Transcript ADQ Implementation Status at Austro Control

ADQ Implementation Workshop
Austro Control – Status and Issues
ATM/AIM-SDM
Robert Wehofer, Manager Static Data Management
DIESER TEXT DIENT DER NAVIGATION
Content
 ADQ Implementation Status at Austro Control
– System adaptation
– Formal arrangement
 AIXM 5.1 – a proper origination format?
 Originators vs. ADQ
– Non ADQ addressed originators
– Special case: Cloud breaking procedures
– Special case: NOTAM
2
ADQ implementation Status at Austro Control
System adaptation
 ACG Project „Data quality“ for static data
– started in 2009
– More digitalisation and automation
•
•
•
•
•
Digital origination formats for external originators
Designer tools for Austro Control originators
Modern database management system
Cartography
AIP production
– Workflow management system for documentation
(„PLX“)
3
ADQ implementation Status at Austro Control Formal arrangement
 ADQ Compliance Checklist
– Generic approach rather than distinct SLA‘s
– Standard form with concrete ADQ requirements for all
originators
– All relevant requirements must be checkmarked
4
AIXM 5.1
A proper origination format?
Many States target AIXM 5.1 as origination format
 Reasons:
– Easy to comply with ADQ Article 4 and 5(1)
– Data set specification from Eurocontrol (AIXM 5.1)
 But ?!?
– How is the acceptance coming from originators?
– Do originators understand the AIXM 5.1 specification?
– Has anyone of you already seen a full AIP in complete
AIXM 5.1 format? (incl. GEN part)
– How well do software providers support AIXM 5.1 to cover
the full AIP? (incl. GEN part)
5
AIXM 5.1
A proper origination format?
 AIXM 5.1 data set specification
– is of no use for originator (too technical)
– should be relevant for originators as well (Article 4)
– Several GEN chapters are described by a single entity
„RulesProcedures“
– What would be the reaction of the originator?
• „RulesProcedures. Nice! But which GEN chapters
should I supply?“
6
AIXM 5.1
Austro Control approach
Austro Control approach:
 AIXM 5.1 only used for exchange between ANSP‘s
 Specific origination formats that fit to originators
 For ICAO relevant geographic data
– Simplified XML format based on AIXM 5.1 (version independent)
– Excel format (obstacle owners)
 For non geographic data
– Unstructured data formats (Word, PDF)
– Still comply with Article 5(1) and Article 6
 For each originator:
– Data product specification with „reduced“ feature catalog
7
Originators vs. ADQ
Non ADQ addressed originators
 Discrepancy in ADQ
– Not all IAIP originators are addressed
– But: ADQ applies to whole IAIP (exkl. AIC)
 Unclear situation for AISP
– How to ensure ADQ compliance for whole AIP?
8
Originators vs. ADQ
Non ADQ addressed originators
 Two possible approaches:
1) Article 6(5): AISP shall define specific requirements
to receive data in sufficient quality
• What is sufficient quality?
• If too high: Originators don‘t care
• If too low: AISP is liable if something happens
2) Article 7(2): AISP annotates not ADQ-compliant
data
• Paragraph will not be seen only as temporary solution
 Austro Control approach:
– 1) High quality requested => 2) Permanent annotation
9
Originators vs. ADQ
Special case: Cloud breaking procedures
Two VFR aerodromes in Austria with cloud breaking
procedures:
– 1000 feet above ground and higher: IFR procedure
– Lower than1000 feet: VFR procedure
 In theory: VFR aerodromes with cloud breaking procedures are
fully addressed by ADQ
Art. 2(2b) – „operators of those aerodromes, for
which IFR procedures have been published“
– VFR aerodromes with cloud breaking procedures have to
supply fully ADQ compatible data
 But:
– Quality of aerodrome data does not affect IFR procedure in
any way
– ADQ in this case useless, but significantly high costs for ADs
10
Originators vs. ADQ
Special case: NOTAM
 Conclusion by the European Commission
„NOTAM shall comply with ADQ, if ADQ does not
inhibit the distribution of aeronautical information
necessary to ensure the safety of flight.“
 But:
– ADQ applies to all NOTAM
– Auditors would inspect all NOTAM
– Conclusion should be incorporated in the ADQ!!!
– Not clear: When does ADQ inhibit a timely distribution of
aeronautical information? How to measure? Who is responsible
for the decision?
 How to deal with temporary obstacles? (e.g. crane for 2 days)
11
Thank you for your attention!
Questions /Discussion
12