National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM -

National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIMAIM Taskforce of The Netherlands

Table of Contents

Management summary 3

1 Introduction 41.1 General 41.2 The growing importance of AIM 41.3 AIM in the national context 51.4 National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM 5

2 The aeronautical data chain 62.1 Stakeholders 82.2 Data flow 9

3 Regulatory requirements 93.1 ICAO regulations and guidelines 93.2 European regulation 10

4 Transition objectives 13

5 Analysis of the national situation 19

6 The way ahead: required actions 27

Annex 1 Glossary 30

Annex 2 Required actions (grouped by action holder) 31

Annex 3 Timeline ADQ 34

Report information 36

DisclaimerThese guidelines do not constitute legal advice and are offered based on the Taskforce members’ knowledge and experience. Where in the document the state is addressed, this could include the respective responsible aviation partners.

Management summaryThe aim of this document is to identify the stakeholders, agree on the required steps and provide a planning for the transition from Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) to Aeronautical Information Management (AIM) in The Netherlands. The major change will be the introduction of new products and services and an increased emphasis on better data distribution in terms of quality and timeliness. This will contribute to improved safety, increased efficiency and greater cost-effectiveness of the air navigation system.

For The Netherlands, AIM is of importance in the realization of a Single European Sky and the introduction of a performance based Air Traffic Management system on a basis of key performance indicators. It is therefore an element of government policy as stated in the “Luchtruimvisie” and is considered an enabler for improvements in safety, efficiency and environmental protection.

A key driver for the transition from AIS to AIM is the need to achieve an uninterrupted aeronautical data chain with no loss or corruption in information, in a pre-defined format and with guaranteed accuracy and integrity. The aeronautical data chain is defined as ‘a series of interrelated links wherein each link provides a function that facilitates the origination, transmission and use of aeronautical data for a specific purpose’.

The ICAO roadmap provides the strategic direction and major principles for the transition to AIM. The objectives, analyses and resulting lines of action for the transition from AIS to AIM have been structured according to the steps as defined in the ICAO Roadmap document.

The steps to be taken are a checklist of high-level actions. Failure to take action on any of these steps would increase the duration of the transition and negatively affect the enabling role of AIM in the future ATM concept of operation.

The Implementing Rule EU 73/2010 (ADQ) establishes the framework for a full digital aeronautical informa-tion data supply chain and is a major driver for enabling a modern and harmonised aeronautical informa-tion service, capable of providing quality-assured information for all phases of flight. ADQ addresses the ‘upstream’ data supply chain from origination to publication by a State.

Although a lot of the work to achieve the AIS to AIM transition is well under way, there are still some large hurdles to be taken, especially for the data originators / providers stakeholders. This is emphasised by the action list provided in this roadmap document.

National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM | 3

1.1 General

The aim of this document is to identify the stakeholders, agree on the required steps and provide a planning for the transition from Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) to Aeronautical Information Management (AIM) in The Netherlands. The major change will be the introduction of new products and services and an increased emphasis on better data distribution in terms of quality and timeliness. This will contribute to improved safety, increased efficiency and greater cost-effectiveness of the air navigation system. It is expected that the transition to AIM will not require changes in terms of the scope of aeronautical informa-tion to be distributed.

1.2 The growing importance of AIM

By 2030 there are between 1.7 and 2.2 times as many flights expected in Europe compared to 2007. Over the next few years it will be necessary to accommodate these new traffic levels in the same airspace without compromising flight safety. The increase of traffic volumes is not only limited to Europe, but a worldwide issue. To cope with this development, a Global Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operational Concept has been developed by ICAO (Reference: ICAO Doc 9454).

At the 12th ICAO Air Navigation Conference meeting it was confirmed that AIM will become one of the most valuable and important enabling services to support the Global ATM concept. As the global ATM system will be based on a collaborative decision-making environment, the timely availability of high-quality1 electronic aeronautical, meteorological, airspace and flow management information will be necessary.

To satisfy new requirements arising from the Global ATM Concept, ICAO released Amendment 33 to Annex 15 back in July 2004.This amendment defines new standards and recommended practices in aeronautical data quality with a focus on data collection, storage and availability. The changes, however, require aeronautical information

1 With sufficient degree of accuracy, resolution, integrity, reliability and availability.

1 Introduction

| Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment4

services to a transition to a broader concept of AIM with a different method of information provision and management, given its data-centric nature as opposed to the product-centric nature of AIS. This evolution from AIS to AIM will require time, effort and investments by the member states and its aviation partners.

1.3 AIM in the national context

For The Netherlands, AIM is of importance in the realization of a Single European Sky (SES) and the introduction of a performance based ATM system on a basis of key performance indicators. It is therefore an element of government policy as stated in the “Luchtruimvisie” and is considered an enabler for improve-ments in safety, efficiency and environmental protection.

1.4 National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM

ICAO has developed a roadmap to support the member states in planning the necessary transition from AIS to AIM. The roadmap proposes a three phase approach with unique steps to each phase. However, this roadmap does not take European developments like The Aeronautical Data Quality Implementing Rule (ADQ IR) into consideration and the fact that several steps in the phases have already been achieved in the European region or in The Netherlands. Therefore there is a need for a roadmap that does incorporate these specific developments: the National Roadmap document. This National Roadmap document has been drafted by the subsequent parties:

• AirTrafficControlTheNetherlands(LuchtverkeersleidingNederland)• Directorate-GeneralforMobilityandTransport(Directoraat-GeneraalBereikbaarheid)• HumanEnvironmentandTransportInspectorate(InspectieLeefomgevingenTransport)• MaastrichtUpperAreaControlCentre–EUROCONTROL• MilitaryAviationAuthority(Militaireluchtvaartautoriteit)• RoyalNetherlandsAirForce(KoninklijkeLuchtmacht)• RoyalNetherlandsMeteorologicalInstitute(KoninklijkNederlandsMeteorologischInstituut)


A key driver for the transition from AIS to AIM is the need to achieve an uninterrupted aeronautical data2 chain with no loss or corruption in information, in a pre-defined format and with guaranteed accuracy and integrity. The aeronautical data chain is defined as ‘a series of interrelated links wherein each link provides a function that facilitates the origination, transmission and use of aeronautical data for a specific purpose’3.

2.1 Stakeholders

Within the aeronautical data chain, six main types of stakeholders are distinguished:

• Dataoriginators Data originator means an entity responsible for data origination. Data origination means the creation of a new data item with its associated value, the modification of the value of an existing data item or the deletion of an existing data item4.

• Dataproviders The term “data providers” is used to indicate a stakeholder which supplies data to the next actor in the data chain. Note that in some cases an actor can be a data originator and data provider at the same time.

• Datagenerators A public or private entity providing: - Services for the origination and provision of survey data - Procedure design services - Electronic terrain data - Electronic obstacle data

2 ‘aeronautical data’ means a representation of aeronautical facts, concepts or instructions in a formalised manner suitable for communication, interpretation or processing (Ref.: Implementing Rule 73/2010).

3 Reference: EUROCAE ED-764 Reference: Implementing Rule 73/2010

2 The aeronautical data chain


• AeronauticalInformationServiceproviders AIS provider means the organisation responsible for the provision of an aeronautical information service, certified in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/20054. AIS is service established within the defined area of coverage responsible for the provision of aeronautical information/data necessary for the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation5.

• Aeronauticalinformationintegrators/processors Aeronautical information integrators / processors combine the information published by the AIS provider with other information sources and/or process the information to a format suitable for use in air of ground systems (e.g. Flight Management Systems, Electronic Flight Bags, custom charts etc.)

• Aeronauticalinformationend-users End-users of aeronautical information are typically airline operators, ANSPs and airports, but also airport services providers (ground handling, fire services, etc.)

The following figure provides an overview of the aeronautical data chain elements and the relationships with the different stakeholders.

Data originator / generators / providers

Regulator

Civil ANSP Military ANSP Software developerFMS integrator

Navigation system provider

Aeronautical informationintegrator/processor

AIS service provider

Procedure designer

Airport service provider

Other airspace usersAeronautical

information end-user

Other status

AirlinerANSP

Airport

Navaid owner

Meteorological information provider

Surveyor AirportMinistry of Defense

Subcontract

SLA

<block>Aeronautical Data Chain

<block>Data

origination

<block>Data

collection

<block>Data

harmonisation

<block>Information production

<block>Distribution

Figure 1 – Aeronautical data chain stakeholders

In The Netherlands, some organisations fulfil several stakeholder roles:

Data originator / generator / provider

AIS provider AI integrator / processor

End-user

Airport operators (e.g. Schiphol, Rotterdam) - -Airline operators -RNLAF – squadrons -ATC The Netherlands / LVNL - - -RNLAF – AOCS - - -Eurocontrol Maastricht UAC - -KNMI - -Geodetic surveyors - -Data service providers (e.g. Jeppesen, Navtech) -Aircraft Equipment Manufacturers (e.g. Thales) -

5 Reference: ICAO Annex 15, 12th editionNational Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM | 7

2.2 Data flow

The following figure provides a view on the aeronautical data flow. Note that this roadmap document focuses on the upstream part of the data chain

<allocated> Data originator / generator / provider

<allocated> AIS provider

<allocated> Aeronautical information integrator / processor

<allocated> Aeronautical information end-user

Aquire data

Receive data

Produce information

Process data

Assign unique identifier

Store aeronautical information

Customize aeronautical information

Receive aeronautical information

Upstream part of the data-chain

Downstream part of the data-chain

Distribute release of aeronautical

information

Transmit data

Harmonize data

Produce information

Accoording to SLA, beore agreed

deadline

At least 6 weeks before AIRAC effective date

Start

End

At least 20 days before AIRAC effective date

:AIXM

:AIXM

e-AIP:XML

e-AIP:XML

e-AIP:XML

e-AIP:XML

NOTAM:text

NOTAM:text

data:custom

data:custom

Figure 2 - Aeronautical data flow


This chapter describes the regulatory context relevant for the transition from AIS to AIM.

3.1 ICAO regulations and guidelines

3.1.1 ICAORoadmapforthetransitionfromAIStoAIMThe ICAO roadmap provides the strategic direction and major principles for the transition to AIM. Three phases of action are envisaged for States and ICAO to complete the transition to AIM:Phase 1 - ConsolidationPhase 2 - Going digitalPhase 3 - Information management

The three phases need not be followed in a waterfall approach; for example, steps may be taken to introduce the digital elements even though the consolidation steps have not all been finalized. Similarly, it is not necessary that all steps for going digital be achieved before introducing new measures related to information management. The phases, however, give an indication of how to address the transition.

A minimum list of major steps to achieve the transition to AIM, including a broad positioning of the steps in relation to the three phases is provided in the figure below. The transition to AIM will be effective at the global level when these steps have been achieved. Most steps in Phases 2 and 3 of the transition require new Standards and Recommended Practices to be adopted at the global level.

The steps constitute a minimum list of areas of activities for States to coordinate the transition to AIM between themselves and with ICAO.

The steps are to be taken as a checklist of high-level actions. Failure to take action on any of these steps would increase the duration of the transition and negatively affect the enabling role of AIM in the future ATM concept of operation.

3 Regulatory requirements


P.09 - Aeronautical data exchangeP.21 - Digital NOTAM

P.10 - Communicatiom nerworks P.19 - Interoperability with meteorological productsP.12 - Aeronautical information briefing P.20 - Electronic aeronautical chartsP.16 - Training P.18 - Agreements with data originators

P.04 - Monitoring of Annex differences P.17 - QualityP.03 - AIRAC adherence monitoring P.05 - WGS-84 implementation

P.02 - Data integrify monitoringP.01 - Data quality monitoring

P.15 - Aerodrome mapping P.14 - ObstaclesP.11 - Electronic AIP P.13 - Terrain

P.06 - Integrated aeronautical information databaseP.07 - Unique identifiersP.08 - Aeronautical information conceptual model

Phase 3

Phase 2Tim

e

Phase 1

3.1.2 Relevant ICAO Annexes and DocsThe following ICAO annexes are essential for the AIS to AIM transition:• Annex4–Aeronauticalcharts• Annex15–AeronauticalInformationServices

AlthoughnotdirectlyrelatedtoAIS,otherannexes,forexampleAnnex1–PersonnelLicensingandAnnex14–Aerodromes,alsoincluderelevantrequirements.NotethatwiththeeffectuationofEUregulation923/2012 (SERA), compliance with the ICAO Annexes will become mandatory for EU states and differences filing will no longer be allowed.

Relevant ICAO documents are amongst others: • Doc 7383 - Aeronautical Information Services Provided by States• Doc 8126 - Aeronautical Information Services Manual• Doc 8697 - Aeronautical Chart Manual• Doc 9674 - WGS 84 Manual

3.2 European regulation

The Implementing Rule EU 73/2010 (ADQ) establishes the framework for a full digital aeronautical informa-tion data supply chain and is a major driver for enabling a modern and harmonised aeronautical informa-tion service capable of providing quality-assured information for all phases of flight. ADQ addresses the ‘upstream’ data supply chain from origination to publication by a State, see the figure in paragraph 2.2. This was done for practical reasons and it was, however, accepted early on that the full data supply chain would have to be addressed to ensure that interoperability and data quality for the whole ‘end-to-end’ process would be achieved. ADQ-2 will in essence address the full ‘end-to-end’ requirements of the data supply chain, from post-publication by the AISP to End-use.

Keydriversforend-to-enddataqualityincludeaneedtobeabletosupportnewconceptsofoperations,notablythosearisingfromtheEuropeanATMMasterPlan.KeyexamplesforsuchfuturechangesarePerformance Based Navigation (PBN), 4-D Trajectory Management and System Wide Information Management (SWIM). An information-driven, data centric approach relies increasingly on data and information of known quality meeting its requirements and on progressive interoperability.

The following figure shows the relationships between the different stakeholders in The Netherlands within the European regulatory framework. Note that this Roadmap document primarily focusses on the upstream part of the data flow and as a consequence on the ADQ related part of the regulatory framework.


Data generatorsNLRGeodetic survey bureausRWS

Data OriginatorsIFR AirportsILT bureausMinistry of DefenceKNMILVNL (other than AIS/FSC)Maastricht UACetc.

ContractsMemorandums of cooperation (MoCs)

SLA (external)LVNL-processes

LVNLAIS/FSC

ADQ

ADQ 2

ContractsMoCs

Data users:OperatorsMinistry of DefenceLVNLMaastricht UACetc.

Public/private entitiesData service providersSoftware bureaus

Figure 3 - Relationship between ADQ and ADQ 2

3.2.1 ImplementingRule73/2010(ADQ)The European Commission adopted on 26 January 2010 the Implementing Rule EC 73/2010 laying down requirements on the quality of aeronautical data and aeronautical information for the Single European Sky. The overall objective of this rule is to achieve aeronautical information of sufficient quality, in terms of accuracy, timeliness and granularity as a key enabler of the European ATM Network.

Note that the military are not subject to Regulation 73/2010. However, as the responsible data originator for military airports also operated by civilian users, the military should meet the require-ments laid down in Regulation 73/2010 for data concerning these airports as published in AIP Netherlands.

In terms of scope, the aeronautical information data process chain extends from the original data sources (e.g. surveyors, procedure designers, etc.) through AIS and publication to the end users of the data for aeronautical applications. Present and future navigation systems (RNAV1, A-SMGCS and EGPWS among others) are dependent on Aeronautical Data, and many of them require significantly higher data quality than currently is available.

The improvement of aeronautical data quality to meet the levels required by these new systems is a long-standing problem which, due to complexity of the data processes, and reliance on paper-based systems and human input, has not been solved yet. The core problem appears when tasks are performed by multiple actors based on manual processes with numerous transaction points. At each of these points, data leave a (semi-) electronic (or even a fully manual) environment and are transferred in paper form rather than in electronic form. As a result, we are faced with repeated manual re-entry and checking of data, resulting in a high risk of error with a likely safety impact.

Data originators, such as aerodrome operators, NAVAID owners, etc., have an essential role in ensuring that aeronautical data are digital, of the required quality at origin, and transmitted in this form to the next intended user.


3.2.2 ImplementingRuleADQ-2Recent research conducted by EUROCONTROL showed that the current ADQ arrangements do not provide the necessary degree of assurance that aeronautical data/information quality requirements are being consistently met6. The main areas of concern identified with the processing of aeronautical data/informa-tion in the ‘downstream’ aeronautical data chain include:• Significantrelianceonthemanualre-typingandmanipulationofaeronauticaldata/information;• InsufficientawarenessoftheDataQualityRequirementsofend-useapplicationsandtheassociateddata

assurance processes that are required;• Theneedforenhancedvalidationandverificationpracticestoassuretheintegritylevelsfor‘Essential‘

and ‘Critical‘ data are achieved;• Non-harmonisedoriginationofaeronauticaldata/information;• Apotentiallackofsynchronisationofaeronauticaldata/informationinnavigationdatabases(airborne

and ground-based) and between these databases.

Detailed interoperability analysis identified that the areas of data exchange, data quality, timeliness and personnel performance, tools and software, data protection, quality, safety and security should be subject to regulatory action. These are closely aligned with the subjects addressed by Regulation (EU) No 73/2010.

Three potential regulatory approach alternatives for the development of a draft IR have been identified:• Alternative 1: Preserve the quality of the data set prescribed and achieved by Regulation (EU) No 73/2010

throughout the ‘downstream’ part of the aeronautical data chain;• Alternative 2: In addition to the requirements of Alternative 1, achieve the required quality of ‘related’

aeronautical data/Information originated by ‘downstream’ parties;• Alternative 3: In addition to the requirements of Alternative 2, a progressive introduction of common

data exchange formats within future systems implemented by ‘downstream’ actors in the aeronautical data chain.

Considering the specific issues to be addressed by the ADQ-2 mandate, i.e. to achieve aeronautical informa-tion of sufficient quality and interoperability within the aeronautical data chain, and considering all advantages and disadvantages identified by the Interoperability Analysis and the Preliminary Impact Assessment, the most favourable regulatory approach is considered to be Alternative 3. It would address the identified quality shortcomings and it would enable significant medium and long-term benefits, for new systems, for the interoperability of the EATMN. Therefore, the EUROCONTROL preferred approach for the development of the draft ADQ-2 IR is Alternative 3.

6 Reference: EUROCONTROL document SES/IOP/ADQ-2/REGAP/0.7- REGULATORY APPROACH Interoperability implementing rule on Aeronautical Data and Aeronautical Information Quality - ADQ-2


The main objective of the AIS to AIM transition is to enhance the process of data distribution in terms of quality and timeliness. This will contribute to improved safety, increased efficiency and greater cost-effecti-veness of the air navigation system. Derived objectives can be structured per step as defined in the ICAO Roadmap document. The ICAO document is, together with IR 73/2010, the primary reference and funda-ment for each objective.

P-01—DataQualityMonitoringAn on-going challenge for organizations producing information is to ensure that the quality of the information suits its intended uses and that data users are provided with the appropriate information about data quality. This is a pro-active process that requires regular input and feedback from the data users and is an integral part of the ISO 9001/2000+ quality systems. Subsequently, the implementation of regulatory changes is coordinated with all parties concerned.

Internal processes shall be in place to ensure adherence to the required data quality like corresponding occurrence or incident management processes. Next to it, these processes need alignment with the originators of the data, in order to be able to meet the required data quality levels as specified in ICAO Annex 15, and under the EC 73/2010 Implementing Rule on Aeronautical Data Quality. Consequently this will lead to a chain of quality agreements which in the end will assure a steady and guaranteed level of data quality for the intended users.

In order to fulfil this objective, the ANSPs shall have a quality management processes in place assuring the handling of data provided by originators without loss of data quality. Therefore the systems supporting this data handling process shall also support the required level of data quality. Furthermore the data originators need to deliver the data meeting the data quality requirements as well.

P-02—DataIntegrityThe need for high-integrity data has never been greater and continues to increase, in particular, as new and improved navigation techniques are introduced. In order to ensure the end-to-end integrity of aeronautical data, it is essential that the data process is fully identified, mapped and understood. The establishment of

4 Transition objectives


this process is critical as it identifies the key participants, processes, inputs and outputs that must be addressed in any regularised process.

ICAO Annexes 4, 11 and 15 state that, ‘the Contracting States shall ensure that the integrity of aeronautical data is maintained throughout the data process from survey/origination to the next intended user’. Aeronautical data integrity requirements are based upon the potential risk resulting from the corruption of data and upon the use to which the data element is put by the end-user.

Consequently, the following classification and data integrity levels apply:

• Critical Data There is a high probability when using corrupted critical data that the continued flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophe;

• Essential Data There is a low probability when using corrupted essential data that the continued flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophe; and

• Routine Data There is a very low probability when using corrupted routine data that the continued flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophe.

Full details of the aeronautical data quality requirements related to classification and data integrity are provided in ICAO Annex 15, which also specifies the need for the protection of the integrity of this aeronau-tical data whilst stored or in transit to another system. This process relies heavily on the validation, verification and conformance confirmation at each of the major steps of the process, against the establis-hed criteria for the stages of Receive, Assemble, Translate, Select, Format and Distribute.

P-03—AIRACadherencemonitoringThe standard regulation and control mechanism for the distribution of aeronautical information is an essential element ensuring that each person involved makes decisions based on the same information (From ‘Roadmap for the Transition from AIS to AIM’ - ICAO).

The AIRAC system has been introduced to implement new, changed or deleted data (e.g. new flight procedures) world-wide at the same moment. Every 4 weeks there is an AIRAC date on Thursday at 0000 UTC. The AIP amendment which contains the updated information must be distributed (published) 6 weeks before the AIRAC date. In the 6 weeks period there is just enough time for postal delivery and for configura-tion of aircraft navigation databases.

To guarantee that the AIRAC amendment contains all operational changes, AIS should receive all raw data from data originators in time, to be able to produce the text and charts. Therefore, AIS should make data originators aware of the deadline for delivery of raw data for a certain AIRAC date. Details can be arranged in a service level agreement. Operational significant changes, which have to be published via the AIRAC schedule are e.g. new, changed or deleted arrival/departure/ATS routes, ATS frequencies, several types of airspace, runways, taxiways and aprons, operational hours of airports and related services, navigational obstacles (ICAO Annex 15 Appendix 4).

AIRAC information shall not be changed within at least 28 days after the AIRAC effective date. Postponement by NOTAM should be issued more than 28 days in advance of the previously indicated effective date unless the circumstances are of a temporary nature and would not persist for the full period (ICAO DOC 8126 chapter 2.6.21-23).

A week before the AIRAC effective date the new programmed navigation databases should be finalized and ready for distribution to aircraft operators. To realize this, the data houses accept new data up to 20 days before the AIRAC effective date. As a result, all AIRAC related changes/cancellations after day 20 before the


AIRAC effective date will not be incorporated in the new navigation database. This can be a risk for flight operations, for example:• A standard instrument departure has not been updated and has to be amended manually by the pilot,

which gives extra workload and increased risk just before departure.• Aircraft stands have been renumbered; the numbers on the pilot’s map do not correspondent with the

actual situation.• Taxiway centre line points of a new taxiway are not present in the aircraft’s database; the digital map in

the cockpit shows incomplete information.

In the near future aircraft rely on actual digital information. All data originators should therefore deliver the right data in the right format at the right moment. Implementation of new routes or taxiways must therefore be planned at the international agreed AIRAC dates.

The challenge is to line up aerodrome operators, contractors, air traffic control, regulator and AIS so, that at the planned AIRAC date everything is ready and everybody is aware of the new situation.

P-04—MonitoringofStates’differencestoAnnex4andAnnex15Adherence to ICAO Standards is an on-going effort. The transition to AIM offers an opportunity to increase the focus on the implementation and on reviewing of differences in the application of the Standards by the State. In The Netherlands the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DGB) is responsible for reviewing these differences in the application of the Standard by the Sate. The DGB is also responsible for reviewing the Standard and to file differences. The AIS provider (LVNL and FCS) is involved in reviewing the differences as well. The monitoring of States’ differences might affect AIS data providers, airports, ANS providers, airlines and the Military.

P-05—WGS-84implementationIndeRoadmapfortheTransitionfromAIStoAIM,WGS-84implementationispartofthefirstPhase–Consolidation, where existing standards are refined and strengthened. The requirement to use a common horizontal, vertical and temporal reference system is essential to facilitate the exchange of data between different systems. Therefore the expression of all coordinates in the AIP and charts using WGS-84 is important and should be pursued during the first phase of the transition to AIM.

P-06—IntegratedaeronauticalinformationdatabaseThe establishment and maintenance of a database where digital aeronautical data from a State are integra-ted and used to produce current and future AIM products and services is the main step in Phase 2 of the transition to AIM.

P-07—UniqueidentifiersICAO states in the roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM that improvement to the existing mecha-nisms for the unique identification of aeronautical features are required to increase the effectiveness of informa-tion exchange without the need for human intervention. This ICAO statement is supported by the European Commission and endorsed in Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/20107.

In other words, affected stakeholders8 can create a reliable exchange of aeronautical data throughout the data chain while maintaining the data integrity by using (or introducing) a unique identifier for each individual data item.

P-08—AeronauticalinformationconceptualmodelDefining the semantics of the aeronautical information to be managed in terms of digital data structures is essential for introducing interoperability. A standard data model enables the automated processing of aeronautical information by the end users. Automated processing of data limits the occurrence of human induced errors.

7 Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010 art 4 referring to Annex 1, Part I 1(b).8 Affected stakeholders are defined in article 2(2) of commission regulation (EU) No 73/2010.


P-09—AeronauticaldataexchangeDefining the syntax of the aeronautical data to be exchanged in terms of field names and types is essential for introducing interoperability.

The exchange of data and the mechanisms to exchange or access the new digital products or services will be defined by an exchange model. The content of the model will be driven by the aeronautical information conceptual model (top-down) and by requirements coming from technological choices (bottom-up); the evolution of the model will be coordinated in order to balance the need for innovation with the need for protecting investments.

P-10—CommunicationnetworksMore data will be exchanged on ground networks and the current data will be exchanged in a form that will require more bandwidth. It is envisaged that a transition of the network to one based on Internet protocol will be required to cope with these future needs. For the transition to AIM to be effective, the needs of future AIM will have to be declared in terms useable for network specification.

P-11—ElectronicAIPThe integrated aeronautical information package will not be phased out. On the contrary, it will be adapted to include the new data products needed during the transition to AIM.

The electronic version of the AIP will be defined in two forms: a printable document and one that can be viewed by web browsers. Guidance material will be required to help States implementing the web browser form of the electronic AIP in order to avoid the proliferation of different presentations of AIP information over the Internet.

P-12—AeronauticalinformationbriefingFine tuning of the current NOTAM format by introduction of new selection criteria is needed to improve the selectivity of the information presented to pilots in the pre-flight information bulletin. The combination of graphical and textual information in a digital net-centric environment will be used to better respond to the airspace users requirements for aeronautical information in all phases of flight when the new digital data products are specified and made available. Note that meteorological information is part of the information briefing, so there is a link with step P-19 - “Interoperability with meteorological products”.

P-13—TerrainandP-14—ObstaclesThe compilation and provision of terrain data sets is an integral part of the transition to AIM. In 2004 ICAO Annex 15 has been supplemented with amendment 33. With this amendment, new requirements with respect to the publication of terrain and obstacle data (TOD) have become effective. These TOD require-ments have been included in chapter 10 of Annex 15.

The following user applications are foreseen:• GPWS with forward looking terrain avoidance function and MSAW system• Determination of contingency procedures for use in the event of an emergency during a missed approach

or take-off• Aircraft operating limitations analysis• Instrument procedure design (including circling procedure)• Determination of en-route ‘drift-down’ procedure and en-route emergency landing location• Advanced surface movement guidance and control system (A-SMGCS)• Aeronautical chart production and onboard databases

P-15—AerodromemappingThere is a new requirement emerging from industry for traditional aerodrome charts to be complemented by structured aerodrome mapping data that can be imported into electronic displays.


The Aerodrome Mapping Database (AMDB) is a Geographic Information System (GIS) database of an airport describing9:• the spatial layout of an airport; • the geometry of features (e.g. runways, taxiways, buildings) described as points, lines and polygons; • “further information” characterising the features and their functions which are stored as attributes (e.g.

surface type, name/object identifier, runway slope).

P-16—TrainingThe training of personnel will be adapted to the new requirements on skill and competencies introduced by the transition to AIM. A new training manual will be developed to reflect the new competencies required.

P-17—QualityQuality management measures will be re-enforced to ensure the required level of quality of the aeronautical information. In order to assist States in the implementation of an efficient quality management system, guidance material for the development of a quality manual will be developed.

P-18—AgreementswithdataoriginatorsData of high quality can only be maintained if the source material is of good quality. States are required to better control relationships of stakeholders10 along the whole data chain from the producer to the distributor, this in the form of template Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with data originators, neighbou-ring states, information service providers or others. SLAs clearly define the responsibilities of all parties involved in the national aeronautical data chain. This will help clarify the position of all parties involved in the data chain. The ICAO statement is supported by the European Commission and endorsed in Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/201011.

As a result, all data originators in the data chain shall draw up formal arrangements, or SLAs, with their immediate partners in the data chain, i.e. downstream and upstream the chain. For example, for an aerodrome this will be the data surveyor and AIS Netherlands. Note that this also includes SLAs for the provision of meteorological information.

P-19—InteroperabilitywithmeteorologicalproductsThe meteorological data products of the future will be combined with the AIM data products to form the future flight briefings and the new services provided to all ATM components. This will require that meteoro-logical data be made available in a similar format to the other aeronautical data that are clearly focussing on the use of open standards (such as XML and GML) for the implementation of table-driven data validation built into the data exchange mechanism, whereas current meteorological data products for aviation are based on simple alphanumeric codes.

Now that the bandwidth of telecommunication links and space for digital storage devices are no longer limiting factors, the move towards net-centric and system-wide information management is becoming feasible for the wider distribution of meteorological forecast data from the world area forecast centres in a format that will not require considerable effort for the learning and configuration of decoding software, thereby ensuring true interoperability.

Meteorological information is essential in the compilation of pilot briefings. The transition to AIM will include activities at both the standardization and the implementation level to find solutions for the interoperability of meteorological data products with the new AIM data products.

9 source: http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/aerodrome-mapping-database-phase-2-p-1510 Affected stakeholders are defined in of Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010, art. 2(2).11 Conform Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010, art. 6, lid 3.


P-20—ElectronicaeronauticalchartsNew electronic aeronautical charts, based on digital databases and the use of geographic information systems, will be defined to complement some paper charts and to replace others that have become obsolete and need to be improved to satisfy user needs. The possibility of deploying these new products over the Internet will be explored.

P-21—DigitalNOTAMFuture ATM relies on advanced data exchange and data sharing services that communicate aeronautical information (infrastructure, route network, aerodrome, terrain, weather, obstacle data…) into the operatio-nal activities on the ground and in the air. As a prerequisite, all information has to be digital, which means suitable for automatic processing without human intervention.

In the case of NOTAM and similar messages (SNOWTAM, ASHTAM, etc.), this requires a specific approach, along two main lines of action:• Data modelling - extend the existing data models for static aeronautical information with the necessary

concepts and attributes in order to also model its dynamic/temporary evolution;• Concept of Operations - develop technical and operational specifications that enable the development

and implementation of systems and procedures, which are required for the origination, provision and use of the last minute aeronautical information updates. In particular, the concept of operations shall be applicable world-wide. It should also be backwards compatible, able to support legacy users with classical NOTAM for as long as necessary. Users of the new concept shall be able to get a rapid benefit.

A digital NOTAM can be defined as a data set that contains in a structured format, which can be fully interpreted by an automated system without human interpretation, the information currently distributed by text NOTAM messages.

Digital NOTAM is not a simple conversion of the current message into a new, more structured format. It is a radical change, by which the information updates (both temporary and permanent) are merged with the information of longer duration, using the same data structures and distribution channels.

The focus is on correct, complete and up-to-date data and not on a particular message product. Similar to the other products of an AIS, such as AIP, charts, etc. and for as long as necessary, the current NOTAM messages will continue to be issued. But, this will be based on the conversion of the digital aeronautical data, which will become the reference. Although originally applied to aeronautical information, the concept is also applicable to meteorological information, for messages such as Terminal Area Forecast (TAF).


In order to be able to define steps for the transition from AIS to AIM it is necessary to know the current national situation. An overview of the current situation is provided in the paragraphs below, structured according to the ICAO steps.

P-01—DataQualityMonitoringCurrently both LVNL and MUAC have embedded the data handling processes in their Safety and Quality Management Systems (SMS/QMS). The RNLAF is in the process of implementing an SMS/QMS system. However, due to the on-going restructuring of the Defence organisation, the completion of this project is expected to be delayed. Furthermore, all ANSP’s are in the process of setting up Service Level Agreements with their Data Originators in order to lay down the interaction processes and quality requirements for the data elements to be provided.

P-02—DataIntegrityCurrently, data integrity based on safety requirements have been embedded in the SMS/QMS of LVNL and MUAC. Data integrity requirements still have to be implemented and integrated in the RNLAF QMS.

P-03—AIRACadherencemonitoringAt the moment most organizations adhere to AIRAC, especially when introducing flight procedures. For airspace changes and changes in airport lay-out the implementation is not always on an AIRAC date.

P-04—MonitoringofStates’differencestoAnnex4andAnnex15In The Netherlands all current differences to ICAO Annex 4 en 15 are filed to ICAO. The implementation and monitoring of these differences is related to ICAO Annex 4, Annex 14 and Annex 15 and the Dutch ‘regeling veilig gebruik luchthavens en andere terreinen’ and directly influences the implementation of ADQ and AIM in The Netherlands.

With regard to the implementation there is a relation with all other phases and steps. When issues are solved or implemented in other phases, this might result in an amendment of the differences that are currently filed.

5 Analysis of the national situation


The current differences also have to be reviewed. A procedure for monitoring of the differences of all ICAO Annexes is already developed by the DGB. Some differences will not be solved but will remain.

There are almost no costs involved in the monitoring and reviewing of the differences to Annex 4 and 15. Nevertheless, the continuous monitoring and reviewing of the differences will require some capacity of the DGB and stakeholders involved. The implementation of differences might lead to higher costs, but these costs and investments will not be addressed by this step.

Finally some hazards have to be identified with regard to the monitoring of States differences to Annex 4 and 15. A hazard is that the current filed differences are not monitored. In that case the differences might be implemented without a revision of the differences filed. This might be mitigated by a regularly review of the differences filed. Another hazard is that the filed differences are not implemented or solved within the required timescale. This might be mitigated by describing the implementation process and responsibilities in the AIS-AIM roadmap and by a regularly review of the implementation and the differences filed.

P-05—WGS-84implementationIn1989ICAOapprovedtheadoptionoftheWorldGeodeticSystem–1984(WGS-84)asthestandardgeodeticreference system for future navigation with respect to international civil aviation. In 1994 Amendment 28 to Annex 15 was adopted, introducing the provisions concerning the promulgation of WGS-84 related geographical coordinates. Consequential amendments to Annexes 4, 11 and 14 were adopted.

In 1997 Amendment 29 to Annex 15 was adopted, introducing publication of the vertical component of the WGS-84 geodetic reference system. Consequential amendments to Annexes 4, 11 and 14 were adopted.

In The Netherlands the WGS-84 provisions were implemented by a National Task Force with participation of LVNL, ILT, RNLAF and supported by the National Geodesy Agency (MD/RWS).

The Netherlands notified to ICAO of two differences which exist between the national regulations and the International Standards and Recommended Practices:• taxiway centre line points (ICAO Annex 14: article 2.5.3);• aircraft stands (ICAO Annex 14: article 2.5.4).

Taxiway centre line points and aircraft stands positions are not surveyed and published in the AIP NL. For these items there is a relation with the Roadmap steps Aerodrome Mapping (P-15), Electronic aeronautical charts (P-20), Digital Notam (P-21).

In the AIP NL an asterisk (*) is used for the coordinates of offshore platforms12. Unless GNSS instrument procedures are introduced (GNSS) no action is required and the existing method for publication of offshore platform will be continued.

Coordinates published in the AIP are referenced to WGS-84. When implemented WGS-84 in The Netherlands existing coordinates, surveyed in the National Reference System, were transformed to WGS-84. In the recent years objects are surveyed in ETRS89 as a reference frame for Europe.

The theoretical principles of both the WGS-84 and ETRS89 systems are the same. For WGS-84, the position of the reference ellipsoid was initially calculated on the basis of available data and modelled as a best fit for the whole world but with limited precision (initially 1-2 meter). ITRS2000 is the latest instantiation of WGS-84. ETRS89 was identical to ITRS at the 1989 epoch. ETRS89 is only used in Europe but the relationship between ITRS and ETRS is well known (and transformation parameters are available for the various epochs). In practical terms, this means that Global Positioning System (GPS) surveys within Europe will need to be based on ETRS89, and converted to ITRS, as necessary. Note that surveys based on ETRS89 are not consistently converted to ITRS2000Coordinate Calculator (CC) is a software tool for coordinate transformations and navigation computations.

12 An asterisk is used to identify those published WGS-84 coordinates whose method of determination does not meet the requirements as laid down in ICAO Annexes


It was developed by direction of LVNL, RNLAF, Schiphol Airport and ILT. The Survey Department (RWS) is responsible for design and development. Decided is that the maintenance of this software tool is no longer continued. In 2013 or 2014 CC will be replaced by PCTrans developed by the Hydrographic Service (Royal Netherlands Navy).

P-06—IntegratedaeronauticalinformationdatabaseIn 1999 the ANSP’s of the ECAC member states ratified the implementation of the European Aeronautical Information Services Database (EAD) through the European Convergence and Implementation Plan INF-01. The EAD is a single, centralized repository of aeronautical information which became operational in 2004.

The EAD currently contains aeronautical data that is published in the State AIP’s and world wide NOTAM information. However, the content of the data base can be adapted to suit new aeronautical data require-ments in accordance with stakeholder agreements. The EAD is ADQ compliant.

Both LVNL and the RNLAF are connected to the EAD as data provider/user. LVNL is the custodian for national airspace and relevant civil aeronautical data. The RNLAF manages the national military data. MUAC does not have the status of data provider and is connected to the EAD as data user. It can be concluded that the objective of establishing and maintaining an aeronautical database has been met.

P-07—UniqueidentifiersCurrently, the aeronautical data received by AIS Netherlands gets unique identifiers when the data is processed and stored in the AIS database. The aeronautical data made available to the next intended user is therefore compliant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010.

However, the data should already receive a unique identifier when the aeronautical data is entered in the data chain by the original data provider, e.g. surveyor, PANS-OPS designer, etc. That unique identifier shall than be carried through all subsequent processes. That is not the case at this moment and that shall be the focus of the AIM TF going forward.

AIS Netherlands has selected an electronic exchange tool (PLX) enabling the use of unique identifiers as soon as possible in the aeronautical data chain. During the data transfer a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) mechanism embedded in the exchange tool guarantees that the unique identifiers are not corrupted during the process.

Implementation is foreseen before 1 July 2013. FSC will be using EAD’s INO module ensuring the use of unique identifiers. Other parties in the data chain shall make arrangements to have a similar system in place, ultimately by 1 July 2013.

P-08—AeronauticalinformationconceptualmodelThe Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM) is designed to enable the management and distribu-tion of AIS data in digital format. AIXM is the AICM used by the EAD and is compatible with other data exchange models under development within other aviation domains (WXXM, FIXM). The AIXM is under continuous development which is managed by an international AIXM Change Control Board. Both LVNL and the RNLAF use AIXM as their aeronautical information data model. However, this model has not yet been fully introduced in the geodetic survey domain that provides obstacle data for aviation purposes such as chart production and procedure design.

P-09—AeronauticaldataexchangeThe Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM) is a specification designed to enable the encoding and the distribution in digital format of the aeronautical information, which has to be supplied by the national AIS providers in accordance with the ICAO Convention.

The AIXM scope is based on the ICAO requirements for provision by the Member States of the “data necessary for the safety, regularity and efficiency of international air navigation”. However, the specification goes beyond the strict ICAO Annex 15 requirements, by also taking into consideration existing industry standards (such as ARINC 424) and emerging data needs.


AIXM 5.1, which is the latest official AIXM version, is developed as the data encoding specification that will support the current and future ATM needs for digital aeronautical information, including Digital NOTAM.

Although AIXM is now commonly used as exchange model in the AIM domain this model has not yet been fully introduced in the geodetic survey domain. The survey domain provides obstacle data to AIM for aviation purposes such as chart production and procedure design. Survey data is mostly exchanged in the form of a spreadsheet file (Microsoft Excel) that requires conversion to the AIXM format by the AIS unit. Surveying of civil airfields is done by private contractors with the exception of Eindhoven Airport which is done by the Ministry of Defence.

P-10—CommunicationnetworksThe Pan-European Network Service (PENS) is an international ground/ground communications infrastruc-ture jointly implemented by EUROCONTROL and the European air navigation service providers (ANSPs) in order to meet existing and future air traffic communication requirements. Although the EAD system utilises PENS most parties involved, from originator to end-user, are dependent on Internet and local business networks for the transmission and dissemination of aeronautical data and information. The RNLAF is connected to the EAD via the PENS. LVNL is connected to the EAD via PENS (via Passport/RAPNET).

P-11—ElectronicAIPIn the Netherlands there are two organizations making an AIP: LVNL and RNLAF. The civil version is made by LVNL and the military version is made by the RNLAF.

Since 2005 the civil AIP Netherlands is published as an electronic AIP according to the eAIP specification 1.1.0 of Eurocontrol. The eAIP consists of a set of XML files. Via an XML editor the content can be changed. Thereafter a software tool translates these files into HTML and PDF files. Both have the same content.

The AIP Netherlands is available in printed form, on cd-rom and on the internet. On cd-rom and internet the AIP is readable in HTML on screen and PDF is for printing.

The military AIP is not available according to the eAIP specification. The current Intranet infrastructure does not facilitate publication of the eAIP format. However the AIP is available on cd-rom in PDF format. Although the RNLAF is in principle not obliged to follow Annex 15, there is the intention to develop an eAIP.

P-12—AeronauticalinformationbriefingRNLAF is fully migrated to EAD and LVNL will be migrated before 1 july 2013 to EAD. For briefing both are dependent on developments within Eurocontrol, ICAO and EAD.

At this moment there are several manners to obtain AI:• Via FSU on the aerodromes Schiphol, Rotterdam, Maastricht, Groningen and Eindhoven.• Via internet (www.ais-netherlands.nl or www.homebriefing.nl)• Via telephone/fax.• At the LVNL premises at Schiphol-Oost.

At this moment there is no possibility to get a briefing with graphical information. There are some initiatives to deploy this but at this moment it is not structured and compliant with ADQ requirements. With international developments (digital NOTAM, AI in AIXM format and meteo data in WXXM format) there will be new opportunities for graphical and fully (AI and meteo) integrated briefing.

Thecurrentlevelofintegratedbriefingislevel2–co-located.Asingleofficewithmultipleterminals,multiple applications (flight plan filing, AIS briefing, MET briefing) offering multiple reports. In order to achieve a higher level of integrated briefing a further integration of current applications needs to be accomplished. This requires an integration of the ATC and meteorological briefing applications. The integration of the current systems will require a significant investment in man hours and software. At the same time there is the development of the EAD and future solutions as considered within the System Wide Information Management (SWIM) initiative. The single office, currently the Flight Service Unit at an airport,


http://www.ais-netherlands.nl

http://www.homebriefing.nl

will become the office of the user accessing the information via the internet. Given these developments it has been decided to maintain the actual level of integration at the Flight Service Units at civil airports.

P-13—TerrainAt this moment the executive arm of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Rijkswaterstaat – RWS) and the Association of Water Management Authorities (Unie van Waterschappen) are jointly developing a “Current altitudes database” (Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland – AHN13). The expected release date is spring 2013. The database is primarily meant for water system and water barrier management, but can be made suitable for aerospace use. One of the requirements for this is a transformation to WGS-84, under the strict Annex 15 regulations.

Annex 15 specifies a large amount of requirements for the terrain coordinate measurements. It is necessary to establish if it is possible to assign RWS as an official data originator. The data in the RWS database may be purchased by private entities. A reference in the AIP may be included to inform interested companies or persons where and how to acquire the information.

Terrain data for Area 1, 3 and 4 should already have been available. Terrain data for Area 2 should be published by 12 November 2015 latest.

Some of the areas have a partial overlap with aerodrome terrains, with corresponding responsibilities for the airport organisations. Nevertheless, it is more logical to assign the government with the responsibility for acquiring and publishing the terrain data. It is a one-off activity (the terrain altitude in The Netherlands barely changes) and the data is already available within a government agency.

If this solution is pursued, it is very probably that RWS needs to comply with the ADQ regulation14. As non-aviation organisation RWS may not be able or willing to comply with ADQ.

P-14—ObstaclesIn Annex 15, four areas are specified for acquiring and publishing obstacle data:Area 1: all obstacles higher than 100 m on Dutch territory [mandatory requirement]Area 2: all obstacles higher than 3 m in the runway strip, penetrating an area with 1,2% gradient

extending from the runway strip (length of 10 km) and higher than 100 m at a distance of 45 km from the ARP [partially mandatory requirement, partially recommendation]

Area 3: all obstacles higher than 0,5 m within the aerodrome movement area. [recommendation].Area 4: all obstacles within a ground surface (900 x 120 m) at the runway end. Only applicable for

runways with precision approach CAT II/III operations (for the Netherlands: Schiphol and Beek only) [mandatory requirement]

Area’s 1 (completely) and 2 (parts outside the aerodrome terrains) have been measured by ILT (Schiphol, Rotterdam,Eelde,Maastricht,LelystadandBudel)andtheMinistryofDefence–MoD(DeKooyandEindhoven).

Progress of the measurement activities:• ILT estimates that 80-85% of all Area 2 obstacles have been captured. This means that there is no

compliance with Annex 15, article 10.1.6 yet.• MoDhasmeasuredallobstaclesatEindhovenandDeKooy,howevernotconformTODregulations.• Most Area 1 obstacles have not been measured but registered by third parties. The supplied coordinates

have been accepted and sometimes checked with topographic maps. The ICAO accuracy requirements are not too stringent (a resolution of 1 second is required).

ILT and MoD need up-to-date databases of obstacle locations and heights for law enforcement purposes to be able to check if regulations and height restrictions around aerodromes are met. Obstacles are also recorded to determine the minimum obstacle clearance altitudes for instrument approach procedures,

13 http://www.ahn.nl/14 IR 73/2010, Chapter 1, article 2.1 and 2.2


including regular updates / checks. Furthermore, ILT and MoD use the obstacle database to be able to grant exemptions to the legal height restrictions. For this reasons ILT and MoD acquire and maintain an up-to-date obstacle database. It therefore seems logical that these organisations make the data available for the TOD. It is not foreseen that third parties are allowed to request the information at ILT or MoD. ILT and MoD will not act as publication entities for TOD Area 2 data.

P-15—AerodromemappingAt this moment The Netherlands has two Annex 14 differences related to Aerodrome mapping:

2.5.3 The geographical coordinates of appropriate taxiway centre line points shall be measured and reported to the aeronautical information services authority in degrees, minutes, seconds and hundredths of seconds.

2.5.4 The geographical coordinates of each aircraft stand shall be measured and reported to the aeronautical information services authority in degrees, minutes, seconds and hundredths of seconds.

The coordinates of the taxiway centre line points and aircraft stand will probably be part of the Aerodrome Mapping Database. These aspects are not mentioned in Dutch law. Activities within P-15 will thus require an amendment of the Dutch regulations and withdrawal of the two mentioned differences.

P-16—TrainingThe current training and refresher manuals are based on ICAO and Eurocontrol requirements.

Currently training requirements and updating of the training manuals are embedded in the procedures of the RNLAF school of Air Control. MUAC’s Unit Training Plan is updated with all EOS/AIM functions incorpo-rated. Corresponding Refresher Training is taking place during the yearly winter seminars. A Competency Assessment Scheme for all EOS/AIM functions is in preparation and expected to be in place by spring 2013. LVNL’s FSC initial training program and refresher training are in place, however AIS has currently no structured training and refresher program.

P-17—QualityIn the European community this guidance material is already developed through participation in Eurocontrol15.

Quality and also Safety Management processes are already identified as essential parts of a safe and efficient service provision. It has also been recognized by the European regulatory bodies in the framework of the Single European Sky program. Therefore the European Commission enforced a regulation laying down the common requirements for the provision of air navigation services, regulation EC 1035/2011. This regulation, in line with the mandate of the European Commission, is only applicable for civil ANSP’s. In this regulation it is arranged that every ANSP shall have a Quality Management System in place and shall manage the safety of all their services. Additionally, ANSPs providing Air Traffic Services shall also have a Safety Management System in place.

ThecivilANSPsintheNetherlandsareKNMI,MUACandLVNL.KNMIhasaQualityManagementSysteminplace. MUAC and LVNL have both a Quality and Safety Management System in place. All civil ANSPs are working according the before mentioned regulation. The RNLAF however is not addressed through this regulation as it is a Military organisation. However, they are in the implementing process of a Quality and Safety Management System.

15 Guidance for the implementation of safety management in AIS/AIM in the ECAC region, dated 29 November 2011


P-18—AgreementswithdataoriginatorsCurrently, SLAs between AIS and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and the Royal Netherlands Air Force are in place.OtherSLAsarebeingpreparedase.g.withKNMI.AISNetherlandsfocusesinitiallyondrawingupSLAs with ANSPs and operators of aerodromes and heliports, for which instrument flight rules (IFR) or Special-visual flight rules (VFR) procedures are published in AIP Netherlands. Once agreed upon, an SLA will be used to define templates for the exchange of data by means of a direct electronic connection16.

AIS Netherlands has drafted concept SLAs based on the template provided by EUROCONTROL as part of the guidance material for its Controlled and Harmonised Aeronautical Information Network (CHAIN) initiative. The concept SLA defines the responsibilities of the parties involved including the accuracy, publication resolution and integrity classification of the data to be delivered to AIS Netherlands. Once agreed, both parties shall adhere to the arrangements laid down in the SLA.

All parties in the chain are welcome to use AIS Netherlands’ concept SLA, but are free to define other means to comply with Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010 art. 6, lid 3.

Note that AIS Netherlands has no knowledge of SLAs between other parties in the data chain, for example, between surveyors and aerodromes. However, in view of P-18 SLAs are mandatory and should be a focus of the AIM TF going forward.

P-19—InteroperabilitywithmeteorologicalproductsThe meteorological data products of the future will be combined with the AIM data products to form the future flight briefings and the new services provided to all ATM components. This will require that meteoro-logical data be made available in a similar format to the other aeronautical data that are clearly focussing on the use of open standards (such as XML and GML) for the implementation of table-driven data validation built into the data exchange mechanism, whereas current meteorological data products for aviation are based on simple alphanumeric codes.

Developments in this area have been initiated by EUROCONTROL and the FAA as part of the NextGen program-me. Further developments as System Wide Information Management (SWIM) and the 4D-Weather Cube are partoftheSingleEuropeanSkyAirTrafficManagementResearch(SESAR).KNMIispartoftheEUMETNETconsortiumthatisresponsiblefortheexecutionofSubWorkPackage11.2–MeteorologicalServices.

ICAO has embraced the NextGen and SESAR initiative and now takes the lead in creating a global aviation meteorological exchange model. For this purpose a Project Team has been created, the Meteorological Aeronautical Requirements and Information Exchange. The Netherlands provide support to this so called ICAOMARIE-PTviathemembershipofaDutchparticipant(KNMI).

AfirststeptowardsopenstandardsisforeseeninAmendment76ofICAOAnnex3–MeteorologicalServicesfor International Air Navigation which is envisaged for applicability on 14 November 2013. For several products (METAR/SPECI/TAF/SIGMET) it is proposed to exchange data in digital form in accordance with a globally interoperable information exchange model and shall use extensible markup language (XML)/ geography markup language (GML). It is a recommendation, under bilateral agreements, for States in a positiontodoso.ItisanticipatedthatTheNetherlands(KNMI)willactivelypursueonmakingthedataavailable in the required digital format.

P-20—ElectronicaeronauticalchartsSeveral operators are conducting trials with tablet computers and electronic aeronautical charts. However, due to the fact that electronic aeronautical charts relate to the downstream part of the data-chain, this step is not within the primary focus of this roadmap.

16 Conform Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010, art. 5, lid 1.


P-21—DigitalNOTAMCurrently, last minute aeronautical information update means “NOTAM”. Created 60 years ago, it is based on text messages, which are intended to convey to pilots and other “airman” information that is critical for the safety of the flight. Yet today the NOTAM system is increasingly used for information that is not safety critical, but which could affect the efficiency of the flight.

It is clear that the current NOTAM messages and similar text messages, containing safety critical informa-tion, cannot satisfy the future ATM system. The NOTAM system is constrained by a number of aspects that are related to its history:• human interpretation required;• information overload for the end user;• geographic inaccuracy;• not self-contained;• hidden applicability;• etc.


This chapter summarises the actions required to effectuate the transition from AIS to AIM in The Netherlands. The implementation timeline for ADQ, see annex 3 of this roadmap, is the determining parameter of most deadlines of the actions mentioned. Although a lot of the work to achieve the AIS to AIM transition is well under way, there are still some large hurdles to be taken, especially for the data originators / providers stakeholders. This is emphasised by the action list provided in this roadmap document.

The mentioned actions will require resources in terms of staff hours and investments; however it has not been feasible to define these at this moment in time. Each action holder will have to make their own assessment of the required resources as soon as necessary.

Note that the due dates for RNLAF mentioned in the table below are tentative and may slip in the context of reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence.

The table below provides an overview of the actions to be taken, grouped by ICAO steps in order to illustrate de difference between the objectives as formulated in chapter 4 and the current situation as described in chapter 5. Annex 2 of this document provides the same action list, but grouped per action holder.

6 The way ahead: required actions


Action ID Action description Action holder Due

P01-01 Implement a Safety and Quality Management System fulfilling the EC 1035/2011 requirements.

RNLAF-AIS TBD

P01-02 Implement a Quality Management System in order to fulfil the relevant regulatory requirements.

Data Originators 1-July-13

P01-03 Implement Service Level Agreements with Data Originator, securing the data quality levels for the data elements concerned and securing a handover process for the data from originator to ANSPs.

LVNL-AIS RNLAF-AIS 1-July-13

P01-04 Implement Contracts with Data Generators, securing the data quality levels for the data elements concerned and securing a handover process for the data from generator to Data Originators.

Data Originators 1-July-13

P02-01 Technically implement integrity assurance in the PLX project. LVNL-AIS 1-July- 2013

P02-02 Implement CRC with external Data Originators for critical and essential data.

RNLAF-AIS 1-July- 2013

P02-03 Embed data integrity requirements in Quality Management System RNLAF-AIS TBD

P03-01 Include AIRAC adherence requirements in SLAs with data originators. LVNL-AISRNLAF-AIS

mid 2013

P03-02 Monitor publication process, record every AIRAC non-adherence event and notify regulatory authority.

LVNL-AISRNLAF-AIS

mid 2013

P03-03 Acquire information about (legislative) requirements with respect to AIRAC adherence in the publication process.

Data Originators mid 2013

P04 No actions are foreseen, necessary processes already implemented. - -

P05-01 Notify ICAO that The Netherlands are withdrawing differences Annex 14 article 2.5.3 and 2.5.4.

DGB 2014

P05-02 Adapt National Regulation (artikel 10b, Regeling veilig gebruik Luchtha-vens en andere terreinen).

DGB 2014

P05-03 When GNSS instrument procedures are introduced, position determination of offshore platforms should meet the requirements as laid down in ICAO Annexes.

Data Originators Pending introduction offshore GNSS procedures

P05-04 Identify and store the horizontal reference frame and epoch (ETRS 89) for published coordinates (essential and critical).

Data Originators end 2013

P05-05 Store the horizontal reference frame and epoch (metadata) for new surveyed coordinates (essential and critical).

Data Originators end 2013

P05-06 Transform ETRS89 coordinates to ITRS 2000. Data Originators end 2013

P05-07 Promote the common use of a certified coordinate calculation software tool (e.g PCTrans) by the data originators.

ILT mid 2013

P06 No actions are foreseen, necessary processes already implemented. - -

P07-01 Ensure all parties involved in the data chain make use of an electronic data exchange tool with an embedded CRC mechanism. This includes the initial data generator (e.g. the surveyor) and the subsequent partners in the data chain up to and including EAD (for ADQ).

LVNL-AIS 1-July-14

P07-02 Ensure all data exchange tools in the data chain are compatible and maintain the integrity of the unique identifier allocated during the input of the initial Data Originator.

Data Providers 1-July-14

P08-01 Data Originators shall be made aware of the ICAO and ADQ requirements and the data model (AIXM) used for the exchange of information used for aeronautical purposes (integrated in PLX).

LVNL-AIS 1-July- 2013

P08-02 Data Originators shall need to gain awareness concerning the ICAO and ADQ requirements and the data model (AIXM) used for the exchange of information used for aeronautical purposes.

Data Providers 1-July- 2013


Action ID Action description Action holder Due

P09-01 In order to achieve maximum efficiency and reliability in the automated processing of aeronautical data, data shall be digitally exchanged from the Data Originators to the AIS unit in AIXM format.

Data Providers 1-July- 2013

P09-02 Develop (if necessary) and implement data exchange tool for NOTAM data exchange.

Data Providers end 2014

P10 No actions are foreseen; PENS fulfils current requirements; SWIM under development. - -

P11-01 Realisation of military eAIP RNLAF-AIS TBD

P12-01 Fully migrate to EAD, for both static and dynamic information. LVNL-AIS RNLAF-AIS

end 2013

P12-02 Stop INF 04 with respect to meteorological information. KNMI end 2013

P13 The ministry of Infrastructure and Environment will form a project team to adapt the “Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland – AHN” to the Annex 15 requirements. The following aspects will be taken into account:Transformation to WGS-84 datumQuality requirements for the data generatorLegal aspectsPublication of the availability of the data via AIPProcedure to acquire the dataADQ Implementing Rule 73/2010 implications (interoperability and integrity requirements)

DGB 2014

P14-01 Publish in the AIP and maintain up-to-date all obstacle data of Area types 1 (outside the aerodrome terrain). Taking into account ICAO and ADQ requirements.

ILTRNLAF-AIS

1-July-2013

P14-02 Investigate legal aspects of responsibilities for supplying obstacle data in Area 2 and 3.

DGB mid 2013

P14-03 Increase awareness at the airport organisations concerning their responsibility for supplying obstacle data.

DGB mid 2013

P15 Investigate the consequences of the creation of an Aerodrome Mapping Database and decide on course of action.

DGB mid 2013

P16-01 Embed new requirements for training and refresher in the normal procedures.

LVNL-AISRNLAF-AIS

end 2013

P16-02 Develop a training and refresher program. LVNL-AIS end 2013

P16-03 Establish competency assessment process and development scheme. Data providers end 2013

P17 No action required: see P01 actions. - -

P18-01 Establish responsibility for information provision with respect to meteorological instruments on aerodromes.

KNMI end 2013

P19-01 Implement ICAO Annex 3 AMD 76. KNMI mid 2014

P19-02 Follow SESAR Sub Work Package 11.2 and ICAO MARIE-PT developments KNMI end 2014

P20 Actions unclear at this moment. Industry TBD

P21-01 Training of AIM personnel, and NOTAM operators on major changes. Data providers end 2013

P21-02 Issue a newsletter to inform the flying community on the issues of electronic briefing and digital NOTAM.

Data providers end 2013


Annex 1 Glossary

ADQ IR Implementing Rule Aeronautical Data Quality

AIM Aeronautical Information Management

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

AIS Aeronautical Information Service

AIXM Aeronautical Information Exchange Model

CHAIN Controlled and Harmonised Aeronautical Information Network

DGB Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directoraat-generaal Bereikbaarheid)

EAD European Aeronautical Information Services Database

FSC Flight Service Centre

eAIP Electronic AIP

ILT Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport)

KNMI Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut)

LVNL Air Traffic Control The Netherlands (Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland)

MET Meteorological

MLA Military Aviation Authority (Militaire luchtvaartautoriteit)

NOTAM Notice to Airmen

MUAC Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre - EUROCONTROL

PENS Pan-European Network Service

RNLAF Royal Netherlands Air Force

SLA Service Level Agreement

SMS Safety Management System

SWIM System Wide Information Management

QMS Quality Management System


Annex 2 Required actions (grouped by action holder)

The table below provides the same actions as summarised in chapter 6, but grouped per action holder.

Actions Data Originators

Action ID Action description Due

P01-02 Implement a Quality Management System in order to fulfil the relevant regulatory requirements. 1-Jul-13

P01-04 Implement Contracts with Data Generators, securing the data quality levels for the data elements concerned and securing a handover process for the data from generator to Data Originators.

1-Jul-13

P03-03 Acquire information about (legislative) requirements with respect to AIRAC adherence in the publica-tion process.

mid 2013

P05-03 When GNSS instrument procedures are introduced, position determination of offshore platforms should meet the requirements as laid down in ICAO Annexes.

Pending introduction offshore GNSS procedures

P05-04 Identify and store the horizontal reference frame and epoch (ETRS 89) for published coordinates (essential and critical).

end 2013

P05-05 Store the horizontal reference frame and epoch (metadata) for new surveyed coordinates (essential and critical).

end 2013

P05-06 Transform ETRS89 coordinates to ITRS 2000. end 2013

Actions Data Providers


P07-02Ensure all data exchange tools in the data chain are compatible and maintain the integrity of the unique identifier allocated during the input of the initial Data Originator.

1-Jul-14

P08-02Data Originators shall need to gain awareness concerning the ICAO and ADQ requirements and the data model (AIXM) used for the exchange of information used for aeronautical purposes.

1-Jul-13

P09-01In order to achieve maximum efficiency and reliability in the automated processing of aeronautical data, data shall be digitally exchanged from the Data Originators to the AIS unit in AIXM format.

1-Jul-13

P09-02 Develop (if necessary) and implement data exchange tool for NOTAM data exchange. end 2014

P16-03 Establish competency assessment process and development scheme. end 2013

P21-01 Training of AIM personnel, and NOTAM operators on major changes. end 2013

P21-02Issue a newsletter to inform the flying community on the issues of electronic briefing and digital NOTAM.

end 2013


Actions DGB


P05-01 Notify ICAO that The Netherlands are withdrawing differences Annex 14 article 2.5.3 and 2.5.4. 2014

P05-02 Adapt National Regulation (artikel 10b, Regeling veilig gebruik Luchthavens en andere terreinen). 2014

P13 The ministry of Infrastructure and Environment will form a project team to adapt the “Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland – AHN” to the Annex 15 requirements. The following aspects will be taken into account:

2014

• TransformationtoWGS-84datum

• Qualityrequirementsforthedatagenerator

• Legalaspects

• PublicationoftheavailabilityofthedataviaAIP

• Proceduretoacquirethedata

• ADQ73/2010implications(interoperabilityandintegrityrequirements)

P14-02 Investigate legal aspects of responsibilities for supplying obstacle data in Area 2 and 3. mid 2013

P14-03 Increase awareness at the airport organisations concerning their responsibility for supplying obstacle data. mid 2013

P15 Investigate the consequences of the creation of an Aerodrome Mapping Database and decide on course of action.

mid 2013

Actions ILT


P05-07 Promote the common use of a certified coordinate calculation software tool (e.g PCTrans) by the data originators.

mid 2013

P14-01 Publish in the AIP and maintain up-to-date all obstacle data of Area types 1 (outside the aerodrome ter-rain). Taking into account ICAO and ADQ requirements.

1-Jul-13

Actions KNMI


P12-02 Stop INF 04 with respect to meteorological information. end 2013

P18-01Establish responsibility for information provision with respect to meteorological instruments on aerodromes.

end 2013

P19-01 Implement ICAO Annex 3 AMD 76. mid 2014

P19-02 Follow SESAR Sub Work Package 11.2 and ICAO MARIE-PT developments end 2014


Actions LVNL-AIS


P01-03Implement Service Level Agreements with Data Originator, securing the data quality levels for the data elements concerned and securing a handover process for the data from originator to ANSPs.

1-Jul-13

P02-01 Technically implement integrity assurance in the PLX project. 1-Jul-13

P03-01 Include AIRAC adherence requirements in SLAs with data originators. mid 2013

P03-02 Monitor publication process, record every AIRAC non-adherence event and notify regulatory authority. mid 2013

P07-01Ensure all parties involved in the data chain make use of an electronic data exchange tool with an embedded CRC mechanism. This includes the initial data generator (e.g. the surveyor) and the subsequent partners in the data chain up to and including EAD (for ADQ).

1-Jul-14

P08-01Data Originators shall be made aware of the ICAO and ADQ requirements and the data model (AIXM) used for the exchange of information used for aeronautical purposes (integrated in PLX).

1-Jul-13

P12-01 Fully migrate to EAD, for both static and dynamic information. end 2013

P16-01 Embed new requirements for training and refresher in the normal procedures. end 2013

P16-02 Develop a training and refresher program. end 2013

Actions RNLAF-AIS

Note that the due dates for RNLAF mentioned in the table below are tentative and may slip in the context of reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence.


P01-01 Implement a Safety and Quality Management System fulfilling the EC 1035/2011 requirements. TBD

P01-03Implement Service Level Agreements with Data Originator, securing the data quality levels for the data elements concerned and securing a handover process for the data from originator to ANSPs.

1-Jul-13

P02-02 Implement CRC with external Data Originators for critical and essential data. 1-Jul-13

P02-03 Embed data integrity requirements in Quality Management System TBD

P03-01 Include AIRAC adherence requirements in SLAs with data originators. mid 2013

P03-02 Monitor publication process, record every AIRAC non-adherence event and notify regulatory authority. mid 2013

P11-01 Realisation of military eAIP TBD

P12-01 Fully migrate to EAD, for both static and dynamic information. end 2013

P14-01Publish in the AIP and maintain up-to-date all obstacle data of Area types 1 (outside the aerodrome terrain). Taking into account ICAO and ADQ requirements.

1-Jul-13

P16-01 Embed new requirements for training and refresher in the normal procedures. end 2013


Annex 3 Timeline ADQ

Implementation periods per requirement areaOverall Regulation (EU) 73/2010 (ADQ) 16-02-2010 30-06-2017

Data Set Requirements (data published or amended after 01-07-2013) 16-02-2010 01-07-2014

Data Exchange Requirements: direct electronic connection (data published or amended after 01-07-2013) 16-02-2010 01-07-2014

Data Exchange Requirements: data exchange format (data published or amended after 01-07-2013) 16-02-2010 01-07-2014

Data Quality Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Evidence Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Formal Arrangements Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Data Origination Requirements (Regulated Data Originators) 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Data Origination Requirements (Non-Regulated Data Originators) 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Request for Data Origination Activity Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Data Process Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Error Report, Feedback and Rectification Mechanism Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Consistency, Timeliness and Personnel Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Annotation of ADQ Non-Compliant Data Items Requirements 01-07-2013 30-06-2017

Tools and Software Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Data Protection Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Quality Management Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Safety Management Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Security Management Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Conformity Assessment Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Security Clearance Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Operations Manuals Requirements 16-02-2010 01-07-2013

Bring in line with the regulation data published before 01-07-2013 and not amended after that date 16-02-2010 30-06-2017

Events & MilestonesRegulation (EU) 73/2010 Publication 27-01-2010

Regulation (EU) 73/2010 Entry into Force 16-02-2010

Regulation (EU) 73/2010 Application Date (New or Amended Data) 01-07-2013

Regulation (EU) 73/2010 Application Date (All Data) 30-06-2017

ADQ Roll-out Workshop 07-06-2010 08-06-2010

ADQ Regulators Workshop 28-09-2010 28-09-2010

ADQ Regulators Working Group Meeting #1 10-02-2011 10-02-2011




SUPPORTING MATERIAL

EUROCONTROL Specification Electronic AIP (eAIP)

Consultation Period 11-01-2010 08-04-2010

Release Edition 2.0 14-02-2011

EUROCONTROL Specification Data Quality Requirements (DQR)

Release Edition 0.9a (Draft) 01-07-2010


Consultation Workshop 17-02-2011 18-02-2011

Estimated Release - Final Edition 31-05-2012

EUROCONTROL Specification Data Assurance Levels (DAL)

Release Edition 0.20a (Draft) 30-01-2012


Consultation Workshop 17-02-2011 18-02-2011

ad-hoc Drafting Meeting 1 17-05-2011 18-05-2011



Release - Edition 1.0 15-03-2012

EUROCONTROL Specification Aeronautical Information Exchange (AIX)

Release Edition 0.23 (Draft) 06-03-2012



EUROCONTROL Specification Data Origination (DO)



Consultation Workshop 20-06-2012


EUROCONTROL ADQ Guide


Estimated Next Edition Release 30-04-2012

EUROCONTROL Conformity Assessment Guidelines


Guidance for the Implementation of Safety Management in AIS/AIM in the ECAC Region



Report informationColophon

Report 12-RA-MD-061

Issue no. 0.06

Date 14-01-2013

Title National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM

Filename Report National Roadmap AIS to AIM v0.06

Classification Public

Report authorisation

Name Date Signature

Checked by AIM TF

Approved by R.V. Valkenburcht

Document Control

Issue Date Author Changes

0.01 14/11/11 Maj J.H.Hazes First draft

0.02 10/08/12 M.F. Koeslag (MovingDot) Structure adapted (contents from v0.01 retained)Contents of individual steps added.Structure for Stakeholder lines of action proposed.

0.03 28/09/12 M.F. Koeslag (MovingDot) Input from J.H. Hazes, H. v.d. Berg, E. Dalmolen, J. Sondij and R.V. Valkenburcht.Input from AIM TF meeting / workshop 14/09/12.

0.04 01-11-12 H.J.H. van BreukelenJ.J.J. van de Wetering

Raw version concerning chap 6 AIM TF 11

0.05 03-12-12 M.F. Koeslag(MovingDot)

Structure adapted (Stakeholders paragraph moved to chapter 2), format, editorial changes. Changes to chapter 6.

0.06 14-01-13 M.F. Koeslag(MovingDot)

Editorial changes after input J.H. Hazes, E. Dalmolen, J. Sondij, K. Monster, P. Matern and TF meeting

Distribution

Name Organisation

AIM Taskforce of The Netherlands -


This is a publication of

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Postbus 20901 | 2500 ex Den Haagwww.rijksoverheid.nl/ienm

January 2013

Documents

National Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM -