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: alexandre.petrovsky@eurocontrol.int