Items Suggested to Be Considered to Enhance the Data Centric Approach of Icao

Items Suggested to Be Considered to Enhance the Data Centric Approach of Icao





Montréal, 19 to 23October 2015

Agenda Item / 12. / Final Package Review
12.4: / Items for future work by other groups


(Presented by Peter Rudolph)

This study note summarises ideas for future work by respective ICAO Panels and/or study groups to further advance the ICAO provision to support the data centric approach, to support electronic charting, and to support pre-flight and in-flight briefing.
Action by the AIS-AIMSG is at paragraph 4.


1.1Some work items which have been initially discussed in the AIS-AIMSG have been put into the waiting room and need to be further advanced after the AIS-AIMSG is closed.

1.2This Study Note tries to put the attention to:

a)Electronic aeronautical charting;

b)Annex 4 review;

c)Guidance Material to the new Annex 15 and PANS-AIM - the AIS Manual (Doc 8126),

d)Support pre-flight and in-flight briefing by a new operational reporting system.


2.1Electronic Aeronautical Charting

2.1.1The provision of data sets will make available aeronautical chart content in a different format as Annex 4 (paper) charts required presentation. This means that chart content is available as data. This brings advantages for the next intended user as the chart content is available in structured (electronic) format and allows the next intended user to process these data (chart contents) electronically for what ever purpose of the next intended user is processing those. E.g. for producing custom format (electronic) charts for pilot use or avionics display or others.

2.1.2Good examples to approach this discussion are probably Instrument Flight Procedures (charts and data sets) and Aerodrome Data (aerodrome charts and data sets – the latter also known as aerodrome mapping data bases).

2.1.3The Data Catalogue in PANS-AIM contains all Features and Attributes which are defined in Annex 4, Annex 15 and PANS-OPS for chart presentation. This allows that data sets can contain ALL data which need to be made available, according to current provisions, as aeronautical charts. But in a different data centric format.

2.1.4This raises the question of data derived charting (digital charting?), charts can be the visualisation of data “only”, a chart needs not any more to be the data supply/provision, for cases where data sets are provided according to PANS-AIM.

2.1.5Questions which can be asked to forward with this analysis might be:

a)Do we need (electronic) charts when data sets are available?

b)Do we need data derived charting?

c)If yes, why?

d)Do we need (electronic) charts in addition to data sets just as visualisation and for information only?

e)We are humans and is a data set not good enough for human reading?

2.1.6A further thinking might come to the conclusion that beside of a data set, which contains the data provision of a (former) chart contents, an electronic chart for visualisation might accompany the data set for practical human reading purposes.

2.1.7The question for ICAO symbols for electronic charts might arise, and SAE G10 document 5289A, taking the copyright issues into account, might be visited. Further questions will then arose like:

a)Is symbolisation not application and use case driven?

b)Does this really need to go into an Annex?

c)Can harmonisation and standardisation of visualisation of data across one application or use case world wide not be done by an non ICAO body?

d)Is it not more a human factors activities, rather then an Annex activity?

2.1.8All those questions shall be discussed by a further group.

2.2Annex 4 Review

2.2.1The data centric approach of Annex 15 and PANS-AIM brings new requirements to Annex 4 and the “classical” ICAO paper chart provisions.

2.2.2The Annex 4 chart specifications stemming from the paper environment.

2.2.3The Annex 4 charts with the additional explanations in the Aeronautical Chart Manual (Doc 8697) full fill the data provisions of aeronautical charts but those (paper) charts are not used by ATM systems and pilots, only to mention the two.

2.2.4Instrument Flight Procedures on Annex 4 charts, e.g., are normally not flyable charts. Data from the Annex 4 charts are collected by pilot chart preparing organisations and companies with the consequence of a media break. Is this not an indication that the provision of the existing Annex 4 (paper) charts need to be revisited in the light of electronic data sets, which contain aeronautical charts contents?

2.2.5Current Instrument Flight Procedure Tools can already put out flyable procedures according to ARINC424 and AIXM4.5/5.1. Not all data are represented in the Annex 4 chart provisions. This can be leveraged by making more details flight procedure data available in form of data sets.

2.2.6The todays chart data provision requirements are driven by different products, applications and services. The question is does this need to be addressed in Annex 4? Would Annex 4 provisions need to be changed?

2.2.7Further, “cross step topic” discussions are possible:

a)Electronic vs. digital charting, clarification of terminology.

b)Review of all Annex 4 Charts whether they are still required/needed at the end of the transition from AIS to AIM.

c)Discussion and documentation why currently specific charts exist and the questions do they need further to exist in the digital or electronic environment or can they be cancelled, with other words can they be deleted from the SARPs in Annex 4.

d)Symbols for electronic charts.

2.2.8At the end the question might arise shall the Annex 4 not be renamed to “Products, Applications, and Services”? Services from Annex 15 could be thought to take over into Annex 4.

2.3Guidance Material to Annex 15 and PANS-AIM

2.3.1The introduction of the data centric provisions, the strengthening of data originators and related processes, the restructuring of services which states shall organisation to make available to the airspace user community, require a clear, detailed and concise guidance material.

2.3.2Without this guidance it will not be possible to make the new concept a success.

2.3.3The “levelled” approach of Annex 15 and PANS-AIM by having the “what” in Annex 15 and the “how” in PANS-AIM will already make it easier to bring the concept across. But this is not enough.

2.3.4Also that Annex 15 and PANS-AIM are structured in the same way, “one-to-one”, allow readers to follow the contents of the both documents easier.

2.3.5The guidance material shall be structured in the same way as Annex 15 and PANS-AIM, in order to support readability and understandability.

2.3.6The structure and contents of Annex 15 and PANS-AIM define basically the contents of the guidance material too.

2.3.7The Data Catalogue in PANS-AIM is a key component for making the data centric approach happen. Therefore special care shall be given to the description of:

a)the Data Catalogue and how to use it;

b)the process how to come from the Data Catalogue to Data Sets;

c)and examples for Data Sets.

2.3.8It is essential that the guidance material is at least equally available at the AIRAC Cycle in November 2018 to support the migration.

2.3.9Finally the question might arise whether the guidance material “AIS Manual” shall not be renamed in “AIM Manual”.

2.4Operational Reporting

2.4.1The NOTAM System of Annex 15 has developed itself in stage where a number of dysfunctions can be observed and the simple amount of NOTAM to be taken into account for e.g. in a pre-flight briefing is nearly impossible to handle.

2.4.2The NOTAM System is close to, if not already collapsed.

2.4.3The probability that an important NOTAM does not reach the addressee, for whom it is important, is high.

2.4.4The key for a new system is structure of a NOTAM which can be analysed by electronic means down to the greatest level of detail.

2.4.5The greatest level of detail shall be defined by the airspace users which major operational input.

2.4.6Airlines, respective service providers, and the military developed already detailed criteria catalogs which allow them individually to cope with the current NOTAM System. This know how needs to be leveraged in the “Operational Reporting System”. An Operational Reporting System Message – ORSM could be introduced.

2.4.7Criteria could be:

a)detailed geographical reference or area of impact;

b)reference to feature;

c)detailed subject or object reference;

d)detailed status,

e)level band or height;

f)time – begin to end;

g)eventually specific main chapters need to be introduced;

h)flight rules could be leveraged;

i)Operational Reporting Series (e.g. different for airspace, aerodromes, equipment, specific activity, …).

2.4.8Any ORSM shall always be referenced to a data in the Data Catalogue/Data Set.

2.4.9ORSM shall be viewed as status and/or condition change of an existing data.

2.4.10The term NOTAM shall be changed intentionally to show that a paradigm shift is intended.


3.1Future work shall be carefully allocated to the groups with the right know how and experience. Also the time frame shall be taken into account. E.g. the guidance material needs to be available in November 2018 latest and the NOTAM System issue needs to be solved very quickly. This is up to the ANC and ANB. Nevertheless suggestions could be:

a)Electronic Charting: a new Electronic Charting Study Group (ICAO AN / AP OPS & Interoperability);

b)Annex 4 Review: a new Electronic Charting Study Group (ICAO AN / AP OPS & Interoperability);

c)Guidance Material: secondment by states or a sub-contracted task to the market (ICAO AN / Airspace Management & Optimization);

d)Operational Reporting: This is already in IMP WG A, it must be ensured that input from airlines / IATA are key. If the activity is to slow a Tiger Team might be needed (ICAO AN / Airspace Management & Optimization).


4.1The AIS-AIMSG is invited to:

a)review this Study Note;

b)decide which items are worth further reviewing and discussing in other groups.

-- END --