TOD WG Activities
Download
Report
Transcript TOD WG Activities
Terrain and Obstacle Databases
Working Group (TOD WG)
ADQ implementation workshop
Alexandre Petrovsky
Eurocontrol
28 May 2013
TOD WG Objectives
Facilitate and coordinate TOD implementation in ECAC taking
into account operational requirements and applications
Collate, analyse and identify causes of difficulties arising during
TOD implementation in the States
Develop and recommend action to resolve these difficulties
Advise EUROCONTROL (AIM/SWIM Team) and ICAO on TOD
implementation.
2
eTOD – ICAO standards
Area 1 = State (2008)
Area 2 = TMA (2015)
Area 3 =
Aerodrome/Heliport
(Recommendation)
Area 4 =
CATII/III RWY (2008)
3
Status of implementation of TOD in ECAC
www.eurocontrol.int/prisme/atmatlasviewer.html?mapCode=eTOD
4
Status of TOD Area 1 and 4 implementation
TOD Area 1 (2008) :
TOD Area 4 (2008):
Checks: Availability Terrain dataset
Blue: Availability Obstacle dataset
Dark Green: Completed
Yellow: Partial
Grey: No CAT II/III RWY
5
Implementation drivers
• Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) / Minimum Safety
Altitude Warning (MSAW)
• Instrument Flight Procedure
Design
• Advanced Surface Movement
Guidance and Control systems
(A-SMGCS)
• Aeronautical Charts / On-board DB
• Flight simulator, obstacle
management
• Synthetic Vision System
6
Needs of operators
7
TOD requirements in ADQ IR
Article 2 Scope
1. …
It shall apply to the following aeronautical data and aeronautical
information:
a)
…
b) electronic obstacle data, or elements thereof, where made
available by Member States;
c) electronic terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available
by Member States;
d)
…
2. This Regulation shall apply to the following parties:
a)
b)
…
…;
c) public or private entities providing, for the purposes of this
Regulation:
…
iii) electronic terrain data; and iv) electronic obstacle data
8
9
Example Area 1 obstacle dataset completeness
Area 1 obstacles collected prior to TOD requirements,
published in ENR 5.4 “Air Navigation (En-Route)
Obstacles”
Difficulties obtaining metadata for obstacles existing
prior to TOD
Options:
Don’t provide – no metadata
Provide – caveat for missing metadata
User perspective: “better to have something rather
than nothing”
TOD WG conclusion: obstacle datasets for Area 1 (the minimum being the data
published in ENR 5.4) could be provided with clear documentation on
missing/unknown values and with a statement about associated liabilities.
10
Example Area 1 obstacle dataset
11
Other issues related to ADQ
Providers outside aviation area
Terrain/Obstacles datasets
provider:
National Geodetic Agency
Military authority
Number of data originators for
obstacles
Terrain data set format
No common format defined
TOD WG action: Compile a list
of user and provider
preferences for terrain data
formats
12
Terrain dataset format: TOD WG analysis
Analysed formats: GeoTIFF, DTED, USGS
DEM, ESRI Grid, ASCII Grid, Raw binary,
ASCII XYZ, City GML, Shape, TIN etc.
None fully met ISO 19100 series requirements
as required by ICAO and ADQ
But, all formats could be used by the existing GIS for the exchange
of data.
Next-intended user’s preferred format:
GeoTIFF & Metadata
13
Summary
TOD implementation advances in ECAC
Identified issues related to ADQ :
Reluctance to ‘make available’ TOD due to additional ADQ
requirements
better to have no data or partly compliant data?
example with Area 1 obstacle completeness
ADQ requirements for non-aviation TOD providers
‘fit-for-purpose’ requirements?
Terrain formats
User most preferred format
14
More information about TOD:
Website: www.eurocontrol.int/services/terrain-and-obstacle-data
Email: [email protected]
15