAO Annex 15 introduces a list of applications that TOD would support, as a Standard, i.e. by the use of the word “shall”. The TOD WG and Focus Group concluded that this was in conflict with the later requirements of Chapter 10 and that the use of the data provided was the responsibility of data users, not the State. In consequence, it is proposed that the paragraph be amended from being a Standard to being of information only.
10.2 Coverage and terrain and obstacle data numerical requirements
Amend paragraph 10.2.1 as follows:
10.2.1 To satisfy requirements necessary to accommodate air navigation systems or functions specified in 10.1, sets of electronic terrain and obstacle data shall be collected and recorded in datasetbases in accordance with the following coverage areas:
Rationale
The need to amend the use of the term “database” to “dataset” was identified at the first meeting of the TOD WG. It was concluded that the use of the word “database” was misleading as this is often interpreted as having the specific meaning of a relational database. With this interpretation in mind, it could be said that the term “database” is in conflict with the open approach taken by the ISO 19100 series of standards which are mandated by ICAO Annex 15 for the provision of TOD. Furthermore, ICAO Annex 15, when referring to the ISO 19100 series, refers to datasets in 10.5.2, compounding the inconsistency. It should be noted that Amendment 54 to ICAO Annex 4 introduced a definition for “dataset”.
Amend paragraph 10.2.3 as follows:
10.2.3 Recommendation - The State should determine those aerodromes/heliports at which the provision of Area 3 data is considered to be beneficial, e.g. where it is supported by the availability of Aerodrome Mapping Data. At IFRthese aerodromes/heliports, Area 3 shall cover the area that extends from the edge(s) of the runway(s) to 90 m from the runway centre line(s) and for all other parts of aerodrome/heliport movement area(s), 50 m from the edge(s) of the defined area(s).
Rationale
No validation was found for the provision of Area 3 data other than to support synthetic vision operations at some future, but as yet unspecified, date. However, the growing availability of Class 3 and, latterly, Class 2 electronic flight bags and the introduction of on-board airport mapping display equipment were noted. In considering the provision of Area 3 data, no business case could be determined for the provision of such data by a State. Instead, it was concluded that the provision of such data should be at the discretion of the aerodrome operator and presumably would be based on a business case.
It was assumed that some States may wish to provide Area 3 data and it is, therefore, submitted that the Area 3 requirements be amended from a Standard to a Recommendation. However, given that some States’ national regulation means that they must implement Recommendations, the caveat for operational and/or business validation should be included in the text.
Alterations to paragraph 10.2.4 are proposed. It should be noted that two options are provided for ICAO’s consideration. Both have identical intent, the difference being the manner in which the links between ICAO Annexes 4 and 15 are reflected.
Option 1
Amend paragraph 10.2.4 as follows:
10.2.4 Area 4 shall be restricted to those runways where precision approach Category II or III operations have been established and where detailed terrain and obstacle information is required by operators to enable them to assess, by use of radio altimeters, the effect of terrain and obstacles on decision height determination. The width of the area shall be as defined by ICAO Annex 4 for the Precision Approach Terrain Chart (PATC) be 60 m on either side of the extended runway centre line while the length shall be 900 m from the runway threshold measured along the extended runway centre line.
Option 2
Amend paragraphs 10.2.4 as follows:
10.2.4 Area 4 shall be restricted to those runways where precision approach Category II or III operations have been established and where detailed terrain and obstacle information is required by operators to enable them to assess, by use of radio altimeters, the effect of terrain and obstacles on decision height determination. The width of the area shall be 60 m on either side of the extended runway centre line while the length shall be 900 m from the runway threshold measured along the extended runway centre line.