1 / 12

ADQ Implementation Workshop Austro Control – Status and Issues

ADQ Implementation Workshop Austro Control – Status and Issues. ATM/AIM-SDM Robert Wehofer, Manager Static Data Management. Content. ADQ Implementation Status at Austro Control System adaptation Formal arrangement AIXM 5.1 – a proper origination format? Originators vs. ADQ

glynis
Download Presentation

ADQ Implementation Workshop Austro Control – Status and Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADQ Implementation WorkshopAustro Control – Status and Issues ATM/AIM-SDM Robert Wehofer, Manager Static Data Management

  2. 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

  3. ADQ implementation Status at Austro Control System adaptation • ACG Project „Data quality“ forstaticdata • started in 2009 • More digitalisationandautomation • Digital originationformatsforexternaloriginators • Designer toolsforAustroControloriginators • Modern databasemanagementsystem • Cartography • AIP production • Workflow managementsystemfordocumentation („PLX“)

  4. ADQ implementation Status at Austro Control Formal arrangement • ADQ Compliance Checklist • GenericapproachratherthandistinctSLA‘s • Standard form withconcrete ADQ requirementsforall originators • All relevant requirements must becheckmarked

  5. AIXM 5.1 A proper origination format? Many States target AIXM 5.1 asoriginationformat • Reasons: • Easy tocomplywith ADQ Article 4 and 5(1) • Data setspecificationfromEurocontrol (AIXM 5.1) • But ?!? • Howistheacceptancecomingfromoriginators? • Do originatorsunderstandthe AIXM 5.1 specification? • Hasanyoneofyoualreadyseen a full AIP in complete AIXM 5.1 format? (incl. GEN part) • Howwell do softwareproviderssupport AIXM 5.1 tocoverthefull AIP? (incl. GEN part)

  6. AIXM 5.1 A proper origination format? • AIXM 5.1 datasetspecification • isofnousefororiginator (tootechnical) • shouldbe relevant fororiginatorsaswell (Article 4) • Several GEN chaptersaredescribedby a singleentity „RulesProcedures“ • Whatwouldbethereactionoftheoriginator? • „RulesProcedures. Nice! But which GEN chaptersshould I supply?“

  7. AIXM 5.1 Austro Control approach AustroControlapproach: • AIXM 5.1 onlyusedforexchangebetweenANSP‘s • Specificoriginationformatsthat fit tooriginators • For ICAO relevant geographicdata • Simplified XML formatbased on AIXM 5.1 (versionindependent) • Excel format (obstacleowners) • For non geographicdata • Unstructureddataformats (Word, PDF) • Still complywithArticle 5(1) andArticle 6 • Foreachoriginator: • Data productspecificationwith „reduced“ featurecatalog

  8. Originators vs. ADQ Non ADQ addressed originators • Discrepancy in ADQ • Not all IAIP originatorsareaddressed • But: ADQ appliestowhole IAIP (exkl. AIC) • Unclearsituationfor AISP • Howtoensure ADQ complianceforwhole AIP?

  9. Originators vs. ADQ Non ADQ addressed originators • Twopossibleapproaches: • Article 6(5): AISP shalldefinespecificrequirementstoreceivedata in sufficientquality • Whatissufficientquality? • Iftoo high: Originatorsdon‘tcare • Iftoolow: AISP isliableifsomethinghappens • Article 7(2): AISP annotates not ADQ-compliantdata • Paragraph will not beseenonlyastemporarysolution • AustroControlapproach: • 1) High qualityrequested => 2) Permanent annotation

  10. Originators vs. ADQ Special case: Cloud breaking procedures Two VFR aerodromes in Austria withcloudbreakingprocedures: • 1000 feetabovegroundandhigher: IFR procedure • Lower than1000 feet: VFR procedure • In theory: VFR aerodromeswithcloudbreakingproceduresarefullyaddressedby ADQ • VFR aerodromeswithcloudbreakingprocedureshavetosupplyfully ADQ compatibledata • But: • Quality ofaerodromedatadoes not affectIFR procedure in anyway • ADQ in thiscaseuseless, but significantly high costsfor ADs Art. 2(2b) – „operators of those aerodromes, for which IFR procedures have been published“

  11. Originators vs. ADQ Special case: NOTAM • Conclusionbythe European Commission • But: • ADQ appliestoall NOTAM • Auditors wouldinspect all NOTAM • Conclusionshouldbe incorporated in the ADQ!!! • Not clear: Whendoes ADQ inhibit a timelydistributionofaeronauticalinformation? Howtomeasure? Who isresponsibleforthedecision? • Howto deal withtemporaryobstacles? (e.g. cranefor 2 days) • „NOTAM shall comply with ADQ, if ADQ does not inhibit the distribution of aeronautical information necessary to ensure the safety of flight.“

  12. Thank you for your attention!Questions /Discussion

More Related