Terrain and Obstacle DatabasesWorking Group (TOD WG)
ADQ implementation workshop
Alexandre PetrovskyEurocontrol
28 May 2013
2
TOD WG Objectives
Facilitate and coordinate TOD implementation in ECAC taking into account operational requirements and applications
Collate, analyse and identify causes of difficulties arising during TOD implementation in the States
Develop and recommend action to resolve these difficulties
Advise EUROCONTROL (AIM/SWIM Team) and ICAO on TOD implementation.
3
eTOD – ICAO standards
Area 3 = Aerodrome/Heliport (Recommendation)
Area 4 = CATII/III RWY (2008)
Area 1 = State (2008)Area 2 = TMA (2015)
4
Status of implementation of TOD in ECAC
www.eurocontrol.int/prisme/atmatlasviewer.html?mapCode=eTOD
5
Status of TOD Area 1 and 4 implementation
TOD Area 1 (2008) :Checks: Availability Terrain datasetBlue: Availability Obstacle dataset
TOD Area 4 (2008):Dark Green: CompletedYellow: PartialGrey: No CAT II/III RWY
6
• Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) / Minimum Safety Altitude Warning (MSAW)
• Instrument Flight Procedure Design
• Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control systems (A-SMGCS)
• Aeronautical Charts / On-board DB
• Flight simulator, obstacle management
• Synthetic Vision System
Implementation drivers
7
Needs of operators
8
TOD requirements in ADQ IR
Article 2 Scope1. …It shall apply to the following aeronautical data and aeronautical
information:a) …
b) electronic obstacle data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States;
c) electronic terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States;
d) …
2. This Regulation shall apply to the following parties:a) …b) …;
c) public or private entities providing, for the purposes of this Regulation:
…iii) electronic terrain data; and iv) electronic obstacle data
9
10
Example Area 1 obstacle dataset completeness
Area 1 obstacles collected prior to TOD requirements,
published in ENR 5.4 “Air Navigation (En-Route)
Obstacles”
Difficulties obtaining metadata for obstacles existing
prior to TOD
Options: Don’t provide – no metadata Provide – caveat for missing metadata
User perspective: “better to have something ratherthan nothing”
TOD WG conclusion: obstacle datasets for Area 1 (the minimum being the data published in ENR 5.4) could be provided with clear documentation on missing/unknown values and with a statement about associated liabilities.
11
Example Area 1 obstacle dataset
12
Other issues related to ADQ
Providers outside aviation area Terrain/Obstacles datasets
provider: National Geodetic Agency Military authority
Number of data originators for obstacles
Terrain data set format No common format defined TOD WG action: Compile a list
of user and provider preferences for terrain data formats
13
Terrain dataset format: TOD WG analysis
Analysed formats: GeoTIFF, DTED, USGS DEM, ESRI Grid, ASCII Grid, Raw binary, ASCII XYZ, City GML, Shape, TIN etc.
None fully met ISO 19100 series requirements as required by ICAO and ADQ
But, all formats could be used by the existing GIS for the exchange of data.
Next-intended user’s preferred format: GeoTIFF & Metadata
14
Summary
TOD implementation advances in ECAC
Identified issues related to ADQ : Reluctance to ‘make available’ TOD due to additional ADQ
requirements better to have no data or partly compliant data? example with Area 1 obstacle completeness
ADQ requirements for non-aviation TOD providers ‘fit-for-purpose’ requirements?
Terrain formats User most preferred format
15
More information about TOD:
Website: www.eurocontrol.int/services/terrain-and-obstacle-data
Email: [email protected]