ADQ – An ANSP /AISP Perspective

1. ADQ – An ANSP/AISP Perspective Uroš Grošelj, Slovenia Control, Ltd.

2. Contents • Background • The ADQ Strategy for Slovenia • National Repository and the EAD • Progress to Date • Experienced Issues • Recommendations • Conclusions

3. Background • Slovenia Control started its ADQ implementation in 2010 • At first, meeting deadlines, it was considered as mission impossible • The first task was an Initial Assessment of the status: • Indicated that a lot of work was needed in some areas even though the Slovenia Control AIS considered itself to be mostly compliant with ICAO. • It was obvious from the assessment that an approach for the whole of Slovenia was needed: • For example, digital provision throughout the data chain. • As a result, an ADQ Strategy for Slovenia was developed. • Public tender for ADQ support (Mileridge Ltd.) • Work is now on-going to implement the strategy. • Initial plan to comply was 01 JUL 2015 • A number of delays have been experienced

4. The ADQ Strategy for Slovenia • The strategy for Slovenia has been developed to mainly address the technical needs: • How can information be passed throughout the data chain? • Also addresses some institutional issues: • How do we help small parties to comply? • How do the AIS and the NSA keep a better oversight of the planned changes? • How can we make an error reporting simple, whilst the needed statistics are maintained? • It was decided that a central repository of aeronautical data should be established in Slovenia: • Whilst fully supporting our commitments to the EAD. • This repository will be used by all parties to interact with and submit their aeronautical data: • Limits the true exchange of data.

5. The ADQ Strategy for Slovenia(2) • The repository will also provide workflow management: • The quality processes are defined within the tool and are therefore enforced. • This allows a high degree of control and helps with quality assurance of the data that is provided to the AIS for publication. • The strategy calls for a tool that may be accessed by anybody, anywhere, using the internet. • It will be hosted by Slovenia Control. • Cost sharing remains an issue!

6. National Repository and the EAD • The repository will be used to populate the EAD SDO database: • Probably using an ESI connection or EAD IFS • The EAD tools will then be used to create the eAIP,Charts, NOTAM... • NOTAM will continue to be prepared directly using the EAD INO Tool: • However, the same workflow management will be used to control the quality of the incoming NOTAM requests.

7. Progress to Date • Progress has mainly been slow but steady. • Several Workshops have been run • Delays have been experienced: • For example, approval of the strategy which was fundamental to most tasks. • Some delays result from the need to wait for NSA approval activities: • NSA very busy with a low level of resources. • Other are as a result of a lack of resources available within Slovenia Control.

8. Progress to Date(2) • However, some main achievements have been made: • Workflow management tool is now in place within the AIS and soon to be rolled out to other parties (AD Authorities and NSA first); • Agreement has been reached with the NSA on Means of Compliances to be adopted; • Work Instruction preparation started; • A framework conformity document has been prepared and agreed with the NSA. • DO Index created • Migration to the new AIP/eAIP tool (EAD apsXML) • eAIP adaptation (ID‘s changed) • DQR definition started for all data as per Article 6(1) and Annex IV, Part A • SLA update • others

9. Experienced Issues • The main issue that has been encountered is time: • Slovenia Control AIS has a small number of resources; • ADQ is an additional task which must be undertaken in parallel with normal day-to-day activities: • Formalisation of the current working practices takes time. • Lacks knowledge of ADQ and the competences that are required: • Digital exchange of data; • Software Safety Assurance; • Safety management; • Requirements specification; • Tool qualification;

10. Issues Encountered(2) • The second major issue is NSA involvement: • Again, this stems from a lack of available resource • NSAs have an ever increasing workload also. • The lack of coverage of the full data set within the Data Quality Requirements Specification is also an issue: • Not considered to meet the needs of ADQ: • Seems that the letter from the EC does not change the need for coverage / safety assessments: • The application of the DAL Specification is also a major task: • Needs to be carefully analysed and tailored to fit the organisation; • Seems to be more concerned with the safety relevance of any data than the safety impact of the process: • Being addressed in agreement with the NSA.

11. Recommendations • Undertake an initial assessment if you have not already done so: • You need to know where you are in order to know how to get where you need to be. • Get as much involvement from the NSA as possible: • Working as a team can really assist; • The AIS may need the NSA to support the provision of information to the AIS. • Understandthe pressures on the NSA: • The AIS is not the only function with too much to do. • Get an early agreements with the NSA: • Better than having problems later. • If you are undertaking a safety assessment of the Data Quality Requirements, use the draft list provided for consultation: • Include the consultation comments.

12. Recommendations(2) • Tailor the DAL Specification to suit your organisation: • Particularly necessary for small organisations. • Seek advice from people with experience of Software Safety Assurance. • Involve your quality, safety and security departments in the project. • Finally, make small steps towards full compliance: • To try and think about the whole project at once can be too big and can be overwhelming!

13. Conclusions • Meeting ADQ IR deadline, is still mission impossible • EC did not consider resources&knowledge required and available • AIS/AIM was always an ugly duck and little money was spent on it • This changed overnight and Management is not ready for that • Industry and EAD also not ready (AIXM mapping, business rules…) • ADQ IR requires moderate to high investment • but EC wants ANSP to reduce Route charges by 3,5%/year

14. Conclusions(2) • Our pragmatic deadline was/still is set to: 01 JUL 2015 • Available human resources are key to success of ADQ

15. THANK YOU