Summary of Discussions FIG18 final report... · Web viewEIGHTEENTH MEETING (Paris, 29 September –3 October 2008) Introduction The Eighteenth meeting of the NAT Future Air Navigation

NAT FIG/18

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS OFTHE NORTH ATLANTIC FUTURE AIR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

IMPLEMENTATION GROUP (NAT FIG)

EIGHTEENTH MEETING

(Paris, 29 September –3 October 2008)

1. Introduction

1.1 The Eighteenth meeting of the NAT Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) Implementation Group (NAT FIG/18) was convened with the principal objectives of:

a) reviewing the results of the data link operational trials and the report of the FANS Central Monitoring Agency (FCMA);

b) preparing an implementation plan for the use of ADS-C for safety related conformance monitoring;

c) advancing a Required Communications Performance (RCP) implementation plan for the NAT Region;

d) advancing a development and publication of common performance based data link guidance material;

e) advancing an implementation of Satellite Communications (SATCOM) voice for routine Air Traffic Services (ATS) in the NAT Region;

f) developing ways and means to optimise the use of voice communications resources;

g) updating the NAT Interface Control Documents (NAT ICD) and NAT Data link Guidance Material (NAT GM); and

h) Examining how regional safety management processes can take advantage of information provided by data link applications.

1.2 The Meeting was chaired by Mr Norm Dimock, from Canada. Mr Elkhan Nahmadov, from the ICAO European and North Atlantic (EUR/NAT) Office, was the Secretary. The lists of participants and contacts are at Appendix A.

1.3 The Group adopted the following agenda:

a) Report on activities since NAT FIG/17;

b) Ongoing monitoring of various data link trials;

c) Report of the FCMA;

d) Examine ways and means to enhance the use of data link technologies;

e) Optimise communications services;

f) Planning and implementation of performance based communications;

document.doc

2 NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions

g) Data link initiatives for the North Atlantic Region;

h) Data link Guidance Material;

i) Updates to the NAT Service Development Roadmap;

j) Any other business.

1.4 The papers and other documentation considered by the Group are listed in Appendix B. Additional specialised material was made available to the meeting as required.

2. Report on activities since NAT FIG/17

Review the NAT FIG/17 follow up action list

2.1 The Group reviewed the NAT FIG/17 follow up action list and agreed that all issues had been dealt with or had been documented and are reported on in this report.

Review the outcome of NAT IMG/32 meeting

2.2 The Group was presented with an update on the outcome of the 32nd meeting of the North Atlantic Implementation Management Group (NAT IMG), which had been held in Limerick on 13-16 May 2008. The Group noted that the NAT IMG had taken actions on all issues that had been reported on and endorsed the FIG work programme (para 11.1 NAT FIG/17 report refers). An additional task was added by the IMG on the FIG work programme to participate in the development of a global operational data link document. The Group noted that most of the issues discussed and decided upon by the NAT IMG were later addressed and concluded in the NAT SPG/44 report.

Review the outcome of NAT SPG/44 meeting

2.3 In reviewing the report of 44th meeting of the North Atlantic Systems Planning Group (NAT SPG), the Group noted agreement of the NAT SPG that Portugal should obtain information on the rate of aircraft equipage from JP Airlines and that this information should be complemented by Member Airlines Avionics Survey data, provided by International Air Transport Association (IATA). This would allow updating the Roadmap twice per year and the issue would be reviewed at NAT IMG/34 to determine whether the data was meeting the planning needs.

2.4 The Group noted that NAT SPG agreed that an ATS Inter-Facility Data Communication (AIDC) Task Force (TF) shall be established under IMG umbrella. The AIDC TF was tasked to update NAT ICD to include Field 18 in the automated coordination messages, take account of the new ATC Flight Plan Change (ACH) message, use the new ACH for route clearances, review Flight Data Processing Systems (FDPS) automation issues in the light of the safety related issues identified by the NAT Safety Management and Coordination Group (SMCG), examine issues related to conformance monitoring, address issues related to flight plan distribution and examine FDPS.

2.5 On the related issue, the Group noted a conclusion of the NAT SPG that an AIDC implementation plan for the NAT Region shall be prepared and submitted to NAT SPG/45 for approval.

2.6 The Group noted that the NAT SPG decided to establish a task force regarding improved communications in the Northern Airspace, including air-ground and ground-ground sub-elements. The task force will collect and analyse data concerning all forms of communications north of 80 degrees in order to determine a clear view of what was available and what was needed. Duplication of effort with Cross-Polar Working Group will be avoided.

document.doc

NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions 3

2.7 The Group noted that in light of the ICAO Assembly Resolution 36-13 on Performance Based Navigation (PBN) implementation and in line with the provisions of ICAO PBN Manual (Doc 9613), the NAT SPG agreed to put a task on the NAT IMG work programme to define whether existing navigation specifications as contained in Doc 9613 would meet the NAT operational requirements or whether a new one would need to be developed.

2.8 The Group noted that the NAT SPG strongly supported the initiative to use automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) for safety related conformance monitoring and that the NAT IMG was tasked to develop an implementation plan. The Group was also informed that the NAT Economic and Financial Group (NAT EFG) was tasked to determine ways to ensure an equitable charging mechanism.

2.9 The Group noted the NAT SPG approval that Gulfstream aircraft using the Gulfstream Software build designated as Certification Delta, or later approved version, on the Honeywell Primus Epic platform operated by NJIINC/Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. to be accepted into the NAT FANS operation.

2.10 The Group noted that the NAT SPG tasked the NAT IMG to prepare an implementation plan with a target date of 15 January 2009 for the implementation of 5-minute longitudinal separation between Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) equipped aircraft climbing or descending in an oceanic/remote procedural control environment where surveillance was not available and third party communications might be used. The NAT IMG was authorised to review the plan at its next meeting in November 2008 and make go/no-go decision on behalf of the NAT SPG.

2.11 The Group was informed that the NAT SPG put a high priority on the development of an implementation plan for introduction of the reduction in time-based longitudinal separation minimum between ADS-C equipped aircraft to 5 –minutes. The implementation plan will be presented to NAT SPG/45 if it was timely to do so. It was noted that the NAT IMG had determined that, in the absence of an approved Required Communications Performance (RCP) standard for the NAT Region to implement 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation, it would be based on the requirements defined by RCP240.

2.12 Discussions of the NAT SPG on the maintenance and further development of the NAT service development roadmap were noted by the Group. It was noted that because of the uncertainty that had arisen as a result of the lack of reliability of the data link communications infrastructure, it had not been possible to carry out a systematic review and update the document accordingly, However, the United Kingdom had agreed to act as the focal point to collect all proposals for change and consolidate them for presentation to the NAT IMG at each of its meetings. The aircraft equipage column would also be updated at the same time taking account of the information provided by IATA and Portugal. The intention of the NAT SPG to meld the Concept of Operations, the Service Development Roadmap and the Communications Strategy was noted.

2.13 The Group was cognisant of the NAT SPG conclusion to amend the NAT GM to incorporate the Performance Based Communications Guidance Material for Air Traffic services data link applications as developed by the NAT SPG Task Force on RCP. The NAT SPG conclusion on the development and publication of common performance based data link guidance material with the initial draft to be produced by December 31, 2008, was noted by the Group. In the same vein, a conclusion to develop an RCP implementation plan for the NAT Region with the aim to mandate RCP by 2015 was noted.

2.14 In reviewing the NAT SPG Conclusion 44/10 on the operational impact of data link failure in the NAT Region, the Group felt that involvement of the FIG would be required in assessing the technical aspects of the issue and stronger coordination with the North Atlantic Air Traffic Management Group (NAT ATMG) might be required.

2.15 The endorsement of the NAT SPG for the migration to the use of Satellite Communications (SATCOM) voice for routine communications was noted by the Group. An implementation plan taking

document.doc


account of the need to amend documentation, identify dependencies and adaptable for global use would need to be developed and report provided to NAT SPG/45.

2.16 The agreement of the NAT SPG that High Frequency (HF) regression was no longer a viable objective per se for the medium term was noted by the Group. In lieu of HF regression, the NAT SPG agreed that ways and means should be sought to optimise the use of HF in order to reduce reliance and to free up some capacity to cater for future growth. The question of Minimum Equipment List (MEL) relief should also be considered, acknowledging, however, that any decision on MEL relief was contingent on the decision to use SATCOM voice for routine Air Traffic Services (ATS) communications and was subject to approval by State authorities.

2.17 The agreement of the NAT SPG that Conclusion 41/7, setting up a requirement for the mandatory carriage of data link by aircraft in certain parts of the NAT Region remains extant and that an implementation plan shall be developed was noted by the Group.

Review the outcome of the 32nd meeting of the NAT Air Traffic Management Group (NAT ATMG/32)

2.18 The Group reviewed the report of NAT ATMG/32 which had been held in Paris, France from 08 to 12 September 2008.

2.19 The Group noted the NAT ATMG’s input to NAT GM Edition 17 Draft B. This input together with other amendments agreed by the Group (para 9.1. refers) will be coordinated with the NAT ATMG via email with the intent of finalizing and publishing version 18 of the NAT GM by the time of the next NAT IMG Meeting.

2.20 The Group noted that following FIG/17’s recommendation the ATMG agreed that it was not worthwhile pursuing establishing message latency timers for downlink Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) messages and accordingly agreed to remove further consideration of this issue from its follow up action list.

2.21 The Group noted that NAT ATMG agreed on the amendment to the NAT Air Space Manual (ASM) in order to support the application of reduced longitudinal separation of 5 minutes for climb/descent between GNSS equipped aircraft. A common wording as a basis for individual State AIC to be issued on 15 January 2009 was also agreed. The Group noted that NAT ATMG developed an outline for implementation of reduced longitudinal separation between ADS-C equipped aircraft.

2.22 The Group noted that NAT ATMG examined a concept to reduce the number of HF voice contacts by eliminating all but the initial Selective Calling (SELCAL) check at ocean entry and providing all HF and Very High Frequency (VHF) frequency instructions via CPDLC. This concept was seen as relying heavily upon the use of freetext CPDLC messages, because the standard CPDLC message set did not include the capability to instruct an aircraft to contact or monitor an aeradio facility, nor the ability to provide more than one frequency at a time.

2.23 On the similar note, the Group noted the concerns of the NAT ATMG that misunderstandings related to the use of some messages containing the words AT, BY and EXPECT, were increasingly limiting the use of CPDLC messages due to safety concerns. The Group noted the ATMG recommendation to post a Safety Alert on the NAT Programme Coordination Office (PCO) website. A separate working paper was provided regarding these issues (paragraphs 5.8-5.12 refer).

2.24 The Group noted the NAT ATMG agreement to take action within their respective jurisdiction to modify ground systems so as to request the aircraft speed (mach number) to be included in ADS-C reports that could be valuable in compiling the data necessary to develop safety cases to support reduced longitudinal separation and could possibly be used to monitor conformance to assigned Mach number. The views of the FIG were enquired on whether there were any possible extra costs involved for providing this

document.doc


information. The Group noted that Mach number could be in the periodic report only and not in the event report and there should not be any substantial additional costs incurred.

2.25 Also the Group noted that NAT ATMG examined various possible ways to use ADS-C event contracts to monitor vertical conformance. In particular the NAT ATMG agreed to investigate the possibility of implementing vertical monitoring regarding aircraft that had reported level at a cleared altitude, by implementing procedures whereby event reports would be triggered if the aircraft moved away from the cleared altitude by 200 feet or more. The opinion of the FIG was solicited on whether this initiative would incur additional costs to operators for the transactions required to set up ADS-C event contracts. The Group felt that it was difficult to provide a precise costs estimate however no additional messages would normally be required, just extra data in the contract request. There will not be any significant extra cost and it would be offset by the safety benefits this implementation would materialise. The Group concurred that the safety benefits and operational requirements should be the driving factors in deciding to move forward on implementation of the proposed feature.

2.26 The Group noted the NAT ATMG discussion with regard to monitoring vertical conformance for climbing or descending aircraft. There were a wide variety of scenarios, some involving monitoring for flights leaving the previously cleared altitude, approaching the newly assigned altitude and straying beyond the newly assigned altitude or any combination of the above. Especially with regard to cases where flights were making smaller vertical changes, the NAT ATMG expressed concern that timing issues would render the more complicated monitoring schemes ineffective, because of the time required to set up the various contracts, combined with the time required for the various messages to travel between the ground system and the aircraft. The Group concluded that NAT ATMG concerns were unfounded. A separate working paper depicting the various possible scenarios for monitoring vertical compliance of climbing or descending aircraft was further discussed by the Group (paragraph 5.5. refers).

2.27 The Group noted the ATMG request that the IMG clarify the intended applicability of RCP240 in operational trial for the implementation of Reduced Longitudinal Separation Minimum between ADS-C equipped aircraft in the NAT Region. Some States would not be able to justify investments to change systems to support the implementation of the minimum on a trial basis, unless it could be determined the existing communications infrastructure in the NAT would meet RCP 240, or that meeting RCP 240 was not required in order to participate in the trial.

Other developments

2.28 The Group was informed that the Terms of Reference of the Aeronautical Communications Group (ACG) were amended by NAT SPG/44 and now the ACG will be reporting to the NAT IMG. In this regard it was proposed and agreed that the review of the ACG reports should be included on the future FIG meetings agenda.

2.29 The Group was presented the conclusions of the analysis of one week HF communication carried out by Shanwick Radio with the aim to determine the reason for continued increase in voice traffic despite of the data link implementation. The analysis revealed that a high number of missing data link messages, in the interface areas in particular, was one of the contributing factors to the continuous increase in voice traffic. The Group agreed that FCMA should be informed and information should be sought on the specific occurrences when voice reports were required due to missing data link messages and whether these occurrences were linked to the specific operator or aircraft.

2.30 The second contributor was the unnecessary use of voice reports, often to cross check the data link carried messages.

2.31 The Group also noted that there was a requirement in the NAT GM for radio operator to instruct crew that voice reports are not required when it was known that aircraft was data link capable. The Group

document.doc


recalled that this provision was included in the guidance material in view of ongoing data link trial. However as the system matured and confidence was built up in the use of data link, this requirement has become obsolete. Therefore it was agreed that this requirement shall be deleted from the NAT GM (paragraphs 4.3.8, 4.3.9, 4.10.2, 4.10.4, 4.10.5 and 4.10.6 of the DL GM refer). The amendment will be included in the 18 th

Edition of the NAT GM and circulated to the Group for comments via e-mail.

3. Ongoing monitoring of various data link trials

EVALINK progress report

3.1 The Group was presented the main lessons learnt by France DGAC/DSNA from the technical evaluation of continental CPDLC services provided in the Air Traffic Control centre of Reims within the EVALINK programme framework during the first three months of 2008. The Group noted that EVALINK gave valuable input to the French full scale CPDLC requirement in terms of safety case and interesting feedback for future validation cases in the mid and long terms. The Group noted the performance assessment feedback provided in the paper, specifically in regard to the excessive round trip delay as measured for FANS equipped aircraft. The Group thought that more detailed data could be useful for further analysis. The author of the paper will make the requested material available to the Group.

4. Report from the NAT FCMA

IGA registration website

4.1 The Group was informed that FCMA had been working with the Assessment Compliance Group to launch a ‘registration’ website for FANS services for individual International General Aviation (IGA) crews to use. The website is still in Beta phase but is available for review to ascertain suitability for the FCMA to use as a registration base for GA aircraft. The Group was invited to login to the website using the following login ID; Username =‘idavies’, password = ‘jayne’. The URL for login is - URL: http://www.aviationmanuals.com/nat_ats.

4.2 The Group was informed that the intention was to provide a separate page for CPDLC registration in the near future.

4.3 The Group agreed to utilise the proposed registration website as a valid method of registering IGA aircraft. Consequently it was agreed to make an amendment to the NAT GM under section 2 to publish the web address and guide IGA operators to use the site for registering with FCMA. Also the GM would need to be amended accordingly. The Group agreed that the proposed change will be incorporated into the 18 th

Edition of the GM and circulated for comments by e-mail. In developing new material the Group agreed that attention should be paid to the requirement that all operators be afforded the same treatment.

4.4 Furthermore, the Group was informed that aircraft not registered with the FCMA database were rejected from the data link service by the Shanwick ATS system. The Group recalled that there was a previous FIG decision on applying the filtering of non-registered aircraft and the NAT GM included a specific requirement that an operator must register with the FCMA database in order to be able to participate in the trial and consequent operations. The Group felt that this requirement was no longer valid due to the increased maturity of the system and the previous FIG decision should be lifted. The member for the United Kingdom took an action to investigate feasibility and implications of removing of this feature from the Shanwick system.

ADS-C and CPDLC usage

4.5 The Group recalled that there was an action from FIG 17 to provide the actual CPDLC usage vs ADS WPR usage to define the separation of the services following the addition of ADS only aircraft to the

document.doc

http://www.aviationmanuals.com/nat_ats


NAT fleet. A working paper was presented to the Group providing the CPDLC vs ADS-C percentage results for the last three months.

4.6 The Group noted that percentage of both ADS and CPDLC flights for Shanwick was about 36% of total traffic. The Group noted that the United Kingdom will continue to provide this statistics to the following FIG meeting, The Group also agreed that it would be useful if every ANSP could provide their own statistics on the percentage of ADS-C and CPDLC flights in their respective FIRs on a monthly basis for the following 12 month time period. IATA will also verify availability of this information with their members through the IATA survey process.

GA MET

4.7 The Group recalled that there was an action from FIG 17 to ascertain the accuracy of ADS WPR derived MET reports from the approved IGA aircraft against standard FANS-1/A fleet. A working paper was provided for the Group containing monitoring statistics for the IGA aircraft for April 2008 that were obtained from the United Kingdom MET office.

4.8 In reviewing the presented material the Group noted that no further action was required as the UK MET office was filtering the data according to data credibility parameters and extraordinary data was not used to help build the actual and forecast weather data models.

Future of FCMA

4.9 Further the Group discussed the future role of the FCMA and noted the existing difficulties with providing the FCMA funding. Currently, the FCMA service is provided by Canada and the UK but regional funding would need to be seriously considered. In this respect the Group pointed out the increasing importance of the FCMA and its role in monitoring the communication system performance. The Group agreed that the issue would need to be brought to the attention of the NAT IMG.

5. Examine ways and means to enhance the use of data link technologies

ADS-C OFF/On Status

5.1 The Group was presented a working paper describing that ADS contracts may fail to be setup because the Aircraft ADS application was set OFF by crew. The paper proposed to use the phraseology recommended in the FANS1/A Operational manual (FOM) §7.3.4.2 Loss of ADS-C to mitigate this possibility:

Controller Confirm ADS armedPilot Roger

5.2 In concluding the discussions the Group agreed to amend the NAT GM with the proposed phraseology. The amendment will be included into the draft NAT GM version 18 and coordinated with the ATMG and FIG members via e-mail before the publication.

Use of active flag

5.3 The Group was presented a working paper discussing the potential diagnostic benefits of using the Active Flag component of AFN logon messages to distinguish between crew-initiated and ground commanded (i.e. prompted by an FN_CAD message) logons. The Group’s members were encouraged to implement this in the next routine software upgrade.

Complex Boundary Transfers

document.doc


5.4 A working paper was presented exploring issues associated with FANS-1/A connection transfers, especially in complex situations involving more than two ground systems. The paper included a model sequence of transfer actions to be completed under all such circumstances and invited the Group to agree that FANS system behaviour should be modelled according to the presented sequence of events. The Group agreed in principle to this and noted that at least one centre (Gander) was not transferring CPDLC to Reykjavik if the flight was planned to later re-enter Gander CTA. Furthermore the Group agreed that the newly-established AIDC Task force should further refine the sequence of events described in the paper in preparation for its implementation.

The use of ADS-C for conformance monitoring

5.5 A working paper was presented where NAT ATMG requested clarification regarding some ADS-C features in the light of the plan to use ADS-C event contracts for vertical conformance monitoring. The Group’s answers are included at Appendix C to this report.

Statement of IATA

5.6 An IATA statement was noted by the Group endorsing any improvement that can be made using the current ADS system, encouraging the use of ADS to reduce separation and encouraging the implementation of the Dynamic Airborne Route Planning (DARP) procedures in the NAT Region.

Use of CPDLC for route clearances to destination without discontinuities

5.7 The Group noted that there was no progress on determining if CPDLC can be used to issue route clearances to destination without discontinuities. The Group recalled that this was the task on the work programme. A member for the United States agreed to investigate whether an update could be provided to the next meeting. Other members of the Group will also explore this issue.

CPDLC message set

5.8 A working paper was presented discussing safety issues arising from misinterpretations of standard CPDLC message elements containing the words “AT”, “BY” and “EXPECT” and the need to rely on CPDLC free text to convey some standard messages used in the NAT Region.

5.9 The Group noted that to address this concern the NAT ATMG recommended additional text be included in the NAT GM to clarify the meaning of most of the CPDLC message elements containing “AT” or “BY” (paragraph 9.1 refers).

5.10 The Group was invited to provide information and recommendations regarding possible ways and means to update, on a global basis, the explanations for messages containing the word “AT” or “BY”; and update the FANS 1/A message set.

5.11 On the first issue the Group thought that the proposed explanations would need to be included into the NAT GM, FOM and consequently into the GOLD developed material. The member for the US agreed to take up this work. Furthermore, the amendment to Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA)/European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) documents and ICAO Doc 4444 might be required. The Group also noted that ACG will be reviewing the voice phraseology to ensure consistency with data link and explanations provided by the ATMG on the meaning of the messages that contain a word AT or BY.

5.12 On the second issue, the Group thought that updating the FANS1/A message set was prohibitively expensive for existing types of aircraft. It might be theoretically possible for the new types but the realistic timeline for standardisation and integration would be too long. That would lead to the situation where by the

document.doc


time the updated FANS1/A message set could be implemented it would be already overtaken by the development of the new message set to meet 4D trajectory management operational requirements.

5.13 In any case, the Group felt that if such updates were indeed required then a cost/benefit analysis should be done describing the benefits of such measure, risk analysis, number of occurrences and probability of misunderstanding caused by the use of the messages containing a word AT or BY. The Secretary will coordinate this issue with the ATMG.

5.14 In the meantime the Group felt that other solutions could be considered to address the issues raised by the ATMG. For example, the linguistic issues could be resolved by providing some on-board automated support to the crew and improving training for the flight crew.

Implementation plan for the use of ADS-C event contracts for the vertical conformance monitoring

5.15 The Group reviewed the Appendix D to the report (Table of the NAT Data Link implementation dates) and provided timelines for the implementation of automation for the Altitude Range Event Contracts to be used for the vertical conformance monitoring.

6. Optimise communications services

HF Optimization

6.1 The Group noted that the current line of action to cope with an increase in HF voice traffic was twofold. First was to allocate additional frequencies to HF stations that could be used without any investments in new equipment. Second one was to reduce the number of HF messages. The second activity included investigation on how to eliminate or reduce the missing data link messages, loss of data link connectivity on the boundaries, investigating the cases when a data link equipped aircraft for one or another reason would not use data link etc. It was believed that resolving these issues alone would take at least 5-10 % off the load from the HF system.

SATCOM Voice implementation for routine communications

6.2 The Group recalled the NAT SPG/44 conclusion on the need to develop a SATCOM Voice for routine ATS communications implementation plan. The Group was informed that all ground system were already SATCOM Voice equipped. The issues related to security and priorities were outside of the Group’s remit since they were of the global nature.

6.3 The Group noted that components of the implementation plan would include development of procedures and documentation, publication of AIP amendments and/or AICs and amendment to Regional Supplementary Procedures (SUPPS) (Doc 7030). Procedures and documentation were basically available as a result of the SATCOM Voice Task Force (SVTF). Therefore the next critical step would be to produce the amendment to Doc 7030 to enable the SATCOM voice for routine ATS. The Group felt that IMG should task an appropriate group with the development of the procedures and of the proposal for amendment to Doc 7030. The Secretary will coordinate this issue with IMG.

6.4 The Group recalled that the use of SATCOM voice for routine ATS to support MEL relief was within the purview of the States and would be dealt with by them (para 2.16 refers).

Status of the Global Operational Data Link document (GOLD)

6.5 A working paper providing a status of the global operational data link document was presented to the Group. It was noted that two packages were distributed among the GOLD points of contact. These packages included a description of the work program, terms of reference and work practices, and some assessments on

document.doc


existing standards, procedures, and guidance material. Preliminary assessments of the following areas have been conducted:

Performance-based criteria to support the development of communication service agreements, the provision of air traffic services supported by data link, aircraft certification, operational authorizations, and performance monitoring;

Performance data collection, monitoring, analysis, and results;

Use of CPDLC application, including a review of the CPDLC message set, use of free text, and emergency message;

Comparison of the content of the NAT GM, the FOM, DO-306/ED-122, and ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS/ATM).

6.6 An annotated outline of the GOLD was provided to the Group. The Group noted that, given resources available, it was expected that an initial draft of the GOLD will be available by January 2009 for coordination by the GOLD points of contact. A more mature draft for a broad review could be available as early as July 2009.

6.7 In agreeing to the annotated outline for the GOLD as the basis for the scope and content for further development, the Group pointed out that the priority should be given to the merging of the existing material in the NAT GM and FOM. A new material could be added at the later stage if required. It was also suggested that a “Voice procedures” section should be added in to the GOLD. The Group agreed to include the AFN addresses/ATSU designators in the GOLD documentation.

6.8 Furthermore the Group examined whether the GOLD should also include material on the continental LINK2000+ implementation. The Group noted that the attachment to the GOLD - CPDLC Reference Guide did already include references to the ATN B1 messages set. However, the Group agreed that the first goal was to merge in the global document the NAT DL GM and FOM. The Link 2000+ message set would also be included. The document will be open for further updates, including developments in continental data link applications.

6.9 Finally, the Group members were invited to contribute to this work as availability of human resources was crucial to the timely advancing and completing the task on the global data link operational document. The Group discussed how the work of the GOLD group could be supported by electronic means of communication and suggested that Google groups forum could be utilised for this purpose. The Group noted a statement from IATA supporting efforts to harmonise the regional guidance material into the global document.

7. Planning and Implementation of performance based communications

Monitoring FANS1/A performance against Oceanic SPR Standard

7.1 The Group was presented a working paper containing the results of an analysis of SATCOM data link performance in the New York oceanic airspace. The paper demonstrated that as measured against the surveillance and intervention capability requirements of Required Communications Performance (RCP) 240 most airline/airframe pairs fail to meet the continuity requirements for communication and surveillance. Additionally, the paper discussed the data collection and analysis methods used to develop these performance metrics.

7.2 The Group noted that only intervention type of uplink messages that required a WILCO/UNABLE response were monitored. The technical portion of communication performance (ACTP) was approaching

document.doc


compliance with RCP240. However, flight deck response performance was below the continuity requirement.

7.3 The Group noted the performance metrics for data link operations within the New York Oceanic FIR and agreed to continue to collaborate with other regions via the GOLD Ad Hoc Working Group to develop a standardized reporting format for pertinent data points for each data link transaction, based on DO-306/ED-122.

7.4 The Group thought that availability of the common FANS message decoder software would be of benefit for everyone for the purpose of monitoring. The Group was informed that Iceland was in possession of such software and the member for Iceland will look at the possibility of providing it to the Group.

7.5 The Group was provided with an update on the FANS1/A system performance monitoring development carried out by Airways New Zealand. An overview of observed FANS1/A system performance in 2008 for the Auckland (NZZO) Oceanic Flight Information Region was also presented. The Group noted that observed system performance was approaching RCP240.

7.6 A working paper was presented to the Group highlighting the importance of the regional coordination to ensure that FANS1/A monitoring data can be easily aggregated in order to calculate overall performance indicators and assess system performance at a regional and global level. The Group was cognizant that some ANSP were collecting data and monitoring FANS1/A CPDLC RCP and ADS latency using the performance requirements defined in DO306 Oceanic SPR. In this regard standardizing data collection requirements to enable automated data collection systems to be implemented without subsequent rework would be of interest. The Group was invited to collaborate with other regions via the GOLD Ad Hoc Working Group to develop a common interface control document specifying regional performance monitoring, reporting, and data transfer requirements for the FANS1/A data link using the DO-306/ED-122 Oceanic SPR.

7.7 It was further noted that monitoring requirements should be determined and a timeline established as a priority for when the NAT ANSPs would implement data collection mechanisms in their ground systems. These requirements should be coordinated with the United States and New Zealand. The timeline for implementation of monitoring was of concern since Annex 11 required post implementation monitoring of communication services to meet safety targets.

Performance Standard Template

7.8 A working paper was presented proposing a performance specification template for specifying performance-based criteria for communication and surveillance capabilities supporting ATS functions.

7.9 The intended uses of performance-based criteria are mainly to support:

Safety oversight of air traffic service provisions and operations;

Agreements/contractual arrangements that air navigation service providers and aircraft operators make with their respective communication service providers;

Operational authorizations, flight crew training and qualification;

Design approval of aircraft data link systems; and

Operational-monitoring, analysis, and exchange of operational data among regions and States.

document.doc


7.10 A flimsy was provided in connection with this paper containing RCP specifications. The Group was informed that the Rapporteur of the Group was the NAT coordinator in the GOLD Group and any request to update the document could be coordinated through him.

7.11 The Group agreed to the concept of developing a template for global use in specifying performance-based criteria for the functional and performance characteristics of communication and surveillance capabilities supporting an ATS function; and consider this paper as a starting point for the GOLD Ad Hoc Working Group to progress its development and coordination.

Compliance assessment with ED122/DO306

7.12 A working paper was presented informing that the United States completed an analysis of the Ocean 21 system to determine the level of compliance with the requirements of DO-306/ED-122 Oceanic SPR standard that allocates a number of safety requirements to the Air Traffic Service Provider (ATSP) ground systems. The FAA determined that the Ocean 21 system was not compliant with SR-9 and SR-15 requirements. The Group noted that a software change proposal to correct the first issue was submitted and was scheduled for operational release in February 2009. A software change proposal to rectify the second issue was submitted but no date for implementation of this change was set.

7.13 The Group was informed that Ocean 21 was partially compliant with SR-14 requirement relating to an indication to the controller when a read back is not received within ETTRN. A software change proposal was submitted but no date was set for implementation yet. This software change proposal constituted a long term solution that would differentiate between RCP400 (ET TRN is 370 sec) and RCP240 (ET TRN 210sec).

7.14 The Group was presented with the results of the similar assessment carried out by Canada and the United Kingdom. The paper concluded that GAATS/SAATS/GAATS+ were non compliant on SR-15 requirement. However the Group agreed that SR-15 need not apply to downlinks, so there is no safety impact.

7.15 A flimsy was provided by Iceland informing that an analysis of the Reykjavik FANS system to determine the level of compliance with SR requirements was completed. The analysis determined that the Reykjavik FANS system was not compliant with SR-1 and SR-14 requirements and was partially compliant with SR-5 and SR-15. All the requirements will be met in the 1st quarter of 2009.

7.16 The Group noted the results of the compliance assessments and ongoing work to comply with these requirements. The Group members were invited to report the progress to the next FIG.

RCP240 in support of reduced longitudinal separation

7.17 A working paper was presented proposing an approach for implementation of RCP in support of 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation implementation. The Group noted an intention to begin in December 2009 an operational trial of 5 minutes between ADS-C pairs in the Gander and Shanwick OCAs. The Group recollected that the NAT IMG had determined that, in the absence of an approved RCP standard for the NAT Region, the communications requirements defined by RCP 240 would be used, and that it would be necessary to ascertain that the satellite communications infrastructure could meet the requirements, which would be developed on the basis of the definition of RCP 240.

7.18 The Group felt that implementing RCP 240 as a pre-requisite for implementing 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation could have a cross-benefit in the institutional sphere by providing an extra performance margin above the immediate requirement for safety and efficiency. Such a margin would support some confidence that safety and efficiency would not be critically impacted in the case of the performance degradation.

document.doc


7.19 The Group felt that to support the 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation implementation a pre-operational trial using current separation minima should be conducted with the purpose of collecting and analyzing data, testing new procedures and new FDPS functions. This pre-operational trial could also support quantifying the communication performance required.

7.20 In view of the above the Group agreed that subject to clarification by IMG of the applicability of RCP240 during the operational trial (para 2.27 refers) the following recommendations should be forwarded to the appropriate group within IMG:

a) That 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation should be operationally implemented post-trial only if data link communications service has met RCP 240 over the preceding 12 months during an operational trial as proposed by ATMG/32;

b) That the same criterion be applied for resuming 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation operations after suspension for reason of unsatisfactory communications performance, as per e) below;

c) That the 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation operational trial should continue for 12 months and include statistical analysis of separation changes between ADS-C equipped flights following on same track and flight level (whether separated using 5-minutes or normal minima), and that the FIG prepare a report on the frequency and magnitude of changes that occurred per flight leg. This would provide a data base to enable a NAT 5 minutes reduced longitudinal separation specific analysis for RCP. Any FIRs not supporting trial 5-minute separation minima could participate using only existing minima;

d) That the FIG use the operational trial results to estimate what margin would exist between the performance required for safety on one hand, and RCP 240 on the other;

e) That the IMG consider applying any such margin as mitigation against the hazard risk from performance degradation below RCP 240; and

f) That consideration should be given to developing provisions to be applied when the actual communications performance falls below RCP240 specification. This would progress the draft implementation plan for data link RCP.

7.21 The Secretary will coordinate this issue with SARSIG and ATMG, and inform IMG.

Proposed Changes to RTCA DO-258A

7.22 The Group was provided with information on suggested changes to RTCA DO-258A/EUROCAE ED-100A, Interoperability Requirements for ATS Applications Using ARINC 622 Data Communications (FANS 1/A INTEROP Standard). These changes improve FANS 1/A operations related to logon correlation and the media selection criteria the communication service providers (CSPs) use to deliver messages. The Group provided inputs to enhance the text of the suggested changes and supported them. The Group noted that the proposed changes will be further presented to other regional groups and then advanced to the RTCA. In this regard, the Group was informed that if there is any need identified to update RTCA or EUROCAE documents then the process how to do it is fully described on the RTCA and EUROCAE website.

RCP implementation plan

7.23 The Group recalled the NAT SPG/44 conclusion on the need to develop an RCP implementation plan with the view to mandate RCP by 2015. With the aim to save the resources the Group decided that the best way forward would to reuse the Draft Data Link RCP Implementation plan as was presented to the RCP Task Force. The Group would maintain the appropriate sections of this plan that are relevant to the NAT and provide timelines and regular updates. The Group members were invited to provide their inputs to the plan

document.doc


for FIG/19. The Group noted that as an outcome of this meeting, action items 66 and 67 of the plan have been addressed (para 7.20 refers).

8. Data Link Initiatives for the North Atlantic Region

Use of Iridium/Inmarsat avionics

8.1 The Group was presented with the experience gained by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation on resolution of the interference problems caused by the dual installation of the Iridium and Inmarsat SATCOM avionics. The Group was informed that with the proposed measures implemented no interference was observed. The Group noted that the industry needs solid timeline for regulatory approvals to commit investments in development of an installation. However, the Group felt that it wasn’t necessary to wait for the completion of the RTCA work to commence the operational trial. The Group pointed out that the development of the dual Iridium/Inmarsat SATCOM avionics was a very important step forward to ensure the communications system redundancy and reliability. The Group also recommended that the outcome of the presented work should be reported to the ICAO ACP as it was studying the Iridium/Inmarsat interference related issues. The Group noted a statement by IATA about encouraging the use of FANS 1/A over Iridium.

Update on Inmarsat

8.2 The Group was presented with an overview of the latest developments by the Inmarsat. In particular the Group noted that 2 new I4 capable GESs will be commissioned in April/May 2009 by Inmarsat. The new GESs will provide enhancement in the SATCOM monitoring capability. An operational trial was scheduled in the spring of 2009 to test these GESs and the Group members were invited to provide assistance required to carry out bench tests for the trial.

FANS 1/A over Iridium and satellite voice

8.3 The Group was provided with an update on the FANS1/A over Iridium (FOI) and satellite voice communications work being done by the FAA-sponsored Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s Communications Working Group (PARC CWG). The Group noted that these projects include operational trials and, based on favourable results, the PARC CWG will develop recommendations for the FAA. These recommendations will be in regard to the FAA policies and enabling criteria on the use of the Inmarsat and Iridium satellite networks for data and voice communication supporting air traffic management (ATM).

8.4 The Group noted that the satellite voice project was specifically investigating Inmarsat and Iridium satellite voice communication capabilities to determine their viability as an FAA-approved long range communication system (LRCS). If satellite voice can be FAA-approved as a LRCS, the MEL could be changed to allow dispatch with one satellite voice communication system and only one HF radio system, when two LRCS are normally required. The Group noted that the PARC CWG was looking for more than just a temporary relief and a permanent replacement of one HF radio system with a satellite voice system was a target.

8.5 The Group noted that the PARC CWG recognizes that global harmonization is crucial to the success of any State or regional implementation initiative and that the PARC CWG prepares Coordination Drafts for broad review and solicits input on such matters of interest to the aviation community.

8.6 The Group noted that the next meeting (PARC CWG/17) is planned for February 3-4, 2009, in Livermore, California. The Group was invited to contact either Arnold Oldach ([email protected]) or Tom Kraft ([email protected]) for more information on PARC CWG activities or to comment on the Coordination Drafts.

ARINC satellite service update

document.doc

mailto:[email protected]



8.7 The Group was presented with an update on the progress achieved by ARINC on seamless integration of the Iridium. The Group noted a steady growth in the number of Iridium voice and data traffic. The ARINC was supporting the RTCA efforts on accommodating Iridium as the Safety Services and was working with AEEC to develop the Iridium messaging format. The Group noted that Iridium FANS trials were scheduled for the spring 2009. In this regard support of the Group members might be required if part of the trial takes places in the NAT airspace.

9. Data link Guidance material

NAT Data link Guidance Material

9.1 The Group noted that NAT ATMG/32 reviewed the NAT Data Link Guidance Material version 17b. A change proposal was produced by the ATMG and presented to the Group. In reviewing the proposal the Group felt that using a word “unsafe” in paragraph 5.20.1 of the GM was not appropriate. A new proposed wording will be integrated in to the draft NAT GM Version18 and circulated for comments with the view to publish before IMG/33.

9.2 Furthermore, the Group agreed that the notion of “unsupported downlink message” was appropriate since the PANS/ATM CPDLC message set includes UM162 [MESSAGE NOT SUPPORTED BY THIS ATS UNIT]. Therefore the Group agreed to take up a task to clarify the NAT GM by the time of the next FIG meeting and noted that the Secretariat would also clarify this matter with other groups.

Guidance material for operational authorization and aircraft certification of data link systems

9.3 The Group was provided with information on the status of the Federal Aviation Administration (US) (FAA)’s guidance material for operational authorizations and aircraft certification of data link systems.

9.4 The Group noted that this guidance material will be used as a reference in the development of global operational data link document. The Group also noted a table of aircraft and ATS units capabilities descriptors that was provided in the paper. The Group noted that these descriptors would facilitate the specification of airspace requirements related to data link and filing flight plans and thought that it would be useful to consider its inclusion into the GOLD. The Group was invited to contact Moin Abulhosn ([email protected]) for more information or to provide comments on draft FAA AC 20-140A; and contact Bob Tegeder ([email protected]) for more information or to provide comments on draft FAA N 8000.A056 and the AC 120-70B development.

10. Updates to the NAT Service Development Roadmap

10.1 The Group was presented the NAT Service Development Roadmap as updated by ATMG/32. The Group provided its inputs to the document which is at Appendix E. The Group noted that the United States will be providing a consolidated separate input.

11. Any other business

Future work programme

11.1 The Group agreed to recommend to the NAT IMG that the FIG’s work programme should be concentrated within the following:

a) monitor operational data link services;

b) update an implementation plan to use ADS contracts to enhance conformance monitoring capabilities;

c) plan for the expansion of data link services;

document.doc




d) update the implementation plan for the use of RCP in the NAT Region;

e) participate in the GOLD development;

f) update the NAT ICD and NAT GM as required;

g) develop a draft communications strategy for the NAT Region;

h) determine if CPDLC can be used to issue route clearances to destination without discontinuities; and

i) Provide inputs to regional safety management.

Follow up action list

11.2 The Group updated its follow up action list, which is at Appendix F.

Next meeting

11.3 The Group agreed to recommend to the NAT IMG that NAT FIG/19 be held in Savannah (Georgia, United States) from 02 to 06 March 2009.

Report to NAT IMG/33

11.4 On the basis of the tasks dealt with by NAT FIG/18 and considering its proposed work programme, it was agreed that the following should be brought to the attention of NAT IMG/33:

a) Existing difficulties with funding FCMA and the need for a region wide financing (paragraph 4.9 refers);

b) The implementation plan for the use of ADS-C for vertical conformance monitoring (paragraph 5.15 refers);

c) A need to develop a SUPPS amendment proposal as a critical step to enable SATCOM for routine communications (paragraph 6.2 refers);

d) Recommendation on the way forward in regard to 5 minutes reduced longitudinal and associated RCP240 implementation (paragraph 7.20 refers);

e) Progress on RCP implementation plan (paragraph 7.23 refers);

f) Endorse the proposed NAT FIG work programme (paragraph 11.1 refers); and

g) Agree that NAT FIG/19 be held in Savannah (Georgia, United States) from 02 to 06 March 2009 (paragraph 11.3 refers).

document.doc

NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions A-1

Appendix A – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

(Paragraph 1.2 refers)

CANADA

Mr Norm DIMOCK#

FRANCE

Mr Frédéric LECAT*

ICELAND

Mr Leifur HAKONARSON*

Mr Heimir HOLMARSSON

Mr Olafur VALSSON

IRELAND

Mr Barry GRIFFIN

PORTUGAL

Mr Jose CABRAL*

Mr Gilles PELLETIER

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Iain BROWN

UNITED STATES

Mr Tom KRAFT*

Mr Rick PROSEK

Mr Daniel VACA

ARINC

Mr Eric HARRELL

IATA

Mr Mark HURSTON

IBAC

Mr Bill BOUCHER

Mr Jerry METTES

Mr Dave SHERRINGTON

ICCAIA

Mr Christophe CASSIAU-HAURIE(Airbus)

Mr Michael E. DEY (Boeing)

INMARSAT

Mr Gary COLLEDGE

SITA

Mr François BARDIN

ICAO

Mr Jacques VANIER

Mr Elkhan NAHMADOV

Ms Patricia CAVISTON

* Member# Rapporteur

document.doc


LIST OF CONTACTS

State/Organisation Name Telephone Mobile number E-mail

CANADA Norm DIMOCK +1 613 563 5621 [email protected]

Tom COLE +1 613 248 7158 [email protected]

Dave ROWLANDS +1 709 651 5206 +1 709 424 4101 [email protected]

Bob SIMPSON +1 709 651 5215 +1 709 424 2184 [email protected]

FRANCE Frédéric LECAT +33 562145940 +33 562145518 [email protected]

ICELAND Leifur HAKONARSON +354 4244206 +354 8957020 [email protected]

Heimir HOLMARSSON + 354 4244327 +3548223535 [email protected]

Olafur VALSSON +354 8950195 [email protected]

IRELAND Terry DEEGAN +353 6136 6082 +353 872830963 [email protected]

Patrick TARRANT +353 6136 6212 +353 876679207 [email protected]

Harry O’LOUGHLIN +353 6170 3803 [email protected]

Peter NOLAN +353 16031162 [email protected]

NORWAY Raymond INGEBREGTSEN [email protected]

PORTUGAL Jose CABRAL +351 296 820510 +351 917338871 [email protected]

Gilles PELLETIER +1 514 636 6365 +1 514 9775157 [email protected]

UNITED KINGDOM

Tim MURPHY +44 1292 473371 [email protected]

Iain BROWN +441292 692644 [email protected]

Iain DAVIES +441292 473379 +447827448754 [email protected]

document.doc


















A-4 NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions


UNITED STATES Daniel VACA +32 2 508 2732 +32479976925 [email protected]

Tom KRAFT +12023692168 [email protected]

Richard PROSEK +1 202 385 4576 [email protected] Eric HARRELL +1 4102662060 +14105624605 [email protected]

Pete HENSCHKE +1 410 266- 4639 [email protected]

Duane LIGHTY +1 631 244-2480 [email protected]

Gombatista Jumper LEGGIO +16312442485 +16313653346 [email protected]

IATA Peter CERDA +13 052 667 552 [email protected]

Mark HURSTON +1 703 572 7060 [email protected]

Kieran O’CARROLL [email protected]

Rick SHAY +1 303 807 1793 [email protected]

IBAC Jerry METTES +16024363831 [email protected]

Dave SHERRINGTON +19129961153 [email protected]

Bill BOUCHER +16132365611 [email protected]

IFALPA Mark SEAL +1 631 472 4652 [email protected]

Carole COUCHMAN [email protected]

INMARSAT Gary COLLEDGE +44 20 7728 1243 [email protected]

Roshani DHARMASIRI +44 20 7728 1403 [email protected]

SITA François BARDIN +33 1 46 41 14 09 [email protected]

Damien McCORMACK +442087568148 [email protected]

AIRBUS Jean-François BOUSQUIE +33 5 61934704 [email protected]

Christophe CASSIAU-HAURIE +33 5 62 11 05 25 [email protected]

BOEING Dung NGUYEN +1 425 717 7052 [email protected]

document.doc



















Rob MEAD +1 425 373 2684+1 2539518447

[email protected]

Michael E. Dey +14252942512 [email protected]

EUROCONTROL Jose ROCA +322 729 3297 [email protected]

Martin ADNAMS +32 27293328 [email protected]

ICAO Jacques VANIER +33 1 4641 8524 [email protected];

[email protected];

Elkhan NAHMADOV +33 146418529 [email protected]

Chris DALTON +1 514 954 8219 – x-6710 [email protected]

document.doc









NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions B-1

Appendix B – LIST OF DOCUMENTATION


Working Paper Agenda Item Title Presented by

1 1 Draft Agenda Secretariat

2 4a) Use of ADS to enhance conformance monitoring capabilities for safety management Secretariat

3Rev 4 Proposed wording for notifying an aircrew to check ADS status Airbus

4 4c) Use of Active Flag Iceland

5 6 c) Compliance assessment with DO 306/ED 122 United States

6 6 DO-306/ED-122 Compliance Assessment Results United States

7 5c) Status report on the Global Operational Data Link Document United States

8 6a) Performance Specification Template United States

9 8a) Updates to the NAT Data Link Guidance Material Secretariat

10 4c) CPDLC message set (FANS 1/A CPDLC) Secretariat

11 6 Monitoring CPDLC RCP and ADS-C latency New Zealand/United States

12 6b) Implementation of RCP for 5 min reduced longitudinal separation Canada

13 9 Updates to the NAT Service Development Roadmap Secretariat

14 4c) Complex Boundary Transfers Iceland

15 6a) RCP Implementation plan Secretariat

16 3 Update on ADS-C% vs CPDLC% United Kingdom

17 6c) Compliance assessment with DO 306/ED 122 United Kingdom

Information Paper

Agenda Item Title Presented by

1 Tentative Work Schedule Secretariat2 1 NAT SPG44 follow-up Secretariat

3 7b) PARC CWG Initiative, FANS1/A over Iridium and Satellite Voice Communications United States

4 8 Proposed changes to RTCA DO258A/EUROCAE ED 100A FANS 1/A INTEROP Standard United States

5 8 Guidance material for operational authorizations and aircraft certification of data link systems United States

6 2c) Evalink lessons learnt France

7 1 Latest developments Secretariat

8 6 Monitoring of RCP and ADS-C latencyNew

Zealand/United States

9 3 Assessment compliance website United Kingdom

document.doc

B-2 NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions

Information Paper

Agenda Item Title Presented by

10 3 GA MET United Kingdom

11 5a) Shanwick Radio Message Analysis Portugal

FLIMSIES

Flimsy 1 4a) Use of ADS to enhance conformance monitoring capabilities for safety management Secretariat

Flimsy 2 6c) Compliance assessment with ED 122 Iceland

Flimsy 3 7 Iridium – Avoiding Inmarsat Interference IBAC

Flimsy 4 6 RCP Specification United States

Flimsy 5 7 Update on satellite reposition (14 to 13 transition in AOR(W) Inmarsat

Flimsy 6 7 Integration & Test for I4 GES Classic Aero Services Inmarsat

Flimsy 7 7 Update on FANS Satcom Improvement team Activities Inmarsat

Flimsy 8 5 Appendix 27 UIT Portugal

Flimsy 9 7 ARINC Satellite Service Update ARINC

REPORTS

Report of NAT FIG/17 Secretary

Report of NAT ATMG/32 Secretary

Report of NAT IMG/32 Secretary

Report of NAT SPG/44 Secretary

document.doc

Appendix C - ADS-C Q&A

(paragraph 5.5 refers)

ADS-C Q&A

Technical questions1. Can more than one event be included in a single ADS-C event contract? Yes. For Example an Altitude Range <need to use the correct ED100A term> event and a Lateral Deviation Change event. For example, would a vertical conformance contract that demanded a report if the aircraft descended below FL328 or climbed above FL332 be considered one contract or two? An Altitude Range event specifies both a ceiling and a floor.

2. If more than one event can be included in a single ADS-C event contract, can the events be of different types? Yes. In fact they must be of different types. For example, would it be possible for a single contract to demand a report if the aircraft climbed above FL332 or strayed from the cleared route by 5nm or more? Yes. a single event contract can provide a report if the aircraft climbs above FL332 or descends below FL328 or strays from the cleared route by 5nm or more, etc..

3. Are there a maximum number of events that can be specified in a single ADS-C event contract? There can be one of each type of event (Vertical rate Change, Altitude Range, Waypoint Change, Lateral Deviation).

4. Are there a maximum number of ADS-C contracts that can be in place at any one time? If yes, what would be the effect if the maximum number of contracts was in place and another event contract or a demand report was requested? An aircraft will support one Event contract, and one Periodic contract with each ground system (up to 5 ground systems at the same time). An aircraft supports I event, 1 periodic and 1 demand contract with each ground system. A request from a 6 th unit would be rejected. A new request from a ground system that already has a contract of the same type (Event, Periodic) will replace the existing contract of the same type.

5. When an ADS-C event report is sent, what information is included in the report? Are there options regarding the information that can be included? All event reports contain the Basic data group (ATA, Lat, Long, Alt, FOM). Waypoint change event reports contain the Predicted Route data group as well (Next position/ETA and Next+1 position). There are no options.

6. Is it possible to cancel an ADS-C event contract? A ground system can cancel its ADS-C event contracts. Except for the Waypoint Change, event contracts cancel themselves after one report. E.g. After the aircraft sends an Altitude Range event report, it will not send another to the same ground system until that ground system again requests an event contract that specifies the Altitude Range event. Waypoint Change event contracts persist until terminated by the ground system – one report each time the Next (go-to) waypoint is passed or the Next or Next+1 waypoint is changed by the crew.

7. If a lateral deviation event contract were in place which demanded a report if the aircraft strayed from the cleared route by 5nm or more, what would be the effect if the flight crew changed the route in the Flight Management System (FMC)? The aircraft would only transmit an ADS report, if the flight crew changed the route in the FMC to where the aircraft’s actual position and the FMC active flight plan was greater than the lateral deviation threshold. The lateral deviation event is triggered when the absolute value of the lateral distance between the aircraft's actual position and the aircraft's expected position on the FMC active flight plan is greater than the lateral deviation threshold. What would be the effect if the flight crew was flying a programmed offset from the cleared route? When the aircraft is flying an offset path, a Lateral Deviation event will be triggered if an Event contract containing the Lateral Deviation Event is active, and the offset distance is greater than the Lateral Deviation Threshold. The report will be generated at the time the offset is activated. What would be the effect if

3

B-4 NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussionsthe flight crew was flying in “heading mode”? In heading mode the lateral deviation report is triggered if the aircraft leaves the buffer set by the lateral deviation contract.

Costs to aircraft operators

8. Some of the scenarios being considered involve setting up numerous ADS-C event contracts. Is there a cost to aircraft operators to set up an ADS-C event contract, even if no report is ever triggered as a result of the contract?.Yes, it will cost 1 uplink and response message to set up 1 event contract. However, any single event contract can be set up to cover many types of events.

9. If it is possible to cancel an ADS-C event contract, would there be a cost to aircraft operators to do so? Yes. The cost of one uplink and response message.

10. The NAT ATMG has agreed that the Mach number should be included in ADS-C reports. Is there an additional cost to operators for including additional information in ADS-C reports? Periodic report can contain Air Reference data group including mach number. This adds to the size and cost of the reported downlinks.

Vertical conformance scenarios

11. The NAT ATMG considered various possible ways of using ADS-C event contracts to detect when or if certain things were occurring with regard to a climbing or descending flight. There were some concerns regarding the possibility that timing could reduce the effectiveness of some conformance monitoring. For example, if a small altitude change were involved, would it be possible that some reports would not be received or it would be impossible to avoid an unnecessary report because the aircraft had already passed the “trigger point”? Reports will be received as needed because an aircraft will provide an AR event report if it is out of the ceiling/floor specified at the time the contract is set up. Therefore, if the contract is set up after the aircraft left the altitude band the report will be still received.

document.doc

NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions C-1

VERTICAL CONFORMANCE MONITORING SCENARIOS

Scenario 1 – detect when aircraft is close to a newly assigned level

What type of ADS-C event contract would be needed in order to elicit the “FL338” report? Altitude Range with ceiling at FL338

Considering the amount of time that is required to establish an ADS-C event contract, is this scenario technically feasible in the following circumstances?

a) the “FL338” contract is requested BEFORE the climb clearance is given; That would replace the existing FL332 ceiling too soon, so you wouldn’t soon learn when the aircraft had climbed from FL330. So not feasible. (The question would not have arisen if it were understood that there can be only one ceiling and floor in effect at a given time.)

b) the “FL338” contract is requested AFTER the climb clearance is given; or

Ditto. Not Feasible.

c) the “FL338” contract is requested AFTER the “FL332” report is received. Feasible.

But what we need to do is wait for the FL332 report, then set the floor to FL332 and ceiling to FL338, wait for the FL338 report, then set the floor to FL338 and ceiling to FL342.

What would be the effect if the aircraft were already above FL338 BEFORE the “FL338” contract was established? The report would be triggered once the contract request was received.

Would it be possible to cancel the “FL332” contract so that the “FL332” report would not be sent?

if the request to cancel the contract were made BEFORE the climb clearance was given; or

Yes.

if the request to cancel the contract were made AFTER the climb clearance was given.

Yes

Would it be possible to have in place a “FL328 or FL332” contract at the same time as a “FL328 or FL338” contract? No. Only one altitude range (ceiling and floor) can be in effect.document.doc

FL330

200 feet

FL340

ADS-C:Aircraft FL338

200 feet

200 feet

Voice or CPDLC:Request flight level 340


C-2 NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions

If so, what would be the effect if the aircraft descended through FL328? (N/A)

document.doc


Scenario 2 – detect a level bust

Considering the amount of time that is required to establish an ADS-C event contract, is this scenario technically feasible in the following circumstances?

Again, what we need is to wait for the FL332 report, then set the floor to FL332 and ceiling to FL338, wait for the FL338 report, then set the floor to FL338 and ceiling to FL342. Any voice or CPDLC messages have no effect on aircraft ADS reporting, and we do not need to link them. Then the following questions would not need to be addressed.

a) the “FL342” contract is requested BEFORE the climb clearance is given; As per a) in scenario 1...

That would the existing FL332 ceiling too soon, so you wouldn’t soon learn when the aircraft had climbed from FL330. So not feasible. (The question would not have arisen if it were understood that there can be only one ceiling and floor in effect at a given time.)

b) the “FL342” contract is requested AFTER the climb clearance is given; As per b) in scenario 1 ...

Ditto. Not Feasible.

document.doc

Voice or CPDLC:Request flight level 340

200 feet

200 feet

FL330


FL340200 feet


200 feet


Voice or CPDLC:Leaving FL330


c) the “FL342” contract is requested AFTER the flight reports leaving FL330, via voice or CPDLC; Feasible. Leave floor at FL330 (don’t put it at FL332 or it would risk triggering because the aircraft may still be below FL332. No ADS report will occur at FL332, but not need because you have the Leaving report.

d) the “FL342” contract is requested AFTER the “FL332” report is received; or

Must refer to a FL332 Floor. No good. First you need a FL342 ceiling.

e) the “FL342” contract is requested AFTER the “FL338” report is received. That’s the right thing to do, as above.

document.doc


Scenario 3 – vertical conformance contract

With regard to a vertical conformance contract (in this case, a report is demanded if the flight climbs above FL362 or descends below FL358):

a) if the flight descended below FL358, triggering a report, would another report be sent if the flight subsequently climbed above FL362? After the FL358 report, the contract is not re-triggerable. You would need to set up a new one with a floor at say FL356 and a ceiling at FL362.

NOTE: The relative timing of the level change and setting up event contracts is not a cause for concern - each contract will be responded to even if the condition requiring the response has been satisfied PRIOR to the contract being set up. This means that if the hypothetical aircraft in scenario 1 has already reached FL340 when the band FL332-338 is set up, it will immediately send down a report. The only difference that a delay in setting up the contract will have is that the aircraft will, in the downlinked report, presumably not report at FL338 (as it would have had the contract been set up earlier) but at the new cleared level of FL340 (or some intermediate level between FL338 and FL340) It is worth noting that since event contracts cancel themselves after issuing the event report (except for the waypoint change event), it is cheaper to allow them to fire (one downlink) than cancelling them (uplink/response)!

– END –

document.doc

FL360

200 feet

200 feet

Voice or CPDLC:Maintaining FL360

NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions D-1

Appendix D – TABLE OF NAT DATA LINK IMPLEMENTATION DATES AS OF OCTOBER 2008


Implementation Operational cut-over

ADS Waypoint & Met. Reporting

Gander & Shanwick Jan 2001 Reykjavik Aug 2001 Santa Maria Oct 2001 New York Sep 2003 Bodø Mar 2004

Local ADS New York Jun 2005 Gander Santa Maria Shanwick

Feb 2005Dec 2006Nov 2006

CPDLC NAT Phases 1 & 2

Gander & Shanwick Nov 2002 Reykjavik Apr 2005

Full implementation New York Mar 2003

NAT Phase 3 Gander & Shanwick Dec 2003 Santa Maria Dec 2006

NAT Phase 4 Gander Jan 17 20081

Shanwick Jan 17 2008 Reykjavik Jan 17 2008 Santa Maria Jan 17 2008 Bodø TBD

Special cases Shannon (uplink SSR Code &

frequency)1 Q 2011

FMC WPR Bodø 2Q 2005 Gander Nov 25 2004 New York Reykjavik 2Q 2006 Santa Maria Nov 25 2004 Shanwick Nov 25 2004

Local FMC Santa Maria Apr 2007

OCL Voiceless operation

Shanwick Nov 1996 Gander Santa Maria Reykjavik

May 2006Sept 20072Q 2009

Automation of Altitude Range Event Contract

1 Route clearances may not be operationally applied except in New York OAC

document.doc


Bodø Gander Software test

completed/ implementation in Dec2009

New York TBD Reykjavik Winter

2009/2010 Santa Maria TBD Shanwick Winter

2009/2010

Automation of Lateral Deviation Event Contract Bodø TBD Gander TBD New York TBD Reykjavik TBD Santa Maria TBD Shanwick TBD

document.doc

NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions E-1

Appendix E – Service Development Roadmap(Paragraph10.1 refers)

NAT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP

Suggested changes have been indicated as follows: shaded for insertions and strikethroughs for deletions. Highlighted text is included to provide additional information regarding some changes or to request input from the NAT IMG. This text is not suggested for inclusion in the roadmap; it is provided only to assist in reviewing the changes suggested by the NAT ATMG. Green shading has been applied to that part of the roadmap that lies in the past.

NAT Service Development Roadmap as endorsed by NAT SPG/43 – Suggested amendments by NAT ATMG/32

Date Ground System Development

Ground System Sustainment

Safety Analysis Operational Development

Equipage requirements

Equipage Usage level

Operational milestones

2004 SAATS development

Q3 - Analysis of Mach no technique safety impact

Q2 – Development of Mach number procedures

30-32% of position reports by ADS2

25% of flights using CPDLC3

FMC WPR trials begin in Shanwick, Gander and Santa Maria

ADS-C commended in Bodo OCA.

2005 Definition of required aircraft capability for reduced longitudinal

Agreement on mandating of data link by 2015

NAT IMG agrees to adopt distance based approach to accommodate future capacity demands

40% FANS/ATN equipage4

Q2 – CPDLC Phase 1 and 2 in Reykjavik

ATOP Ocean21 operational in Q2 2005

2 NATS/NAV CANADA operational monitoring statistics3 Ibid.4 NAT FIG/7 – IP/5 Datalink Initiatives for the NAT Regiondocument.doc

Appendix E-2 NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions








2005 AIDC connectivity completed between BIRK-CYQX

2006 To be carried out by the United States so as to amend Doc 7030

Q2 – conduct a feasibility study to introduce RNP 10 in WATRS.

2005 AIDC connectivity between KZWY-LPPO

2006 Feasibility study for change of NAT airspace from MNPS to RNP

Development of future data link standard, ATN or other

Q3 – SAATS O’ date

FMC WPR trials begin in Reykjavik

2006 Develop a safety case to sustain moving from an operational trial to operations for data link applications

Consider the feasibility of the application of elements of ASAS

Reykjavik – begin feasibility study of ADS-B surveillance

CPDLC Phase 3 implemented in Santa-Maria

Q4 2006

document.doc









2007 AIDC connectivity between CYQX-LPPO

Note: Moved to 2008

Develop safety case for GNSS-based 5 minute climb-through separation

2007 Shanwick - Boundary clearance error detection

Note: Moved to 2008

Mutual Gander-Prestwick Contingency capability

Determine the RNP required to support a reduction to ½ degree lateral separation taking account of the gentle slope rules.

Develop safety case for a reduction to ½ degree lateral separation taking account of the gentle slope rules.5

Note: Moved to 2008 and modified to refer to 25nm lateral separation

Develop safety case for reduced time-based longitudinal separation (E.G. < 75 mins between ADS-C pairs)

Q4 CPDLC Phase IV implementation

5 The lateral and longitudinal dimensions have been split and will be documented separately

document.doc









2008 Confirm FDPSs ability to accommodate a reduction to ½ degree lateral separation taking account of the gentle slope rules and reduced time-based longitudinal

Modify FDPS’ for GNSS-based 5 minute climb-through separation Note: Moved to 2009 and modified to refer only to Canada and United Kingdom

Develop procedures for practical application of RNP based lateral procedures for 25nm lateral separation { ½ degree track spacing taking account of the including revised gentle slope rules } (2008/09).

Develop procedures for reduced time-based longitudinal separation (e.g. < 7 mins5 mins between ADS-C pairs)

Develop procedures for GNSS-based 5 minute climb-through separation

Commitment to mandating RNP to support a ½ degree track spacing (taking account of the gentle slope rules) between F285 to F415 from 2012 Note : Moved to 2009 and modified to refer to 25nm lateral separation and to account for need to develop agreed boundaries for application

6040% of communications via ADS, CPDLC, FMC WPR6

6 Projection from NATS/NAV CANADA operational monitoring statisticsdocument.doc









2008 Shanwick - Boundary clearance error detection (December)

Reykjavik:

Implementation of:

a) Route- and altitude conformance monitoring on radar.

b) Waypoint reporting from radar to FDPS.

c) Integration of Radar and flight plan data on a new Situation Display System.

d) Integration of the SUM radar into the radar system.

e) Replacement of the Fareos radar.

AIDC connectivity between CYQX-LPPO (May)

Reykjavik:

Implementation of an enhanced FDPS backup and recovery capability.

Determine the RNP required to support a reduction to 25nm lateral separation

Develop safety case for a reduction to 25nm lateral separation – taking account of the operational concept

(2008/09)

ATSA-ITP Climb/Descent procedure development

ATSA-ITP In-Trail Climb/Descent trials

NAT SPG endorsed SATCOM voice for routine ATS communications

Implementation of RNP10 in WATRS Plus airspace (5 June)

document.doc









2009 NATS – NAV CANADA HIPS O’ date Note: This project is no longer planned.

United Kingdom & Canada, - Modify FDPS’ for GNSS-based 5 minute climb-through.

Reykjavik -Implementation of an ED-106A compliant Oceanic Clearance Delivery system.

Modify FDPS for application of ADS based reduced separation

Trial implementatin of 5 minutes between ADS-C pairs in the Gander and Shanwick OCAs (possible that others will join)

Shanwick to implement ability to combine planning and enroute control in one sector (resource efficiency improvement)

Commitment to mandating RNP to support 25nm lateral separation within defined lateral and vertical boundaries from 2012

Implement GNSS-based 5 minute climb-through separation – January 15, 2009

Reykjavik:

Implementation of GNSS DME-like longitudinal separation in VHF DCPC environment.

(Reference PANS-ATM section 5.4.2.3)

Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, and United Kingdom –implementation of GNSS based 5 minute climb-through.

document.doc









2009 Develop cost/benefit analysis of distance-based longitudinal separation - balancing greater staffing levels and system requirements against enhanced flexibility. (Needs to be confirmed by NAT IMG)

GAATS Plus (October)

AIDC between New York and Gander

Implement ATN based ADS/CPDLC (subject to ADG deliberations)Note: move to 2012 and modify to refer to OPLINK rather than ADG .

Assess possible implementation of RNP4 in WATRS Plus airspace

Limited implementation of ½ degree track spacing (taking account of the gentle slope rules) between FANS aircraft operating between F285 and F415 (E.G. extra tracks or subset of levels).Note: Moved to 2010 and modified to refer to 25nm lateral separation.

Operational Trial of ADS-B in Northern Gander OCA (November)

document.doc









2010 GAATS plus/SAATS hardware rehost?convergence

Develop safety case for distance-based (tactical) longitudinal, separation taking account of the conceptual shift involved. (needs to be confirmed by NAT IMG)

50% of communications via data link (FANS, FMC, ATN)7(To be re-assessed)

Operational trial of RNP based 25nm lateral separation

2011 Modify FDPS systems for application of distance-based longitudinal separation (Needs to be confirmed by NAT IMG)

Develop procedures for distance-based longitudinal separation (needs to be confirmed by NAT IMG)

WATRS Plus airspace exclusionary for RNP10 or better

Implementation of RNP (is a GNSS time source sufficient?) based reduced time-based longitudinal separation (E.G. <= 7 mins) between FANS aircraft between F285 and F415to be assessed based on outcome of 5 minutes between ADS-C pairs trial

7 Projection from report of HF Regression Task Forcedocument.doc









2012 Implement ATN based ADS/CPDLC (subject to OPLINK deliberations) – dependant upon European mandates and demand in the NAT Region

RNP to support ½ degree lateral separation (taking account of the gentle slope rules) mandated in NAT Region between FL285 and FL 41525nm lateral separation in defined areas

Full implementation of RNP based on ½ degree track spacing (taking account of the gentle slope rules) separation between FANS 25nm lateral separation in a defined geographical/vertical areaaircraft between F285 and F415.

2013 RNP distance-based longitudinal separation implemented between F285 and F415 (Needs to be confirmed by NAT IMG)

2014

document.doc









2015 Free flight concept and procedure development commences

Data link communication mandated in the NAT Region where deemed beneficial

Full implementation of RNP based 25nm lateral separation in NAT Region

2016

2017

2018 Analysis of impact of airborne separation monitoring on FDPs

2019 ASM development

2020 50% ADS-B-in equipage

2021 Analysis of ASAS impact on FDPs

Analysis of ASAS safety impact

Airborne separation assurance procedure development

document.doc









2022

2023 Airborne separation assurance trials

2024

2025 ADS-B-in mandated

Airborne separation assurance

– END –

document.doc

NAT FIG/18 – Summary of Discussions F-1

Appendix F – FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST


ID # TASK ID WHO WHEN X-REF

18- 1 Provide a response to the ATMG on the issues identified in para 2.23-2.26 and WP02, 09 and 10

Secretary ASAP para. 2.23-2.26

18-2 Inform FCMA on a high number of missing data link reports Secretary ASAP Para 2.29

18-3 Investigate a feasibility and implications of removing filtering function at Shanwick ATC United Kingdom FIG19 Para 4.4

18-4 Collect statistics on ADS-C and CPDLC % in the respective FIRs on a monthly basis during next 12 month

ANSPs, IATA FIG/19 para.4.6

18-5 Bring future FCMA funding issue to the IMG attention Secretary IMG/33 para. 4.9

18-6 Study the ADS OFF cases ANSPs, IATA FIG/19 para. 5.2

18-7 Implement use of active flag in the next routine system upgrade(optional) ANSPs FIG/19 para. 5.3

18-8 Complex boundary transfers. AIDC implementation plan AIDC TF FIG/19 para. 5.4

18-9 Update on implementation progress of automation for the altitude range event contracts to be used for the vertical conformance monitoring

ANSPs FIG19 Para 5.14

18-10 Provide support to the GOLD GOLD POCs FIG/19 para. 6.7

18-11 Investigate availability of the FANS message decoder software Iceland, United States

FIG/19 para. 7.4

18-12 Provide an update on ED120/DO306 compliance assessment ANSPs FIG/19 para. 7.15

18-13 Recommend the IMG on the way forward in regard to the implementation of the reduced longitudinal separation and associated RCP240

Secretary IMG/33 Para 7.19

18-14 Provide inputs to RCP implementation plan ANSPs FIG/19 Para 7.22

document.doc


ID # TASK ID WHO WHEN X-REF

18-15 Include amendments into the draft GM Version 18 and circulate to the FIG and ATMG members for final comments. Final publication before IMG/33

Secretary, Editor 30.10.08 Para 9.1

18-16 Provide updates on the FDPS readiness to support 5min reduced longitudinal separation ANSPs FIG/19 para. 10.1

- END –

document.doc