NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions 15

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS OF
THE NORTH ATLANTIC FUTURE AIR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION GROUP (NAT FIG)

EIGHTEENTH MEETING

(Paris, 29 September –3 October 2008)

  1. Introduction

1.1  The Eighteenth meeting of the NAT Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) Implementation Group (NAT FIG/18) was convened with the principal objectives of:

a)  reviewing the results of the data link operational trials and the report of the FANS Central Monitoring Agency (FCMA);

b)  preparing an implementation plan for the use of ADS-C for safety related conformance monitoring;

c)  advancing a Required Communications Performance (RCP) implementation plan for the NAT Region;

d)  advancing a development and publication of common performance based data link guidance material;

e)  advancing an implementation of Satellite Communications (SATCOM) voice for routine Air Traffic Services (ATS) in the NAT Region;

f)  developing ways and means to optimise the use of voice communications resources;

g)  updating the NAT Interface Control Documents (NAT ICD) and NAT Data link Guidance Material (NAT GM); and

h)  Examining how regional safety management processes can take advantage of information provided by data link applications.

1.2  The Meeting was chaired by Mr Norm Dimock, from Canada. Mr Elkhan Nahmadov, from the ICAO European and North Atlantic (EUR/NAT) Office, was the Secretary. The lists of participants and contacts are at Appendix A.

1.3  The Group adopted the following agenda:

a)  Report on activities since NAT FIG/17;

b)  Ongoing monitoring of various data link trials;

c)  Report of the FCMA;

d)  Examine ways and means to enhance the use of data link technologies;

e)  Optimise communications services;

f)  Planning and implementation of performance based communications;

g)  Data link initiatives for the North Atlantic Region;

h)  Data link Guidance Material;

i)  Updates to the NAT Service Development Roadmap;

j)  Any other business.

1.4  The papers and other documentation considered by the Group are listed in Appendix B. Additional specialised material was made available to the meeting as required.

  1. Report on activities since NAT FIG/17

Review the NAT FIG/17 follow up action list

2.1  The Group reviewed the NAT FIG/17 follow up action list and agreed that all issues had been dealt with or had been documented and are reported on in this report.

Review the outcome of NAT IMG/32 meeting

2.2  The Group was presented with an update on the outcome of the 32nd meeting of the North Atlantic Implementation Management Group (NAT IMG), which had been held in Limerick on 13-16 May 2008. The Group noted that the NAT IMG had taken actions on all issues that had been reported on and endorsed the FIG work programme (para 11.1 NAT FIG/17 report refers). An additional task was added by the IMG on the FIG work programme to participate in the development of a global operational data link document. The Group noted that most of the issues discussed and decided upon by the NAT IMG were later addressed and concluded in the NAT SPG/44 report.

Review the outcome of NAT SPG/44 meeting

2.3  In reviewing the report of 44th meeting of the North Atlantic Systems Planning Group (NAT SPG), the Group noted agreement of the NAT SPG that Portugal should obtain information on the rate of aircraft equipage from JP Airlines and that this information should be complemented by Member Airlines Avionics Survey data, provided by International Air Transport Association (IATA). This would allow updating the Roadmap twice per year and the issue would be reviewed at NAT IMG/34 to determine whether the data was meeting the planning needs.

2.4  The Group noted that NAT SPG agreed that an ATS Inter-Facility Data Communication (AIDC) Task Force (TF) shall be established under IMG umbrella. The AIDC TF was tasked to update NAT ICD to include Field 18 in the automated coordination messages, take account of the new ATC Flight Plan Change (ACH) message, use the new ACH for route clearances, review Flight Data Processing Systems (FDPS) automation issues in the light of the safety related issues identified by the NAT Safety Management and Coordination Group (SMCG), examine issues related to conformance monitoring, address issues related to flight plan distribution and examine FDPS.

2.5  On the related issue, the Group noted a conclusion of the NAT SPG that an AIDC implementation plan for the NAT Region shall be prepared and submitted to NAT SPG/45 for approval.

2.6  The Group noted that the NAT SPG decided to establish a task force regarding improved communications in the Northern Airspace, including air-ground and ground-ground sub-elements. The task force will collect and analyse data concerning all forms of communications north of 80 degrees in order to determine a clear view of what was available and what was needed. Duplication of effort with Cross-Polar Working Group will be avoided.

2.7  The Group noted that in light of the ICAO Assembly Resolution 36-13 on Performance Based Navigation (PBN) implementation and in line with the provisions of ICAO PBN Manual (Doc 9613), the NAT SPG agreed to put a task on the NAT IMG work programme to define whether existing navigation specifications as contained in Doc 9613 would meet the NAT operational requirements or whether a new one would need to be developed.

2.8  The Group noted that the NAT SPG strongly supported the initiative to use automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) for safety related conformance monitoring and that the NAT IMG was tasked to develop an implementation plan. The Group was also informed that the NAT Economic and Financial Group (NAT EFG) was tasked to determine ways to ensure an equitable charging mechanism.

2.9  The Group noted the NAT SPG approval that Gulfstream aircraft using the Gulfstream Software build designated as Certification Delta, or later approved version, on the Honeywell Primus Epic platform operated by NJIINC/Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. to be accepted into the NAT FANS operation.

2.10  The Group noted that the NAT SPG tasked the NAT IMG to prepare an implementation plan with a target date of 15 January 2009 for the implementation of 5-minute longitudinal separation between Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) equipped aircraft climbing or descending in an oceanic/remote procedural control environment where surveillance was not available and third party communications might be used. The NAT IMG was authorised to review the plan at its next meeting in November 2008 and make go/no-go decision on behalf of the NAT SPG.

2.11  The Group was informed that the NAT SPG put a high priority on the development of an implementation plan for introduction of the reduction in time-based longitudinal separation minimum between ADS-C equipped aircraft to 5 –minutes. The implementation plan will be presented to NAT SPG/45 if it was timely to do so. It was noted that the NAT IMG had determined that, in the absence of an approved Required Communications Performance (RCP) standard for the NAT Region to implement 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation, it would be based on the requirements defined by RCP240.

2.12  Discussions of the NAT SPG on the maintenance and further development of the NAT service development roadmap were noted by the Group. It was noted that because of the uncertainty that had arisen as a result of the lack of reliability of the data link communications infrastructure, it had not been possible to carry out a systematic review and update the document accordingly, However, the United Kingdom had agreed to act as the focal point to collect all proposals for change and consolidate them for presentation to the NAT IMG at each of its meetings. The aircraft equipage column would also be updated at the same time taking account of the information provided by IATA and Portugal. The intention of the NAT SPG to meld the Concept of Operations, the Service Development Roadmap and the Communications Strategy was noted.

2.13  The Group was cognisant of the NAT SPG conclusion to amend the NAT GM to incorporate the Performance Based Communications Guidance Material for Air Traffic services data link applications as developed by the NAT SPG Task Force on RCP. The NAT SPG conclusion on the development and publication of common performance based data link guidance material with the initial draft to be produced by December 31, 2008, was noted by the Group. In the same vein, a conclusion to develop an RCP implementation plan for the NAT Region with the aim to mandate RCP by 2015 was noted.

2.14  In reviewing the NAT SPG Conclusion 44/10 on the operational impact of data link failure in the NAT Region, the Group felt that involvement of the FIG would be required in assessing the technical aspects of the issue and stronger coordination with the North Atlantic Air Traffic Management Group (NAT ATMG) might be required.

2.15  The endorsement of the NAT SPG for the migration to the use of Satellite Communications (SATCOM) voice for routine communications was noted by the Group. An implementation plan taking account of the need to amend documentation, identify dependencies and adaptable for global use would need to be developed and report provided to NAT SPG/45.

2.16  The agreement of the NAT SPG that High Frequency (HF) regression was no longer a viable objective per se for the medium term was noted by the Group. In lieu of HF regression, the NAT SPG agreed that ways and means should be sought to optimise the use of HF in order to reduce reliance and to free up some capacity to cater for future growth. The question of Minimum Equipment List (MEL) relief should also be considered, acknowledging, however, that any decision on MEL relief was contingent on the decision to use SATCOM voice for routine Air Traffic Services (ATS) communications and was subject to approval by State authorities.

2.17  The agreement of the NAT SPG that Conclusion 41/7, setting up a requirement for the mandatory carriage of data link by aircraft in certain parts of the NAT Region remains extant and that an implementation plan shall be developed was noted by the Group.

Review the outcome of the 32nd meeting of the NAT Air Traffic Management Group (NAT ATMG/32)

2.18  The Group reviewed the report of NAT ATMG/32 which had been held in Paris, France from 08 to 12 September 2008.

2.19  The Group noted the NAT ATMG’s input to NAT GM Edition 17 Draft B. This input together with other amendments agreed by the Group (para 9.1. refers) will be coordinated with the NAT ATMG via email with the intent of finalizing and publishing version 18 of the NAT GM by the time of the next NAT IMG Meeting.

2.20  The Group noted that following FIG/17’s recommendation the ATMG agreed that it was not worthwhile pursuing establishing message latency timers for downlink Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) messages and accordingly agreed to remove further consideration of this issue from its follow up action list.

2.21  The Group noted that NAT ATMG agreed on the amendment to the NAT Air Space Manual (ASM) in order to support the application of reduced longitudinal separation of 5 minutes for climb/descent between GNSS equipped aircraft. A common wording as a basis for individual State AIC to be issued on 15 January 2009 was also agreed. The Group noted that NAT ATMG developed an outline for implementation of reduced longitudinal separation between ADS-C equipped aircraft.

2.22  The Group noted that NAT ATMG examined a concept to reduce the number of HF voice contacts by eliminating all but the initial Selective Calling (SELCAL) check at ocean entry and providing all HF and Very High Frequency (VHF) frequency instructions via CPDLC. This concept was seen as relying heavily upon the use of freetext CPDLC messages, because the standard CPDLC message set did not include the capability to instruct an aircraft to contact or monitor an aeradio facility, nor the ability to provide more than one frequency at a time.

2.23  On the similar note, the Group noted the concerns of the NAT ATMG that misunderstandings related to the use of some messages containing the words AT, BY and EXPECT, were increasingly limiting the use of CPDLC messages due to safety concerns. The Group noted the ATMG recommendation to post a Safety Alert on the NAT Programme Coordination Office (PCO) website. A separate working paper was provided regarding these issues (paragraphs 5.7-5.12 refer).

2.24  The Group noted the NAT ATMG agreement to take action within their respective jurisdiction to modify ground systems so as to request the aircraft speed (mach number) to be included in ADS-C reports that could be valuable in compiling the data necessary to develop safety cases to support reduced longitudinal separation and could possibly be used to monitor conformance to assigned Mach number. The views of the FIG were enquired on whether there were any possible extra costs involved for providing this information. The Group noted that Mach number could be in the periodic report only and not in the event report and there should not be any substantial additional costs incurred.

2.25  Also the Group noted that NAT ATMG examined various possible ways to use ADS-C event contracts to monitor vertical conformance. In particular the NAT ATMG agreed to investigate the possibility of implementing vertical monitoring regarding aircraft that had reported level at a cleared altitude, by implementing procedures whereby event reports would be triggered if the aircraft moved away from the cleared altitude by 200 feet or more. The opinion of the FIG was solicited on whether this initiative would incur additional costs to operators for the transactions required to set up ADS-C event contracts. The Group felt that it was difficult to provide a precise costs estimate however no additional messages would normally be required, just extra data in the contract request. There will not be any significant extra cost and it would be offset by the safety benefits this implementation would materialise. The Group concurred that the safety benefits and operational requirements should be the driving factors in deciding to move forward on implementation of the proposed feature.