MEETING MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-NINTH MEETING JOINT RTCA SPECIAL COMMITTEE 217 EUROCAE WORKING GROUP

Transcription

1 RTCA Paper No /SC EUROCAE Paper No. EUR /WG44-30 July 6, 2017 MEETING MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-NINTH MEETING JOINT RTCA SPECIAL COMMITTEE 217 EUROCAE WORKING GROUP th through 23 rd of June 2017 Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA - Hosted by Rockwell Collins Executive Summary RTCA SC-217 met jointly with EUROCAE WG-44 at Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, IA, USA from the 19 th through the 23 rd of June, The main objective of the meeting was to continue the revision of DO- 201A/ED-77. A working group session was held on the 19 th and 20 th of June aimed at progressing the work on the Data Quality Requirements, especially for aerodromes, navaids, instrument flight procedures and routes. On the 21 st of June, the group addressed organizational items, approved the minutes from the 28 th meeting, approved the agenda for the 29 th meeting, and reviewed the status of the action items and the overall progress of the work on the draft document. During the subsequent working group session, submitted papers were reviewed on the following topics: - Document structure the group reviewed and agreed to the proposed revised structure; third-level paragraphs will need to be adjusted to the new contents of the second-level paragraphs. It was decided that the Document Editor will prepare a draft document in line with the agreed document structure. - Document introduction the group completed the review of the proposed text on introduction, purpose, scope, terminology and conventions. - Rules for navigation data preparation the group reviewed the proposed revised contents, provided comments and agreed to review an updated version at the next meeting. - Background and PBN principles including new concepts the group reviewed the working paper and agreed that an updated final version be prepared and submitted for the next meeting taking into account the feedback received during the meeting. - Procedure encoding the group noted that substantial amount of work still remains to be done, in particular, on providing examples for best practices; a WP will be submitted for the next meeting. - Aerodrome environment standards - the text was reviewed and approved for integration in the master document. - Standard for names and identifiers and General standards for the provision of aeronautical data - the two working papers were reviewed and it was agreed that updated final versions be prepared and submitted for the next meeting. - The effect of timeliness dissemination of information and usage of NOTAMs the group reviewed and approved the proposed text for incorporation in a new appendix to the master document. - Data Driven Charting (DDC) the working paper was reviewed and approved for incorporation in Appendix A to the master document, with the editorial changes made during the meeting. The majority of work during the meeting was dedicated to the Data Quality Requirements (DQR) catalogue and tables. The progress on the various sections and appendences of the document was reviewed and the respective actions were confirmed. The meeting objectives were achieved. All planned agenda items were covered and good overall progress was made. The next meeting will take place from the 11 th through the 15 th of September 2017, in Paris, France, hosted by EUROCAE.

2 1 Working Group session 1.1 Introduction RTCA SC-217 met jointly with EUROCAE WG-44 at Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, IA, USA from the 19th through the 23rd of June, The main objective of the meeting was to continue the revision of DO- 201A/ED-77. A working group session was held on the 19th and 20th of June aimed at progressing the work on the Data Quality Requirements, especially for aerodromes, navaids, instrument flight procedures and routes. Stéphane Dubet opened the session. Attendees introduced themselves. Brian Gilbert introduced the organization of the work during the week. 1.2 Attendance List Name Company/Organization address Reuss Anderson Garmin reuss.anderson@garmin.com David Baker MITRE dbaker@mitre.org Kevin Carey US Air Force kevin.carey.1@us.af.mil Matthew Colburn Boeing matthew.j.colburn@boeing.com Torsten Domroes Jeppesen torsten.domroes@jeppesen.com Stéphane Dubet DGAC / DSNA / SIA stephane.dubet@aviation-civile.gouv.fr Brian Gilbert Boeing brian.d.gilbert@boeing.com Andrew Goldsmith FAA andrew.e.goldsmith@faa.gov Eustis Gosselin Jacobs Technology eustis.gosselin@jacobs.com Thomas Koebel Airbus thomas.koebel@airbus.com Sergiu Marzac* EUROCAE sergiu.marzac@eurocae.net Jeff Meyers FAA jeffrey.meyers@faa.gov Brad Miller FAA brad.miller@faa.gov Stephen Moody Jeppesen stephen.moody@jeppesen.com Brian Murphy* FAA brian.murphy@faa.gov Sasho Neshevski EUROCONTROL sasho.neshevski@eurocontrol.int Collin Ogden Rockwell Collins collin.ogden@rockwellcollins.com Jeff Plantinga GE Aviation Systems jeffrey.plantinga@ge.com Lee Powers Honeywell lee.powers@honeywell.com Erik Ringnes Honeywell erik.ringnes@honeywell.com Scott Roesch Honeywell scott.roesch@honeywell.com Joe McGrath Jacobs Joseph.McGrath@jacobs.com Page 2 of 8

3 Martin Zillig LHSystems * Participation via WebEx 1.3 Data Quality Requirements (DQR) The group received an update on the progress following the last meeting in Toulouse. Thomas Koebel presented the work done on the Aerodromes DQR. Some questions had been raised by the subteam that needed discussion by the whole group, for example the relationship and dependency between accuracy and resolution. As this topic was linked with the considerations regarding the compliance to data quality requirements, the group reviewed and revised some of the descriptions of the data quality characteristics in the context of compliance to DO-201B, in particular, accuracy, resolution, timeliness, completeness and traceability. The group continued the work on the Aerodromes DQR catalogue and table, and went on to review the Navigation aids and the IFP DQR catalogue and tables, revising the specific definitions, references, additional requirements and values as necessary. Stéphane Dubet pointed out that the group needed to capture comments that would be useful to feed back to ICAO within the context of the ICAO consultation on the State Letter by July The group continued work on the IFP DQR sections later in the week after the working papers had been reviewed, and again after the closing session. 2 Joint Meeting 2.1 Administration & Agenda At the start of the joint meeting, it was announced that the meeting was not considered an official RTCA plenary, since it was not published in the Federal Register in time, but it was an official EUROCAE meeting. On the 21st of June, the group addressed organizational items, approved the EUROCAE minutes from the 28th meeting, approved the agenda for the 29th EUROCAE WG-44 meeting, and reviewed the status of the action items and the overall progress of the work on the draft document. The meeting was opened by Brian Gilbert (RTCA SC-217 co-chairman) and Stéphane Dubet (RTCA SC-217 co-chairman and EUROCAE WG-44 chairman). Sasho Neshevski proposed to address the coordination with WG-28/SC-159 with respect to GBAS-related navigation data quality requirements. It was decided that coordination will remain informal at this stage. Brad Miller will check informally with some members of SC-159 if they are involved in the ongoing coordination and whether a more formal process (e.g. ISRA) is required. Sasho Neshevski presented the EUROCAE IPR Policy Call and the EUROCAE membership policy, with regard to participation in EUROCAE Working Groups. Brian announced that similar RTCA policies are applicable. The Group reviewed the status of the action items. Stéphane Dubet made a wrap-up of the working session that took place on 19 and 20 June. He wanted to ensure that the methodology was clear to all members. A question for clarification was raised regarding the Stringent vs Standard category approach. Stéphane Dubet recalled the conclusions from the Toulouse meeting which was that there is no need to increase the stringent values unless there is a known application with higher requirements. It was agreed to maintain the distinction between the two categories and to determine at the end of the process (per theme) if they could be merged. Progress status check per theme was done Page 3 of 8

4 Aerodromes: the table is mostly completed; the catalogue is ready for group review. Navaids: the table is completed; the catalogue is still to be completed by the sub-team, to be ready for review at the next meeting IFP: It is divided in 4 subparts, around 50% is completed, the work will continue in the sub-team, to be ready for review at next meeting. It was noted that the review is particularly time-consuming. Routes: the table and the catalogue are completed; some updates following the group feedback will have to be done by the sub-group. The outcome will be presented at the next meeting. Airspace: the status needs to be checked with Brian Murphy. It was agreed that at the next meeting in Paris, the first two days would be a Working Group session on DQR. Brian Gilbert asked the group members what their view was regarding the process for defining DQRs based on the initial results. While the DQR work has been more difficult and time consuming than expected, the group confirmed they are satisfied with the direction and will continue with the current methodology. Regarding the overall document, it was recognized that the various text contributions are progressing well, but it was noted that it would be useful to have a full draft master document. In view of the fact that DO-201 has not been updated for long time, it was noted that the revision requires a major rework in order to make the document a navigation data user requirements document. The overall approach to the revision proved to be more challenging than foreseen. There is still no significant risk to meeting the target delivery date. A first draft master document is foreseen to be ready by March Sasho Neshevski enquired how the outcome of the ICAO State Letter consultation on the PANS AIM Data Catalogue will impact the work of the group. Stéphane Dubet replied that the comments period runs until the end of June Review of comments by ICAO will be completed by end of Therefore, there is a need for the group to plan to make any changes in the draft document to take into account the outcome of the State Letter consultation. The introductory text to the DQR section was reviewed, in particular, the description of the two categories - Stringent vs Standard. Matthew Colburn suggested that there is no need to make the distinction between the two and leave just one standard category. In line with the decision made during the discussion on the methodology, the work will continue with two categories and a decision whether to merge them or not for each of the five data categories will be made at the end of the process. It was identified that some text still needs to be compiled by the DQR sub-team, in particular on accuracy description e.g. surveyed vs. calculated values, maximum deviation, etc. 2.2 Working Group Session The submitted papers were reviewed as follows: Document Structure (DP 25-18B) Stephen Moody presented the paper. He explained that the structure of other documents was considered, e.g. ED-99/DO-272. A proposed a new structure and a new Table of Contents were presented and discussed. The main changes include moving the PBN background material and current Section 2.1 into a new Chapter 2 titled Navigation Data Considerations, and a new Chapter 4 for the data catalog and DQR tables. The format of subsections at level 3 and below will be left to the proposals of the authors of the higher level sections. The group completed the review of the proposed text on introduction, purpose, scope, terminology and conventions. The group agreed that the Document Editor should check if any content in paragraphs 1.7.2, and needs to be retained and added in Section 1. It was noted that the actual document will be a living document. Comments may be sent directly by to Stephen Moody. Page 4 of 8

5 Action: 25-18: Stephen Moody to prepare a draft master document in line with this document structure and also to review Sections Document Introduction (WP 25-18A) The text was reviewed and updated. Detailed discussion took place on Assurance levels. As this discussion did not permit to reach a consensus, it was suggested that, should the WP author believe there is merit in adding new material in the Document, this is prepared in the form of a Discussion Paper to be coordinated prior to the next meeting with participants from some of the concerned stakeholders. Action 29-05: Thomas Koebel in coordination with participants from other concerned stakeholders: to determine the opportunity of a DP on the topic of assurance levels, and if confirmed, to prepare a DP for the next meeting. Rules for navigation data preparation (WP 25-20) - Geodesy and conventions ( ) - Calculations (2.2) The text was reviewed and updated. A discussion took place on Section 2.2 and also regarding the need to keep, or not, Appendix D, which provides a number of examples of how calculations should be performed. Keeping in mind the intended audience, it was stressed that the document does not have to repeat existing material, for example from ICAO, but rather to provide additional value. Stéphane Dubet highlighted the fact that the current content has been useful at the time of publication of DO-201A, but since then a great deal of ICAO material has been published and the knowledge on procedure design has improved significantly. He suggested that the content of Section 2.2 should be completely replaced by text that will describe any current concerns related to calculations. Erik Ringnes stated that one such concern is the use of reference systems. It was concluded that such issues are: the use of WGS-84 (including review of material in sections ), application of magnetic variation, unique definitions, and rounding conventions. The decision was to keep relevant examples, either in the Appendix or in the main body (a priori, preferably in the main body). Action: 25-20: Scott Roesch to review Sections , to update the paper incorporating the comments received during the discussion, and to submit a final version for the next meeting. Background and PBN principles including new concepts (WP 25-19) Sasho Neshevski presented the working paper. The text was reviewed and updated. Action: 25-19: Sasho Neshevski to review Sections and to check if any material needs to be included as well and to update the paper incorporating the comments received during the discussion and submit a final version for the next meeting. Procedure encoding (Action 25-22) Kevin Carey gave a verbal update on the progress. Substantial amount of work is still to be done, in particular on providing examples for best practices. Action 25-22: Kevin Carey to submit a WP for the next meeting. Aerodrome environment standards (DP 27-05) Page 5 of 8

6 Brian Gilbert presented the paper, which proposed to replace the existing text in Section 3.4 with an explanation on the overlap between some aerodrome and runway data elements defined in DO-201B and those defined in DO-272. The text was reviewed and approved for integration in the master document. Standard for names and identifiers (WP 25-23X) and General standards for the provision of aeronautical data (update to chapter 2.4) (WP 25-23B) Torsten Domroes presented the papers, which incorporated the SWIM material discussed in prior meetings and proposed updates to trim down the sections on naming conventions for fixes, routes, and procedures. The group reviewed the text and provided comments. Action 25-23: Torsten Domroes to update the paper incorporating the comments received during the discussion and submit a final version for the next meeting. The effect of timeliness dissemination of information and usage of NOTAMs (WP 27-01B) Torsten Domroes presented Version B of the paper. The proposed text was reviewed and changes were made. It was highlighted that even though electronic distribution of aeronautical information may shorten the time between the dissemination of information and its receipt by other users, strict adherence to the AIRAC system is required. It was stressed that major changes may induce significant workload on the data service providers and to lead to even more constraints regarding the storage capacity of onboard databases. Thomas Koebel enquired if the purpose is to make ICAO aware of the issues and the position of the industry. Stéphane Dubet stated that ICAO is already well aware of the issues related to NOTAMs. The paper was approved for integration in the master document as a new appendix. Data Driven Charting (DDC) (DP 27-03) Scott Roesch presented the updated paper. The intention is to describe DDC applications in a dedicated appendix. The aim was to clarify what DDC is, the intended functions, applications, etc. It was clarified that the DQRs in Section 4 of the document may not support all intended functions of DDC applications such as removal of fixed charts. Following some editorial changes, the paper was approved for integration in the master document as part of Appendix A. 3 Closing Session Work status review During the closing session the group reviewed the conclusions on the Working Papers and the document update status, as well as the corresponding actions. Dates of next meetings The next meeting will take place from 11 through 15 September 2017 in Paris, hosted by EUROCAE. The dates and locations for the subsequent meetings were set as follows: 31 st meeting: 27 November 01 December 2017 in Phoenix, hosted by Honeywell. Page 6 of 8

7 26 February 02 March 2018 in Brussels, Belgium, hosted by EUROCONTROL June 2018 at RTCA in Washington DC, USA, hosted by RTCA (dates and location still pending confirmation, due to agenda conflicts with Annual Symposium and PMC). In addition to these meetings, thematic WG arrangements will be maintained; dates for the Data Quality Subteam web meetings were agreed. Stéphane Dubet thanked all members for the participation and Colin for hosting of the meeting by Rockwell Collins. 4 List of Open Actions The following table contains a list of all open action items: Ref# Member/Team Assigned Steve, Daniel, Burak, Brian G. Task Description Draft text on Structure of the document - Prepare propositions for a new structure - Consider structure of e.g. ED-99/DO Adoption of requirements identification - Introduction and intended audience - Scope (navigation data) Sasho, Jeff M., Erik, Matthew Colburn Update from the 29 th meeting: - Stephen Moody to prepare a draft master document in line with this document structure and also to review Sections Thomas, with the support of David, Jeff P and Scott, to prepare a DP for the next meeting, addressing assurance levels, in particular the link between the three DPALs. Draft text on Background and PBN principles ( ) including new concepts. Update from the 29th meeting: Sasho to review Sections and and check if any material needs to be included as well Martin, Scott, Sasho Draft text on Rules for navigation data preparation - Geodesy and conventions ( ) - Calculations (2.2) Stéphane, Brad, Jeff M., Jens, Kim, Steve, Jeff P., Ralf, Cedric, David, Martin, Thomas, Scott, Lee Update from the 29th meeting: Scott to review Sections Draft text on Data quality - DQR tables ( ) - Quality management - ref. to DO-200B (2.1.7) Page 7 of 8

8 Ref# Member/Team Assigned Steve, Erik, Cedric, Kevin, David, John, Brian M. Erik Stéphane, Torsten, Ralf, Sasho, Martin, Brian G. Task Description Draft text on Procedure encoding - Path terminators (ARINC 424) basics (3.1.3) - Considerations for encoding of procedures in DB (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2 and 3.3) including for new RNP DB Draft text on Aeronautical information basics ( ) (Annex 15, ICAO) Includes texts on: 1. SWIM and Navigation data 2. Standards for names and identifiers Leadership Team Consider establishing formal coordination with WG-28/SC-159 on DQR for GBAS-related data Scott Review and update Appendix I Sasho Check with EUROCAE Secretariat regarding availability of hotel information and share that information with all Group members Brian Arrange with RTCA meeting rooms to be booked for the FRAC resolution meeting planned for June 11-15, 2018 at RTCA in Washington, DC Thomas Koebel, in coordination with participants from other concerned stakeholders Determine the opportunity of a DP on the topic of assurance levels, and if confirmed, to prepare a DP for the next meeting. Certified as a true and accurate summary of the meeting: Sasho Neshevski Secretary, RTCA SC-217, EUROCAE WG-44 Brian Gilbert Chairman, RTCA SC-217 Stéphane Dubet Chairman, EUROCAE WG-44 Page 8 of 8