Terrain and Obstacle Databases Working Group (TOD WG)

1. Terrain and Obstacle DatabasesWorking Group (TOD WG) ADQ implementation workshop Alexandre Petrovsky Eurocontrol 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 1 = State (2008) Area 2 = TMA (2015) Area 4 = CATII/III RWY (2008) Area 3 = Aerodrome/Heliport (Recommendation)

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 4 (2008):Dark Green: CompletedYellow: Partial Grey: No CAT II/III RWY TOD Area 1 (2008) :Checks: Availability Terrain datasetBlue: Availability Obstacle dataset

6. Implementation drivers • 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

7. Needs of operators

8. TOD requirements in ADQ IR • Article 2 Scope 1. … It shall apply to the following aeronautical data and aeronautical information: • … • electronic obstacle data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States; • electronic terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States; • … 2. This Regulation shall apply to the following parties: • … • …; • public or private entities providing, for the purposes of this Regulation: … iii) electronic terrain data; and iv) electronic obstacle data

9. - electronic obstacle/terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States ICAO or ADQ?

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: alexandre.petrovsky@eurocontrol.int