International Business Aviation Council (IBAC)
Communication Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)
Advisory Group (AG)
THIRD MEETING
(Brussels, Belgium 03 - 04 December 2008)
1 Introduction
1.1 The Third Meeting of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) Communications Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management Advisory Group (CNS/ATM AG) was convened with the principal objective of continuing the work of the Group. The meeting was held at the Headquarters of Eurocontrol in Brussels, Belgium, 3-4 December 2008 and included a tour of the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU).
1.2 The CNS/ATM AG focused on the following items:
a) review and input to the CNS/ATM AG Guidance Material;
b) reports and updates from FIG 18 and ATMG 32;
c) CNS/ATM related presentations and tours;
d) continued discussion on and input to the IBAC CNS/ATM AG Future Equipage Matrix;
e) updates on the web based sites for the CNS/ATM AG; and
f) status of outstanding issues in the CNS/ATM AG IOU action list.
1.3 The Mr. Bill Boucher chaired the meeting. He opened the meeting with his welcome remarks and noted that due to circumstances beyond their control, some members of the AG could not attend this meeting.
1.4 Mr. Boucher thanked Mr. Pedro Vicente Azua, Manager European Affairs, European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) for his assistance in arranging meeting facilities for the group at the Eurocontrol Headquarters.. He had also facilitated the arrangements with the Eurocontrol management for a couple of guest speakers at the CNS/ATM AG3 meeting.
1.5 Mr. Boucher noted the assistance of the EUROCONTROL staff; including Mr. Sam Parkin, Manager,Stakeholder Relations, Corporate Communications& External Affairs, and Ms. Conchi de Benito, External Relations(DG/ER), Office of the DirectorGeneral for their help in setting up the meeting room for the group as well as providing all requested services.
1.6 Mr Brian Bowers was the Secretary for the meeting.
1.7 Lists of participants and of contacts are at Appendix A.
1.8 The Group then adopted the following agenda in no particular order:
a) Reports – FIG and ATMG;
b) CNS/ATM AG input and participation;
c) CNS/ATM AG Guidance Material document;
d) Presentations and tour;
e) CNS/ATM on the web;
f) CNS/ATM – News and Views;
g) IBAC members equipage;
h) Action Plan;
i) Next meeting; and
j) Any other business.
- Agenda Review and Update
2.1 During the review and agreement on the agenda items it was noted that one of the prime objectives of this meeting would be an action plan on how to provide a “CNS/ATM equipage requirement roadmap” to the membership. This has been an outstanding item and the group needed to get a handle on the future requirements to enable the roadmap to be put forward to the business aviation audience.
2.2 The chairman noted that a couple of programs which are already available have been investigated to date and would be discussed later in the meeting and should facilitate the work.
2.3 Although the minutes of the CNS/ATM AG2 were not reviewed, a question arose from the minutes concerning the implementation of ADS-B in the Hudson Bay area of Canada.
2.4 The question concerned initial altitudes of applicability within the airspace. It was confirmed NAV CANADA will likely be implementing ADS-B initially from FL350 to FL400 inclusive.
2.5 The expectation is that there will be sufficient ADS-B equipped aircraft flying through the Hudson Bay airspace by November 2009 to allow Canada to declare the airspace from FL350 to FL400 inclusive exclusionary.
2.6 A comment was put forward by one of the aircraft manufactures representatives during the discussion on ADS-B concerning specifications and requirements differences between Europe and Canada. It was noted that it is difficult for OEMs, aircraft manufacturers and operators to know what specifications to meet for State requirements as Europe appears to be more stringent than NAV CANADA.
2.7 NAV CANADA will accept Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) DO 260/260A and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) “Acceptable Means of Compliance” (AMC) 20-24 specifications as noted in the Transport Canada Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-009 Issue 1.
2.8 It was pointed out that NAV CANADA at their ADS-B website location has ADS-B publication links.
2.9 They have also published a fairly simple but thorough brochure (NAV CANADA ADS-B Brochure) about the Hudson Bay ADS-B Implementation and as previously noted Transport Canada have promulgated an AIC.
2.10 Concern was expressed that the lack of equipment availability and potential exclusionary problem for Business Aviation may be significant. First the ADS-B equipment for Business Jets is not available. Secondly the certification process is not available for Business Aviation and thirdly there is a concern about lack of global standardization of ADS-B operational and certification requirements.
2.11 The AG expressed their concern that information to operators on how and where to proceed on items such as ADS-B approvals is not explicitly available to the average operator.
2.12 The issue was discussed at length and the group agreed that effective action would be required to alleviate this situation.
2.13 The chairman noted that ICAO has started, in coordination with Transport Canada, NAV CANADA and with the cooperation of the Canadian Business Aircraft Association (CBAA), a task to standardize the process of using global inter-operational specifications and/or Letters of Authority (LOAs).
2.14 The intent is to have an ICAO standardized format that could be used internationally to present “Ops Specs” and authorities in a manner which would satisfy criteria if being rate checked or asked to verify compliance.
2.15 The discussion is in the preliminary stages but is continuing and in fact is an agenda item for a forthcoming meeting on the 6th of December.
2.16 The CNS/ATM AG chairman will contact Transport Canada and NAV CANADA to discuss these issues and to see if they would be interested in providing presentations and/or representation to the next meeting (CNS/ATM AG 4).
- Reports/Group Representation
3.1 IBAC has a number of representatives who participate on IBAC’s behalf within the international community. Previously the AG had requested that each representative provide a technical report to IBAC and reports that affect CNS/ATM implementation should be reviewed at the AG meetings.
3.2 With this in mind, the chairman provided a summary of activity which had taken place during the FIG 18 meeting. Extracts from the actual FIG 18 reports of note to the CNS/ATM AG are included here for reference.
3.3 The chairman noted the positive input business aviation technical representation has provided to the FIG meetings. He also noted the positive gain for the IBAC technical representatives attending the meetings.
3.4 The Fig 18 had noted that the NAT SPG strongly supported the initiative to use automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) for safety related conformance monitoring and that the NAT IMG was tasked to develop an implementation plan.
3.5 The FIG was also aware of the NAT SPG conclusion to amend the NAT GM to incorporate the Performance Based Communications Guidance Material for Air Traffic services data link applications as developed by the NAT SPG Task Force on RCP.
3.6 The NAT SPG conclusion on the development and publication of common performance based data link guidance material with the initial draft to be produced by December 31, 2008, was noted by the FIG.
3.7 In the same vein, a conclusion to develop an RCP implementation plan for the NAT Region with the aim to mandate RCP by 2015 was also noted.
3.8 The endorsement for the migration to the use of Satellite Communications (SATCOM) voice for routine communications was noted by the FIG. An implementation plan, taking account of the need to amend documentation, identify dependencies and ensure it is adaptable for global use, would need to be developed and a report provided to NAT SPG/45.
3.9 The question of Minimum Equipment List (MEL) relief will be considered by the FIG, acknowledging, however, that any decision on MEL relief was contingent on the decision to use SATCOM voice for routine Air Traffic Services (ATS) communications and was subject to approval by State authorities.
3.10 The FIG had noted the NAT ATMG agreement to take action within their respective jurisdiction to modify ground systems so as to request the aircraft speed (Mach number) to be included in ADS-C reports.
3.11 The additional information could be valuable in compiling the data necessary to develop safety cases to support reduced longitudinal separation and could possibly be used to monitor conformance to assigned Mach number.
3.12 The views of the FIG had been requested on whether there were any possible extra costs involved for providing this information. The FIG had noted that Mach number could be in the periodic report only and not in the event report and there should not be any substantial additional costs incurred.
3.13 The FIG had been provided with information on the status of the Federal Aviation Administration (US) (FAA)’s guidance material for operational authorizations and aircraft certification of data link systems. The Group noted that this guidance material will be used as a reference in the development of a global operational data link document (GOLD). The Group also noted a table of aircraft and ATS units’ capabilities descriptors that was provided. The Group noted that the descriptors would facilitate the specification of airspace requirements related to data link and filing flight plans.
3.14 The secretary provided a brief summary of the ATMG/32 meeting noting areas relevant to the CNS/ATM AG.
3.15 The ATMG 32 had noted the Data Link Steering Group has completed its work and has been disbanded. The steering group’s proposed Data Link Harmonization Strategy has been included in the new edition of the NAT SPG Handbook.
3.16 The ATMG 32 considered that In the event reduced separation was being applied using data link, it might not be possible for ATC to establish another form of separation in the event of a loss of data link capabilities. It is unknown whether the existing HF voice infrastructure would be sufficient to cope with a reversion to voice communications without instituting Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) measures even if SATCOM voice were available.
3.17 Contingency procedures will therefore be developed for loss of data link in one or more of the NAT Oceanic Control Areas (OCA) and to examine the feasibility of reverting to voice procedures in the event of a data link failure. The development of such procedures has been added to the ATMG work programme, along with the development of procedures to ensure that flight crews are provided information related to Satellite Communication service outages.
3.18 The use of SATCOM voice for routine ATS communications has been endorsed. The provisions in the NAT SUPPs would seem to limit the use of SATCOM voice to emergency and non-routine situations. However, individual States are empowered to conduct their own assessments and approve the use of SATCOM voice for routine ATS in their areas of responsibility if they chose to do so.
3.19 Version 18 of the NAT Data Link Guidance Material will be published during the first half of 2009.
3.20 The Phase IV CPDLC implementation is proceeding well and some Gulfstream aircraft have qualified to participate in NAT ADS-C WPR operations in accordance with success criteria detailed in the NAT Data Link GM.
3.21 The Group was reminded of the State action requested to collect information on wake vortex encounters.
3.22 The ATMG 32 noted the NAT Data Link Guidance Material will be amended to include additional text providing a cautionary and more precise explanation of the intent of uplink message elements that contain the words “AT” or “BY”. Operational experience has shown that those message elements are most likely to be misunderstood by flight crews. It is therefore of utmost importance that flight crews know the meaning of the words “AT” and “BY” in CPDLC communications.
3.23 The ATMG 32 agreed the finalized draft document of the NAT Operational Contingency Plan will be presented to the NAT IMG for their approval. Following approval it will be maintained as an electronic document by the EUR/NAT Office of ICAO and be available on the ICAO NAT PCO website.
3.24 The CNS/ATM AG 3 agreed that representatives to the working groups should meet by teleconference prior to each new meeting whenever possible. This would facilitate each representative being versed on topics of specific interest to the business aviation community.
3.25 Mr. David Stohr represents IBAC on the NAT implementation management group (IMG). He briefed the CNS/ATM AG on the last IMG meeting and noted the changes to the NAT working groups’ structure that will be happening as a result of the recent NAT SPG symposium on NAT reorganization.
3.26 A new group on a management level with the Economic Forecast Group (EFG) and the IMG reporting to the NAT SPG will be formed as the Safety Oversight Group (SOG).
3.27 The new SOG will oversee the Safety Management Coordination Group (SMCG) which reviews and actions mitigation of Gross Navigation Errors (GNEs), vertical errors and ATC interventions to prevent errors.
3.28 The FIG will also be renamed the “NAT CNS working group” and will acquire more responsibility to reflect its role within the North Atlantic. It will now take on the Navigation aspect of separation standards.
3.29 The NAT IMG also revised the NAT roadmap to include mandatory equipage of data link in the NAT by 2015. This would be in line with the European Implementing rule on equipage.
3.30 He noted there is a review ongoing to locate information on previous decisions made on when to declare developing systems as fully “operational”. This declaration of a system being “operational” would eliminate the requirement for business aircraft to be registered with the FCMA as participants in the operational trial.
3.31 CPDLC Phase IV is fully implemented and should now be declared as an operational system. State of registry approval should be all that is required to use CPDLC and/or ADS-C however this is not the situation.
3.32 The technical reports are attached as Appendix D and are also available on the websites
- Advisory Group Membership
4.1 The AG discussed the composition of the group’s current and future membership as well as possible future guests and presenters. The AG is not an exclusive or by invitation only group.