Conditions for Mandating Data Link Equipage

1. Conditions for Mandating Data Link Equipage Steve Zerkowitz - IATA

2. What is the IATA Data Link Facilitation Task Force? • Created by the NAT/NAM and EUR RCG to address airline data link implementation related issues and facilitate airline implementation plans • Chaired by KLM, airline members from both the US and Europe • Meetings attended also by communications service providers, ATS providers, Airbus and also ATM/avionics industry representatives • On the most important issues, the IATA DLFTF formalizes its position in Position Statements called POSTs • IATA DLFTF POST 4/1 addresses the conditions for mandating data link equipage • The IATA DLFTF is proposing to develop this POST into IATA policy in due course

3. Voluntary or mandated equipage? • The IATA DLFTF POST does not stipulate that data link equipage MUST be mandated • It only sets out the conditions to be observed if mandating is found to be required • It is the considered opinion of the IATA DLFTF that, in some regions, purely voluntary equipage will not result in a sufficiently high number of equipped aircraft by the time it is expected that ATS data links will become essential if traffic demand is to be met • The DLFTF is proposing a combination of mandate and incentives, set in the framework of well defined conditions, requiring commitment from both airlines and providers (ATS and Communications)

4. Advantages of a mandated scenario-1 • A known rate of equipage can be achieved at a pre-planned date • A well-chosen date enables good planning and orderly retrofit • Avionics manufacturers and airframers have something concrete to work to, resulting in better forward fit options • Equipment manufacturing can be adjusted to meet demand on a timely basis • ATM improvements dependant on, or connected to, data link capability can be planned with concrete implementation dates • Planning for ground system upgrades can be synchronized to a known capability date

5. Advantages of a mandated scenario-2 • The mandate can be made contingent upon commitments from service providers as well as airspace users • A system of rewards can be devised to benefit those who equip in advance of the mandate, thereby accelerating the process even further

6. What if there is no mandate? • Some airlines will equip early, others may hold off indefinitely • The process may slow down or stall completely • Nobody is really committed • ATS providers may wait for the airlines and vice versa • Nobody really benefits until very late in the process, if at all • Planning is very difficult with no real milestones to work to

7. Area of applicability • The DLFTF did not limit the area of applicability to any particular region • May be applied wherever conditions require (need for data link to increase capacity, uncertainty about achieving critical volume, etc.) • Waivers in respect of aircraft the retrofit of which is not economical, without having an adverse impact on the totality of the benefits. • Europe will probably require a mandate

8. Current Status • POST 4/1 approved by the IATA DLFTF • Approved by the IATA European Regional Co-ordination Group • Approved by the IATA NAT/NAM Regional Co-ordination Group • Approved by the IATA/AEA Joint User Requirements Group • Its aims and protocols supported also by the ATA Flight Systems Integration Committee • Submitted to the IATA Operations Commitee for adoption as policy

9. DLFTF Position Statement (POST4/1) "With due regard to the fact that voluntary equipage of aircraft with ATS data link capability is not expected to result in a sufficiently high ratio of equipped aircraft for real benefits to accrue at an early stage and mindful of the essential enabling role ATS data link will play in the quest for additional ATM capacity in the timeframe 2005 and beyond, the IATA DLFTF considers that:

10. - Aircraft ATS data link capability may be mandated in well defined areas/airspace volumes selected on the basis of an identified need for additional ATM capacity, covering designated aircraft operations in that airspace, on condition that: ·An appropriate independent cost/benefit analysis has been performed, showing a positive benefit to cost ratio for the whole ATM system; and

11. ·The minimum airborne & ground data-link capability is specified and agreed amongst all stakeholders prior to publication of the mandate; and • ·The capability is based on ATN and functionality defined in ICAO ATN SARPS or subset(s) thereof; and • ·ATN ground and airborne systems within the jurisdiction of the mandate are globally inter-operable; and

12. ATS systems serving the areas/airspace volumes where aircraft data link capability is to be mandated are enabled for data link use progressively, commencing not later than the publication of the mandate and achieving full capability and coverage not later than the date of the mandate; and A set of incentives for early aircraft ATS data link equipage (e.g. in the form of Service Level Agreements between aircraft operators and air traffic service providers, resulting in lower user charges for equipped aircraft) are implemented effective not later than the date of publication of the mandate; and

13. The time-scale from publication to the effective date of the mandate and associated certification material is not less than 5 years; and Appropriate arrangements are made for those aircraft, which cannot be economically equipped, ensuring however, that such arrangements do not adversely affect equipped aircraft (e.g. unequipped aircraft may be accommodated outside of the airspace volumes defined in the mandate).

14. Furthermore: - The date shall be chosen to coincide with the earliest time ATS data link capability may be considered as essential for supporting the proposed ATM improvements, but with due regard to the time needed by airspace users to meet the mandate in an orderly fashion.

15. - The mandate shall be published after having been processed via the normal route of generating new requirements, including those for certification, (e.g. ENPRM in the future in Europe) in a clear and unambiguous manner via an AIS instrument appropriate to the State(s) party to the mandate, and which carries the force of law. While an AIC may be published as the instrument of pre-notification, it is not considered as appropriate for publishingcompulsory requirements.”

16. Questions please…