ADQ – An ANSP/AISP Perspective

Uroš Grošelj, Slovenia Control, Ltd.ADQ Implementation Workshop,

Brussels, 29.05.2013

Contents

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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;

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.

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.

• Understand the 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.

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!

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

Conclusions (2)

• Our pragmatic deadline was/still is set to:

01 JUL 2015

• Available human resources are key to success of ADQ

THANK YOU